Thread: Possible New project vehicle...

Originally Posted by rar110

I agree. A 130 would be the easiest way to go. Anything longer would start to get really painful to drive around in. You could do a drop side tray triple cab set up. Because the tray is higher it allows more rear overhang without causing dramas. Also allows under tray options like fuel/water tanks/pullout draws etc.

Now that's not a bad idea. It doesn't suit my needs, but it's still a good idea.

Stretching anything, be it a dual cab 130, or a 110 wagon, is going to be roughly the same amount of work if you leave the chassis alone. It gets more complex once you stretch the chassis too, but I'm OK with that.

As for it being painful to drive around in - I can see that it would be a problem in mainland cities, but here in Tassie it's not a big issue. I'ts pretty rare not to be able to find two parking bays end to end in supermarket car parks or similar, and if you have to park on the street somewhere then it usually only means that you would have to walk a block or two at most to get to where you want.

Originally Posted by rar110

With this set up I would take the third row of doors back to the rear wheel arch as is with a 110, have two b-pillars on each side and fabricate a door that fits btw the two b-pillars.

That would essentially be my approach, too, but with a wagon body as a base. I figure if I consume a full set of doors I can take the bottom and back half of the window frame of the front doors, and mate them to the front half of the window frame of the back doors, then all I would have to have made is the custom glass, all of the window regulators, latch mechanisms, hinges, etc. would all be OEM. Then I'd just need to make the doorway to fit, and I'd already have the front doorway right there to measure from - too easy!

Originally Posted by rar110

You might be able to get away with a door on one side only. The door/s could have fixed glass or small sliding glass opening (for simplicity).

I don't think that it would pass engineering without doors on both sides, likely too far from an egress point in an emergency. Also, all passenger seats are supposed to have an opening window of some description, so fixed glass is a no-no, but the sliding glass might pass.

Originally Posted by rar110

A bar for anchor points could be made to fix to a fabricated under floor chassis cross member and to each b-pillar that holds the third row of doors. When the kids get bigger the second row seats could face backward so the 2nd and 3rd row face each other.

I've no idea whether it would pass or not, but I do like the idea of having the second row turned about once they get a bit older. I might look into that while I'm researching/designing.

Originally Posted by frantic

( not the vertical bars out of the floor as they are a pain and a trip hazard+ impalement hazard to whoever is sitting behind!).

I've never seen them up close, but I don't see how the vertical bars can be approved due to exactly the issues you've just mentioned.

Originally Posted by frantic

...With a 130 you will be hard pressed for a decent parking spot in cities...

Isn't that what bullbars are for?

Originally Posted by frantic

...and if you go the modified 12 seat + load area route the vehicle will be over 6m and with 12 seats may require a bus license?...

A car license is good for up to (and including) 12 seats, I think, and a GVM of up to 4.5 tonnes.

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

...Have you considered a Delica?...

Briefly, but a delica is still only 8 seats though, and if their seats are anything like Pajero seats then there's no way you can get three booster/baby seats in a row.

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

Or, that Unimog that Stooge has been drooling over at the Hobart auctions.

Awesome! Where do I get a passenger body for that?!?

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

From what I've read, capsules and boosters don't work in the front seat of cars with airbags.

100% correct. I think it is actually illegal to fit them into the front seat of any vehicle with passenger airbags.

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

I think that with fold up seats and ADRs it comes down to the manufacturer and whether they've done the engineering/crash testing. From what I've read of this stuff, the ADRs for child seats apply in a couple of ways. If the manufacturer stipulates - in whatever way that pleases FORS or whoever it is - that the seats in the vehicle suit the standards, then they get passed, if it's an aftermarket thing, then they have to fit all of the ADR criteria.

That pretty much agrees with my understanding of it, too, but I also seem to remember reading somewhere that when adding an aftermarket anchor point the anchor point must be affixed to a separate part of the vehicle structure than the seat mounting points. I just can't remember where I read it - whether it was a govt. document of some sort, or whether it was just somebody's interpretation of the laws on this matter.

Aside from that, though, am I correct in my thinking that 110/defender 2nd row seats are not crash tested and that is why the anchor points must be less than 100mm from the top of the seat?

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

When I put the bar in the back of the 130, the engineer who designed it for me told me he couldn't approve the bar in place because the ADR requires a 10cm gap between the back of the seat and the rear bulkhead. If you look at a Hilux, there is no 10cm gap, and yet they come with three approved restraint anchor points.

I assume you're talking dual cab Hilux there? I hadn't heard that particular rule before, and I have to admit that I really can't see any good reason for it being so. (Then again, when has that ever stopped something from being true?)

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

Similarly, the anchor point on an aftermarket bar/mount is supposed to be no lower than something like 10cm from the top of the seat that the baby seat is on. Again, no shortage of cars with factory fitted restraint points built into the seat base.

I think that this is specific to vehicles that have not been crash tested for compliance with the baby seats/boosters in. I think it's something to do with the simple tube frame of the seat in a 110/Defender, and its ability (or otherwise) to hold up to the increased vertical shock loading in an accident where the child seat is thrown forward, thus pulling down on the top of the seat frame with the anchor strap. With the anchor near the top height of the seat back, even if the seat frame collapses then the child seat can only move forward a small amount.

ADR for child restaints here-
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legi...AL+FRLI%5D.pdf

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...gn/pdf/34A.pdf

And our own child restraint library.
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/good-oil/5...aby-seats.html

Thanks for those links. I've printed the ADR's to read through, and I'll read through your other thread as soon as I get a chance.

Cheers,...Jon.

HEY here's an idea! Instead off having a 6-7 door 12 seat stretch landie why not make a LARGE sliding door that Is square from behind the passenger side front door all the way down to the rear wheel arch and runs on 2 tracks with 1 set at just below window level and the other in betwen the side steps and the bottom trim panel that gets removed for rocksliders.This would make it easier to get them in and out and also stop the older ones bashing the doors on whatever you parked near( walls , trees, other cars) Look at vw multivans/ chrysler voyagers etc to see how to balance it. This would also give you other seating options e.g 2 front(driver and passenger), 2 middle( or 3 in a bench for 10 seats as with a large door the rear occupants could still pass), 2 third row and 3 rear. they could either be 2 seats together in the middle rows or give 8 out off 9 a window with the 6 front as a single captains chair style and the back a 3 seater bench on tracks that you could roll out like a voyager/ tarago.

Originally Posted by frantic

HEY here's an idea! Instead off having a 6-7 door 12 seat stretch landie why not make a LARGE sliding door that Is square from behind the passenger side front door all the way down to the rear wheel arch and runs on 2 tracks with 1 set at just below window level and the other in betwen the side steps and the bottom trim panel that gets removed for rocksliders.This would make it easier to get them in and out and also stop the older ones bashing the doors on whatever you parked near( walls , trees, other cars)...

Now THAT IS a good idea!!

I think if I did that I would be inclined to go with 2 in front, 3 in second row, 2 in third row with a 'walk-thru' in the middle, plus the existing 2 x 2 centre facing seats of a county. That way you have more than one option for getting passengers in and out of those last two seats. Also, it may be possible to use a removable middle seat for the third row in this configuration - still giving the 12 seats if necessary (with a little prior notice).

Alternatively, to do it without stretching the chassis, one could build a 130 wagon and shorten the centre facing seats to a single seats and end up with a 9/10 seater 130 wagon with a smallish but reasonable load bay.

Originally Posted by abaddonxi

Has anyone said OKA yet?

Originally Posted by Jonno_G

I think that's about the same reaction I'd get, too. Even used they seem to go for about the same money as we paid for our house!...

Turns out I was wrong - on both counts!

There's a few about at 10-15 years old between the $30-40k mark, including one here in Tassie. I think I might go for a drive on the weekend and look at that one. It's still a big chunk o' money, but I'm not going to run out of seats with that one.

The thing that really surprised me, though, was that when I showed the photo's of one to my wife she said "I want one, let's buy it!!!"

if you really want a landy look at foleys in the u.k. they have been producing quality varients for donkey's years