Jump to content

Jamie_grieve

Settled In
  • Content Count

    356
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Jamie_grieve

  1. I've put way worse than that together with no dramas. If it was your only engine I'd agree with the rest and get the heads skimmed but given you have a 3.9 in the background I'd just horse it together as is with what you have though some of the valve seats need lapped in a bit more. You need a solid line al the way around. No point in polishing a turd and throwing good money away.
  2. I agree, use the composite gasket, the hydraulic tappets won't mind. When you say the cam lobes don't look very worn, do you mean not worn at all and look brand new? If not I'd start there or be looking at fitting the 3.9 sooner rather than later. Use a cordless drill to lap the valves in, the ones you show have plenty of meat on them. Use the drill just like a stick and don't go too fast or let it squeak. Keep plenty of paste in there, oil the guides and you'll be done in no time. Some people might be in horror at this but it's fine. Check your timing, it looks like it's been running a bit hot and pinking. Did you do a compression test?
  3. One observation I have on a vehicle with a significantly high roll centre is that as a wheel rises up a diagonal obstacle like a banking or single large obstruction the body is thrust towards the low side thus actually reducing stability in certain circumstances when you need it most. Forcing the the vehicle structure to one side regardless of how small an amount will require the overcoming of it's inertia but I'm not sure as has been said that 80mm is enough to make such a difference. I quite often reduce off roading events to pushing a wheel barrow. Wild Fing would be like holding the wheelbarrow handles high and having the tyre a bit soft and you could imagine it skipping along the side of the rut with little weight in it. The Range rover might be a heavier wheelbarrow with a harder tyre with the handles lower down and you can see this gripping the side of the rut and climbing out. How is the Ackerman angle and scrub radius on Wild Fing? I recall an unfinished discussion some time ago how some vehicles with lockers in steer and turn fine yet others will only plough forwards. Could the two be related? This is quite a topical discussion for me since I've been looking at an A-frame for the front of my stage one but with running 52" tyres it would require a lot of vertical seperation if using a linked suspension. The A-frame would end up being at least a foot higher than normal to make the links light enough. The sideways thrust on the body and the sheer amount of movement was enough to make me abandon that idea. I had a good think, made a few sketches and doodles then made a model to see exactly what was happening to understand it better. I tried a few ways, I got that Auto desk inventor and 360 but found in the end just scaling it and building it was the best way to get an idea of what was going on.
  4. I'd be going straight to the filter(s) if it was me. Sounds like a classic case of a blocked filter. Lift pump sounds fine as it's drawing fuel through the blocked filter slowly and explains why it's running fine after a while. As said, the cool radiator because the engine's not burning enough fuel to do enough work to heat it up past what it's cooling. Check also that all the pipework is actually fuel pipe and that there is no rubber pipe anywhere in the system. This can degrade and block your filter or suck flat when hot if it's thin. Make sure your fuel doesn't have a bug in it either.
  5. To be fair, the new bumpers are rubbish, in fact Defender bumpers stopped being any good after they stopped galvanising them. I'd say it'll rust whatever you do to it. I saw an '09 plate on a dairy arm with a hole rusted through the bumper recently. If you intend to keep it then stick a galvanised one on it.
  6. I'm surprised at them machining them with that amount of porosity going on. I'd be dubious about the material too. It ought to be a cast steel but if that really is cast iron I agree with everyone else that you'd be in trouble before long.
  7. I'd agree there's precious little in it. We had both on the last Defender fleet I worked with and both seemed to wear just the same. The R380 has a stronger build supposedly and wider gears but there's not much in it to be fair if you put them next to each other. I forget what the 'S' was on the later LT77S boxes. What kills them all is people putting gear oil in them instead of ATF or even hydraulic oil in hot climates. we had very few gearbox problems in Southern Angola which can get quite warm and driving in sand and really bad roads all the time with ten men on board. When we did have problems it was almost always due to water contamination. Ours were all ROW spec and none had coolers on the gearboxes. The later ones had the heavy duty chassis and 300tdi etc but no coolers. Maybe we got short changed!!
  8. Aha, we live and learn. I never knew such a thing existed. Just to confirm the disco 1 transfer case didn't have that extra pipe I said earlier, I thought you were talking about the big hole in the retainer. Can you drill the new gearbox casing using the old retainer as a guide? A hydraulic pump won't have a level plug on it but if there's some kind of extra gearbox attachment in front of it there might be something on that.
  9. I'm not sure I understand, the photo on the left still has the bearing retainer plate on it held by the two countersunk screws, the next picture is missing that. The oil is just splash fed to the PTO coupling and other side of the bearing as I understand it through the hole. Is there something different I'm missing? The PTO's seem to have to sort out their own oil level and get on with it in most cases. The one on the left with the oil hole looks just the same as one we stripped from a Disco 1 LT230.
  10. I'm the same, I replaced the brake shoes on my stage one (which has spent plenty of time bogged and stuck all over the place) when I rebuilt it in 1994. It had one set of shoes in it when I put the Santana axles on it a few years ago. I can't honestly say the brakes are really any better with discs. At least not worth the messing around with the different axles and converting it for the sake of discs. I used a 90 / 110 master cylinder. I should have put 80 series axles on it but that was before I learned KAM wouldn't / couldn't sell me the Santana Difflocks. The pedal's harder for sure and doesn't travel as far but I'd still say my only observation of the conversion is the drums were easier to lock the wheels when winching. The discs probably handle lying around in the wet grass where they live better than drums would have to be fair. Not having to adjust the brakes is nice but if a twin leading shoe setup is pulling to the side then something's wrong somewhere. Wide shoes and drums are for sure more sensitive to wheel bearings being loose than discs are.
  11. Very interesting, keep us posted on progress. A disc conversion using LR parts would be very popular. Have a wee look at this: http://www.terrangbil.net/forum/index.php?%2Ftopic%2F4615-nytt-projekt-ctis%2F Whilst your hubs are on the lathe might be worth doing.
  12. +1 for turbo hose. Touch it when the engine's idling and feel for soft spots or just touching it might make it collapse while you're there. The turbo hoses delaminate and boost air gets behind the delamination and blows the inner membrane of the hose up like a balloon blocking the flow of air to the engine. When the engine dies, boost pressure from the turbo dies and this is why it's all good again at idle until it boosts hard again. I remember the first time I had this problem before forums happened and was well impressed at a new unheard of wayI'd foun for a Land Rover to break down. Can you post a follow up so someone doing a search can know what the problem was and how it was resolved.
  13. Yes with the exception of the parabolics. The longer shocks and a different top front mount are first. You can't put longer shocks on the standard mounts. When they are compressed there just isn't room for a longer shock, this is the main problem. When you put a different top shock mount then the parabolics start snapping and you have to get good ones for this not to happen so all of a sudden bang for buck goes out the window. Parabolics don't generally have as much free camber. Driver side 11 leaf diesel springs gives the most free camber. Remove leafs to get the spring rate you want. I suppose the tramp bar would be next but I've never experienced it unless the tyres are really hard like for road driving so it doesn't affect me off road with 8psi in the tyres.
  14. Pushing the shackle backwards by hitting it directly will result in the spring bending non uniformly with the front part of the spring bending until either the shackle inverts and the spring goes into tension or the spring breaks. By having the flat leaf springs referred to earlier then the spring is able to withstand compressive loads on the end of it better. It's like pushing a bit of bent wire rope and a straight bit. The position of the top shackle bolt is critical. It can be positioned so that the shackle will take some compressive load from the impact directly into the chassis and give maximum swing and travel or it can be the opposite and go into tension almost immediately preserving the spring but reducing wheel travel. Pushing the wheel backwards by an impact will result in the rear part of the spring with the fixed eye bending until either the shackle at the front goes into tension before the spring breaks or the spring breaks and your transfer case takes the hit via the prop shaft. The same happens when winching or braking, the forces being smaller just leads to instability, especially combined with a large free camber in the springs. Herein lies the largest part of the argument. Do you want the instability and lack of axle control whilst braking and hitting things or whilst trying to achieve forward momentum and maintaining traction. Flat leaf springs as suggested earlier get round most of the problems of front shackles whilst maintaining the optimum (for leafs) amount of tractive effort. It takes a fair old knock to do as I describe the broken spring scenario, in most cases the spring simply bounces and takes the hit with no ill effects. I've broken lots of springs in all kinds of vehicles and find it a fascinating subject. You are correct that in the stock scenario the vehicle will either push forwards until the wheel makes contact or the vehicle stops (in 99% of situations, so would the front shackles). It's like pulling a bit of rope instead of pushing it. A hard knock breaks the U bolts. Santana U bolts and spring plates are a good upgrade for Land Rovers.
  15. I hate to disagree but I have to chime in again and disagree with what ought to be a common sense argument but my experience is different. I've never changed a front prop on a leafer due to wear on the splines, on the other hand, every single 70 series Toyota Land Cruiser on my last fleet that was over 100k Km's of which would have been about 80 vehicles had an amazing amount of slop in the front prop sliding splines. To the point we actually had to change quite a number. I put it down to religious use of the free wheeling hubs and the props rattling about. That said, a similar sized and aged fleet of Defenders which have the same front suspension didn't display the same wear. Perhaps the turning shaft received better lubrication. It stands to reason and intuition would certainly dictate that rear shackles should wear a prop spline out faster but maybe the wear is happening over a much larger surface area so is less evident. The constant large movements maybe keeps distributing the grease better. Another factor potentially against rear mounted shackles would be bind on the front prop splines during times of rapid plunge and high torque like accelerating on rough ground. I cant say for sure I've ever experienced it but it must happen to some degree? Keeping on track and relevant to the OP I think we all agree some kind of anti tramp bar is a good idea for any long travel leaf spring arrangement with potentially low spring rates regardless of shackle position? Offsetting it as Bill has suggested in other threads seems like a good idea even on a leaf arrangement. Easier to configure in a rear shackle arrangement. We agree the original dampers and the original mounts are the reason for the short travel available at the front of a standard Landy leafer? I disagree about the flat springs and would instead suggest that soft springs with lots of free camber that sit flat at static ride height on level ground will produce more useable wheel travel regardless of shackle position. I'd also argue that well lubricated multi leaf springs are capable of more travel than parabolic springs due to thinner leaves of the same metal with the same yield point being closer to the neutral axis of each leaf and thus able to bend more before failure. The thicker section of the parabolic certainly does not like to get bent backwards like a multi leaf can.
  16. The problem with just driving it back if I understand correctly is that as a UK subject I'd be driving on the Queens highway without me having paid my dues to do so. The fact it's on Irish plates and whatever taxes have been paid to drive the length and breadth of Europe whilst on those plates seems irrelevant to the DVLA who say if yer a Brit you pay tax end of. These plates really do look like a viable alternative. I have some friends who drove back from Kabul to Cork in a VW beetle with Afghan plates last year who had less bother than this. I think they avoided the UK as it's just a bureaucratic hell hole.
  17. Interesting, I've been having no joy with the DVLA on exactly the same thing. I'm looking at bringing a Gaz 66 back to the UK after it's been in Ireland for a few years. It's on Irish plates and currently road legal. It was registered in the UK prior to going to Ireland and a copy of the old V5 still exists. There must be a motor trade between the North and South of Ireland so how is it done there? It seems ridiculous that a vehicle taxed, tested and insured cannot be driven on Uk roads by the new owner yet the same vehicle can be driven by anyone else on UK roads with the owners consent. Transporting vehicles by trailer such long distances by trailer is just silly. Not so bad with a car but what about heavy goods vehicles? There will be a procedure somewhere but those plates look like a great alternative the the DVLA which doesn't work anymore.
  18. I should also add the difference between parabolic and multileaf where the parabolic behaves as a single fat spring but a multileaf as discussed would have the full spring rate for the front part whether shackle front or eye front and a lower spring rate on the rear part corresponding to three or four leaves depending on construction. This might give a very slight amount of dive/squat but we'd at this point be talking about 20kg or so in the above example so not enough in my opinion to make a difference.
  19. I don't mean climbing a hill where the heavier front and different weight distribution come into play where, yes they do climb well backwards, I'd agree, probably better even but I mean in a flat field with the vehicle completely level try and drive up an 18" step with both wheels touching it. The only difference being the position of the shackles. I'll go with the jacking / squatting effect described too, a resolution of the moments (torques) present would confirm this. Say we want to look at typical forces of a two ton 4x4 driving up a steep hill. Lets take a half ton or thereabouts force required to drive our two ton vehicle up a slope. You'd need to be in low range to develop half a ton of pull in a series, probably low second which if I'm aiming for optimum hop would be about right. Too steep and not enough weight, to flat and no hop. Lets also go with Bill just now and say the torque on both axles is even, the front with the engine, winch, bullbar and lets throw on a high lift is heavier than the rear so we don't need to work out the exact slope and the relative weights of each axle. Then each axle, both front and back is contributing a force of 250Kg at the tyre including any slippage. Lets also say the effective radius of our tyres is 15" since we let some air out our 33" tall tyres as the series UJ's don't want anything bigger. The torque the axle is applying to the leaf spring / radius arm is the tractive effort or rim pull x the effective radius of the wheel. T= (250Kg x 9.81 (Force is in Newtons not Kg, 9.81 is gravitational constant)) x (15 x 0.0254 to make it metric like the force) T= 2452.5N x 0.381m T=934 Nm or 689 Lb ft of reaction torque on each axle housing The front spring eyes on the chassis to the centre line of the front axle on a series is 0.88m if we say the front springs are symmetrical and under optimum hop conditions the front axle is in the middle of it's travel so the spring is nice and bent and lines up with the middle of the bumpstop. Using our torque relation above we can say that if torque is force times distance (8Lbs ft =2lbs x 4ft) then we can also say that the force is the same as torque divided by distance (2lbs=8lbs ft / 4ft) Our Landy climbing the hill of a steepness that requires 934Nm on the front axle then the reaction of the spring on the chassis is 934Nm / 0.44m = 216Kg So 216Kg is trying to lift either the front bumper and / or 'pull down' the bulkhead outriggers depending on the suspension design. If you're with me so far then you'll realise the significance of the above statement. It's essentially put numbers to what people call anti dive or ant squat depending on whether drive or brakes is involved. Instead of climbing a hill, exactly the same process is involved in calculating the numbers from braking force as well. If we were discussing radius arms or link suspension you wouldn't be hearing any arguments from me about all this. A solid bar like a radius arm on a coiler can indeed 'suck down' the front with a force in this case of 108Kg on each bulkhead outrigger (ignoring different lengths of arms and springs for the moment). With a solid arm and spring rates like the coilers have then the front suspension will be pushed up or compressed by almost an inch or the wheel is actually being lifted by the grip it has on the ground. The more grip, the more the suspension compresses, less grip, the more it unloads. The inch or two the suspension is moving is not changing the relative position of the centre of gravity of the vehicle by any meaningful amount with springs as stiff as standard ones. On buggys and things with 100lb in springs then yes but on a standard vehicle with stiffnesses almost tripple this then nah. A stage one has a spring rate of 314kg cm (273lb in) The spring would hardly move at all were it to be radius arms instead. In the case of a leaf spring where both ends are connected to the chassis I dispute that there is any reaction present at all to give jacking or squatting behaviour. Whilst one end is pushing up, the other is pulling down with exactly half the same force as would be applied in a link suspension. Asymmetric leaf springs exist for this very reason. The Land rover with it's symmetrical front springs and vertical shackle position will produce a jacking effect at the front and a squatting effect at the rear of the spring which will balance out exactly the same as an independently sprung vehicle with wishbones. If you imagine the spring to be just a really wide wishbone then you'll see what I mean. A leaf spring with an unrestrained slipper like what trucks often use but without the restraint instead of a shackle would exhibit the behaviour of a link to some degree but isn't really relevant to the discussion. PS, I'm not disputing that a hopping / tramping behaviour exists, just that I don't believe it's anything to do with the shackle position but rather a combination of the spring twisting, the damper position behind the axle and the tyre sidewall combining to make the hop, maybe a bit of shaft out of phase with the axle twisting back so a cyclic torque getting fed in, slipping gripping wheel, sticking slipping prop splines and so on. All axles must display some degree of tramp unless rigidly mounted.
  20. I'm with Steve on this one, my wheels are as offset as anyone else's and you can see splines on all my drive flange caps. Why they changed to rubbery plastic ones I'll never know, like the cooling system plugs, some bean counter got to overrule the engineers. Here's some nice drive flange carnage only wearers of a certain outdoor clothing will truly appreciate. I think when a drive shaft and flange get to this state the fuse argument might become valid :-)
  21. I have to say I'm not convinced about all the talk of front wheel hop on vehicles with rear mounted shackles on the front. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but rather that it is enough of a problem to make the change from rear to front mounted shackles. Take both your 80" vehicles, the one with the rear mounted shackles will climb an 18" high vertical step. The one with the front mounted shackles wont. Try it. Or try reversing up the same vertical step. Should be easier with longer travel rears... yet it isn't, why not? Another test, hit a railway sleeper at 30mph with front and rear mounted shackles and see which one drives away. On a hill so steep as to allow the front wheels to hop there is so little weight on them they aren't really contributing grip. A 2wd tractor will climb until it flips backwards. I've seen more wheel hop on vehicles with no suspension at all like equal wheel tractors. Do an emergency stop from 70mph with front mounted shackles on leafs with a large free camber and tell me how it went. The Austin Gipsy uses Land Rover springs with the addition of anti wrap bars mounted just above the front springs. I've owned a few of these and can't honestly say there was any difference in climbing ability due to the suspension. I do agree on high torque, high traction surfaces the wrap bars have their merits I'd be the first to agree the front leaf spring suspension on a Land Rover is not the best but I'd also argue the better approach angle it offers far outweighs any loss in articulation compared to say a 40 series Cruiser which is about all it's fair to compare it to. I've owned two 40 series Cruisers and maybe they were better vehicles but the design of the front suspension on them would not be one of the things to make them so. Likewise the CJ jeeps which again might be a better vehicle than a Series Landy are again not exactly wonderful in the suspension department. The wheel hop described only happens with short travel stiff springs and worn dampers or damper bushes. I'd say for the degree of windup described in the climbing stage one then there was a driveline problem rather than a grip and releasing one. I'd say the front uj bound up due to the diff housing rotating backwards. I'd guess the sideways shift was the truck standing on the front driveshaft rather than the springs breaking perhaps due to the sudden unload the snapped prop caused.
  22. It's easy to theorise etc but the fact is by simply moving the top damper mount you can get more travel than a stock coiler. Here's the proof: In this instance the front shackles are extended military or one ton ones but otherwise standard one ton geometry with no extended bump stops. I always use multileaf springs for this very reason. Try this with a parabolic and even a good one will snap. I use soft poly bushes and greased bolts. 15 years on the road with this setup and no dramas at all. The rear flex was more than the front at around 35deg. The leaf springs being mounted much narrower don't need to move as far as outboard coils to achieve the same level of articulation. Mine simply has a bit of angle iron welded to the side of the chassis rail with an end on it for the pin of the damper. The eye type lower damper mount on the series needs binned in favour of the pin type too. Fridge, I like your setup, have you a flex pic of the way it is now?
  23. One of my observations of hydraulic winches at the Phoenix challenge last year was they were all getting really hot. Saley himself with a yellow independent buggy had to abandon a recovery for a long time due to really hot oil. In his defence, he'd recovered everybody from the section and I doubt the Gigglepins would have kept up such long heavy pulls for as long as he did. Also everyone he had recovered had an electric winch of some kind. I reckoned the hot hydraulics were because people were feathering them to control them all the time instead of opening the spool up fully. If you have a hydraulic pump capable of using say 20Kw and you partially open a spool the oil is no longer bypassing the spool freely but is constricted and is either working the winch and getting hot or being returned to the tank in a hot condition from the spool. You can have 5Kw of work getting done and 15Kw of heat happening. The same situation with the spool fully open would result in the winch moving faster and cooler. Swashplate or variable displacement type pumps and motors would avoid this but then you're into closed circuit hydraulics and cooling gets fun as well. I still think a hydraulic winch should be more effective than electric in terms of speed and reliability but in real life in challenge events (not industrial or heavy applications) the electric winch is still king. I wonder for how long?
  24. I think there isn't much of a problem either, you're just seeing the thermostat working. Keep checking your mouth temperature with the IR thermometer and remember the rubber hoses and radiator have a different emissivity than the thermostat housing so will read higher. The thermostat housing temp should be very close to what the thermostat opens at. The IR thermometer will start to read high when it's been exposed to hot temperatures for a bit. Remember it reads in an elipse that gets larger the further away from the object. To check the thermostat housing you need to be less than 4" 100mm away from it. If you have any doubts and the temperature goes below 80 I'd change the thermostat as it's supposed to maintain a constant temperature. I thought it was supposed to be 88C? 70 - 80's too cold Id say and will lead to glazed bores and premature wear. 300Tdi's don't like getting hot and will warp the head quite significantly if they do.
  25. In addition to what's already been said I'd put thicker plates where the radius arms go through the outriggers. In any kind of offset front accident the arms get pushed through the outriggers and the front wheels end up in the footwells. I'd also make sure the ends of the front of the chassis are closed off. In later ones they were open which not only let muck and water in but was also less metal in front of the bumper bolts. Crush tubes on the bumper holes instead of the stupid folded sections used by the factory. I would also get it made in as thick a section as is possible. The tiny bit of extra weight is low down where you want it and it will add longevity and be more resistant to flexing and body rattles. Anything that can be done to improve the A frame mounting has to be worth doing. Passenger side fuel tank mounts? Rear NAS style fuel tank mounts? Mount the battery on the chassis instead of under the seat? Captive nuts on rear body mounts Closed corners on the crossmember Ferry lashing / recovery rings?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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