Disco 1 axles on SII SWB

[FridgeFreezer]

But in principle I agree - the smug git should be given a hard time whenever possible!

Just because I've finished a car Jealousy is an ugly thing, Mr Colebourn

Dan - No-one's winding you up, perhaps subtle english humour is being lost in translation I didn't even realise there were two different lengths of "long" shackle apart from one end being slightly longer than the other (but I have no idea which!) on the 1-ton ones. Since paddocks only sell one flavour of long ones I'd just go with that, I doubt there's a massive difference between the two.

You shouldn't worry about people questioning your build, if you turn up with a wacky plan like yours people are always going to ask "Why do it that way?" - hell I spent most of my build arguing with Jez over keeping the leaf springs, the wheelbase, and what's left of my panels if you can back it up with a reason or some tech then cool, if not then maybe the other guy has a point... some people on here (not me) (or Al) know more than the rest of us have forgotten on some subjects and listening to them can save a whole lot of pain.

At least people are asking "Why are you doing it like that?" instead of "Why haven't you done it yet?" as they do with certain others round these parts...

As for engines, if you have a 2.25 and a spare 2.25 then to me that says "time to MS'n'S one of these babies!" and possibly add a turbo or NOS or something so far everyone's shied away from dragging one into the 20th century despite the ease of doing so and the tuning potential - a TBI from a hatchback and the EDIS from a 4-pot ford and you're away. Given how de-tuned LR engines are from the factory and how robust those lumps are there's got to be a load of power to be made... you'll make Bill Shurvinton's day too, he's been trying to persuade someone to do one for ages.

[Tonk]

1 tonne shackles are the longest, IIRC front ones are about 15mm longer than rears, but they're not really interchangeable between front and rear. as Al said, dont forget to fit the spacer tubes in the middle

[Jon White]

I reckon one of the best things you could do to an old 2.25 these days would be to add the supercharger from one of the new shape minis (they go for no money on ebay) and megasquirt that! Standard series box would just about cope with that and it'd be a nice tractable drive.

As to who is going to make your prop shafts etc it doesnt make any difference and you're not going to get away from the fact that the front prop is just too short and will be running at too extreme an angle! If you swap the gearbox to a stronger one, and one thats potentially longer this will help alieviate the problem as the front prop will be longer and will run at less extreme an angle.

As to the 4.0 lump - you're still going to have to run some sort of electronic ignition on it as there is no provision for a dizzy on that engine anyway.

Shackles wise 1 tonne shackles are about 1/2" longer than military ones. The rears are also longer than the fronts by about 1/2" but its not an easy job to fit rear ones to the front.

Jon

[FridgeFreezer]

As to the 4.0 lump - you're still going to have to run some sort of electronic ignition on it as there is no provision for a dizzy on that engine anyway.

Well, you could replace the front end (and sump IIRC) with an older setup (remember to make a spacer to allow you to tighten the crank pulley bolt up properly) but then you're losing the improved oil pump. My 4.6 has the front end of a 3.5 EFi but that's only because it arrived as a short block and there are a million 3.5 bits around.

[XtremeMarineInc]

As far as the 4.0; statesside; we convert 4.0's and 4.6's regularly. It's been done by dozens of owners doing swaps into trail rigs. The specs and parts sheets are all over Dweb, pirate, and other websites. Yes, the front cover does have to be changed.

I have been on eBayUK all night, and this morning looking for the 1 tonne shackles. I guess 109's were not 1 tonne trucks, because the 4 rear 109 shackle plates I bought from 4x4 adventure leeds do not have the center pin. They are just the same as my 88 rear shackles but longer.

[Astro_Al]

I got mine from John craddock:

http://www.johncraddockltd.co.uk/

Click on 'new parts' at the top, then enter series 3 and suspension in the drop down boxes. The 1 tonne bits are listed.

Call them up to get them to put a kit of all the right bits together.

Cheers, Al.

[Jon White]

As far as the 4.0; statesside; we convert 4.0's and 4.6's regularly. It's been done by dozens of owners doing swaps into trail rigs. The specs and parts sheets are all over Dweb, pirate, and other websites. Yes, the front cover does have to be changed.

I have been on eBayUK all night, and this morning looking for the 1 tonne shackles. I guess 109's were not 1 tonne trucks, because the 4 rear 109 shackle plates I bought from 4x4 adventure leeds do not have the center pin. They are just the same as my 88 rear shackles but longer.

Better off keeping the 4.0 front end and running EDIS IMHO. JU and I are both running it and neither of us would go back to dizzys!

1 tonne trucks were very rare beasts indeed! A 1 tonne and a standard 109 are not the same thing, and actually share very few mechanical parts.

[XtremeMarineInc]

I got mine from John craddock:

http://www.johncraddockltd.co.uk/

Click on 'new parts' at the top, then enter series 3 and suspension in the drop down boxes. The 1 tonne bits are listed.

Call them up to get them to put a kit of all the right bits together.

Cheers, Al.

Al; that website is like a xmas shopping list. But they don't have pictures of any of the shackles. I guess I'll call them. I'll have to get up early tomorrow, as I think they're 6 hours ahead of me and already closed for today.

[bill van snorkle]

SOA does effectively improve under axle groundclearance in that it removes two of the three snag points, the third being the differential itself. If a SOA conversion is done correctly so as not to raise the overall height of the vehicle it can have another positive benefit of raising the roll axis for better stability. This was one of the stated reasons that LandRover went to SOA at the rear of the series 2B forward control models

Bill.

[XtremeMarineInc]

Bill; that's a really cool bit of information, and some interesting trivia. I am confused, though, on how a SOA could be done that would not raise cog.

[bill van snorkle]

Bill; that's a really cool bit of information, and some interesting trivia. I am confused, though, on how a SOA could be done that would not raise cog.

LandRover raised the rear spring hangers and shackle mountings higher up on the chassis of the series 2B forward control to negate the approx 6'' increase in vehicle height that would result from sitting the springs on top of the axles. They didn't do the front but could have if they used zero arch springs, shortened the very deep military style spring hangers/ shackles and removed the bumpstop spacers. On a normal 109 front, say with reverse arch springs (parabolics even?) and similar modifications to the spring hangers, or even a shackle reversal with the top shackle bush tube welded higher up through the dumb irons you could get close to stock vehicle height, bearing in mind that your suspension uptravel will be reduced by the amount equal to the thickness of the spring pack so a small lift or cutting the bumpstop rubbers down would be required to restore uptravel.

Bill.

[backball]

Is the addition of track the same for Disco 1 axles, RR classic axles and Defender 90/110 axles; i.e. about 6 inches? Also are the track rods connecting the two wheels in front for all three types of axles?

Asking as there seem to be significant challenges with track rod clearance on leavers...

cheers