Write off ????

[hagus]

G'day All

What to do?

Have driven out of Gove down to Alice Springs, up the Tanami and over to Broome and have found that the 130 is falling in half. Actually the chassis is bent (large bulge on both sides) just behind the shock absorbers on the rear and there is a crack on top of the rail on the drivers side.

Can this be repaired??

[Blknight.aus]

it can but you will need a specialist repair place. Dobbo had his chassis straightened when he bent his D2. so he'll know the type of place that can and may be able to give you their contact details and they may know a specialist nearer to you.

[CraigE]

It will take a certified boilermaker and an engineers certificate.

[87County]

It will take a certified boilermaker and an engineers certificate.

is that a WA requirement ? (AFAIAA not so in NSW)

[Psimpson7]

Another option would be to get a new chassis, possibly from one of the UK manufacturers

[justinc]

:eek:How did THAT happen??? Just think, a lesser vehicle wouldn't have got you anywhere near as far;);)


JC

[Deefa]

One of our club members (Sunshine Coast LR Club) had this happen to his defender 130 as well. It appears to only happen to cars that have been driven hard off road or lots of corrugated roads with heavy loads. His car has quite a lot of accessories on it and a custom built alloy body on the back. I will probably see him at the meeting tomorrow night (Mon) so I will ask him who fixed it and how much it set him back.

Could you claim this under insurance?

[hagus]

G'day Deefa

My truck came from Alice Springs and I suspect had some hard driving on rough roads around there. It has spent a fair bit of time with me with a camper pod on the back and now with a camper trailer in tow. We tend to spend a fair bit of time on rough roads up this end of the country. Any advice would be appreciated as I am not sure what the insures will think. I am not that confident in them coughing up.

Cheers

[CraigE]

is that a WA requirement ? (AFAIAA not so in NSW)

It is in WA, not sure about NSW but I would check it out with the RTA.
I know when we had a crack in an Ambulance chassis that was the requirement.
A certified coded boilermaker had to do the repairs as it was chassis / structural repairs (which is not a big deal there are plenty around).
Then a certified inspector engineer had to inspect it and issue a certificate of inspection.
Costs varied. The first quote I got was $10,000 for 4 plates, which was a joke and by a large engineering firm. I started talking to a small engineering firm manager who I was inducting and he said that price was ridiculous but quite normal from some companies looking to make a fast buck. He advised me as he was an engineer certified to inspect he could do the inspection for around $400 (approx 2hrs work at $200 per hr to inspect thoroughly using a crack and weld detector). We could use our choice of boilermaker or he could supply one of his coded welders to do the job for $600 as it was only 4 plates and about 1-2 hrs work max for a good welder. Easy to see what direction we went. But that was only 2 cracks it was not bent and a plate placed either side of each side of the chassis.
You can get anyone to do the welding, but there are not too many engineers that will certify it unless they know the work has been done by a suitably qualified welder.

[pc3]

What year 130 is this ? is it a dual cab ?

[disco2hse]

It is in WA, not sure about NSW but I would check it out with the RTA.
I know when we had a crack in an Ambulance chassis that was the requirement.
A certified coded boilermaker had to do the repairs as it was chassis / structural repairs (which is not a big deal there are plenty around).
Then a certified inspector engineer had to inspect it and issue a certificate of inspection.
Costs varied. The first quote I got was $10,000 for 4 plates, which was a joke and by a large engineering firm. I started talking to a small engineering firm manager who I was inducting and he said that price was ridiculous but quite normal from some companies looking to make a fast buck. He advised me as he was an engineer certified to inspect he could do the inspection for around $400 (approx 2hrs work at $200 per hr to inspect thoroughly using a crack and weld detector). We could use our choice of boilermaker or he could supply one of his coded welders to do the job for $600 as it was only 4 plates and about 1-2 hrs work max for a good welder. Easy to see what direction we went. But that was only 2 cracks it was not bent and a plate placed either side of each side of the chassis.
You can get anyone to do the welding, but there are not too many engineers that will certify it unless they know the work has been done by a suitably qualified welder.

I can see how that would be a requirement for an ambulance. Over here vehicles like this need a Certificate of Fitness whereas private vehicles only need a Warrant of Fitness. The COF can be a lot more stringent in certain areas than a standard WOF.

Is there any reason he can't just take it to a panelbeater and have the chassis straightened then strengthened since it is not a commercial vehicle?

By the sound of it though it might actually need two new sections to replace the distorted parts. Surely that would have happended due to metal fatigue and so no amount of plates being welded over the top will be of any use since that will always be a weak area.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

G'day All

What to do?

Have driven out of Gove down to Alice Springs, up the Tanami and over to Broome and have found that the 130 is falling in half. Actually the chassis is bent (large bulge on both sides) just behind the shock absorbers on the rear and there is a crack on top of the rail on the drivers side.

Can this be repaired??Gee bulging over the shock absorber mountings, sounds like stresses from a cantilever effect to me!

And I was told that this doesn't happen http://www.aulro.com/afvb/90-110-130-defender-county/105195-130-chassis-cracking-issue-any-prevention-method.html#post1253840

[hagus]

What year 130 is this ? is it a dual cab ?

The truck is a dual cab 2002.

[roverrescue]

Hagus,
Maybe post a few photos to give us an idea of the extent of the damage. AULRO may be able to give a few ideas on best repair techinique to take to a local workshop.
Im sure you will find a workshop in Broome who will have a stab at a repair for you!

It certainly sounds a little more serious than the usual 130 chassis issue. Will be interesting to see where things go?

Steve

[p38arover]

It will take a certified boilermaker and an engineers certificate.

Only if you tell the rego authorities about it.

[CraigE]

Only if you tell the rego authorities about it.

True.:cool:
But if you dont and have an accident and they discover it has had repairs you wont be insured.

[p38arover]

I wonmder how many cars have had rust cut out of the monocoque, e.g., sills, and never been inspected by an engineer?

Or how many Series Landies have had rust cut out of the chassis.

[hagus]

Hagus,
Maybe post a few photos to give us an idea of the extent of the damage. AULRO may be able to give a few ideas on best repair techinique to take to a local workshop.
Im sure you will find a workshop in Broome who will have a stab at a repair for you!

It certainly sounds a little more serious than the usual 130 chassis issue. Will be interesting to see where things go?

Steve
I will try to post some pics however having never done it before I may not have too much success.

[Deefa]

Hi Hagus

Checked with my friend last night who had the 130. Apparently what happened was he was towing his camper on Fraser Island and drove a little to fast over some dips in a track and the car came down hard and the chassis behind the rear coil springs bent down and in fact the tow bar was resting on the ground when he stopped. The gap behind the cab to the enclosed back was 75 mm and it looked real bad. Once they got it home he took it to a local panel shop and they cut the chassis jacked it up and re welded the join and then put some long plates on the side and welded these in. The repair looks neat and if you didn't know it had been repaired you would not notice. He did not get any engineer involved and why would you? Its obviously much stronger than the factory set up now, its not rocket science to see that. This was a 300 tdi 130. I forgot to ask him how much this cost.

Hope this helps.

[CraigE]

Hi Hagus

Checked with my friend last night who had the 130. Apparently what happened was he was towing his camper on Fraser Island and drove a little to fast over some dips in a track and the car came down hard and the chassis behind the rear coil springs bent down and in fact the tow bar was resting on the ground when he stopped. The gap behind the cab to the enclosed back was 75 mm and it looked real bad. Once they got it home he took it to a local panel shop and they cut the chassis jacked it up and re welded the join and then put some long plates on the side and welded these in. The repair looks neat and if you didn't know it had been repaired you would not notice. He did not get any engineer involved and why would you? Its obviously much stronger than the factory set up now, its not rocket science to see that. This was a 300 tdi 130. I forgot to ask him how much this cost.

Hope this helps.
Look, you will get away with it, but I would make some inquiries as to RTA requirements for peace of mind. I spoke to a panel beater here and they said yes they do chassis repairs (getting rarer as most are now considered write offs) and they actually certify any chassis repairs themselves.

[carlosbeldia]

I had a similar crack and bought the rear bumper with extensions (150 pounds). At all, a 5 hours work.

[carlosbeldia]

I bought this one by error, but my mechanic finally made it works. They come from the rear till just before the shock absorber...

DA4020 110 REAR CROSSMEMBER WITH EXTENSIONS | Defender 1985>: Chassis | shop | www.lrseries.com | L. R. Series (http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/4374/3002/2/DA4020-110-REAR-CROSSMEMBER-WITH-EXTENSIONS.html)

[scott oz]

True.:cool:
But if you dont and have an accident and they discover it has had repairs you wont be insured.


Only if the defect repair caused/contributed to the accident

[hagus]

Mine is a 130 withthe bend before the sockies coming from the front to the back.

[hagus]

Staying in a caravan park (of sorts) in Broome and there are a few people offering advice. One bloke suggests that the fact that I have airbags fitted caused the chassis to bend and crack. His rationale is that an airbag is pushing against the chassis. My thought is that so is the spring and in the case of coil sprung vehicles an airbag installed inside a coil spring would be no different to a stiffer spring??

Am waiting on advice from the panel beater as to whether they can do repairs. They have no chassis straightening gearr available here in Broome, so they say.

[miky]

Depends perhaps where you are going from Broome. If staying on bitumen to say Perth, get it welded up so it's safe and worry about engineers reports etc. for now.
Once you hit civilisation ( :o ) you can worry about chassis straitening etc.

[hagus]

G'day All

Travelling bacj to Darwin with a temp repair done to the chassis. Got almost to Timber Creek and whilst coming out of a prospective campsite, BANG, and a terrible rattel in the transferr case.

Truck wouldn't drive. I engaged the CDL and crawled into Timber Creek.

With the CDL disengaged and spinin the front driveshaft the TC is very rattly and notchy.

This holiday is going from bad to worse. Looks like a truck ride to get the truck somwhere to get fixed.:(:(:(

[disco2hse]

they do chassis repairs (getting rarer as most are now considered write offs) and they actually certify any chassis repairs themselves.

That's what I would have thought too. That is what happens here. The panel beaters who are trained have the right qual's and it's not like you have to have the welds x-rayed or whatever.


Staying in a caravan park (of sorts) in Broome and there are a few people offering advice. One bloke suggests that the fact that I have airbags fitted caused the chassis to bend and crack. His rationale is that an airbag is pushing against the chassis. My thought is that so is the spring and in the case of coil sprung vehicles an airbag installed inside a coil spring would be no different to a stiffer spring??

haha and was he holding a beer can? And which number was that one? :P


Travelling bacj to Darwin with a temp repair done to the chassis. Got almost to Timber Creek and whilst coming out of a prospective campsite, BANG, and a terrible rattel in the transferr case.

Truck wouldn't drive. I engaged the CDL and crawled into Timber Creek.

With the CDL disengaged and spinin the front driveshaft the TC is very rattly and notchy.(

Hmm. Sorry to hear that :(

[hagus]

Well we are now in Katherine with the 130 on the way to Darwin on the back of a truck.

Im thinking that the bent chassis may have contributed to the demise of the transfer case. I sowed that seed in the mind of the assessor and he seemed to think it possible.

Have to say I am happy with NRMA roadside assist. I have been a member for 25 years and only used them once before. They picked up the bill for the tilt tray from Timber Creek to Katherine. I am looking at heading to Darwin and flying home to Gove. The holidayis well and truly over.

Does anyone have some advice on what to do with the TC. If it is to be rebuilt what are the options?

Just sitting back and having another cold one and telling myself that it's alright, this is the first time we have had a major problem in a lot of remote travel.

Cheers

[disco2hse]

Does anyone have some advice on what to do with the TC. If it is to be rebuilt what are the options?

If it is going to be an insurance job (remember that it was those corogations that caused it ;) ) and if the TC failed as a result of that damage then it should be covered too. Maybe?

[scott oz]

If it is going to be an insurance job (remember that it was those corogations that caused it ;) ) and if the TC failed as a result of that damage then it should be covered too. Maybe?


Good luck if it's and insurnce job. let me know because I've never seen an insurer repair a vehicle that's failed due to wear and tear caused by road conditions. And I'll insure with that company..

I'm with NRMA and I think their premium cover returns the vehilce to you if you've elected to return home? can't remember.

[disco2hse]

Good luck if it's and insurnce job. let me know because I've never seen an insurer repair a vehicle that's failed due to wear and tear caused by road conditions. And I'll insure with that company..

I'm with NRMA and I think their premium cover returns the vehilce to you if you've elected to return home? can't remember.

Ahh well you see, that's the game. Insurance covers you for specific incidents, and so if you can say that road conditions on day x were such that they caused damage to my car then you may be covered. However if you say I traveled course y for six months and on month seven my car broke, then you are not likely to be covered.

The more specific, the better. It helps if you have a photo of the pot-hole you can say contributed to the damage, for example. What you also need to be able to say is that there had been no previous similar occurrences of damage to the same part/place on the car, otherwise they may ping you for wear and tear or faulty workmanship on previous work done.

They will also ping you for design faults, saying such things are between you and the manufacturer. So a weak chassis member, that is frequently known to fail, may be put into the civil suits file (and will not be processed as a claim) but a chassis that breaks while a vehicle that was performing its designed purpose on a road that was not up to the required level of standard for roading is more likely to go through.

Successive damages also need to be linked to the contributing incident. So the TC damage was caused by the original damage but it looks bad if you say my chassis broke and I drove another 2000 km then the TC case broke too. They will laugh loudly as they aim for the bin. However if you can demonstrate that you undertook to make remedial repairs in order to get the vehicle to a proper place of repair but in doing so the TC also broke, then it is more likely to be covered. That part comes under all reasonable actions that ought to be taken by a reasonable person. It would be unreasonable to expect A grade repairs in the middle of the Simpson and it would be just as unreasonable to expect someone in the middle of Sydney to wait a week before getting such repairs done when in both cases the result was going to be a trashed TC.

[scott oz]

Ahh well you see, that's the game. Insurance covers you for specific incidents, and so if you can say that road conditions on day x were such that they caused damage to my car then you may be covered. However if you say I traveled course y for six months and on month seven my car broke, then you are not likely to be covered.

The more specific, the better. It helps if you have a photo of the pot-hole you can say contributed to the damage, for example. What you also need to be able to say is that there had been no previous similar occurrences of damage to the same part/place on the car, otherwise they may ping you for wear and tear or faulty workmanship on previous work done.

They will also ping you for design faults, saying such things are between you and the manufacturer. So a weak chassis member, that is frequently known to fail, may be put into the civil suits file (and will not be processed as a claim) but a chassis that breaks while a vehicle that was performing its designed purpose on a road that was not up to the required level of standard for roading is more likely to go through.

Successive damages also need to be linked to the contributing incident. So the TC damage was caused by the original damage but it looks bad if you say my chassis broke and I drove another 2000 km then the TC case broke too. They will laugh loudly as they aim for the bin. However if you can demonstrate that you undertook to make remedial repairs in order to get the vehicle to a proper place of repair but in doing so the TC also broke, then it is more likely to be covered. That part comes under all reasonable actions that ought to be taken by a reasonable person. It would be unreasonable to expect A grade repairs in the middle of the Simpson and it would be just as unreasonable to expect someone in the middle of Sydney to wait a week before getting such repairs done when in both cases the result was going to be a trashed TC.

Will be interesting. Insurnce covers you against accidental damage. If you drive down a road for a day and the overall condition of the road bends your chassie then sorry while the result may be unintended, bent chassie, the cause of the damage is not, use on a poor road and the use of the vehicle on such a road will result in damage.

Anyhow interesting

[disco2hse]

Insurnce covers you against accidental damage.

While they use the word "accident" insurance does not cover you against "accidents". Insurance covers you against "incidents". "Accidents", particularly in regards to motor vehicle insurance, are regarded as no-fault incidents and those are what you tend not to be covered for. In reality there is no such thing as an "accident" because there is always a cause.

Anyway, that is why I said you need to point to a particular cause of the incident. Why? Insurance companies exist to make a profit and they cannot do that if they are going to pay out for everything that passes their desk. I once had a boss when I worked in the insurance industry (many years ago now) whose motto was "don't pay out unless you have to". In those cases when the insurance company does have to make a payment, they are going to try to get that lost money back from somewhere and that's why you need to point the finger of blame for them. You help them to not make a loss and they are more likely to process your claim.

[hagus]

G'day All

I take on board all those comments in relation to my particular case. It will be interesting to see the outcome. In my case the damage was caused by an incident (large washout). The insurer had the vehicle looked at in Broome and a temporary repair made there and instructed us to drive to Darwin.

It is in the lap of the gods now:angel :angel:

[djam1]

G'day All

I take on board all those comments in relation to my particular case. It will be interesting to see the outcome. In my case the damage was caused by an incident (large washout). The insurer had the vehicle looked at in Broome and a temporary repair made there and instructed us to drive to Darwin.

It is in the lap of the gods now:angel :angel:

I have hit wash outs in 109 utes that have thrown the 44 gallon drums out the back but never hurt the vehicle.
Must of been one Mother of a wash out or 130s are softer than I thought.
I do wish you well in getting it repaired

[disco2hse]

G'day All

I take on board all those comments in relation to my particular case. It will be interesting to see the outcome. In my case the damage was caused by an incident (large washout). The insurer had the vehicle looked at in Broome and a temporary repair made there and instructed us to drive to Darwin.

It is in the lap of the gods now:angel :angel:

Good stuff. You just follow their instructions and any subsequent damages should also be covered :)

[wovenrovings]

If it was indeed a washout that did it get the front axle checked to see if it is straight. Don't ask how i know.

[JDNSW]

While they use the word "accident" insurance does not cover you against "accidents". Insurance covers you against "incidents". "Accidents", particularly in regards to motor vehicle insurance, are regarded as no-fault incidents and those are what you tend not to be covered for. In reality there is no such thing as an "accident" because there is always a cause.
...........

This is a special use of the word "accident", and while I am quite prepared to believe insurance companies use the word in that way, the normal English use of the the word is to mean something bad that was unintended, not something without a cause. In fact, if the damage was intended, the insurance company most certainly would not cover it if the insured intended it, and would look for a police report if anyone else did. Normal use of "incident" is similar to accident without the connotation of being "bad".

In reality, there would be vanishingly small numbers of accidents that have "a cause". Almost any real life occurrence has multiple factors, none of which can be regarded as a single cause. In this case I suggest some of them would be likely to include the fact that the chassis design is really a stretch of the 110 design, carrying loads well beyond the original design, the method of mounting the tray (I suspect this is the major preventable factor!), the quality of the roads driven over, driving habits including loads carried (it is possible that some of the "roads" would, in the view of the manufacturers, have been designated as "offroad", with a lower weight limit).

Sorry about the rant, but attempts by special interests to reform English are rarely successful, and just confuse the subject.

John

[disco2hse]

This is a special use of the word "accident", and while I am quite prepared to believe insurance companies use the word in that way, the normal English use of the the word is to mean something bad that was unintended, not something without a cause.

Then it is moot. :)


In fact, if the damage was intended, the insurance company most certainly would not cover it if the insured intended it, and would look for a police report if anyone else did. Normal use of "incident" is similar to accident without the connotation of being "bad".

Actually you will find intentional damages are normally covered. Ask anyone who has been keyed and had the damage repaired and paid for. However you will also be lumped with the excess because the insurer cannot get it from anyone else. On the other hand if someone deliberately drives into you in a carpark and you can identify them the insurer will chase them for the excess.


In reality, there would be vanishingly small numbers of accidents that have "a cause". Almost any real life occurrence has multiple factors, none of which can be regarded as a single cause.

Yes. Which is why sometimes we argue with insurers about their decisions.


In this case I suggest some of them would be likely to include the fact that the chassis design is really a stretch of the 110 design, carrying loads well beyond the original design, the method of mounting the tray (I suspect this is the major preventable factor!), the quality of the roads driven over, driving habits including loads carried

But we don't want to say that do we. Then the insurer can say it is design flaw and the cost of any damage needs to be obtained by the driver from the manufacturer.


(it is possible that some of the "roads" would, in the view of the manufacturers, have been designated as "offroad", with a lower weight limit).

Yes, which is why I compared the two scenarios. You need to be able to point to a specific incident not a duration of combined events that contributed to wear.

[JDNSW]

Then it is moot. :)

Not really - look at any dictionary.



Actually you will find intentional damages are normally covered. Ask anyone who has been keyed and had the damage repaired and paid for. However you will also be lumped with the excess because the insurer cannot get it from anyone else. On the other hand if someone deliberately drives into you in a carpark and you can identify them the insurer will chase them for the excess.

Yes, maybe I was not clear - I meant pretty much what you have said!



Yes. Which is why sometimes we argue with insurers about their decisions.

One of my pet hates is ascribing events to single causes when it is almost always not the case.

But we don't want to say that do we. Then the insurer can say it is design flaw and the cost of any damage needs to be obtained by the driver from the manufacturer.

No, we don't want to!

Yes, which is why I compared the two scenarios. You need to be able to point to a specific incident not a duration of combined events that contributed to wear.

Yes, you need a specific event for an insurance claim.

One thing worth noting is that a metallurgical examination of the fracture is likely to reveal whether it was from a single event or from fatigue (which would be the result of driving over corrugations, for example). I have been there to determine whether a failed drag link on a Landcruiser happened in the caccident or was a major factor the accident. (Answer was it happened when the vehicle hit the post at the side of the grid when the company driver lost control on corrugations - he lost steering because he was driving too fast for the conditions, not because the steering failed!)

I have been unimpressed by most of the tray mounting systems I have seen on Landrovers and, indeed, many other four wheel drives, particularly the way in which weight is carried only at each end of the tray. The original body on the Landrover chassis, while only attached front and rear, carried weight at several intermediate points, minimising the bending moment on the chassis.

It may be worth mentioning that the traditional method of mounting flat trays on chassis was to have a full length wooden spacer that fitted both the tray bearers (usually flat) and the chassis - contoured to fit in the case of Landrovers and other light vehicles. This spread the weight, although it did encourage rust between the wood and the chassis.

John

[disco2hse]

I have been unimpressed by most of the tray mounting systems I have seen on Landrovers and, indeed, many other four wheel drives, particularly the way in which weight is carried only at each end of the tray. The original body on the Landrover chassis, while only attached front and rear, carried weight at several intermediate points, minimising the bending moment on the chassis.

It may be worth mentioning that the traditional method of mounting flat trays on chassis was to have a full length wooden spacer that fitted both the tray bearers (usually flat) and the chassis - contoured to fit in the case of Landrovers and other light vehicles. This spread the weight, although it did encourage rust between the wood and the chassis.

As I read your reply that was the thought that came to my mind, before I read the final paragraph :)

The trucks where I have built onto the chassis I have done just that, with bearers running the full length of the chassis and U-bolts at regular intervals. Rust was inhibited with a layer of pitch or rubber between them.

[scott oz]

OK

If you hit a washout that is your accident not fatigue. And you need in my view to stick to the point, that’s what caused the chaise damage. Forget the road conditions because you will simply not get up.

In your case even if the insurer were to argue the chaise bend is fatigue related and tests showed fatigue. Subject to what the report said the argument I’d be considering is that yes there may be some sign of fatiguing however the cause of the actual chaise bend was the impact from the washout. Fatiguing is present in all chaises to differing degrees.

With the transfer case your argument is that it was caused by the chaise damage and most importantly the insurer instructed you to drive it.



A few other points made in other posts I’ll respond to.

Keying a vehicle while deliberate by the perpetrator it is not intended by the owner and therefore is accident damage by the policy cover/definition. Deliberate damage to the vehicle by the owner is not accidental in nature and despite any exclusion or not is not covered.

Damage caused by fatigue/wear and tear in itself is not accidental damage because it is a natural consequence of using the vehicle and fatigue/wear tear repairs is not covered.

[JDNSW]

.......Rust was inhibited with a layer of pitch or rubber between them.

Exactly - the potential for rust needed special measures to prevent it; not always implemented!

John

[hagus]

:):)
Rang the insurance company today to check up on where they were up to with my truck (write off, no we won't cover you, yes we will).
The chassis has been repaired already!!!! The assessor said that he hadn't given the repairer the go ahead but he had it on his machine and didn't want to take it of and have to put it back on again so he just fixed it. ($2650).
Truck is with a mechanic now to check out the TC.:):)
Will keep you posted on the TC.

Cheers

[disco2hse]

:):)
Rang the insurance company today to check up on where they were up to with my truck (write off, no we won't cover you, yes we will).
The chassis has been repaired already!!!! The assessor said that he hadn't given the repairer the go ahead but he had it on his machine and didn't want to take it of and have to put it back on again so he just fixed it. ($2650).
Truck is with a mechanic now to check out the TC.:):)
Will keep you posted on the TC.

Cheers

Good stuff. Glad to hear it.

[lardy]

good luck chap what a run around hope it comes good

[Fish78]

Good luck with the Insurance company, hope they pay.

Im surprised they let you put airbags on it though, that's a fairly major mod.

My brother in Law is a Boilermaker, on extended fishing trips up to the Cape he used to stop in at stations and fix their Bull catchers, weld up chassis, fix bar work etc for a bit of cash, paid for the trips he reckons.

The only thing ive heard about chassis repair is that the vehicle is never the same afterwards, the few i know who had this problem (couple of landcruisers and a Pathfinder) sold off the vehicle to be someone else's nightmare lol, as the problems do take awhile to surface, uneven tyre wear, new cracks in chassis, windscreen etc.

[hagus]

Sorry Fish 78, should have been clearer. The airbags are the firestone helper variety.
I'm not that concerned about the chassis repair and I intend to keep the vehicle for a long time to come as we love the set up.

Cheers

[hagus]

Just noticed your location Fish 78, Armidale NSW:eek:.
Born and bred Armidale boy myself. Left there 4.5 years ago for 2 years:D.
On my way back that way shortly;).

[hagus]

Well here we are some 6 weeks after the truck went to Darwin for assessing and still no sighn of it.
The latest news is that the front RH stub axle is stripped which the mechanic says is why I could not drive without the centre diff lock in.

There is a report on the way apparently that outlines a few other things so when I have all the details I will be looking for some advice as to the validity of the prognosis. On the face of it it would seem that I drive essentially a one wheel drive vehicle. If drive is lost to one front wheel the truck wont go. Seems strange to me. What if I jacked the truck up and tried to drive off. Would I not be able to do this?

Having said all that I am a builder and not a mechanic;)

[roverrescue]

A standard defender has three differentials.

-One between front and rear propellor shafts (centre diff)
-One at the front between the half shafts/CVs (front diff)
-One at the rear between the half shafts (rear diff)

The rule of thumb for standard "differential action" is power will go preferentially to the point of LEAST load.
So if you say lift the front left wheel, then 100% of power will go first to front prop shaft then 100% power to front left wheel. Besides brake drag and some binding you shouldnt be able to drive off :)

SO in your case, if you blew up a CV (always possible) then all power would go to the point of least load (broken bits) and make a real clatter.

When you lock the centre diff then the power is evenly split 50% front prop 50% rear prop.

SO when you locked the centre diff, you were driving on half power to rear axle whilst the other half was busy mashing up CV, swivel and hub components.

Hope that helps.
Steve

[hagus]

G'day All

Well I finally got my truck back after some 3 months. It has had the chassis repaired and I have had KAM CV's and axles etc fitted to replace the stripped stub axle that caused me the grief on my holiday.:):):)

Things however are not all rosey as yet. I drove the vehicle back in across the top road through Arnhem Land on Tuesday and had to cross lots of water, (one up to the door handles for some 30+metres). I was replacing rear brake shoes this morning and noticed a significant oil leak from the front right side. Oil was running (pouring)out from the inside of the brake disc. The oil was contaminated with water. I have drained the diff oil, it was overfull, and replaced with new oil. The oil no longer is leaking whilst standing (it was before).

What I am concerned about is whether the bearings are running in the diff oil or seperate oil. The kit I bought off Les Richmond was supplied with inner seals so this makes me think the two areas are separate.

Questions:

How much oil should the swivel hubs hold and how the hell do you check them?

How much oil should the diff run if the swivel hubs are oiled via the diff?

If the diff is filled to the fill level is there any oil getting to the bearings? This is my situation at the moment.

[dmdigital]

Chris, the swivel hubs should have grease in them. From memory EP90 but I can't recall how much.

Rover Diffs take about 2L of oil. As for out to the bearings though I'm not sure either.

[hagus]

G'day Derek

As part of my upgrade/repairs I have the bearings converted to oil. I have out 1.6ishl of oil in the front diff, the book says 1.7. I'm just worried tha the bearings, if runniing on diff oil might not be getting enough oil.

When I drained the diff it spat out about 2l.

Cheers