Jump to content
abosely

Series IIA front axle WMS to WMS width not what I expected, hmm...

Recommended Posts

My understanding was that the Series II/IIA & III Wheel Mount Surface to Wheel Mount Surface  was 55" for both the front and rear axles.

The 69' SIIA rear axle is 55" WMS to WMS, just as expected, but the front axle is 56" WMS to WMS. I measured this thing three ways to Sunday and it was 56" WMS to WMS. 

Everything looks stock, don't see anything that looks like it was changed. So was I mistaken or is something odd with this axle?

Cheers, Allen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are both axles Rover axles, or is one a Salisbury? (I'm guessing an ENV axle is unlikely, however the vehicle got to Hawaii).

I'm not familiar with your WMS to WMS measurement. I can see some logic, but can see difficulties relating it to 'standard' or historic literature, that just mention 'track'.
Perhaps two questions:
What were your data source(s) that gave you the 55" measurement?
How (or why) does the 1" difference matter?

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe both axles are Rover axles, it was bought new here in Hawaii from a Land Rover dealer in 69'.  The WMS to WMS refers to the surface of each wheel where the rim mounts, the advantage of it is it doesn't change if the wheel back spacing is different from on vehicle to another. 

Don't remember exactly where I read the 55" width for the Series axles. But I remember reading about the LR having the same width track front and rear and the wheels are the same front to rear. The rear axle WMS to WMS is 55", but the front being 56" was a surprise, it's not necessarily a problem, just not what I was expecting.

I'm putting customized Land Cruiser axles and diffs under her. I have a thread on here about the build. I'll be posting some updates & pics of progress in next few days in the thread.

The front WMS to WMS is going to be 4" wider than stock, so was planning on a 59" width and the rear 2.5" wider for 57.5" width, with the diff in the same position side to side as stock. So today when measuring the front axle to determine the location of the pinion flange and spring perches, I fount that the front is a bit wider than expected,  so just was curious.

Cheers, Allen   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was searching and found a couple of posts on Landy Zone forum where a couple other folks found the front axle was 1" wider than the rear.

But unfortunately no one replied to answer the question. So evidently this is something that has occurred before. 

Not a problem, but I find it interesting and am curious to find out about this anomaly. 

Cheers, Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What brake set up has it got on the front?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drum brakes front and rear. As far as I know are stock/original.

Is there a bit of a difference in the width of different drum brakes that would account for the ½" extra width per side? 

Cheers, Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went out and checked the diffs compared to the 72' SIII SWB I have and the SIIA don't have the flat area on the bottom with the two holes, the SIIA is a SWB also.

Tmw I'll go measure the SIIA & SIII housings and see if I can find where the difference is. Unfortunately the SIII axle is disassembled so will only have the basic housing to measure.

I find this interesting and enjoy learning about the subtle differences in in the Series.

 I'm wondering if there is a difference on the width of the brake drums for wider shoes? 

Cheers, Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was what I was considering, hence my question, nothing to back it up yet though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that on my serie 2a 88 the front axle is a little bit wider than the rear wheel to wheel.

I can't remember the exact difference of the top of my head but will measure tomorrow if you wish.

 

Eric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pepé le Pew said:

I know that on my serie 2a 88 the front axle is a little bit wider than the rear wheel to wheel.

I can't remember the exact difference of the top of my head but will measure tomorrow if you wish.

 

Eric.

Yes that would be great, will be interesting to see if your front is 56" also. 

Cheers, Allen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Allen,

I took some measurments and my front axle is just over 20mm wider (so just shy of 1") than the rear measured between the brake backplates.

It is a bit difficult to get an exact measurement this way, so your 1" might be right.

What i found in the serie 3 workshop manual is that a S3 109 has a 1" wider track than a S3 88, but that is because of the wider brake shoes/drums i guess.

I can't find any track numbers in the serie 2a workshop manual.

As far as i know i still have the original axles front and rear and i definitely have 10" brakes all round.

So i think it is just supposed to be this way.

 

Cheers,

Eric

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it's a vehicle stability thing for the shorter wheel base - the closer the trust line or brake lines from each rear wheel, the less of a problem any asymmetry would be, and shorter wheel base vehicles would suffer more than long, hence 109s having matching track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as many others I have mixed and matched LWB and SWB axle components without ever running into any issues with lengths on neither hubs, halfshafts or stubshafts. So I would think the difference in track is the same on all Series 2 and 3 short or long. Maybe its done on purpose to better clear everything when turning? Many cars have this. However I'm just wildly guessing here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I reckon it is likely to be a parts bin thing, what they had available, and what was cheap, a Salisbury axle just so happened to be the same as the front, but making a rea Rover axle work would be more expensive, so it didn't happen.

Well, that's my theory :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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