Shop4Parts - UK's largest online superstore for FIAT and Alfa Romeo parts

Technical Rear subframe problem

Currently reading:
Technical Rear subframe problem

H

Hannam219

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
2
Points
1
Hello all and hope you can help.


My wife has a 2005 1.3 multijet Panda but has failed the MOT due to subframe rot.


A new subframe is over £700 plus Vat and Im trying to purchased a frame from a scrap yard much cheaper.


My question is the garage who are going to do the repair tell me that we have to find the correct one for the year, but a main dealer is saying that there were nine different types produced between 2004-2012 any truth in that ? or sales talk.


I have found several on line around £200 which all say suitable for a Panda 2004-2012, but the garage who will do the work is concerned that there will holes in the wrong place etc.


The cost is hard and we may have to scrap the car as its just not worth it. Any thoughts please


Thank you


Mark
 
Is it really the subframe that is rotted, or the axle beam?

If it's the beam, then there have been several threads recently about replacing it, and it is not too difficult.

Guarantee that one of the guys who've done this job will be along to help you soon.

Shame if you have to scrap your Multijet - they're such great little cars.
 
Last edited:
Assuming you mean the rear beam (a common corrosion problem on older Pandas), then it's a bit of a dilemma as a franchised dealer repair using new parts will cost you about twice the value of the car. The biggest difficulty with secondhand parts is finding the proper beam for the car in decent condition; most of the ones of similar vintage in the breakers won't be much better than the one you've got. Also the breakers know about this issue and will likely price any half decent one accordingly; if you also need to use a garage to get it fitted, even a repair using secondhand parts could easily cost you the value of the car.

Secondhand 500 beams are much easier to source and will physically fit, but the rear track will be wrong and I doubt any reputable garage would touch this sort of work because of potential liability issues.

Unless you plan on fixing this yourself, my advice would be to sell it 'as is' and put the money towards something better.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick check...
Is it really corroded or is it just ugly surface rust?
I have been pretty lucky so far with lack of rear beam corrosion, but I did discuss the problem with a local MOT tester.
He said that although the rule book is clear, some testers have been known to see scruffy and assume corrosion, especially with springs and spring mounts. The same item would pass with no problem and the same tester if wire brushed and coated.
The spring pans on my spares car did look pretty scruffy, but it was actually all surface scabs and 10 years of muck.
Cleaned & wire brushed it looks fine, and the hammer test gives nice clear ring. Surprisingly little pile of rust flakes too.
On the other hand, the springs were heavily pitted and went in the recycling.
The beam from out 04 plate 1.2 spares car seems to be identical to the one on our 55 plate multijet.
The only ones I have seen with differences are 100hp.
Hopefully someone on the forum will have a definitive answer.
 
Thank you for your replies so far I will try and ask the questions that you have raised to my mechanic tomorrow.

Many thanks and back later

Mark
 
Original part number for all 1.1, 1.2 60hp EuroIV, & Multijet was 71736894

This was replaced May 2004, with 50705127. Info shows, "adoption of new rear axle with tongue in spring plate".
Presumably this was to prevent the spring rotating. If this is only difference, an earlier one would do for a later car, but unlikely to find an early one in good condition.

When the 1.2 engine became EuroV, the rear axle changed to 51856917. no info about difference, but if any part is ordered from fiat, this is the one you'll get for all models.

So if you find one from a car same age or later than yours, it will be fine.
 
Don't let a perfectly good car die for want of a bit of work, find articles in this forum by DaveMcT who address just this issue by fitting a Fiat 500 2009- or a Ford Ka 20011-2015 rear sub frame, these are newer, cheaper and stiffer. I've seen these on EBay breakers for £90 ish if you collect. The down side ? They add an 1" either side to the rear track but if you,ve got the original 13" skinny wheels then no clearance problems. Find the articles and decide for yourself.
 
martroy said:
Don't let a perfectly good car die for want of a bit of work, find articles in this forum by DaveMcT who address just this issue by fitting a Fiat 500 2009- or a Ford Ka 20011-2015 rear sub frame, these are newer, cheaper and stiffer. I've seen these on EBay breakers for £90 ish if you collect. The down side ? They add an 1" either side to the rear track but if you,ve got the original 13" skinny wheels then no clearance problems.
Click to expand...

I've a great deal of respect and admiration for DaveMcT in pioneering this solution. The biggest downsides are the insurance and liability issues. Whilst I'd expect it'd be fine in normal use, if the car were ever involved in a serious accident, an eagle-eyed vehicle inspector could make life very uncomfortable for both the vehicle owner and whoever did the modification. Because of the potential liability issues, I'd be surprised if any reputable garage would take on this kind of work, so Dave's solution is probably only feasible for those doing the work themselves and who are either going to declare the modification to their insurers or live with the potential consequences of not doing so.

The issues may be bureaucratic rather than technical, but they could still seriously spoil your day.

martroy said:
Find the articles and decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

is good advice. If it were not for the insurance and liability issues, this would have my unreserved support. I hate seeing anything scrapped for the sake of a relatively minor repair.
 
Last edited:
I can't see there being a problem if after fitting a wider axle from a 500 you get a full engineers report and provide a copy to the insurers. But if you never informed the insurers and you did have a claim I can't see an insurance assessor measuring the width of a rear axle.
 
Drop the rear beam and give everything a really good scrape clean. Then see if there really is excessive corrosion damage. I'm sure if you use rust killer on it and then prime and paint it in nice new black (and do the same for scabby-looking springs) then if everything looks clean and solid and cared-for you'll get a pass. Worst case you'll have done half the job needed to replace it if it really is bad.
 
dozer said:
I can't see there being a problem if after fitting a wider axle from a 500 you get a full engineers report and provide a copy to the insurers. But if you never informed the insurers and you did have a claim I can't see an insurance assessor measuring the width of a rear axle.
Click to expand...

This.

My first and third hand experience with insurers thus far have involved:

Me taking my own front bumper off, and taking photos of the damage and it being assessed as a write off via email.

A friend having the assessor come out, took a quick look at the front of their car and said "yup, write off".

I can't see what situation could arise, that would get the assessor whipping out a measuring tape.

Just sharing my personal experiences.
 
Hannam219 said:
Thank you for your replies so far I will try and ask the questions that you have raised to my mechanic tomorrow.

Many thanks and back later

Mark
Click to expand...

Hi Mark, and welcome to FF, :)

the "common" issue , is the "cups" that hold the rear springs get full of mud, stay damp and rust-out.:eek:

serious corrosion to the main structures is a LOT less common ,
( where is the car based..?? - climatic conditions do have a bearing..)

Charlie - Oxford
 
Well, I've seen a lot of these threads but never actually come across it until I tested a 56 plate Panda on Monday - oh dear! The o/s spring pan was actually in danger of parting company with the rest of the axle and the n/s wasn't much better. The guy is going to part ex it so keep an eye out for a red Panda for sale in Cannock! Must have a look at the one on the missus's Panda when I can be rrrrsed.
 
We're scheduled to do mine with Waxoyl (involving a good clean out of grit under the carriage of the car)..

Hope we don't find any of the nasty things some unfortunate fellow owners have lately :-/
DaveMcT did a very interesting thing with the 500 beam, apparently it makes handling great too!!!

Wonder if it's worth taking the car to one of the big modern automatic under car cleaners, like, for the £8 would it actually make our job any easier in respect of removing dirt?
 
DigDug said:
I can't see what situation could arise, that would get the assessor whipping out a measuring tape.
Click to expand...

Basically any accident resulting in death or serious injury.

You don't need a measuring tape. If you know what you're looking for, the difference between the two beams is obvious from casual inspection.

I'd agree that in the case of a damage only claim, you'd be unlucky to get found out. If someone lost control of the car and slid into another vehicle and someone were killed, it could be an altogether different story. In today's blame culture, a good prosecutor and a well-worded engineer's report could whip this into a substantial prison sentence for both the driver and whoever fitted the beam. Highly unlikely, but not somewhere I'd want to risk being.

bluejohn125 said:
I'm sure if you use rust killer on it and then prime and paint it in nice new black (and do the same for scabby-looking springs) then if everything looks clean and solid and cared-for you'll get a pass.
Click to expand...

In the old days, I'd agree. Now that we have MOT computerisation, the first thing any tester is going to see is the reason for the previous fail, and you can be certain they're going to inspect the relevant components with a fine tooth comb.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely.
If the beam and/or spring pans are weakened they should be changed before retest. Certainly would not recommend "tarting up" knackered parts and trying to fool the MOT tester. Most of them have seen plenty of dodgy work, and would not be happy to see more.

However, if the beam and spring pans are solid, have been cleaned up, and painted/treated (not smothered in thick goop to disguise their condition) then they should pass.

As the previous tester failed them for "excess corrosion", they will almost certainly be inspected as far as the MOT test allows. That is a good thing. Personally, I would have tested them beyond the limits of allowable MOT testing before putting the beam back on the car in order to not waste my own time and effort.

A pass indicates that the tester is satisfied with the safety of the vehicle on the day of the test. Whether or not it is the same tester, as long as they do a proper job, then I reckon the beam is at least as safe as pretty much all other Pandas on the road.

I'm not a fan of sprucing up springs if they are pitted, but it's a personal choice. For the cost I would rather swap them out and know they are not weakened.
 
Originally Posted by DigDug View Post
I can't see what situation could arise, that would get the assessor whipping out a measuring tape.[\quote]
Basically any accident resulting in death or serious injury.

You don't need a measuring tape. If you know what you're looking for, the difference between the two beams is obvious from casual inspection.

I'd agree that in the case of a damage only claim, you'd be unlucky to get found out. If someone lost control of the car and slid into another vehicle and someone were killed, it could be an altogether different story. In today's blame culture, a good prosecutor and a well-worded engineer's report could whip this into a substantial prison sentence for both the driver and whoever fitted the beam. Highly unlikely, but not somewhere I'd want to risk being.[\quote]

Originally Posted by bluejohn125 View Post
I'm sure if you use rust killer on it and then prime and paint it in nice new black (and do the same for scabby-looking springs) then if everything looks clean and solid and cared-for you'll get a pass.
Click to expand...
In the old days, I'd agree. Now that we have MOT computerisation, the first thing any tester is going to see is the reason for the previous fail, and you can be certain they're going to inspect the relevant components with a fine tooth comb.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Technical ECU problem
Replies
7
Views
223
clarkey555
C
C
Technical 169 4x4 Front Subframe Needed!
Replies
4
Views
841
jrkitching
J
G
Technical Reverse gear problem
Replies
3
Views
180
koalar
koalar
T
Technical Gear cable problem
Replies
4
Views
275
The Panda Nut
The Panda Nut
T
Technical Gear stick problem.
Replies
3
Views
178
varesecrazy
V
Back
Top