Viking, the UK market turned to galvanised aftermarket chassis in the 1990s - and had already begun buying non-galv aftermarket ones en masse before that, such was the quality and longevity of late 80s cars.

Sadly, some believe that just because a chassis is galvanised it must be worth having - read the whole thread for confirmation that couldn't be further from the truth. Common consensus seems to be that if you are going to fit an aftermarket chassis, fit an SLC (I agree!) Even if you're not sufficiently aware of how your car drives to feel the benefits, the rest of your car will and if you ever come to sell, a car with an SLC chassis will probably command a premium over a similar car with a sub-standard chassis.

The original chassis does not collapse in one particular place unless involved in an accident (Viking's chassis gave way perhaps in the same way as an airbag is detonated) - in which case it is designed to fold just forward of the steering rack. In an extreme collision, this allows the engine and gearbox and front section of chassis to fold upwards instead of punching the engine, gearbox and steering column backwards into the front seat passengers. I have seen such a car, with the engine and box vertically stacked against the bulkhead with almost no intrusion into the cab. This piece of clever design probably saved the occupants' lives.

Unlike most people, I don't think a 2CV or Dyane is a dangerous car, from either primary (ie in a crash) or secondary (avoiding one) points of view. If I did I would not use one day to day. There can be few safer vehicles (when set up as designed, tyres correct etc) from the secondary aspect, and I have seen too many in accidents including multiple rolls, offset front impacts, head-on impacts, heavy rear shunts and side impacts to believe they are unsafe. It would take a while to explain why, some other time perhaps.

To infer the original chassis is 'soft' because of this inbuilt ability to absorb an impact without pushing the engine/box/steering column into the cab is incorrect. A Citroën chassis is very strong indeed, if uncorroded. A common problem was for garages to incorrectly repair the bottom skin where the internal C-sections had rotted through it - often at the points of maximum stress, just behind the front axle or forward of the rear. Water leaking into the car helped this process on its way, as would a weak front bulkhead. The perforations would have a plate welded over them, adding no strength to the chassis and preventing water from leaking out! Sooner or later the chassis would lose sufficient strength and begin to collpase, forwards of or behind the rear axle, wherever the corrosion weakened it most.

Hi Viking,
as requested...
< http://www.galvanizeit.org/images/uploa ... GAF-05.pdf >

To save you wading through the whole document, the most relevant conclusion ( to be found on page 6) is that "Cold-worked steels less than 1/8-inch (3 mm) thick that are subsequently galvanized are unlikely to experience strain-age embrittlement."

For the record, mild steel is used in my chassis, of maximum thickness 3mm and all bends are of radii greater than 3 x plate thickness...

ken.

Thanks Ken, I read it.

Cold-worked steels less than 1/8-inch (3 mm) thick that are subsequently galvanized are unlikely to experience strain-age embrittlement

What about the word unlikely
If 100% certain it should read do not experience strain-age embrittlement
So in some cases it does. That is my arguement. Under stress (raiding on 10 milion corrugations) the metal is not flexible enough and will snap. Mild steel ''galvanized'' at 90 degrees keeps it flexibility much better that 400 degrees. I agree that it does not matter on structures that are not moving but it is very different when exposed to mother nature under a 2cv, again maybe not on street cars so much.

I never forget poor dutch woman Raider OZ Sabine on raid 2000 with her new english reinforced 4x4. It broke down every single day and we worked day and night to get her through the raid. She ended in tears out of fustrations. So many things snapped, it was simply too stiff for raiding.

Not much to see, but we worked every day on chassis, suspension, arms etc.

If I were to go on a prolonged off-road trip, I know which chassis I would use - an SLC. Not just because they are well-proven, well-made and well designed, but because they would also be easier than a Cit original to repair if badly damaged. And breaking original 70s chassis seems a shame if they are uncorroded to begin with (which they would be if expecting them to last a few thousand miles off-road).

A chassis with no give in it at all will cause problems when serious off-roading, didn't some older lwb Land Rovers once suffer from half-shaft breakages because of this?

If a 2CV is on a completely different chassis design with suspension components laid out differently, then it is a different car. I've never got the idea of a modified 4x4 2CV - as well as expensive and poor on fuel, the engine needs to be significantly uprated if you are not to ground to a halt in the gloop or on a steep incline through lack of horsepower, not lack of grip. I know, I've been there!

It's surprising how well a conventional car will do with the right tyres for the conditions, as well as chains if necessary. If you do get bogged down, a 2wd car won't have got as stuck as a 4wd, either. As always, original is best. And if you want really serious traction, do as Citroën did and use caterpillar tracks.

Unfortunately Sabine discovered that her (Barbour built) 4x4 was essentially designed for extreme off road use and not the constant battering the raid cars endure over corrugated roads.

I presume she had stiffer springs which would have caused breakages in all sorts of areas when driving long distances over Australian dirt roads.

I discovered this when 'testing' my Barbour built 4x4 in Australia in 2005. It was superb on Fraser Island in the sand (2WD would get nowhere) and on hills/mud and deep dust drifts but struggled over the corrugated roads in the Northern Territory and Kimberley. Although nothing broke (the car has gone through some hefty redesigns since 2000 - including chassis and suspension arms) it is set up for a very different type of use. A 'soft ride' is essential on those dirt roads. Saying that I would love to do the same trip in the same car but with different spring tensions.. I bet it would cope now...

I think there are two areas here and its hard to mix the two. I wouldn't call general raiding 'off road' at all. Raiding is for 2WD cars and is usually on dirt or rocky roads/tracks etc. Although of course people go everywhere.... My bog standard un-modified 2CV managed to go from London to Mongolia on the worst roads I have ever seen. I was amazed at how strong and capable it was. 4x4 2CV's go places where a 2WD 2CV would not even consider (however some try with hilarious results). Essentially they are not raid cars.. well not yet anyway...

Because the standard 2CV is so good at raiding the 4x4 2CV has always been developed by engineers and such like. Citroen tried with the Sahara, Voisin 4x4 and Barbour to name a few. The proof is out there!



Not really why you buy a 4x4! But its not that bad...

Mine was!

17mpg, flat at 50mph. Cheaper to tow it behind the Saab, as well as quicker, more comfortable and a damn sight less smelly.

To be fair, the engine was thoroughly shagged - it got through a sump of oil per tank, too.

I think you had issues!

Mine does 30-35 MPG at 55-60MPH.. fully laden

you've obviously never been offroading with my dad... reverse is NOT an option.

@ viking mine is on mk1 equipment and the spring were to stiff mine will be going to softer springs before villvenard

I got my car stuck the other day and just picked the back up and moved it round, Killed my back but i still managed too, so its extra weight but not that much.
And 4x4 2cv's go alot further then the 2wds will, i once went on a trial and this 2wd 2cv was equipped for trialing wheel in bonnet etc and it didnt get anywhere and the 4x4 just got straight up, the landrovers were struggling to get traction too.
(sorry mods for bein off topic)
i think they way forward is the new barbour 2wd reinforced chassis...

where have you been?