Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

That is one of the straightest chassis rails I've ever seen on a 32.......next time put the stands where that seam is (forward of where you used), or spread the load a bit with a piece of wood along the rail

  • Like 1

you could....but I cant see a dangerous amount of bare metal there.  If you look at other places like the spot welds where the chassis rails meet the floor you can see how a touch of surface rust can start over 30 years. It's not a dangerous rust risk like some places where water can pool and really eat into the metal.

If you are worried underfloor sealer (tarlike stuff) is available in cans, it resists stone chips better

The rail itself is fine to be left like that apart from rust considerations as mentioned above.

Sadly, the dent is big enough that it would fail a roadworthy.  So if this is an issue where you live, it would want to be fixed.  I had to pull all similar dents (much closer to the front end of the rail) out of mine to make sure it was going to pass Regency when I did my engine conversion.  We made a special tool that we could insert through the holes near the front to help with this.  That option would not be possible with the dent shown in your photo.  Too far back.  It it must be repaired, then you will be cutting metal out and putting straight stuff back.

Simple rule.  Chassis rails like that are not strong enough for chassis stands.  Too much point load on too thin a section of metal.  Even the doubled up seam that Duncan pointed out is not strong enough.  The only place designed to hold the car's weight is the jacking point under the sill.  This doesn't help, if you're jacking there you can't put a stand there too.  The only solution is to use stands that can fit under the lower inner pivots of the front suspension arms.  I had to grind the edges of the tops of my chassis stands to make them slim enough to fit in there.  Those points are hard enough and strong enough to hold the weight.  The only time this is no good is when you need to pull the lower arms off - then you can find an alternative way, probably involving the jacking points.

If you have to put chassis stands under the rails, then you need to use load spreaders, but this must be done safely, which is quite difficult.  Just putting lumps of steel/wood between the rail and the stand is not safe.

  • Like 1

I'm not in a location where the vehicle has to be inspected.

So my question is more like does this affect handling, alignment, or structural integrity in any way such that it would be better off fixed?

Or, is it just cosmetic?

And, for rust prevention, is that 3m stuff I linked the right idea or do you mean something else by undercarriage coating?

53 minutes ago, Matvei27 said:

So my question is more like does this affect handling, alignment, or structural integrity in any way such that it would be better off fixed?

Or, is it just cosmetic?

The rail is not bent.  The bottom of it has been pushed up which has pushed the sides out, but the position of the rail's centreline (left-right) is probably in exactly the same place as original and the height of the floor/straightness of the weld line along the rail/floor joints are probably not altered at all.  The rail might have slightly less strength against deformation (say in a frontal collision) than it used to, but that change would be quite small.  But this is the reason that they are defectable here in Australia with that sort of damage.  In reality, it is pretty much just cosmetic and nearly every other Skyline on the roads is in a much worse condition.

53 minutes ago, Matvei27 said:

And, for rust prevention, is that 3m stuff I linked the right idea or do you mean something else by undercarriage coating?

No.  That rubber stuff is not "rust proofing" in that you would not put it on bare metal.  it is meant to be put on top of properly prepared and rust-proofed steel, to provide an additional physical layer of protection over the chemical protection layer.  If you have damaged coating on that part of the rail and you want to protect it again, you will need to hit with some protective primer and/or underbody sealer/paint and only then consider the rubber shit.

Edited by GTSBoy

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Version 1 aluminium airbox is.......not acceptable No pics as I "didn't like the look.....alot" Even after all my "CAD", and measurements, the leg near the fusebox just didn't sit right as it ended up about 10mm long and made the angle of the dangle look wrong, the height was a little short as well, meh, I wasn't that confident that Version 1 was going to be an instant winner I might give Version 2 another go, there's plenty of aluminium at work, but, after having in on and off a few times, and laying in the old OEM airbox without the new pod filter and MAF, there may be an option to modify the OEM air box and still use the Autoexe front cover and filter.... maybe This >  Needs to fit in here, but using the panel, and not the pod, the MAF will need to fit in the airbox though> I'm thinking as the old OEM box and Autoexe cover that is sitting in the shed is just sitting around doing nothing, and they are relatively abundant and cheap to replace if I mess it up and need another, it may well fit with some modifications to how the Autoexe brackets mounts to the rad support, and some dremiling to move it get in there, should give me some more room for activities, as I don't want to move the MAF and affect the tune Sealing the hole it requires to stick it in the air box is simple, a tight fit and some pinch weld will seal it up tight  I am calling this a later problem though
    • and it ends up being already priced in as though you're just on 91RON without any ethanol. Car will lose a bit of economy as the short and long term fuel trims bring down the AFR back to stoich or whatever it is for cruise/idle for the engine.  
    • Oh, you are right. But, in Australia E10 is based on 91RON fuel and ends up being 94RON. Hence it being the cheaper option for economy cars. The more performance oriented cars go for the 98RON fuel that has no ethanol mixed in. The only step up we have left then at some petrol stations is E85.
    • There is a warning that "this thread is super old" but they ignore that anyway...
    • With 10% Ethanol, we're talking 2-3% fuel consumption difference. The emissions reductions and octane boost in my opinion far outweigh this almost non existent loss.    My tanks sitting at 80%. Luckily that should go down fast as I'm on vacation again for the next two weeks. 
×
×
  • Create New...