Snagger

Well, I pulled the half shafts and tested the pinion preload with it driving the diff carrier only. It's exactly the same as on the other stripped axle (I suppose the gear ratio doesn't make much difference when there is no resistance from the hubs and road wheels). So, it would seem that using about 150'lbs on the main nut if you lose the markings works well enough.

Thanks, guys. I'll check the preload against the other axle's once I remove the half shafts, then. I don't think the difference in the 4.71 and 3.54 gearing will make much difference, but I'll try to allow for it (stiffer on the 3.54). It feels pretty good by hand, though, at 150'lbs. Phil - I sent you a PM on LRNet - no real need to bother, since you have already answered my question, though I'd always be glad to speak to you anyway!.

Well, I'm only guessing at my work being OK - I'm looking for definitive approval or disapproval, really. It all depends on how much spring is in that crush tube. If it has none, I should be OK, but if it is springy, then I'm in more trouble. Loose pinion bearings could result in the pinion moving off axis, which would almost certainly result in stripped teeth on the crown wheel. Too tight and the bearings will overheat, expanding further until they seize...

Yep, I understand that. That preload (17-37inchpounds, IIRC)is set by turning the nut enough to crush the pacer tube between the bearings until the correct bearing preload is reached. The 250'lbs nut torque is the LR SIII manual's figure for the approximate torque required to start crushing the tube, well before the preload has been reached, with the torque required to further crush the tube increasing with the reduction in tube length. Since I am reusing the original bearings and tube, then the distances should not have changed and the preload should be right if the crush tube has no spring in it (ie. it hasn't lengthened again on release). I think that the crush tube should retain its original crushed length, given that it requires well over the 250'lbs starting force, and I'm working on the assumption that 150'lbs of torque on the nut will get the nut, bearings and tube nice and tight without increasing the preload to what it was before stripping.

Hi folks, hope you had a good Christmas! I have replaced the pinion seal on a 110 Salisbury axle to be fitted to my 109. I marked the nut and pinion prior to removal so that the nut could be refitted to the original position, but while cleaning the parts for reassembly, the marks were washed off. So,I have checked the LR green bible, and it says that when fitting a new crush tube and setting the pinion bearing preloads, the crush tube needs a torque on the nut of approx. 250'lbs to start crushing, with the required torque rapidly increasing to continue crushing the tube until the preload is correct. I am reusing the original bearings and crush tube, and so far have just torqued the nut to 150'lbs. This seems tight enough to prevent it from undoing and to make sure that there is no play in the bearings (both bearings tightened right up against the crush tube), but should not have crushed the tube any more. The worry is that the tube may have a little hysteresis in it, expanding a touch as the nut was undone, and may not have gone back to the same length as before the nut was undone. However, after 20-odd years and well over a hundred thousand miles in place, I would hope that the heat and vibration in service would have relieved the compression stresses and set the tube length permanently. Does anyone know if leaving the nut at this 150'lb setting will be sufficient, or will it cause problems?

Hi folks, hope you had a good Christmas! I have replaced the pinion seal on a 110 Salisbury axle to be fitted to my 109. I marked the nut and pinion prior to removal so that the nut could be refitted to the original position, but while cleaning the parts for reassembly, the marks were washed off. So,I have checked the LR green bible, and it says that when fitting a new crush tube and setting the pinion bearing preloads, the crush tube needs a torque on the nut of approx. 250'lbs to start crushing, with the required torque rapidly increasing to continue crushing the tube until the preload is correct. I am reusing the original bearings and crush tube, and so far have just torqued the nut to 150'lbs. This seems tight enough to prevent it from undoing and to make sure that there is no play in the bearings (both bearings tightened right up against the crush tube), but should not have crushed the tube any more. The worry is that the tube may have a little hysteresis in it, expanding a touch as the nut was undone, and may not have gone back to the same length as before the nut was undone. However, after 20-odd years and well over a hundred thousand miles in place, I would hope that the heat and vibration in service would have relieved the compression stresses and set the tube length permanently. Does anyone know if leaving the nut at this 150'lb setting will be sufficient, or will it cause problems?

I used my old style Kenlowe Hotstart (the type where both pump and hating unit are contained in one rectangular aluminium housing). It takes about 45 minutes to reach its maximumum temperature, which is on the border between the cold and normal sectors on the dash gauge. It's enough that the demisters work very effectively immediately and the cabin warms up the moment the fan is activated. the problem is that it can only be used where you have electrical power access - the fuel vurning types are quicker, more powerful and more flexible, being useable anywhere, including keeping the car warm safely and efficiently while you're waiting or sleeping inside it.

It was exactly that - the connector for the power supply inside the left side curved black plastic tube from tailgate to headlining was loose and dirty. it's all working correctly again. Thanks.

The problem turnbed out to be a bad connection within the left side curved plastic tube between the tailgate and headlining. Thanks for the help.

It's probably a break in the wire between the S237 junction and the rear screen element, then. I have been told that it's not uncommon for the wire to crack where it flexes just behind the head lining. Thanks for your help!

Good to know, and at least it sounds like a cheap and quick repair once the headlining is out of the way. Thanks.

Hi folks. I'm asking this question here because you're the most likely group to have the answer - there aren't many RRC soft dash owners out there who would. My 1995 RRC soft dash has lost its rear windscreen heating. The wiring is all standard, and should match that of a 300Tdi Discovery. The wing mirrors are activated by the same switch and still work correctly, but there is no power to the rear (it's not the rear screen element itself that's faulty). The switch's internal light illuminates on selection and the wing mirrors warm up, but there is no sound of any relay clicking anywhere in the vehicle. The fuse in the engine bay has been checked and is fine. I think the relay is in the left foot well, but there is a forest of identical yellow relays down there. Can anyone please identify which relay I need to check, or suggest wiring harness colours so that I can identify it, or suggest other issues to identify the cause of the failure?

Hi folks. My 1995 RRC soft dash has lost its rear windscreen heating. The wiring is all standard, and should match that of a 300Tdi Discovery. The wing mirrors are activated by the same switch and still work correctly, but there is no power to the rear (it's not the rear screen element itself that's faulty). The switch's internal light illuminates on selection and the wing mirrors warm up, but there is no sound of any relay clicking anywhere in the vehicle. The fuse in the engine bay has been checked and is fine. I think the relay is in the left foot well, but there is a forest of identical yellow relays down there. Can anyone please identify which relay I need to check, or suggest wiring harness colours so that I can identify it, or suggest other issues to identify the cause of the failure?

Based on the diameter, disc solidity (the fact that all the blades overlap, indicating that it has a high number of blades with big chord) and the angle of attack of the blades, it's a reasonable estimate. clearly, the airflow from the viscous fan will vary with engine rpm, unlike electric fans, but this means the airflow could be significantly more than four times that of an electric fan if the rpm is increased. Electric fans can't have that level of disc solidity or angle of attack because their comparitively puny electric motors will overheat or will not have suffucient torque. The capability of the electric fan to run on when the engine is shut down is its solitary major advantage, but an engine that is idling to turn its fan is unlikely to generate sufficient heat to counter the cooling effect of the fan and radiator. An electric fan, though it can run with the engine shut down following an overheat, will do little to help the engine cool because the water pump will be static, resulting only in a minimal amount of convective coolant flow through the radiator. I have heard of Mike's misfortune with the viscous fan coming off before, but that is the only time I have heard of such an event. If the fan is correctly tightened on the water pump shaft or idler pulley, its left hand thread will only serve to tighten it up even more in use. It would have to be left very loose in order to spin off when the engine was stopped. If you have such a concern, use some threadlock. To test the viscous unit, simply try turning the fan by hand when cold - it should move with a small amount of smooth resistnce, and then try again with the engine fully warmed up - it should then be locked to its shaft and not turn unless significant force is applied (you'll probably get the belt to slip first).

Keep the standard fan - the viscous unit decouples when cold, so the fan's drag on the engine is negligible. The thermostat will be closed, so the radiator will not be cooling the engine, thus the idling fan will not affect warm up times. In hot conditions, the standard fan is at least four times more powerful than an electric one and can be secured to its hub with cable ties if the viscous coupling fails in an open mode (they usually seize solid when they fail, though). Water, dust and low battery charge will not affect it, and you don't have to worry about its drain on your battery. Electric fans are only fitted by manufacturers where mechanically driven fans will not fit, such as on transverse engines or severely cramped engine bays and can't be jerry rigged when they fail. I was very disappointed to have to replace the viscous fan with electric when I fitted a Discovery 200Tdi to my 109. The advertising claims by Kenlowe and others are misleading, if not fraudulent. There is no measurable performance, economy or warm-up penalty with a viscous fan compared to electric (their claims would only stand up against a fixed fan like on Series vehicles with the vehicle stationary, giving high blade angle of attack), but there are severe cooling and reliability concerns with electric.

As did I. You just need to trim the doors and the lip of the bottom edge of the aperture frame.

The other common cause is a worn or missing grub screw in the side of the pivot housing that engages the slot in the pivot ball.

Very cheap - I have a reconditioned one in my Sankey, but it's almost certainly a 1.4:1, being ex-MoD. Besides, this is a really nice soft-dash, and I'm trying to keep it as original as possible (sympathetic mods only, like seat heating and aircon, using Genuine/OEM parts). Thank you both for the replies. I'll check the Paddock price, Bille - Ashcroft want £275+VAT and my local supplier wants over £300 for a Britpart one (probably OEM, though I'm not sure).

I have a late RRC with the Borg Warner unit. I am wondering if the viscous unit has partially seized and would appreciate your opinions, please. I am unable to turn a lifted wheel by hand, but a local LR specialist checked the unit by twisting the prop shafts in opposite directions with levers and pronounced it fit. However, I get scrubbed outboard tyre tread edges, occasional slight squealing from the tyres at full lock and vibration from the front drive line at 60-70mph (not a prop shaft fault). The suspension bushes, UJs, CV joints, wheel bearings, brake discs and tyres have all been replaced, as has the entire left swivel. The bearings of the right swivel have been inspected. I seem to recall reading someone having similar issues on a P38, which also uses the same viscous unit, and they had gone through a similar replacement list as I have, only accidentally curing the vibration when the viscous unit was found to be faulty. Can anyone confirm or fault the diagnosis before I shell out £00 on a new viscous unit, please?

I fitted one of these engines to my SIII 109. I had to use the Series sender unit to be compatible with the gauge, so just used the late SIII metric threaded sender with the head adaptor piece from the 2.5 petrol. Works a treat. The same should work perfectly for you, using that same 2.5p brass adaptor and your original sender.

One further thing - they are like hens' teeth, so are expensive to buy second hand, and finding parts is just as difficult and expensive.

Fridge - thanks for the link you your photos. that looks like it's not too bad a job to take on, but I'd rather use the P38 box if I can because they seem so much more reliable and I'd prefer to leave the existing cross member if I can. Gazzar, you're a star! That job looks ideal - welding a few tubes and webs to the top and bottom of the chassis rail is not to hard and shouldn't harm the galvanising too much in the surrounding area or be terribly difficult. With the reinforcing plate on the inside, I can't see that coming loose either. I think I'd use a stiffening plate on the outside too - 6mm should be more than sufficient. That would make it a hybrid of yours and Fridges fixings. Have you tried connecting the Defender intermediate shaft UJ to the PAS box's shaft or the P38 UJ to the Defender shaft yet? I'm wondering whether the splined stub shaft has the same dimensions and spline set as the 4-bolt boxes. As for the drop arm, does the hole accept a standard Series or Defender rod end, or does it need reaming? Final question (for now) - does the road wheel clear the box on full left lock (I'm assuming you still have standard Series axles)?

Thanks for that link - it's almost exactly what I had in mind for mounting the similar P38 box. Maybe if I used 1/2" plate on the outside, I could just drill and tap the box mounting holes so the chassis would not need large holes for nuts or bolt heads, only the holes near the ends for attaching the plate to the rail. That's assuming I can get some plate that would have threads as strong as high tensile nuts.

I haven't got a P38 box to take dimensions from, but I was hoping that I could either just cut a small hole along the weld line of the cross member to rail joint to fit any nuts and washer that needed to be fitted inside that section, or to use an 8mm spreader plate on the outside of the rail with stiffener plates along the top and bottom (creating a C-section that partially wraps around the chassis rail) connected to the rail with cross-bolts at the front and rear and holding the box on with bolts straight through the plate with clearance holes for the heads of the bolts in line with the cross member, the other bolts passing all the way through. As for the crush tubes, I was wondering if drilling the bolt holes oversize to allow an interference fit of the crush tubes (made of stainless steel) would eliminate the need for welding them in place.

Too expensive for a start, and it doesn't increase the precision of the steering like a conventional LR PAS system does.