uninformed Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) Hi all, I have some stubs and hubs from what I believe a coil sprung rover rear end. Numbers stamped on the stub I can see HRC 1363 and on its matching hub HRC 1362. These are what I can tell wide bearing, they do not have a large cut out hole in the outer edge face of the mounting surface. They have the key way rather than large flat.I believe them to be rear as they have the outer lip on the mounting surface and no allocation for the bronze bush etc. The other hub I have has stamped 571764 or could be 571784. These are just hubs no stubs with them. There is approx 3mm difference in overall height between these two hubs I have. The WMS to rotor mounting surface distance is the same for both, the bearing distance is the same for both. From what I can see the longer one is longer on the seal end of the hub. any help appreciated cheers Serg Edited March 25, 2018 by uninformed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 HRC1363 is not a LR part number, just a bare casting number. I tried the 2 other numbers in brit-car & LRSeries websites earlier today & they don't come up with a item, just not found. they are not Series 3 parts either, just looked in here http://www.retroanaconda.com/landrover/2010/03/series-iii-parts-book/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketomcat Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 Some picture may help. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 26, 2018 Author Share Posted March 26, 2018 (edited) thanks guys, aprreciated. for some reason my gut tells me earlier RRC? stupid question, does a series drum braked hub look anything like a disc brake hub? these pics are of the matching hub and stub. lets just try and id these first Edited March 26, 2018 by uninformed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 26, 2018 Author Share Posted March 26, 2018 btw who ever designed this forum, hands down easiest to attach pics ever! well done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dailysleaze Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 The stub axle looks to be 93 or earlier http://www.shop4autoparts.net/parts/Misc/frc4320g-stub-axle-oem/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missingsid Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 Looks like suffix A RRC to me. The link above shows the bronze bush at the back so not what the photos show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 26, 2018 Author Share Posted March 26, 2018 Bronze bush is going to be front for cv is it not? Yes im thinking early RRC. And has to be a rear given the dia of the spigot at mounting face of stub axle. Plus the offset from the WMS to the rotor MS would also indicate a rear over a front I think. Definitely pre ABS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketomcat Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) I think my early 110 (83) has the same style lock washers on the stubs. Which says rrc to me too and lack of bronze bush says rears. Mike P.s. later stubs had seals in the back so that makes these oil fed wheel bearings. Edited March 27, 2018 by miketomcat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 1 hour ago, miketomcat said: I think my early 110 (83) has the same style lock washers on the stubs. Which says rrc to me too and lack of bronze bush says rears. Mike P.s. later stubs had seals in the back so that makes these oil fed wheel bearings. Yeah, my '84 has the same lock tabs on the front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 ok If these are early RRC that would make them 593681 for the stub axle FRC5927 for the hub Now I note there are 2 different oil seals for the hub. RTC3508 - 8mm thick and RTC3511 - 12mm thick. That makes me think that the 2 very similar but different hubs I have (one of which is pictured above) are both these and its the seal depth/thickness that may be the difference. As I said in my first post, They look identical, the WMS to rotor MS is the same distance, as is the wheel bearing spacing. The only difference is in overall width of hub and thats at the seal end. Can anyone confirm that stub axle FRC8005 and its corrosponding hub FRC8532 are a smaller/narrower wheel bearing spacing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 older hubs have wide spaced bearings, later 300tdi hub bearings are narrow spaced Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 The RTC3511 seals have at least one extra lip on them compared to the other type from memory. I think also set for oil filled bearings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 40 minutes ago, western said: older hubs have wide spaced bearings, later 300tdi hub bearings are narrow spaced I dont think its that simple... From my RRC parts catalogue and searching online for Disco 1 (early first of run), im getting FRC8005 stub and FRC8532 (superseded to FTC1457) for RRC July 85 and on and Disco 1 (first type) When I google search FRC8005 stub I came across this thread: https://landroverfaq.com/viewtopic.php?t=260 I cant read French. But the pics in it show the same stub as mine posted in this thread and a stub that I am seeing on google image search as FRC8005. Look at the bearing cup seat marks and the space between them. IMO there is clearly a difference. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 Those two stubs will have the same bearing spacing and accept the early hubs. Clearly, the locking washer differs, and the one with the flat rather than groove requires a special sealing washer that sits between outer bearing and inner nut. That arrangement is used on the early 110 Salisbury axles of the mid 1980s, so presumably the other axles of the same period used that system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 27, 2018 Author Share Posted March 27, 2018 7 hours ago, Snagger said: Those two stubs will have the same bearing spacing and accept the early hubs. Clearly, the locking washer differs, and the one with the flat rather than groove requires a special sealing washer that sits between outer bearing and inner nut. That arrangement is used on the early 110 Salisbury axles of the mid 1980s, so presumably the other axles of the same period used that system. Snagger, do you think the other stub in those photos is FRC8005? Looking at the total arrangement as shown in the IPL, either the later FRC8005 has to be longer overall for the bearing spacing to remain the same, OR the bearing spacing gets reduced and the stub stays a similar length. There is now a spacer to go with that seal you mention that sits between the outer bearing and inner nut. Have a lookjust below the threaded section on both. And then the smooth section the bearing runs on. Clearly some difference in length and design. Given they look very close to same OA length/height I have to think the bearing spacing IS reduced. Funny thing is there is 2 different REAR stub axles for the LR 90 during its drum brake era FRC3132 - stub axle - sloted for lock tab - wide bearing spacing - rear, drum brake FRC8540 - stub axle - flat spot for washer lock tab - bearing spacing ?? - rear, drum brake Then they go to the disc rear end FTC3188 - Stub axle - flat spot for washer lock tab - narrow bearing spacing - rear, disc brake Ill add more later. Off to work now cheers Serg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 If you look at the stubs, the witness marks from the bearings appear to be the same spacing. The older (slotted) stub has a longer threaded section as the packing washer is thinner and so the nuts need to wind in closer to the bearings, but the bearing spacing appears similar. I'd be very surprised if the hubs are different, and I'd expect the stubs to work just as well as each other as long as you use the correct spacer and lock washers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share Posted March 28, 2018 I get what you are saying about the packing washer on the slotted stub is thinner. But to my eye, even though the threaded section is longer on the slotted stub, the same section (not just the thread, but also the smooth on the same dia section) of the flat'd stub looks longer. Again, to me the witness marks do look different. (am I the only one seeing that?) I have looked at these pics over and over, and while there may be some error of parralax going on, it appears to me to be different. Also take into account the flat'd stub has an extra spigot on the axle housing end. yet over all they look similar heights But we are still unsure of which LR stub that flat'd one is??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landroversforever Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Definitely look closer to me and the stub looks shorter overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted March 29, 2018 Author Share Posted March 29, 2018 Ill try and add as much data to this thread as I can, it may become a useful reference? attached pics are of 110 rear SALS stub axles. FRC8540 - slotted key way, wide bearing space, drum brake. FTC1740 - flat section for lock tab washer, narrow bearing space, disc brake. There may be another 110 stub from the very early 110's but Im not sure? I have even heard that there was a narrow bearing stub on drum brakes but no data on this? If anyone wants to add pics and data, please do so and be specific if you are definite or not on part number, vehicle type please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted April 4, 2018 Author Share Posted April 4, 2018 On 29/03/2018 at 7:28 PM, uninformed said: Ill try and add as much data to this thread as I can, it may become a useful reference? attached pics are of 110 rear SALS stub axles. FRC3132 - slotted key way, wide bearing space, drum brake. EARLY 110! (pre 87?) FTC1740 - flat section for lock tab washer, narrow bearing space, disc brake. There may be another 110 stub from the very early 110's but Im not sure? I have even heard that there was a narrow bearing stub on drum brakes but no data on this? If anyone wants to add pics and data, please do so and be specific if you are definite or not on part number, vehicle type please I have Edited what I think was my mistake. IT appears FRC8540 could actually be a narrower bearing space stub axle. It definitely is a flat sided thread end, NOT slotted. FRC8540 is definitely 110 rear drum brake. I think the change over was 1987. The slotted one in the pics above is going to be FRC3132, early 110, drum brake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted April 4, 2018 Share Posted April 4, 2018 my rear drum Salisbury stubs have the wide flat area on them, not the narrow slot for the lock washer. now rear disc brakes. this post might help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted April 5, 2018 Author Share Posted April 5, 2018 On 04/04/2018 at 7:50 PM, western said: my rear drum Salisbury stubs have the wide flat area on them, not the narrow slot for the lock washer. now rear disc brakes. this post might help Thanks, I had read that thread at some point lol... so many searches my head hurts. Yes those stubs pictured, and the ones on your Sals, will MOST PROBABLY be FRC8540. The second stub to be fitted to drum brake rear 110 and 90 according to parts catalogues. This change happend about 1986? and ran through untill the 110 went to discs in 1994. Funny that both the 90 and 110 have the same part number/stub axle as NORMALLY I thought the rover rear end had the stub axle locate internally in the axle flange where as the Sals has the stub locate around the dia of the axle flange I am hearing some confirmation, but yet to comfirm with my own eyes and measuring that there is indeed 3 different wheel bearing spacings. It will take not only the stubs but also the hubs to prove this. Im slowly buying bits or sourcing tem to do so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uninformed Posted April 8, 2018 Author Share Posted April 8, 2018 Ok, need some help with 2 hubs I have, They will be the second generation of coil sprung disc brake hubs. First gen being up to 1985. So im guessing 1986-93 maybe?. They look identical to the hub in the pic. They measure the same seal depth and inner bearing seat depth as it (I believe the one in the pic to be early RRC) But they have smaller bearing spacing (by about 9mm or so) One has a WMS to rotor mounting surface (RMS) of ~38.4mm (same as early RRC) and the other ~22.4mm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHawk Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 Hi Did you ever work out which stub axle's and axle's you had? I've got a rear axle I'm trying to identify (it's leaking on the hub seals, so I need to order parts). My stub axles look just like yours (see photo below) but I can't figure out what they are at all! Any help you can give would be appreciated. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.