Print

[Bigdog1967]

Can you please let me know if this is a military heavy duty chassis, thanks

[Bigdog1967]

Another

[Bigdog1967]

Another one

[Bigdog1967]

Again

[Bigdog1967]

Last one

[diffwhine]

I'm not 100% sure because I'm more familar with the Series 3 ex Mil 109s, but with extended spring shackles and so on, it appears to be what it purports to be. The photos need to be a bit clearer ideally to get a good view.

Being a late 2A Ex MOD 109, I think it has the wrong rear cross member fitted, but I don't actually know when the UK MOD went over to the square rear cross member. I might stand corrected, but I thought this was in the 2A era and earlier than yours.

It looks as though it has had quite a lot of welding which is to be expected at this stage, but can you find the chassis number stamped on the RHF chassis leg? Given that you may have some issues with getting a V5C for this vehicle, correct identification of a stamped chassis number actually on the frame will be essential to satisfy DVLA. I think that they may not accept just the bulkhead screw on plates.

Looks like quite a nice and relatively original vehicle. All I would urge, as others have done, is to be very wary of buying anything without paperwork. Ask yourself why it does not have a V5C, because if you can't get it registered on an age related plate and it ends up on a Q plate, that will signifiantly impact on its value. Again as others have said, do talk to the S2C Vehicle Registration Officer. He may be able to save you a whole world of pain...

[nathanglasgow]

Not sure where the myth of 'heavy duty' military chassis came from. There is no difference in the thickness of the metal between military and civilian models. Differences are extented spring hangers on 109s, bolt on gearbox crossmember, extra outrigger on passenger side for fuel tank and a different shape rear crossmember with extra gussets. Yours appears to have the extended spring hangers. If your chassis is covered in a hard brittle tar like substance it will be military in origin. The military sprayed this on for rust protection.

[GHOBHW]

not uncommon for rear crossmembers to be changed though. they seem to always be the first things to go
my GPO land rover was held by an RAF pilot in the 70s and ended up with a military rear crossmember on it from the stockpiles there, along with all the military rear crossmember bits.

[Wittsend]

It's a shame they didn't replace the rear crossmember with the military version 
Back in the day this option was not common and much more expensive than a standard civvy 1/4 chassis.

 

[Peter Holden]

To add a complication   YOD is fitted with an ex MOD NOS rear 1/4  chassis. ( It was still in its preservative wrapping when I got it). The major anomaly is that it has a civilian cross member and was made in the USA.
It just shows we can't take anything for granted

Peter

[Craig T]

When did 1/4 chassis for the 109" come out?

Back when I restored my 109" around 1995 - 1996 there was nothing specifically for the 109". I had to use an 88" rear crossmember with extensions and try to adapt it to the 109" chassis which is a very different shape and completely different spring hangers.

Craig.

[diffwhine]

Not sure, but DDS do them and they supply most of the big name wholesalers.
https://www.ddsmetal.co.uk/product/109-rear-1-4-chassis-with-ext-inc-spring-hangers-lr56-heavy-duty/

Generally very good quality kit as well.

[Bigdog1967]

Managed to get some more pictures, don’t think it looks too bad