strut mounting, strut monting

[minijet]

.
I have two types of strut top here.

Note the length of the lower part (1)




I don't know why they are different, they both came from 2.5 estates.

Paul

.

[kenhall1202]

Hi Paul

I believe that the right hand strut top in your picture is a later type and is the same as fitted to my '96 2.1TD apart from the smaller diameter top tapered hole.

Citroen made a design change to the strut top at RP No 7195/7196 (20th July 1996) and the protective gaiter design also changed to suit.

As a matter of interest regarding your two strut tops are the diameters of the lower rims, where the gaiter attaches, the same or do they differ? I'm sure I saw a mention somewhere in the past that said that the lower 'bellmouth' diameter was increased to prevent it being able to pass through the upper dome when the rubber fails.

Can you see any date of manufacture moulded into the bottom rubber? (in the form of a dotted month circle with a single number in the middle, eg 9 dots + No 6 in the middle = September 1996 for my 2.1TD, RP = 7249 = 12th September 1996).

Ken

This post has been edited by kenhall1202 on September 16, 2010 10:54 am

[minijet]

.
Hi Ken,

This is all news to me.

You're right about the larger diameter of the lower rim/bellmouth on the right hand one.

With regard to the numbers in the dotted circles - the smaller one has a number 6, and the larger one a number 8.

QUOTE

I'm sure I saw a mention somewhere in the past that said that the lower 'bellmouth' diameter was increased to prevent it being able to pass through the upper dome when the rubber fails.

So hopefully you don't end up with a knackered bonnet if the worst happens.
Later strut tops are the ones to have then.

Paul

.

[noz]

Hi Paul,

Any sign of a makers name or logo on the later strut top?

Cheers

noz

[minijet]

.
Hi Noz,

I only found the same numbers that you and Ken found, around the top section where the hydraulic connections are and on the moulded rubber section, with the same 5 in a triangle that you mentioned.
There's nothing to give any clues about the manufacturer.

Heres a couple of close ups of the tops.
The only other marks I could see were the little indents, presumably made by some sort of tool, and what looks like a slotted screw head....?




Paul

.

[Sharo]

I see you have interesting discussion here
Here in Bulgaria this problem is much often observed - we have "beautiful roads" with lot of holes and bumps. I've replaced 3 pairs of mounts on my 2.1TD 1993 and one pair on V6 1995 for eight years - all of them bought from second hand dealer except one pair. This "exception" was old mounting with totally worn rubber, which was renewed. In the nearby city there is a workshop in which they replace the rubber - first clean the metal parts and then mould new rubber compound inside. I'm not sure how exactly is made, but they accept the order only if the metal parts are not too rusty (the bottom part) - you should send them old support. This was two years ago, and the price was 300BGN (something like 125-150 pounds). I'm not aware of the legal side of this, but i'm pretty sure it is not an official citroen workshop. I used them for 1 year and then i had to replace one of the struts, and the only i could find was thicker struts with biggest mounting from 2.5TD 1999. The old "new" supports were sold to a friend which still uses them. I don't know their exact condition as of today, but i'll try to take a picture.

[techmanagain]

The statement that several small dimples are supporting the weight of the car cannot be true. The weight of the car is supported by the pressure in the hydraulic suspension system. The only exception to this is when there is no pressure in the system and in that case the car would drop down to the rubber bump stops.

[kenhall1202]

Items 1 and 5 in Paul's previous sketch as far as I know are held together purely mechanically using the interference fit created by expanding the ten dimples into a corresponding cut out in the top casting. No other means of attaching the two parts together, such as welding, are apparent although without cutting one in two we don't know if an engineering adhesive is also used.

Together, as a combined unit, items 1 and 5 carry the weight of the front corner of the car in all situations and transmit that load to the strut and then to the hub, wheel and ground. Hydraulic fluid pressure / volume in the strut is varied to determine the strut rod extension (and thus ride height) via feed back to the front heght corrector and will vary according to the vehicle load. Hydraulic fluid also of course transmits normal suspension oscillations to the spring and damper, better known to us as a sphere.

Ken

This post has been edited by kenhall1202 on September 18, 2010 07:34 pm

[kenhall1202]

Hi Sharo,

That is a very interesting contribution to the discussion. Was the price you quoted for repairing one or two strut tops?

Ken

[minijet]

.

QUOTE (kenhall1202 @ September 17, 2010 05:07 pm) 

Items 1 and 5 in Paul's previous sketch as far as I know are held together purely mechanically using the interference fit created by expanding the ten dimples into a corresponding cut out in the top casting. No other means of attaching the two parts together, such as welding, are apparent although without cutting one in two we don't know if an engineering adhesive is also used.

Ken

Hi Ken,

Good explanation.
Saved me the trouble.

Thanks .

Paul

.

[minijet]

.
This firm is about five miles from me......

http://www.gmt.gb.com/range/product-index/...CFan-2AodamPlGw

http://www.gmt.gb.com/range/product-index/...oduct-index.php

Looks like the same sort of process that was used to manufacture the strut tops.

I wonder if it would be worth taking a strut top to them to get their opinion on whether it would be economically viable (or even possible at all) to recondition/refurbish them.

Or will they tell me to take a running jump for wasting their time?

Paul

.

[kenhall1202]

Hi Paul,

Seems to me that this GMT company certainly has the appropriate know how for making a wide range of metal/rubber bonded components and should have no problem remaking an XM strut top (always assuming that the metal isn't shot with rust).

Being devil's advocate though I can see them throwing up a few obstacles such as:

1. They may be unwilling to warrant or accept any liability for failure of a remanufactured item which they did not originally design. But then again we XM drivers are already prepared to accept that the Citroen original item will eventually fail.

2. Economies of scale may be crucial to getting the job done at an acceptable cost.
So if they agreed that the rubber replacement could be done in principle then it would be a matter of getting together as many recoverable strut tops as possible to negotiate the lowest possible unit cost.

No harm in asking Paul - I'm sure they will be very polite when they tell you to take a running jump!!

Ken

[noz]

Does anyone have a link to the Swedish repair kit? I think I may have figured out a way to solve this problem without any injection moulding but I don't want to jump the gun only to find out thats how the Swedish gut did it. I need to compare my idea with his first.

I've tried to google it but can find no lnik to the Swedish site.

Anyone?

Cheers

noz

[kenhall1202]

Hi Noz,

This is the link I had bookmarked for the Swedish repair kit but it no longer works: http://web.telia.com/~u43116231/index2.htm
He has either stopped selling the kit or uses a new web host.

From distant sketchy memory his kit was intended to repair XM strut tops which were failing due to corrosion of the domed part of item 2 in Paul's sketch and where the rubber was still intact. After cutting off item 4 and removing the corroded metal a new dome, supplied in two halves, was re-attached (utilising the existing mounting bolts??), welded or tacked together and then bonded to the rubber using a Sikaflex windscreen type adhesive.

Ken

[noz]

Thanks for that Ken. I never paid much attention to the Swedish 'solution' because I have been lucky both in the general condition of my strup tops and being able to lay my hands on good spares just at the right time. In that sense I never understood of what the actual operation consited.

I have two independent 'solutions' in mind.

1) If the rubber Part 3 and the Plate/Cone Part 2 are both intact and serviceable then solution 1 will prevent them getting any worse, or at best, significantly slow down the deterioration rate. The application of this solution should be coincident with other rust prevention and protection measures.

2) When the rubber part 3 has delaminated or torn becoming unserviceable but the plate/cone is still intact and serviceable. This solution simply replaces the rubber returning the whole unit to a serviceable condition. With sufficient attention paid to rust prevention, this solution should see the car out.

I also see a relatively simple solution for the strut through the bonnet problem however, timely intervention with the applications of solutions 1) or 2) above 'should' prevent this ever being required.

I have no easy/practical/affordable solution if the plate/cone Part 2 has rusted so badly that it is unserviceable. If anyone knows how to go about replicating this part as a standalone item at a practical and affordable level then it would provide a 'Solution 3)'. The flat plate is easy. How do you mould in the cone in one piece? Metal spinning?

I will put my thoughts together in due course.

The strong message to be broadcast at this time (to which John has already alluded) is to save every strut top from every scrapper no matter the condition. Salvaging the main components from failed strut tops will significantly increase the possibility of a workable repair kit and/or a service exchange scheme.

cheers

noz