MOT welding question. (sorry!)

[hearse]

Hi Guys.

Please can someone tell me if it is acceptable to cut off a rotten jacking point and just leave it off? Now logically yes, however is this jacking point structural?

So the bit I have outlined in red is missing, but the floor pan, is ok ish No holes.… I have removed the jacking point back to the blue line. Can I just cap it off there, or is this a MOT fail because it’s removing structural and I need to extend it back to the sill?

The car is a DS420 Hearse 1970. This photo is NOT of my car, but the photos shows a similar layout. I have replaced the sill and floor pan, but don’t care about originality and would never use the jacking point anyway… No way I am jacking up over two tonnes on anything other than the chassis rail!

I have another Hearse (yes I have 2), it also has a rotten jacking point, but I notice whoever welded it up removed the jacking point but made a section from the old jacking point to the sill… Im sure they would not have done that unless they had to!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/lusster/jackingpoint.jpg


Sorry if this is obvious and stupid.

 

[nodeward]

hmm i would say there is nothing wrong with that, the jacking pionts on old golfs sometimes rot out and i have just cut em off in the past with no problem. i would expect it would depend on the mot tester, might be worth just haveing a word with the place you will be taking it to.

 

[malcolm]

No problem for the MOT - they don't know what the structure was originally and will only tend to fail rusty bits.

In the picture it looks like half of the crossmember linking the front longerons to the sill (other half being on the other side of the floor). Those dudes are very important for torsional stiffness so it would probably be nice to put something there even if you don't use it for jacking. On the other hand if it's not actually joined to the sill and is open at the end it won't be all that effective.

 

[octo0072000]

sill jacking point

i would tend to agree with Malcolm
it's also a floor stiffener and a support for the door piller so if rotten it should fail just bent a U section up and weld it on and cap the ends off
the rule is within 30cm of structural point

 

[hearse]

Guys, i agree, i have been thinking about this also.

I think it will take me a morning (newbie and all that) to make the metal and weld it in, so I will just put a strengthener in.

As default these DS420 Hearses have a 4.2 litre twin 2 inch S.U carb engine with about 220-265 BHP. I have a Eaton M112 Supercharger i intend to add, so with power getting 400-500 BHP i think i will need all the help i can get in chassis stiffness!!!

Thanks for helping me come to a decision.

 

[jaykay]

i've taken them out.no problem with mot

 

[Engineer]

Guys, i agree, i have been thinking about this also.

I think it will take me a morning (newbie and all that) to make the metal and weld it in, so I will just put a strengthener in.

As default these DS420 Hearses have a 4.2 litre twin 2 inch S.U carb engine with about 220-265 BHP. I have a Eaton M112 Supercharger i intend to add, so with power getting 400-500 BHP i think i will need all the help i can get in chassis stiffness!!!

Thanks for helping me come to a decision.

If you intend to make this into a hotrod of some sort, then I would suggest finding someone able to repair and modify the chassis properly, as I would think you may well have big problems with 400-500bhp!

 

[hearse]

If you intend to make this into a hotrod of some sort, then I would suggest finding someone able to repair and modify the chassis properly, as I would think you may well have big problems with 400-500bhp!

Hi Engineer, you know what i have now deleted this and re-typed it about 6 times. Out of genuine respect for you and how nice the guys are on this forum, and as a newbie and a VERY novice welder my opinions and standing here are very low! Please read this with a smile, as that's how it was typed.

I love it when so called "engineers" tell me things wont work. So far my top 10 are,
1) a Eaton M112 cant be used wet - WRONG
2) You can use S.U's with a Eaton M112 - WRONG
3) You can NOT supercharge a XK engine, the cams are wrong - WRONG
4) You can NOT supercharge a XK engine, it just wont work.....

Ahhhhh... See look I had to stop myself again there....

I'm sorry, I am a new guest here and you have taken the time to talk to me, you are absolutely correct that at 40 years old, with my (p155) poor welding and with the general unknown this chassis may not be able to take 500 BHP.
However, and without boring the pants off you all, i know the components can easily take 400 odd! The rear cage is standard for use in cobra kit cars, the chassis design is identical to the 265 BHP production cars (E-type / DS420). I know of many racing S-type's (similar chassis) that have very serious power and are not folding up.
Remember Jaguars are huge cars with massively over engineered chassis and bodies, As this is a hearse (and i know because i have stripped one) the bearer decks are unofficially structural!
I know the gearbox, is no way up to it, so that will be ditched, there is some debate about the radius arms and bushing, but i think "suck it and see" is the best answer. The engine mounts and front cross member will need a little further investigation but I think this can all be tested at a bigger top pulley (lower boost).

Please read this with a smile, as that's how it was typed.


Anyway, this is what I came to post, now this is doubtful!!!

A decision was made! I added it in.

(PS, right side of picture, checkout the canister oil filter! So thats DOHC, HEMI, more BHP than a modern scooby-do, but its got a canister! You got to love Jaguar! )

 

[keith19]

"(PS, right side of picture, checkout the canister oil filter! So thats DOHC, HEMI, more BHP than a modern scooby-do, but its got a canister! You got to love Jaguar! )"

Yeah, looks like the one on our Morris Minor! (Before I changed it for a Mini screw-on type).

Perhaps there were some left over at the end of Moggie production...

 

[Engineer]

I actually did my apprenticeship at a Jaguar and Rolls Royce main dealer, and have subsequently done a fair amount of restoration work on these cars.

Anyone wanting to put 400-500bhp through an old DS420 has got to be very brave indeed, as these rust from the inside out, and things like the rear radius arm mounts commonly tear out of things like XJ6's, which have a lot less than 400bhp, and much better rustproofing than the coachbuilts, as well as being lots lighter.

When we serviced DS420 hearses they always got tested down the local dual carriageway at 100mph +, and handling and brakes certainly left a lot to be desired. I dont doubt for one moment that it would not be possible to put a supercharger on a worn out old XK motor, but if it hasnt been properly rebuilt using low comp forged pistons, with Wills rings in the block deck to prevent head gasket problems, then its not likely to run for very long.


If your project is done properly I would think its going to cost a fair amount of money, and I guess rebuilding the motor alone is going to be about £2k, which is something that is going to be a must if you are intending to use forced induction. Good luck with it, but might be worth looking very carefully at possible costs, and have a very careful look at the radius arm mounts, as these are welded onto a skin over a quite intricate internal box section, which rots away, and causes the mounting to rip out of the car.

 

[malcolm]

Sounds like an excellent project. I've also been know to put unnecessarily large engines in old cars and have yet to understand the concept of too much power.

Do post photos of the car and the project as you go along.

 

[hearse]

"(PS, right side of picture, checkout the canister oil filter! So thats DOHC, HEMI, more BHP than a modern scooby-do, but its got a canister! You got to love Jaguar! )"

Yeah, looks like the one on our Morris Minor! (Before I changed it for a Mini screw-on type).

Perhaps there were some left over at the end of Moggie production...

I upgraded to a screw type on my 1967 S-type. Its funny, modern cars such as the new Fraud Mundeano now have gone back to a paper filter!

 

[pedrobedro]

Paper filters are more ecologically friendly, the metal cartridge filters are not accepted as scrap any more by a lot of places even when the oil has been burnt out of them and garages can have to pay to get rid of them.