Ping Richard, Badger et al: 110 rear crossmember

Found a hole yesterday where one shouldn't be. It's about 1/4 inch
across at the bottom back edge where it's rust-blistered. It looks
expensive, or at least troublesome.

The MOT is due in September so I've a little time, and I'm wondering if
I should weld it up for the time being or go the whole hog and replace.
I have a good MIG set and time, but not indoor space tall enough to get
the Landy in. I'm guessing it involves at least lifting the back of the
body and removing the tank temporarily (deep joy! I _hated_ that job
last time)

Two questions then: how awkward is it to do a rear crossmember , and
should I go galv or normal? I understand the problems of having to weld
galv - or at least having to grind it off round the welds. If I can
patch it, what are the MOT issues?

Regards,

Simonm.

PS: Richard, if I want one, how much is a crossmember?

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

"SpamTrapSeeSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Found a hole yesterday where one shouldn't be. It's about 1/4 inch
> across at the bottom back edge where it's rust-blistered. It looks
> expensive, or at least troublesome.
>
> The MOT is due in September so I've a little time, and I'm wondering if
> I should weld it up for the time being or go the whole hog and replace.
> I have a good MIG set and time, but not indoor space tall enough to get
> the Landy in. I'm guessing it involves at least lifting the back of the
> body and removing the tank temporarily (deep joy! I _hated_ that job
> last time)
>
> Two questions then: how awkward is it to do a rear crossmember , and
> should I go galv or normal? I understand the problems of having to weld
> galv - or at least having to grind it off round the welds. If I can
> patch it, what are the MOT issues?

No probs patching for MOT, as long as it's continuous seam weld with no
blow-holes etc etc.
Badger.

In message <[email protected]>
SpamTrapSeeSig <[email protected]> wrote:

> Found a hole yesterday where one shouldn't be. It's about 1/4 inch
> across at the bottom back edge where it's rust-blistered. It looks
> expensive, or at least troublesome.
>
> The MOT is due in September so I've a little time, and I'm wondering if
> I should weld it up for the time being or go the whole hog and replace.
> I have a good MIG set and time, but not indoor space tall enough to get
> the Landy in. I'm guessing it involves at least lifting the back of the
> body and removing the tank temporarily (deep joy! I _hated_ that job
> last time)
>
> Two questions then: how awkward is it to do a rear crossmember , and
> should I go galv or normal? I understand the problems of having to weld
> galv - or at least having to grind it off round the welds. If I can
> patch it, what are the MOT issues?
>
> Regards,
>
> Simonm.
>
> PS: Richard, if I want one, how much is a crossmember?
>

Welding it up is fine - quite often the ends fall off before
the middle section is beyond plating.

Crossmember some in two flavours - with or without extensions.

With the body on fitting a plain one to a 90 or 110 is very
awkward - gettting access to weld on the new is difficult, to
say the least. The tank etc would have to come out on a 110
anyway.

On a 110, the extensions go right up to the crossmember in front
of the tank, but as you'd have to take the tank (and tow hitch
if fitted, same for anti-roll bar if fitted) off anyway and
lift the floor (bench seats out to allow that) you are likely
to get a much better result using the extensions.

In short, it's a dammed sight easier, if somewhat more expensive,
to fit a crossmember with extensions.

Now the interestng bit! Our Gary recently did his MOT top-up
course, and if you take the wording along the lines of "failure
of the rusty bit will affect the steering or brakes" then
a knackerd rear crossmember is not a failure - nowhere is it
pointed out the a 3.5 ton trailer could be hanging on it!

You'd best get it sorted out though, since not many testers would
let it go, and it would be a tad dangerous anyway.

ANR2056 Rear Crossmember - NO Extensions- Defender to WA159806
£88.67 inc VAT
DA4020 Rear Crossmember - 110/130 (With Extensions)- Defender
to WA159806
£164.50 inc VAT

either £6.50 delivery.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

>
> Now the interestng bit! Our Gary recently did his MOT top-up
> course, and if you take the wording along the lines of "failure
> of the rusty bit will affect the steering or brakes" then
> a knackerd rear crossmember is not a failure - nowhere is it
> pointed out the a 3.5 ton trailer could be hanging on it!
>
It would fail on section 6.1, body security, reason for failure 3......

"Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which seriously
affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."

As the rear crosmember has body mountings along it, it would fail if the
corrosion was within a 30cm sphere from any of the mountings.

"SimonJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Now the interestng bit! Our Gary recently did his MOT top-up
> > course, and if you take the wording along the lines of "failure
> > of the rusty bit will affect the steering or brakes" then
> > a knackerd rear crossmember is not a failure - nowhere is it
> > pointed out the a 3.5 ton trailer could be hanging on it!
> >
> It would fail on section 6.1, body security, reason for failure 3......
>
> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
> inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which seriously
> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
>
> As the rear crosmember has body mountings along it, it would fail if the
> corrosion was within a 30cm sphere from any of the mountings.

Yet it also states in reference to the body mounts something about "corroded
or weakened to such an extent that the body is insecure on the chassis" (NOT
exact wording), implying, as I understand it (and backed up by VOSA in
Inverness) that one or two of the rearmost mounts being corroded on a
defender or disco is NOT on it's own a reason for fail, only advisory. Going
on that theory, it is plausible that the extreme end of one side of the rear
crossmember being corroded is not a fail, only advisory! A crazy situation.
I had to pass a discovery earlier in the year with both rear mounts corroded
because the body was still securely attached to the chassis, I wasn't happy
about it but couldn't find anything I could use even as refusal to test or
to abort the test.
Badger.

In article <e6a5f1384e%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> writes
>Crossmember some in two flavours - with or without extensions.
>
>With the body on fitting a plain one to a 90 or 110 is very awkward -
>getting access to weld on the new is difficult, to say the least.
>The tank etc. would have to come out on a 110 anyway.
>
>On a 110, the extensions go right up to the crossmember in front of the
>tank, but as you'd have to take the tank (and tow hitch if fitted, same
>for anti-roll bar if fitted) off anyway and lift the floor (bench seats
>out to allow that) you are likely to get a much better result using the
>extensions.
>
>In short, it's a dammed sight easier, if somewhat more expensive,
>to fit a crossmember with extensions.
>
>DA4020 Rear Crossmember - 110/130 (With Extensions)- Defender to
>WA159806 £164.50 inc VAT
>
>either £6.50 delivery.
>
>Richard

Thanks both very much indeed.

[written last night] I've just got in after an unintended day on the
roof: eight foot lead gully held on with 1 (one) clout nail half way
down, split horizontally near the top and gummed to the felt 8-( ).
Deep joy, but at least it wasn't blowing a storm like last time!

So I think I've fixed the roof, but I now don't have time to even look
properly at the crossmember for a week or two.

The extended version sounds like a plan though. Richard, do I assume
correctly that the extensions basically replace the rear section of the
longitudinal frames too (i.e. chop off and weld just behind the next
crossmember forrard) or am I misunderstanding? If you can point me to a
pic. of the replacement part I'm sure it will make sense.

On the plus side, it's an excuse to finally Galvafroid the back bit,
which I've been putting off for ages (had the tin, but not the
enthusiasm!).

Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, BRISTOL UK www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

>> > Now the interestng bit! Our Gary recently did his MOT top-up
>> > course, and if you take the wording along the lines of "failure
>> > of the rusty bit will affect the steering or brakes" then
>> > a knackerd rear crossmember is not a failure - nowhere is it
>> > pointed out the a 3.5 ton trailer could be hanging on it!
>> >
>> It would fail on section 6.1, body security, reason for failure 3......
>>
>> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
>> inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which
>> seriously
>> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
>>
>> As the rear crosmember has body mountings along it, it would fail if the
>> corrosion was within a 30cm sphere from any of the mountings.
>
> Yet it also states in reference to the body mounts something about
> "corroded
> or weakened to such an extent that the body is insecure on the chassis"
> (NOT
> exact wording), implying, as I understand it (and backed up by VOSA in
> Inverness) that one or two of the rearmost mounts being corroded on a
> defender or disco is NOT on it's own a reason for fail, only advisory.
> Going
> on that theory, it is plausible that the extreme end of one side of the
> rear
> crossmember being corroded is not a fail, only advisory! A crazy
> situation.
> I had to pass a discovery earlier in the year with both rear mounts
> corroded
> because the body was still securely attached to the chassis, I wasn't
> happy
> about it but couldn't find anything I could use even as refusal to test or
> to abort the test.
>
You could not fail it on body security, as you say, because the corrosion
has to be such that the body could move on the chassis to cause possible
danger to other motorists, or loss of control.
(exact wording from testers manual).........
"insecurity of the body or its supporting members to the chassis so that it
is clear that there would be a danger to other road users."

You could however fail it on body condition, which treats body mounting
points in exactly the same way as seatbelt mounting points, or suspension
mounting points, eg the body mounting points form the centre of a 30cm
sphere which then becomes 'prescribed area' for the purposes of corrosion
assessment.
(exact wording from testers manual).........
"Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which seriously
affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."

The rear crossmember is a load bearing chassis member, if it has excessive
corrosion within 30 cm of a body mounting (the tags along the back of the
crossmember are body mountings) then it clearly fails on this criteria.

In the case of the disco with both rear mounts corroded, it is a load
bearing member, it is excessively corroded, and it is within 30cm of the
body mounts. Again, clearly a fail.

"SimonJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> > Now the interestng bit! Our Gary recently did his MOT top-up
> >> > course, and if you take the wording along the lines of "failure
> >> > of the rusty bit will affect the steering or brakes" then
> >> > a knackerd rear crossmember is not a failure - nowhere is it
> >> > pointed out the a 3.5 ton trailer could be hanging on it!
> >> >
> >> It would fail on section 6.1, body security, reason for failure 3......
> >>
> >> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
> >> inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which
> >> seriously
> >> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
> >>
> >> As the rear crosmember has body mountings along it, it would fail if
the
> >> corrosion was within a 30cm sphere from any of the mountings.
> >
> > Yet it also states in reference to the body mounts something about
> > "corroded
> > or weakened to such an extent that the body is insecure on the chassis"
> > (NOT
> > exact wording), implying, as I understand it (and backed up by VOSA in
> > Inverness) that one or two of the rearmost mounts being corroded on a
> > defender or disco is NOT on it's own a reason for fail, only advisory.
> > Going
> > on that theory, it is plausible that the extreme end of one side of the
> > rear
> > crossmember being corroded is not a fail, only advisory! A crazy
> > situation.
> > I had to pass a discovery earlier in the year with both rear mounts
> > corroded
> > because the body was still securely attached to the chassis, I wasn't
> > happy
> > about it but couldn't find anything I could use even as refusal to test
or
> > to abort the test.
> >
> You could not fail it on body security, as you say, because the corrosion
> has to be such that the body could move on the chassis to cause possible
> danger to other motorists, or loss of control.
> (exact wording from testers manual).........
> "insecurity of the body or its supporting members to the chassis so that
it
> is clear that there would be a danger to other road users."
>
> You could however fail it on body condition, which treats body mounting
> points in exactly the same way as seatbelt mounting points, or suspension
> mounting points, eg the body mounting points form the centre of a 30cm
> sphere which then becomes 'prescribed area' for the purposes of corrosion
> assessment.
> (exact wording from testers manual).........
> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
> inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which seriously
> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
>
> The rear crossmember is a load bearing chassis member, if it has excessive
> corrosion within 30 cm of a body mounting (the tags along the back of the
> crossmember are body mountings) then it clearly fails on this criteria.
>
> In the case of the disco with both rear mounts corroded, it is a load
> bearing member, it is excessively corroded, and it is within 30cm of the
> body mounts. Again, clearly a fail.

Yet VOSA's man when quizzed (and he knows his landrovers, believe me!)
stated that the corroded body mount is not a fail. The load-bearing-member
description seems to imply the bit the body is bolted to, not the mount on
the body itself.
Badger.

>> >> > Now the interestng bit! Our Gary recently did his MOT top-up
>> >> > course, and if you take the wording along the lines of "failure
>> >> > of the rusty bit will affect the steering or brakes" then
>> >> > a knackerd rear crossmember is not a failure - nowhere is it
>> >> > pointed out the a 3.5 ton trailer could be hanging on it!
>> >> >
>> >> It would fail on section 6.1, body security, reason for failure
>> >> 3......
>> >>
>> >> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
>> >> inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which
>> >> seriously
>> >> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
>> >>
>> >> As the rear crosmember has body mountings along it, it would fail if
> the
>> >> corrosion was within a 30cm sphere from any of the mountings.
>> >
>> > Yet it also states in reference to the body mounts something about
>> > "corroded
>> > or weakened to such an extent that the body is insecure on the chassis"
>> > (NOT
>> > exact wording), implying, as I understand it (and backed up by VOSA in
>> > Inverness) that one or two of the rearmost mounts being corroded on a
>> > defender or disco is NOT on it's own a reason for fail, only advisory.
>> > Going
>> > on that theory, it is plausible that the extreme end of one side of the
>> > rear
>> > crossmember being corroded is not a fail, only advisory! A crazy
>> > situation.
>> > I had to pass a discovery earlier in the year with both rear mounts
>> > corroded
>> > because the body was still securely attached to the chassis, I wasn't
>> > happy
>> > about it but couldn't find anything I could use even as refusal to test
> or
>> > to abort the test.
>> >
>> You could not fail it on body security, as you say, because the corrosion
>> has to be such that the body could move on the chassis to cause possible
>> danger to other motorists, or loss of control.
>> (exact wording from testers manual).........
>> "insecurity of the body or its supporting members to the chassis so that
> it
>> is clear that there would be a danger to other road users."
>>
>> You could however fail it on body condition, which treats body mounting
>> points in exactly the same way as seatbelt mounting points, or suspension
>> mounting points, eg the body mounting points form the centre of a 30cm
>> sphere which then becomes 'prescribed area' for the purposes of corrosion
>> assessment.
>> (exact wording from testers manual).........
>> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
>> inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which
>> seriously
>> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
>>
>> The rear crossmember is a load bearing chassis member, if it has
>> excessive
>> corrosion within 30 cm of a body mounting (the tags along the back of the
>> crossmember are body mountings) then it clearly fails on this criteria.
>>
>> In the case of the disco with both rear mounts corroded, it is a load
>> bearing member, it is excessively corroded, and it is within 30cm of the
>> body mounts. Again, clearly a fail.
>
> Yet VOSA's man when quizzed (and he knows his landrovers, believe me!)
> stated that the corroded body mount is not a fail. The load-bearing-member
> description seems to imply the bit the body is bolted to, not the mount on
> the body itself.
>
I'm not sure where he gets that interpretation from, given the wording of
the manual, but at the end of the day its his word that counts!
If you get the chance to ask him, it would be interesting to know how he
defines it as a pass.

SimonJ wrote:
>>>>>> Now the interestng bit! Our Gary recently did his MOT top-up
>>>>>> course, and if you take the wording along the lines of "failure
>>>>>> of the rusty bit will affect the steering or brakes" then
>>>>>> a knackerd rear crossmember is not a failure - nowhere is it
>>>>>> pointed out the a 3.5 ton trailer could be hanging on it!
>>>>>>
>>>>> It would fail on section 6.1, body security, reason for failure
>>>>> 3......
>>>>>
>>>>> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks
>>>>> or inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member
>>>>> which seriously
>>>>> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
>>>>>
>>>>> As the rear crosmember has body mountings along it, it would fail
>>>>> if the corrosion was within a 30cm sphere from any of the
>>>>> mountings.
>>>>
>>>> Yet it also states in reference to the body mounts something about
>>>> "corroded
>>>> or weakened to such an extent that the body is insecure on the
>>>> chassis" (NOT
>>>> exact wording), implying, as I understand it (and backed up by
>>>> VOSA in Inverness) that one or two of the rearmost mounts being
>>>> corroded on a defender or disco is NOT on it's own a reason for
>>>> fail, only advisory. Going
>>>> on that theory, it is plausible that the extreme end of one side
>>>> of the rear
>>>> crossmember being corroded is not a fail, only advisory! A crazy
>>>> situation.
>>>> I had to pass a discovery earlier in the year with both rear mounts
>>>> corroded
>>>> because the body was still securely attached to the chassis, I
>>>> wasn't happy
>>>> about it but couldn't find anything I could use even as refusal to
>>>> test or to abort the test.
>>>>
>>> You could not fail it on body security, as you say, because the
>>> corrosion has to be such that the body could move on the chassis to
>>> cause possible danger to other motorists, or loss of control.
>>> (exact wording from testers manual).........
>>> "insecurity of the body or its supporting members to the chassis so
>>> that it is clear that there would be a danger to other road users."
>>>
>>> You could however fail it on body condition, which treats body
>>> mounting points in exactly the same way as seatbelt mounting
>>> points, or suspension mounting points, eg the body mounting points
>>> form the centre of a 30cm sphere which then becomes 'prescribed
>>> area' for the purposes of corrosion assessment.
>>> (exact wording from testers manual).........
>>> "Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, cracks or
>>> inadequate repair of a load bearing body or chassis member which
>>> seriously
>>> affects its strength within 30 cm of the body mountings."
>>>
>>> The rear crossmember is a load bearing chassis member, if it has
>>> excessive
>>> corrosion within 30 cm of a body mounting (the tags along the back
>>> of the crossmember are body mountings) then it clearly fails on
>>> this criteria. In the case of the disco with both rear mounts corroded, it is
>>> a
>>> load bearing member, it is excessively corroded, and it is within
>>> 30cm of the body mounts. Again, clearly a fail.
>>
>> Yet VOSA's man when quizzed (and he knows his landrovers, believe
>> me!) stated that the corroded body mount is not a fail. The
>> load-bearing-member description seems to imply the bit the body is
>> bolted to, not the mount on the body itself.
>>
> I'm not sure where he gets that interpretation from, given the
> wording of the manual, but at the end of the day its his word that
> counts! If you get the chance to ask him, it would be interesting to know how
> he defines it as a pass.

Guess the argument is the chassis and its extensions are load bearing whereas the
body isn't it's the load what is being bourne. Inlike a monocoque which is by
definition load bearing. Quite where that leaves a body corroded away at the
mounting is anyone's guess.

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!