Im on a SLC chosen to go on Raid Maroc 2001 (PPP) purely because it was the strongest available ( but at the time one of the cheapest....hows that work? Kinda messes up the "get what you pay for" argument) and constructed by someone who kinda knows about girders, forces and eingineering in general.

Had an early wheels/lomax stacked tube effort and it was a pure b**ch and didnt fit

best was an old PO drummer that had been on some tour of the pink bits and came to Edin to retire. I had the privelage of owning that for last 12 months of its existance( or the dubious responsibility of killing it)
5 dyanes all on standard chassissses

The stuff about replacement chassis having a harsher ride is nonsence. I fully 2nd the setting up the cans,i took a few monts of trial and error to get it spot on. I use my workshop floor and measure the heights with calipers or rule( for those that marveled at the F1 pit floors at Spa mine's just as flat and shiney-well it was) end float is set up with feeler guages.

As any extra weight is below the axles it should in fact provide a dampening effect to the ride ( One of the racers i help with has all its ballast on the lower skin of the standard chassis and all chassis seams seam welded, it gave Roys championship car a run for its money in the corners).
However a sub standard C section ladder chassis twisting and springing back will have DIRE effects on the suspension in cornering and its not the fact that its an aftermarket chassis, its cause its a substandard one.

But Yall just come down to price and those shiney ads

Sean

Any substandard chassis creates a 2CV which is 'orrid to drive if you know how good they should be when using the car's abilities - I once cross-braced one up to try and improve matters. It made a big difference to cornering, but the thing was still nasty and jittery on anything other than smooth surfaces, as would be expected.

My first drive in an A series was a 1979 Dyane in almost perfect structural order (lovely shiny brown finish to the rot-free chassis) and that set the benchmark. It devoured huge speed bumps at 30mph, cornered at the limits as if on rails even when road surface and foundations were poor - I still miss that car.

The thought of a heavily-loaded Dyane on a substandard chassis is a bit scary. Maybe that's why some cars are driven so slowly?

I have the 2cv City chassis with the name in little holes. I've done about 40,000 miles with it and also a lot of towing and so far I've had no problems with it so far.

I was an absolute newbie when I bought mine so I had no idea how to change a chassis or who to go to. I think I just googled 2cv specialist in fairness to 2cv city they do put out a lo of advertising and marketing. I'm glad we have this forum now so new newbies can read threads like this and make decisions on what parts to use for themselves rather than what specialists give them.

Of note, the original chassis stood up well when I got shunted, there were two square holes in the front of the 4x4 where the rear kick ups had embedded themselves!

Out of interest, how is a mehari chassis different?

It's basically a PO-spec (strengthened) Dyane chassis, but the rear legs are shorter.

My '84 Charlie has a 2CVCity galv chassis fitted. I've just noticed that both engine side panels are suffering from a single crack forming on their top return edges and beginning to make its way down - which will ultimately break the panels in half, I guess.

These panels aren't under any static stress - they drop easily into place with all holes lining up - but must instead be suffering from fatigue; very slight repeated flexing. Since they are fitted using two bolts to the bulkhead and one at the other end to the wings, I wonder if this is due to chassis flex? If the chassis twists, the front section - where the movement will be greatest - will be moving the wings slightly up and down which in turn will be twisting these side panels.

Or is this side-panel cracking 'normal'?!

I've never seen cracking there, even on sidepanels with the usual broken paint from static chassis sag.

I'm presuming the light bar is properly fixed to the chassis, and the wings are using all four fixing points, including the sill?

Hi 2m2cvs. I'll double-check, but I'm pretty sure the wings and headlamp bar are solidly fixed at all points. The car has new wings as well as the chassis.

I noticed that the bulkhead fittings for these side panels are by small clips which slip into welded slots on the panels. How 'loose' should these clips be? I wonder if they are designed to allow small movement so that the body vibes aren't stressing these panels?

I'll check your points and get back - many thanks.

yes the dogleg clip should sit in a rubber sleeve inside the bracket on the A panels

the m5 8mm head bolts should screw down tight holding the clip firmly
there is enough give in the system to allow flexing of the bulkhead and the wings without tearing anything apart

Whatever is happening to your car dont sound good

sean

2CVs still appear to drive reasonably on sub-standard chassis to someone who is used to modern, cheap cars and hasn’t experienced just what made Citroën the famous and immensely wealthy company it once was. It’s a pity to build a fine car onto such a chassis when everything else was engineered with such attention to detail - with a view to maximum strength and durability as well as minimum weight. Like most truly great cars, the 2CV is both strong and long-lasting as well as light.

The engine alone is a work of art – LJKSetright described it as perhaps the finest ever four stroke, disregarding Honda's finest on grounds of complexity (and there were few keen on Hondas as he was). During the car's development, its engineers would despair of M Boulanger continuing to demand more lightness, more room, more comfort, more strength - in exasperation they suggested glow worms for headlights and hollow bolts.

Suspension arms may have been poorly welded, but their design is spot on – minimal weight at the wheel end with immense strength throughout. A comparison can be made with an animal’s horn. Nature provides us with the inspiration for all the very best engineering – nothing is finer. The fact that a tiny bird can cover thousands of miles of the wing without stopping for rest or fuel is the perfect example of this. Satellite navigation built-in, too.

The original chassis is clever throughout - every section of metal helps to add strength – there is no ‘dead weight’. The use of hemispherical members which curve away from the axle mountings, helping minimise concentrations of stress where it is huge. compared with a ladder frame design. I think it’s a masterpiece of clever engineering – it only rotted endemically when corrosion protection and steel quality dropped.

I once bought a car which had been built around a sub-standard chassis. The body was bolted to it in just four places - everywhere else was coach screws, like large self-tapping screws! Seam sealer covered up welding which shouldn’t have passed an MoT. Not to mention the filler… no doubt it looked good for someone, long enough to see it out of any guarantee period, Grrrr!

There's little point in replacing the main structural part of a fine piece of engineering with a sub-standard chassis just for the sake of saving a few quid over an original or a well-respected after-market one. Apart from a car ceasing to be what it originally was, stressing up other components and not driving as well, its value will be less, once on the open market where people know their stuff.

Beautifully said, oolong - poetic even

Sean and tm2cvs, all seems perfectly fine with my car... I looked closely at the worst crack (around 20mm long) and found an old tack-weld on the back and evidence of filler on the outside, so it's pretty old. Perhaps as a consequence of the original chassis failing? The crack on the other panel is tiny, only around 5mm long and just on the return lip of the top edge. This top return edge has a few ripples in it too, as though compressed - weird, I wonder if the front was slowly collapsing and folded it up?!. There's no obvious stress at all on either of them now, so I see no reason why it should continue to be a problem.

(That's the trouble with threads like this - brings out the paranoia in you... )