Jump to content

uninformed

Settled In
  • Posts

    995
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by uninformed

  1. Depending on what seal it had in it and the depth it was set to, it’s probably from the seal. Not uncommon. id use that stub , the seal runs on the shoulder, not face. run Corteco RTC3511 double lip oil seal and I always run my bearings in oil not grease (remove the oil seal on the axle shaft and throw it in the bin).
  2. Well the cross member C started out rusty 🤷🏻‍♂️😁, and don’t worry by the time I’m finished it will have probably all rusted away 🤦🏻‍♂️
  3. Slowly…. Main C and forward webs are 5mm, chassis rail extensions/doubles are 3mm. Crush tubes for every bolt 26OD 14ID.
  4. The reason the P38 rear axle exists in 110/130s is because the Sals was failing in MOD. Of course we are talking the housing. The Sals hemisphere and CW&P are excellent, and the point is more proven by the horrible diff the P38 is, only a 4 pinion hemisphere it’s saving grace. It has been proven that a Rover diff of equivalent hemisphere is stronger than the P38 type. The Sals was first introduced into series due to rear diff failures, housings not so much. They never offered a Rover 4 pin back then. It was a classic case of poor engineering from LR. One of the key elements of good engineering is balance. The Sals is an example of poor balance, an extremely strong diff let down by an average housing and small axle shafts. The Dana 44 would have been a better choice given there was no way LR were going to give us bigger axles. The D44 CW&P are similar in size to the Rover but a superior design that would still exceed the strength of ever 4340 300m 24 spline axles. It would weigh less and have better clearance…..
  5. Dana 60s were offered in various configurations, with various size/spline axle shafts. It seems that the housing spec falls short on most. NO Dana 60 was made with 5.8mm tubes like the Sals 110. Modified Rover rear housing 43Kg. Rear back brace is 5mm plate, Gwyn Lewis diff pan, 8mm strap under banjo. Rover cast 3rd member with carrier bearing caps NO hemisphere, CW&P etc 12.1Kg
  6. Other than the diff itself, what does the Sals really offer over the Rover? They share the same size axle shafts, stub axles, wheel bearings, brakes, etc. And while the big cast centre section is stronger than the centre of the Rover housing, where the tubes meet the cast centre in the Sals has proven to be a problem sometimes regarding the 110 version. Its tubes are a touch thinner than the Rover housing, the axle flanges are definitely thinner than the Rover type. Its much harder to properly strengthen a Sals housing, and you have a larger weight deficit to start with. A friend of mine has run built Rover diffs in the rear of his own vehicles for MANY decades. These vehicles not being particularly light, especially his latest. Regardless of choice, shafts are same, either free with housing or both wanting upgrade. Yes the Rover should have a HD hemisphere of choice, but the Rover stuff to buy second hand is a fair bit cheaper too. Ill try and weigh a fully braced modified Rover housing I built later today.
  7. Pretty much all of those use coil overs with the coil spring holding the sprung mass. Maybe an ORI strut or an air shock, but again its complex/costly reinventing the wheel, which also includes the mounting points.
  8. very simple, they pack up/stack much better than solid or even folding legs and are very strong. Thats just some 150x50x3 RHS Aluminium offcuts and 50x3 SHS legs. Timber is 140x45. I made these many years ago, too much lean angle on the legs in side view. they work fine but get in the way a bit , better if they were more upright
  9. 65mm body is still smaller than the Boge, and what’s the rod dia? but besides that they are mass produced and more simple than a Load Leveller.
  10. Going by the physical size alone it’s not going to be cheap. Have a look at the price of the bigger dia shocks from kings or Fox
  11. Absolutely especially given it’s already been done (something to copy) but it’s probably not economical given the realistic market. But since ZF can rebuild them, parts exist and there are definitely people who could rebuild them. Just a shame the whole “bespoke” thing has got out of hand. I was going to run one on my 110 but in the end I wasn’t sure it would handle the axle travel. If I was building a stock height RRC I’d definitely run one
  12. The RRC did not have the separate tank, the 110s did.
  13. Not specifically our RRC/LRload levellers but its the principle Sach's info (load leveller).pdf
  14. I don’t think there were any 130s with Sals AND ABS. The Td5 was the first Def’r to offer ABS but the Sals only lasted until about 2002 maybe 3 and I’m pretty sure the 130s didn’t get ABS until the TDCIs
  15. I have the BOGE pdf in my computer somewhere, I’ll link it if I can find it. Springs alone will never replace or do the same job of springs + Boge Load Leveller They are certainly serviceable and I’m very surprised there aren’t a few places in the UK doing them that aren’t bespoke (roll eyes) jobs. We can get them rebuilt here in Australia.
  16. By nature of the ATB design, they work on the friction between the gears. We don’t want this “slippery” Best to run a good quality non LSD gear oil
  17. The Ashcroft ATB is NOT an LSD and should NOT be run with oil designed for LSD ATB - Automatic Torque Biasing LSD - Limited Slip Differential they are mechanically different and operate differently.
  18. I’ll definitely look into E dipping and also the probe applicator. In other news, my panel’s finally turned up. Was a battle but we got there lol. A little ways off fitting and fabricating the rear tub, but a big relief to have the integral part of the puzzle 👍👍
  19. TBH the inside of my chassis , from what I can see in the rear main chassis rail ends where I have cut off the rear cross member is not too bad. I think it’s more of a design problem than their paint , well my era at least. That is, all the spot welded reinforcement angles they have used internally throughout. While I do appreciate the idea of only adding material where you need it, given the amount they have added and the thin (~2mm) chassis material, they would have been better of making them out of 3mm and adding less reinforcement. Also if they added it on the outside they could have still spot welded them, and simply seam sealed the perimeter of added pieces (closing off to moisture ingress) All those internal angles are a magnet for crevice corrosion given how easy it is for moisture to get between the two surfaces being only spot welded. Im more curious if LR dipped the chassis as to how they painted the inside. Interestingly, my old 74 S111 suffered worse in the chassis (at the time it was only 23 years old and zero beach work) but better in the body. Something I’ve heard is common and going to the Defenders they apparently improved chassis coating but the body less so…
  20. I don’t think so. I do think it excellent for corrosion protection, but it is a PITA to do repairs, and the possibility of distortion along with the amount of overlapping plates I have is making think no. I’ll be looking into finding somewhere to dip the chassis to remove all the internal rust etc and start a fresh. id be interested to know how LR painted them in the first place.
  21. Second damper mount burnt in. As much as some bits were easier, some were harder. Predicting the amount of pull from welding to match that of the first was a bit of a punt. Alignment turned out pretty good with both mounts within 1mm of each other in square to chassis centreline, top of mount distance to chassis centreline and top of mounts for level.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy