Ping Richard, Badger et al: 110 rear crossmember

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

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

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 , beamendsltd writes

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.

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.

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.