Bent Chassis on my MN GRRRRRR

[smouch1975]

^^^what the hell is a fish plate?

(civil engineering) One of a pair of steel plates bolted to the sides of a rail or beam joint, to secure the joint.

Please ignore the wiki explanation, which speaks at some length about a greek plate, decorated with fish from the 5th century B.C

[Kegsy]

Fishplate also here...
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... _sec_2.pdf

See 2.3.4.

[4wd26]

This is what was done to my Nissan patrol work ute.

see the plate in front of the spring hanger.

[Kegsy]

Thats pretty much it, on the triton though it would be far longer. Somewhere around 300-400mm long.

[ultimate]

Strengthening the chassis is a good idea but you do need to get it engineered.

I was just speaking with one of the top guys at the AAAA (Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association) about this case and he said go straight to fair trading if you have a problem. There is no need to pay for your own legal advise when fair trading will probably get a lot further than anyone else.
- The vehicle was still under warranty
- You were under the specified GVM and GCM
- The aftermarket accessories were correct for your vehicle/application under the advise of the dealership
- The aftermarket accessories were within all legal guidelines
- All of the work was carried out by a qualified mechanic in a licensed workshop
- You weren't on a closed or restricted road
- The vehicle was correctly registered

Take that to Fair Trading and they will support you 100%. Don't worry what Mitsubishi say to you because their response will be completely different to the department of fair trading.

[NitroGLXRin]

ok cool. Well at least we all know where the point of failure will be from rats misfortune...

[snowman]

what shits me about this is for a few extra dollars and maybe a couple of kilos of weight they could make this area bomb proof. Not just the triton but all dual cabs.

[sam]

what shits me about this is for a few extra dollars and maybe a couple of kilos of weight they could make this area bomb proof. Not just the triton but all dual cabs.

Exactly what I was thinking earlier when looking under ours .

[borngeek]

Strengthening the chassis is a good idea but you do need to get it engineered.

I was just speaking with one of the top guys at the AAAA (Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association) about this case and he said go straight to fair trading if you have a problem. There is no need to pay for your own legal advise when fair trading will probably get a lot further than anyone else.
- The vehicle was still under warranty
- You were under the specified GVM and GCM
- The aftermarket accessories were correct for your vehicle/application under the advise of the dealership
- The aftermarket accessories were within all legal guidelines
- All of the work was carried out by a qualified mechanic in a licensed workshop
- You weren't on a closed or restricted road
- The vehicle was correctly registered

Take that to Fair Trading and they will support you 100%. Don't worry what Mitsubishi say to you because their response will be completely different to the department of fair trading.

informed advice! take it

[rat patrol]

I agree with the guys talking about airbags. From the slide show it appears that the bend is behind the Airbags above the rear axle. If that is the case then this is a similar issue that I have read about with airbags. They are positioned above the axle to a point on the chasis that is not designed to take load. Instead of the load being spread to the two shackle points where is is designed then load goes from the axle directly up to the chasis.

Think you had better hold off on the media invovlement until it is all confirmed.

Also there are few guys I have seen with batteries mounted on the rear crossbar of the tow bar. I would be rethinking that too as it adds alot of weight right at the back.

Dude have you not read all the posts the bend is IN FRONT OF THE AXEIL IT IS IN FRONT OF THE BLOODY ROUND CROSS MEMBER. this is the issue if it was above the axiel or behind it then I would lean towards the air bage ,but once again my engineer of 40year experance has said that there is NO way the air bags have caused this failure.
Cheers
Rat

[4wd26]

Ok.
Just sent 15mins looking around the chassis.
from the slideshow, it looks like it has bent on the front tub mount?

Mitsubishi have been pretty clever by putting the brace where they have, it very close to the axle centre and a whole lot of stuff pivots from near this point.

SO the whole weight of the tub the wheel carriers and trailer ball weight apply to this point.
All legal weights I know- BUT this has allways had me concerned about what MMA did to the MN.

lengthen this pivot and allow more weight to be applied to this.

see this post in November 2009 re my concerns
http://www.4wdaction.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1018780#p1018780

[RockoWallaby]

The rear bar... If you put any tow bar or rear slider type bar on that does NOT have a Mitsubishi plate or stamp on it they are calling that a unauthorized chassis extension bingo... no warranty. I asked my dealer for a genuine tow bar but it turns out it is a Hayman Reese bar .Now Hayman Reese make the bars for Mitsubishi they are made in the same jig but Mitsubishi will not accept the bar without a Mitsubishi part number on it, so it becomes an illegal chassis extension. That is one point they are trying to get me on. There is on I am trying to get pics of that failed on the fink I am lead to believe that it had stock standard suspension. And was only toeing a twin motor bike trailer. Should have those pics next week.

RAt

THIS is the exact reason why I was so insistent on the genuine 3000kg towbar, AND when Bitsa tried screwing me over by putting the wrong bar on, why I was so insistent they changed it to the correct one.
There is one hell of a lot of torsional load on that bar...it' a LONG way from the centre axis of the rear axles.

Honestly, when you look at the rear configuration of the Triton, against many other equivalent vehicles, it LOOKS poorly designed, especially in the MN compared to the ML! I had an old single cab 93 hilux, and the rear axle was approx in the middle of the tray. I'd stuck 1500kg loads in that occasionally, while towing 1500kg in the trailer, without it missing a beat. On my Triton, I just wouldn't push it. It "looks" weak back there.

And to be honest, these are not super heavy offroad vehicles. Housemate has a new 78 series Landcruiser wagon. Rough as guts, and without anything resembling creature comforts. $75K...NOT cheap, for what you get!
However, it's built like a bloody tank. Makes the build quality of the Triton look like a Kia Rio by comparison. The Toyota is a true off-road capable vehicle, designed for the situation...mining, forestry, etc...and it shows. Sheeite, lifting the front bonnet alone is a serious challenge...it'd weigh 50-60kg alone!

Yet, here we have 2 vehicles with almost similar towing capacity. The Triton, 3000kg (with correct towbar), and the Cruiser 3500kg. I've driven both, extensively. Put 3000kg behind the cruiser, fully loaded, and you almost don't feel it. Do the same behind the Triton, and there's no comparison.

So, does this mean a suped up tradesmans ute is the best vehicle for towing a caravan around Oz, on off-road tracks, while obviously heavily loaded?
Damn good question, isn't it. I'm happily towing my 1600kg van, with the rear tray not packed overly heavy in gear, but that's my "happy" limit.
Not bagging the Triton, but it (and all it's cousins from other manufacturers) are just simply not in the same class in simple structural durability as the Cruisers, Patrols and Landrover Defenders, etc. If someone wants to push the GVM on a regular basis, I'd be using vehicle properly suitable for it.
Scotty

[Steane]

Ok.
Just sent 15mins looking around the chassis.
from the slideshow, it looks like it has bent on the front tub mount?

Mitsubishi have been pretty clever by putting the brace where they have, it very close to the axle centre and a whole lot of stuff pivots from near this point.

SO the whole weight of the tub the wheel carriers and trailer ball weight apply to this point.
All legal weights I know- BUT this has allways had me concerned about what MMA did to the MN.

lengthen this pivot and allow more weight to be applied to this.

see this post in November 2009 re my concerns
http://www.4wdaction.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1018780#p1018780

I think you are right on the money 4wd26. The MN should have been introduced with an extended wheelbase so the rear overhang was 'normal' and any load better centred over the rear axle.

I'd be interested to know where the manufacturers pull their max rated tow weights from as well. It seems they are locked in competition with each other, and its reached a point where a ute that weighs less than two tonnes can apparently tow three tonnes... From ML to MN the tow weight has increased 500kgs (from memory), yet I'm not aware of the MN receiving upgraded brakes, or even a stronger transmission. In fact, the auto is weaker. On top of that the tow point has been moved back about 200mm, yet the chassis and wheelbase remain unchanged from the ML. How does that justify an increase of half a tonne...it should have been reduced by half a tonne you'd have thought.
.

[4wd26]

Lucky I have a spare to take a look at
this chassis is the same for both ML and MN

[4wd26]

Oh and Steene, the increase of towing weight (to 3 tonne, 500kg over the ML) is ONLY with the cab chassis with short alloy tray- funny that- it won't have the additional length of the MN tub to overcome, so whats the bet its actually a GLX ML bar re rated- knowing the glx bar was short and high off the ground- hence why a lot of people offroading the ML go for them

otherwise its an extra 200kg. (to 2700kg)

[Steane]

Oh and Steene, the increase of towing weight (to 3 tonne, 500kg over the ML) is ONLY with the cab chassis with short alloy tray- funny that- it won't have the additional length of the MN tub to overcome, so whats the bet its actually a GLX ML bar re rated- knowing the glx bar was short and high off the ground- hence why a lot of people offroading the ML go for them

otherwise its an extra 200kg. (to 2700kg)

Thanks 26, I had a feeling there was more too it as I was writing. IMO any increase in towing weight from ML to MN is hard to justify when the actual vehicle is arguably less suited to towing when fitted with the longer tub. Bit hard to understand how a manufacturer can just upgrade the tow weight without upgrading the vehicle.

[sam]

Lucky I have a spare to take a look at
this chassis is the same for both ML and MN

Looking at that pic I believe it has bent from the oval chassic hole just in front of the round crossmember with the chaulk marks each side and creased down to just under the round crossmember.

To me this is where you would tend to think it would bend with the air bags fitted as it obviously the first weak point in the chassic in front of the pivot point of the airbag fitted between the chassic bump stop and axle with the bags acting as the pivot point.

I'm not saying that without airbags that the MN's wouldn't bend as after having a look under our ML today and then looking at where the tow point would be at 200mm further back just does NOT look right as the leverage would be huge.
I wouldn't have thought it wouldn't have to bend behind the axle/airbags as it will bend at it's weakest point and this happens by the looks of things to be in front of the bump stop.

[snowman]

Oh and Steene, the increase of towing weight (to 3 tonne, 500kg over the ML) is ONLY with the cab chassis with short alloy tray- funny that- it won't have the additional length of the MN tub to overcome, so whats the bet its actually a GLX ML bar re rated- knowing the glx bar was short and high off the ground- hence why a lot of people offroading the ML go for them

otherwise its an extra 200kg. (to 2700kg)

Thanks 26, I had a feeling there was more too it as I was writing. IMO any increase in towing weight from ML to MN is hard to justify when the actual vehicle is arguably less suited to towing when fitted with the longer tub. Bit hard to understand how a manufacturer can just upgrade the tow weight without upgrading the vehicle.

Sales.

[hendo]

.. From ML to MN the tow weight has increased 500kgs (from memory), yet I'm not aware of the MN receiving upgraded brakes, or even a stronger transmission. In fact, the auto is weaker. On top of that the tow point has been moved back about 200mm, yet the chassis and wheelbase remain unchanged from the ML. How does that justify an increase of half a tonne...it should have been reduced by half a tonne you'd have thought.
.[/quote]



thought i read somewhere that the mn has heavy duty suspension standard would this raise towing capacity

[ultimate]

thought i read somewhere that the mn has heavy duty suspension standard would this raise towing capacity

Heavy duty suspension would raise the GVM (Gross Vehicle Mass), not the GCM (Gross combination mass). The GCM is the accepted safe, maximum allowable total mass of a fully loaded motor vehicle and all of its trailers. In order to raise the GCM, you need to upgrade the suspension + brakes and strengthen the tow bar and chassis. It is normally a very hard upgrade to get approved so it's surprising that Mitsubishi could do it so easily and by such a large amount.

[Try-it-on]

I didn't think you could weld onto a chassis due to weakening through the heat or some such thing.

[borngeek]

one wonders exactly HOW they did get it passed really... 26 was onto it early and I am sure there some sweaty design engineers somewhere going ohh frigg!

It could be just a bad batch of chassis and isolated...?? not likely but idea thrown out there..

Safety is the main concern now because Mitsubishi have a huge batch of these things out there being used as tourers with gear hanging off them and usually a trailer/van on the back... As marketed by them to perform these duties without issue!
Plenty of new retiree's (my cleaning company owner included) have done the dealer ARB fitout then buy a camper and headed bush.. (i even recommended him to the triton and went shopping with him!! called him yesterday )


BTW who thinks it would be a good idea to repair this kind of failure? Sent piccy to bro in law and he said instant write off - no way you can repair it there and call it safe... He also showed his chassis guy (they have a megabux laser machine for straightening chassis) and he said no way too..

//This drama is worthy of popcorn, choc tops and a real comfy seat. I suspect this is going to get real ugly!

[NitroGLXRin]

I didn't think you could weld onto a chassis due to weakening through the heat or some such thing.

if the chassis has a cetain heat treatment on the material and you weld it you will defineately change the properties. But you just have to re-do the heat treatment process to that localised area to bring it back to spec, if possible. In airrcraft the do similar things to fishplates but instead of welding they rivet so that the proerties are unchanged.

[NitroGLXRin]

one wonders exactly HOW they did get it passed really... 26 was onto it early and I am sure there some sweaty design engineers somewhere going ohh frigg!

I really doubt that they design for our outback roads, ie:1ft deep corrogations and hitting dips in the road at 100kmh. With the corrogations, this will induce vibration at a certain frequency, now if that frequency gets close to or is exactly the ressonant frequency of a part, then that part will literally kill itself. doubt it happend in this case, but if you did get the towball weight to vibrate at a certain frequency the chassis will fail no matter what. most aircraft have a certain rpm they cannot sit between as if they do something will break.

[borngeek]

Using the argument they are not designed for our corrugated roads and causeway dips etc (like crossing the plains to WA) is a very bad and dangerous argument. Compliance of our vehicles by the relevant government body is for a vehicle to be able to withstand our roads within the given weight tolerances..

Has anybody looked at the specifications for the same model overseas and compared them to Australia?
I've done a quick search and listed them below. What stands out to me is the Australian Triton has a higher towing capacity compared to everywhere else in the world!
Nothing has been upgraded chassis, brakes or otherwise on 'our model' here has it??

It's interesting that the towing capacity on the South African model is exactly half of the Australian one and the road and conditions are so similar. The only one close to us is England at 300kgs less but the road conditions there are far better than here.. Check out the towball downward weight difference too!!

Whether it's made in South Africa or Thailand shouldn't matter as the chassis design is the same from MM Japan delivered specs and one presumes quality control of this particular component would be high...

some food for thought... can of worms opened for MMAL. popcorn anyone?

---
Australia: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com.au/veh ... fications/
Gross vehicle mass (kg)-2,930
Kerb mass (kg) 1,933-1,992
Gross combination mass (kg)-5,700
Maximum payload (kg)-953 / 938
Maximum front axle mass (kg)-1,260
Maximum rear axle mass (kg)-1,800
Maximum towing capacity with trailer brakes (kg)-3,000
Maximum towing capacity without trailer brakes (kg)-750
Maximum towball download (kg)-300

England: http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/l200/s ... tions.aspx

Gross vehicle weight kg 2935
Kerb weight kg 1890
Max payload capacity (for tax purposes) kg 1045
Towing capacity, braked kg 2700
Towing capacity, unbraked kg 750
Trailer nose weight kg 115

South Africa http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.za/Modu ... re2010.pdf
Gross vehicle mass 2.850kg
Kerb mass 1.780kg
Maximum payload 932kg
Maximum front axle load 1.260kg
Maximum rear axle load 1.800kg
Maximum towing capacity
– with trailer brakes 1.500kg
Maximum towing capacity
– without trailer brakes 750kg

Mexico (Translated)- http://www.mitsubishimotors.com.mx/
GVM- 2850kg
Load Capacity- 1020kg