tony109
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by tony109
-
-
On the Fairey Overdrive, Revolving the position of the layshaft and main shaft gears looks a possible way to gain a 21.7 % Underdrive, instead of an overdrive. This would give around a 1.25:1 step down.
Sadly as the output shaft and gear are in one piece, even if you could revolve the layshaft, the output gear would need a different solution. The reduction still falls a long way short of it's 'crawl/to Hassle ratio and bearing size I suspect would be a weakness. Although I see an underdrive could reduce the stress on the driveline in most cases.
@ashtrans very, very interesting to hear you made the ECR Underdrives.. Can I ask, did your 'Under-drives' use an epicyclic system. And the box fitted between the Output and
intermediate gears of the LT230, so did that require you making gears or were you able to use stock parts?
And how did it work and do you have any pics or information of it in operation..??
Would love to know more.
-
1 hour ago, Daan said:
Can't you re-arrange an overdrive so it works as an underdrive?
Effectively yes. The OD main shaft fits to the back of the main gearbox so already made, and the 27 helical tooth output shaft is perfect.. It's joining and finding a suitable epicyclic box..
-
There were a couple of Epicyclic Underdrive Gearbox options available or the LT230 transfer box. It fitted between the main gearbox output and the intermediate gear.
In trying to get a proper crawl Ratio I have the 2.888:1 Low with the lower ratio 3.6:1 1st, 3.01 :1 Rev suffix C main Box.... While The series 3 box does gives a lower 4:1 Rev ratio I didn't want to go syncro in the series 2.
In the UK, Ian Ashcroft supplied an underdrive for fitment to land rover Defenders with the LT230 Transfer box, as did East Coast Rover in the USA..... But they apparently only sold 2... and no longer sell.
From what I've seen, the underdrive centre shaft connects to the main gearbox Output shaft, then through epicyclic gears, connects externally with the transfer box Intermediate gear. It gave just a 2.69:1 reduction but this would be enough to turn 48.88:1 into 131.48:1..
For the LT76 the Underdrive input would need to connect internally onto the 1.15" diameter, 10 spline Gearbox main shaft. With the external output gear, meshing with the Intermediate gear cluster, matching the original 'Output gear' from the main gearbox. It's diameter being 3.4" with 27 Helically cut teeth.
The Fairey overdrive output gear RTC7176 is already made for the job as is the overdrive main shaft RTC7168 to couple direct to the gearbox Main shaft.
Is there a compact Epicyclic box strong enough to build such an underdrive for the Series LT76?
-
On 2/3/2024 at 9:36 AM, trod said:
Hi,every one,are these new plugs any good?
They improved starting and worked perfectly on mine for years. The Britpart plug set is excellent.
For the 2.25, upgraded Single heater plugs are shown as Part No. DA1057PLUG
-
Not been on here for a while, Just saw your post.. trust you've sorted the problem?
Leaving the thing parked for months can cause the metering valve inside the CAV Injector pump to stick shut, regardless if the stop cable is in the run position of not.
There's only the light governor spring to push it back. The metering valve is meant to float in its locating hole, often gets tarnish on it and sticks in the closed/OFF position. Then no fuel get into the high pressure side of the pump.
You could try wiggling the stop lever arm on the pump back forth... but Remove pump, and partial strip down/clean of the stop lever side best.
-
Hi, thanks for the HNJ drive dog.. Not the same as the crank drive but the crankshaft bolt might be the answer. Its the bolt size for the engine mount bolts in the block Im stuck for. They're metric and probably the same size for the 2.5 and maybe 200 tdi?
-
My old 2.25 diesel is on its last legs, burning oil, etc. So I've gone for the 5 bearing updated engine. Now am I right in thinking all the treads are metric on this engine? As its missing all the studs on the flywheel, the dipstick tube, manifold studs, engine mounts etc this is more of a mission than I thought, thinking I could simply swap the bits from my old 2.25 3 bearing. Theres 4 bolts instead of two holding the engine mount brackets, so were can I go for these parts.. Paddocks look good but am I right in thinking the engines all gone metric? Plus the crank shaft drive dog for the capstan winch will be missing...
So its the studs and bolts I need, can anyone advise a source?
-
Back in the days when of British Leyland were making/running landrover, Landrovers were built within the light commercial group, which also included Freight Rover. You'll notice the freight Rover Sherpa also carried the corporate link with other vehicles within the group with its Range Rover style grill..
As the Freight-Rover sherpa was part of the landrover group, the 4wd Sherpa version was later dropped as it conflicted with Landrover sales.
The rear pressings of the earlier Leyland Sherpa were the same as the Austin J4 but the Freight Rover K2 pictured has vertical seams as did the later LDV Pilot that followed. You could argue that the LR Defender is a penny pinching exercise with pressings that date back to 1958 series 2? If thats penny pinching, im all for it.
All you hear today is how bad the products of British Leyland were. Leyland transmissions LT, plus they were a huge exporter of commercial vehicles, the Scammell Land Train being an export only product meant that BLMC bought alot of money into the country
By the way, just to show how penny pinching our motor industry was, the rear part of a Sherpa [and the current Pilot] has exactly the same body pressings as the Austin J4, which dates from the early 1960's!! Other parts eminated from the Morris Oxford/Austin Cambridge, and from Land Rover. Standard gearbox came from the MGC.
Vehicle below built as a protype in 1984 for the Gas Board. Electricity Board almost certainly had some. They were built with a 4 speed box - the part time 4WD points towards the Series 3 front axle. Freight Rover used the 2.5 NA and TD engines, but this particular vehicle was built with a 2 litre O series engine derived from the Morris Marina.
The vehicle shown above definitely has Series front axle; also appears to have a TDi intercooler [but it could be a late conversion to a 200 TDi]. Could have been built for Harrier support for RAF [but I would have expected LHD for duty in Germany] or for Army communications - look at the roof platform.
Neil -
Back in the days when of British Leyland were making/running landrover, Landrovers were built within the light commercial group, which also included Freight Rover. You'll notice the freight Rover Sherpa also carried the corporate link with other vehicles within the group with its Range Rover style grill..
As the Freight-Rover sherpa was part of the landrover group, the 4wd Sherpa version was later dropped as it conflicted with Landrover sales.
The rear pressings of the earlier Leyland Sherpa were the same as the Austin J4 but the Freight Rover K2 pictured has vertical seams as did the later LDV Pilot that followed. You could argue that the LR Defender is a penny pinching exercise with pressings that date back to 1958 series 2? If thats penny pinching, im all for it.
All you hear today is how bad the products of British Leyland were. Leyland transmissions LT, plus they were a huge exporter of commercial vehicles, the Scammell Land Train being an export only product meant that BLMC bought alot of money into the country
By the way, just to show how penny pinching our motor industry was, the rear part of a Sherpa [and the current Pilot] has exactly the same body pressings as the Austin J4, which dates from the early 1960's!! Other parts eminated from the Morris Oxford/Austin Cambridge, and from Land Rover. Standard gearbox came from the MGC.
Vehicle below built as a protype in 1984 for the Gas Board. Electricity Board almost certainly had some. They were built with a 4 speed box - the part time 4WD points towards the Series 3 front axle. Freight Rover used the 2.5 NA and TD engines, but this particular vehicle was built with a 2 litre O series engine derived from the Morris Marina.
The vehicle shown above definitely has Series front axle; also appears to have a TDi intercooler [but it could be a late conversion to a 200 TDi]. Could have been built for Harrier support for RAF [but I would have expected LHD for duty in Germany] or for Army communications - look at the roof platform.
Neil -
With the chassis, you'd have done better to have cut the previous attempt out and start fresh.. It does let it down. The welds havent properly fused.. I'd do it again.
Done the chassis welding this weekend. not too bad, someone already had a go. at the end I guess the chassis will be very strong. also got the bumper stubs sorted. Now I need to fix the drivers door - patching it together somehow. In Europe I would just order a new one.
not too far to the test drive....
-
Got a few pics, although no great detail. Ive got the transfer box linkages to connect next, along with bolting bits back together. Ive changed the 4 speed box for a 5, referbed the axels and engine, Perkins Prima. This was meant to be a quick-ish job, but has dragged on a bit.
The cab showed a bit of rot in the floor and front wings, so cut out and replaced. Detail pics are lacking but will get a few more soon.
-
Ah Tony..........age catches up with all of us mate.
I was joking you know...... I'd NEVER Ever take Discovery 3, or any of the new Land Rovers. If I go away again it'll be in my series 2A which offers all the comfort and reliabilty I require...most of the time.. Cricky i dont believe I was taken seriously!!!
-
Ive finally got my Freight-Rover 4wd sherpa up together. The transfer box had a single stick, for easy operation, but this limited your options, and also jammed easily. Ive replaced this single stick with a twin stick operation. I made up the linkages and I now have the options of: 4x4 Low/High, RWD Low/High, FWD Low/High.
-
Sorry for the early reply..
Standard springs are the future. All these parabolic converts have lost sight of the originals advantages. Shocks now notice when they fail, and they dont last. Ive gone through two in 8 years. Not bad, but not good either. I must say the parabolics do give an amazing ride over corrugations compared to the originals yet there is alot less body roll.
Standards springs and standard bushes are perfectly suited, but with parabolics the movement of the shackles would tear bonded items even quicker.
I've not had the time to think about planning any other trips as Ive been travelling alot with work, not in the Landrover.
I'd still love to get to Mongolia, China overland. Ive been a bit softened I have to say, so I'd take my new-ish Discovery 3. Then I'll have comfort and reliability.
Hi Tony; I only reamed out the rough on the inside with the small flap disc that fits in a drill. It was a push fit once turning.
My way is always to take a slight skim off the bonded bush as they are always oversize. This gives the nice fit. Last ones I put Aluslip paste in the chassis tube and on bush. When changing it the paste was still there.
Truck is light use though. with only occasional off road and pulling a boat or two out of fresh water.
I might try the Deflex, but rubber ones are cheap and I don't mind changing them.
I don't use Paras so don't want any hard bushes . My suspension is quite supple with standard front and heavy duty rear springs.
Have you done any more interesting trips recently?
-
Ive been asked to make a new series 1 bulkhead. Galvanized mild or in stainless steel. How many variations are there in series ones? I have a 1957 series 1 bulkhead as a pattern. will this fit other series 1s or is the 1957 bulkhead limited to just the later models? Of course if I can make a good copy of the pattern bulkhead it would be easy to make many more at a very reasonable price. If anyone knows of a source for new series 1 bulkheads then this will save alot of time. Otherwise one will have to be made.
Hope youcan help
tony
-
I don't see the problem in reaming the eye out on a Galvy chassis.to fit the rubber ones.
With the copper grease there and a drift fit..........it aint gonna rust!. Mine haven't.
The problem is removing all the zinc coating from the holes in the first place. The bonded rubber bushes are a tight fit in an uncoated chassis, so all the zinc needs to be removed. You've paid good money for the Galvanized protection so why then remove it?
The untreated steel outer of the bush against/near the galvanize coating will increase the loss of the sacrificial zinc should they start to rust.
Sure with plenty of greace they wont rust, but the rubber will perish from the grease and general oil contact, along with the fact that he bonded rubber bushes will tear if you flex the springs alot. With poly bushes the center pins are free to revolve inside the bushes, so can flex as much as it likes, without a problem.
I fitted brand new bonded rubber bushes in my RM springs at the same time I fitted the poly bushes in the chassis. The bonded rubber spring bushes in the springs are knackered, the Deflex polybushes in the chassis are still going strong. My next task is to fit poly bushes in the RM spring eyes. Then they'll last alot longer.
Lexi, can I ask how long youve had your rubber bushes fitted, how much abuse they get and how did you fit them to your galvanized chassis in the first place. What did you use to ream ou the holes etc?
The Poly bushes that I fitted were not that easy to fit I must say. I needed my bush extractor to fit the center tubes into the bushes, but they'e not worn badly, if at all in all this time, where as, the rubber ones in the springs have had it
-
they had lower gearing in low and highbox, not just low as tony says.
I had 2.888:1 low range and the lower suffix C main box, giving a Low of 50:1. This is close to the One Ton normal control, which has a Low final drive of 56:1. The standard final drive on a series 2a is only around 38:1.
Unlike the One Ton, helical transfer box, the high range ratios remain unaltered.
-
Hi, I was just looking through this thread and saw your question.. Im the guy who started this thread, faced with the poly bush/standard choice..
The polybushes are still running very well, as is the land Rover in the pictures.. The springs get regularly flexed which would have destroyed a large number of Bonded rubber bushes by now. But my Deflex poly bushes are still looking good and unworn.
I have RM spings but sadly these still have the bonded rubber bushes in the spring eyes. When I fitted my Deflex Poly bushes to the chassis, I also replaced the bonded rubber bushes in the RM springs,. These are a unique size. The RM bonded rubber bushes in the spring eyes have now fully broken up and will need changing again, but all the Deflex poly bushes in the chassis are still going strong
I fitted polybushes to the chassis for the sake of the galvanizing and they've worked a treat! The bushes saved me from honing out the bush eyes and cutting away all my expensive rust prevention just to fit some cheap rubber bushes., Bushes that'll wear for a pass time.
I would without any doubt, fit the poybushes to your chassis. Just ensure when you fit them to use plenty of greace.
Then report back onto this thread just to keep some sort of record as to how much better, or not, various polybushes are, Both over each other or the standard rubber items
-
So you have the B+E licience so what does that allow you to tow, weight wise?
Not so long ago, provided the vehicle outfit weighed under 71/2 ton you could drive it on a standard licience. I had a large steel lifeboat that I towed from Pool back home 130 mile or so. The Life boat was steel, 26 feet long and had balast, hidden under the bilge. Once loaded onto the trailer using the capstan winch with blocks, etc, it looked quite an outfit....
It was far heavier than imagined, and on pulling away the landrover twisted on its springs before the trailer even started to move. But pulling away at tickover in first low, there was not much objection from the engine, a 2.25 diesel I must add. And so I made my way slowly back to Cornwall. At a weigh bridge the GTW was close to 6 Tons.
Rediculously heavy but with a boat on a trailer and little else in the way of options I made my way slowly back to cornwall. 7500 KG was the max GTW with a standard licience, so I was under that. The trailer was fully braked and the Land Rover had lower ratios than standard to pull it all. Another Rule, which has probably all changed now Im sure, Is that, if a vehicle is 'adapted to carry' a greater weight, then it all remains legal. I never tested this theory out. But I did have heavier duty rear springs a fully braked 2 axel trailer and lower low range gearing.
So the land rover could move it, which to me at the time meant that while it would be very slow, but got me back home.
Its all in the gearing and the Brakes.
-
Did anyone read the post? Its about an engine for a GAZ jeep with landrover running gear slapped on it. A 200 tdi would be a good choice for most land rovers if going faster was your only concern. But for a classic and rare Gaz 69 fitting a simpler and more relaxed engine, instead of some hi tech, turboed, intercooled, rubber belted machine would be more suitsble, quicker an cheaper. Its bad enough its got land rover running gear, and we know that a 200tdi will give things a hard time.. Rover Axels remember.
-
My personal view of transmission life is that the biggest factor is the way its used - mechanical sympathy is all.BUT,saying that a v8 is alot smoother in use than the lumpy rotations of old Perkins 4.203's etc.Back in the day I did alot more rebuilds on them than with v8's.
The Perkins 4203 produces alot more torque at low revs that the V8. its a slow reving engine so to drive it, you change up much earlier than in a petrol 2.25 or V8. Pulling in top gear up an incline at 30MPH is what strained the boxes. I had two very healthy boxes suffer behind a Perkins. Change the 4.203 for a 2.25diesel and the performance improved greatly.
The point is, an engine for a classic Rusian Gaz is required. The original side valve petrol would be the ideal engine. A 200 tdi would just be a nightmare. Its turbo'd its rubber timing belt, all the ancilleries. Get a cheap 2.25
-
The trouble with these modern engines in a older classic vehicle is that they'll drive like a modern car. Part of the fun of driving an older vehicle is to drive them as they were. non synco, underpowered they actually need to be driven. If you want to jump into a vehicle and just press the GO button, driving soon becomes boring.
-
baxicly i have an russian jepp that was combined with an landrover , an old farmer han a landrover wich he flipped ower so the boddy was to messed up to fix and he had an gaz 69 with a good body and chassis but no axles or drivetrain of any sort so he took axles and drivetrain from the landy wreck and used the gas body
I drove my Land rover to Russia as far east as Kazan. Gaz is one of Russia's main vehicle builders and the Gaz 69 is a beautiful vehicle. The axels are mounted under the springs and its power by a 3.2 liter side valve engine, the same engine as in the ford model A of the 30's. This engine remained in production for many yeasr up til the 70's. A very good engine, tough and torquey. If you have a gaz 69 I would be strongly in favour of finding a side valve engine and the gaz running gear. But since the landrover running gear is all inplace then a just a good engine is the answer. The 2.25 cannot be made into a rocket. You can't up the performance much more and expect a reliable engine. All you can do is ensure it runs as well as it can with correct injection timing. Something that drops off very quickly on the 2.25. You could gas flow the engine, but its already a good engine for flow so you'd never notice any gains.
I'd just find a landrover diesel engine of any sort, fit it and enjoy the Gaz. I trust the track of the Land rover axels is similar? Look after that gaz, its one of my favorites..
Can you post some pictures please??
-
The Rover P4 used the 2.25 petrol and a teacher at my old school had a P4 with a Land rover diesel fitted.
If the axels, gearbox are from a Land Rover then you can expect the same road speed as the donor land rover. You may have better acceleration in the lighter car but If you want the best cruising speed you'd also have to fit tyres of the same size or larger to the car and/or fit higher ratio diffs.
Why not keep the cars axels? mind you, knowing what the car is, what axels it has, etc would help.
Epicyclic Underdrive, for LT76
in Modified Vehicle Builds & Special Projects
Posted
So it must have been @bill van snorkleheavily modified series 2 6x6 Land Rover, in Australia. I read about it many years ago. Able to climb over meter wide tree trunks with PTO powered
Guide wheels and air bags to keep things level. The rear axels mounted to a fully compensating Rocking/Walking Beam rear axels, give amazing levels of articulation. And somehow used two Transfer boxes, but tech details were rather vague.
As shown in the other video clip, the flexible series 2 with portal axel boxes, add clearance and no doubt reduce gearing further.. The ease his series 2 has Crawling through the course compared to the following, Clutch riding 90 shows the benefit of a decent Crawl ratio. Clearly he has some serious gear reduction.