Rear cross member bent at each end?

[dcale]

Hi Guys,
Was looking at the rear cross member to fabricate some rear protection and noticed that from about the jack lift point to the edge the bar bends in about 4mm, both sides. Is it meant to be straight or is this normal?

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

[justinc]

Should be a nice straight face all the way across.

Someone has been touch parking I guess? :wasntme:


JC

[dcale]

It's been there since New!!. I guess l really did get the Friday afternoon build. The bend is similar both sides. See photo it shows the rear cross member going behind the extremity of the body.


Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

[justinc]

Hmm, have you checked the body isn't the issue? The body panels are referenced to the bulkhead, EVERYTHING back from there will be out by a factor of X magnified by each door gap etc etc if that isn't right. A straight edge across the rear crossmember will confirm.
Also, the words defender and panel alignment are total opposites :)
JC

[Xtreme]

No worries there mate - that's not bent at all.








This is bent ..........................















https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/11/530.jpg

This one not caused by touch parking though JC :rolleyes:

[dcale]

Yeah, I put a straight edge on it, and it is definitely bent. Mine is a 2009, so maybe it's a puma thing? as I found some pictures on the web that seam to have the same gap. Would love someone who has a puma to check their rear end to compare?

Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk 2

[Xtreme]

Common fitment as found in Td5's also - the rear quarter panel does extend beyond the chassis cross member by about 4 or 5mm.
Here's a photo of my 2003 model, and although I hadn't put a straight edge on the rear chassis member until a few minutes ago, you're right, the cross member is bent forward about 3 or 4mm.

So it's not exclusive to Puma's.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/11/514.jpg

[rijidij]

Yep, late model Defender chassis bend in at the ends, I don't know the reason for it, but I've had to allow for this with the dual rear bars I'm making. I'm not sure how far back this change to the chassis goes, but the Pumas I've fitted rear bars to have all had the bent chassis. Fortunately the bars are mounted on rubber gaskets, so I just add an extra 3mm gasket to the ends.

Cheers, Murray

[The Cone of Silence]

Mine has a bend on the starboard side.

This was a result of me installing a hi-lift jack carrier and overtightening the nuts on the for'ard end (nearest the wheel) and before I'd realised that it has compressed the rear cross member, it was too late.

As it needs to be nice and straight (flush with the rear and vertically straight too) for the wheel carrier, this will need fixing at some point. Not sure how, but we'll find a way.

[BilboBoggles]

All TD5 onwards have some bend. Some worse than others. Apparently started when they switched chassis manufacturers many years ago. You'll notice that the body no longer bolts directly to the back chassis, but has a spacer now. The old series landrovers did bolt to the flat part of the rear crossmember - and were perfectly flat. But after about 2000ish they are banana'd.

[rick130]

All TD5 onwards have some bend. Some worse than others. Apparently started when they switched chassis manufacturers many years ago. You'll notice that the body no longer bolts directly to the back chassis, but has a spacer now. The old series landrovers did bolt to the flat part of the rear crossmember - and were perfectly flat. But after about 2000ish they are banana'd.

That's interesting.

I know Thompson (or Thomson ?) used to make the Disco chassis, but I was always under the impression the 110 chassis was made in-house, and the 130, at least early on, was made/modified out of the 110 chassis by LRSV

[Didge]

..... I'm not sure how far back this change to the chassis goes, .......
Cheers, Murray

Goes as far back as May 95 - approx the same 3 or 4 mm each side. That's a relief anyway, I thought I'd done it.