Help evaluating the frame

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • LaneRover
    Overdrive
    • Oct 2006
    • 1743

    #16
    Originally posted by greenmeanie
    My only guess is that these mods point to the truck being used hard off road.
    The dents in the oil pan and on the transmission and Engine crossmembers also point to quite a bit of offroad use.

    My guess is that the 'plate' between the engine and the transmission is there because the AMC engine didn't completely cover the opening in the bellhousing and the plate was put there to keep crap from getting in back in there. I have a 58 with a V-6 somebody put in that has about 1/3 of the flywheel showing because of a similar situation.

    I agree that more/better pics are in order and nothing beats actually going to see the Rover. The 10 hours (there and back) of driving may save you from finding out that the frame DOES need to be replaced even though the additional pics you get looked OK.
    1958 107 SW - Sold to a better home
    1965 109 SW - nearly running well
    1966 88 SW - running but needing attention
    1969 109 P-UP

    http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...2&l=64cfe23aa2

    Comment

    • gudjeon
      5th Gear
      • Oct 2006
      • 613

      #17
      My experience with frames is that it is about five fold worse than what it looks like once you start to prod and use the grinder. If the frame is not sound, and it sounds like there has been major mods (engine etc). then for your sake, I hope its priced right should you consider it.

      My 2 cents CAN

      Comment

      • r50us68
        Low Range
        • Oct 2008
        • 8

        #18
        More pictures

        Here are some more pictures of the frame

        Comment

        • r50us68
          Low Range
          • Oct 2008
          • 8

          #19
          More pictures

          Here are some more pictures of the frame





          and the of the top of the frame




          Comment

          • HybridIIA
            1st Gear
            • Dec 2006
            • 100

            #20
            The diamond plate rear cross member isn't a good sign.
            '62 109 - coil sprung
            '64 88 - coil sprung

            Comment

            • ArlowCT
              2nd Gear
              • Jul 2008
              • 238

              #21
              I can't believe that no one spotted that the oil pan was not a 2.25 pan!!!!

              Looks like it could be a fun truck to play in the woods with but you never know. From the photos the frame could be shot.... but it could also be good, I've had a few surprise me before.

              Good Luck.

              Comment

              • SafeAirOne
                Overdrive
                • Apr 2008
                • 3435

                #22
                You know....I can't tell if it's just the camera angle or an optical illusion, but does the rear wheel seem a little high in the well, like there's a heavy load in the rear tub?

                Other than that, I still don't think you can accurately asses the chassis condition from the photos--You can only see if it is worth the drive to examine in person. I do know that the transmission crossmember has seen some rough service. This is probably the strongest crossmember on the truck, too.

                I suspect that this truck WASN'T driven by a little old lady who only used it to get milk at the market on Sundays.
                --Mark

                1973 SIII 109 RHD 2.5NA Diesel

                0-54mph in just under 11.5 minutes
                (9.7 minutes now that she's a 3-door).

                Comment

                • SafeAirOne
                  Overdrive
                  • Apr 2008
                  • 3435

                  #23
                  Originally posted by ArlowCT
                  I can't believe that no one spotted that the oil pan was not a 2.25 pan!!
                  Yeah. It looks like an AMC 232 (3.8l) with about 38k oil pan.
                  --Mark

                  1973 SIII 109 RHD 2.5NA Diesel

                  0-54mph in just under 11.5 minutes
                  (9.7 minutes now that she's a 3-door).

                  Comment

                  • sayers
                    1st Gear
                    • Oct 2006
                    • 126

                    #24
                    Fromthe photos I would have to conclude that you are going to have some major $ tied up in this lr if you want to rebuilt or having it running the way most of us land rover owners would.

                    Comment

                    • Bostonian1976
                      5th Gear
                      • Nov 2006
                      • 750

                      #25
                      Originally posted by SafeAirOne
                      You know....I can't tell if it's just the camera angle or an optical illusion, but does the rear wheel seem a little high in the well, like there's a heavy load in the rear tub?
                      that's probably worn-out springs like mine
                      '67 sort of station wagon (limestone), '65 gray hardtop, '63 blue Station Wagon, '64 limestone station wagon in pieces

                      Comment

                      Working...