Soren Frimodt

Okay then now we're on the same page BUT the wasted part on a TDI shaft is NOT as large in diameter as the splines. It is considerably smaller. I get your point and think you're right, but in this case the TDI shaft is simply made to small in OD where as I would guess the V8 HD shaft is about the same in OD as it is at the splines, or atleast closer to it. But I will say that there is one advantage in this mess. You dont get the problem with the twisted splines inside the gear, witch means your broken shaft is stuck. It's much easier to replace this way.

Hmm i'm pretty sure we misunderstand eachother Red90. The wasted part of the axle IS NOT as large or larger than the splines on any 24 spline LR axle EXCEPT Salisbury. That's my point. Maybe I just dont understand your post though..

Yes there IS such a thing as a V8 Halfshaft, I've had'em in my own hands as my brother is running them. They are thicker in the shaft itself. If you look at a shaft from a TDI you will notice that it is thinner in the middle section that it is at the splines in the ends. A V8 shaft is not as thin albeit still thinner than at the splines. Sadly I don't have any measures. And the salisbury is the ultimate (LR wise that is) As its the same dimension ALL the way. If you've ever seen a TDI shaft snap you will notice that it doesn't do it at the splines like a 10 spline but somewhere along the middle section. This is because they made it this ridiculously thin, it's actually only 1 mm thicker than a 10 spline!

Guess we all know about this problem ey?

Pete, Castor and king pin inclination (KPI) isn't the same. By fitting castor corrected arms/buches/swivels you won't change the KPI. KPI can be adjusted via your tire diameter, and the backspacing (is it called this?) of your rim. But you are right that both these factors play in on how your car selfcenters.

The snow keeps coming here in Denmark, we haven't had this much snow for the last three years! Anyways me mom and dad called this morning said they where stuck in the Disco. So I went out to my 110" and needles to say it had seen better parking spots But, being a landie, it started right up and drove outta there with a minimum of hassle. But when I got back from the rescue mission I thought to myself, "it must be time to bring out the heavy equipment" So that's what I did

We've also had a tad falling in Denmark..

Hehe yeah apparently But I can see he forgot to plate the ends of his bumper, the right's all bend up

Thanks, and thanks for fixing my posting aswell. Is there any way i can post all pics in the same thread myself? cheers

Had a T-Max floating around in the workshop for a while and really wanted to mount it infront of my 110". But having lately owned a Series, I hate the look of the front mounted winch hanging miles out of the frontend. Not only does it ruin the approach angle, but I also think it looks silly. So what is the options? Centre mounting was for me a way overkill. So I thought why not shove it as much into the front as possible? So here's what I did, without even trimming the frontgrill or moving the bumpers position, it BARELY fits: And finally a pic showing the "slimness"

Thought so No I don't see any disadvantages either, (except for one bushing/joint more to fail) and I really like the setup

You mean like this? http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=760819&page=4

Yes that would undoubtably work, but the disadvantage is greater than the advantage I'm afraid. It would make the problem of hanging on your springs even greater! Series rovers often get stuck on the leafs where coilers just plow through. ( ofcourse not a problem for you FF ) You could also put the ekstra spring on top of the axle

Yes Gareth you are absolutely right, mine dosn't eliminate tramp quite as good as FF's. BUT it's darn close and it works very well. I have studied many recordings of my 88" on steep inclines, and there was never any noticable jumping around of the wheel. So compared to the simplicity of both the installation, and the cost and maintenance I found this to be the best solution.

No. The anti-tramp is NOT there to fix the brake diving issue, not at all. It is there to prevent axle tramp (hence the name) Which is the problem you have when going up a steep incline. As the front wheel losses its traction the frontaxle begins to jump around because it tries to wrap the spring around the axle.

yes it is a picture of the front axle, with the anti tramp/wrap bar going to the front. I put it in the exact same angle as the spring prevent binding. And it didn't bind at all. I'm not sure it prevented diving under braking, I never really felt that was a problem. Yes SOA that's a good idea with the radius arm

I did it this way: http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=26822 Simple and very effective

Well.. The shackle reversal thing has been discussed before yes. And I recall that me and the dear Bill could not quite agree on the subject But, the way I see it, the best way is undoubtably the way it is on your 109 from the factory. And the best way to explain why is to show you this link and see what he has to tell, and show you at about 8 mins in. http://www.spike.com/full-episode/69-international/30441 BTW a superb show to watch for us gearheads

I've seen several Trialers use these axles. Don't exactly know why but would think it's because of the 24 spline shafts and the 4-pin diffs

yes Will I totally agree on the gearmesh issue, we had to fit a new tophousing because the needle-rollerbearing in the gear inside the housing was knackered. This had caused it to grind into the housing, and brilliantly you can't get EITHER of the parts from Warn! You have to buy the complete tophousing assembly. Tsk tsk.. But anyways we noticed a serious amount of sideways movement in the gear, and because there where no shim fitted, the gear would actually be running up against the housing and again cause a grinding. With this fixed it was much better. So I can only imagine what the rest of the gearbox is like. Regarding the mainshaft, it is definetly in the cards, but apparently even those break, a friend of mine running two Bow motors on gigglepin housing just broke his.

Thanks Si. This weekend we did a back to back challenge between a standard 8274 with 4,5HP motor and our twin XP motored 8274. We decided to go uphill with no wheel assistance, eventually the standard 8274 gave up do to overheaded motor. The twinmotored winch was barely warm to touch. See the result here:

Yeah I'seen a quad motor setup somewhere aswell, that is mean! But I don't think the rest of the winch will be up to it.. This is a video that greatly inspired us:

Haha Ole ofcourse you're right I mean't to say 10m/minute ofcourse it's not a rocket

As promised a video. First off he tries without wheel assitance with the car stuck in the mud. Second try he uses the wheels aswell. Follow the link:

It works really well, the spooling speed when unloaded has dropped do to more friction I suppose. But the grunt in the winch is enormous! We made a test going up a 35 degree slope with no wheel asistance and kept a speed of 10m/s. And the ninety weighs in just over the 2 tonne mark. So that is quite good. I have video of testing it in some sticky mud, that I will put on youtube and link to later on. I'm not sure I understand you're question regarding stability of the engine mounts though. The second engine is bolted to the back of the first and kept safely in place by another bracket (the one in the last picture) And yes Moose whe chopped off the splines on the second motor to keep the length of it all to an absolute minimum.