o_teunico

Land Rover/MoD made a Series III with an electric motor in the PTO. PTO running with engine on mean that motor was used as dinamo for chrging batteries. Engine of, main box in neutral and PTO was "Power Take IN" and the vehicle was moved with the electric motor and transfer box´s two speeds. That particular vehicle lives now at Dunsfold. Problem with this setup is that it´s not clear if the PTO dog clutch of the LT will be strong enough, as was discussed in various 6X6 threads. When I was a child the data was stored in computers with those big 5 1/4 diskettes with extramly low capacity. Now we have cheap mini USB sticks. That same evolution in batteries will be great! LiFePo4 batteries are now becoming popular.

This week the electric forklift that we have at work has been out of order and we have been forced to use the Clark diesel one that we have as back-up. It's dirty, noisy and lacks of smoothness when compared with the electric one. Refuelling speed is it's only advantage over the electric. Maybe in a few years all of us will be driving electric landies and we will think that previous engines were shlt! And because all my posts must have some "vapour" content... -Take a LT230 equipped landy -Install in the wrong way a 4x2/4x4 kit, giving you either front or all wheel drive. Freewheeling hubs at front. -Install a drop box at rear diff, driving an electric motor instead of a third axle. With transfer box in 4x2 mode and free hubs at front no wheel will be connected to engine or box movement. Activate drop box and you will have and electric 4x2 Land Rover. Move selector to 4x4 and you will have a diesel/petrol RWD. Lock front hubs and enjoy 4x4.

Thats really interesting for me, as I am now working as a Coke/beer delivery man and have access to cheap (36 Eur.=7kg) gas without paying for the can itself. I have been thinking on converting my FCAW "No gas MIG" to pub CO^2.

Ooooops! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8C91GW05fM

And WildFing´s rear 1Link? Does it use the same design as the front of the 6x6?

Thanks for all your replies. That thread from 2006 is very interesting. No, I don´t want to make a wristed radius arm, but I asked about experiences with them on Rovers asuming that the "one less bolt" system will behave in the same way. In my head I have a pin replacing that missing bolt. It is attached to a system that replicates that of the LT230 diff lock engagement. I move a knob in the cab and, when the pin has no forces in it, moves to the desired position, so I can choose flex/no flex on the move even with the suspensión working. Only problema, as always, will be road/MoT ruling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH4r71evEfo

This is a spin-off from the antidive/antisquat thread. It seems an easy way for obtaining extra front Wheel travel. After reading Pirate... Pros: -Cheap an easy -Can be reverted to stock -Some claim better road handling (less understeering) Cons: -Only one arm is dealing with the torque that previously was shared between two. Some have suffered axle tube wrap, bent arms and broken bolts. Any real life experience in this forum?

Why was WildFing given a 3Link when such a good (and proven) 1Link was readily available? After experiencing both, wich of them is better in your opinión?

I allways thought that rear shackles were better just because they gave better angle. Poor me... That particular Disco is equipped with extra long hoses. I thought of taking away one bolt after seeing this picture... Will investigate that...sounds interesting. EDIT: after a quick search I have found some pics. Ford F-150 (look that shock...!) I heard of them some years ago, beeing called "hinged" radius arms It does not seem a popular setup, and some comercial projects were not materializated.

Why are rear shackle kits available for Jeeps then? Thinking in my project...in some months I will have a Disco 200, with rear ARB and +2" suspensión with rear cranked triling arms and dislocation cones. The terrain we have here is basically mud with deep ruts from forest machinery. Good suspensión travel is needed for crossing diagonally those deep ruts. Rear suspensión is good with standard setup, but front radius arms are not that flexy. My Disco will have slightly more rear AS than standard (suspensión lift + crancked arms = more angle = more AS). The front is not defined yet. I want to use standard radius arms for easier paperwork/test/calculations for making it road legal. It seems that, in standard form, they are too short (too much AD?) for beeing used for a Unilink. That was the reason for starting this thread, as I don´t know if it will be good making them longer. What will be the expected behaviour with slightly more AS and slightly less AD tan standard? Driveline will be part of the game. I will like to build a double low box combo that will be longer. That will mean also longer front propshaft, and some longer front arms will help the slip joint.

Bill, sorry, but I still dont know how can this setup work. What is preventing the bush from moving inside the "pipe" were it is insrted? Will a setup made with two lorry bushes, replicating exactly the two doughnut bushing system of LR radius arms, work as good as yor system?

Or maybe I dont have the ability to undrtstand! ;-)

Why was WildFing given a 3Link instead of reusing the wishbone from the 6x6? Now a difficult queastion to answer: wich of them is best?

There are A frames with bushing instead of ball, for axle end. This ones could be used for fabricatring a looooooooooooong and beef wishbone.

Bill, was your 1Link arranged like this zuki one? Have found this other picture in my computer. Can´t remember where I found it.

Im not a mud racer, so I should then look for somrthing flat and long. But you know, its just vapour for the moment.

I understand what antidive/antisquat is, but have no idea of how will more/less antidive/antisquat affect the car´s behaviour in real life. What are people´s experiences when changing suspensión arm´s lenght? I´m correct assuming that longer front arms will give less antidive?

What happened to first incarnation? Is there a second one? EDIT: didn´t saw your last post, as I was writting at the same time. Is there any reason for not mounting the silentblock the oposite way? What about using axle´s end of lorry A frame? It could be used for lengthtening the radious arms, but it could not have enough free movement for a propper 1Link

Hi all, If you need some 14"/15" travel shock absorbers but have very little money, what will be best?

Lewis, any articulation pics?

Any pictures/videos of this vehicle so we can see it´s suspension travel?

Yes, becoming "shorter" will be one of the problems. Also, some side load will be applied to the radius arm itself and bushing, and they were both designed only for fore-aft loadings. Is that challenge truck the one from Dave Lloyd? It was discussed at http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=82050&page=1 but I have been unable to locate any pic at the WWW.

The prop has been tested. Everything seems OK. There is a mínimum vibration when using engine braking, but it will be difficult to say if it´s because of the prop, as this vehicle is running some 33" remoulds and has suffered "death wobble" in the past.

I´m thinking about this system because, if bent standard radius arms are used, axle will be 100% stock, chassis will be 100% stock, 100% of existing bushes will be used and a simple bolt on gearbox crossmemeber will be the only "special" part needed. I think that, at least in my case, using standard radius arms as a base will ease things when dealing with the ITV (our MoT equivalent).

Has any memeber of this fórum ever seen some bent radius arms in a Landy to form a triangualted two link? This pictures are from a Bronco, one of the cars that Rover engineers studied when developing the Range Rover. It will be extremly cheap and simple to créate. Bent radious arms and bolt them to a fabricated crossmember. Job done!