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

    • Very nice - I also have a 92 GTST and hardly see any others around these days
    • When I need something else to edit, I use Movavi. A friend who does video editing on a daily basis recommended me) it's an easy video cutter to use for beginners
    • I need to edit some videos for work but I'm not good at all this. Which video editor can you recommend?
    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
×
×
  • Create New...