[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

1 hour ago, FridgeFreezer said:

You also have to remember that most people don't read the manual, don't do diving courses, etc. and WILL claim under warranty of something explodes, so TC is way more idiot-proof and user-friendly than lockers and will perform better in 99% of situations the average customer will find themselves in.

 

There's nobody denying that TC ESP and ABS aren't useful attributes, as already said, it'll have them anyway because it's mandatory. My point is that to a bean counter those systems can be seen to negate the need for locker, and in the urban environment they probably could but I dispute the 99% claim, a typical customer could be the coal mine I was in, those vehicles weren't even road registered, Look to Land Cruiser registrations in Australia if you don't believe this, around 2/3rds of new vehicles are registered to companies, I don't have stats for the 70 series but I bet the global sales would reflect a similar picture. it comes back to the whole premium utility vehicle market argument. At least something like the Brabus unimog had the real deal under the obnoxious exterior. The defender replacement's on the back foot already with independent suspension in this segment, maybe the brakes will be magnetic or something that doesn't wear?

We all know the defender couldn't get them because of the feeble half shafts and diffs, the newer ones aren't that much better. An L322 snapped it's front half shaft a couple of weeks ago in Edinburgh and couldn't even drive up the tilt bed. I'm not sure why not?

With a decent drivetrain warranty claims wouldn't be an issue as with the hundreds of other vehicles on the road with lockers, They can put a sticker in the cab with the do's and don'ts for the ambulance chasers.

The ctis will be a bit of a game changer but it looks like they're making it too complicated in a bid to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator. 

 

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

43 minutes ago, Escape said:

Even Lotus doesn't offer a car without traction control anymore.

They have to due to European legislation. Mr Bosch spoke to his mates in Brussels about this new idea he had sometime before 2008 for electronic stability control which can also combine with antilock braking and traction control. I'm sure it was all to do with safety and nothing to do with anybody making money, a bit like speed cameras in certain places.I firmly believe it's the single and only reason the poor old defender ever got it, without EU legislation it would probably have had drum brakes and no abs!!

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

1 hour ago, Tanuki said:

Must admit, I'd prefer a Haldex/intelligent-traction-control system over lockable diffs: after all, a computer can apportion torque to different wheels and adjust the balance tens of times a second as conditions change, something that brute-force difflocks can never manage. A friend of mine says that "Difflocks are invariably engaged when it's many ohnomilliseconds too late"

I've seen it with my own eyes, two identical vehicles near Dubai in the UAE trying to get up a dune, one with traction control and the other with lockers.. The one using lockers got up, it just doesn't work trying to get up a dune or a hill by putting the brakes on. Defenders fitted with traction control in an opencast coal mine I worked at  couldn't go a month before the brake pad back plates were grinding into the discs. There's a time and place for it for sure, maybe disabling it in low range or making it as simple as having it automatically disegage when you engage the diff locks gives the best of both worlds. Haldex is nice for occasional use but none yet made for automotive use has been industrial enough for a defender replacement There's a great video of a white evoque trying to get up a hill and the back wheels just can't turn and the fronts are spinning as the haldex can't transfer the torque. 

Diff locks by their nature DO apportion torque where they need it!! Differentials do the opposite and apportion it where it isn't needed. Traction control is 100% speed sensitive and not torque sensitive at all. There is no wheatstone bridge strain sensors or other torque measuring apparatus on any on road vehicle in the JLR stable yet that I'm aware of but I stand by to be corrected on this. Sure the traction control is programmed for steering input which may be of benefit sometimes but electronics doesn't win against mechanical in the rough and tumble of the real world.

Another issue with traction control systems over diff locks is they force the user to more or less floor the accelerator making wheelspin and losing any chance you ever had of finding grip by backing off as you would with lockers and matching wheel speed with ground speed. You can't use traction control on the idle to creep over rocks in a controlled fashion and you're likely to be traveling much faster with traction control than lockers resulting in more accidents, breakages and injury. I should caveat this by saying I'm familiar with traction control on new Jap vehicles but maybe not JLR ones, the most up to date traction control I'm familiar with is my mates discovery 3. I have another friend with a disco 5 we took off road briefly before it spontaneously combusted due to a heated seat malfunction so I don't feel like I'm up to date to comment on current JLR, just traction control, in general, in my humble experience.

One shouldn't be driving a defender in a manner that requires traction control and nanny aids to compensate for a driving style more suited to a sports car. There ought to be an element of driver training as with any machine which serves a purpose.

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

3 hours ago, Maverik said:

I would be surprised if the transmission wasn't a Haldex derived system, I think LR over most manufacturers have really pushed the capabilities of it and they'll have a huge data set to hopefully get it right on the this one. I'll be interested to see what kind of weight class this thing is going to be coming in at, as it looks a big vehicle, unless its a good bit lighter than the likes of the D5 then I struggle to see how they're going to get any further offload performance out of it compared to the present models on offer.

Weight isn't so much an issue as ground pressure, in fact for most defender duties, heavier is better. Heavier vehicles tow trailers better, have better stability in high winds and crossing rivers, emergency pulling and winching etc. Almost any 4x4 truck over 4 tons say has vastly superior off road performance than a defender in most real world scenarios and requires less maintenance as the parts are sized appropriately. There's a reason that the first thing people do when building an off roader is put larger tyres on with lower pressures and more sidewall flex. Most challenge spec vehicles in the uk would be half a ton heavier than a standard 90.

The real problem is when you build a vehicle as heavy as recent discoveries have been and put it on skateboard wheels (as most are), it sinks like a stone in soft ground, other than that, they make a fantastically comfortable tow vehicle and the heavy sprung mass compared to the unsprung mass gives a magic carpet ride on unsurfaced roads. Let's hope the defender replacement can be equipped with 37" tyres from the factory!!

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

12 hours ago, TSD said:

I've not been tracking the rumour mill closely, but this one was new to me... CTIS on the new Defender?

(Hope the URL works, the original published one contained the word 'oversteer' three times for some reason? )

That would be genuinely useful off road and a really positive thing for the defender replacement but the cynic in me is wondering if it's just because the tyre pressures and rolling radii must be kept within stricter parameters for the accuracy of the traction control and abs to be maintained better than previously? I've used CTIS extensively on Russian equipment and it really is very good. All the Russian CTIS equipped vehicles also have diff locks, I hope that concept isn't lost on the defender replacement bean counters and that a fancy traction control system isn't seen as a replacement for diff locks. Taking it too far to measure things like tyre wear might also indicate that tyre choice could be very limited?
Another reservation I have is JLR's poor reputation with making durable electronic things, look how complicated that CTIS controller is with ecu's and CAN, the Russians achieved something similar with four taps, a gauge and some driver training. Valves on the wheels could also close off the CTIS system if there was a fault. I hope the defender replacement has a manual backup for when the electronics let all the smoke out.

The compressor needs to be another durable item which experience with previous airbag compressors thus far with the brand has not been that impressive. 

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20180312017.pdf seems to be a fuller version but good find TSD!!

[it was requested, so here it is, the race-lorry build!]

5 minutes ago, qwakers said:

well it was cold so i had my hi vis coat on, as i say,  it makes sense.

Ah, that’s it for sure. Bet you don’t do that again!

If it makes you feel better you won’t be the last to make that mistake. Now man up and get cracking on the truck so we can read all about it!!

[it was requested, so here it is, the race-lorry build!]

You didn’t even get a tan for all your suffering!!

I don’t suppose you have one of those fancy phones that recognises you and does it work if you do?

[kiwi series build]

 

 

 

That's the thread with them in it if you go to page 5.

I got some of each recently,  both the narrow flanged ones RBK500220 and the wider non flanged ones RHF500130. Both have 16.3mm bolt holes and 54mm diameters and both types I have only have about 14º of angularity. I got them in anticipation of using them for the rear links on the 6x6 Volvo I'm building just now. They're an awkward size as it's not the ID of any handy tube so I'll need to turn some bushings to hold them. I don't see much advantage with the wider ones to be honest as they'll be harder to mount and at least the narrow ones can be spaced to suit a regular rod end mounting if these don't work out. 

You'll be pleased to know I fully intend to plagiarise your bendy over the axle link idea for my rear bogie links but I'm not near that stage yet, I'm pretty slow and just playing with the front just now.

 

[it was requested, so here it is, the race-lorry build!]

3 hours ago, qwakers said:

thinking about this one. comes well recommended.

I wouldn't buy one without trying it on. Some are real b@$t@rds for biting your ears when you flip them up and down. That SIP one has the lighter shades for plasma cutting which is good but it uses batteries which I think is a pain. I'd go down to your local welding supply place or steel stockholder and see what they have in stock. Even that SIP does seem a bit nasty. Parweld, ESAB and Murex all do nice solar helmets at reasonable money.
I can totally sympathise with your dose of arc eye, I've had it on more than a few occasions, I've lain there with cold teabags on my eyes pretending they make them feel better, welcome to the club, I bet many here have had it and have nodded sagely at your picture. It's unusual that you got arc eye through your lense, even when not working they're the equivalent in protection of a ye olde shade 15. UVA doesn't go through plastic or glass and the uvb will also be stopped. The protection isn't really the lcd screen. Were you wearing hi viz clothing or around reflective surfaces? Be careful when you get back into it that you don't repeat the same with your new helmet and it's shiny aluminium or a mirror or something doing it. You're also more likely to get a dose of arc eye from the side rather than directly looking at it which makes me also think it might have been a reflection.
Really interesting build, keep the updates coming.

 

[Stage one saga.]

Doubling up the transfer boxes seemed like a great idea but I couldn't actually run it with the boxes joined together as in the previous pictures unless I welded all the cases and bellhousing together. I did actually consider welding them into one big lump. I want to be able to launch this foresty rovery thingy off things and fully expect to be bouncing it off tree stumps and big stones so having flexible mountings and enough space round everything to reduce shock loads on mounts and casings is essential without causing mechanical stress to driveline components.

I had too many unknowns to work with to determine the transfer case layout so I put the engine where the engine had to go which was more or less dictated by the position of the front A frame mounts,  both how far forward and also the lateral location. The level of the sump relative to the bottom of the chassis and belly plate clearance dictated the height. I messed about with different dumb irons, revisited the one link again and walked about in circles a fair few times before deciding to nail it down. That 6Bt cummins is 512kg so I knew I wanted captive mounts, I also knew I wanted a bit of compliance with some movement downwards, less movement upwards and not too rigid fore and aft so some old spring bushes just weren't going to cut it. I got some tdi mounts which are actually really strong and filled the voids up with some two part 70 shore polyurethane. This gave me nice stiff mounts which didn't really move much with the Cummins sitting on them but is soft enough that when the chassis takes a knock or landing from a jump the mounts have a good lot of movement available and there's plenty of clearance for everything.

in the earlier pictures I had mocked up an LT230 input shaft from a bit of LT77 mainshaft and a spare flange. It went together nicely enough and would probably have even worked for a while if the cases were all welded together in the aforementioned lump but welding them up got binned because it was deemed a silly idea at the time and nothing at all to do with the fact that the Land Rover cases were soooo porous they oozed oil out at the first sign of the welder.  My first thought (after the not welding it, don't be silly thought) was using a rubber doughnut between the first and second transfer boxes but I wasn't lucky enough that everything would line up, fit in the chassis and clear the rear A frame all at the same time. I tried a few different ways of making it happen but ultimately I needed to make the second transfer case remotely mounted and driven. By making the second transfer case remote it also solved the problem of 512kg of Cummins bouncing one way and possibly the transmission another. The remote mount also offers more flexibility from the perspective of where the output from the first transfer case is. The downside was packaging as now all the various bits of gearboxes now needed enough room to thrash around without bouncing off each other or cause any strain on drivetrain components.

I was really tight for space, you can see in the previous posts' picture how close the rear of the first transfer case is to the rear A frame with the front output close coupled to the input of the second. I needed to make the shortest possible remote drive shaft. I used a puma spud shaft and cut splines in it to suit a prop yoke from a classic range rover or disco one V8 auto. I ground the prop yoke a wee bit to clean it up to take a seal for the transfer case so the yoke itself now forms the sealing surface. I loctited the splines when I pressed the yoke on so they didn't leak. I got another V8 prop yoke and put it on the first to give a female spline, cut the sliding bit from a prop which was as long as I could find and yet another V8 yoke for the other end with a regular flange on it. This gave me a proper propshaft with all standard easy to get components for when the Cummins snaps them like twigs. I did destroy four propshafts in my quest to build my shortest ever shaft. By doing it this way it saved me over 60mm compared to the likes of a Rakeway remote input.

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

Quote

They must mark them heavily in Aus then, as the base spec Workmate 79 can’t be had for less than $70K, so about £40K.

 

The 'Toyota tax' in Australia is a standing joke but remember Toyota is actually a religion there rather than a vehicle manufacturer. Now that there is no local vehicle production in Australia I wonder if vehicle import duty will decrease?

I could also be accused of comparing apples to oranges as I think the Australian ones are all VDJ whereas I'm quoting 1HZ. The base model 79 series with a 1HZ could be had for only $21,395. Notice I'm using USD, not Sterling, that's £16,219 or AUD 29,082 for a basic one. Obviously that's without registration, shipping or any taxes and very much status dependent but shows you what Land Rover is actually up against. I have no idea what it costs to make a car but if an iphone by all accounts is about $50 to make, is there the same markup for cars? Are they like diamonds where the price is carefully controlled by supply to the demand, a strategic waiting period to imbue one with a sense of value? I would imagine it to be a lot more cutthroat than that but I'd also imagine there to be a much healthier margin for range rovers than a utility vehicle. I do however know that Toyota wouldn't sell the 70 series if they didn't make money from it. Japan has no natural resources, has expensive labour and very strict standards on everything that we have standards for. How can they do it and we somehow can't? I understand that JLR is a niche producer and maybe can't borrow finance at the same rate but they could build a cheap utility vehicle if they wanted. The 70 series shows cheap doesn't mean low quality.

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

15 minutes ago, reb78 said:

In the UK?

No, but  buying in UK territory though, Gibraltar and exporting to the country of choice. A poverty pack LC 79 series can be had for $23k the rest of the range isn't that far behind. Optioned with ARB or TJM bar work, difflocks, AC, altitude compensation and spares pack was about $32k or thereabouts. 

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

Did anybody else notice the broken or missing wheel nut?

That's just bad form driving around without checking the basics. If it was missing on the front too one could argue it was intentional. I'm going to moan about them doing all their testing on low profile road tyres as well!!

5 hours ago, Snagger said:

If you want a play thing, then a short wheel base Rubicon is a good option.  If you want a working vehicle or something to take you around the world, then it's a terrible choice.

I agree wholeheartedly. Generally I'm looking for vehicles that can be used to take teams of 8 to 10 people and their equipment over unmade roads and varied terrain on a daily basis to their place of work. Right now the Land Cruiser 78 series seems to be the only vehicle in the whole entire world that's feasible. Toyota Hiace 4x4 vans do for the less arduous terrain. I've been recommending Ford Rangers for other duties over and above the hilux since the Mk 7 came out. I imagine we'll start buying Russian vehicles if Toyota stops making the land cruiser in its current form. I wouldn't even consider the Rubicon for a fleet role if you read my earlier posts on the subject although if it was dumbed down and at the right price point maybe for some roles. I could buy two Toyota 76 series for the price of one Rubicon and they would be a better made more durable product with world wide parts supply. Defenders did very well in the role, it's a shame they don't make anything like it any more.

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

3 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

ut the vehicle looks superb IMO. MT tyres as standard, nice interior and great spec. Have to say I thought the ground clearance and approach/departure angles looked superb. Easily as good as a stock Defender. 

You reckon the approach angle's as good with that bumper on it? I was wondering if it was a European specced thing, it's that big it doesn't even fit in the picture!! Maybe that'll be NCAP to thank for that. The short wheelbase will obviously have a better breakover angle than the long wheelbase but compare it to a stock defender and I think you'll see the 110 slightly ahead at least on paper compared to the 4 seater Rubicon but there's no doubting the Jeep Rubicon's a better vehicle in almost every way than a  defender (did I really just say that on a Land Rover forum?).

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

On 11/17/2018 at 9:17 PM, SteveG said:

1 hour ago, Maverik said:

Somones snapped a pic of it wearing an interesting disguise...

 

Must be planning to sell it to women in the Middle East?

 

 

[Is this practical]

 

On 11/25/2018 at 11:26 PM, smallfry said:

Provided it doesn't need new camshaft, rocker shaft assys, top hat liners, usual rebuild stuff, standalone fuel and ignition, different gearbox, radiator etc etc.

An easy two and a half grand or more, and that's for a "standard fit" engine. No point in fitting a shi**er. Not to mention the poor fuel consumption. Then there is LPG, in order to "save" money.

I totally agree with all of this.

I just gave away a 4.0 v8 disco 2 for free a couple of weeks ago, it came from Dumfries, you could have had it. It was horrible, it was amazingly rusty but it ran and everything worked. 
They seem to age really quickly and although they're V8's they don't actually go that well.  I think you'd need to run megasquirt or something to get the best out of them

If you're looking around the 300hp mark, have you considered a Chevrolet LS type engine? They're light, modern and powerful. Given that you have a galvanised chassis it's probably worth it. Adapters are easy to whatever gearbox you have or even to the LT230. 

The chev engines are very simple and parts are cheap in the unlikely event that you need any. An LQ4 or LQ9 would be cheaper than an LS to put in. You'd get better milage out of one than with the rover v8 and have as much power as you wanted. Standalone ecu's and harnesses are easy come by. It would also add value to your vehicle and would be fun to drive. It would be no more work than fitting the rover.

An M57 diesel would be the diesel choice I suppose but as you say you're not keen on integrating the wiring so that leaves the mechanical diesels like the OM606 or maybe a 12V Cummins and run it off one wire. 

[Stage one saga.]

I scratched around with the cummins and the gearboxes a bit more and couldn't really find a layout that gave me a long enough rear propshaft befitting the travel you'd expect from an updated forest rover. I had 30º of articulation in mind which I decided I wasn't going to compromise on. The wheelbase wasn't exactly cast in stone at this point although the rear suspension mounts were in place all the front links were still mocked up in scaffold pole. I also wasn't going to compromise on C of G and  lift the engine up over the axle which then lead to huge packaging problems. I decided I would put the transfer box where it needed to be to get long enough prop shafts for decent wheel travel then work round about it.

This put the transfer box next to the gearbox. I was going to have to dream up a way of getting drive to the transfer box. I figured a second transfer box would be awesome and give me more gears and pto options to play with. 

Although I hadn't actually come up with a driveline solution I also thought there was enough merit in the Cummins concept to get one that actually worked. I've worked with them for years and really rate them. I  know a local lad that breaks trucks and he just happened to know of a very low milage one that had been in a shed for years in a bin lorry that was vandalised and had problems sorting out the insurance. It was in a Turkish BMC and came with an Eaton 6 speed gearbox, ceramic paddle clutch and sae2 flywheel housing. It also happened to be a 210 hp one with a P pump and exhaust brake on it with the later STORM engine block. I also grabbed a radiator and intercooler from a DAF 55 which was smaller than the BMC ones and a bunch of air tanks, unloader valve and air drier.

I thought a nice engine would be the motivation I needed to get cracking on the project when I was home next time. Although the original engine had been mocked up, the gearbox didn't actually fit properly and to really fine tune the mounts and front suspension I needed the engine I was going to actually use to finalise these things.

 

[Lowered spring seats.]

6 hours ago, RedLineMike said:

when gigglepin built there D90XX along with Stefans 100", they had lowered spring seats to give them a subtle lift without requiring tall springs, worked well at the time & I know that D90XX is still competing now in ultra4 with the same suspension setup

I wasn't going to post this but seeing as you mentioned it, here is exactly that chassis. Notice the A frame crossmember underneath the chassis and no trailing arm mounts as such. It's not really a Land Rover chassis as much as a very cleverly designed object to look like a land rover chassis. You could equally say they started with the suspension and built the vehicle round about it. It was amazingly light, no wonder they won everything. I've no idea how heavy it got with mud.

Copying the spring seats from this would be an option but I'd still say not to on a standard chassis and suspension.

[Lowered spring seats.]

7 hours ago, ajh said:

but what's the real difference between lowering the chassis end and using axle seat end spacers then?

I'd suggest both are as horrific as each other and have no place on a vehicle with a chance of venturing off highway. I suggested spacers just as an alternative to cutting the chassis and doing irreversible harm. 

If you're using stuff that's lying around and you are confident with your fabrication skills you could build something pretty tasty. A lot depends on your list of ingredients.

Alternatively, look at what you would need to do to turn your project into a low rider with big tyres then put longer softer springs and dampers and you'd be further on the track to having a decent off roader. What wheelbase is your project going to end up and how much rear overhang? Where's the fuel tank and battery going? 

Measure your front radius arms and draw them or mock them up on your workshop wall. Move it through a range of motion and using that explain how you would like it to move and we can probably point you in the direction of that. Getting the front end to work is the first thing and there are a number of tried and tested ways of doing it.but you need to first understand what's happening there to let us better help you. In many ways the back's easier to deal with. Have a wee look at antidive and have a clear picture of what actually happens with radius arms during articulation. What type of terrain will you be driving and do you have any locking differentials?

Why not just run the series landy as is and modify it instead of potentially ruining two vehicles?  Tube frame on the Range Rover?

 

[Lowered spring seats.]

 

22 minutes ago, ajh said:

Anyone have photos of examples of lowering spring top seats on the chassis and how they re-braced things? Working on a RRC LWB chassis that's getting a Series hybrid body for a strictly OHV toy and wondering if that's a reasonable approach.

 

I'm not sure what OHV means in this context,. Off Highway Vehicle? If it is then I would try my hardest to talk you out of it and instead get you to raise them and use longer springs instead of lowering them. We normally use OHV as the acronym for Overhead Valve as applied to engines.

Springs have a minimum length that should see your spring seat at least as high as the bottom of the chassis plus the compressed length of your spring, you don't want the spring to become coil bound and for the spring seat to become the bump stop. Remember the axle comes up higher than the bottom of the chassis during articulation. I'd think carefully about lowering the spring seat and what it will achieve. It'll also raise the centre of gravity of the vehicle to no advantage whatsoever and will decrease useful wheel travel as the propshaft will limit droop and you're going to lose bump travel. You'll also lose articulation as the lowered bump height with the same droop at the chassis will compound the loss.

Maybe I'm completely off track of course and totally misunderstood. Maybe a wee bit more explanation for the hard of thinking amongst us.

If you are determined to lower them like for a road only lifted mall crawler you could maybe build some temporary spring spacers and see how you like it first before committing to cutting the chassis.
 

[Stage one saga.]

21 minutes ago, steve b said:

Which Renault truck did that gearbox originally come from Jamie ?

Mine came from a Renault TRM2000 but the bellhousing’s too long. Getting one from a Volvo FL6 or a Dodge 50 might get a proper SAE 3 bell housing. The Renault one has similar dimensions to SAE3 but is 40mm too long and the holes are rotated  15° wrong. I reckon one of these would let you put a Cummins in a mini.

Despite the size I don’t think strength will be an issue, the Volvo 6 cylinders were at least 7.5 ton and I don’t know what a dodge 50 was rated at but way heavier than my forest rover thing could get. I opened one up to have a look and it’s well made with large ball bearings instead of taper rollers. It’s also very light.

[Thoughts and musings on the new defender]

4 hours ago, SteveG said:

Can’t imagine a stock new Defender being able to tackle the Rubicon...

I can see it tackling it but I doubt it would come out unscathed. It's going to have decent basics you'd think so the likes of approach, departure and break over would be sorted. In fairness the Jeep Rubicon has a pretty poor break over angle and the ground clearance isn't actually that good on them. Jeep had the best display by a country mile at the Geneva motor show this year and I was all over the new Rubicon. The pictures below show the clearance or lack thereof. That said, it would be easy to lift, was very well built and steering components were very much larger and stronger than anything ever fitted to a Land Rover. I understand that there are chassis problems with them and there's been a recall. There's a huge amount of plastic and unnecessary garbage on these new Jeeps too but I think the bare bones are very good from what I saw. I think the new defender replacement would have a similar capability and appeal to a Rubicon in many ways but that the Rubicon could be accessorised and made to do things the defender replacement could only dream of. At least Jeep had the decency to put off road tyres on their exhibits, as did Mercedes and a few others. Land Rover didn't even have a single vehicle on all terrains, let alone mud tyres as they were all on low profile road tyres.

  I was also disappointed that Toyota never had a Land Cruiser there. The Merc G wagon with Portals was the best thing there.

 

 

 

[Stage one saga.]

You can see I almost started to make some progress from the picture with the watts link mocked up on the front. There's an engine, gearbox, bulkhead, all the sorts of things you might find in a vehicle that's going back together. The watts links were for the steering where I was convinced I could get a watts link draglink to work if I put the drag link centre on the arm of another watts link.

I was in the middle of tying myself in knots a bit with the steering when the sad day happened that I had to let go of one of my old trucks, a Berliet GBU 15. The poor lad picking it up hadn't actually been told what a Berliet was other than it was an old classic lorry so probably wasn't expecting a 16 ton lump of green French awkwardness to happen into his life. He had a bunch of scrap on his trailer and had to lose some of it to make room for the Berliet. Amongst the scrap was a Cummins B series from a DAF truck.

I very kindly offered to shift it with the wee forklift and said it might be handy, the owner was a truck dealer and wasn't bothered about it at all. I put it on a pallet and had a scratch at my chin thinking I might just have a gearbox that would fit. I did, I had one from an old Renault lying around so I kinda stuck that on the back, the clutch splines were even the same. I had a wee scratch about in my gearbox graveyard (1st left after the engine graves next to the portal pile) and found a homeless lt230. It made for a very short package if I could make it work. 26 1/2" long from the bellhousing to the rear output o the lt230, the bellhousing was kidding on at being an sae3 and needed chopping back a bit and with a Rakeway short rear output I could get the whole transmission down to about  22" long. With the cummins that gave me an almost Identical length as the GM V8 and LT95 only this was just better in every way. the 6.5:1 first was also giving me an extra crawler gear I didn't have before.

I mocked it up in the chassis and even without the shortening could see some merit in pursuing it. The poor old GM V8 got ripped out and left to rot in the engine grave yard and this is kinda where what should have been a slight deviation from some chassis tweaks turned it into something which meant it wasn't driving out the shed anytime soon

[Stage one saga.]

3 hours ago, Soren Frimodt said:

Great to see some updates on this  So is the engine getting center-mounted then?

Thanks, wasn’t thinking there would be much interest.

The engine is in the same place as in the previous incarnation if we used the bulkhead outriggers as a datum. It’s not mid engined but the gearbox does sit about 8” / 200mm further back than standard and by using a 101 gearbox this brings the engine another 4” / 100mm further back again.

[Stage one saga.]

The plan was to just stick it back together as it was but with the new improved radar station chassis and some new captive engine mounts made from a bit of radar channel with some 300tdi mounts as they fit perfectly together. It was actually the engine jumping out the mounts after hitting a rock that led to the first time it was laid up and I really wanted to address the issue properly. The mounts were regular V8 bonded mounts and they just tore apart like paper.

I settled on an A frame and lower links for the rear suspension after considering a four link. I decided that by starting with (and then regretting) using Land Rover dimensions for the chassis instead of a complete tube frame I couldn't get the degree of triangulation I wanted for lateral location strength with a four link. Even then, the A frame was going to have to be longer if it was going to be an improved forest rover with better suspension. I decided the A frames had to go through the chassis to get the width I wanted and the length needed for the vertical wheel travel. I built little tunnels through the chassis with cut tube and flat plate and creeper joints. These sit at an angle like the Land Rover ones do but there's enough movement in them to allow it without any binding. The lowers are 51" long and the A frame about 37" I think.

I was going to upgrade the steering box to one from a Renault TRM2000 as I measured the pull on the pitman arm at 4 tons with my scales. I also distracted myself for a little while looking at the TRM portals but put them back after wasting some time with them. I'll build an independent sprung buggy with them one day maybe.

The steering also lead me to another problem, what suspension to use on the front. I decided a one link would be the way as a three link was proving difficult to package and a four link would mean hydro steer. I wasted a huge amount of time trying to get a onelink to fit but it just wasn't happening. I tried mocking various shapes up with concrete rebar which is easy to work with but I was tying myself in knots with it.  I wasn't going to move the engine up out the way and nor was I going to compromise on the articulation or hydraulic pump fitment at the front with various other link geometries so I decided after much deliberation and many mockups to go with a front mounted A frame and lower links as well. I used SU joints for the A frames and have 13" of link separation both front and rear. The Sumb portals are also handy in a way that the inner lower parts of the portal housing are of a weldable material which makes lower link placement really easy. The A frame obviously has the same implications as the four link on the steering. Ultimately the A frame was easier to package round the engine than the upper links of a four link and the high roll centre moves the wheels away under articulation.

I settled on my link geometry the old fashioned way with a scale model on the garage door after wasting far too much time on the Pirate4x4 link calculator. I also played with the notion of a Watts link before settling on the A frames. 

 

It was all going so well then something else happened.....