Questions about freewheeling hubs

[snailracer]

I'm thinking of fitting free wheeling hubs to my 109.

Am I correct that the 24/10 spline refers to the hub connection to the half shaft? I've had them off today and counted 24 but just want to check

What is the best option for hubs? Is there one make that is better and should I be looking at buying new rather than second hand as the price difference between new and second hand is not huge?

Cheers

Matt

[Phil Hancock]

My experience is that unless you are doing a lot of long journeys they are not worth the hastle.

[nickjaxe]

I have them on my 88"....you need to en gauge them once a month or so to keep things lubricated,

I would not be without them...I find less noise...never counted if they improve MPG...but I think they must as turning the front axle and prop must rob some hp from the engine...even though its the road wheels turning them.

Nick.

[the real muddy90]

Matt, I have a set here if you want to make an offer? Not too far away & I work bmth way most days.

[FridgeFreezer]

TBH I wouldn't bother, they really don't do much and are another thing to break / forget.

Sorry if that robs TRM90 of a sale

[Jon White]

I'm with fridge here - IMHO they have no place on a landrover. Took mine off and threw them away years ago.

Jon

[sussex-landy]

I had them on a series 2A and every time i needed to use them they were a pig to get engaged if i hadnt used them every now and again. I never bothered on my later vehicles and dont see any difference in MPG or performance and i dont have to get out when its snowing or muddy. I also think its better to have the front axle used so its always ready to work when its needed.

robert

[Snagger]

I bought and fitted a pair of FWH to mine many years ago. They're utter carp. They make no difference to MPG or speed at all and I think any improvement in acceleration was just wishful thinking or placebo. They did leak after a fairly short time, as is common, and were sometimes very stiff to engage.

The problems with them are that they increase wear on the swivel pins because the half shaft UJs are no longer splashing the oil about in the swivels, they increase front prop spline wear because the prop shaft is rotationally static but still expanding and contracting with axle movement, so the prop ends up banana shaped, and when you do need 4wd, you end up having to get covered in muck from standing on a muddy surface and gripping filth covered hubs.

I got rid of mine when they started leaking and would never have them again. If they were really beneficial, LR would have fitted them as standard, especially during the oil crisis of the 70's, but they were only ever an option. The manufacturers of the various accessories paid LR to "authorise" or endorse their products, so it made money for LR even though they didn't manufacture the parts. The reality is that many accessories didn't live up to their claims, but as long as they didn't cause the vehicle to fail, LR would endorse them because of the charges made for doing so.

The only benefit of FWH that I have read and can see truth in is that a broken front diff or shaft can be isolated by selecting 2wd and FWH disengaged, rather than having to remove the shaft on site. But how often does that happen?

[Escape]

The only benefit of FWH that I have read and can see truth in is that a broken front diff or shaft can be isolated by selecting 2wd and FWH disengaged, rather than having to remove the shaft on site. But how often does that happen?

I agree with most that there doesn't seem to be much point in fitting FWH.

I do see one application though, if you regularly have to manoever heavy trailers on tarmac, it would allow you to use low gear on RWD and thus spare your clutch.

[Snagger]

I agree with most that there doesn't seem to be much point in fitting FWH.

I do see one application though, if you regularly have to manoever heavy trailers on tarmac, it would allow you to use low gear on RWD and thus spare your clutch.

Yes, but then you're putting a huge amount of torque through just one prop shaft and axle. It shouldn't be a problem if you're very gentle, but I find the clutch too imprecise in 1st low and find the vehicle tends to lurch, so torque loadings are going to tend to be quite sharp and suffer reversals. Couple that to heavy loads (ie lots of resistance) and you could be asking too much of the diffs or shafts in the long run, especially if behind a V8, Tdi or other similar transplanted engine.

[ToyRoverlander]

Not a problem on mine.. I got selectable 2Low and quite often go offroad in 2Low just to make it more of a challenge, also with the rear diff locked. No worries .

Propshaft will handle it, Sals axle will be fine, rover axle should be fine with some care. Avoid shockloads, that's what kills axleshafts/diffs.

[mickeyw]

Snagger you seem to have had a real bad time with FWH to make you feel so anti them.

I have had vehicles that came with FWH already fitted,one with the AVM type and another with the Fairey type, and never had any complaints with either as I maintained them well. They didn't leak either, just about the onlt bit on the LR that didn't mmind you. Both these were daily drivers that did reasonable mileage.

Yes it is necessary to engage them periodically to keep the king pins lubricated, one way to work once a week is enough for this.

I seriously doubt they helped my fuel economy, if there was any power freed up then I'm sure I used every bit of it 75mph from a 2.25P 88" in ovedrive is perfectly achievable given a bit of run up space

Some may argue that all the benefits FWH are sold on, less noise, less drag, less tyre wear, less axle component wear is simply a matter of masking symptoms of problems that may have developed, such a worn out rumbling front prop or tired diff for example.

I have to agree with Escape re trailer maneouvering in low. While the does load the axle more if you aren't sensible, it is in my mind far preferable to the axle wind up you would incur in 4wd low. I don't know about anyone else but I reverse trailers with care and precision. If I know something requires gentle treatment then that is how it is.

I guess we're really talking about the difference in mentality between people that operate their own machinery and that of the rag the nuts of the company van merchants.

[Snagger]

Snagger you seem to have had a real bad time with FWH to make you feel so anti them.

I have had vehicles that came with FWH already fitted,one with the AVM type and another with the Fairey type, and never had any complaints with either as I maintained them well. They didn't leak either, just about the onlt bit on the LR that didn't mmind you. Both these were daily drivers that did reasonable mileage.

Yes it is necessary to engage them periodically to keep the king pins lubricated, one way to work once a week is enough for this.

I seriously doubt they helped my fuel economy, if there was any power freed up then I'm sure I used every bit of it 75mph from a 2.25P 88" in ovedrive is perfectly achievable given a bit of run up space

Some may argue that all the benefits FWH are sold on, less noise, less drag, less tyre wear, less axle component wear is simply a matter of masking symptoms of problems that may have developed, such a worn out rumbling front prop or tired diff for example.

I have to agree with Escape re trailer maneouvering in low. While the does load the axle more if you aren't sensible, it is in my mind far preferable to the axle wind up you would incur in 4wd low. I don't know about anyone else but I reverse trailers with care and precision. If I know something requires gentle treatment then that is how it is.

I guess we're really talking about the difference in mentality between people that operate their own machinery and that of the rag the nuts of the company van merchants.

I didn't have that bad an experience - one just started leaking oil after about a year. I just found absolutely no benefit what so ever, and combined with the (not uncommon) failed o-ring and the need to periodically engage them for axle lubrication and the one time I needed to get dirty to engage them when I had to unexpectedly use 4wd made it clear that they are a con rather than a pro. They're not a cheap item to buy, and with so many negatives with no discernible positives, I don't like to see others waste their money.

I can see your point regarding the slow maneouvering, and some people may do this often enough to be worth the expense of the hubs, but relatively few prospective FWH buyers are looking at them for this reason - they all expect the performance and economy benefits that just aren't there.

[Escape]

Yes, but then you're putting a huge amount of torque through just one prop shaft and axle. It shouldn't be a problem if you're very gentle, but I find the clutch too imprecise in 1st low and find the vehicle tends to lurch, so torque loadings are going to tend to be quite sharp and suffer reversals. Couple that to heavy loads (ie lots of resistance) and you could be asking too much of the diffs or shafts in the long run, especially if behind a V8, Tdi or other similar transplanted engine.

The torque through the prop and axle would not be that much greater. The way I see it, most of the time the benefit of manoevering in low is not having to let the clutch slip to keep the speed down. On the occasions you actually need a lot of torque to get the load moving, the torque on the wheels will not increase, it's only on the side of the engine and more importantly the clutch that the lower gears will have an effect, allowing you to apply the same traction effort in low at idle as opposed to in high at revs with a slipping clutch.

I do agree you have to be a bit more carefull to achieve smooth starts in low, although a heavy load will also act as a dampener to some extent.

[nickjaxe]

Rather than en-gauge the hubs....I wonder if its ok just to en-gauge 4 wheel high hubs unlocked...to save getting out and messing with them,

I have them on my S3 and find it quieter and smoother....no idea if it helps MPG....but I see no reason why it shouldn't.

Nick.

[Daan]

I always had them on my series, and I loved them. Less noisy and less draggy. I had grease nipples fitted to the front kingpins to get round the lubrication issue, which had the added effect of making the steering very light.

Daan

[Daan]

even though its the road wheels turning them.

Nick.

That is the biggest problem you are trying to solve though. it is incredibly inefficient to drive a crown wheel pinion in this direction. Hence, if you have permanent 4wd, it is not such a problem.

Daan

[Snagger]

The torque through the prop and axle would not be that much greater. The way I see it, most of the time the benefit of manoevering in low is not having to let the clutch slip to keep the speed down. On the occasions you actually need a lot of torque to get the load moving, the torque on the wheels will not increase, it's only on the side of the engine and more importantly the clutch that the lower gears will have an effect, allowing you to apply the same traction effort in low at idle as opposed to in high at revs with a slipping clutch.

I do agree you have to be a bit more carefull to achieve smooth starts in low, although a heavy load will also act as a dampener to some extent.

Lower gears do produce more torque at the wheels, and thus through the entire transmission - that's the whole point of having low gears. If you're very light on the throttle, then the engine will be producing very little torque and so the step up through the gearing will still be well within the rear transmission's capacity, which is what I suspect you're trying to say.

My point is, as I said above, that most people don't consider FWH for that application; they consider them for improved performance or economy and the FWH simply don't provide either. For most people, the negatives outweigh the positives.

[Escape]

Lower gears do produce more torque at the wheels, and thus through the entire transmission - that's the whole point of having low gears. If you're very light on the throttle, then the engine will be producing very little torque and so the step up through the gearing will still be well within the rear transmission's capacity, which is what I suspect you're trying to say.

No, what I'm trying to say is that the torque at the wheels is determined by the load (ex manoevering a trailer). Regardless of gear, you need the same traction effort and thus torque to move a given load. By using lower gears, the engine input for the same output (talking only about torque/force, not power) is smaller, so the total load on the transmission will not increase and the lower speeds should provide better control, so less risque of shock loads.

Off course, this only applies as long as the car is capable of handling the load in high range. If low is needed because there isn't enough torque availble in high, than the load on driveshafts etc will naturally be greater as well, but then there is no alternative either.

Filip

[Snagger]

No, what I'm trying to say is that the torque at the wheels is determined by the load (ex manoevering a trailer). Regardless of gear, you need the same traction effort and thus torque to move a given load. By using lower gears, the engine input for the same output (talking only about torque/force, not power) is smaller, so the total load on the transmission will not increase and the lower speeds should provide better control, so less risque of shock loads.

Off course, this only applies as long as the car is capable of handling the load in high range. If low is needed because there isn't enough torque availble in high, than the load on driveshafts etc will naturally be greater as well, but then there is no alternative either.

Filip

I see where you're coming from, now, and that makes perfect sense. As long as you are very gentle with the throttle and avoid use of more than 1/2 throttle with engine upgrades, things should be fine. It's a matter of using as little torque as required by the load rather than using the torque available from the engine.