Submitted: Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 14:44
ThreadID: 53614 Views:3594 Replies:10 FollowUps:4
This Thread has been Archived
Hi All
While I was working in the Noosa Area yesterday, I saw a late model
Pajero on the back of a flat bed tow truck. After closer inspection I
noticed the vehicle had no apparent panel damage, only had a slight
problem , IT WAS BENT IN THE MIDDLE, near the door pillar, it looked like it was sagging in the middle along the bottom sill,
It must have been driven over a gully or some thing of that nature.
I was amazed to see they dont have an actual chassis, like most four
wheel drives. is this a commen occurrence.?

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 14:50

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 14:50
Search for "monocoque" chassis design......more and more common these days.

AnswerID: 282263

Follow Up By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 15:00

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 15:00
on small to mid size 4wds/AWDs, i should say.....some say soft-roaders.

FollowupID: 546772

Reply By: Russ n Sue - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 16:50

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 16:50
I had an NP Pajero. It was a dog of a car with heaps of problems and I'd never by another one. But one thing it did not do was break in half. The places I took it and the terrain it traversed should have broken it, but it didn't. The monocoque chassis is actually very strong and the Pajero was measured to have less body twist than ladder chassis vehicles in the same class.

Who knows what went wrong with the one you saw?


AnswerID: 282283

Reply By: Gramps (NSW) - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 17:01

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 17:01
It may have been two separate vehicles in a previous life :)))

AnswerID: 282287

Reply By: KSV. - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 17:18

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 17:18
Does not matter what those morons from sales department says monocoque body (or “integrated frame” in case with multi-award-winner-best-4wd-of-all-times Disco) never going to be as strong as frame. Yes, it is better in crash…. but only because it can be jammed! Very sad to see how more and more 4WD (Paj surely was real one in the past!) became no more then shopping trolley. Hopefully I will die before all 4WD inherit such “advance” design.

AnswerID: 282297

Reply By: Mark Taylor - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 18:47

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 18:47
Interesting comments about the Disco 3. It seems to me that their intergrated frame is actually 2 separate chassis' joined into a monocoque body. For what it's worth they are certainly very heavy and this seems to be due to their design according to the motoring writers.

It is interesting to note that in the real world of car accidents in the UK, Volvo S60, Jaguar XJ and Discovery 3 are the safest vewhicles on the road in terms of the occupants surviving an accident.

Of course, if a 777 lands on you while driving past Heathrow, then things might be different.


Mark T
AnswerID: 282334

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 18:56

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 18:56
Maybe there so safe according to the stats as there is so few of them on the road compared to other vehicles?
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 546815

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 23:44

Friday, Jan 18, 2008 at 23:44
Hey Mark,
That 777 is a monocoque construction and all the passengers survived :-))
FollowupID: 546905

Reply By: Member - Christopher P (NSW) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 05:49

Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 05:49
Hey Daza you wouldn't know the Boags would you???
AnswerID: 282406

Reply By: Mark Taylor - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 08:52

Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 08:52
I like your comment re the 777 being monocoque!!

If you talk to any automotive engineer, and by that I mean the guys who actually design vehicles, you will find that they all agree that monocoque is stronger than body on chassis. The Germans have been building monocoque tour coaches (including double deckers) for decades now.

However, a lot of "tradionalists" don't agree.

My late grandfather lamented the passing of crank handles. He predicted that there would be people all over the bush stuck with starter motors that didn't work. Thank god he didn't live to see electronic ignition systems let alone EFI and now monocoque on 4 wheel drives.


Mark T
AnswerID: 282430

Follow Up By: Member - Mike DID - Monday, Jan 21, 2008 at 14:57

Monday, Jan 21, 2008 at 14:57
Would he have been the one who converted the electric windscreen wipers on his Commodore to hand-crank operation -because he was worried about the loss in visibility if the electric wipers failed during a rainstorm :-)
FollowupID: 547400

Reply By: Member - Mike DID - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:22

Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:22
When I changed from Separate-Chassis to Integrated-Chassis 4WD I was expecting a lot more road noise, like in a sedan, because there are no rubber chassis-to-body mounts.

It was definitely no worse.

As for less strength, have look on the underside before you make up your mind on what you WANT to believe - there are chassis members the same size as before, they're just welded to the body. There is a separate sub-frame still for front and rear suspension.

The higher body rigidity of Integrated-Chassis proves that there is no loss in strength.

How come the Pajero keeps on winning the standard production class in the Paris Dakar Rally, ahead of all the Separate-Chassis competition ?
AnswerID: 282454

Reply By: Hoyks - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:38

Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:38
Actually, the production class last year ran

As for the super production class, about the only thing they have in common with production vehicles is the name. The whole chassis is manufactured from tube with the body panels added on to give it shape.
AnswerID: 282461

Reply By: KSV. - Monday, Jan 21, 2008 at 13:16

Monday, Jan 21, 2008 at 13:16
To All Monocoque Advocates

Guys, please just make an imaginable experiment. Load a car in the middle up until it gets folded between wheels. Notice weight. Now cut body up until floor. Repeat experiment. Notice weight. One does not to be Einstein to figure out that with separate chassis car we can put more load (because body itself also weight something) while in monocoque case it would be far less. Now try to convince me that adding body to chassis make things weaker thus making monocoque design stronger.

Again, monocoque design is great from safety point of view, but no way it can bear as much load as proper frame! Otherwise why there are no monocoque trucks around?

Also please do not mix monocoque with 3-D frame design (tubing frame under body panels) found on some competition car in Parris-Dakar rally – it is not monocoque design where body panels itself bear load, but strong 3-D frame design. In fact it can be much stronger then just underbody frame.

And also mind you that there is no plane with monocoque body also – there are two strong beam holding everything together, one running from nose to tail and another one along wings.

AnswerID: 282884

Sponsored Links