Citroen XM Forum

.

Dieselman wrote: I can recall at least one other due to the steel, was it minijet?

My first strut top failure was due to a rusted base plate.
I didn't get any pictures of it though.

Paul

.

Hurrah! At long last I've taken the photo. So, the new part is all in grey. It came in two halves. In cross section it's a bit like: _/ \_ as you'd expect. The oblique sections are actually conical - not flat. It fits under the chassis. The two halves are then supported by the 'closing' brackets which fit on top of the chassis. I've also welded the two halves together. According to the chap who sold them, it wasn't scrictly necessary to weld, but it does help.

At the time of welding, the Gorilla Glue wasn't used, so the new strut top as still loose from the original Cit part that glues to it underneath. This meant we could temporarily slide a heat reflective fibre glass cloth between the strut top and the rubbery part underneath to prevent damage due to the welding heat.

They seemed particularly well made, an engineered solution rather than an ill fated attempt and I have to say that they do their job perfectly.

Thanks for posting the photos and explanation.
The gluing is important in case the rubber cone parts completely from the original metal cone.
Seperation in that manner is a real risk on the shaker rig and visibly obvious.
Such seperation is an automatic MOT failure.
Without the glue all that is being fitted is a form of Pop-up restraint.
How much were they?
Last price I had for this system was £120 per pair plus postage and vat.

John

From memory I think the quantity of Gorilla Glue was small (seemingly sufficient), but I agree it's key.

£150 springs to mind but I can't remember if that was all in or just for the items themselves

Thanks for that Geoff, that's how I remember them to be. They do look substantial and well made, do you know the thickness of the steel?
The original plates are 3.5mm on the ones I have, can anyone measure theirs to check that.

I'll have a measure, from memory and assumption 3mm, but I'll check

As I recall the swedish replacement strut heads were put through some form of compliance process.
The design is also protected by some form of registration or patent.
There was a load of detail deep in the other XM site.

John

I'm not intending to make a replacement the same as that, am just interested in the steel thickness used for reference.

From experience I would think the compliance is just ISO 9000/TUV or similar, which doesn't have anything to do with the actual product or safety of it, it's just a paper audit system.
I would also be very surprised if they have a successful patent on that as the idea of metal strut supports id commonplace and it's harder to gain an approval for trademark or patent on a specific item if something similar is already in use.

Due to looking for that I've found another failed strut. Andymcit says it failed due to the rubber tearing, which it did, but looking at it the steel under the rubber section does look corroded as well.

Hi, the last strut top we had to change appeared to be due to the rubber rather than rusting. The car was parked outside a friends and when he came back out the bonnet was all bent up - he brought it to us thinking someone had somehow backed into and bent the bonnet, he didn`t notice the strut and pipe stretched right up! The rubber seemed to have just pushed up through the hole (it was an extremely hot day - whether this was a factor aswell I can`t be sure.)

Hi ds21.

It does seem that both failures are fairly common and I have seen and rejected some replacements based on the metal plate, including one which I intended to fit but now wont.

Do you still have any failed heads?