bill van snorkle

Yes Bowie, I am finding that life frequently gets in the way of all the stuff that I would like to build. Poverty tends to slow things up a bit too !

I fabricated a front One link (not fitted yet) from 2"x2"x 1/4" and it weighed almost exactly the same as 2 Defender radius arms, so unsprung weight isn't an issue. Antisquat/dive characteristics should be the same as for radius arms of same length. Under/oversteer should be no different to Rover radius arms, which are mounted fairly level anyway. Just the lack of roll stiffness should be addressed by antiroll bar or repositioning panhard rod to lift the roll centre height. Due to having non compliant bushings at the axle,the pinion and castor angle doesn't change under brakes or acceleration, aside from angle change induced by antisquat/dive. Also,and once again due to the axle housing not being able to roll back and forth within the bushings,axle hop would be reduced. Theoretically, roll steer would be less than on a lifted suspension where the radius arm angle is steeper than standard. Not exactly a sports car, but Unimogs have used One Links in the guise of torque tubes front and back for over 65 years.They offset their links at the chassis, front/rear to cancel propshaft induced torque lean . You should make the link as close to the same length as the radius arms if not longer.

Just look under any coil sprung LandCruiser and the radius arm bushing at the chassis end is what I used. Check Dirty Deisel's Wrangler build thread for a similar bushing from a Disco 2 radius arm from memory. Also look up Cambridge Engineering's One Link. I think there was a thread on it on the Devon 4x4 website. As for engineering a one link correctly ? If I were to convert a defender front or rear axle to One Link I would design it to use the existing radius arm mounting but use much less compliant , or solid bushings. Same with the rear axle, pick up the link and A frame mounting points that were designed to do the job, not just weld the ends of the One Link wishbone directly to the axle tubes as many on Pirate have done. Remember that 4000lb ft of axle housing torque, at the radius of the axle tubes (1.5")equals 32000lbs of shear force acting on those welds. As with radius arms, the longer you can make the link, the less castor angle variation as the suspension rises and falls.Also the longer the link the less shear force applied to the link bush bolt. One links by nature have no roll resistance, so you tune that with an antiroll bar. Currie Antirock Sway bars are very tuneable, but I achieved the same thing on a mates vehicle with the two rear torsion bars and splined arms from a wrecked early Volkwagen Beetle.

Further to the above. I just did a rough, basic maths mental calculation of the shear loadings that the axle end bolts of the radius arms can be subjected to in some circumstances. Based on the earlier axle housing torque of 4000lb ft, with a bush spacing of 6" and equal traction on both front wheels, each of the four bolts would have a shear force of 2000 lbs, that is double the force that the single bolt on the front of the One Link will ever see. However, if we introduce a difflock into the equation and get into a cross axle situation where only one wheel has traction, that 2000lb shear force can become 4000lbs. With the One link, regardless of whether one or both wheels have traction, 4000 lbft of axle torque acting on a 4ft link will only ever apply a vertical shear force on the bolt of 1000lbs,and the combined shear force to drive the wheels and shove a 4000lb vehicle up our hypothetical vertical wall won't exceed 5000 lbs. Load spikes from accelleration/braking would likely be absorbed by the compliant bushing. That's my theory anyway !

I agree with Bowie here, the forces acting upon say a bushing bolt on the chassis end of a one link are often over stated on Pirate. A basic example ... If an axle assembly is transmitting 4000 lb ft of torque to the ground, and the link is 4ft long, then the shear force acting on the bushing bolt is only about 1000lb. If that same axle assembly on it's own was capable of driving a 4000 lb vehicle up a vertical wal,l then the shear force acting upon than bolt and the bushing sleeve is 4000 lbs. Not sure, but due to their closer distance from the axle, the loads on individual bolts on a multilink set up may sometimes exceed that of the one link bolt.IMO it is wrong to assume the loads are equally shared by all the link bolts at all times. I have had the same Toyota radius arm bushing and bolt on my rear One link for over 12 years now, and with all the articulating my vehicle does, only the bushing now needs replacing .

As was suggested earlier, anti dive is really a product of braking torque rotating the axle housing forward, and the radius arms with it. So the chassis end of the radius arms produce a lifting force acting upon the chassis. IMO the slight differences of radius arm angles will not change antidive characteristics to any appreciable degree as much as changing the height of the chassis and the radius arm chassis mountings. I misunderstood your original post Gareth, I thought you were only moving the chassis ends of the radius arms closer together and bending a shallow crank in them. I think this may have been discussed on another thread, but have you considered doing a One Link ? Unrestricted articulation and only one bushing or ball joint to wear out instead of 6 .

The only advantages I can see with flipping the radius arms and relocating your chassis mounts is that ground clearance at under that portion of the axle is improved slightly, but then it is reduced under the chassis rails. the closer spacing of the radius arms will allow more articulation before the axle bushings bind up. but I don't see how the radius arm angle, within reason, relative to the road would unduly affect handling. IMO, If you disregard bushing compliance for the moment, the axle assembly and radius arm could be viewed as a single rigid component and the actual arc that the axle assembly scribes with suspension travel is determined by the distance and angle from the tyre's contact patch to the radius arm chassis mounting point, not the angle of the arm relative to the road. But of course, as often happens these days, I could be wrong about all that.

Well no, the conversion hasn't been submitted for RTA engineering approval, but from what I have seen of it, I can't foresee any problems from an engineering viewpoint. My mate's truck is a RR/Jeep/Volvo Hybrid with other mods such as 40" tyres etc, that wouldn't be approved, so he didn't bother with approval for the brakes, although he did design them to be within the legal track width allowance. Due to the Volvo portal box's design, with few flat/thick surfaces from which to mount the calipers close enough to the axle centre to clear a 16" rim,I don't see too many options for a legal conversion for us here in Australia. I built a Volvo axled 110 County and had it engineered in Melbourne on drum brakes after passing the braking and fade test, so IMO it's not the end of the world if one is forced to live with drums. As far as brake drum replacement goes, LandRover 11"x3" brake drums can be bored out and re drilled to work on Volvos.All the other bits are LandRover anyway.

Right, I'm with you now . Just for interest sake, if anyone wants to rebuild a LSD centre diff. I believe the clutch packs crosspins and bevel pinions are identical to those used in Dana 27 Power lock LSD's and maybe other models too and could still be available in the USA. Side gears unfortunately are specific to LandRover due to unique shaft splines.

AFAI Remember The LT95 LSD just has steel clutch plates without any friction material .

The hexagonal holes are standard and they are intended to work as 'ramps'. The bevel pinion shafts ride up the ramps, pushing the bevel pinions hard against the side gears and load the clutch plates against the carrier. For an axle diff it requires a degree of resistance at both wheels for the LSD to bite, and if one wheel is off the ground or on a very slippery surface this is achieved by an initial application of the brakes. For a centre diff there may be enough resistance at the front and rear diffs for the clutch plates to bite, even with a wheel in the air, but once again an initial brake application will enable the LSD to bite harder for better traction. The LSD will only be effective whilst under load. Lift off the throttle and it reverts back to an open diff. All else fails you still have the diff lock .

The Volvo Stub axle AFAIK wasn't machined down, just cleaned up and drilled for LandCruiser rotors, and one hole for an alan key socket to fit 6 socket head bolts to the Volvo stub axle bearing housing.He does have the conversion on CAD file. When he returns from the Simpson Desert in a couple of weeks I will ask if he is happy to make it freely available.

For general daily use I found pulling to one side or the other was cured by fitting Stage One/110 oil catchers to the backing plates and riding the brakes for the first 50 metres each morning. I have thought about fitting modified Toyota adjustable wheel cylinder pistons to the Rover cylinders to address the issue of the cams backing off. My mate could never get his Volvo drum brakes working effectively despite all new everything and a twin diaphragm booster, yet I run the same size brake drums/shoes with no booster but with the original 1 1/4" rear w/cyls replaced with 1" and a smaller 15/16" single circuit M/cyl and deem it quite acceptable. I always keep the handbrake in good working order for those regular occasions when I rip a brake hose or line off in the bush Lol.

Do Ashcrofts make the ATB's for the LT95 ? I thought only LT230 and axle differentials.

They could probably be replicated from scrap front U bolt clamping plates/shock mounts.

A friend of mine has made a disc conversion to his Volvo axles that retains the 8 stud wheel fixings and does not increase the track width, but does require shallow well 16" rims to clear the Wildwood calipers. In Australia we are not legally permitted to widen the wheel track by more than 25mm each side . My experience with LWB drum brakes requiring constant adjustment is due to the snail cam adjusters backing off. I have only replaced the brake shoes on WildFing once in 12 years, but I always use the brakes sparingly, mainly using the gearbox for retardation except when requiring a full stop . As to brake fade, or more accurately in my case, efficiency when wet, I'm going to sacrifice a new set of brake shoes and drill them full of holes in an effort to break up the film of water/mud or gas(in the instance of heat fade) and see how that goes. Brake fade I've read is the lubrication of these elements, including gas that reduces friction. If they can be broken up or squeezed out, things should work betterer.

Would that be mr Marsden's old GigglePin ?

If the bevel gears and clutch packs are serviceable, i'd keep them. They are a spicer/salisbury Pow-R-Lock ramp loading type LSD that only 'bite' when there is some resistance at the spinning wheels, so the clutch packs generally last well. I don't think replacement gears are available anymore, so if they are knackered you'd need to fit the later non LSD centre diff assy, or do some machining to fit later gears in the LSD carrier.

Limited slip centre diffs are quite rare as they were only fitted to the very early RangeRovers. If yours is a non LSD type and the gears feel notchy, best strip it down for inspection and at least fit a new set of thrust washers to the bevel pinions. A dummy intermediate shaft,just short enough to slide between the thrust faces inside the t/case is handy for reassembling and refitting the intermediate gear assembly.drill and tap the end of the dummy shaft so that you can screw a bolt in to extract the shaft out the back of the case once the gear assembly is in position. someone here may be able to post an exploded view of the assembly, but the stacking sequence from memory is = steel teardrop washer, bronze thrust, steel spacer ring, needle bearing unit, large gear,steel spacer ring, bronze thrust, needle bearing unit, range change gear assembly, steel spacer ring, bronze thrust, needle bearing unit, small gear, bronze thrust, steel teardrop thrust washer. You may want to modify the intermediate gear assembly for tapered roller bearings, similar to what the AUS military Perenties have fitted, as these are reputed to hold up better to high performance, high load work than the standard bearings and thrusts. I personally don't like the LandRover supplied taper roller kit and would prefer to copy the design that Ritter Automotive in Melbourne made back in the day when they were fitting 5 litre stroker engines to 4spd Rangerovers.

Sorry I missed this Bish, Thank you. In my idle moments I'm trying to work out how to discretely fit the portal axles from Wildfing my old Series onto my 4 door Rangey without greatly increasing the vehicle's height when used on public roads. My Rangey sits quite low on it's suspension and 30" tyres, so the extra 4 3/4" of the portals should give a height profile similar to a standard vehicle with a suspension lift of around 2-3". The tentative plan for serious offroad work is to fit 6" hydraulic rams over the coil springs so that I can adjust the suspension height sufficiently to fit my 36" Q78 TSL tyres.

Yes, Parabolics are difficult, but I was mainly putting it out there for anyone with multi leaf springs who have access to spring manufacturing firms. Last time I had full custom leaf springs made ,I recall that it wasn't outrageously expensive, so I assume just having main leaves made wouldn't break the bank .

I think a larger bushing in the spring alone would make an appreciable difference. After all, how often do front chassis bushings require replacing compared to the ones on the shackle end of the spring ?

I am following this thread with keen interest even if I don't post many comments. I like your ingenuity and resourcefulness.

The shackle end is likely what makes the biggest difference to ride quality when loosening the bolts anyway, and it's the shackle bushings that tend to flog out more often than the hanger end, so larger bushings at the shackle could be beneficial to both a smoother ride and improved bushing life.

I have snapped 9/16" shackles bolts on a stiffly sprung 80" vehicle in the past, so I wouldn't recommend running them loose. The crush tubes of the original bushings are intended to take the shear forces. Has anyone had new main leaves made to accept a larger diameter bushing, such as were fitted to 101's or similar ? I think for standard non military chassis, larger bushings could only be fitted at the shackle end of the spring, because due to insufficient clearance, the larger diameter spring eye would not fit at the hanger end unless the 2nd wrapper leaf was deleted.