uninformed

yes but if the 1 link is the same working length as the prop shaft then the pinion angle change through travel should remain constant with the prop shaft angle change.

Ill have a stab at that. Now mind you with zero experience, I would say that it would want to be the same length as the prop shaft it is under. I would think that longer better than shorter given that it is always going to be angled down to the axle and the effects that has on ride and handling. lets see what the pros say?

thanks guys, I will have to plot it out on the garage floor come the weekend. I was up till 11pm last night fixing loose wheel bearings on my work 110

here is where I have the problem (haha). The arc that the wishbone/one link would scribe when pivoting from the chassis, would have side movement in it, much more so than if it had the single/pivot end at the axle centre. I would have thought the missalignment in the rose/heim joint would allow this lateral movement to occur? It seems Im wrong on this one

Nice work dirtydiesel, great to see a different approach to things like this. A quick question, and I dont mean to hi jack your thread, but it relates to one link with no panhard. Some may have read a thread on pirate about "3 link with wishbone lower" http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/general-4x4-discussion/1112415-3-link-wishbone-lower.html I asked the question that if they ran the wishbone with its single end at the chassis (like a one link) and just had straight/parallel upper links, what would do the lateral location? They are saying it is just like if the single end is at the axle, no difference and that the straight/parallel uppers will control lateral movement. Im saying not.....

Bill, I also think that the above set up in the photo will have a lower Roll Center than stock , as it will be where those to arms project further back and converge. Regarding the front, If the arms are parrallel, then anti dive would be determind by drawing a line from the front tyre contact patch, parrallel with the arms. Where this line intersects the COG line and the front to rear brake bias split line would show you its point of anti dive (I think!!) I also think that having them angle upwards towards the chassis will result in the same characteristics as our RA, maybe a little worse as they are shorter... IMO I would have thought that ball joints in the front make bumps etc harsh with little shock absorbstion??? Regarding of your comment on longer RA and there effects. I know a truck with 118"wb, runs stock height 187lb front springs, 750/16 tyres and has its body (LR) lowered at least 50mm.....no dive under braking

I can see some merit in the front design, all be it a large compromise. But the rear set up???? I really think they have gone backwards there.

can you get away with less triangulation than what is needed on a coil sprung rover to locate the axle laterally because of how the leaf packs are mounted?

some more great info. I read the link on the defender2 forum. Do you guys in the UK calll MDF medium density fibreboard? Like fine particle board? If so, what the hell is it doing on and in a defender? There is no way in hell I would ever make a roof vent or dash out of this stuff. Hell, it fails in kitchens even when covered with 2 pac paint and only being mopped against! I thought I read somewhere the vent was off a truck or a aftermarket rally race type thing?? I would have thought molded plastic be much better?

excellent info guys. Thank you very much. So sad LR could not see the light in his brilliant ideas. Even for a base model!!! It is no wonder Tom has left the LR marque and now owns a G Wagon. Not a silly AMG type, but a van body functional and set up for business. Shame on you LR!!! PS still like to know brand of roof vent. cheers

hey all, I seem to remember reading an article in LRM 1998??? by Tom Sheppard. He was discussing the then down falls of the 90/110s and some mods he did to his own 90. If anyone has info on his rig that would be great. Some things he did were: Disco binnacle replacing defender Roof mounted speakers Transfer case shifter guide plate tie down points in rear cargo area roof top vent for cab. Im particularly interested in the roof top vent. Love to know make and model cheers Serg

Thanks for the help guys. As Gremlin stated, Im just after the extrusion as Im looking at making longer doors. From a little digging it seems RM get theirs made in the UK.... Getting the stuff custom extruded from a Aluminium company is going to cost more than the vehicle is worth, so probably not an option lol.

all I hear is crickets........

Hey all, Does anyone other than Rocky Mountain Rovers make or supply a replacement, full aluminium door top for series? Im trying to source the extrusions for a custom application. cheers Serg

From a racing point of view, some classes may require you to have some sort of mechanical linkage.....great "racer" thinking on the bluetourch fab truck with the usless cable link, but kinda a joke. I just took some scrub measurements on my defender. Stock front housing ends etc. LR 130/wolf rims (6.5 inch) 235/85/R16. Now this is pretty rough and ready type measuring.Flat level concrete ground, wheels straight ahead position. I got 290mm from ground level to a point on the bottom swivel pin. This point is approx 10mm outboard of the inside rim lip. 290 xTan7 degrees gives me 35.6mm. So if im doing this correctly it would put the KPI at about 25mm inside the rim from its inner lip. Of coarse this does not take into account castor angle as this would change the geomerty/trigonmetry somewhat as its not just straight in and out. If Im visualizing it correctly that 3 degree castor would actually make the 7 degrees more upright that at 0 degrees....... Im guessing all this front end stuff was figured for the RRC 2 door running 205/16 (29s) and what ever rim width and offset those Rostyles are?? Im sure CSK had a pretty good idea of what he was doing. Im thinking full time 4wd, the front end driving, plays some sort of role and the fact its an on road, off road vehicle. Either way running offset and wheel spacers is going to change things alot, even before you change the linkage/steering type.

I take it the large scrub radius would not be much advantge on high traction rock as the tyre would already have good traction??? what is you opinon on it for cars doing the rock racing in the USA Bill?

well you guys have way more experience than me, heck my 110 is my DD and only rolls 32s and 34s. Going by what I have read, and it was Bills comment so he can correct me, a wider offset ( now I can never remember the correct term offset or backspace) anyway the rim sticking further out on its center, has only 2 positives. Widens track for increased stability and when low speed crawling, turning the fronts make them scribe such an arc that they actuall claw at new ground. If we are talking racing, I would have thought this not worth it and get the housing width right, get rim width and offset right and run less stick out. Help scrub, help wheel bearings and swivel/king pins, help protect brakes etc being inside rim to a degree..... yes it seems alot run wide stick out rims, But I do wonder how much thought gets put into some of them. Although they are custom housings I think alot are buying off the shelf widths and alot of these would suit stock axle shaft lengths....maybe. If it were me, right or wrong, Id prefer the wider housing with normal style LR offset. One of the reasons Team Gigglepin may have suffered their knuckle failure is due to the wheel spacers + wide offset rims. Yes the knuckle was an Ashcroft prototype, but these things did not help at all. Maybe Askcroft will look at a custom housing option for the Force9 ??

everything old is new again. I dont think I see any trick new build and someone like Bill comes and shows pics from 2nd world war rigs with similar design or someone shows pics from the 80s with something like it done. Not kncoking it at all as with new refinements and materials/fabrication things can be made better etc. Just dont think it hasnt been done before especially in the UK or europe. BTW in Jesse's build thread someone posted a expolded parts diagram of an early jeep and low and behold very similar. Jesse said he hadnt even seen it which was cool. There were a few hyd over coilover suspension rigs here in Oz, silly amount of articulation etc. I think John Dobbins Toy 40 series ran steering off a toyota Dyna truck with the link going rearward then a pivot back forward to axle, parrallel with chassis rail. This allowed for the huge axle housing movements realitive to the steering wheel/cab. EDIT: in my post further above where I was talking about Jesse Haines jeep. Referring to many people saying there is an advantage, I was referring to mechanical steering, hyd asist, not full hydro

Those portals are made by Axle Tech. Stazwork just sells them etc. And you guys cant seriously be comparing that cheap bow and arrow bender with the Stazworks type are you???

Jesse's rig does not have a steering box mounted to the axle. It has it up near the steering wheel. Using a very short shaft from steering wheel to box. A vertical shaft from steering box arm, down to a bell crank, a horizontal shaft from bell crank at feet to bell crank on axle housing, then drag link to closest wheel and a track rod between each wheel. The bell crank at axle housing is ram assisted. I have ZERO experience with hydro full or otherwise, but more than one person has said it has its disadvantages at speed. One thing to consider is things adding up. Without the luxury of being able to build custom axles and wheels to give us the track width we want and keep scrub radius etc at good numbers. alot are forced to run silly offset wheels for tyre size and clearance. This also could be a factor in poor steering at high speeds cheers Serg

Dont know what to tell you Western, other than good old LR are at it again. My 1998 300Tdi 110, and mind you that is the last of the 300Tdi, not the first, has the sill seal rivited to the sill member NOT the door. This truck is original in this area. I have already placed an order with Shop4Autoparts and they sourced genuine LR seals for the door frames. Current LRO24954, LRO24955 as these were what LR gave them to superseed my part#s ALR4936, ALR4937. lower sill seal both older ALR6250 and the latest as confirmed by part# LRO29309 which they say superseeds CFE500670. Problem is ALR6250 will be no good for my rusty doors. I will have to source MWC6130 from somewhere, which means two lots of shipping grrrrr.

My thoughts are the hummer portal is a real portal due to the fact that the imput is higher than the output. Even with its independant suspension top and bottom links, the wheel center is lower than that of a normal independant suspesion driven axle. Also it allows the imput shaft to be at a flatter angle for a given ride height, which inturn is less angle at cvs = more better (thats the tech bit)

good to see you about Bill. I hope all is well mate cheers Serg

thanks Western

Thanks for that info. Im now confident in the LRO29309 part number being for the latest, upgraded sill seal that mounts to the bottom of the door on the latest Tdci 2.2 defenders. But Im still a little confused as to what is original fittment to my 1998 300Tdi 110 C/Chassis. I can tell you that it definitely has them fitted to the body and not the door, and I can also tell you my VIN ends in WA147###. According to the LR parts catalogue that is a sticky in this sub forum (110 1987 onwards) it shows: MWC6130 for upto VIN LA933876 ALR6250 for VIN LA933877 onwards is there an actual physical difference in these 2 seals? or did LR just stop fixing it to the body and then fix it to the door? I need to know ASAP as I have placed and order through a UK shop and got them to order the wrong types (by the looks of this thread). The seals are going to take a week to get in stock so hopefully I can correct it today. cheers Serg