Automatic rover 75- what gear for uphill pls?

[Anon3]

Originally Posted by bl52krz

When was the fluid changed in these gearboxes that do not change down? Faulty solenoids? Something is not correct. Is the correct fluid being used in the boxes not the "equivalent to" fluid.

With mine, fluid changed in the summer by Lates, so I assume the fluid was correct.
Solenoids checked and fine.

I still need to recheck the fluid temp sensor, as the reading I have doesn't make sense.

That said, not changing down isn't my biggest problem. It's the poor gear changes from cold.

[milleplod]

Mine kicks down perfectly, and goes like stink when it does! Balance VIS is a Stocktake item, power one is functioning as it should. My point was that the....er....point at which the box does kickdown is a long way down the pedal travel, that's all!

My 9-5 Aero used a JATCO box. The kickdown response was instant, especially when the 'Sport' button was engaged - but that box was programmed very differently to the 75/ZT one...the 'Sport' button completely altered the (part) fly-by-wire accelerator pedal response too. I don't think the JATCO box is rubbish as such, it just seems that its programmed to behave very differently to ones in other cars.

Pete

[Anon3]

Originally Posted by milleplod

Mine kicks down perfectly, and goes like stink when it does! Balance VIS is a Stocktake item, power one is functioning as it should. My point was that the....er....point at which the box does kickdown is a long way down the pedal travel, that's all!

My 9-5 Aero used a JATCO box. The kickdown response was instant, especially when the 'Sport' button was engaged - but that box was programmed very differently to the 75/ZT one...the 'Sport' button completely altered the (part) fly-by-wire accelerator pedal response too. I don't think the JATCO box is rubbish as such, it just seems that its programmed to behave very differently to ones in other cars.

Pete

You put it much more succinctly than me and in fairness, the box is used on some good cars. But the point is the same.
The software seems really poor.

[SD1too]

Originally Posted by Anon3

I disagree.
My vis' are fine and kickdown on mine is the slowest I've experienced on any autobox.

I know that you disagree Steve because we've had this discussion before. I can't remember whether you've cleaned the pinhole restriction in your cam covers, but I found that made a huge difference to the responsiveness of my gearbox.

I haven't driven a 2.0 litre V6 but on paper it is a much more "revvy" engine than the 2.5 litre. Maybe that sort of engine doesn't suit you. It wouldn't suit me. I like shed loads of torque at low engine speeds. I'd say that my 2.5 is a good compromise between the two.

Originally Posted by Anon3

... I assume the fluid was correct.

If you're trying to find the cause of a problem Steve, making assumptions doesn't help. It's not too difficult to check it, so why don't you?

Simon

[Anon3]

Originally Posted by SD1too

I know that you disagree Steve because we've had this discussion before. I can't remember whether you've cleaned the pinhole restriction in your cam covers, but I found that made a huge difference to the responsiveness of my gearbox.

I haven't driven a 2.0 litre V6 but on paper it is a much more "revvy" engine than the 2.5 litre. Maybe that sort of engine doesn't suit you. It wouldn't suit me. I like shed loads of torque at low engine speeds. I'd say that my 2.5 is a good compromise between the two.


If you're trying to find the cause of a problem Steve, making assumptions doesn't help. It's not too difficult to check it, so why don't you?

Simon

No, in fairness, I haven't done the pinhole.
The stubborn *** in me won't either, as I don't believe that can possibly be the cause of an autobox performing the way mine does.
That said, if I ever do get round to it and it cures the problem, you'll be the one who gets tons of praise from me

As for making assumptions, yep that's the mother of all something, that I forget.
But are we really suggesting Lates doesn't know what he's doing?

Regardless, another fluid change is on the cards.
From what I've read on the LR forum though, where there's a monster thread on exactly the same problem, another change can result in the problem being alleviated.
Only to return after a few months.
Hence I don't think it's the answer either.

I'll get round to re-checking that fluid temp sensor that I have listed in the relevant thread as reading 4.86K ohms.
I asked the question about that in the relevant thread and was told it was correct, but it's actually miles off and suggests the temp is about -10,000 degrees C
I might have read it wrong though.

[bl52krz]

Perhaps the temp sensor reading has something to do with the problem. It may think that because the temp is so high, it is not safe to put anymore torque through the box because it will get to hot?

[Anon3]

Originally Posted by bl52krz

Perhaps the temp sensor reading has something to do with the problem. It may think that because the temp is so high, it is not safe to put anymore torque through the box because it will get to hot?

It's the opposite that might be true.
If that reading I took is correct, the box ecu thinks the oil is frozen.

The correct figures (purely for info) are around 55 ohms at -40C to near enough short at 100C +.
Hence the 4.86k is miles off.

I think that reading might have stemmed from me checking the wrong side of the connector and me then ignoring it, because I didn't have the correct info at the time.
Whatever, I need to check it again.

The really annoying part in all this, is the manual says the following is a possible symptom for any fault you care to mention;

"Torque reduction request from the EAT ECU to the ECM inoperative".
(And that's the problem I believe I have.)

Which is as useful as boobs on a bull.