garymorris Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 Afternoon Lockdown Land Rover Buffs, i‘m rebuilding a front axle (I think the axle was off a 200 tdi 90) and I’ve discovered I have a different type stub axle and hub on one side compared to the other. I’m guessing one is an early and one is late, the strange thing is that I’d imagine that the thicker driving member would fit the shorter hub ? But it won’t can anybody help and explain the difference in hubs ? many thanks Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retroanaconda Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 Yes, the thicker one is the early type and is what your 200Tdi vehicle would have had from the factory. The hubs, drive members, stub axles and CVs (driveshaft) all changed at the switchover from early to late (1993/1994 ish) and so need to all be the same type for it to fit together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymorris Posted April 13, 2020 Author Share Posted April 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, Retroanaconda said: Yes, the thicker one is the early type and is what your 200Tdi vehicle would have had from the factory. The hubs, drive members, stub axles and CVs (driveshaft) all changed at the switchover from early to late (1993/1994 ish) and so need to all be the same type for it to fit together. So I’ve got the drive member and hubs the right way round then James ? i did try the thicker drive member on the shorter hub but it was loose and the thinner drive member wouldn’t fit inside the taller hub. If so it’s obviously the longer stub axles ? Cheers Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retroanaconda Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 Yep, looks like it. Longer stub axles and the CVs with longer lengths of shaft on them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daan Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 they are fitted correctly in the picture; the flange is thicker and the hub is wider on early models. I much prefer the earlier version, as there is more engagement on the splines, and the bearings are further apart, which makes it better suited to large wheel offsets. Also, on the front, it will have a stronger CV. Disadvantage is that alloys don't fit, if this is your thing. Daan 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western Posted April 13, 2020 Share Posted April 13, 2020 Hub on the right is same as my 1989 110 front hubs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missingsid Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 On 4/13/2020 at 7:19 PM, garymorris said: So I’ve got the drive member and hubs the right way round then James ? i did try the thicker drive member on the shorter hub but it was loose and the thinner drive member wouldn’t fit inside the taller hub. If so it’s obviously the longer stub axles ? Cheers Gary The aim of the design is to narrow the axle end to end, what you tried to do was to get both sides to a common width by mixing up the parts. One complaint is that the newer narrow hubs have the two bearing races closer together so arguably they will not work so well with wider than standard wheels and tyres or larger wheel offsets? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snagger Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 On 4/13/2020 at 11:57 PM, Daan said: they are fitted correctly in the picture; the flange is thicker and the hub is wider on early models. I much prefer the earlier version, as there is more engagement on the splines, and the bearings are further apart, which makes it better suited to large wheel offsets. Also, on the front, it will have a stronger CV. Disadvantage is that alloys don't fit, if this is your thing. Daan Alloys will fit after using a 5mm spacer plate. I used the naves of some scrap brake drums (1/4” or approx 6mm). The original studs may have been ok, but I didn’t want to risk them being too short, so I used Gen Parts Wolf studs (at £10 each 😳 ). The plastic centre cone will still protrude through the wheel centre, but that can be dealt with in other ways. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymorris Posted April 19, 2020 Author Share Posted April 19, 2020 On 4/13/2020 at 8:57 PM, Daan said: they are fitted correctly in the picture; the flange is thicker and the hub is wider on early models. I much prefer the earlier version, as there is more engagement on the splines, and the bearings are further apart, which makes it better suited to large wheel offsets. Also, on the front, it will have a stronger CV. Disadvantage is that alloys don't fit, if this is your thing. Daan Thank you, I guess somebody has bolted on a swivel etc from a newer axle. i’ve got my head around it all now, thank goodness. im going to order a new drive shaft, hub and stub axle. I’m like you prefer the older style as the wheel bearings are a bit further apart so hopefully a bit stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garymorris Posted April 19, 2020 Author Share Posted April 19, 2020 On 4/18/2020 at 8:48 AM, missingsid said: The aim of the design is to narrow the axle end to end, what you tried to do was to get both sides to a common width by mixing up the parts. One complaint is that the newer narrow hubs have the two bearing races closer together so arguably they will not work so well with wider than standard wheels and tyres or larger wheel offsets? Yes that’s exactly what I was thinking 😳 Having tried the different drive member and then looking at the spline lengths of the different cv’s/halfshafts, have got it sussed now 😃 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.