Freelander 1 Mrs has now purchased a FL1

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Nodge68 you say reverse test is useless, but when i spoke to bell they told me this was the way to test it ,i check mine regular this way on tickover full lock dip clutch and it always rolls ,but when i get chance i will call in to see them and they test for free, if they say it needs doing then i;ll let them do it while i wait . (i;m not saying there is anything wrong with the one wheel up test just surprised they never mentioned it to me )
 
Thanks i try it when i have time ,bit surprised as i say when i spoke to bell they told me they drove the car to test it , maybe because they dont take it off if you call in with the vehicle .
 
tyrefitter said:
Nodge68 you say reverse test is useless, but when i spoke to bell they told me this was the way to test it ,i check mine regular this way on tickover full lock dip clutch and it always rolls ,but when i get chance i will call in to see them and they test for free, if they say it needs doing then i;ll let them do it while i wait . (i;m not saying there is anything wrong with the one wheel up test just surprised they never mentioned it to me )
Click to expand...
Bell won't recommend the OWUT because it was pioneered right here on this forum.
As MHM said, it's basically the same test that Bell perform when testing a VCU off the car. Only with the OWUT, the vehicle keeps 3 wheels on the car. It's by far a more reliable test than reversing round a corner.
 
Nodge68 said:
I suspect it is true, the FL outsold the RR 4 to one. So by that we can safely say, more Freelanders, more posts. ;) The low value of the Freelander helps keep owners wanting to DIY, hence post numbers one ere;)
Looks at how many D3s owners post there problems in the Disco section, very few. Yet the number D3s on the road are way more than D2s. The D3 is now 10 year's old, yet no one posts problems.
It's still to expensive for most forum frequenters;) The rr is no different from the D3, hence low post counts ;)
Click to expand...

The Range rover in it's various models has been in production for 46 years the Freelander for 20 i seriously doubt there are more Freelanders about than Range rovers. Every car has it's foibles but the Freelander more than most.
 
wammers said:
The Range rover in it's various models has been in production for 46 years the Freelander for 20 i seriously doubt there are more Freelanders about than Range rovers. Every car has it's foibles but the Freelander more than most.
Click to expand...
Why are you trying argue against documented production figures? Fact is, the Freelander sold in higher volumes than the RR. There's no way round the facts, end of.
True it has its issues, as all cars do, but the RR is hardly a problem free vehicle, is it? Fact is, it costs much more to fix than the FL and is just as likely to go wrong.
 
Nodge68 said:
Why are you trying argue against documented production figures? Fact is, the Freelander sold in higher volumes than the RR. There's no way round the facts, end of.
True it has its issues, as all cars do, but the RR is hardly a problem free vehicle, is it? Fact is, it costs much more to fix than the FL and is just as likely to go wrong.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to argue anything other than the fact that they have been making the Range Rover for 26 years longer than they have been making Freelanders. That takes a lot of catching up on. I have not bothered to look for figures.
 
The RR sold around 400,000 units up to 1999. The figures from then on are hard to find, but are somewhere between 5,000 and 15,000 units PA.
The Freelander sold around 500,000 units in its 7 years of protection. Fl2 figures seem elusive but I guess that the RR has sold more actual total units, purely because its has been around as long as the ark.
I still reckon that the average RR owner is less likely to visit a forum, than the average FL owner, hence the higher posting rate.
 
Nodge68 said:
Bell won't recommend the OWUT because it was pioneered right here on this forum.
As MHM said, it's basically the same test that Bell perform when testing a VCU off the car. Only with the OWUT, the vehicle keeps 3 wheels on the car. It's by far a more reliable test than reversing round a corner.
Click to expand...
one wheel up test was around prior to lz
 
A LZ NZ MeetUp Recruitment drive was held yesterday at the base for LZ NZ International Rescue. A (the) attendee told me of the completely different way he tests VCU. I shan't spill the beans, I'll let @Tony Reeves divulge details of his Reeves Ingenious Orbital Tester (RIOT) (tm).
 
GrumpyGel said:
A LZ NZ MeetUp Recruitment drive was held yesterday at the base for LZ NZ International Rescue. A (the) attendee told me of the completely different way he tests VCU. I shan't spill the beans, I'll let @Tony Reeves divulge details of his Reeves Ingenious Orbital Tester (RIOT) (tm).
Click to expand...
It was a good meetings, we made a good start on the problems of the world. Will sort them all out next time.

On to the VCU test, I have mentioned it before here, and got a bit shot down...

The procedure (no pics, will take some next time):

- Raise vehicle (rear on ramps, front on jack stands with wheels clear.
- Remove spark plugs
- Disconnect rear drive shaft from VCU (which is still installed)
- Bolt 2 metre (approx) steel angle to VCU rear flange
- End of steel angle or bar rests on bathroom scales (you have two goes to get it out the correct side)
- Put in second gear (manual box required) (this should cause the propshaft to rotate at 75 rpm or thereabouts for the RAVE spec)
- bridge from battery +ve to bottom clip on solenoid (makes starter run)
- read bathroom scale
- Calculate torque from scale reading and length of angle/bay.
- Compare with RAVE spec.

Rave info here... https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/vcu-torque-test-results.109486/page-37#post-3718798

When I did mine I got 280 Ft/lb.

I guess another way to achieve this would be to raise one side only. Chock wheels on the ground. Put torque wrench on back wheel and measure force while cranking engine in 2nd gear. Would have to factor in rear diff ratio which would increase measured force on the rear wheel. This would mean a LOT of force.
 
Tony Reeves said:
It was a good meetings, we made a good start on the problems of the world. Will sort them all out next time.

On to the VCU test, I have mentioned it before here, and got a bit shot down...

The procedure (no pics, will take some next time):

- Raise vehicle (rear on ramps, front on jack stands with wheels clear.
- Remove spark plugs
- Disconnect rear drive shaft from VCU (which is still installed)
- Bolt 2 metre (approx) steel angle to VCU rear flange
- End of steel angle or bar rests on bathroom scales (you have two goes to get it out the correct side)
- Put in second gear (manual box required) (this should cause the propshaft to rotate at 75 rpm or thereabouts for the RAVE spec)
- bridge from battery +ve to bottom clip on solenoid (makes starter run)
- read bathroom scale
- Calculate torque from scale reading and length of angle/bay.
- Compare with RAVE spec.

Rave info here... https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/vcu-torque-test-results.109486/page-37#post-3718798

When I did mine I got 280 Ft/lb.

I guess another way to achieve this would be to raise one side only. Chock wheels on the ground. Put torque wrench on back wheel and measure force while cranking engine in 2nd gear. Would have to factor in rear diff ratio which would increase measured force on the rear wheel. This would mean a LOT of force.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of this test. It is very close to the torque test that LR show figures for.
My only concern would be if the VCU was over stiff by some margin. This could well exceed the torque limit of the steel lever used. The failure of which could well cause damage to the under body area, should the lever thrash about.
The test as far as I'm concerned, is a valid one. ;)
 
Tony Reeves said:
It was a good meetings, we made a good start on the problems of the world. Will sort them all out next time.

On to the VCU test, I have mentioned it before here, and got a bit shot down...

The procedure (no pics, will take some next time):

- Raise vehicle (rear on ramps, front on jack stands with wheels clear.
- Remove spark plugs
- Disconnect rear drive shaft from VCU (which is still installed)
- Bolt 2 metre (approx) steel angle to VCU rear flange
- End of steel angle or bar rests on bathroom scales (you have two goes to get it out the correct side)
- Put in second gear (manual box required) (this should cause the propshaft to rotate at 75 rpm or thereabouts for the RAVE spec)
- bridge from battery +ve to bottom clip on solenoid (makes starter run)
- read bathroom scale
- Calculate torque from scale reading and length of angle/bay.
- Compare with RAVE spec.

Rave info here... https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/vcu-torque-test-results.109486/page-37#post-3718798

When I did mine I got 280 Ft/lb.

I guess another way to achieve this would be to raise one side only. Chock wheels on the ground. Put torque wrench on back wheel and measure force while cranking engine in 2nd gear. Would have to factor in rear diff ratio which would increase measured force on the rear wheel. This would mean a LOT of force.
Click to expand...
Hello Tony, that is a nice job ! - well done mate.
I personally strongly believe that any test of the VCU should be done - where possible - in a situation that involves the VCU actually rotating, not a static test. This far far more informative. Your method is extremely good and probably by far the best test I have ever seen documented.
Now, I don't want to start a flame war re OWUT et al. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and of course, those opinions may and well differ between folks.
So with your extremely valuable input we now have three basic tests (4 if you include include the Bell Engineering video)
This is my take on the 4 tests.
  • By far yours is the most accurate and detailed that I can imagine and if you measure shaft rpm and load as it increases you have basically built a crude but highly accurate dynomometer. again I think this is excellent (I love things like this and thinking out of the box). By taking readings and mapping them as the rpm increases up to 75 one should be able to plot a load graph. Negatives obviously are the time and complexity for the vast majority of users. !!
  • Second best test (imho of course) is the Bell recommended reverse test. The main reason being that it also puts a rotating load on the VCU - not a Static load that causes a partial single rotation. This is an actual 'turning' VCU test. It may however be difficult for some owners to 'judge' if it 'feels' that there is a tightening or brake binding issue - other users would have no issues in ruling the brake binding out quite simply.. Most users would certainly be able to tell though. A great and reliable test !. - One I would certainly recommend for the vast majority. It is simple to do - at any time - and often will be part of normal driving where the issue could be picked up 'as it happens' - gets my vote all day long
  • Third best test is as per the old Bell video with the VCU on the 'bench' tested with a given load and measuring the time -(much like the OWUT)/ This removes all other parts of the transmission that may effect the readings slightly. It is very basic - but without a vehicle to test it on whilst the VCU is actually turnin there is really not much in the way of another option - unless of course - a VCU Dyno was built. I do not for one minute believe that the condemnation of the OWUP by Bell is in any way vindictive or derogatory. The test Bell shows is for a newly reconditioned VCU. what is the difference to a non reconditioned VCU one may ask ? - well again (imho) the recon VCU has known clean plates, known quantity of fluid and known type of fluid. It is simply the best test they can do on a recon VCU without a dyno. Given that they are starting from a known state of the unit in terms of fluid / plates / air gap etc then this is reasonable. An 'old' vcu can show similar performance however it is not representative of actual turning performance. In other words, it is more likely that a VCU that has issue may well perfrom a similar SLOW test but will fail a driven test. Remember Bell are testing newly built units with known good plates and fluid and air-gap. However, this is totally impractical for users as A. they do not have a fully recon unit to start with. (and Bell are probably the most respected VCU recon experts). B they would have to take the VCU off the vehicle - but - even that would be pointless as it only gives a limited about of info with a totally unknown quantity regarding the internals. I am saying that (again imho!) that what happens at slow partial turn tests with a vcu with an unknown internal state is not representative of a VCU in a fully recon state or definitely in a driven state.
  • Last indicator of choice (FOR ME !) - but very popular amongst others - is the OWUT. I hold little faith in this personally. I think that a VCU showing an apparently normal 'time' for the test could indeed be faulty when actually rotating. I also feel that high (long time) test may actually be of use to indicate a potential fault. However -all thing being equal the test is only showing the static (non turning - driven) state of the VCU.
  • The BEST test in my opinion is Tony's DIY Dyno - it is simply brilliant and has KNOWN figures to refer to !
  • The MOST USEFUL test imho is quite simply the reversing tightness test - absolutely simple to do at any time and definitely indicative of a real issue.
  • The LEAST USEFUL of the list (AGAIN ! IMHO) is the OWUT. Quite simply becuase it tells you little and is superceded by the far more reliable 'reverse tightness' test'
  • Bell have absolutely no 'axe to grind'

Obviously I know this is contrary to the opinions of folk I really do respect - that is why I must stress again that the above informed / experienced (usually by both :) opinions are my own. Nothing more. I fully respect other peoples opinions and welcome discussions.
Joe
 
Tony Reeves said:
It was a good meetings, we made a good start on the problems of the world. Will sort them all out next time.

On to the VCU test, I have mentioned it before here, and got a bit shot down...

The procedure (no pics, will take some next time):

- Raise vehicle (rear on ramps, front on jack stands with wheels clear.
- Remove spark plugs
- Disconnect rear drive shaft from VCU (which is still installed)
- Bolt 2 metre (approx) steel angle to VCU rear flange
- End of steel angle or bar rests on bathroom scales (you have two goes to get it out the correct side)
- Put in second gear (manual box required) (this should cause the propshaft to rotate at 75 rpm or thereabouts for the RAVE spec)
- bridge from battery +ve to bottom clip on solenoid (makes starter run)
- read bathroom scale
- Calculate torque from scale reading and length of angle/bay.
- Compare with RAVE spec.

Rave info here... https://www.landyzone.co.uk/land-rover/vcu-torque-test-results.109486/page-37#post-3718798

When I did mine I got 280 Ft/lb.

I guess another way to achieve this would be to raise one side only. Chock wheels on the ground. Put torque wrench on back wheel and measure force while cranking engine in 2nd gear. Would have to factor in rear diff ratio which would increase measured force on the rear wheel. This would mean a LOT of force.
Click to expand...
Without a Dyno, this does appear to be the only method that can be checked against manufacturer's specifications.

However, it is a lot of work!

Would an simple alternative not be to take the car down the beach, put metal bar through UJ on rear of VCU, tape the bathroom scales to the under side of the Freelander - then floor it?
Nodge68 said:
I like the idea of this test. It is very close to the torque test that LR show figures for.
My only concern would be if the VCU was over stiff by some margin. This could well exceed the torque limit of the steel lever used. The failure of which could well cause damage to the under body area, should the lever thrash about.
The test as far as I'm concerned, is a valid one. ;)
Click to expand...
Damage to the underside of the car would be inconsequential... compared to the wrath of her who must be obeyed should you damage the bathroom scales!
Joe_H said:
Hello Tony, that is a nice job ! - well done mate.
I personally strongly believe that any test of the VCU should be done - where possible - in a situation that involves the VCU actually rotating, not a static test. This far far more informative. Your method is extremely good and probably by far the best test I have ever seen documented.
Now, I don't want to start a flame war re OWUT et al. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and of course, those opinions may and well differ between folks.
So with your extremely valuable input we now have three basic tests (4 if you include include the Bell Engineering video)
This is my take on the 4 tests.
  • By far yours is the most accurate and detailed that I can imagine and if you measure shaft rpm and load as it increases you have basically built a crude but highly accurate dynomometer. again I think this is excellent (I love things like this and thinking out of the box). By taking readings and mapping them as the rpm increases up to 75 one should be able to plot a load graph. Negatives obviously are the time and complexity for the vast majority of users. !!
  • Second best test (imho of course) is the Bell recommended reverse test. The main reason being that it also puts a rotating load on the VCU - not a Static load that causes a partial single rotation. This is an actual 'turning' VCU test. It may however be difficult for some owners to 'judge' if it 'feels' that there is a tightening or brake binding issue - other users would have no issues in ruling the brake binding out quite simply.. Most users would certainly be able to tell though. A great and reliable test !. - One I would certainly recommend for the vast majority. It is simple to do - at any time - and often will be part of normal driving where the issue could be picked up 'as it happens' - gets my vote all day long
  • Third best test is as per the old Bell video with the VCU on the 'bench' tested with a given load and measuring the time -(much like the OWUT)/ This removes all other parts of the transmission that may effect the readings slightly. It is very basic - but without a vehicle to test it on whilst the VCU is actually turnin there is really not much in the way of another option - unless of course - a VCU Dyno was built. I do not for one minute believe that the condemnation of the OWUP by Bell is in any way vindictive or derogatory. The test Bell shows is for a newly reconditioned VCU. what is the difference to a non reconditioned VCU one may ask ? - well again (imho) the recon VCU has known clean plates, known quantity of fluid and known type of fluid. It is simply the best test they can do on a recon VCU without a dyno. Given that they are starting from a known state of the unit in terms of fluid / plates / air gap etc then this is reasonable. An 'old' vcu can show similar performance however it is not representative of actual turning performance. In other words, it is more likely that a VCU that has issue may well perfrom a similar SLOW test but will fail a driven test. Remember Bell are testing newly built units with known good plates and fluid and air-gap. However, this is totally impractical for users as A. they do not have a fully recon unit to start with. (and Bell are probably the most respected VCU recon experts). B they would have to take the VCU off the vehicle - but - even that would be pointless as it only gives a limited about of info with a totally unknown quantity regarding the internals. I am saying that (again imho!) that what happens at slow partial turn tests with a vcu with an unknown internal state is not representative of a VCU in a fully recon state or definitely in a driven state.
  • Last indicator of choice (FOR ME !) - but very popular amongst others - is the OWUT. I hold little faith in this personally. I think that a VCU showing an apparently normal 'time' for the test could indeed be faulty when actually rotating. I also feel that high (long time) test may actually be of use to indicate a potential fault. However -all thing being equal the test is only showing the static (non turning - driven) state of the VCU.
  • The BEST test in my opinion is Tony's DIY Dyno - it is simply brilliant and has KNOWN figures to refer to !
  • The MOST USEFUL test imho is quite simply the reversing tightness test - absolutely simple to do at any time and definitely indicative of a real issue.
  • The LEAST USEFUL of the list (AGAIN ! IMHO) is the OWUT. Quite simply becuase it tells you little and is superceded by the far more reliable 'reverse tightness' test'
  • Bell have absolutely no 'axe to grind'

Obviously I know this is contrary to the opinions of folk I really do respect - that is why I must stress again that the above informed / experienced (usually by both :) opinions are my own. Nothing more. I fully respect other peoples opinions and welcome discussions.
Joe
Click to expand...
Absolutely, respect of others is paramount to the success of LZ.

FYI - Your list and reasoning is crap :) :) :) :)
 
Joe_H said:
Hello Tony, that is a nice job ! - well done mate.
I personally strongly believe that any test of the VCU should be done - where possible - in a situation that involves the VCU actually rotating, not a static test. This far far more informative. Your method is extremely good and probably by far the best test I have ever seen documented.
Now, I don't want to start a flame war re OWUT et al. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and of course, those opinions may and well differ between folks.
So with your extremely valuable input we now have three basic tests (4 if you include include the Bell Engineering video)
This is my take on the 4 tests.
  • By far yours is the most accurate and detailed that I can imagine and if you measure shaft rpm and load as it increases you have basically built a crude but highly accurate dynomometer. again I think this is excellent (I love things like this and thinking out of the box). By taking readings and mapping them as the rpm increases up to 75 one should be able to plot a load graph. Negatives obviously are the time and complexity for the vast majority of users. !!
  • Second best test (imho of course) is the Bell recommended reverse test. The main reason being that it also puts a rotating load on the VCU - not a Static load that causes a partial single rotation. This is an actual 'turning' VCU test. It may however be difficult for some owners to 'judge' if it 'feels' that there is a tightening or brake binding issue - other users would have no issues in ruling the brake binding out quite simply.. Most users would certainly be able to tell though. A great and reliable test !. - One I would certainly recommend for the vast majority. It is simple to do - at any time - and often will be part of normal driving where the issue could be picked up 'as it happens' - gets my vote all day long
  • Third best test is as per the old Bell video with the VCU on the 'bench' tested with a given load and measuring the time -(much like the OWUT)/ This removes all other parts of the transmission that may effect the readings slightly. It is very basic - but without a vehicle to test it on whilst the VCU is actually turnin there is really not much in the way of another option - unless of course - a VCU Dyno was built. I do not for one minute believe that the condemnation of the OWUP by Bell is in any way vindictive or derogatory. The test Bell shows is for a newly reconditioned VCU. what is the difference to a non reconditioned VCU one may ask ? - well again (imho) the recon VCU has known clean plates, known quantity of fluid and known type of fluid. It is simply the best test they can do on a recon VCU without a dyno. Given that they are starting from a known state of the unit in terms of fluid / plates / air gap etc then this is reasonable. An 'old' vcu can show similar performance however it is not representative of actual turning performance. In other words, it is more likely that a VCU that has issue may well perfrom a similar SLOW test but will fail a driven test. Remember Bell are testing newly built units with known good plates and fluid and air-gap. However, this is totally impractical for users as A. they do not have a fully recon unit to start with. (and Bell are probably the most respected VCU recon experts). B they would have to take the VCU off the vehicle - but - even that would be pointless as it only gives a limited about of info with a totally unknown quantity regarding the internals. I am saying that (again imho!) that what happens at slow partial turn tests with a vcu with an unknown internal state is not representative of a VCU in a fully recon state or definitely in a driven state.
  • Last indicator of choice (FOR ME !) - but very popular amongst others - is the OWUT. I hold little faith in this personally. I think that a VCU showing an apparently normal 'time' for the test could indeed be faulty when actually rotating. I also feel that high (long time) test may actually be of use to indicate a potential fault. However -all thing being equal the test is only showing the static (non turning - driven) state of the VCU.
  • The BEST test in my opinion is Tony's DIY Dyno - it is simply brilliant and has KNOWN figures to refer to !
  • The MOST USEFUL test imho is quite simply the reversing tightness test - absolutely simple to do at any time and definitely indicative of a real issue.
  • The LEAST USEFUL of the list (AGAIN ! IMHO) is the OWUT. Quite simply becuase it tells you little and is superceded by the far more reliable 'reverse tightness' test'
  • Bell have absolutely no 'axe to grind'

Obviously I know this is contrary to the opinions of folk I really do respect - that is why I must stress again that the above informed / experienced (usually by both :) opinions are my own. Nothing more. I fully respect other peoples opinions and welcome discussions.
Joe
Click to expand...
Just to add a little info to the above - some of you may have read about the issue with the 'Portuguese' recon VCU I had - (now replaced with a Bell unit)! - before adding the bell unit I tried the OWUT for comparison after KNOWING that the Portuguese 'thing' was rubbish.m (this was quite simply because the way the Portuguese 'recon' 'specialist' was concerned it was a definitive proof test !) - errr noooooo. but - I complied as I wanted my damn money back.

The OWUT was actually virtually identical on both - seriously ! - both read about the 40 seconds mark. The difference was night and day though. The 'Portuguese' units was totally useless - you needed to be revving the tits of the unit for the VCU to drive the rear wheels as it should. it was a really really bad unit (and supplied as a fully recon unit AND he has sold several hundreds ! )
With the Bell unit - even at crawl speeds, the VCU engages as it should. Neither units show any issues in the 'revere tightness test' either. !!! . this would obviously tend to indicate that a VCU that is not effective on the road (ie it is 'loose' in turning performance' will not show an issue with the OWUT. Many new owners of FL's are buying a vehicle with an unknown history - or may well have a recon VCU fitted that pass all OWUT but fail to perform on road (as well - obviously OFF road)
So, if the VCU is ok on the OWUT and OK on the reverse test then it is not going to damage your transmission - however - it is quite possible that it is crap off road.
At least in the uk you sometimes have snow / ice to test with :) - here - the best test is wet grass over mud which happens in the winter - I just happen to have a lovely track at about 25 degrees slope for use in the ';wet; season - this is how I proved to the vendor that his VCU was crap - He came mob handed with mates and mobile phones to take videos of the rear wheels as opposed to the front - then gave me my money back.
:(
 
Last edited:
GrumpyGel said:
Without a Dyno, this does appear to be the only method that can be checked against manufacturer's specifications.

However, it is a lot of work!

Would an simple alternative not be to take the car down the beach, put metal bar through UJ on rear of VCU, tape the bathroom scales to the under side of the Freelander - then floor it?

Damage to the underside of the car would be inconsequential... compared to the wrath of her who must be obeyed should you damage the bathroom scales!

Absolutely, respect of others is paramount to the success of LZ.

FYI - Your list and reasoning is crap :) :) :) :)
Click to expand...
LMFAO ! :D

PS. I love the idea of 'taping' the bride's bathroom scale to the underside of the freelander - :rolleyes: ~duct tape would work I am sure (not)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
tottot
tottot
Charles Banbury
My Range Rover has healed itself (any ideas what’s going on?)
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
B
Freelander td4 problems (various)
2
Replies
39
Views
14K
Nodge68
Nodge68
M
D2 Screams like a Banshee
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
mrfreeze
M
A
help , near manchester
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
teddywood1
teddywood1
Back
Top