LowRanger
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by LowRanger
-
-
Has the output shaft issue been resolved as yet Wayne ? I have put the question to Robert (Oilworker) on 'Expedition Portal' forums, but I think he may be afflicted with a case of selective blindness when it comes to reading posts on his thread, titled " An Expedition Truck On Portals." Having been heavily involved with their development, he either officially or unofficially took it upon himself to publicly promote Tibus's Portal kits, so I don't think me directing concerns over their reliability to him is necessarily out of order.
The simple answer is NO.I think once again the main difference is the type of use that the vehicles are subjected to,Roberts vehicle is mainly used to travel at speed doing rally type driving,where Iain has his set up as a multi purpose vehicle.As a touring vehicle it worked well,BUT as soon as he has tried to use it on anything challenging,like our afore mentioned sandstone/shale rock steps/boulders,the portals are just not up to the job.The situation has got to the point where they have now been removed from the vehicle.A very expensive learning experience.I did try and advise Iain a long time ago,that there was an inherent design fault and that all the fancy mods that people were advising him to do to the vehicle,wasn't going to rectify the situation,as the Maxi drive portals operate correctly without having to add all sorts of fancy mods.Unfortunately too many people have these fancies about mods,and Iains situation was the perfect opportunity for them to get someone else to build in these mods and see how they worked,without them having to spend any of their own time and money.
-
Just slap a set of Tibus 4" 1.16 :1 portals on standard 3.54 :1 diffs for a 4.1 final axle ratio. You might need to carry 4 spare output shafts and unit bearing assemblies around with you wherever you go though.
And that is no joke.I personally know that vehicle and its owner is a friend of mine.I just shake my head
-
OK, guys, you've convinced me. The idea of not increasing the number of components or complexity appeals to me for an expedition vehicle, but for a challenge or play thing I can see your arguments. As always, a lot comes down to the specific use and location of the vehicle, but I can't imagine standard diffs are stronger than KAM or Ashcroft 4.7s, even though they are stronger than the original LR 4.71s. I still think those after-market diffs with a high ratio transfer gear is stronger than standard diffs with underdrive down tot he same final ratio - the diff ratios are doing the work for you, not the underdrive, so the transfer box, prop shafts and diff pinions carry less load than with standard diffs. The half shafts are going to take the same load regardless, but everything else can turn more easily and you have fewer moving parts to worry about. The big thing is the flexibility of bridging the gap between high and low - the diff and transfer box give a wide gap, while the underdrive does give a nicer spread of four different ranges.
Throw a set of 4.12 R&P's in and you have an even better setup,not having to worry about the factory R&P detonating.
-
I'd disagree with that, the challenge scene seems at times to be a challenge to see who can break the most stuff! You're right though, these days it's tweaked TDi's and maybe 36" tyres running in low-traction terrain, a far cry from some of the big-block-V8 bouncing up boulders that the yanks do. There's also the fact that distances are short and speeds are low here, because we don't have the space!
In Australia,I think we are somewhere in the middle.The comp scene is usually big HP and big wheels,but the general 4wd scene on the east coast in particular is mainly vehicles with up to 35" tyres and relatively standard engines,maybe tweaked with tuning or a turbo.The terrain is usually sandstone or shale and low traction due to the crumbly nature,unlike the US where it is usually hard rock/granite which is a High traction material,which really opens itself to the High HP extra large wheel buggy brigade.
-
The standard issue stuff, aside from the transfercases and some gearboxes is marginal with 31" tyres and 100 bhp in some of the conditions over here.
Hahahahaha I would love 100bhp.That is the sort of thing you dream about with a 200tdi
-
Went out and measured the flatdogs on the 110 and they are 140mm,so just ordered some more to fit to the 130HCPU
-
I've observed over the decades that I have been involved in 4WDrives, that components considered to be strong and reliable in the UK are marginal at best and very fragile at worse on the generally drier, harder, steeper and less refined offroad tracks/trails in our more mountainous regions here. Salisbury diffs are fine even in the lower ratio variants, but you also have to change the front CWP. History, and often bitter experience has shown that the Rover spiral bevel CWP's are just too fragile for serious offroading on decent tyres once the ratio is dropped much below 4.1 :1. P38 diffs with their more closely spaced pinion bearings are not a particularly good example when it comes to building a "damned tough" differential.
I agree with Wayne (Low Ranger), that just like difflocks, and a balanced, flexible suspension system for truly serious offroading , once one experiences the benefits and versatility of a proper underdrive, which basically gives a 4speed transfercase, there really is no going back to the standard arrangement. 30% reduction gears give around 60 :1 low range vs around 120-130 :1 for the Ashcroft unit. In certain instances a 4.3:1 permanent low range ratio is too low for intermediate difficulty terrain where high range won't pull, and the straight cut gears are quite noisy and possibly not quite as robust and long wearing as the original helical gears.
As Bill has stated,it is the versatility of an Underdrive unit,be it Ashcroft or something like Bill has manufactured previously,that makes it so much better.You get to maintain the standard ratios and have various selectable ratios as the situation arises.Maybe this isn't so important when setting up a vehicle for British conditions or when just looking for a Challenge event vehicle,but these extra gears come into their own when climbing metre plus rock steps and boulders up a steep incline.This is the type of terrain that the serious guys in this part of the world like to drive,and having driven with guys with lower transfer ratios and then tackling the same terrain with the Underdrive,I like the ability to select the gear ration for the moment,and not just having to make do,and only running a 200Tdi that makes no power and running relatively big rubber,the added extra low ratios allow the truck to work a lot easier and reduce wear and tear on the vehicle.No need to stick the boot in to get it to climb,just let the gearing and the suspension do the work it was designed to do.And when you are descending very steep tracks with large steps etc,the ultra low ratios make it a much more pleasant thing to do,when you don't have to worry about holding the vehicle back on the brakes and risk locking wheels and sliding out of control.And the Underdrive has the added advantage that it is a fairly straight bolt in application,as long as you have a 26tooth transfer,certainly a lot easier than fitting a gear set to the transfer and also easier fitting a second transfer or adapting an Atlas etc.
None of the ways to reduce the gearing is cheap to do,but people should just do what suits their particular application for their vehicle,but for those considering the lower tranfer ratios for a road driven vehicle,be advised that they howl like a banshee,where you wouldn't know the Underdrive is there,if you didn't see the operating lever.
-
1
-
-
Ashcroft 4.7s are a completely different kettle of fish....
Now I wonder if we ask Ashcrofts which they have broken more often,which one will they say?
-
What do you mean by "more robust than an underdrive" ? I wasn't aware of any weakness with the Ashcroft underdrive, and I would have thought them to be very much longer lived than any 4.7 ish Rover type diff.
I agree with Bill.I have had my Underdrive for a few years now and every time I go out it gets used.It gets used climbing large rock ledges that are the normal here in the Great Dividing Range on the East Coast of Australia,and the vehicle runs 36" tyres and certainly puts a lot of strain on the whole drive train,but I have chosen parts carefully and have found the Underdrive to be perfectly capable of handling whatever I dish out to the vehicle.So much so,that I bought a second one and fitted it to my 130HCPU Tourer,that also runs on 35's,for those times when you're out touring and you're looking for that lower gear
4.7 Rover gear sets would be a far weaker prospect in my opinion,but each unto their own.They may be ok if you just play in mud puddles,but they don't like shock loading.
-
Sell both your kidneys and your first born!!And buy an Underdrive.Once you have driven with one,you wont go back.I have one on my 110 and 1 on my 130
-
Can anyone tell me if the 110mm wheel arch flares to fit Defender that Devon 4x4 sells is as wide as the Flat Dog flares?
Cheers
Wayne
-
I am not familiar with the procedure regards registration, Wayne. The arms have been submitted to the relevant authorities for approval. Does that mean that the purchaser is not required to pay an engineer to sign off on their fitment ? Any follow up inspection by the roads authorities required ?
You still need to present the arms to the relevant authorities, Bill.But the arms have the appropriate paperwork available,that you can present to your engineer with all the required information for them to just sign off on them,as long as there is a sway bar fitted.The same has been done for the arms fitted to Nissans and Toyotas,so the product is well known,just a different application,
-
I plan to finish my D90 with a cage (the day I'll find a job again) and some external shock mounts,
but if I had to start again I'd surely consider those arm as nice alternative to my 3-L kit.
Unfortunately with new regulations here,it is nearly impossible to register a vehicle with a 3Link front here.That was part of the reason behind these arms,to give people the ability to get a lot more front suspension travel,whilst maintaining driveability and being able to legally (with the fitting of swaybars with quick disconnects) register the vehicle for on road use.
And yes I would like an external cage as well,unfortunately another thing that is a huge expense down here!!
Regards
Wayne
-
I hear you.
I wish those guys good luck, maybe expanding their business outside of the island, just like Maxidrive did the in the golden years.
Well that is the power of the internet these days.People from all over get to see the products and can purchase from overseas.
I will try and get the Engineer and guy that designed and made the products to drop in here if I can,He will be able to answer any questions anyone has I am sure.
There is a long running thread on AULRO regarding the development of these arms if anyone wants to look,there are some pics of my vehicle and a few pics of some others that have now purchased the products since mine was first shown.
Regards
Wayne
-
Hey Wayne,
just found your replies, thanks.
I can't remember how tall the bumpstops are mine, but I also run a set of 36" (although it's been a while, sob!),
and a quick comparison is always interesting.
I asked about the lenght of the arms because while lifting the vehicleto a certain level it would be useful to slightly increase the lenght of the arm to restore the wheelbase, another company does it and it would be a bonus if those guys in Oz would contemplate to do the same.
Hi Michele
What has happened here is that people are finally beginning to see the light and not raise the vehicles beyond what is really required.All the guys with the 5-6" lifted trucks have either rolled the vehicles or have had them defected by the Police or Department of Motor Transport.So people are starting to go the low and wide path with their vehicles and reducing the lift which has also meant that with the Land Rovers,that you can fit 36" tyres under the guards with only a 2" lift and minimal effect on wheel base.Having said that,there may be the possibility of some longer rear arms on the horizon,but that will possibly be dependent on the interest shown.The other problem is that the market here in Australia is fairly small for Land Rovers,this is a country full of Japanese vehicles.And the company that is making the arms is only doing so due to the fact that their engineer (Greg) is a Land Rover fan and wanted to offer the Land Rover guys something similar to what they have been offering the Japanese vehicles for 5 or so years.So small market with small engineering company means that they target their largest audience to get their product out on the market.Unfortunately that means that small niche markets cant be initially covered.
Regards
Wayne
-
So if you had some mounts which were taller you could get more up travel? The overall travel would be the same of course unless you have some restriction to droop at present. But you would gain some stability
By changing the shock towers for either taller or lower,and fitting different shocks as well as different(smaller) tyres,you could change the up/down travel to suit your particular needs.The one thing is that with the down travel,the limiting thing will be as Bill has already mentioned the angularity on the drag link balljoint.
-
So if you had some mounts which were taller you could get more up travel? The overall travel would be the same of course unless you have some restriction to droop at present. But you would gain some stability
With the size of the tyres that are fitted,and the mounts that are fitted and the length of the shocks that are fitted,I am at the limit of up travel,which is fine,because I can fully stuff the 35's into the wheel arches.
-
If you were to remove your extended bump stops what would be the next restriction to up travel? Would it be damper bottoming out or tyre hitting inner arch, or spring going coil bound, or something else perhaps?
It would be the damper topping out
-
The gwyn Lewis mounts are supposed to use these dampers:
926560 - Pin mount at top / pin mount at bottom
27.07" extended, 15.94 collapsed, 2.36" body diameter
The 14" travel damper must have an impressively short closed length to fit in that 16" gap
I guess there is a difference between "supposed" and "what is cheap and readily available to the masses"
I was running OME 60070L shocks on these mounts before they were available in the UK.I waited 3 months to get the first set that were available to the public,so I know a little about them.
The shocks are still pin/pin and no fouling anywhere
Regards
Wayne
-
What bumpstops and tyre size are you running, exactly?
I have 1" extended bumpstops front (IIRC), and with a 3 link and short dampers to limit the available articulation, I found the tire (34" and 36") to hit the spring perch before worrying about bumpstops.
Even going with external mounts (which I've been thinking to do for years) wouldn't solve the issue.
I'm glad those arms work well and you're happy with them.
Michele
The bumpstops have been adjusted to suit the requirements. and are extended more than an inch.The tyres are 35/12.5/16 on -25mm offset rims Although the tyres measure closer to 36".The fronts clear no problem,the rears still touch the rear spring perches but only enough to polish the perches
Regards
Wayne
-
So you are using 14" stroke dampers on a mount designed to use 11" stroke dampers? Does the damper not bottom out long before the axle touches the bump stop? I would have thought this would be an issue especially during articulation
The bump stops have been adjusted accordingly,which still allows me to fully stuff the 35's into the wheel arch cavity,as can be seen in the pics.
Regards
Wayne
-
Given the scenery and the reg plate, I guess he's in Aussieland
They look well made and better than other aftermarket ones at least.
I'd quote Soren about the difference between one side and another, I'd like to know how the Defender handles on road with a pair fitted.
Accordingly to the website, they're longer too?
Michele
Although my vehicle is not a great test bed regarding handling ON road,as it is setup primarily as a play truck and is necessarily on the soft side and fitted with large crossply tyres.What I can tell you,is that since fitting the arms,the ON road manners of the vehicle have improved considerably,but this could also be enhanced by the different shock absorbers fitted as well.Although there was nothing wrong with the OME 60070L shocks that were fitted previously.
Unfortunately the website is incorrect,the arms are basically the same length on a Land Rover.
Regards
Wayne
-
Hmm yeah well not overly keen on that idea, sure it gives more flex, but should also increase axle tramp, And seeing as it is different from side to side might result in some interesting torque effects on steering/roadholding. Not sure any of this is that noticeable though, sometimes you can get away with the weirdest mods on rover suspension design
I will however say that this setup looks a damn bit safer than the hinged RA system seen elsewhere..Soren
As I have mentioned elsewhere,the basic principle has been done on Nissan and Toyota for a few years now.The design works so well that vehicles can now be engineered to be driven on the roads here in Australia,providing that there is a sway bar fitted.And our engineering standards for road vehicles is fairly strict.And involves swerve testing at speed as well as brake testing from speed as well as the usual engineering parameters for design and construction.And as far as construction is concerned,I weighed the drivers side arm,and the standard arm weighed just over 5Kg,the superflex arm weighs 15Kg,so although adding to unsprung mass,I am happy to put up with this for safety and durability.
Cheers
-
Thanks Wayne. Admins censured me at a very bad and intolerant time in my life, so I left the forum, nuff said. I caught your RA thread after Googling portal axles, which took me to Chooks thread, re the problems he was having..
It appears by the photos that you are getting almost as much front articulation as the drag link ball joint angularity will allow, and front/rear balance is just about spot on. If as you say, handling is better and there is little axle tramp/hop on rocky climbs or under heavy braking, then my original reservations are unfounded. How much angularity are you getting from your rear A frame ball joint , is it a standard one ?
The degree of articulation on my truck, likely doesn't really improve traction any further than what you have achieved here. The extra articulation just compensates for it being a SWB in regards maintaining balance stability on extremely twisty terrain.
Cheers.
Hi Bill
Yes I heard about the drama there after I enquired about not hearing from you for a while,I never followed the original thread.
Yes you are correct about the angle of the drag link balljoint,I don't believe that I could go too much further with this same design.Not a lot of people pick up on this and are just interested in more more more.To get muck more travel will require a lot of fabrication and this project was all about,what we could get with what we have.
As I have already mentioned,the truck gets a good solid workout every time I take it out,and excels in the mountainous rocky areas around Sydney.I had to do an Emergency stop last weekend as the lights at a red light camera changed as I was approaching,there was no sign of axle hop/tramping,although I was more concerned about getting the rag tyres to stay adhered to the bitumen,and the rear to stay behind the front.What I have found with the handling of the vehicle offroad,is that the vehicle now tends to stay very flat and allows the suspension to fully cycle before the body starts to change plane and gives a feeling of security in the vehicle.And unlike when you remove a bolt from a standard radius arm to give more travel but experience more body roll,particularly when dropping down large steps,these arms actually make the vehicle feel much more stable doing so.The vehicle is very balanced front to rear now,which is what I wanted,and everyone that I have been out with has commented on how balanced a stable it is.To say I am happy is an understatement.It is very easy to get the rear do do a lot more,but I have limited the rear to keep the balance.I have had conversations with Greg from Superior regarding longer rear arms and different rear arms,and while these discussions may lead to further changes in the future,and obviously help with the rear diff rotating when climbing,I am more than happy with it at the moment for what it is.
Regards
Wayne
I will however say that this setup looks a damn bit safer than the hinged RA system seen elsewhere..
Crawler Gears
in International Forum
Posted
I dont want to say too much more on an open forum at this time Bill,as things are a bit testy and under negotiation,and yes I agree that it requires full floating hubs and shaft as a minimum to sort ot out.There was 2 variant initially offered with different ratios and different drop heights,but I think that there is only the one available now.