Check your crossmembers

Wabbitkilla · June 16, 2012, 23:20

I am now onto no.3 in 100,000miles.
This is the one I've just taken off the car

Basically you could just poke it with your finger and break bits off!

smarty72 · June 16, 2012, 23:26

Is that the bit you see when you look directly down st the rear of the engine? Mine, as was others I looked at was grey, do they come out if the factory in grey regardless of the colour of the car?

steve-m-uk · June 16, 2012, 23:30

Yes,they were all grey. This one looked fine from above but was rusted from the inside out.

smarty72 · June 16, 2012, 23:34

I was concerned as my local garage told me it must have been replaced as it was grey, then I looked at Barney bears (possibly the cleanest car I've ever seen) which was grey too and I stopped worrying s:D

s:D

Anonymous · June 17, 2012, 06:50

Mines grey and looks pretty mint. s:D

s:D

Stephster · June 17, 2012, 08:37

Mine was replaced by previous owner at 135k as car failed the MOT due to it being rusted through.

FGrob · June 17, 2012, 09:09

I think the only true way to at least keep the risk to a minimum, is to buy a new one, get it chemically stripped and then have an E coat applied - (the same as the shell), then get it painted and wax injected, expensive but at least you know the starting point of the crossmember.

It's heat from the exhaust that does not help forming condensation on the inside of the chassis, certainly during winter. I have fitted some heat matting to the chassis to stop at least some of this happening.

Rob

normanh · June 17, 2012, 12:00

Gee this is worrying look at the level of rust present!

norman

Steve Green · June 17, 2012, 13:55

Does anyone have a part number and price for the part?

Is it something that could be blasted, repaired and powder-coated or would that be a false economy.

steve-m-uk · June 17, 2012, 14:01

The one on Nic's car was previously powder coated, we thought that this would prevent the ingress of corrosion but it appears not s:(

s:(

ChrisGB · June 17, 2012, 14:07

If you are taking the trouble to strip it back to bare metal, you may as well galvanise it.

Chris

Wabbitkilla · June 17, 2012, 14:17

51206‑17040
MEMBER SUB-ASSY, REAR SUSPENSION
£236 EX VAT

I obtained mine 2nd hand from a breaker for £60 delivered.
Powder coated for £50
Fully internally treated with Dinitrol rust converter and wax £50
Sealed all openings bar the drain holes with Sicaflex sealant

The one you see here rusted was an earlier replacement I had powder coated too, but not internally treated.
The rust had broken through and looked for all the world like a crack and small hole. When I poked it after removal it just started to cave in. This area is directly behind the idle drive joint on the back of the engine and the beam seems to get constantly wet from it.

This map gives an indication of the corrosion areas of Britain and yes, I live in one of the higher areas!
m http://corrosion-doctors.org/AtmCorros/mapUK.htm m
I have seen these repaired, but the repairs were pretty ropey and seemed to attract even more corrosion s:roll: :roll: s:roll:

I would solidly recommend anyone with a car that is approaching high mileage, doesn't have a garage to pull the rubber plugs on their beams and treat the interior with a spray applied rust converter then a wax treatment.

Sorry Rob, but as your car sees nothing like the mileage or all-year-round weather then your hard work doesn't prove what you do protects the car at all. It may be nice & clean but it's no demonstration of what works.

For info, the experts recommend acid strip and e-coat, fabulously expensive s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

Galvanizing is not an option and not recommended as it can twist the beam and considering your rear suspension is attached to it you need to make sure everything is the shape it's supposed to be! I did explore this option. s:? :? s:?

FGrob · June 17, 2012, 15:08

Quote from: "Wabbitkilla"Sorry Rob, but as your car sees nothing like the mileage or all-year-round weather then your hard work doesn't prove what you do protects the car at all. It may be nice & clean but it's no demonstration of what works.

For info, the experts recommend acid strip and e-coat, fabulously expensive s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

Galvanizing is not an option and not recommended as it can twist the beam and considering your rear suspension is attached to it you need to make sure everything is the shape it's supposed to be! I did explore this option. s:? :? s:?

Well Nic I understand what you are saying, but if you remember I did tell you that powder coating is porous and will allow corrosion to build up underneath the coating - just like what happened to your beam (I have seen complete sections of powder coating peel off and leave the base metal rusting underneath - this was at JCB), combine that with the none coating of the internals then you end up with what you have got - a big hole. A good powder coating should be put on top of a phosphated coating (similar to E coat process), which is what I had done to my chassis on my Spitfire, 20 years later it's still like new even though it's not being used it's been subject to many different ambient conditions over the years

It's the first time I've been called an expert, but if you are thinking of keeping the car then it's a consideration (E coat), I've gone a different route as I already know the condition of the crossmember, nylon (which is used for coating internals of valves in the water industry) chemically bonds to the base material unlike powder coating which just covers the crossmember.

I've had a lot of time to mess about with coatings (26 years on the Spitfire), so although my car does not see the conditions of most vehicles I understand which is the best method of protecting it in the long term.

Rob.

Wabbitkilla · June 17, 2012, 15:17

Actually considering what you've said Rob, the coaters used a zinc primer on mine this time too s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

FGrob · June 17, 2012, 15:50

Quote from: "Wabbitkilla"Actually considering what you've said Rob, the coaters used a zinc primer on mine this time too s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

That will certainly help Nic.

The thing is although my car may look shiney it's not the only reason I've done what I have, I look at the long term prospect of keeping the car and certainly the crossmember is a weak point and therefore I made a decision to do something about it early on in the cars life, the problems that we see happening now are a result of most members buying cars from previous owners (not all I will add) who had no real consideration for the long term prospects of keeping the car, it's a fact I'm afraid.

Rob

spit · June 17, 2012, 18:52

Here's another one that doesn't look too bright (and the coated beam that ultimately replaced it). X reg 90k, happily used!

This had been through a successful MOT the previous month. Either a bent or blind tester s:shock: :shock: s:shock: . Same area of damage as Nic's with a tatty Mig repair and a little extra ventilation adjacent to the offside driveshaft/CV.

As Nic says, check your crossmembers .... and certainly don't tell yourself that a 12 month ticket means you shouldn't bother.

Wabbitkilla · June 17, 2012, 20:52

Indeed mine had passed MOT only a couple of months beforehand ... but the initial hole was well hidden from view. I only spotted it when replacing the alternator.

Anonymous · June 17, 2012, 20:57

The last car I stripped was one of the first registered. Didnt even have bin lids behind seats. Cross member was near perfect!

kentsmudger · June 17, 2012, 21:31

Is replacement just a bolt-off, bolt-on operation, or do you need to re-align suspension etc afterwards? - Any other parts attached to it, that are going to be seized or similarly knackered, that need replacing at the same time?

Wabbitkilla · June 17, 2012, 21:38

Quote from: "kentsmudger"Is replacement just a bolt-off, bolt-on operation, or do you need to re-align suspension etc afterwards? - Any other parts attached to it, that are going to be seized or similarly knackered, that need replacing at the same time?

It is all bolted in place, the suspension arms bushed can be seized in place, so worth watching out for.
There is a gearbox "engine mount" attached which just unbolts too.
The abs wire holders are bolted at each end too.
You WILL need a realignment afterwards.

I managed to get mine out without removing the exhaust .. but it's fiddly s:scared: :scared: s:scared: (i.e. lots of swearing)

Anonymous · June 17, 2012, 21:41

The tie bar bolts can be siezed into the crossmember, particularly the camber bolts. If you apply too much force its easy to twist the metal of the crossmember. Only important if youre putting it back! Worst case, new bolts required, about £15 each.
Rear geo will need to be done afterward.

FGrob · June 18, 2012, 06:25

Just one thing to remember, when undoing the the bolts which hold the arms to the chassis, undo the bolt head and not the nut as this has a securing lugs built in which lock it into the chassis, that's why sometimes it's difficult to spot a loose bolts as the nut head will not move. Same goes for when you torque them up again - bolt head.

Rob.

Wabbitkilla · June 18, 2012, 09:18

One of the problems with these beams is that they have open orifices on the ends next to the wheels.
All the wet (and salt in winter months) gets sprayed around there and it stands to reason some will get into the beam.
It is actually still rare for this kind of damage to occur ... it seems to affect cars that live outside 100% of the time, and Skipton is a fairly damp environment most of the year s:cry: :cry: s:cry:

Anonymous · June 18, 2012, 18:17

Might be worth noting that the crossmember got modified at facelift time. Additional bracing was fitted and holes to capture fixing bolts created. Its therefore important if you have a later car, to get the later member.
For early cars, any xmember will do the job.

MattPerformance · June 19, 2012, 07:24

I've certainly seen a lot of holed crossmembers (aka rear sub-frame). As D!ck points out, if you're replacing one the track arm bolts (I'm sure that's what he meant as opposed to camber bolts s:wink: :wink: s:wink: ) are often seized and generally impossible to remove without destroying them so it may be best to get the track arms with the replacement member.

MOT stations generally can't see it when the undertrays are on which might explain why it shows up on some tests and not others. (These days, having the undertrays on at MOT is an advisory notice pointing out that they cannot see components covered by them!).

That said, I reckon Nic's experience of having to replace it three times is not typical, but I certainly agree that checking it and doing what you can to arrest any corrosion that might be present (specifically the area where the exhaust passes) is a vital step.