Snagger

The pinion appears by comparison of the photos to be too long. Sorting the bearings as above is simple, but this is the tricky bit I’m uncertain about. I think the splined section will protrude too far out of the casing, and the drive flange won’t press-up against the bearing inner race either. A collar could be made (blue sketching behind the green area cut for the bearing seat) to fit around the shaft and run against the seal with the drive flanges used further back, but this puts loadings on the bearings like the spacers sometimes seen between prop shaft yolks and drive flanges where a prop shaft is too short. I don’t know how much of an issue that could be. Alternatively, once the dimensions are known, the pinion could be turned to cut down the length of the splined section and turn new threads for the flange nut into the core of where the splines were removed. The splines may need extending toward the gear head, though. This all assumes the spline diameters match those on the Salisbury (this pinion is 10-spline, like LR used). I don’t have those Salisbury measurements either. This is the part that concerns me.

The machining for the outer bearing needs approximately 6mm diameter removing from a 23mm length to match the Sals profile, and a 3mm diameter for about 5mm length increase to support that bearing inner race at the drive flange. I don’t have Salisbury spline dimensions to compare.

Hi all. Several years ago I bought a used Dana 60 4.1 gear set to go into the 109 as 3.54 were horrible and broke the gear box but the standard 4.71 are a bit low and reach, using more fuel and causing more noise on A roads and motorways than necessary. I haven’t got access to a Salisbury gear set down here, but Tim (Peaklander) just sent me photos with the critical dimensions of the tail end of the pinion and they are significantly different. So, my question is, do you think the tail of the pinion can be machined to fit the standard bearings and case for a Salisbury? I am thinking of having the coarse area between the bearings turned down to the bearing seat area of the Salisbury and a collar made up to support the bearing where it overhangs the thinner machined section. For the drive flange, perhaps either another thick collar of same diameter as the drive flange plain section to sit where the seal land area of the drive flange sits, with the drive flange set further forward and a shorter prop, or having the splines cut longer and the end of the shaft turned and a thread cut to completely match the Salisbury dimensions. I prefer the latter, so that standard seals, bearings, drive flange and prop can be retained, but don’t know how bad the spline wear might be on unhardened steel. I have no idea of the costs of the work, if it’s even possible, but I haven’t seen many alternatives as nobody seems to sell 4.1 Salisbury gears since KAM closed, and they cost about a grand when I looked at their site well over a decade ago. What do you think?

Right, so the spacer with three washers is the same effect as standard, the spacer with two washers helps with a bit of smoothness at high rpm and with just one washer allows higher rpm too? I wouldn’t want to increase the rpm, but having it run smoother and more economically would be nice. I presume running without a washer at all is for the lunatics that hate engines…🤔

If you find old stock. They stopped making them quite some time ago, unfortunately. More environmentalism, I heard.

I would quite like a trolley jack for the driveway or garage, as fiddling about placing a bottle jack behind the wheel or operating the release valve is a nuisance. I have a pair of ramps, the HD orange painted type I think came from Halfrauds. They have been very useful on occasion and seem more than sturdy enough. I have seen smaller ramps of flimsier steel that I wouldn’t trust. I got a 2.5t engine crane that is relatively quick to dismantle but also folds up vertically for storage, and that has been very useful for removing gear boxes, engines and moving axles around. How often it’s helpful depends on the scope of your projects. Make sure you have a decent set of chocks for securing the car while wheels are off or prop shafts disconnected. Don’t improvise with bricks, rocks or branches.

That shouldn’t be necessary, but thank you. The cheap actuators all appear similar, with three wires for slaves and five for the master. Splice the master wires together and the system should not notice, unlocking and locking from key use on any door a master is fitted to. I can’t see why you couldn’t fit a master on all five doors if you wanted to (I also can’t see a point in doing so, but I can see why a master on both front and perhaps the rear door may be useful).

I’m curious about these spacer kits. Those that I have seen have the lozenge shaped spacer for the casing cap but also have a washer or circular shim for the spring. Does the washer or shim not cancel increased depth of the casing cap?

Looking at the wiring on the Right-click instructions, they show the wiring on the (cheaper style) master actuators spliced together before reaching the ECU, so such a mod must also be possible with a second master on the Hawk system, given that only one lock will make an input signal at any given time (so the ECU wouldn’t need to know that there are two masters). I like the Hawk system for the incorporated alarm, but the Right-click for the double master in the kit and, if using the fobs is necessary, for the combined fob/key like modern cars use. I can’t work out if they have an alarm, given that they have a connection for an optional siren. I have emailed them both, so hopefully will get a reply next week.

I’m more concerned about the EM at airports screwing up the fobs or receiver. I spoke to the AA guys at LTN a few times and they said it’s a frequent problem (this was a decade ago, though). It’s not just people leaving their lights on that runs batteries flat - it’s also the various EM transmissions messing about with the alarms. Dead batteries and malfunctioning alarms/locks constituted over 95% of their airport call outs. I’d rather not have to deal with that.

Interesting that you approached it from the opposite direction from me, deleting the key barrels from the front, presumably because they’re so easily forced and removing a weakness. I am coming from the other side, concerned about the ease with which keyless entry is defeated and the frequency (pun only partially intended) with which car alarms and locking systems go on the fritz at airports, with all the EM radiation in those locations, so I’m looking mostly at the key operated CL aspect, the Right-click being nice in having two master actuators that trigger the system on the mechanical key. I’m undecided on disabling the fob aspect.

Thanks. Perfect timing. That is a very useful thread, both for the result I’m trying to get and for the supplier of a CL system that has fobs with flip out keys as opposed to separate fobs that have to be used on a key ring, though I am considering just using the key and the master lock system as the fob system seems a security risk (I was thinking of leaving any external antenna disconnected or encasing the unit in a Farraday cage), so fobs wouldn’t be needed. This would still have the option of disabling the RF system but having keys without dangling fobs taking up more space in your pocket or the wife’s hand bag and jangling while driving. I had been looking closely at the Hawk CL systems as they claim their fobs have encryption to frustrate cloning or scanning equipment by thieves, and while all of these kits claim that, Hawk being a UK supplier have legal responsibilities to be truthful about that (after all, all of these kits are made in China and the claims generally as credible as a chocolate fireguard) I saw @ianmayco68 has a Hawk alarm unit in the red 90. @Geojake and Ian, what are your thoughts? If fitting a CL system, going one step further and including an alarm seems sensible and beneficial to insurance premiums, but I do like the Right Key twin master locks (rather than the single master other kits have) and I do like the key/fob.

I hadn’t seen this thread before, just been directed by @Hazza after asking about scrap rear locks to experiment on to same thing. I didn’t know about Right Click and their flip keys with transmitter - I had been looking closely at Hawk, which use a separate fob, so this is better. The data on the link you posted is a bit unclear. It seems to suggest that the unit will trigger the horn of the locks are forced, so is a basic alarm. Is that right? Do you think it’d be possible to route the actuator rod or a Bowden cable (like used on the heater flap controls) closer to the the lock bolting flange so as to hide it inside the door card, with the hard board removed for clearance behind the vinyl? It’d be nice to make the system invisible. Could it be done so the rod passes between the opening handle and back plate instead of between the handle and front plate/mechanism?

You have to work on your presentation. They see the benefit when you point out that it’s cheaper than than buying all the new original spec parts, will take less time, need less tooling, will be more certain to work correctly and also happens to make the car more capable should she need to use it in snow or floods., and that the time and money saved could be better spent with her…. You have to work the angles, Ian! 😉

Likewise on the Rover diff I built with an ATB and the 4.1 gears I bought from you, Nige. I initially tried the pinion with the original shims from the 3.54 setup and got the head depth from the bearing cap flats matching what was engraved on the pinion. Once I set it all up, the pattern looked pretty good as far as I could tell using oil paints (try finding decent engineering stuff here!) but it all seemed to easy, so I then tried thickening and thinning the shims, all with worse results. Wasted several hours with that, but on the plus side, it did give me more confidence, given that this was the first full diff build up that I had done, rather than just swapping pinions and diffs complete on a Salisbury without changing shims.

Hi folks. I am seriously pondering adding central locking and an alarm to my old Defender doors, ideally after I fit the later lock barrels so I can have just one key for all doors and the ignition, not three. 🙄. Part of the process for the locks is going to be replacing the rear lock and both door handles with post 2002 type as the lock barrels are bigger (so don’t worry about me not realising that). The rear door locks are available new from several suppliers (likely to use SP) with and without an operating rod for central locking, but this rod comes out of the top of the lock to attach to a crank under the rear window corner on the later style doors, but I have an earlier door and want to bury the actuator better in the voids than LR did and to better conceal the rod too. So, I’m after an unwanted rear door lock assembly, working or not, that I can open up to work out if I can fit a neater Bowden cable system out of the bottom of the unit closer to the mounting flange. Please let me know if you have a suitable piece of junk. 😉

That’s the thing - you have to put a fair drive on your time and not just be stubborn or cheap. Good tools save an awful lot of time and wasted effort or materials, so can pay for themselves surprisingly quickly, especially if you use them often.

Unless you see damage, then an old part has shown itself to be reliable and correct, whereas a new part (even from a high quality manufacturer) may have a defect that causes premature failure. Better the devil you know…

I think your shims are spot on. I’d recommend you now just substitute the dummies for the final bearings and run another pattern with everything torqued up. If it comes out similar, you’re done. As I mentioned before, the pattern diagrams mention in the top “correct” line that the coast side is often shifted a bit towards the toe, but as long as the imprint is centred between the root and peak (ie not in the bottom of the valleys or just touching the tips of the teeth), then it’s good. Used gears tend to shift the coast side towards the toe, I read somewhere, too. I honestly think you have it nailed.

I would spread it until the diff will drop in without needing a hammer, but only just, and with the diff wiggled very slightly to make sure that it gets to align square and slot in. The first few flats on the adjuster under load are going to be the flex in the spreader, not the casing.However, the manual comment about three flats on the nut are specific to the LR special tool, and would depend entirely on the pitch of the threads and the distance from axle centreline to threaded rod centreline. Any other spreader would have different geometry.

Your press may be imperfect, but at least you have one! I had to remove and refit the bearings on the Rover diff I built up two years ago using a hammer and drift - I couldn’t even find a length of pipe. Trying to phone engineering workshops here is a fool’s errand.

I did read it and was looking for it again when I posted the above comment about combining information. That was the thread Mike said he was looking for something. I did try to post a comment that I was looking at single DIN units on eBay with folding storable screens like in the photo, which would get around the blinding screens at night while still being able to run the stereo, but the reviews on numerous brands say that they can’t run the FM/AM radio and car play on screen simultaneously. It think that maybe an Android issue generally, from what Ihave read. The screens not dimming on the fixed displays like John had when the headlights are switched on seems to be a common fault too. I do suspect that the common complaints about the units needing to be reset after very short periods maybe installation errors, but at these prices,I don’t have much confidence in their quality.

You can do it without the spreader. Takes a bit more effort, and you need two levers getting the diff out as it needs to be kept square without the spreader. I have done it both with and without.

I had a TPMS set on my Volvo here in DXB. Cost a lot when I bought it on recommendation several years ago. Nothing but trouble - some sensors failed, they used to leak air from the valves (the sensors were serviced with new seals and the bad reading units replaced under warranty) and then the screen failed, so it got binned. If you do get TPMS, get the type with the sensor inside the rim - the types with sensing valve caps keep the Schroeder valve open, so any small defect results in slow leaks. Their downside is battery replacement, though. I did have the cheap valve caps with clear tube and spring loaded colour bar, factory set to specific pressures. I had very good experience with those in the UK, but they kept cracking or spitting out the injection moulding pip in the end and leaking in DXB. Could be the brand sold here, could be the heat and UV. But they have the same vulnerability as the electronic valve cap TPMS systems - they have to keep the valve open to sense pressure and they are bigger than the standard valve cap, so more exposed to impact.

That’s what I’d do.