 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Rear cross member |
 
|
|
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17443   
|
I had Devon4x4 do this to mine earlier this year. I had a heavy duty (i.e., thicker sheet material) galvanised crossmember fitted.
Some observations: Unless you are removing the rear tub to fit the crossmember, is it sensible to use one with extensions since this means that the weld can be positioned at a point where access to all four faces of the chassis rail can be welded. It is very time-consuming (i.e., expensive) to remove the rear tub from a 110 DC or 110 SW Defender, so extensions make sense for these. If you can see a few holes already then in reality the rust will be far worse than it appears. I have one visible hole, but after "treatment" with a chipping hammer mine was riddled with holes. There will be some people who will say that it is not worth replacing the crossmember and that you should just fit a new chassis. In my opinion unless you know the chassis is rotten this is not really the case - usually the crossmember rusts first and if the rest of the chassis is sound, then it is worth replacing the crossmember with an expectation that some years later you will need a chassis. The crossmember can extend the life of the chassis by another ten years if you're lucky. Whilst the crossmember is off it is worth getting the alloy channel under the rear tailgate/door (between the door opening and crossmember) repaired or replaced if it needs doing. It is a popular place for corrosion and very difficult to replace on an assembled vehicle but easy if the crossmember is off. The only other point is to make sure that whoever does the job is someone whose welding is up to scrath and can be trusted, it is quite important the the welds are as strong as the original chassis. I chopped up my old one after it was off the vehicle and it is genuinely shocking how many rust traps have been designed into it. You couldn't really have made it a more effective rust trap if you wanted to. I was very glad that I opted for a galvanised replacement, and it will undoubtedly now outlast the rest of the chassis. |
||
20th Dec 2024 12:30pm |
|
| TexasRover Member Since: 24 Nov 2022 Location: Paris Posts: 1084  
|
When I disassembled a rather rusty 110 (remarkably easy process) I found that the next crossmember forward was also in very poor condition. One of the problems seem to be that the fuel tank sits right up against it and it collects dirt sand etc.
since you will need to remove the fuel tank it would be worth having a good look at that and address any signs of decay. |
||
|
20th Dec 2024 12:47pm |
|
| Stacey007 Member Since: 25 Sep 2015 Location: Cheshire Posts: 3757
|
Hello
Thanks, the rest of the chassis looks good, I have tried to keep it rust proofed, the rear to be fair does get the crud just resting in it... Is this the bit that you mention that could be replaced?  Click image to enlarge Thanks for the reply |
||
|
20th Dec 2024 1:02pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17443
|
No, I mean the bit circumscribed in the image below:
Click image to enlarge |
||
|
20th Dec 2024 1:13pm |
|
| Stacey007 Member Since: 25 Sep 2015 Location: Cheshire Posts: 3757
|
ooh ok, this bit?
Thanks Click image to enlarge |
||
|
20th Dec 2024 1:45pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17443
|
Actually no, that bit bolts to the crossmember and a new crossmember will come with that. The alloy bit I am referring to is the bit of the rear tub that bolts to the bit in your picture. It is spot welded to the rear tub underneath the lights on each side, and is the part which holds the two side of the tub together. It is alloy, and since it is bolted with steel bolts to the steel chassis tends to corrode round the bolts.
If you are lucky yours will be in perfect condition, but many are corroded to the point of having holes. |
||
|
20th Dec 2024 2:02pm |
|
| Dinnu Member Since: 24 Dec 2019 Location: Lija Posts: 3421  
|
What BW is referring to is available from YRM.
https://yrmit.co.uk/product/rear-body-moun...eries-2-3/ However it is very difficult to replace, and if you have some damage, perhaps its better to have local damage repair. In the family have a Td5 that had a very badly rotten rear crossmember. The top of the crossmember was literally missing. Were lucky that the chassis rails were in perfect condition so we opted for a crossmember without any extensions. The result was that it’s almost impossible to tell that the crossmember was replaced. We also opted for a hot dipped galvanized. Did not enjoy the welding process, however its now a crossmember that can forget. 1988 90 Hard Top, 19J Diesel Turbo, Shire Blue - Restoration ongoing 2012 90 CSW, 2.2TDCI, Santorini Black |
||
|
20th Dec 2024 4:08pm |
|
| DSC-off Member Since: 16 Oct 2014 Location: North East Posts: 1427 
|
YRM also do a gasket that fits between the angle bracket and body tub, to isolate them and reduce the tub corrosion.
A small additional cost and easy fit when doing a crossmember change. https://yrmit.co.uk/product/rear-cross-mem...-defender/ Apparently it may also possible to fit the gasket with the tub and crossmember in place, if the fixings aren't rusted solid. As advised by YRM, Remove the bolts from the crossmember to angle from below leaving the 2 at each end fitted, but loose. Remove the tub to angle screws from the rear face. Slide the angle forward on the 2 loosened bolts in the slotted holes, creating a gap for the gasket. From the rear of the vehicle, push the gasket up into the gap above the crossmember. Removing the adhesive backing is not necessary. Slide the angle back to touch the tub/gasket. Refit screws and bolts in reverse order. I've not tried it yet and it sounds a bit fiddly, but could save problems later. |
||
|
20th Dec 2024 6:38pm |
|
| Oldowner Member Since: 26 Dec 2018 Location: South west Posts: 625 
|
The td5 / TDCi rear crossmember with small extensions (just butts up to where the chassis loom exits the chassis leg) are nice and easy to fit and worth doing, however if the chassis is rotten enough to need long extensions as in the first picture then I would suggest the chassis needs changing.
I’ve done plenty of rear crossmembers in the past but I won’t do any requiring the long extensions. There is too much margin for error with alignment, and I am not convinced that sleeving the crossmember over the chassis and relying on four welds gives the required strength for 3.5ton towing capability. As a side note, for some reason no rear crossmember manufacturer bothers with the angled reinforcing plate to the underside of the upper triangulation webs, nor do Richards chassis on their replacement chassis. |
||
|
21st Dec 2024 7:18am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17443
|
Provided the person doing the welding is competent (the big unknown) the joint between the extensions and the chassis rails will be as strong as the original chassis. The main reason for choosing a cross-member with extensions is not that the main rails are rotten but because you cannot adequately weld the top joint without removing the rear tub unless you position the joint where the rails dip, i.e., long extensions.
The extra work required to lift the tub on a 110 station wagon or double cab is prohibitive and does produce any etter result, just a much bigger bill, and it really doesn't make sense not to use an extended cross-member on these. If you can lift the tub easily you have more options. |
||
|
21st Dec 2024 8:39am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
