De Ranged Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Got the front axle under the camper but I need to set ride height for the front axle suspension mounts (so the rubber mounts are neutral at ride height) Have used the top of the center drop section as level with the floor, and there for the level of the truck ... just thought I'd confirm this with some of the more knowledgeable as it looks like the front axle has alot less room for up travel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 LandRover chassis build tolerances are notoriously slack. Never assume symmetry from side to side or consistency from one vehicle to another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheesy Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Sounds like a reasonable assumption, remember there is also the sump in the front which may have been part of the reason for less travel. The front springs are shorter too (I think) which would limit things a bit as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted December 19, 2014 Author Share Posted December 19, 2014 I've noticed that Bill lol then add in previous rust repairs and warpage from what I've done.... but all that said it is a datum and best I've got to work off floor level isn't an option (my workshop used to be an old pet food plant so the floor is slopped to drain, and to make it worse the truck is sitting on a corner where three areas drain too...) kinda funny when I see these american builds with there big heavy UB chassis tables that are ground flat, I'm working off jack stands with bits of offcuts as packers/shims a collection of magnets to hold my straight edge in place, a couple of plumb bobs and a digital level Been doing a bit of research from the plans I've found on line.... my assumption is right, so after lunch I'll be heading in to weld it in place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woop Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Im definitely with Bill on this one--the tolerances for Landrover chassis are terrible. Im currently widening a Series 3 109 chassis to accommodate Nissan leaf sprung axles and have found none of dimensions listed from the factory are even close to spec-some varying by nearly 25mm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted December 20, 2014 Author Share Posted December 20, 2014 That makes me feel a bit happier Woop as mine is different hights (on a side view of the chassis) to the online dimensions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woop Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Thats exactly the same problem i've found also in my measurements. Also the axle centreline measurements differ significantly between the left and right chassis rails. Ive found this is due to the rear spring, front outrigger being incorrectly positioned on the chassis and, on the front, the RHS front spring mount has also been not positioned correctly. All the welds look original so can only assume it came from the factory this way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondjeremy Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 A number of Land Rover's metric conversions as printed alongside imperial dimensions on the chassis diagram as printed in the workshop manual are NOT correct. And some S3 diagrams show the engine crossmember in the wrong place or something. (Took me about 1/2 hour to rumble why I couldn't get a couple of measurements right. Haynes was RIGHT!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Ranged Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 I found more rust that needs replaring yesterday... that kinda destroyed my motivation (that and the heat lol) so I started measuring up all the chassis's I have here SII shorty, SIII shorty, S11a long and half of another SIIa long lol yea..... if I'd done this right at the start I wouldn't have bothered being picky.... the worst measurement was chassis width from 760mm to 830mm, floor resting tabs, the loops that support the floor and deck.... non of them matched between floor and deck closest was the Sii shorty at 0.7 degrees difference now this might sound picky but lets consider the roof on a 109" with a 1.0 degree difference that is around 1 1/2"s of miss-alignment at one end or the other... its no bloody wonder they leak lol After measuring all this two things stood out.... I'm not going to be picky lol about where my datum level is (I've just picked a section of the cabin floor that matches both sides and that will be it) currently got a piece of box section sitting there as a straight edge to measure off Second I'm going to remove all the rear deck mounts and re-weld them in parallel as they were 0.8 degree's out of true with the floor lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 When I decided to fabricate a solid front bumper for my Series IIA "toy", I really didn't know what level to match it to. Nothing really matched anything else. Mind you, this one has had replacement (possibly home-made) front legs and very wobbly guards. In the end, I decided if I jacked the car so it looked level and I made the bumper level to the floor, it would be good enough. It is. I suppose! I like it that way - I can always shift the blame away from my appalling workshop skills and blame the factory... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 I don't think box sections formed from 4 thin plates welded on all corners over the entire length have got a hope in hell of ending up square, straight and consistent. Surely there were better and cheaper ways of making chassis in 1948, even allowing for Rover's claim that there was no money available for press dies and other tooling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I don't think box sections formed from 4 thin plates welded on all corners over the entire length have got a hope in hell of ending up square, straight and consistent. Surely there were better and cheaper ways of making chassis in 1948, even allowing for Rover's claim that there was no money available for press dies and other tooling. Well, it worked! To the tune of a couple of million Land Rovers. It's not like the suspension systems, steering systems or even braking system early on were going to notice a degree or two of chassis alignment error... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woop Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 De Ranged, ive had similar differences in width with the S3 109 chassis that im working on. And alignment left to right is just as bad. I've now used a piece of solid round bar machined down to the same dimension as the front chassis bushes, pressed in place of the front chassis bushes to keep the 2 rails in some sort of parallel. The 2 rails even vary in width quite a fair bit from front to rear! 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.