Gen3 outback front recovery points... a thought

duncanm

duncanm

Forum Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
695
Location
Sydney
Car Year
1998
Car Model
BH5 Outback. JDM Twin Turbo Conversion
Transmission
5MT DR
Crawling under my outback, I notice the mounts (three bolts) for the left 'tie down' and right 'tow point' are exactly the same, mirrored.

Why not source a second tow plate from a wrecker and replace the tie-down point? (*)

The plate is slightly bend up at its edges - so may need some minor grinding down to fit flush.. and the stock bumper obviously doesn't provide a matching hole, but for those with aftermarket bumpers/bullbars - any reason why not?

(*) - clearly - something like a aftermarket tow hook would be better.
 
Gidday Duncan

I agree. Regardless of how well that tow/recovery point and bolt are engineered (we have that system on our SH), distributing the load at the front, or using the tow bar at the rear has to put less eccentric stresses on the frame of the car, specially in extreme situations.
 
^ so have I.

Rated load distribution strap with rated shackles.

But our vehicles don't have the recovery point and bolt of the newer models.
SWMBO's SH has.
 
my thinking was more that the std tie-down point is pretty small - marginal to fit a rated shackle pin through.

That, and the recovery plate has more meat on it
 
We have upgraded our tie-down points with a stronger tow point - these mount onto the front of the vehicle using the three bolts on each side that you have mentioned above...

picture.php


picture.php


picture.php
 
duncanm said:
my thinking was more that the std tie-down point is pretty small - marginal to fit a rated shackle pin through.
Click to expand...

Not a problem on my series II SG fronts. At the rear, I have a massive and extremely strongly attached tow bar.

That, and the recovery plate has more meat on it
Click to expand...

Duncan, I can't speak for other models, but the front tie down points on my SG are strongly attached to the lower sub-frame. The top of this sub-frame is further attached by a piece of shaped steel about 150w x 250h to the upper sub-frame.

The bolt holding this reinforcing plate onto the bottom sub-frame also goes right through the sub-frame, exactly where the tie down point plate is welded to the lower sub-frame. The top of this reinforcing plate is welded to the upper sub-frame, which is an integral part of the body shell. i.e. it's pretty flaming strong already ...
 
Tigger, they look nice & meaty, but why are they different? It would be better using a hook system on each side to eliminate the need for shackles.

NOTE: when using a distribution strap, it is essential to feed the strap through the loop on the snatch strap. Do not use a shackle here as it becomes a flying missile if anything breaks.
 
We already had the one with the "hook" it came with the bullbar but the other side was just a plate - we didn't really feel comfortable only having a tow point on one side of the front of the car for obvious reasons and so went about trying to get the other side fabbed up so that we had a point on each side... The person we went to, to do the fab work was only able to offer the closed loop as a solution - ideally, we would have liked another "hook" but unfortunately that wasn't possible :( Maybe later on, we are able to have something similar made up - but for now, hopefully this will do...
 
A new recovery point is all good and well however ive seen one point rip off an SF Forester. The loop bit didnt fail, the chassis it was bolted to had. So putting a new point on doesnt mean its stronger than factory but may mean you have a larger heavier missile that launches at the recovery vehicle when it rips off.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the factory point especially with an equilizer strap (or tree trunk protector or similar) which is what should be done each recovery for the sake of the bogged car and recovery vehicle.
It doesnt look strong or like anything flash but one must remember it is a unibody vehicle at the end of the day and you're snatching off whats essentially a box section which doesnt have the integrity of the SHS of a ladder chassis :)
 
^ I agree in general, TI. Our Subies are not built like Landcruisers (etc). Treating them as if they were as some do is a guarantee of ending in tears, with an empty wallet ... :poke: :(.

That having been said, one of the major changes in the SG (and further in the SH) was a very considerable strengthening of front end, adding a further upper sub-frame (as part of the monocoque shell), and further reinforcement of the rear.

Kevin sent me a PDF outlining these changes. They are substantial. e.g.

SG+Forester+body+shell+framing+crop.jpg


Larger version here .

You can see where the upper reinforcement frame is attached to the lower sub-frame at the tie down points.
 
Sorry, Duncan, we seemed to have swerved your question OT.

I suppose the structures of OBs and Foxes are not all that different ... :iconwink:
 
no problems -- this is all useful stuff.

The message is pretty clear: you can beef up your hooks, but if you don't take care using them, you'll bust the next weakest link. Whether it be pull bolts out, bend those longitudinal chassis arms, whatever.
 
^^ & ^

Got to agree with this summation.

Even most 'big' 4WDs are not built as strongly as they used to be IMO - many weaknesses introduced to make them bearable to drive; and driveable by complete idiots in some cases; i.e. the lowest common denominator principle.

Treating things sensibly rarely causes them to break IME.
 
Thanks Ratbag for the PDF info. Interesting! I have looked at a Gen 1 liberty, a Gen 2 OB and a Gen 3 and each consecutive model has more metal, larger sections, built stronger than the model before. So id say that PDF would just about apply to the liberty/Outback too.

But yes. I always prefer to self recover first.
 
^ the full PDF that Kevin sent me is about 30-40 pages, IIRC.

As it is/was advertising material made available for public distribution by Subaru, I cannot see any reason why I can't upload it to my web site for general availability.

Thanks for your observations regarding the on-going development and strengthening of the OB / Liberty range. It makes perfect sense for that to be the case.
 
duncanm said:
The message is pretty clear: you can beef up your hooks, but if you don't take care using them, you'll bust the next weakest link.
Click to expand...
ateday said:
One major thing to keep in mind is take it all as gently and as smoothly as possible.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. We don't have big fat trucks, we have light nimble Subies. Snatch gently, only use more momentum if needed & only up to a point, never flat out. Be VERY cautious when letting a big 4wd snatch you out as most don't understand the meaning of "subtle" (or be able to spell it :rotfl:)

A shovel is a great recovery tool.
Click to expand...
Yep, often using a shovel for 5min will help you get unstuck without help, but if not, it will certainly make it easier! :biggrin:
 
Ratbag said:
^ the full PDF that Kevin sent me is about 30-40 pages, IIRC.

As it is/was advertising material made available for public distribution by Subaru, I cannot see any reason why I can't upload it to my web site for general availability.

Thanks for your observations regarding the on-going development and strengthening of the OB / Liberty range. It makes perfect sense for that to be the case.
Click to expand...

Wow, it would be an interesting read. Yes, you should post it up somewhere!


No worries. It does make sense. My boss has a gen 2 liberty offroader wagon and at one stage we had them side by side at work comparing the two. Interesting thing of note were the recovery points/tie down hooks. On his, they were steel loops moulded into the chassis like an L series. On mine (and all Foresters) its a bolt on point secured with 3 high tensile bolts. I do wonder how the two compare.

One would imagine the points themselves are stronger on the gen 2 however instead of ripping a mount off, itll tweak the chassis instead as the point cant be easily ripped? Hmm...
 
Back
Top