bill van snorkle

Can you do one with a stylised lightweight type front end similar to WildFing ?

Wouldn't have one if it was given to me ! Well I would actually, then I'd flog it and buy a JK Rubicon and fit portal axles to it with the change I'd have left over.

But surely a forward control landrover wouldn't legally be required to exceed the crash worthy standards expected of any forward control commercial vehicle, and may be exempted from some, as Defender style LR's have been in some markets due to their multi purpose nature. For example, I can't see how the soggy cardboard box like structure of a standard Defender body could possibly have met any of the standards for crash worthiness re side impact and rollover protection that regular passenger vehicles are required to meet. They have been exempted at least over here, because they are classed as multi purpose commercial vehicles, which for some obscure reason means that the occupants of these vehicles are seen as lesser beings with less right to survive accidents than occupants of conventional vehicles.

Dire Grammar Snagger? I take it you don't visit American or Australian forums then ? They and we moida the English language.

Forward control 4x4's can be very unstable in certain cross country situations. 101's are well known for performing diagonal front wheel hand stands on steepish off camber down slopes

Didn't know that the Llama went away from the 101's 6 stud hubs and back to the tradition LR 5 stud ! I assume they also had smaller halfshafts too. From an opinion piece I read some years ago, the Llama was seen to be a half baked attempt(Lt77 box, 2.5 NA engine etc ) to meet the military's specifications and was unsuccessful during evaluation trials. Anyone here disagree and can elaborate ?

It is not only the Mags that are lacking interest lately. By their very nature, single brand forums will have covered just about every technical angle to saturation point. If ones interest is model specific such as Series, or Range Rover Classics for example, it's virtually all been done before, so a quick browse through the relevant sub forums and move on to other web sites or interests. There are only 3 or so sub forums I am particularly interested in here, and I am finding that I am spending a lot less time here than I used to, unless I am responding to another of O'Teunico's crazy ideas . But it's not only LR4x4. Even Pirate that covers virtually every brand and type of offroad vehicle and their applications is becoming repetitive and boring lately. Or maybe it's just me, and the almost 60 year obsession is wearing very thin ?

I haven't purchased or read any Land Rover specific Mags for over 15 years, and they bored me witless even back then.

To design the hub so that the rotor would slide over the wheel studs on to the outer face of the hub would reduce the brake swept area, or possibly require that the PCD of the wheel studs reduced.

You may notice on the photos O'teunico the extra long bottom swivel pin to which the rose jointed extra kingpin bearing is attached. That is what I would do to your upper steering arm.I would also scrap the Railko bushes and fit taper roller bearing to the top like most coiler swivels have.Railko's would have been ok if they were made tapered for adjustment, but parallel pin and bush is dumb and yet another maintenance liability.

If I have done it correctly O'teunico you should have received the photos. That PS10 is certainly a great piece of work Jaime. Hang your heads in shame LandRover UK !

Yes I understand. I have the same problem, and I don't have to contend with floods, sleet and snow ! I just have to contend with the occasional severe case of bone idleness.

In your qualified opinion Nige, how would a KAM CV joint compare strength wise, to a standard Rover one that has been dismantled and had all the stress concentrating sharp edges and corners dressed, plus a steel ring welded to the face of the bell ?

I do see the points you have made Jaime and that does clarify to a large degree why people over there persevere with the green oval, but by Jove the LandRover Company sure now how to test enthusiasts brand loyalty to breaking point with either engineering incompetence or penny pinching attitude to quality control. So how did the safety test work out Nigel?

There is far too much leverage and off centre loading acting upon the steering arm bolts for that to work for more than 10 minutes on or off road. Even with standard steering arms my bolts/studs would work loose, snap or strip threads with the loads required to turn 36" tyres on portals, and I had to substantially reinforce the swivel assembly by bolting a piece of 50mm x 25mm steel up from the flattish surface (where the filler plug is on your photo) at front of the swivel housing, that captured the steering arm about 40mm behind the tie rod end socket.The other thing I would do with your idea is to have a double length swivel pin made to give the arm extra support. I only know how to post photos from my mobile phone to individuals or groups on facebook, so if you O'teunico have a FB account I could post a pic of the reinforcement to your page.

Due to LandRovers well known production tolerances, a Toyota 30 spline CV joint stub shaft will fit through some coiler Stub axles (spindles), and others may require boring out. 10 spline drive flanges can be brooched out to suit the Toy 30 spline shaft. The Star inside the Toyoata CV joint can be swapped for a LandRover Star, so the RRC,110, Stage One inner halfshaft can be retained. Just a different bronze bush in the Stub axle/spindle is require to suit the Toyota stub shaft.

Thanks for all that Jaime, that is extremely interesting information. Now I really want to travel to Spain to Buy one of those Series V Santana LandRovers.

I just tried a RRC CV joint inside a regular series 3 swivel ball, but it doesn't articulate for steering without a fair bit of clearancing with a die grinder. The more rounded profile of Toyota CV's however will work. Does Heystee give instuctions on clearancing the swivel balls to allow fitment of Defender Cv's ?

One really has to weigh the cost of spares verses the fact that a LandCruiser or Patrol is properly designed and built to withstand the rigours and punishment of regular off road travel without spending a kings ransom on heavier duty/better quality halfshafts, differentials, cv joints, universal joints, clutch release forks,engine and body electrics, chassis and body rust proofing etc etc the list could go on. Down in the bottom paddock I am storing a 30 yr old FJ60 Cruiser for a friend. the speedo shows 472000 km which is quite common for these things and on appearance it has never been mollycoddled either. All the interior controls, switchery, window winders, door locks work as well as they did when the vehicle left the showroom. The truck has far less rattles and body shake when pounding along broken roads than my RRC does, and the ride is far better than any leaf sprung LandRover I have ever driven. Sure, it might not have quite the same offroad ability as a coil sprung Landrover, but the transmission and other running gear is tough enough that one can beat the living carp out of the truck to force it to conquer terrain that it may initially baulk at. Try that with any standard Rover and you would need to be on very good terms with your bank manager. There is a reason that Toyota 4wd's outsell everything else combined in places where the work and terrain is tough. Yes, rust is an issue with 60 series when looking at long term ownership. but the chassis are made from thick metal, so unlike Landrover disco's, rust concerns are mainly confined to the bodywork instead of body frame and chassis. Most Cruiser owners I have known have little concern over rust, usually because the vehicle has more than paid for itself by giving them a couple of decades of reliable service, so they don't have qualms about moving on to the next model.

The threat of a gallon of petrol and a box of matches is what did the trick and persuade my RRC to co operate and reveal its clutch hydraulic secret. I never actually subscribed to the bulltish of Landrovers having 'Soul" until then.

Yes, The original series swivels split near the bolt flange mainly on forward controls and some hard worked 1 tonners with 9.00x 16 tyre on their wider offset rims. The reason for that is the brilliant designers fitted a 3" diameter 30,000lb capacity bearing to support a 4lb halfshaft, which left the wall thickness of the swivel ball throat too thin. Coilers support the halfshaft via a bronze bush in the stub axle instead, so the wall thickness of the swivel ball throat is substantial despite its smaller diameter. I would hazard a guess that Santana redesigned their series V balls to have serious wall thickness and a smaller bore to accept a bronze bush to support the halfshaft. I think LandRover UK should have imported all their design engineers from Spain ! Santana was building the type of Landrovers that the rest of the world markets were begging for during the Series era !

If the radius of the ball was continued down to the smaller diameter throat , the oil seal will still work on the sharper steering angle as it does on Coilers and Toyota's etc .

May be mistaken but the throat of the swivel ball appears a bit smaller than on regular series balls. May be to improve steering lock ? probably has disc brakes too.

Well this is week end number 2 since that post above. Have you checked the content of the gearbox drain plug yet ?

If you take a closer look at the photo of the series V, it appears to have wide axles like a coiler but with series swivels.