Quote:
Originally Posted by pope
I have to wonder if there is a difference between acceptable practices between states.
Procedure taught at one of the main autobody training schools in West Michigan in regards to the reuse of structural components was in fact to drill spot welds and reattach using MIG (GMAW) to fill the holes (admittedly this was over twenty years ago; I have no first hand knowledge of current instruction/practice; I did not remain in the field). However, given the fickle nature of resistance spot welding, I have no reason to doubt MIG filled holes with adequate penetration are equal (possibly superior) to the original spot welded union.
(I paid for college working as the quality control department for a Tier 1 automotive supplier to GM, Chrysler, and Honda (that I remember). Part of my position was performing destructive tests on spot welded sub-assemblies to certify the structures would remain intact up to defined loads. We were constantly adjusting the robotic resistance welders; one hour the assemblies might only pass because the sheer quantity of marginal welds held just well enough, the next hour the parts would be covered in 3” metal spikes from molten steel ejected from the weld pools. Minor variances in stamping tolerance, the roll of steel the stamping came from, wear on the welding tips, pre-weld component temps, etc. all contributed to the inconsistency.)
What I’m getting at is: I don’t understand why reusing a structural component would not be an acceptable repair if done well.
|
you do not have to understand it but OEM repair standards are OEM repair standards in any state and country they don't change based on state lines, and if you are an actual shop and go against the repair procedures you are responsible for what happens if the vehicle is in another collision.
https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2...o-body-repair/