New Galv Chassis Questions

Hi All,

I've had a pretty interesting afternoon speaking to richards and marsland about new galv chassis. Both companies were very friendly and helpful, and both were pretty close on price (within 20 quid or so).

I've read through a tonne of marsland vs richards chassis threads and I'm really none the wiser. I guess there's a few specific questions I'm left with, and I was wondering if people here know the answer (assuming we've got both sets of customers on here):

1) The Marsland chassis comes direct from the LR manufacturer and apparently has the "correct" thicknesses of steel in all the right places for crumples zones etc (I didn't know defender chassis had crumple zones!). Is this true for the richards one, as I gather it's made of thicker steel?

2) I've read some stuff about the type of pressings being different between the 2 companies. I've never been in to proper metal work, so I get a bit lost at this point... should I care?

3) I've read a couple of things about Richards chassis not lining up with everything correctly. Is this mostly bodywork fixing holes, or is it more likely to be engine mounts? I'd be getting a v8 spec 110 chassis. Is this misalignment stuff from the early days on the company, or a current problem? Anyone with recent experience?

I'm unable to choose between them at the moment, but the answers to the above questions should solve it for me. I'd say that mars's fact about being from the current LR manufacturer is a big plus, but then Richards also have a big plus around stamps. I wont say anymore, but you will know what I'm on about.

answers greatly appreciated.

Adam

Not dealt with either - yet! however Marshland will come with TD5 type rear crossmember (with the hole), I believe Richards will come with whichever you order. If you have towbar from a non-Td5 type crossmember then it wont fit a TD5 style as the fitting holes are different. Not a real issue but could be added cost if you need to buy a new one

I rebuilt my 90 on a Richards chassis last year. Everything lined up perfect.
Very pleased with it and would definitely use again.

My 90's on a Marshland, my mates 90 is on a Richards, neither of us did the rebuild tho, we've both done a lot on the trucks I can't say either was easier to work on, neither had issues.

If there's no price advantage either way, I'd go with the Richards having seen the two close up, it just looks more robust, the metal is noticably thicker IMO.

Note I'm not saying the Marshland is not robust, it's robustness goes up to 10 on the Spinal Tap scale, the Richards goes up to 11 tho :lol:

I'm near J11 on the A14 if you want to pop over and have a look at the Marshland.

Thanks all, and thanks for the offer pumpy.

I guess the thickness thing was what I couldn't work out was a positive or a negative. Marsland specifically mentiones about the 2mm sections and 3mm sections being based around crumple zone design. Perhaps I don't really need to be worrying about crumple zones... It is a defender after all.

Think both chassis are as good as each other although years ago peeps did complain with on richards chassis customers had to clean out the galv from some / all the small holes but other than that they are both equal to each other

Marslands come with a crash compliance certificate [emoji106] Richards chassis don't [emoji107] prob don't mean much really [emoji12] I built my lightweight on a Richards and had to make my own mounts for the engine due to them welding them on in the wrong place [emoji90] also had to modify a steering box to fit on another project which had been modified to fit defender power steering box but they welded number 1 crossmember on in the wrong place [emoji90] theme going on there [emoji15][emoji15][emoji383]

Marslands for me, the build quality was first class

Yeh forgot to say mine on my build is a MARSLANDS [emoji41][emoji41][emoji41]

farmershort said:

Thanks all, and thanks for the offer pumpy.

I guess the thickness thing was what I couldn't work out was a positive or a negative. Marsland specifically mentiones about the 2mm sections and 3mm sections being based around crumple zone design. Perhaps I don't really need to be worrying about crumple zones... It is a defender after all.

Click to expand...

You will if you T Bone someone in an accident and your poorly designed Richards chassis sends the car occupant's into intensive care.

nobber said:

You will if you T Bone someone in an accident.

Click to expand...

Good point. I suspect no one is going to admit if their Richards chassis has ever passed a full locus & vehicle report from a crash investigator.

nobber said:

You will if you T Bone someone in an accident and your poorly designed Richards chassis sends the car occupant's into intensive care.

Click to expand...

Doubt it

farmershort said:

Good point. I suspect no one is going to admit if their Richards chassis has ever passed a full locus & vehicle report from a crash investigator.

Click to expand...

I doubt an original Defender chassis would be soft towards other vehicles in the event of an accident but you have to ask yourself, do you really need a stronger chassis than original?

Not a Defender but you get the idea.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW1GPvKIBxE

so, I've had a couple more days to get some more answers on this stuff.

Marsland chassis do not come with any sort of crash-compliance paperwork... they come with a cert of authenticity.... I'm pretty sure that'd count for exactly the same as a receipt in a crash situation.

Marsland have a v8 chassis in stock, but the mounts will be for a standard 3.5v8 with standard gearbox (would this be an LT85?). I will be using a modified 3.9v8 probably with an r380 box (albeit in some sort of v8 pattern bell housing)... I assume the engine mounts from 3.5 to 3.9 engines are the same, but I'm not so sure about the transmission.

Marsland are sticking to the less favourable interpretation when it comes to chassis stamping.

I was all set to buy marsland, but having found out the above, I think it's tipped the balance to richards. They seem more accommodating of understand the spec of the vehicle, and will offer whatever config I want... there's also the stamping thingy, and the fact that they supply galv turret tops too is nice.

As long as the "lining things up" issue is something from the past, then it looks like richards has tipped the balance slightly. There's no need for a thicker chassis, I know, but several of the other benefits seem important to me.

I galvanise the Richards chassis and must say they look very well made and I will have no hesitation of ordering one later this year for my rebuild.

XRIZLAX said:

I galvanise the Richards chassis and must say they look very well made and I will have no hesitation of ordering one later this year for my rebuild.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that

For the record, this thread is as much about the trying to correct some of the misinformation on the interweb, as it is about my few questions.

I've found there's a whole stack of info from other sites and forums which just prattle on about imagined issues from people who've never actually done the swap.

I should add that I don't think that this is the case with anyone in this thread, and that's great. I just hope this thread might help out someone else in the future.

As I said earlier, I fitted a Richard's chassis to my 90 last year. Everything lined up good with no problems at all.

Thanks you have also made my mind up... Could make my mind up until now.. Planing to change in August... Q.. Stainless bolts don't react with galvanising do they..?

Think all dissimilar metals can react with each other. When ever I fit any galv parts to me truck, and as I can galv my own parts, i have lots , I always T wash etch prime and paint.
Oh and Marmaduke, them there radius arms etc are looking nice, galved, painted and new bushes fitted waiting to go in, cheers for the parts cocker.