New chassis v original body

New chassis v original body

Author
Discussion

V41LEY

Original Poster:

2,893 posts

238 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
Has anyone had any issues fitting the original body on a new chassis ? My plan in retirement to restore my currently SORN’ed 450 but I have no experience in doing chassis repairs / welding etc but I reckon I could strip off all the ancillaries; repair restore or replace using all the information available and put it back together including a respray.
I was told it was best to keep the original chassis if possible. Penny for your thoughts.

900T-R

20,404 posts

257 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
V41LEY said:
I was told it was best to keep the original chassis if possible. Penny for your thoughts.
I tend to agree. From a practical POV, when you've stripped the whole lot down to a naked chassis on your own convenience there'll be little difference between sending yours out to be shot blasted, repaired and recoated and getting a new chassis. Retaining the original chassis, however, means there will be no mistaking the identity of the car, for instance when it comes to the internationally accepted 30 year rule for being qualified as a historic vehicle (which may be the sole safeguard we have to keep our cars accepted on public roads in the long term).

However if it's - by reasonable standards - impossible to keep the original chassis as it's too far gone or severe accident damage has been uncovered, make sure that the paperwork clearly states the new chassis is an OEM replacement part specifically for the car with chassis number xxxxxx, and you should be fine.

ianwayne

6,289 posts

268 months

Thursday 17th January 2019
quotequote all
If I had to do it, I'd just stamp the same chassis number on the replacement chassis. There isn't a plaque to transfer. Evidence of a new chassis would be a good selling point, by all means keep it as part of the history but keep DVLA out of it. You could have problems there.

Several on here have replaced a chassis so they may be along to advise otherwise, but there was a Lotus Elan (the front wheel drive version) for sale a while back on ebay where the owner had told DVLA about the changed subframe and ended up with a Q plate. frown

BIG DUNC

1,918 posts

223 months

Friday 18th January 2019
quotequote all
I have heard several stories of Lotus Owners telling DVLA that they have a new chassis and then getting a Q plate in return.

On a Griff, the chassis number is stamped on the cross member which is bolted in. Fit the old cross member to the new chassis.

The cost of outrigger replacement and powder coating will be about half that of a new chassis.

Going back to original post, when my chassis came back with new outriggers fitted, the first thing I did was do a dummy fit, to make sure that it did fit (it was fine). I would do this with either a new or repaired chassis as it would be much easier to rectify the problem at that stage than strip the chassis down again.

LLantrisant

996 posts

159 months

Friday 18th January 2019
quotequote all
i woud never fit an old chassis.

even chassis tubes which look healthy from outside could have already started corroding from inside.

i would always buy a new chassis if one is available.

for protectng it against corrosion, even thee are som controverse opinion existing, i would always zinc-dip or galvanize it.....afterwards you can still apply powder or paint wth your prefereed colour








Edited by LLantrisant on Friday 18th January 20:37

Classic Chim

12,424 posts

149 months

Friday 18th January 2019
quotequote all
Dipping and Galv requires lots of holes drilling so effectively coating both inside and out, weakening the structure to some extent then you have the issue of making those holes sealed from the elements again.

Other than riggers which you’d likely replace anyway what’s wrong with using original chassis as most of it is sealed from the elements unless it is already holed which most are not!

How do you know the tubing on a new chassis is not rusting!

I don’t disagree a new chassis is good but the original ones are hardly crumbling away!


citizen smith

745 posts

181 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
What we need is for a company to make a correct Grade Stainless Steel chassis's, like in the limited production of a SEAC.

SMB

1,513 posts

266 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
BIG DUNC said:
I

On a Griff, the chassis number is stamped on the cross member which is bolted in. Fit the old cross member to the new chassis.
.
Actually it’s not, it stamped into the front cross member that is welded in, nothing is stamped on the bolt in brace. Also bear in mind each chassis has a production date plate on the lower front cross member.

Steve_D

13,746 posts

258 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
Never seen tubes rusting from the inside unless the tube is already open elsewhere. When I cut out a section that is badly pitted, but not holed, the inside is as bright as the new section I'm inserting.

Rumour has it that hot dip galv can cause the chassis to twist or distort plus, as said, you have to drill holes all over the place which is why we use the 'Hot Zinc Spray' process. The spray only produces localized heating of the metal and leaves a coating of zinc the same as galvanizing.

An all stainless chassis would be OK but you would then have registration issues. Land Rovers often have new chassis fitted but the suppliers are registered with DVLA as supplying certified original specification chassis. Obviously stainless steel is not original.

Steve

BIG DUNC

1,918 posts

223 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
SMB said:
Actually it’s not, it stamped into the front cross member that is welded in, nothing is stamped on the bolt in brace. Also bear in mind each chassis has a production date plate on the lower front cross member.
On mine (very early pre cat) it is on the bolt on cross member. Nothing at all on either the upper or lower welded in front cross members.

BIG DUNC

1,918 posts

223 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
Classic Chim said:
Dipping and Galv requires lots of holes drilling so effectively coating both inside and out, weakening the structure to some extent then you have the issue of making those holes sealed from the elements again.

Other than riggers which you’d likely replace anyway what’s wrong with using original chassis as most of it is sealed from the elements unless it is already holed which most are not!

How do you know the tubing on a new chassis is not rusting!

I don’t disagree a new chassis is good but the original ones are hardly crumbling away!
Normally it is only the outriggers that are corroded. I have heard of a few people who have had the main rails corroded, and in those cases, they have fitted a new chassis rather than having them welded, which I would do as well in that position.

A debate on the best coating, whether powder coat, traditional paint, galvanising, epoxy paint or whatever could go on for ever, which each method having pros and cons. As an aside, stainless isn't the be all and end all either. Careful selection of grade is required to avoid cracking and/or corrosion problems down the line, not forgetting a significantly higher material cost.

LLantrisant

996 posts

159 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
Steve_D said:
Never seen tubes rusting from the inside unless the tube is already open elsewhere. When I cut out a section that is badly pitted, but not holed, the inside is as bright as the new section I'm inserting.

Rumour has it that hot dip galv can cause the chassis to twist or distort plus, as said, you have to drill holes all over the place which is why we use the 'Hot Zinc Spray' process. The spray only produces localized heating of the metal and leaves a coating of zinc the same as galvanizing.

An all stainless chassis would be OK but you would then have registration issues. Land Rovers often have new chassis fitted but the suppliers are registered with DVLA as supplying certified original specification chassis. Obviously stainless steel is not original.

Steve
yes...the old rumors about galvanizing....and the other rumor with drilling holes. is weakening the chassis.....all rumors...but nothing is true.

the BEST way for corrosion protection is galvanizing...has been done multiple of times.....even on more tiny spaceframes like lotus-sevenish cars....not pronblem with distortion....and bye-bye corrosion.



BIG DUNC

1,918 posts

223 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
I have seen hot dip galvanising cause distortion and that is probably why hot zinc spray is now common. Effectively it is doing the same thing, although only on the outside, as opposed to on the inside as well if you have drilled lots of holes and dipped it in a tank.

I have also seen a galvanised structure corroded, but it was after surface damage, so it would have corroded whatever kind of surface treatment / coating had been applied.

As I said in my previous post, pros and cons to each type of corrosion prevention.

SMB

1,513 posts

266 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
BIG DUNC said:
SMB said:
Actually it’s not, it stamped into the front cross member that is welded in, nothing is stamped on the bolt in brace. Also bear in mind each chassis has a production date plate on the lower front cross member.
On mine (very early pre cat) it is on the bolt on cross member. Nothing at all on either the upper or lower welded in front cross members.
Interesting, That’s not the norm, a 450 would have it on the front cross member, my 95 and 99 cars both have the stamps 8n the same locations.

I’ve recently refinished my 99 chassis using hot zinc spray, epoxy primer and 2 pack polyester top coat. Vulnerable areas then protected with stone chip.

You can hot dip galvanise but there will be a distortion risk if not done correctly.


Edited by SMB on Saturday 19th January 16:32

BIG DUNC

1,918 posts

223 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
Mine is a very early pre cat Griff and does have plenty of other differences to other pre cat Griffs.

Maybe someone at the factory realised that having all the ID numbers on the bolt in cross member wasn't very sensible?


ianwayne

6,289 posts

268 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
More likely insurance companies and / or DVLA (along with owner feedback) who realised it would make cloning / vehicle id swaps too easy.





fieryfred

240 posts

81 months

Saturday 19th January 2019
quotequote all
I have never done a TVR full chassis re-furb. But i have done lots of motorbikes.
The problem with stamped chassis numbers is that what ever coating you use covers the numbers making them nay on impossible to read.
Who checks them anyway. If i had to change a chassis i would buy a set of stamps.
The only plates that have been checked on my car are the ones in the engine bay held on by pop rivets.
It takes dedication to find & check the stamped engine & chassis number, thats why most people just look at the plates in the engine bay.
I am relaxed & easy about buying a car with a new chassis.