Morris Minor Owners Club

Hi all just wondering why this has failed, last year I fitted new track rod ends to Meggie. Following her MOT today after her embarrassment last time round which she passed it was noted that there was a bit of play in the off side track rod. I got both of these new from ESM and fitted them in June last year and have only done about 2k miles on them. My question is has anyone else had failures this early?
Thanks in advance
Steve

That does seem very early.
I've had a modern car fail at it's first MOT, but that was after 25-30,000 miles over 3 years.
Just to clarify, did they fail it or just say there was a 'bit of play'?
I'm assuming the other side felt stiffer to them?
Are they the ones with the grease nipple? If so, does it needs a bit more grease in it?

When the government announced that they were changing the MOT exemption rules, I recall one of the reasons given was that many MOT Testers could not relate to older vehicles and judged them by modern standards.
Perhaps they felt they should be stiffer than the original spec requires......

I concur with geoberni - did the track rod end fail or was the play just sufficient to incur the comment?
I would be surprised if the track rod end wore out in 2k miles.
What type of play was recorded/commented upon?
Did (or does) the main body of the track rod end move up and down on the pin?
If the main body of the track rod end was able to move up and down on the pin, then it would be a failure.
Just because the resistance to radial movement is not the same on both track rod ends does not mean the track rod is a failure. The amount/or resistance of radial movement is a matter of judgement to the tester and that judgement, or opinion can vary.

Hi Phil and Bernie
Thank you both for coming back so quickly, the track rod does have a grease and I had recently topped it up.
We did try it for up and down movement which there was none but on rocking it side to side with the road wheel there was 'some' play which was not apparent in the N/S.he did say it was not bad enough to be put down as a advisory but would need changing.
On looking at ESM tonight they only appear to have sealed units which I like but I love the ritual of maintenance on Meggie.

Either it is an advisory, fail or serviceable.

Technically yes, but our local classic friendly garage will offer verbal advice that something is starting to wear so that it can be addressed before it becomes a real issue. Much better to have a friendly dialogue

So the first bit of 'friendly dialogue' would be to ask why the garage says it needs changing if it is neither a fail, nor an advisory......

Meggie moggy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 6:20 pm he did say it was not bad enough to be put down as a advisory but would need changing.

I know Simon has spoken about a 'friendly garage' giving a pre advisory word of caution, but I don't really buy that. If it hasn't failed, it's either an advisory or its not.
I've had friendly garages give me advisories on modern cars which have proven to be rubbish. Like brake pads 'nearly worn out', which when I stripped them down to replace had about 5mm of material remaining...
3 years ago a certain national chain gave me an advisory for 'Misting Rear Shocks' on my wife's car and proceeded to give me a quote for replacing them there and then. I told them what they could do with their Advisory and haven't been back there since. The car has had 2 more MOTs since then without the rear shocks being mentioned. I'll never go back there again.
As you've said they have grease nipples, it could simply be that you put a little more grease in the N/S than you did the O/S, thus giving a different feel to the 2 sides.
Check it again in another 2,000 miles or next summer.

How experienced was the Tester?
The Tester's manual Section 3 Guidance says with regards Historic Vehicles

You should remember that certain components on historic vehicles may have been manufactured to have a greater degree of play or tolerance than is found in modern vehicles.

Hi Bernie
Thanks for that I will get the grease gun back on there and see how she feels, he has put it on as a advisory ,which I did not see initially as I was shocked when I received a pass as for the tester he is good and classic car friendly .all in all another job to the never ending list

myoldjalopy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:15 pm So the first bit of 'friendly dialogue' would be to ask why the garage says it needs changing if it is neither a fail, nor an advisory......

Totally agree.

At a young tester at a famous garage chain said the the suspension had excessive play when levered with a long metal pole. I pointed out the the suspension on a Morris was rubber mounted. "Oh!" he said. I too have never been back.

All rectified now after pumping a lot of grease into the ball joint the looseness has gone but still have the advisorie on the MOT.
I am more cross with myself as I did a grease up on the about 3 months prior but obviously never put enough in. Another learning curve.

Don't worry about advisories, they are often random; I recall having the occasional one on cars in the past and I've found nothing wrong so ignored it, and at the following year MOT it's not been picked up
If you're having it regularly MOT'd, just remember to make sure it's well greased next year and see what happens.

Regular greasing will prolong the life of these componenets

If you have packed the joint with grease and the looseness has gone that does not mean the joint clearances are correct - all you have done is momentarily taken up the slack with a flexible medium which will soon be displaced and allow the looseness to return.
Ideally the joint clearances should be checked with the joint containing minimal grease.

philthehill wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 11:24 am If you have packed the joint with grease and the looseness has gone that does not mean the joint clearances are correct - all you have done is momentarily taken up the slack with a flexible medium which will soon be displaced and allow the looseness to return.
Ideally the joint clearances should be checked with the joint containing minimal grease.

I agree in general engineering terms, my input about the grease was comparing 'like-for-like', one side against the other which is probably what the MOT tester did.
One of the reasons given for exempting historic vehicles from MOT checks was that items made to original specifications are frequently not up to modern expectations.
Back in 2017/18, I saw an article which I unfortunately cannot now locate, where a Jag failed MOT for something on the steering, probably the TREs, and yet it had been fitted with NOS items from the 70s.
The owner appealed and the NOS spares were confirmed by an independent Jaguar engineer as being to the spec of the period.

If I were Meggie Moggy, I would keep an eye on the TREs and see if that O/S one gets loose in a few hundred miles compared to the N/S one.

Thank you all for the replys she is going in for a respray next week and will not be back untill the end of January, but as soon as I have her back and have bolted all the panels back on weather conditions permitting she will be out and about and I will be keeping a close eye on this.

An 'advisory' does give you breathing space to 'keep an eye' on the issue, rather than immediate action as required by a a fail.