Bent BT 50 4X4

Very good advice Ozi M.

I learnt this the hard way, on the Duncan Rd in the Kimberley’s, driving a LWB Land Rover tray back with a canvas canopy. It was sometime between 1967-69 during the wet season( which had been dry) we were doing survey work on the Ord catchment as the dam was under construction. We were loaded with survey gear and supplies for a 3-4 week field trip.

I was driving. We were doing about 80kph. We hit a hidden dip, that none of us saw, that pitched us hard onto the front wheels. The heavy gear in the rear was launched skywards with some expensive survey gear going straight through the old canvas onto the road and into the Bush. The force of the impact broke the steering box off the chassis so the aftermath was an uncontrolled excursion into the road side Bush.

No seat belts in those days so the three of us in the front all hit the roof plus each other and other things before we came to a stop. No major injuries as it turned out.

We lashed the steering box back onto the chassis, collected all the kit and drove back to Kununurra where we received a serious tongue lashing from the boss. A replacement vehicle and survey kit and one day later we were back on the road. We drove a lot slower after that and were far more vigilant in looking for dips.

We were all in our late teens, thought we were pretty good experienced drivers. To this day I look for dips and the tell tale signs that often accompany them.

I feel sorry for the BT50 owner. Unfortunately sh..... does happen even to the best prepared.

John

Chassis bending is common on twin cab Triton's

I know the bloke that bent the Triton. It sat in the police yard at Oodnadatta for a week or 2 until it was recovered. The camper trailer was not an overly big one either. Anyway ...it was repaired under insurance ( straightened ) and then promptly sold. He now has a v8 Troopy...and is happy with that.


Cheers Keith

About what issues? There is only one brand that has issues. You load your vehicle appropriately and drive appropriately you'll have no problems. I have a dual cab just under it's GVM, I tow a 1.5tonne trailer through some of the worst country in Aus and have never had an issue with the ute. The trailer has been repaired a few times but not the ute. And I have hit a few dips at speed to

One brand? I assume you mean Mitsubishi? Clearly wrong when Hilux, Landcruiser and BT50 have already been mentioned here. Plenty of Navaras bend too, they had a reputation in years gone by.

Navara's especially still do, especially in Europe where they salt the roads and it rusts out the chassis where it kicks up at the back of the cab.
They literally snap in 1/2.

Apart from your wording appearing inappropriate, Swampy (I believe you may have meant "no more OVERRATED crap from Thailand"?), I think your statement contains more than its fair share of unsubstantiated bias. Vehicles from Thailand ( though often manufactured elsewhere) are not only some of the most popular in Australia, they are also getting a reputation for being reliable, well built and well designed.
There are thousands of these running about with camping gear on the back, the vast majority having no problems whatsoever. There is a group of individuals who appear intent upon making a ruckus regarding the carrying capacities of these vehicles and a "tendency" to bend chassis (a version of the weird pleasure some get from using forums to vent anger or suggest some kind of superiority). A common link is made to a three year old article by Ron Moon. In this article the suggestion is that bent chassis are common. In reality they are mainly common when vehicles are overloaded, poorly loaded and driven too quickly or with lack of caution. I discussed this with Peter Barnes after this article came out (I am looking to set up a ute with a slide on) and he confirmed he felt the issue was not the design of the vehicles, but the main issues were excess weight, weight distribution and, above all, inappropriate speed. As mentioned the vast majority of similar vehicles are fine.
It is true there is a misunderstanding (overestimation?) of the carrying ability of the popular utes (witness the numerous people towing vehicles over GCM without realising it). The ute owner in this article believes he was doing all the right things. Unfortunately having that much extra weight behind the rear axle may be technically within the range of the carrying capacity but is without doubt inappropriately placed for 4wd-ing. Appropriately loaded and driven utes experience, and will continue to experience few, if any, problems in this regard.
Cheers,
Mark

This issue comes up from time to time.
While you do see all makes with it occasionally, the Tritons do / did seems to be more often in the photos, I have a heap of them in my 4WD pics files found over the years, along with side on comparos of different makes showing some with terrible rear axle position, others are certainly better.
It's amazing what even a few inches of more rearward axle placement achieves to reduce risk.

Design has a lot to do with this issue.
It is FAR more prevalent problem in dual cab designs, where the rear axle has to be far too forward, more so in some models like the Triton.
Turning circle would be unworkable if you moved that back to a more central position.

Extra cabs and single cabs are much more suitable in design for what many are asking of their tourers.

You only have to look at the dual cab Tritons side on to Hilux, Ranger, any of the common makes to see there are some issues with position or rear axle.
Even 79 dual cabs look like a bad design too, but their chassis can generally handle it, except in extreme cases of poorly thought out setting up.
Pretty sure I have a pic or 2 of bent 79s.

I recall heading east towards Birdsville one crossing, we came over a dune and down in the corridor was a small group stopped, a Landrover dual cab obviously bent, large slide on fitted.
There were a swag of people sitting about, waved, but my group had kept going so seeing they were all ok, we kept moving.
I thought the poor bugger, but it could have happened to anyone in the right (wrong) circumstance.

All these would be fine if they weren't loaded up for trips, usually far greater stresses using them off road over their designed road specs, the heaviest weights are often far too rearward, home made or bought slide on type canopies with twin wheel carriers on the back, big roof storage with fuel or other spare wheels, heavy stuff popped in the very rear for easier storage and access, or heavy towball weight towing.
With towing, not just heavy towball weight, but added stresses of it in movement on tracks, and especially in undulating / rough country like those beach access points, or dunes.

With added weight and / or towing, people often put airbags in, which reduces the nice spread 2 point leafpoint weight distribution, more so onto one focus point.
Used right they are ok, but used as a substitute lift in a weighted rear and it's just asking for trouble.

I'm not engineer, but it's painfully obvious there are often multiple factors and contributing circumstances that cause bent chassis, and others failures too.

The 'perfect storm' once is all it takes.

I'm sure Tritons are fine, when used right, a simple decent constant load suspension upgrade to cope with a moderate, well loaded rear cargo area and all ok.

As long as dual cabs are made, there are going to be threads and stories online about this forever . . . and they are so popular, it's easy to see their market share will only increase as it has been for the past numerous decade or so.

I spoke to the engineer approving my GVM upgrade regarding this option. He suggested some of the "quick fixes" being done are only transferring the problem to other areas of the chassis- often more likely to break. His advice was, if I wanted to go down this track, it would be a substantial chassis rework, insurance maybe, but hardly cheap.

His advice was to have a properly engineered GVM Upgrade, avoid airbags (not that they are an issue in and of themselves, more-so in how they are used) and load and drive to the conditions.

Cheers,

Mark

Best thing don't tow in sandy condition's like this.

And yep for sand I start at 20 psi work down to 15 and done 10 for some really soft stuff speed has to be about walking pace for the 10psi pop rims off otherwise.

I have seen some kumo's fitted to white steelies on a prado pop off at much as 18 psi

So what , you don't like the dmax? Strange you should diss the dmax, I've heard its a lovely truck.

Hi Paul E6,

I think you have misunderstood my post.

The chassis on a D-Max is what is used in their 6 tonne trucks. What I suggested was that anyone buying a new ute should compare the chassis of any other ute with that of an Isuzu. They will notice a big difference in favour of the D-Max. If people expect their loaded vehicle will be around the 3 tonne mark then I suggest that the D-Max is the most capable truck to carry that weight if you intend travelling any sort of rough roads.

As for dismissing the D-Max, heavens no. I have a slide-on camper and need a Lovells GVM upgrade to 3.6 tonne to be able to carry it. If fact I took delivery of my second D-Max only yesterday. Because I travel the outback reliability is everything to me and the D-Max with a truck chassis and truck motor ticks all the boxes IMHO.

Chris

No way in the world is the do the d-max's and isuzu's light trucks share the same chassis.

Dmax has a 6 Ton Truck chassis first I've heard that one , they will bend just like any other Dual Cab .

Chris, the D-Max is a great ute, has a reputation of being one of the more solid in the class (though mainly from the mechanicals). But the chassis is absolutely NOT the same as the smaller truck chassis.

Cheers,
Mark

Gazz

I mentioned further up that I was on a trip a few months with a guy who bent the chassis in his Ranger on a bumpy river crossing .

It was a style-side dual cab. I don't know what was in the back under the canopy but he was towing a forward fold camper which I have read elsewhere are nose heavy.

Cheers

The dual cab Triton I mentioned in my reply above, Gazz, was a style side with a canopy.

Bob

Rocco2010, that's a bit like the story of a guy I used to work with.
He landscaped his place all week-end, lugging around railway sleepers, shifted 20 cubic metres of soil with a wheel barrow, lopped a tree down and dug the stump out.
Monday morning at work, he was all chirpy and told us what a big job he achieved in his yard.
Was not 10 minutes later he reached across a desk to pick up a biro and collapsed to the floor. He'd done his back, was carted away by the Ambo's on a stretcher and was off work for several weeks. Ruptured a disk apparently.
What caused his crook back, was it what he did on the week-end or was it the reaching for the biro.
We will never know.
Cheers

Looking behind the two signature pics above.....seems like Bob and Blue are one and the same.......lol
mike

Ha ha, you're wrong there, Mike!

Just 2 old fellars with similar interests, I'd say. Anyway, having 2 EO accounts would be like having 2 wives, not worth the trouble for very little gain.

Bob

Good one Bob...
My curiosity came because both pics interchanged and I reckoned that was your Cruiser and van?.

Regarding 2 wives, many years ago a well known actor had 2, in houses opposite each other........not far to visit and he seemed pretty happy....
Mike

Mine would find the bump stops with 250kg (bagged stock feed) on the back, so they are under sprung from the factory for what they are supposed to be able to carry.
Engineered more to ride as a passenger vehicle with a load carrying option than a work horse when stock.

"There is nothing wrong with the car. It was just unlucky enough to get the wrong owner."

Yes - you can only wonder how many other times the fellow in the video has previously hit washouts, dips and large potholes etc he hasn't seen by going way too fast - which all eventually contributed to this final result !

I'm sure we have all seen in our travels the "speedster" who drives 30% faster than conditions allow whether in sand, on corrugations, in mud, over gibbers and up or down steep rocky hills ? I have travelled with friends that have four, five hundred thousand k's on their dual cabs - some with custom made canopies and no bent chassis's - and I will have an educated guess that's because they are not overloaded, have the weight distributed properly and drive to the conditions !


Happy and safe travels

Cheers

Gazz

Swampy, did you get frightened by a Triton as a child?

The current group of dual cabs are hardly "rubbish''. A few thousand satisfied owners having driven millions of kms would disagree. Collectively millions, of course. Even Land Rover owners don't claim that much ;-)

Cheers,

Mark

There have been many posts about this subject previously and it has been shown that all brands have bent their chassis.

For around $5000 a number of companies can extend and reinforce the chassis of any dual cab. This moves the wheels under the centre of the tray and will then provide you the strength of the single cab together with the benefits of a 5 seater vehicle.

Creative Conversions in Brisbane and Specialised Vehicles south of Sydney are just two of the companies.

The fee includes an Engineer's report to enable registration in any state/territory.

Please look into this more before posting more comments that appear to only being made to justify your own choice of vehicle.

Have a good new year, and let's research things a bit more before posting without thinking....

Never seen a Land Rover that hasn’t fallen of a cliff or been hit by a train with a bent chassis!

Tomdej, I presume you are replying to my comment? No need to justify my choice of vehicle, my point wasn't about the actual vehicle. It was regarding the unreasoned tone taken to denigrate products on the market which some dislike. There have been numerous posts on the bent chassis subject, mostly from those not really having done THEIR research. Of those who have chosen dual cab utes to use for recreation (over 10,000 utes sold in September alone) the vast majority do not see these problems. Many users here use dual cab utes as their 4wd's. They use them regularly and do thousands of kms without issue. Denigrating their choice is, in my opinion, inappropriate and close to trolling. Some thinking (and research) before those posts might be more appropriate.

If you want to make an issue, how about using some real world statistics and getting some actual data. As for research, I have personally been researching this issue, as I am about to get a new vehicle in this class. In doing so I have spoken to engineers, government bodies and users. Including getting information and quotations on options from Creative Conversions amongst others. A general chassis extension can have some benefits but is not the definitive answer to off-road use with overloaded vehicles. To enhance a standard dual cab (some more than others) to cope with loads (both weight and placement) seen with most of those with bent chassis takes more than the $5000 chassis extension and the addition of a couple of fish-plates. The type of engineering likely to make the BT50 in the original post reliable would be significantly more work and cost. Check with creative Conversions to see a cost to increase a chassis on a Triton AND include a GVM... I think you'll need a little more than your 5 grand.

There are numerous options for the average user to improve their situation, e.g. the 300mm extension you mentioned can often be more easily achieved by going from a dual cab to an extra-cab, with none of the other additional issues involved in aftermarket modifications.

Of course, this does not stop some from deciding they now have a longer tray, might as well use it all up. We are back to personal choices, load ratings, appropriate use and driving.

Again, there are examples of most types of utes bending chassis, but the vast majority do not. Could the manufacturers do a better job of marketing their product? Yes, but you can say that of many products. It is up to the user to make the best decisions for their use.

Nice to see you have been thinking before posting!

And Shaker, my comment on the Land Rover was regarding the mileage, not the chassis (poorly worded, I guess, sorry). But just to be consistent, my brother-in-laws 130 has a bent chassis. Mind you, I wouldn't let him drive any of my cars on his farm (or off, come to think of it)!

Enjoy your new years.

Just curious - would anyone have any official statistics on how many dual cabs have actually had bent chassis's ?? Most of the stories I have read on this great site and numerous other sites all seem to post about the same utes bending - along with a new one maybe every six months or so.

In the last ten years would there be 20 ? 50 ? or even a hundred ( which I doubt )
Would be interesting to find out as there would easily be over a million dual cab utes sold in the last ten / fifteen years in Australia.


Cheers
Gazz

Gazz, a problem in finding these stats is accuracy. It appears there is anecdotal evidence (albeit from reliable and qualified sources) that many dual cabs have some degree of chassis damage which may not show up for years. There is an issue with using these utes as they are advertised (and worse... perceived).

Couple that with a fair number of extra- and single-cabs also having chassis damage (though in far lesser numbers, suggesting that a main issue is weight behind the rear axle) and many other vehicles (from lightweight to heavy weight) also having damage and the picture is not clearly defined.

What is clear is, given the sales numbers with good approximations of the numbers being used recreationally and the problem is far from common (statistically).

There are enough incidences to suggest far too many are overloading and poorly positioning weight on these vehicles (I feel the comment by the BT 50 owner that the load was "within the capacity" of the vehicle shows a misunderstanding of the forces involved).

Regardless, those I have spoken to (engineers and outback mechanics) suggest the main issue is not just weight but speed and inappropriate driving. I'd be interested in comments from existing dual-cab owners here. Keep in mind, on the net you mainly see comments from those with an issue, giving a somewhat biased picture.

Dual cabs are always going to need the axle too far forward than is ideal . . . they would have an unviable turning circle otherwise, most likely too great for some design rule somewhere.

The other thing that maybe isn't so important to all is ramp over, either in normal design, or with extended chassis which are of course frightfully expensive to do.
You'd be better buying a more suitable vehicle if you needed chassis extension . . . for slide ons with all the wheel carriers, roof rack carrier, and an extended tourer type of load.
A single cab 79, Iveco 4x4 Daily in single or dual cab, etc, but there aren't too many choices.

I've been driving these "rubbish" dual cab Ute's since 1982. I tow a very heavy work trailer daily & have traveled most of the outback, a lot of it towing a camper, or a caravan. I've never bent one, nor even seen a bent one other than on the net. But hey, that's only 35 years, I'm sure I'll bend one eventually lol.

Kevin, I generally agree with your sentiment, but would not like to see it discount what is a real issue for many. I'm sure many of those who have suffered bent chassis as a result of overloading or poor loading did not do so willfully. They are encouraged to place unreasonable loads on their vehicles by the advertising and promotion of these vehicles as outback "weapons" (look at the advertising for the Ranger- you'd think NASA was considering one for their next Mars trip). Couple that with the advent of the amateur YouTube adventurer, bashing their way up an already overly rutted hill, and you can see why many would think these things are invincible.

The fact that many justify their loading by recourse to the maximum weights noted in their specs (disregarding the idea that this is in flat, ideal circumstances) appears to indicate and support the theory that promotion is largely to blame.

Personally, the one that worries me most is the advertising of towing abilities. Simply promoting "capable of towing 3.5 tonne" is not only disingenuous, it is, in my opinion, dangerous. If someone bends their chassis on some dunes it is (usually) disastrous only for themselves. It's a different story if someone is towing a 3.5 tonne van along the Hume Highway on the Easter Weekend- there is the potential for catastrophic damage to themselves, their families and others on the road.

I'd argue that some personal responsibility be taken by those who buy & modify dual cabs, tow unsuitable loads with them off road, then fail to adjust their driving style to the conditions.

Just had a glance at the trailer towing/off roading section of the owner's manual for my Ute, it's quite detailed. Even gets into driving on rough ground, hills, tyre pressures/types. It also states that damage caused by incorrect towing techniques voids the warranty. That "should" set alarm bells ringing for anyone looking to tow, especially if they're not sure of what they're doing.

The modern fascination with making 4WD's "look" a certain way with after market mods doesn't help.

All of the manufacturers, with the exception of Land Rover although there may be others, produce their range of utes - single cab, extra can, or dual cab with a single choice of wheelbase. This is not because it is the ideal solution, it's because it cuts costs.

As an owner of a dual cab ute with an extended chassis I understand the increased turning circle (still less than a 130 LandRover), and the slightly worse ramp over, but this is more than made up for, in my opinion, with having a ute that is more fit for purpose than the cantilevered trays on other dual cabs.

I agree that the vast majority of utes are not taken off road, and by the time problems arise warranty may have ended.

Look at the big utes available in the US, and see that they have the rear wheels under the load area, where it needs to be. The blame for bent chassis needs to be shared by owners overloading, owners not driving to the conditions, and manufacturers who won't sell a better designed product.

and manufacturers who won't sell a better designed product.
===========================

These dual cabs started decades ago as a single cab with a back seat added to carry a few extra workmen. This was long before families suddenly found them useful.

Their research would have shown there is not enough interest in a lengthened dual cab based on the curent type. When their market research shows there is, they will do it. At the moment there is only a tiny minority of owners that are having chassis problems.

You are right about the big US utes. If you were to ask Ford of GM why they don't lengthen the chassis and relocate the axle on their dual cabs so owners can carry more weight than the entire chassis and drive train has been designed for, they would show you their range of US utes and say we already have vehicles designed to do that. Why would they want to make another one?

Hi
last time I looked at were F truks dual cabs ,dont no the model /yr but the rear axle was no where near the rear cab door . Far different from the crap we are served .

Towed for decades every day a heavy single axle on the back of a dual cab . Then changed ute and went dual axle way way better . NO MORE AGGRESIVE TRAILER ACTION influencing ute .

THe rear distance from rear axle to towball is pathetic on Aussie/Asia utes .