Jump to content

Jamie_grieve

Settled In
  • Content Count

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Jamie_grieve

  1. I started with a flywheel from a 6.2 diesel that I had already and had been mated to an LT77. I used a spacer that comes with the 6 bolt flexplates for the 4L80 auto and made a little concentric ring to centralise the flywheel exactly on the crank. Redrilled the bolt holes as the pcd is different between sbc and LS. The other thing that nobody knows and probably the most useful piece of advice I can give is for flywheel bolts. They’re M11 and nobody sells bolts for anything other than standard fitment. I used BMW head bolts which were perfect. i used the 168 tooth ring and outer bit of flexplate bolted to a recess turned in the back of the flywheel. spigot bearing is different too between sbc and ls. I found a really common one from a lawnmower that worked, was all standard sizes.
  2. I put an LQ4 on an lt95. now that photo bucket died, how do we put up pictures?
  3. I'd say it could be done with the right degree of enthusiasm. The end result might be easier achieved these days by the lighter and easier to install Chevrolet LS3. The rear diff and half shafts will die but not straight away. It's the inertia of a heavy flywheel coming to a sudden stop that actually breaks things, not engine torque. You're just more likely to have spinning wheels finding grip with a more powerful engine so much will depend on your driving style. Axle upgrades are easy nowadays with Ashcroft and KAM components. Have you done anything like it before?
  4. Any progress on this? What Daan was saying was more eloquently put than me but we're saying exactly the same thing. Rather than model it in cad which would be difficult to achieve real world compressive forces and deflections, make a mockup with easily found materials. I have a similar setup with the lowers mounted very far back behind the axle centreline. As the links come close to over centring, the compressive forces will be massive and destructive. You really need to make sure these are ironed out.
  5. Great to see some progress on this. I'd suggest a radius on the corners of the hole the track rod goes through and probably weld a bit of box section for the track rod to go through between the two plates that'll form the mount. You'll need to really beef up the link material for the lower link mounts I think as the lower mount on the axle will also see a substantial vertical component during braking which will be translated into an even more substantial horizontal component. I suggest making a mockup on your garage wall or door with a few straps of wood and screws and feel how it is. Your link geometry isn't too far from my own in concept and I had to tweak mine to avoid that large compressive force and allow the use of creeper joints at one end which have some compliance. The chassis ends of my 'links' are screwed to the garage door and the others are free to move relative to the door so I can lift the 'axle' up and down. Using a compliant material allows a very rapid assessment of the compressive forces in the links and could be a worthwhile exercise for you too. My pinion is rotating backwards towards full bump to increase my anti dive as the suspension compresses but more importantly to me to reduce it as it extends and hopefully climb steps on steep ground better. I used that triaged calculator too but found I had to add some real life to it as well to have any confidence in the results. Using a battery drill to move the link ends is way faster and more intuitive as well. I agree with DeRanged that the AD / AS numbers are just a tiny part of what's going on.
  6. Santana PS 10 will give you the option of 3.9 diffs in wider axles. The spring perches are different widths though and don't just bolt up. Keeps leafs, adds disc brakes, all standard Land Rover bearings and seals inside.
  7. Sorry for the delay in my reply, I never had the links off until today. I have no idea who makes the rod ends for ORA. I had some other unknown brand generic rod ends too that look much the same and make a similar impression on each other when you bash them together in a rather unscientific kind of hardness test. The service from ORA has been excellent, as it also was from Red Winch who made my aluminium links and supplied the tube for the rest. I would suggest that the next time I buy rod ends I'll find some with a longer stud as I'm not happy with their length especially as they came with really fat lock nuts. I have finally gone with the Creepers at one end and rod ends at the other. I like the idea of some resilience in there to reduce the forces on the links and hardware. All of the articulation comes from the rod end, the Creeper is much stiffer and more reluctant to move. This is maybe not a bad thing as it will keep the rod end centred most of the time and probably be less wear on the Creeper. I'm still a bit away from being able to report on how they perform in my application but there are so many folks using them I can't see any dramas with whichever you choose. If you put Creepers at one end of each link then they can all be the same thread and you only need one spare, same with the rod ends. I only realise this with hindsight as I was building a one link that got out of hand and ended up going a bit mad with joints all over the place.
  8. I'm curious to see how much link separation is possible with a standard setup. Be interesting to see what you come up with. What joints did you decide to go with? I missed your earlier question sorry. I went with 1 1/4" rod ends with 5/8" misalignment spacers at one end and creepers at the other. I got them from ORA.
  9. Why do you want a modern fuel efficient engine in a light vehicle for 50% off road? Pretty much any post 80's engine would fit the bill surely? All modern diesels are common rail and need ecu's. Older mechanical ones just need fuel and boost tweaked to get good power even if not quite VNT and common rail levels of power. The BMW engine and box aren't light, add the wheelbase you'll need to fit in a remote LT230 plus long enough props for solid axles to have reasonable travel and your over 100" wheelbase. If Independent then you'd be looking at centre mounted diffs and prop packaging problems. Would transverse engined work for you? If you want light, I'd suggest looking at not Land Rover derived although ave a look at that new Bowler thing for some ideas maybe. What kind of off road are you thinking? Rocks, mud etc...
  10. Am I the only one that looked at that picture and wondered how I could redo my fleet training package to include how to recover that thing with a high lift jack? I hope it's got diff locks or brake pads a foot thick for the traction control to eat through. Not a problem in the UK now we don't have any opencast mines left but when we did we could go through a set of pads in a week sometimes. I despair at the thought of the Defender replacement and that we just don't have the expertise in the country anymore to build anything worthwhile. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'll just keep buying Toyota.
  11. ^^^^^ Exactly what I was thinking. Is there anybody currently working at Land Rover that would even understand the concept let alone push for something other than electronic aids in a production vehicle to enhance off road performance? The only way to get portals and lockers in a Land Rover is to build one yourself. Why would you though if you can buy something else that does the job better? I don't envy JLR replacing the defender but if we were honest, it wasn't really that good, just easy for folks like ourselves to make better and closer to our individual requirements. I fear it is this that will be lost with the replacement and why old defenders will carry on for decades to come. Did the article go on to mention the Defender replacement's engine, the displacement of which will be so small they'll have to invent a new system of units to measure it?
  12. I made the same assumptions as yourself so no worries about the time. They don't really have anything more to give than what's in the picture, the washer's touching metal and will now lever against it both flexing the bush inside and pushing out on the washer. Another few degrees and it would be a broken thing. Like I said though, within limits, they are immensely strong. More like something from a vehicle many times the size of a Land Rover. I think the L322 joints would be a great idea, I considered them myself. I wouldn't completely discount the creepers as I think proper resilience in a link is a good idea. Time will tell I suppose. The rod ends are so easy to change and the surface area big enough that I think they'll last a while before they start rattling around. No grease nipple in them's not good I think, maybe it stops grinding paste happening? I was thinking about putting my creepers at the axle end, rod ends at chassis end and using a CV boot over them. I have no idea how long they'll take to start rattling.
  13. Aye, no worries, I think we all realised that, you were in a hurry out the door to work. In the meantime, I've just jacked my job in so plenty of time for contemplation here!! I totally get what you mean there about the panhard roll centre and it's a good explanation. I agree that the roll centre would move slightly in the arc of the panhard. Actually I never considered that but it makes sense that it would. What I was meaning is say you're going down hill at an angle and drop your front wheel into a hole. Scenario one is it's a passenger wheel with the panhard axle mount in the hole and scenario two it's the drivers wheel on the downhill side. With a leaf spring setup and mechanical steering both scenarios would end up with identical results, same with linked suspension and hydro steer. I'm having trouble resolving in my head that a panhard would give identical results as in the second scenario the panhard's in tension and would result in a stable system but in the first scenario I think there's a point where the panhard now in compression would rotate round about the lower mount as there is nothing to stop the jacking forces, rather they would get compounded the more the angle of the panhard moved. Lets not consider an ideal setup where the panhard's level at ride height in the middle of our 20" travel but lets say it's like some mad American rigs with a crazy high angle at ride height to get a high roll centre in line with the C of G in an attempt to resist roll and ignoring better ways of doing that for the minute. How would this rig behave in the above scenarios? I think most if not all the information on the net that exists about panhards is the same regurgitated stuff from the same books that only consider race car dynamics. I'm not sure if you're familiar with another dreadful piece of British motoring awfulness which was the Triumph Spitfire? It had a swing arm rear suspension as did some early Corvettes and of course Volkswagens. These cars had a problem where under certain cornering circumstances the outside rear wheels instead of being stuffed into the wheel arch on a hard corner could 'tuck under' and the rear end would jack up and the outside wheel would instead be maxed out on full droop. Worth a google if you haven't heard of it. I believe the same can happen off road with a Panhard rod under certain circumstances. To cure it the droop travel could be limited and the problem never happened. With our relatively short wheel travel and long panhards we stay within the envelope but the same forces that exist to create the unstable situation with the swing axle still exist with a panhard and long travel if that makes sense? Sorry for the thread hijack a bit but I think Panhards are quite relevant to the three link discussion here as a better understanding of them at their limits might make for safer builds. Here's a Trail gear creeper joint at max flex.yes, really. The beauty of forums is we can share this knowledge. My angle finder's close enough at this, you can make it go more but the joint starts to compress inside. The ball bushing in he middle's just touching the washer here. Better view of touching the washer Regular 1 1/4" rod end.
  14. I thought that too until I got them, they don't move anything like that. I got the 1 1/4" ones from ORA. I'll take some pics. The housing's almost as wide as the mounting faces too so you'd need to space the mounting bracketry further apart for them and put spacers in compared to rod ends. You'd kill them fairly quickly flexing them too much. I learned after getting them how many people have blown the washers out of the side of them by flexing them too much. That said, they are awesome bits of kit and I dare say if kept within reasonable limits I think they'd be nearly unbreakable on a light 4x4. I'm limiting my suspension to 30 degrees of flex. I think any more would get me into more trouble than it would get me out of. Yes you can, the longer the better for axle steer, pinion angle, castor change etc, my lower links are going to be 50" long uppers are 36". The roll axis angle I refer to is exactly that, the roll axis the axle goes through as it articulates as opposed to the roll axis of the vehicle as a whole which is different again. Easier to visualise on a one link where it would be between the one link joint and the centre of the panhard rod. If they were the same height you'd have no roll steer at all. I'm struggling a bit in my own mind with Panhard rods and long travel suspension where I'm fairly confident in some circumstances on lots of droop and leaning over that the roll centre would stop being the middle of the panhard but instead that it would become the joint at the lower end. Does this mean the roll centre on a Panhard rod actually moves as it cycles? Normally not an issue as the Panhard sits flat on a Land Rover and they have fairly short travel but what happens when you have say 20" of travel? The panhard will respond differently in tension and compression, in real world scenarios with long travel (20"+), what happens?
  15. I agree with most all of above except: The 1/4 tyre diameter is generally for reducing the loads on the links which as I was saying are only pushing and pulling with a force corresponding to traction, tyre size and link separation. The rotational forces are negligible unless the joints are binding but point well noted that there are some small forces at play here too.The vertical separation of the links at the chassis plays no part in the forces imparted on the links other than the height of the centre of gravity relative to the height of the instant centre in an impact scenario where high anti dive characteristics would put high loads in and low antidive characteristics would impart lower forces which you can use to tune how you want it to behave. An example would be pushing a wheelbarrow with the handles held high into a kerb would be high anti dive where the handles would represent the instant centre and equally, holding them low will result in much lower forces required to overcome obstacles but poorer anti dive on braking. The chassis seperation will determine the location of the instant centre. If for example the links converged at the current radius arm location so lets take the awful example of taking out a bolt from each radius arm and adding a top link from say ten inches above the axle to a point in line with the rear mounts you'd have a triangle that behaved exactly the same as your radius arms but without any roll stiffness. By putting the end of the third link higher it would have less anti dive and correspondingly if it was shorter and inclined down further than the example then you'd have more. The roll axis of each axle can be changed by the location of the instant centre. This roll axis will determine how the axle will steer as it articulates. This is what I was referring to above (badly) when I was talking about roll centres. There's only one place the lower link joint in a one link can realistically go whereas you can play with the link height on the side of a chassis with a three link setup. I think that's a great idea. Where's Bill and Bush65 when you need them lol. It's been a while since I was here, great to see stuff happening.
  16. I'm building my suspension just now and found I had to get rod ends as the creeper joints don't have much flex in them. I didn't realise this at the time when I ordered them so I'm going with rod ends at one end and creeper joints at the other same as suggested above for my trailing arms. Even creeper joints at both ends of a link would struggle with a standard Land Rover geometry let alone a bespoke three link. The creepers are a nice beefy joint though and will handle the abuse i hope. I'm also going to use the creepers for the front of my A frame. I'm curious how well the rod ends will stand up as well. I'm not sure I agree with this, only if you talk about purely lateral forces then yes and only if the Panhard is remote from the centreline of the axle otherwise on the centreline, there's no moment around which for the radius arms to act. On a single wheel impact as Team Idris says, the forces on the panhard will be significantly increased as a moment is generated around the rear radius arm mount actually increasing the load on the panhard. You're getting closer to a one link but without the advantages the closer you get. More the better, especially with rubber bushes.... bush flex or when there isn't enough separation accelerated wear on joints and then the same issue of movement of the axle allowing changes to caster (loose direction sense when braking) or axle movement allowing the wheels to rub or worse steering the truck! oh and this could apply with your lower triangulation I think DeRanged is answering for axle separation in his rush out the door. Sure, more is better here, I've got 13" on mine. At the chassis it doesn't matter, that's the main advantage of the three link over the one link is that you decide where you want your instant centre and adjust the length of your links to suit. Pinion angle for the amount of travel we're normally dealing with isn't an issue really as max flex happens off road at low speed and road speeds and flex the pinion angles are good. The links are only pushing and pulling with a force corresponding to traction, tyre size and link separation. I'm going with a one link front so sorry, not much use to you. I agree with the three link on a road going motor for the height of the roll centre if nothing else although a one link could be made to work, it is outwith the scope of this thread.
  17. Snagger's post sums it up pretty well. The only thing I would add in an effort to satisfy your curiosity is if you added another calculation for rim pull or tractive effort as opposed to just engine torque which would possibly make the scenario more obvious. This would allow you to play with tyre sizes too. half an hour on Excel would see you right. As an addition, the ability (as I understand it) for modern Land Rovers to have been able to tow 3.5 tons compared to most Japanese 4x4's which were more powerful was the ability to pull that weight from a standing start on a 16% grade. The series land rovers were only 2 tons which is a huge difference. Gearing being the only difference in the case of very early coil sprung ones.
  18. One good example would be all the B6 armoured land cruisers as currently used by the UN use original equipment for the doors, additional protection comes from extra locks which are employed once the occupant is inside. You'll see the same for the Chevy suburbans and some G wagons as well deployed at various locations with the same B6 / B6+ rating. I take your point though, I was more referring to the mechanical stresses from the additional weight rather than being adequate to offer protection from internal overpressure. I'm as equally surprised as yourself at their use, it's the very reason I highlight them. Many different firms in their wisdom and testing must have found them adequate. I have them onto the inspection forms as a separate check. The ballistic protection offered by this level of armoured vehicles is for high velocity projectiles like small arms fire and shrapnel. In the unfortunate event that they are subjected to internal pressure resulting from being to close to a blast, often as the result of a direct attack, they open up like sardine cans at this level of ballistic protection. Literally, the roof armour peels off and the windscreens pop out. Generally, the door skins open out but the doors usually stay closed. Remember, they are up armoured to a particular standard, they're not tanks. This is the level at which we need to be thinking of vehicle integrity, add on the Euro NCAP tests and the bar's been set pretty high for anyone else to beat the land cruiser, or indeed the other vehicles mentioned. With regards to the OP question, one word of warning with Toyota spare parts, their equivalent of Britpart is Alibaba which is basically a guarantee of Chinese origin. Stay well clear of any parts sourced through Dubai as well as they are generally from China unless you actually go to the main dealers there.
  19. I think Cynical gave a good response to off road in an auto. I agree with all of it but also disagree too as I think it applies only to modern high revving turbo diesels. The scenario of the obstructed hill climb describes exactly why I have a large displacement but lightweight V8 diesel in mine. I can trickle over most anything in 3rd low at 600rpm then light the tyres up and get it going. By the time I'm at 1200rpm I've doubled my speed, 2400rpm I'm 4 x faster then all the way to 4000 rpm. Most of that happens in one or two lengths but without enough grunt to really upset things. I only use the clutch to stop, never to tiddle around on obstacles, that's why they invented low gears. I think a flexible engine is key off road, heavy flywheels help here. Autos are fine for some things but they don't work on rocks where you have to drive through the brakes all the time, downhill, driving through the brakes and on wet grass and mud where you can't modulate the throttle feeling for grip as accurately that's without the 'wrong gear' scenario that crops up only at inopportune moments. Add to that the much higher overall ratios that despite the torque multiplication of the torque convertor are just never low enough to not cook things eventually. I think a modern auto which is more like a little powershift with a torque convertor you could lock with a switch would be the best all rounder. As for the 606 o_teunico, I would stick a 603 flywheel on it and run a manual trans for the length. If it was a 109, I'd say go with the auto but on an 88, nah, no chance, as said, even with an LT77 you struggle. I'd stick an R380, short bell housing, LT230 and a Rakeway short rear shaft for your project to have a chance of working. The wheels will spin before the R380 breaks. Auto's are good for not shock loading drivelines too but you might have to lose that for the length.
  20. The 70 series will probably evolve although that's just my guess. They are the current only option and subsequently the mainstay of every single large international aid agency and the UN, not to mention various armies and anti government elements around the world. I'm sure Toyota in their wisdom will provide an adequate replacement without any drama. I look forwards to the next evolution of the 70 series whatever it may be secure in the knowledge it will perform and I can get parts easily anywhere in the world. Interesting they've kept the 1HZ engine available even though it was superseded a few times now. The movement from leafs to coils was seamless, the move to the wider chassis was equally seamless. Although Land Rover coined the phrase 'evolution not revolution', actually Toyota have been the real exponents of this. The Defender was a genius move in the early 80's, way ahead of the competition, as was the Discovery afterwards. Unfortunately the move away from increased off road prowess, smaller highly stressed engines and poorer build quality killed the defender in the eyes of the consumer, long before EU or other regulations killed it. Look at Jeep, G wagon and of course the Land Cruiser for how evolution could have worked. A hydroformed stronger chassis like an even heavier version of the P38 chassis could have been used. A monocoque body on top made from aluminium extrusions glued together like an Elise could have been made to work, the options are limitless but the customers aren't. They need to make something people want to buy. I'm sure the defender replacement will be interesting and no doubt I'll have one one day but I doubt it will have any appeal to people who need a strong dependable simple vehicle suitable for large scale deployment to areas without much infrastructure. I pretty much live and breathe Land Rovers for my personal choice but I doubt I will ever recommend the brand for a fleet purchase or professional use. The Prado and LJ type are very different beasts to the 76 / 78 & 79 series which are the heavier duty versions. Have a look for an older and affordable 105 in any configuration for a taste of Defender capability with modern saloon car comfort and safety. Another example of the difference is that Land Rovers really struggle with being up armoured, both mechanically and structurally, the Land Cruisers don't even notice it, right down to even using original door hinges and locks.
  21. An alternative for parts go to: http://www.toyodiy.com/parts/ Although it's subject to UK censorship rules meaning you don't get the pictures as in other countries. It's a fantastic resource which will decode your VIN and make finding part numbers a doddle which you can then use to look locally for parts. I've been working with fleets of Land Rovers and Land Cruisers for years. You can basically half the number of mechanics required by running Land Cruisers. It's a shame Land Rover haven't offered a vehicle suitable for fleet use in developing countries since the last ROW spec Defender. It's a remarkable feat of stupidity not to have tapped into the very market the Land Rover had owned right through the '60's and just gave to Toyota on a plate in the '70's. Interesting also that America never came up with a viable alternative too, probably based on the Jeep platform. Maybe because diesel wasn't an option. Nothing has really come out of Europe either. Now that the Land Cruiser has the market share, dealer network and more importantly the trust of people in remote areas, it's hard to see how Land Rover could ever get into the market again.
  22. http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=83269&hl=%2Bstage+%2Bone+%2Bsaga I'm not sure if you've seen that? I'd forget the 4.3 and just go straight to the full fat SBC. Forget the weight too. My 6.2 didn't make the slightest bit of difference. I still took leafs out the front with a PTO winch and tubed front end to get it to flex. Some lads are running Cummins 6BT's at half a ton each with no worries, likewise in ye olde days we had Perkins 6354's on LT95's which handled them no problems and put out more torque than a SBC could dream of. Overdrive will handle it too if you don't go daft. I did snap the odd U bolt though and nearly pulled the front axle off after a big jump. Santana U bolts and spring plates sorted this out. If you do want a light weight V8 then look no further than a 1UZ FE toyota engine. 300hp with no mods at all and similar weight to a rover engine. A whole car is worth about £400. A diesel flywheel from a hilux can be drilled out or get an aftermarket one. There are three 1UZ FE's in the shed here. The Rover engines don't rev as well and are gutless in comparison. Santana axles in my mind were the best way to get discs and reliability into the equation. The larger steering components will handle the power steering too. I'd use a P38 or Santana steering box, not defender. They mount to the outside of the chassis rail and mean you can have the series No2 crossmember if you want the look, otherwise use a 90 / 110 type front cross member, the stage one version is nothing special and has a steering relay incorporated into the end of it which adds strength. Why go to the trouble of narrowing the axles? Standard wheels fit fine without flared arches. Put on Austin Gipsy wheels to the wide axles if you want the wheels inside the body like an e type jag. I think they look dreadful this way. I'd strongly suggest putting the rear wheels back a few inches as I did. It looks better, less overhang, longer prop so more wheel travel. You'd also get the series front in as well with the SBC. I chucked three sets of stage one floors and seat boxes out when I broke them. Couldn't even give them away!! Got a steering box, relay and front prop is about all that's not been binned. Still got a tunnel and the bit that goes in front of the seat box too.
  23. Sounds like an interesting build, what you up to? Any pics of ideas, mock ups or progress? You using or need any other stage one bits?
  24. Exactly, apologies for not being more clear in my response.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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