After The Forester Decisions and Comments.

Even so, I think the overhang behind the rear wheels may be illegal would it not?
 
That I don`t know but would certainly need to be investigated and is certainly a good and valid point.
The Innovan I saw was mounted on a, lengthened chassis, single cab Nissan Patrol ute owned by the designer at Toowoomba.
He reckoned it was all legal. He had lengthened the chassis to accommodate a towbar for his boat.
 
As I recall I could not get the Innovan to fit on the Triton double cab because the amount of overhang behind the rear wheels was too much to met the requirements (which I cannot recall at present).
 
Yes so a lengthening of chassis to move rear axle back by about 500 mm is needed.
This gives an effective 800 mm extra tray length.
However investigation will be trquired
 
ateday have you asked Innovan for pictures on any dual cab setups? After recently going through a dual cab work setup careful thought and detail about where things were positioned to make sure even disbursement of load was achieved. Depending what your vehicle is also depends on whether a heavier suspension is necessary for everything to be cricket and your load a safe one to carry. If your unit itself weighs 500kg, that's a fair amount before you go adding necessities such as water and spare fuel etc let alone recovery gear/clothes & food. Then you've got to factor in how much the humans weigh that you put in the vehicle. The many hours of research you will do most certainly will provide you with a top vehicle at the end of it.

Best regards,
 
Thanks Scooby2 for your input.
Yes there are still many things to investigate. To my knowledge no twin cabs have yet been used with the slide on Innovan.
The chassis will certainly need to be lengthened by about 500 mm and the rear axle moved back by this amount. This has the advantage that there will be more useful, and useable, load carrying space alongside the chassis rails for fuel and water tanks. All below the C of G so that aids stability.
Suspension will need to be heavy duty, possibly air bag assisted so that unladen ride will not be too rugged.
Not a dead cert yet by any means, many things yet to be investigated.
Could be too expensive at the end of it all but probably still less than an all singing, all dancing, camper van
 
Don't use air bags - they are a well known cause of bending the chassis on utes. It's because they take the load at a single point rather than spread across the rear suspension; they are also very unreliable and prone to leakage.

I wonder if an Iveco Daily 4x4 could take an Innovan unmodified - quite possible I think but @ $90K in base form somewhat expensive but they are an awesome vehicle: https://www.traveltrucks.com.au/4x4-iveco-daily
https://www.traveltrucks.com.au/4x4-ute
 
The Iveco is indeed good and there is a mob in Brizbanal who build and modify them into buses for mining companies and 4WD camper vans. Expensive but with diff locks, dual range and something like 6 or 8 speed gearboxes coupled with a heavy duty suspension are excellent.
Air bags I would only use with(in) coil springs.
The search continues.
 
Kevin said:
Don't use air bags - they are a well known cause of bending the chassis on utes. It's because they take the load at a single point rather than spread across the rear suspension.
Click to expand...
There is a known issue with long moment arm towing (distance from axle/suspension load point to tow coupling). Probably the worst type of vehicle for this is the BT-50/Ranger when an uprated rear suspension is fitted.

Because of the long moment arm, a ball weight near the limit causes butt-sag, and this is exacerbated by any load in the tub. Heavy-duty springs and uprated shocks merely address the sag, BUT all of a sudden the effect of the bending moment on the vehicle structure is worsened by the stiffness. The usual signs are structural deformation, often first noticed by creasing of the bodywork around the wheel arch area. And yet people keep buying these as tow tugs for their 3.5T vans! As Richie would say, "Remarkable!"
 
Gidday Ate

I have looked at an awful lot of these modern dual or large cab units since becoming aware of the loading problems associated with them. BTW, I mean eye-balled, not inspected closely ...

IMHO, none of these modern vehicles are suitable for carrying even the loads that we would routinely put in the station ute in my youth. e.g. full 44 gallon drums, engines and the like. With the old ute/s, the load was up against the back of the cab, and that put it fully between the axles.

With these ersatz utility vehicles, there is insufficient room to put any heavy load in this position. The rear axle is just far too close to the front of the well. From my observations, all of these vehicles are relying on the strength of their chassis to counteract the huge cantilever effect, and as Kevin and Zippo have already said, it just isn't strong enough.

When I look at photos of my 1968 Landcruiser deep well ute, the axle was around half way from the front of the well to the rear, and it had a bloody strong chassis, to boot! Almost nothing appears to be designed this way these days. They have all become 'designer vehicles', not work vehicles ... :cry:.

Just my two bob's worth, FWIW.
 
I agree & wish they would move the rear axles further back instead of immediately behind the cab (in the case of double cab). The F150s and Dodge Rams seem to have the correct rear axle position.
 
Would go great on one of these beasts
lazy-axle-08.jpg


They do all sorts of conversions, all of them expensive, but they also sell pre-converted vehicles.
https://www.creativeconversions.com.au/
 
^ That costs money, Kevin.

Easier to just leave the chassis alone, and hope like hell that no one who buys one will actually use it to carry any kind of substantial load ... :puke:.

An interesting thing to contemplate is the wheelbases of the various pre-1980 Landcruisers.

SWB - 90 inches - fantastic, go anywhere vehicle. terrific approach, departure and ramp over angles. Basically unequalled except by the SWB Land Rover. Dreadful, rocking horse ride ... :(

Station wagon - 106 inch - good vehicle, but don't subject it to too much articulation, as the body was in one piece, and would crack the roof above the centre door pillars ...

LWB tray and deep well ute - 116 inch WB - pretty darn good approach, departure and ramp over angles. A bit higher off the ground than the SWB and station wagon. With the cab and tray/ute part being completely separate units, articulation was not a problem. Many's the time I have looked in the rear vision mirror only to note that the ute well was at a distinctly different angle from the rest of the vehicle.

The LWB also had enormous springs. Designed to carry a ton, its springs were wider, thicker, about a foot longer and with more leaves than the 2 ton Dyna of the day. Toyota advertised at the time that it would carry a ton anywhere. I can personally vouch for that ...
 
Red XS said:
Would go great on one of these beasts


They do all sorts of conversions, all of them expensive, but they also sell pre-converted vehicles.
https://www.creativeconversions.com.au/
Click to expand...

Even so, Red, IMNSHO, the first rear axle is doing next to nothing.
The whole dual axle assembly needs to be moved back about 300 mm ...

But again, that invloves modifying the chassis upsweep point, and that's bloody expensive. Cheaper to just leave it where it is, and change the rear part of the chassis/subframe ...

IMO, if the design is wrong, don't modify it - change it ...
 
pezimm said:
^ but turning circle of the Queen Mary 2 and ramp over angles less than impressive...
Click to expand...

Quite right, Pedro.

However, it is amazing what the 7L Cummins diesel in the Dodge Ram can do ... I have been in one owned by a friend.
 
Back
Top