Thread: 130 Chassis Cracking issue any Prevention method ?

Most of the other manufacturers with trayback or cab chassis have leaf springs at the rear. These have the loading spread over the front and rear of the spring where the Defender 130 demonstrate a cantilever effect from the spring tower. (The load on the rear of the tub/tray tries to pivot the rear part of the chassis from the spring.)

My understanding (someone with better knowledge please correct me) is that early 130's used 110 chassis that were cut and extended, but later years have a chassis designed/made for the wheelbase.

So it would be expected that the later chassis should have overcome issues due to the earlier splice method of extending the chassis.

I was in the factory 2 weeks ago looking at a stack of them. Yes they are now a seperate chassis to the 110. I will see if i can dig up a photo sometime.

The normal reason are, over loading and REALLY abusive driving.

Don't do either.

Mine has done some heavy work, and all I've ever done was crack 3 tub mounts. It was easily fixed.

CC

Originally Posted by Bush65

My understanding (someone with better knowledge please correct me) is that early 130's used 110 chassis that were cut and extended, but later years have a chassis designed/made for the wheelbase.

So it would be expected that the later chassis should have overcome issues due to the earlier splice method of extending the chassis.

The 120 utes made from 1984-1990 were cut and extended (in AU). They look a bit agricultural, but are plated internally and externally for quite a distance. I have never seen a broken one.

The 127s (130s) are, I believe all a completely different chassis, yet these have been known to crack...

130" chassis till 97 I believe, were 2 110" chassis, butted together and welded, with a piece of flat bar welded along the top of the rail

After that, same as the one I'm using, were a cut 110" chassis, with pressed joiners, that overlap and angulate the welded joins, much better job

The 120" extensions are utter rubbish

another good cause is failing to repair damaged mounts and letting the tray twist around over and smack into the chassis

AFAIK the cracks that were a problem in the 130 chassis were not around the extensions (on the 120 chassis) but immediately to the rear of the coil spring mount, so not related to the extended chassis.

The problem as I understand it, is that people fit traybacks that extend well past the rear cross member of the 130 chassis and they support the weight of this overhang on the rear cross member. As I said above previously, the downward forces on the rear crossmember cantilevers the rear of the chassis at the spring mount causing fatigue cracks.

I haven't heard of it on the later 130 vehicles including the Puma, but maybe because they are too new to display the fatigue.

If I had a 130 (which are great vehicles for long distance touring) I would make sure that the longitudinal elements of the trayback add additional support to the rear of the chassis by having multiple fixings at the front of the tray and additional chassis fixings adjacent to or before the spring mount so that a lot of the rear loading are transmitted to the chassis in front of the spring mount. I may even consider having a reinforcing band fixed to the top of the chassis rail extending about 450mm or more before and aft of the spring mount.