Another dual cab bent chassis

Sorry to hear about this mate,
I wish all the best in the fight you are undertaking.

Cheers
Dave

That looks like a lot of weight hanging past the rear wheels.

Sorry to see this kind or thing happen.
Still it reinforces my belief that heavier leaf spings are fine but when air bellows are also added the strain on the chassis usually has detremental results.

Hope he has a good result with Mitshubishi but I doubt it

Cheers Teza

On the other forum the owner argues fairly persuasively that it was correctly loaded. When I saw the two wheels way out the back I jumped to the obvious conclusion of too much weight at the rear. This may not have been so. As writers on the other forum have suggested the engineering explanation is more complex.

However one thing is certain, some combination of forces, loads, twists, flexing jolts etc stressed the chassis beyond its limits.

Moral of the story. If you want to travel loaded up like that bloke was, get a heavier capacity vehicle like a Landcruiser or Patrol and be spared the worry of when a bent chassis will happen to you. Forget the dual cabs, They are not the right tool for that job.

Moral two. If using a lighter vehicle pack even lighter and tow nothing and have an enjoyable holiday.

Flynnie

All explanations above are feasible.

But even then, one would expect that the chassis of all things have a safety factor engineered into them to avoid this kind of damage?

CJ

I am going to presume that this situation does not apply to a single cab/chassis with a tray and canopy.

Am I correct?

There was a story awhile ago in a 4X4 Forum about a Hi Lux owner in NSW who cracked the chassis on the Tojo when he went over a wash out hump to fast & becasue he had left his tow hitch in & told the dealer this Toyota refused to cover him for warranty claiming negligence on behalf of the client. $2200.00 it cost him to fix the Hi Lux. UNbreakable.....NOT!!

i do kinda feel sorry for them ...but.... they are after all a weekend 4wd made for kids and shopping and work and maybe a quick weekend away with kids ........
Looking at the pics i do ask to have a good look at the tray mounting points as they are designed for leaf springs ONLY and you add air bags and the pressure points move to the top mount of the air bag and no load from the tray is pushing down directly above it so it flexes and bends in all the wrong places, if a "bracket" was placed right above the air bag the tray (and load) would would push down on the "bag" and not "offset" to the bag................. look at the way the springs hammered the chassis because of being way overloaded ..... if i made this car i also would not offer and warrenty .............
we looked long and hard for years for a suitable car that could take us to our work and back and that is in very remote places, we drove hilux's n nissans and heaps of other (work cars) and not one had any reasonable room in the back for kids (now 3) and just did not "feel" strong enough for 4wd work, after working in Tom Price for a few years we opted for a "converted" HZJ75 and never looked back..................

Just a thought in regards to weight, I drove over the weighbridge at the tip the other day, and noticed my Patrol was 2.66T. That was empty. from my understanding GVM is 2.8. 150litres fuel, camping gear, water, etc will soon bring it close to being the limit, if not over. How many of us are overweight when travelling without realising?

Claims still 45kg UNDER GVM , love to know what weigh bridge he used as its obvious from the pics that its overloaded , just the two spares+bar and arial would bring close to the max let alone hanging a kk of the back , yeah people will scream that the trailer has ONLY x amount of ball weight , ever have it weighed ? Multiply that ball weight by a factor of 4-5 on bumps and corrigations ,

The problem of claiming from the manufacturer under a warranty is that you are up against a company that will have stress tested not just the chassis to extreme’s, but all the associated equipment in its entirety and they will have all the data, and the firepower to refute claims such as this. And that isn’t to say they don’t have a problem, but the chances are they don’t. The cost of getting it wrong normally ensures they get it (mostly) right and the cost of defending themselves against individuals is small versus having to do a total recall, so they will defend to the ‘hilt’ and make sure they fix the problem in later versions.

A look at the posts in this thread, and also the other forum, highlights just how ambiguous it all becomes and how individuals who believe they have a rightful claim, whether they do is another thing, are up against it when it comes to the proof. Throw into the mix after-market accessories and your case is weakened substantially. In the end the cost of arguing your case would probably outweigh the cost of fixing it.

Which highlights a very important consideration when purchasing any vehicle, but especially new ones......make sure it is going to meet your requirements and make sure you understand any warranty implications for after-market accessories.

And having said that, I do feel for the person involved, but I suspect this will end up being a costly experience.

Cheers, The Landy

Have a close look at his photos, and he has also fitted two aftermarket fuel tanks - a 130 litre auxillary behind the axle and a 120 litre replacement forward of the axle.
He's got a huge amount of weight behind the rear axle.

hi
right from day one

i have had personel doubt about the mn triton body length /wheelbase and amount of overhang behind the rear axle ever since it came on the market especially since they made the longer body option availuble without extending the wheel base
it looks out of proportion and i have actually been seating back quietly waiting and watching
because i was expecting something of this nature
i chatted about the pros and cons with a mate i've known for 60 odd years
we are both ex farmers and both were of the same opinion that something would happen
we have both seen truck chassis bend through having loads to far back

re above facts and we both said time will be the telling factor

i showed him the article today, cant print what he said but
you guessed it neither of us are surprised

you cant have all that overhang
then add all the extra bits and pieces 2 spare wheels plus oversize fuel tanks etc and then the down thrust off a trailer on a towbar even further back to give the g-forces an extra boost
it's a sure thing that the g-forces were going to have their way at the weakest point
most of the dualcabs imho have very light chassis considering they are 1tonne load rated

and look at that large side hole in the chassis rail in the small picture right where it bent that would be a major flaw in the chassis design thats where the chassis should have been beafed up and you wait and watch the next model will get something to that nature done to it
but they they probably wont tell us
just my thoughts on this devastating event for all the unfortunate owners out
there
i wish them all luck in the battle with mmal
there's a lot more to a good tug vehicle than just having a big gutsie
engine
cheers

I think a point that often gets overlooked with dual cabs is how much weight is in the cabin. If you have a 75kg man and a 60kg woman in the front plus a pocket size child in the back seat then pile loads of weight into the rear while carefully keeping the car just below GVM, you might have a few problems.

On the other hand, put four rugby forwards in the cabin, a couple of hundred kilos of gear in the back and about 100 on the tow ball and you could most likely drive around for years on stock suspension without a worry in the world
until the car eventually dies of old age.

Correct weight distribution seems to be the critical factor with these things.

Mate, sorry to hear about this. Wish you all the best. Please keep us updated with the progress. Cheers - Ted