Stability Control Warning Light

[sworks]

Originally Posted by tonybubble

According to Nick at Austin Garages, it's partially fitted.

That's what I thought being a development car. I would say gather as much info as possible to present to a local Mot tester showing that it is in fact not a full production vehicle. Being a one off they should test as is, the rules are open to interpretation and common sence and I see no reason why the tester uses common sence? What kind of a rapport do you have with your local tester?

[tonybubble]

Originally Posted by T-Cut

Several T4 owning members (here and there) have sussed far more of its capabilities than the originators intended, so resetting and adjusting IPKs goes beyond what MGR depots ever knew. I'd be very surprised if a T4 wouldn't communicate with yours, the stability function notwithstanding. I'd suggest contacting one of those members rather than having an outside 'expert' tell you the car cannot be fixed.

TC

That was the purpose of my post. I would like to know what a T4 would do or not do.

This is Nick's report on the car from 2008 (without photos):

" 1. Photograph 1 shows the centre console with a row of 5 oval switches. The 3 centre switches are for the Cruise Control, Smartnav (stand alone navigation system) and Traction Control disable. The Smartnav switch is not connected but as the car has its own navigation system via the screen this is not an issue. The Cruise Control switch, although when pressed lights up in green telltale, does not function whatsoever when the steering wheel Cruise Control engage switches are pressed. The traction control switch does not appear to do anything when pressed.

2. When the air conditioning controls are removed (Photograph 2) this reveals an industrial-like red emergency stop switch. This switch has two wires which are part of the main wiring harness and when the switch is pressed it cuts power to the engine management electronic control unit (ECU). This is not a standard feature on any production MG Rover car and I would postulate that it has been specially added for testing and engineering purposes only.

3. The instrument pack (Photograph 3) has a permanent warning lamp illuminated for stability control. This was not a feature available on any MG ZT derived car and its continuous illumination suggests a fault with the system. A brief road test establishes that the Anti Lock Braking System (ABS) is still functioning, however from a standing start, when a deliberate wheel spin is provoked, there is no traction control enabled at any time. The instrument pack itself is a non standard engineering sample (Photograph 4).

4. The stability control system works in tandem via a non standard ABS ECU and modulator assembly made by TRW (no photograph as it is concealed from direct view) and the engine control module (ECM) (Photographs 5, 6 and 7) which controls the non standard ‘drive-by wire throttle system’ (Photograph 8).

5. The engine also has a unique air filter, resonator and induction system
(Photograph 9).

6. There are a number of indicators, as can be seen on the engine management system (EMS), that this car has been engineered for the future forthcoming tightened emissions regulations known as EU4. Photographs 10 and 11 show the exhaust manifold system which now incorporates 3 catalytic convertors instead of the usual 2. All of the exhaust parts are unique to this car and service replacements would not be available from the usual sources.

7. The coolant header tank which is located near the radiator is a new design(Photograph 12) and has been relocated near the O/S/F suspension strut. This also incorporates a low coolant level sensor and although the coolant level is full an erroneous message appears on the instrument pack warning of low coolant.

8. The car has been built with a xenon dipped beam lighting system and cars sold with this system must have headlamp pressure wash and an automatic light levelling system to counteract heavy loads at the rear. The automatic levelling system works in conjunction with a rear suspension height sensor fitted to the O/S/R suspension and a front suspension height level sensor fitted to the O/S/F suspension. The O/S/F sensor assembly is completely missing and the wiring harness which it connects to is hanging loose above the front subframe
(Photograph 13). This means the levelling system is completely non operational.

9. The radio system is a remote unit located in the spare wheel well. This unit is faulty and cuts out intermittently (this has been proven by fitting a known good unit in its place for a long period of time without fault). The mounting bracket to secure it to the R/H area of the wheel well is missing
(Photograph 14).

10. The engine immobiliser system is an engineering sample for testing (Photograph 15) and also has a serial connector (presumed for software programming via connection to a laptop). The engine immobiliser system is sourced from BMW parts and stores electronic data which matches data stored inside the ignition key. Normally the procedure for ordering spare keys is via matching data held on BMW databases for this unit. However since this unit is experimental this makes the normal procedure not a viable option.

11. The TV system does not work. Investigative work after partially removing the headlining reveals that both N/S and O/S TV aerial amplifier units are missing and therefore gives no direct connection to the side window aerial connections."

[T-Cut]

I remember reading about this car a while back.
I guess the only way to find out is ask a member with a T4 to stick it in and see what happens. Maybe you'll both be surprised!

TC

[davidhughes]

Interesting problem. I wonder if the ipk warning senor wire can be located on the rear and either have current added or turned off to fool the ipk into turning off the warning symbol, have you compared the wiring harnesses on the rear to
a standard one. System clearly needs fooling into believing system not installed.

I would be worried about letting most garages with a t4 loose . Bigruss certainly knows his stuff with a t4.

Anyone know an old rover factory tec they must exist and remember the car.

[Jakg]

Any hi-res pictures of the "new bits" available?

[tonybubble]

Originally Posted by Jakg

Any hi-res pictures of the "new bits" available?

Some more pics here, Jack:

http://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/foru...ad.php?t=46705

[Lates]

I have seen this before, OVP had an MG IPK with this "feature"

Really dont think T4 will talk to this car, will ask the question tomorrow (from insider info), but don't hold your breath tho in hearing good news.

[BigRuss]

T4 will almost certainly have a fit if you plug it in, the first thing T4 does is to read the vehicle configuration.

As this configuration doesn't exist in it's coding rules it will ask you to input a valid configuration before you could continue.

Of course you can't do this because to do so would probably render the car useless.

I'm sure that some of the minor issues eg with the radio, tv and headlight self levelling could be addressed but I'm afraid some of the others might be impossible to cure. It all depends on what parts are missing and/or which parts of the programming are developed.

The IPK problem with the stability control warning could perhaps got around by taking a dump of the eeprom and comparing it to a standard V6 one then finding which bits of information need altering to remove the offending warning but it may be a case of trial and error and time consuming

Stability control icon appears on the later IPK's before they are coded as the firmware of the ipk's had been updated to include it as an option, once the ipk is configured on T4 it disappears, unfortunately you can't do this because T4 won't talk to the car.

It may be possible to code a new transponder to the car depending on the immobiliser used, but the remote may be more difficult



Russ

[Bolin]

Perhaps a silly suggestion, but solely for the purposes of MoT (and only MoT!) could you blank off the message centre for the test, perhaps with a piece of card or suchlike, and remove it immediately afterwards? Or would there be any messages/warnings that would need to be displayed for the MoT?

I know it's a bodge but if the system is only half fitted then the warning is pretty meaningless.......

[sworks]

I think if it was blanked off the tester would become very curious as to what is being hidden hence my post #11 Best way for the MOT would be to be honest and show documents backing up the cars previous life.........oh and fit a front sensor for the lights. If the headlamp height is ok then at least it won't fail for having no sensor