uninformed

If LR were forging parts for a little Land Rover, good chance Mercedes forged bits for Mogs.

I need to correct myself regarding the Bilstein comment, they do have high low speed bump valving and they do usually have a digressive piston but the two are not related. It’s just how Bilstein like to do things. Low speed bump controls unsprung mass. It also helps control roll a little. Bilsteins handle well but suffer ride quality (imo) at the expense. No matter the brand it is a compromise back to your issue. Generally speaking the higher the spring rate the lower the bump valving would or can be. But again lots of variables and different ideas from different shock manufacturers.

I was referring to the solid pin end , it looks longer on the GW for it to go inside the tube for the plug weld.

Maybe different batches or changes. The factory trailing arms changed a few times over the years from the original RRC through all the various vehicles. Mine 6 definitely have a small radius. It’s not big but can be seen and felt if you offer the washer up with fingers. It rocks a bit if the chamfer is not facing it. I did notice the plug weld on the GL arms which does mean they are longer than the LR item. I was surprised to see his comments on his web page regarding the friction weld. Friction welds are very good and I confirmed this by building a test rig and bending to destruction the ends of factory arms.

Again I’ll take a guess. He is using the ends off factory arms and replacing the main tube between the friction welds. If he is getting the pin ends made they should have a radius where I described, if not it’s poor machining and design. but like you say either way fit the washers and have fun 👍

Looking at his website, my guess is he is using standard factory arms and sleeving a tube over them. If that’s the case they should still have the radius where the pin steps up to the main outer diameter of the original arm.

Replacement Shocks are valved or should be to the vehicle. Given the long run of the 110 and it’s changes to spring rates, levelled and non levelled etc that could be the start of things… On top of that you have companies different approach to the problem. Example, Bilstein have high (harsh) low speed bump valving typically and this is because they use a digressive piston. Some shocks are just valved carp to the vehicle, or they are valved with a spring rate in mind (sometimes other than factory fitted rate)

There is a radius on the end of the pin section of trailing arm where it steps up in dia. Face the chamfer to this. There is also a crush tube inside the bush, you want the flat face of the washers hitting this to be correct length/preload when torqued up. (So full surface area of crush tube is in contact with washer.) The chamfer to nut doesn’t do anything or matter due to the surface area of the nut, it’s just there because they mass produce one washer to suit.

A quick google of that part number shows both flange type in my photos above. The later type being much more common. The earlier is definitely a better fit/finish and longer (more correct length as per the early non flange bolt) Those late type look pretty poor in hand. here is the length difference and you can sort of see the quality difference ( more visible in hand) Why do you say one use only?

Hey all, has anyone seen this type of Rover CW bolt? Trying to determine if it’s factory genuine? Circa 1998 I know these next two are definitely factory genuine. The early and late types The later are shorter than the earlier type and shorter than the ones I’m trying to I.D.

Slow couple of weeks but finally they are all done! back to fabrication….

Thought I’d give the grinding and welding a rest this arvo and do some different grinding…. CV blueprinting (stress relieving)

In short, yes. (To everything you stated lol) The cylinder will be supported by two beams (one either side) , the work table (adjustable in height) will be the same design and beams, that’s why I need 4 of them. Most hydraulic presses have the cylinder sandwiched by two beams of sorts, if PFCs are used (Parallel Flange Chanel) , which I am, then the common practice is to have the frame uprights attached to the webs (PFC orientation is toe out) . Due to locational restraints, I’m attaching my uprights to the outside of the PFCs, hence the flat bar welded in the ends. This is not ideal structurally, but it allows more room between the uprights to pass jobs through. The added webs are bent and from centre are going outward because looking at the set up from above (plan view) gives the force line going from the cylinder outwards to the four mounting points, like a X. Yes there is definitely twist or torsion to deal with. There will be crossmembers on each end between the beams to deal with this. Boxing the PFC in parallel would have made it more symmetrical but I need clearance on the flange for bearings to run so I can tram the cylinder left and right. It will become more obvious when I get the components together, and as said I’ll flick up a thread in the tool section.

When I get more of the components fabricated I’ll post something up in the tool section

Thanks mate, but average at best when compared to the real deal. It’s not my day job so going ok I guess you should check out some of the trophy truck builders. Heaps on Instagram. Simply incredible workmanship. While F1 and aerospace have long moved onto different construction methods, these guys rival or better similar work I’ve seen done on previous F1 or high end cars.

Not much of an update, Ive been sorting and researching various bits and bobs, chipping away at my press build. Given the cylinder size (50 tonne), the press width, and my beam size, it was pointed out to me that bending would not likely be a problem, but the shear capacity of the web could be borderline when the cylinder is trammed over to one side. I have added a 6mm web, somewhat following the resultant force line. There are still some other issues to deal with due to my design of the press structure, but these will be resolved as I get to them.

Here is some added reading: https://www.aulro.com/afvb/projects-and-tutorials/278232-how-make-defender-quieter.html

Turning the heater on does not change coolant flow. The coolant is ALWAYS flowing through the heater matrix (small radiator), all turning it on does is move a flap to change the air flow direction so the air passes over the heater matrix and into cab. The factory temperature gauge is terrible. It has a very broad range in the “normal” position and by the time it moves and you notice it, it’s too late.

All I know is people eat a hell of a lot of pizza and can’t clean their own pools….

Hey all, I posted this same question in the RR sub forum, but I’d like to confirm with D1 shafts as they ran a different CV and I’d hate to assume… im looking for some measurements from a factory original early D1 front inner half shaft must be 10/23 spline from the 200Tdi (I think!) vehicles #1 - I’m looking for overall length(s) #2 - the measurement from the very end (CV) of shaft to the diff side of the shoulder the bronze thrust sleeve runs against #3 - the measurement from the very end (CV) of shaft to the shoulder the steel spacer ring seats against hopefully these pics of a D1 shaft will help. Verniers would be preferred but a steel rule will do if you don’t have them. cheers.

Hey all, im looking for some measurements from a factory original RRC front inner half shaft must be 10/23 spline from the pre 85 (I think!) vehicles #1 - I’m looking for overall length(s) #2 - the measurement from the very end (CV) of shaft to the diff side of the shoulder the bronze thrust sleeve runs against #3 - the measurement from the very end (CV) of shaft to the shoulder the steel spacer ring seats against hopefully these pics of a D1 shaft will help. Verniers would be preferred but a steel rule will do if you don’t have them. cheers.

I’d definitely stay away from LR stuff, especially for the rear. Given its rear wheel drive, the diff /axles will see all the power/torque and even built Rover diffs are marginal another thing to consider, the stiffer you make the housing the more force the stub axle absorbs (housing will absorb very little) LR stub axles are not great in strength given their size.

Avoid Salisbury type housings is my opinion. Over heavy centre section with abrupt change in stiffness at axle tube connection. Yes they can be braced but again overly heavy due to the nature of the housing type. There is a reason no trophy truck, 6100 or top end ultra 4 ever use Salisbury type housings. why not full floating y61 axles braced (properly) I also think Mitsubishi shogun rear solid axles fairly stout.

Finally bit the bullet and started building my hydraulic press. If nothing else, it should test my welds!

No the best photo, but 16 degrees of cross articulation. This was set by the bump stop gap on the droop side determined by shock length, and jacking the compressed side until that side chassis starts to lift. The compressed side just touches the bump stop. Engine, gearbox and t/case are still installed. There potentially will be a touch more down pressure on the compressed side in the situation where the rear axle is articulating the opposite way and loading torsionally through the chassis to the front. The Nissan Patrol bushes are definitely more compliant than the LR equivalent. As a point of reference, the rear A frame ball joint only has a maximum of 30 degrees range of movement in one plain ( 15 degrees to one side if there is no fore/aft movement) …