• Please only use these forums for blogs, they are not a discussion forum

PROject PROfect

Because its not structural, however towing ability must be usable. So the tow eye would be part of the cross
But. I would have it out for rusting anyway... And replace because it adds something between another car and your engine.
because rust is a pass and advise, excessive rust is a fail... so you can technically remove the lower cross. but then you run in to issues of engine mounting to the cross member. so then you would have to remove the front engine mount. Also because you removed the centre member mounting its then engine mounting issues for front and back. Passing MOTs allways works out cheaper and easier just replacing the part. haha as you can see I have done some very creative mot work arounds
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
SirChris said:
Because its not structural, however towing ability must be usable. So the tow eye would be part of the cross

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
SirChris said:
But. I would have it out for rusting anyway... And replace because it adds something between another car and your engine.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Just rather replace and waxoyl the crap out of it.
Done then for another 20years ;)
 
MicraPRO said:
Crossmember? I can fit my fist inside it twice over... ooops!
Click to expand...

ken.jpg
 
h701micra said:
It is :)
Click to expand...
See I have had many a conversation with various MOT testers. You can have no front engine mount on some cars and then get away with it. There is a way around most things on MOT, at the end of the day just fix it, its there for a reason. What I dont like seeing is people getting failed for rust when the rust is a pass an advise.
 
SirChris said:
See I have had many a conversation with various MOT testers. You can have no front engine mount on some cars and then get away with it. There is a way around most things on MOT, at the end of the day just fix it, its there for a reason. What I dont like seeing is people getting failed for rust when the rust is a pass an advise.
Click to expand...
Not the engine mount I mean.
The front crossmember supports the front of the chassis legs so if its excessively rusted/weakened its a fail :)
 
h701micra said:
Not the engine mount I mean.
The front crossmember supports the front of the chassis legs so if its excessively rusted/weakened its a fail :)
Click to expand...
I am on about the whole lot. by removing the front engine mount you can justify the lack of requirement for the lower cross being rusted, but 2 fist holes, thats a fail. excessive is the word. I was going along the lines of a small amount, i thought I had seen a picture of toms cross memeber which is not all that bad, must be thinking of someone else. There has been arguments as to the actually load on the front engine mount to cross member, which is one argument. Connecting the two chassis legs is another. Front cross members are deemed more structural on longitudinal cars. but like most things. Mot testers will vary with opinion/backed up fact. I just replace what was on the car origionally, cause I ffeel I am bodging otherwise.
 
SirChris said:
I am on about the whole lot. by removing the front engine mount you can justify the lack of requirement for the lower cross being rusted, but 2 fist holes, thats a fail. excessive is the word. I was going along the lines of a small amount, i thought I had seen a picture of toms cross memeber which is not all that bad, must be thinking of someone else. There has been arguments as to the actually load on the front engine mount to cross member, which is one argument. Connecting the two chassis legs is another. Front cross members are deemed more structural on longitudinal cars. but like most things. Mot testers will vary with opinion/backed up fact. I just replace what was on the car origionally, cause I ffeel I am bodging otherwise.
Click to expand...
Brain does not compute... I'll try again later :p
 

Similar threads

C
Camo's SR project
Replies
17
Views
1K
camoxodka
C
McCheung
Project Firefly
2 3
Replies
117
Views
21K
Zazee
Zazee
karlj
  • Locked
Project "Charlie"
5 6 7
Replies
302
Views
34K
karlj
karlj
DavyGray
Davys 1.0L Sport Project
Replies
1
Views
1K
DavyGray
DavyGray
ha5eeb
Ha533b Project: R.E.D
Replies
17
Views
2K
MicraPRO
MicraPRO
Back
Top