Carloz
-
Posts
186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Carloz
-
-
On 7/26/2020 at 1:24 AM, landy_andy said:
Almost at the point of getting the axle tubes made for my custom 609’s for my D100” build. Was wondering if there was anyone here running a centred diff and were drive line vibes an issue ?
Thanks !
As long as the outputshaft from the TC and the input shaft from the diff are (near) parallel there is no issue (when angles are resonable of course).
The drive shaft doesn't know that the offset is in the vertical or in the horizontal plane (or both). 😉
-
On 11/2/2020 at 4:33 AM, Chrissy Boy said:
Thanks Fellas, quick question, where would I find refurbished parts for this kind of Range rover???
Well... I would start with repairing the steel under the bodypanels without starting to buy anything else. That can be quite some job already.
Many projects get stranded with a rebuild engine, refurbished driveline and nicely painted chassis on shiny new wheels... and.... having still a very crusty bodyshell...
Body shell repair on a Range Rover Classic involves mostly straight forward metal fabrication, the biggest investment is effort. Most repairs can be made from sheet metal and made by yourself or made locally, the outer and inner sills for sure (which are very straight forward and always rusty/crusty for sure). Of course you can buy repair parts for the bodyshell which makes the rebuild (a bit) easier.
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, landroversforever said:
As with anything, its all about the setup. Seen plenty of electronic pumped cars rolling coal.
That is a fact!
But electronic has always the advantage that it can be mapped much more precise. But that must be done of course.
-
1
-
-
On 10/7/2020 at 7:47 AM, RedLineMike said:
https://www.racpartsltd.co.uk/product-page/front-1-link
although its worth keeping in mind the large amount of forces being put into that cross member
if you were to 3 link it, theres not really any kits available off the shelf as such these days, they do come up 2nd hand occasionally,
It looks very clean. In general I like it!
But just one standard hockey stick bushing is not robust enough I think. Better use a tow hook ball, graderball, monster rose joint or something like that.
AND the standard crossmember modified to take the bushing is severely weakend by this modification especially for the function it is used now. I already doubt the mounting of the crosmember with all its sloted holes is rigid enough for its original function.
-
7 hours ago, landroversforever said:
You’d be mad not to baffle them.
I was not even talking about weight transfer... Which is also a smaller problem when mounted low.
-
18 hours ago, landroversforever said:
A 4 link doesn’t try and twist the axle. If it’s a non triangulated one then you’ll need a panhard which some say binds other say they don’t have any issues with. I think it has to be geometry specific.
That is true as long as all 4 links are equal length and parallel. 🙂
In virtualy all cases different lengths and non parallel set ups are used for many reasons and of course there will be always be some flex somewhere in the construction to compensate the binding effects because those forces are gigantic. Even when spherical joints are used on all points.
-
On 7/31/2020 at 9:33 AM, Blanco said:
Not sure if it is just the perspective, but that chassis is making the tow car look very small!
Hoss are you thinking of dumping the merc ecu? (I take it the Dieselmeken pump is entirely mechanical) or is this just going on the spares shelf?
Mmmm, it would be illegal in my country to tow that kind of trailer behind a little Duster.. 🤐
Entirely mechanical would be not my way to go: it will be ok but is never going to run perfect over the whole rev range. And always more smokey than needed.
The elements can changed over between the mechanical and electronically controlled pump. 😉
6x6 Great step forward to more possibilities!
I saw your plans to mount 2x 60L tanks high up behind the cabin... Very heavy and bad for stabilty and comfort. Of course the truck can handle it but watertanks are always mounted in or under the floor for a reason.
I would prefer to use that space to store some light weight stuff like my spare pillows or some boxes of Cornflakes.. 😋
-
1
-
-
4 link set up has the same sort binding effect as a 2 link set up: on articulation the 4 link tries to twist the axle also.
So in my point of view it should always be a 1 or 3 link to exclude binding.
OR 4link which has at least two links strongly triangulated to minimize bindingeffect (when doing the upper links like this makes it effectively the RRC/Defender rear setup). In this case also no panhard rod needed.
-
Generally speaking without intercooler you get less air into the engine and more smoke going out of it. And injecting the same amount of fuel resulting in less power, so worse mpg.
I did fit a quite big intercooler in a car with limited space... If I was going to do it again I would go for an air to water cooler when space is limited. Also much better when going slow and need short bursts of power (while off roading for example). Air to air coolers are much simpler of course but need more space for plumbing and are most effective when having enough road speed.
-
14 hours ago, landroversforever said:
Have a look back at the model of the overall layout. Even if the Creeper joints had 100% of their diameter you've never collapse it unless you folded a link. If that happens I'll have worse things to worry about
.
As for the vertical separation, I don't think you loose much, if any, with the way I've got it as I'm still way below the axle centre line. I can see there being an issue if my lower link was as far behind the centre line, but level with the centre line as it would easily flop one way or the other from level.
Well, the links look like bomb proof. But I just don't like the force multiplying effect in this setup. I expect the top mount on the axle to fail first. IF something fails of course, because everything looks quite rugged. 🙂
I really like what you are doing! And I like the discussion and brain dump part too! 😄
-
On 5/24/2020 at 5:53 PM, NRS91 said:
The torque reaction should be ok provided there is plenty of vertical separation between top and bottom links (i believe 1/4 the height of the tyres is recommended?)
I have dealed with this many times before in my job as mechanical engineer: The effect of the vertical separation is getting less and less when the horizontal separation gets bigger and bigger. Facts.
When the rule is 1/4th of tire diameter than it means the joints are straight above eachother. The more they are off in horizontal direction the bigger the vertical separation must be to get the same effect.
When you exaggerate this (always a good way to think these sort of things over), the linkage will collapse on the flex of the poly bushings only.
-
On 2/24/2018 at 10:37 PM, Carloz said:
Looks nice... but...
I would prefer that the joints of the lower arms would be located under the axle to make it more stable. Now they are so far backwards that the force in the arms will be enormous while stepping on the brakes: the axle wants to turn with the wheels. This because the upper en lower joints on axle are quite close on one line with the joints on the chassis.. At least it looks like that.
Getting more and more "concerned" about the positions of the joints on the axle and its force multiplying effect... Seeing those big wheels now, the torque effect on the axle while breaking will be huge! 😶
-
On 4/18/2020 at 3:37 PM, FridgeFreezer said:
MS2 is only a plug-in on the MS1 board replacing the CPU with a slightly faster / more modern one, MS1 isn't going to stop working or being supported, there's tens of thousands of them out there. Mine have been running for years, the one in the 109's been on it for over a decade and never missed a beat.
Yes, I know that. There is a lot of MS1 on the net but it is all about MS2 nowadays and MS3 is out already for maybe 10 years with even more features. Of course, you can ask yourself: do I need (all) those features? For me I am happy with MS2 able to run a V8 semi sequential, just that bit more sophisticated than simple bank injection with the MS1.
Now starting with MS1 is not the way to go. They are stopping (or already stopped?) to sell it. When you have it there is no problem at all, it is just fine.
-
First thing I thought when reading: "Runs way to rich" =>> How did you measure? With your nose or with a AFR-meter?
I used to run a 4.2 LSE engine with 3.9 14CUX and tubular exhaust manifolds.
I found out that there where no Lambda sensors and no tune-resitor in the loom. Also the AFM was broken. It ran quite well... and a bit better when I replaced the AFM. Not really a change when I placed a tune resistor telling the ECU that there where no lambda sensors.
Also: MS1 is about to be fased out. MS2 is the way to go nowadays which not really more complex than a MS1. I have a MS2 waiting to bi-fuel my RV8.. 😎
-
Well... if the synchro cone comes not free by turning it by hand I can imagine it will when the engine is running. Although I think synchro cone should work free when turning by hand... But still turning by hand or by the engine are quite something different things (10revs a minute vs 750revs a minute).
Oil will be transported by the gears, also when turned by hand. You can roll the box upside down to be sure about the oiling.
-
Strange... I see quite a big angle at the UJ at diff side... About the same angle as on the transfer box. I would expect that this situation would cause vibrations... 🤔
-
1
-
-
On 10/15/2019 at 8:46 AM, RedLineMike said:
personally i wouldnt go down that route as the box then becomes a collection of items put together to work rather than using a complete assembly either the BMW 6 speed or the R380 with an adapter plate
So far I know with the R380 it is possible to use the M57 without the use of any adapterplates: P38 M51 Gearbox with LT230 behind it. 👀
But in that way you keep the piece of porcelain between Engine and transfercase....
-
On 10/11/2019 at 10:11 PM, Daan said:
Interesting. I would stay with landrover parts for the gearbox, as it makes the job about 10X more straightforward.
If you think the gearbox is over stressed, I would not go for the single mass flywheel, as it will make life of the gearbox harder.
Does the P38 diesel not have an auto option?
Daan
Yes, P38 has also Autobox. I think most of them had, with the manual more as an exception. With the BMW M51 2.5 6pot. But it has a quite smallish torque converter (as you can read @ Ashcroft).
But you can use the R380 with care or get it upgraded. In upgraded form it should be reliable as long you don't upgrade the M57 which is not really needed I guess...
-
On 10/10/2019 at 4:32 PM, FridgeFreezer said:
I have a theory that it's big 4-pot diesels that kill LR gearboxes as they are putting out 4 big thwacks per rev, while an I6 or V8 is dividing its torque over more "beats" per turn and smoothing the shocks out. Also if it's got a DMF that might help as people rarely have those in clunky old diesel conversions - guessing there's a reason modern manufacturers fit them to everything!
Whether your lump falls into the "OK with an R380" category is hard to say, LR hung the R380 behind the 4.0 V8 and the TD5 but not the 4.6, I run two 4.6+R380 combos and (touch wood) no issues yet.
Well the 184hp M57 is 390 or 410Nm so it is over the edge (like the 4.6)... So, yes, it will live as long it is not used over the 380Nm all the time.
I was running a 4.2 LSE V8 (in fact a 4.3 hence 4276cc) with a LT77 which went all right till the engine cracked.. 😕
For the torque spikes there are springs in the clutch plate. I agree they are harder needed with big four pots for the reason ypou mentioned but in the end the 380Nm for the R380 was not set for nothing...
-
On 8/28/2019 at 4:19 PM, landroversforever said:
To make up for all that modern independent lark?
If you call rear suspension of a VW Beetle or from Tatra truck "Modern"... 🤣
-
7 hours ago, Steevo said:
Thanks very much for your reply. that's a relief I was beginning to think it couldn't be done, thanks Steve
Are you serious? 😲
-
On 6/17/2019 at 12:55 PM, elbekko said:
There's quite a lot in the way to run the props on the other side. I still think it's easiest to drive it through the PTO. Flipping it could also work, but oiling needs to be looked at then.
What is in the way?
-
On 6/26/2019 at 6:58 AM, Bowie69 said:
The ecu needs the signal to know when you are coming to a halt.
Should it be connected? Never known a speedo signal is needed on the 14CUX? 🤔
-
Looks like a mix between a MB and a M38A1... Kinda CJ2 from the fifties.
I saw a lot of the original ones last week in Normandy: Willys MA & MB, Ford GPW and GPA (amfibious), and quite some pre production variants (slat grill etc.)..
.
The Assassin - Defender 90 Chevy V8 Diary
in Modified Vehicle Builds & Special Projects
Posted
It is following todays black fashion, that is clear... 🤣
I realised recently that is kinda "difficult" to find nice rims which are not black.