Hi Nick, I am intrigued by the "big round thing under the new Defender"
We only get the crappy old Rover diffs in new Defenders nowadays. Have thay finally done something positive for a change.
The last few days i have started thinking again about building something similar to the Roadless. I remember as a lad back in the 1960's seeing Studebakers and Gmc's being used in the logging industy carry payloads up to 4 times their military 2.5 ton capacity, and they seemed to cope quite well. American privateers tend to use double reduction Rockwell axles when building large wheeled compact 4x4's, but these are very bulky and difficult to put under a Landey without raising its profile excessively. I think a Studebaker front axle at 6.6:1 is much more compact (one advantage of the split type diffs) and strong enough to use without hub reduction. extra gearing can be gained by fitting a different gearbox and T/case, ie Ford truck gearbox 6.55:1 1st gear LT230 T/case
3.320 low range as low as 1.66 high range. My calculator is missing ,but overall would exceed the 120:1 of the Roadless.
I do have a set of 101 swivel balls that I flanged some years ago for the conversion mentioned in a previous post on this thread, but I found that I could strengthen the series 3 v8 swivels to be more than strong enough.
They used to crack just outside the flange because of the silly 3 inch diameter hole to fit a 30,000lb capacity bearing just to support a 20lb halfshaft.
If you think your roadless or 101 is difficult to get out of when parked over a depression. try a CJ7 jeep on Volvo portals and 39 inch tyres.
Regards, Bill
Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
ULTIMATE LAND ROVER
Moderator: Micka
Sorry dave I made a mistake.I assume you mean Tim Hood, No I don't have any photos's of Tims truck yet, We sat the Jeep body on the chassis a few weeks ago. The stepover sills are a mile off the ground even though the overall vehicle height is close to my Landey. He found a steering box from a Prado I think that fitted the same as the 60 series but turned in the correct direction so everything is looking fine.
Regards Bill.
Regards Bill.
Hi Bill...
The 'big round thing' diff I have seen under a friends truck is, I'm told, a
replacement for the old 8HA......& I may have seen a reference to some
new diff/axle fitted to new Rangies (38As) on another thread....??
I wonder if it could be the same..? There are no 38A's down here.
I will try & photograph this one...but it looks the business, with a well-offset pinion entry line (suggesting to me that some substantial stuff was inside....looks like a cross between an ENV & a Rover..)
Thwaites dumpers have got what looks like a compact planetary hub on their 1 & 2 ton dumpers too...
I was interested in what you listed for possible construction parts for a replica....don't know if any are available where you are, or if they are that easy to find now, but Series IIb/SeriesIII 1-Ton transfer cases are very low-cogged, with helical cut gears....maybe their Hi would be a bit low for you...??
I will try & contact an e-friend I was corresponding with in Norway last year (& met briefly whilst in UK at the last Dunsfold weekend) He was very keen to build a replica too & had been to see Jim Cushleys truck in Scotland....we've sort-of lost touch, over what was a rather intense summer/autumn period for us work-wise (& when my correspondence goes all to hell..)
But he'd be interested in this thread too I think.....
Personally, had time permitted, I would have dearly loved to have built a replica of the 'even-rarer-than-the-Roadless' Land Rover 129" 2-ton truck
(of which Dunsfold has one of two survivors of five built..) I went to see this truck above all others last year...as I realized that many 101" components would do the job....& I just happen to have a complete truck cab/frontend assembly lifted off a IIa fire engine chassis sitting on a 101"
rolling chassis for storage purposes....!!! (&...does it look the part or what...!!)
I've attached some more pics of other trucks, & included it as well...a 'borrowed' web pic I hasten to add as I only have it on film pics
myself...
The 'big round thing' diff I have seen under a friends truck is, I'm told, a
replacement for the old 8HA......& I may have seen a reference to some
new diff/axle fitted to new Rangies (38As) on another thread....??
I wonder if it could be the same..? There are no 38A's down here.
I will try & photograph this one...but it looks the business, with a well-offset pinion entry line (suggesting to me that some substantial stuff was inside....looks like a cross between an ENV & a Rover..)
Thwaites dumpers have got what looks like a compact planetary hub on their 1 & 2 ton dumpers too...
I was interested in what you listed for possible construction parts for a replica....don't know if any are available where you are, or if they are that easy to find now, but Series IIb/SeriesIII 1-Ton transfer cases are very low-cogged, with helical cut gears....maybe their Hi would be a bit low for you...??
I will try & contact an e-friend I was corresponding with in Norway last year (& met briefly whilst in UK at the last Dunsfold weekend) He was very keen to build a replica too & had been to see Jim Cushleys truck in Scotland....we've sort-of lost touch, over what was a rather intense summer/autumn period for us work-wise (& when my correspondence goes all to hell..)
But he'd be interested in this thread too I think.....
Personally, had time permitted, I would have dearly loved to have built a replica of the 'even-rarer-than-the-Roadless' Land Rover 129" 2-ton truck
(of which Dunsfold has one of two survivors of five built..) I went to see this truck above all others last year...as I realized that many 101" components would do the job....& I just happen to have a complete truck cab/frontend assembly lifted off a IIa fire engine chassis sitting on a 101"
rolling chassis for storage purposes....!!! (&...does it look the part or what...!!)
I've attached some more pics of other trucks, & included it as well...a 'borrowed' web pic I hasten to add as I only have it on film pics
myself...
The 129 is an interesting truck Nick (and rare), but I have always thought it is a bit ugly.
If I was building a Roadless replica (and I still might) - I would use 35spline salisburies front and rear. The costs might add up but they would be similar to most other options. The spec would be something like...
Widened and significantly strengthened Salisbury axle tubes
7.17:1 Dana 60 CW&P front and rear
Macnamara 35 Spline (1.5-1.7" diam???) Hytuf axles, stub axles, drive flanges and lockers.
The front end could either be D60 open knuckles (which Sam is using in his buggy) or longfielded 101 CV's in custom swivel balls.
The only hard part would be fitting big enough brakes, and if the wheel bearings would be up to the task.
With an LT95 Box/T-case you would have about 100:1 first low, (which should be OK) but there are box and T-case options. With an R380/LT230 and Mal's forthcoming 40% reduction you would be on 125.5:1, which is very close to the factory ratio of the Roadless. Using a IIA box and T-case with suffix B TC gears you would only be on 75:1.
If I was building a Roadless replica (and I still might) - I would use 35spline salisburies front and rear. The costs might add up but they would be similar to most other options. The spec would be something like...
Widened and significantly strengthened Salisbury axle tubes
7.17:1 Dana 60 CW&P front and rear
Macnamara 35 Spline (1.5-1.7" diam???) Hytuf axles, stub axles, drive flanges and lockers.
The front end could either be D60 open knuckles (which Sam is using in his buggy) or longfielded 101 CV's in custom swivel balls.
The only hard part would be fitting big enough brakes, and if the wheel bearings would be up to the task.
With an LT95 Box/T-case you would have about 100:1 first low, (which should be OK) but there are box and T-case options. With an R380/LT230 and Mal's forthcoming 40% reduction you would be on 125.5:1, which is very close to the factory ratio of the Roadless. Using a IIA box and T-case with suffix B TC gears you would only be on 75:1.
Last edited by ISUZUROVER on Wed Jul 07, 2004 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_____________________________________________________________
RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
hey ben, i to have thought about this and sals f&r would be good, could you adapt some reduction hubs(planetry) from some tractor or back hoe. using there brakes as well. with this stud pattern you would be able to fit big f@#k off wheels. as far as brakes, would big drums drilled out like the old 1920 race cars etc be any good( check out the old auto union silver arrows, brakes must be about 18 inches dia). if money was easy, mals rear wheel steer as well, 101 cv's f&r. with the rear steer you could keep the track width the same . starting to become a skidder
serg
serg
Hi Nick, I am not familiar with thwaites site dumpers here in OZ and the other 4wd dumpers I have seen appear to have dana 60 or Salisbury diffs without hub reduction. Ben ,although the Salisbury is pretty strong, when you get down lower than 4:7 :1 the pinion gets quite small and I seriously doubt that they would be up to the job of turning 50' tyres without hub reduction. The problem with planetary hubs is that most of the ones i have looked at have reductions of around 4;1 which means ideally you would be looking at a light compact diff of about 3:1 to allow a reasonable roadspeed. A very good diff available in that ratio is the borgwarner as used in Ford falcons and some chrysler vehicles. Problem is I dont think anyone manufactures difflocks for these. Another set of components I considered years ago were the complete hub and brake assemblies from the British Daimler Ferret armoured cars. Any over in the Falklands Nick?
I dont know what the planetary ratio is but many of the Ferret components were made of magnesium which would go some way towards keeping unsprung weight to acceptable levels. most of the people I contacted years ago about obtaining ferret parts thought that my plans were sacrilage and wouldn't sell them to me, so thats when I started looking at cut down Leyland Tipper hubs.
Each to their own I guess but I have always liked the look of the 129 inch landy. Bill.
I dont know what the planetary ratio is but many of the Ferret components were made of magnesium which would go some way towards keeping unsprung weight to acceptable levels. most of the people I contacted years ago about obtaining ferret parts thought that my plans were sacrilage and wouldn't sell them to me, so thats when I started looking at cut down Leyland Tipper hubs.
Each to their own I guess but I have always liked the look of the 129 inch landy. Bill.
uninformed wrote:hey ben, i to have thought about this and sals f&r would be good, could you adapt some reduction hubs(planetry) from some tractor or back hoe. using there brakes as well. with this stud pattern you would be able to fit big f@#k off wheels. as far as brakes, would big drums drilled out like the old 1920 race cars etc be any good( check out the old auto union silver arrows, brakes must be about 18 inches dia). if money was easy, mals rear wheel steer as well, 101 cv's f&r. with the rear steer you could keep the track width the same . starting to become a skidder
serg
Serg - adapting some planetary hubs may be a good idea but only if it means you can keep 24 spline (smaller) axles to reduce costs. The 23 spline alloy axles and locker from Mal are about $1200 an end, which is a lot cheaper than 35 spline locker, stub axles, axles and drive flanges from Jacmac. But finding the planetary hubs is the hard part. You would have to switch to 3.54 ratios too, which have a different diff centre from the 4.7.
_____________________________________________________________
RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
daddylonglegs wrote:Ben ,although the Salisbury is pretty strong, when you get down lower than 4:7 :1 the pinion gets quite small and I seriously doubt that they would be up to the job of turning 50' tyres without hub reduction.
Bill, there are plenty of people in the US running at least as low as 5:1 and turning wide 44's. without problems. If pinion strength is a problem with low ratios you could always run a dual T-case, and use one case in low range permanently (of some other driveline reduction).
_____________________________________________________________
RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
Hi Ben, 5.58 :1{ 101) is a long way from 7.17 :1 in terms of pinion size and strength, and 44 inch tyres are still a fair way from 50 inch in terms of leverage.
Years ago one of the blokes who purchased ex military 101's fond that his engine was partially seized fro condensation in the cylinders. They thought if they towed the truck aroud in gear and occaisionally let the clutch out, they may be able to free it. The end result was one stripped diff pinion. as you know from the bad old days of Rover rear diffs a small increase ine tyre diameter was usually accompanied by a big increase in
diff axle faliures. a shorty would go reliably for years on 6.00x16's, but on 7.50's was was almost useless if you expected to do any real work with it.
Which brings up the point of the guys in the US running 44's.
Most of the vehicles I have seen and read about on 44's are Show ponies
and if you really used them for serious work, towing heavy trailers around
the farm or driving over severe terrain with difflocks etc would fail.
Just as with Volvos, the Salisbury is a good strong diff, but lets not overestimate its abilities.
regards bill.
Years ago one of the blokes who purchased ex military 101's fond that his engine was partially seized fro condensation in the cylinders. They thought if they towed the truck aroud in gear and occaisionally let the clutch out, they may be able to free it. The end result was one stripped diff pinion. as you know from the bad old days of Rover rear diffs a small increase ine tyre diameter was usually accompanied by a big increase in
diff axle faliures. a shorty would go reliably for years on 6.00x16's, but on 7.50's was was almost useless if you expected to do any real work with it.
Which brings up the point of the guys in the US running 44's.
Most of the vehicles I have seen and read about on 44's are Show ponies
and if you really used them for serious work, towing heavy trailers around
the farm or driving over severe terrain with difflocks etc would fail.
Just as with Volvos, the Salisbury is a good strong diff, but lets not overestimate its abilities.
regards bill.
Yes Bill I agree that 5.57:1 is a long way from 7.17:1, but 6.17:1 is not so different and would work as well. And also 44's are a lot smaller than 50's - all is true. The people in the states who run 48's and 50's generally all use rockwells - but there are plenty of people who run 42's and 44's on D60's that use them hard off road. Sam (strangerover) was running 42's on Scout D44's in the previous incarnation of his Mogrover. But you are right there are probably better axles for the application.
As an aside, I think with standard series engines the 4.7 diffs in a SWB IIA are fine with 7.50's. I built an 88" IIA for my father many years ago (7.50's since first built), and it has been subjected to lots of hard work - including a fair bit of 4x4ing, pulling heavy concrete blocks out of the ground, and pulling out a lot of tree stumps. All of which are hard on the rear diff. It has broken a couple of halfshafts, but that is all. It did also break the threaded end off a rear pinion but the pinion and crownwheel teeth were fine - and it was just after oil seal replacement so I think the nut was just overtorqued. I have a friend with a stock ex military IIA 109", with 7.50's that has been used heavily offroad for over 15 years. I think in that time he has only broken 2 diffs, but he is very mechanically sympathetic in his driving. I think that the rear rover 4.7 in a series if properly set up and well lubricated is fine for 7.50's.
As an aside, I think with standard series engines the 4.7 diffs in a SWB IIA are fine with 7.50's. I built an 88" IIA for my father many years ago (7.50's since first built), and it has been subjected to lots of hard work - including a fair bit of 4x4ing, pulling heavy concrete blocks out of the ground, and pulling out a lot of tree stumps. All of which are hard on the rear diff. It has broken a couple of halfshafts, but that is all. It did also break the threaded end off a rear pinion but the pinion and crownwheel teeth were fine - and it was just after oil seal replacement so I think the nut was just overtorqued. I have a friend with a stock ex military IIA 109", with 7.50's that has been used heavily offroad for over 15 years. I think in that time he has only broken 2 diffs, but he is very mechanically sympathetic in his driving. I think that the rear rover 4.7 in a series if properly set up and well lubricated is fine for 7.50's.
_____________________________________________________________
RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
Hi Ben. I have to say that before I converted to salisbury diffs front and rear ,prior to the portal coversion, I had very little success with the Rover 4.7 diffs for work on my 45 acre bush block, pulling fallen and cut trees out of the bush, trailers around etc pulling in both forward and reverse. The Sals were faultless for this work but I was only running 9.00x16 tyres.
I have been thinking about what you said about running say the big pinion 3.54 :1 diffs and doubling the T/case, but I do not feel qualified enough to know iff applying the extra required reduction before the diff would have the same effect strengthwise as using the very low ratio ring and pinions.
I know I suggested much the same thing if using Studebaker diffs, but they are much bigger than the Salisbury, the trucks had larger more torquey engines and were considerably heavier than Landies, so the extra permanent reduction should be well within their capacity to handle.
Perhaps John G could answer the question of strength of low ratio ring and pinions verses high ratio ring and pinions with permanent pre reduction.
Regards Bill.
I have been thinking about what you said about running say the big pinion 3.54 :1 diffs and doubling the T/case, but I do not feel qualified enough to know iff applying the extra required reduction before the diff would have the same effect strengthwise as using the very low ratio ring and pinions.
I know I suggested much the same thing if using Studebaker diffs, but they are much bigger than the Salisbury, the trucks had larger more torquey engines and were considerably heavier than Landies, so the extra permanent reduction should be well within their capacity to handle.
Perhaps John G could answer the question of strength of low ratio ring and pinions verses high ratio ring and pinions with permanent pre reduction.
Regards Bill.
Hi...!
I did do a (fairly detailed) response to all last night....but somehow 'lost' it
.....generator was about to go off so did'nt have time to redo it...
No Bill, no Ferret armoured cars got down here.....in fact, I think that they would have been well out of service by '82.
The 101" is on 18" rims....the older tyres are Dunlops, (12.50's x 34" tall) & the new ones are 12.00's & 36" tall.
Rims are a mixture of 2-Ton Thwaites & JCB 3CX, re-centred with 101" &
S404 pcd's.
The duals are 7.50x16 on 101" rims (2 each) One has centre knocked out
& carries tyre, the other has short bead cut off & long bead welded to the other rim. They mount on the same wheelstuds as main wheels, reaching through the bigger wheel & instead of long studs, I used 6 wheelstep nuts each so they can be dropped off without disturbing the other wheel or jacking truck up...they also only grip as ground softens, thus reducing dry ground & road 'drag'.
Regarding brakes for 'replica' Roadless's, I would venture to sugest that
Ferguson 20 Series tractor backplates, shoes & re-worked drums would do if drums were desireable; operated by truck type slave cyls.
If bigger ones were required, Bedford R & J Series brakes may well do the trick.
Discs could be relatively easily made up with commercially available bits.
When I try & get these diff pics, if there's time, I'll try & get a front wheel off for a better veiw of the swivel/hub/brake assy.
I did do a (fairly detailed) response to all last night....but somehow 'lost' it
.....generator was about to go off so did'nt have time to redo it...
No Bill, no Ferret armoured cars got down here.....in fact, I think that they would have been well out of service by '82.
The 101" is on 18" rims....the older tyres are Dunlops, (12.50's x 34" tall) & the new ones are 12.00's & 36" tall.
Rims are a mixture of 2-Ton Thwaites & JCB 3CX, re-centred with 101" &
S404 pcd's.
The duals are 7.50x16 on 101" rims (2 each) One has centre knocked out
& carries tyre, the other has short bead cut off & long bead welded to the other rim. They mount on the same wheelstuds as main wheels, reaching through the bigger wheel & instead of long studs, I used 6 wheelstep nuts each so they can be dropped off without disturbing the other wheel or jacking truck up...they also only grip as ground softens, thus reducing dry ground & road 'drag'.
Regarding brakes for 'replica' Roadless's, I would venture to sugest that
Ferguson 20 Series tractor backplates, shoes & re-worked drums would do if drums were desireable; operated by truck type slave cyls.
If bigger ones were required, Bedford R & J Series brakes may well do the trick.
Discs could be relatively easily made up with commercially available bits.
When I try & get these diff pics, if there's time, I'll try & get a front wheel off for a better veiw of the swivel/hub/brake assy.
Thanks for the info Nick - brake and hub pics would be great.
How can those tyres you mentioned be so small - wouldn't they be more like 44" than 34"???
Bill - it seems like the 6.17's and 7.17's are much stronger than you suggest - I put a thread up on pirate to see who is running them. The thread is here.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=265208
Biggest tyres size so far are 45's it seems, but these trucks are no show ponies, and run low gearing and big (by LR standards) engines.
How can those tyres you mentioned be so small - wouldn't they be more like 44" than 34"???
Bill - it seems like the 6.17's and 7.17's are much stronger than you suggest - I put a thread up on pirate to see who is running them. The thread is here.
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=265208
Biggest tyres size so far are 45's it seems, but these trucks are no show ponies, and run low gearing and big (by LR standards) engines.
_____________________________________________________________
RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
Hi, Nick I used to run a very similar dual wheel concept as yours It was very successful and I used it for a few years until I got tired of getting hassled by the police. My main wheels were 280 85x16 and my auxiliary wheels were 7.50x16. I originally mounted the smaller wheels outboard, but this made for spooky handling when driving over uneven tarmac or cornering quickly when the smaller wheels would make contact with the road and the combined dual wheel assembly would behave like a cone.
I later made up some dedicated inner rims with about 10 inches of negative offset and mounted the 7.50's on those. The handling problem disappeared . I set it up so that the tyres on the inner wheels just cleared the sides of the chassis rails on full articulation. The very narrow inside wheel track that resulted meant that the cross axle ramp angle was extreme and even with Salisbury diffs front and rear it was very rare that the truck could not straddle , bridge or waddle over the deepest, most eroded wheelruts and erosion gullys. I had a similar set for the front axle with different offset to allow full steering lock. I once drove up a very steep, dangerous and ugly track where the wheel ruts and erosion gullys crisscrossed each other and were up to 1 metre deep. This track had not been successfully driven even by the most capable of built up vehicles for more than five years, and could only be attempted after driving down it from the top, turning around at bottom and then making the attempt.
because the descent was so steep and dangerous it took 20 minutes to complete in low 1 crawler box. but much to my and onlookers surprise I completed the climb in 4 minutes flat. The truck was amazing and treated
deep ruts with contempt. I would go back to that setup even in preference to my current portal axle arrangement.
Ben, if you are correct about the strength of those Dana's, it would be very easy for me because I still have my old salisbury front and rear axle assemblies, flanged 101 swivels and Cv's, 35 spline side gears etc.
All I would need to do is machine up some bolt on, deeply spigoted spacers to go between the axle housings and spindles/swivels, make axle trusses, Halfshafts and I 'm away.
Regards Bill
I later made up some dedicated inner rims with about 10 inches of negative offset and mounted the 7.50's on those. The handling problem disappeared . I set it up so that the tyres on the inner wheels just cleared the sides of the chassis rails on full articulation. The very narrow inside wheel track that resulted meant that the cross axle ramp angle was extreme and even with Salisbury diffs front and rear it was very rare that the truck could not straddle , bridge or waddle over the deepest, most eroded wheelruts and erosion gullys. I had a similar set for the front axle with different offset to allow full steering lock. I once drove up a very steep, dangerous and ugly track where the wheel ruts and erosion gullys crisscrossed each other and were up to 1 metre deep. This track had not been successfully driven even by the most capable of built up vehicles for more than five years, and could only be attempted after driving down it from the top, turning around at bottom and then making the attempt.
because the descent was so steep and dangerous it took 20 minutes to complete in low 1 crawler box. but much to my and onlookers surprise I completed the climb in 4 minutes flat. The truck was amazing and treated
deep ruts with contempt. I would go back to that setup even in preference to my current portal axle arrangement.
Ben, if you are correct about the strength of those Dana's, it would be very easy for me because I still have my old salisbury front and rear axle assemblies, flanged 101 swivels and Cv's, 35 spline side gears etc.
All I would need to do is machine up some bolt on, deeply spigoted spacers to go between the axle housings and spindles/swivels, make axle trusses, Halfshafts and I 'm away.
Regards Bill
Bill, from the replies on pirate the R&P's seem to be very solid - In fact the only problems mentioned have been with the ring gear, not the pinion. Apparently the 6.17 and 7.17 have exactly the same pinion, and the 6.17 apparently has the thickest ring gear teeth of all D60 ratios. The 6.17 sounds a bit stronger than the 7.17, but most people seem to have attributed any 7.17 crownwheel problems to poor maintanance, or high heat from highway running - and Dan Dibble - the guy who seems to have had most of the problems, has no problem breaking 2.5t rockwell axles on his new buggy!!! So they seem to hold up to some serious abuse. I think that with narrow tractor tyres and a small engine you would have a hard time breaking things.
I think the hardest and most expensive thing is to sort out the front end. D60 front open knuckles would be the strongest but are practically unavailable in Australia. So 101 CV's would be the next best thing but for series swivel balls that can fit the CV's Mal Has to CNC them specially from a solid block of 4140 and have them heat treated and hard chromed - not cheap. DO you have a better way for the front end???
I think I have to talk to my engineer in Brisbane and see what he thinks about QLD transport approval...
I think the hardest and most expensive thing is to sort out the front end. D60 front open knuckles would be the strongest but are practically unavailable in Australia. So 101 CV's would be the next best thing but for series swivel balls that can fit the CV's Mal Has to CNC them specially from a solid block of 4140 and have them heat treated and hard chromed - not cheap. DO you have a better way for the front end???
I think I have to talk to my engineer in Brisbane and see what he thinks about QLD transport approval...
_____________________________________________________________
RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
The interesting thing about the Roadless swivels is that they were never chromed....they have a big felt strip pinned in by the same kind of lip-seal retaining ring as usual...& with this semi liquid (crawler-track roller..?) grease that you get for C/V assemblies these days.....they just dont really leak at all....
Your dual-wheel experiences are interesting Bill....shades of here in the mid-80s....we all got quite into using split rims as adapters & all that sort of thing....my IIb has its duals made using S1 splits, & am trying at present to get enough wheels to double up our Eager Beaver forklift.
We run the outer tyres soft when wheels are same size, this eases bearing/stub stresses......especially as IIb's have their rear springs nearly at the backplates anyway..!!
Your dual-wheel experiences are interesting Bill....shades of here in the mid-80s....we all got quite into using split rims as adapters & all that sort of thing....my IIb has its duals made using S1 splits, & am trying at present to get enough wheels to double up our Eager Beaver forklift.
We run the outer tyres soft when wheels are same size, this eases bearing/stub stresses......especially as IIb's have their rear springs nearly at the backplates anyway..!!
Completely (or mostly) off topic, someone at work managed to break a 60 ton Rockwell axle today. 27:1 with planetary hubs. They were doing tyre continuous load testing with around 80000 lbs on a single tyre. Kinda mentioned before that they should stay under the rating of the axle. Isn't apart yet, but we figure they collapsed the bearings. Ran for a couple of hours like that (nobody around). Managed to burn the paint off of everything. Amazingly the tyre is still OK. Rim was up to 110C, inside of tyre (water filled) was up to 92 C.
Hi Ben. Welding flanges onto 101 swivel balls , even if you can find a front end is a difficult and tedious exercise. the flanges distort and go all wavey. It took me many hours of peening the welds with a ball pointed centre punch to get them true and flat again. If I were you I would try to get hold a front axle assembly from a 160 series international 4x4. Now this is where it can get a bit tricky. The 1600 series Inters have Dana 70 front axles with welded swivel balls and the same universals as the open knuckle dana 60's. They are 1.5 inch 35 spline inner and outer. The spindles look surprisingly small and not too strong , I think 101's are bigger. They are probably made of some very special steel. This axle widened out may be capable of doing the job and although stronger than a Dana 60 is not much bulkier,ie they use the same cover plate.
The earlier AB160 Inters have I think Eaton banjo front and rear diffs,and the swivel balls bolt on and look very similar to a large series Landy one.
These also have the Dana 60 size U joints but I cannot remember the spline count. These are the swivels, hubs and brakes I would recommend to use if you want to build a hybrid front axle assembly.or once again you could probably use the complete front end wdened out. The earlier again AA Inters also have bolt on swivels, but they are much larger and have a weird design of CV joint, the name of which I have forgotten. these are identified by a two piece bolt together outer swivel housing. Avoid this model at all costs !!
Nick, I think LandRover are the only company that used chrome plated swivel balls. I think they are the only vehicles that use oil in their swivels too. Bill.
The earlier AB160 Inters have I think Eaton banjo front and rear diffs,and the swivel balls bolt on and look very similar to a large series Landy one.
These also have the Dana 60 size U joints but I cannot remember the spline count. These are the swivels, hubs and brakes I would recommend to use if you want to build a hybrid front axle assembly.or once again you could probably use the complete front end wdened out. The earlier again AA Inters also have bolt on swivels, but they are much larger and have a weird design of CV joint, the name of which I have forgotten. these are identified by a two piece bolt together outer swivel housing. Avoid this model at all costs !!
Nick, I think LandRover are the only company that used chrome plated swivel balls. I think they are the only vehicles that use oil in their swivels too. Bill.
Hi Ben, I did go on Pirate for a couple of hours, and you are right. there is a lot of interesting tech there. (Sam seems to spend more time there than on Outerlimits}I may too from now on. Anyway I saw the thread you posted on 7.17' ring and pinions and going by the replies you got they may be ok. but sifting through some of the other threads it was mentioned on a few occasions that the steering UJ's are the weak link even with 39 to 40 inch tyres.
A bloke I know with Dana 60's front and rear in an early Jeep Cherokee Cheif has broken a number of these with 37's and he is an excellant driver who only uses brute force when absolutely necessary.
I do not know if 101 cv's are stronger, but looking at it from a purely engineering point of view, I can't see why they shouldn't be. In the straight ahead position a universal joint is only as strong as the shear strength of one of the legs of the cross shaft which is what? half a square inch of steel at a 1.5 inch radius from centre. Whereas a CV joint has the combined strength of 6 ball tracks at a similar radius.The strength of both drops of somewhat when you wind on a bit of steering lock,I may be wrong but I have a gut feeling that just short of full lock the CV may have the edge.
I also note that you thought there weren't too many Dana 70 axles in Oz.
Apart from the 1600 internationals, Ford F350's Dodge 1.5/2 tonners. Oka's{front and rear on later models} and a few others all have Dana 70's
I think until the UJ/CV joint issue is resolved beyond reasonable doubt it would be a risky proposition to go to the trouble and expense of modifying a set of non hub reduction axles in the hope that they May do the job regardless of what engine we are running. After all,To climb a 45degree gradient still requires X amount of torque at the wheels. whether you get that torque by having a ten litre engine and high gearing or with a 2.25 litre engine and lots of reduction is not that important. A straight diff axle assembly must be capable of coping with that torque, or you go to hub reduction. I feel that if the solution was simple then
Rover/Roadless would have gone that way rather than go to all the trouble and expense of the way they did it.
Regards Bill.
A bloke I know with Dana 60's front and rear in an early Jeep Cherokee Cheif has broken a number of these with 37's and he is an excellant driver who only uses brute force when absolutely necessary.
I do not know if 101 cv's are stronger, but looking at it from a purely engineering point of view, I can't see why they shouldn't be. In the straight ahead position a universal joint is only as strong as the shear strength of one of the legs of the cross shaft which is what? half a square inch of steel at a 1.5 inch radius from centre. Whereas a CV joint has the combined strength of 6 ball tracks at a similar radius.The strength of both drops of somewhat when you wind on a bit of steering lock,I may be wrong but I have a gut feeling that just short of full lock the CV may have the edge.
I also note that you thought there weren't too many Dana 70 axles in Oz.
Apart from the 1600 internationals, Ford F350's Dodge 1.5/2 tonners. Oka's{front and rear on later models} and a few others all have Dana 70's
I think until the UJ/CV joint issue is resolved beyond reasonable doubt it would be a risky proposition to go to the trouble and expense of modifying a set of non hub reduction axles in the hope that they May do the job regardless of what engine we are running. After all,To climb a 45degree gradient still requires X amount of torque at the wheels. whether you get that torque by having a ten litre engine and high gearing or with a 2.25 litre engine and lots of reduction is not that important. A straight diff axle assembly must be capable of coping with that torque, or you go to hub reduction. I feel that if the solution was simple then
Rover/Roadless would have gone that way rather than go to all the trouble and expense of the way they did it.
Regards Bill.
daddylonglegs wrote:Hi red 90, I remember reading something about a batch of LandRovers that were built for the Canadian Forestry Services that were very similar in concept to the Roadless Landey, but I got the impression that they were converted in Canada by a local firm using different axles.
any ideas? Bill.
This link is about all I've ever heard of it: http://www.offroadexperience.com/wcb/naspecials1.htm
daddylonglegs wrote:Hi Ben. I have to say that before I converted to salisbury diffs front and rear ,prior to the portal coversion, I had very little success with the Rover 4.7 diffs for work on my 45 acre bush block, pulling fallen and cut trees out of the bush, trailers around etc pulling in both forward and reverse. The Sals were faultless for this work but I was only running 9.00x16 tyres.
I have been thinking about what you said about running say the big pinion 3.54 :1 diffs and doubling the T/case, but I do not feel qualified enough to know iff applying the extra required reduction before the diff would have the same effect strengthwise as using the very low ratio ring and pinions.
I know I suggested much the same thing if using Studebaker diffs, but they are much bigger than the Salisbury, the trucks had larger more torquey engines and were considerably heavier than Landies, so the extra permanent reduction should be well within their capacity to handle.
Perhaps John G could answer the question of strength of low ratio ring and pinions verses high ratio ring and pinions with permanent pre reduction.
Regards Bill.
The main (but not only) reason that the smaller pinion is more likely to fail is because, for the same torque the load on the teeth is greater. Tangential tooth load = torque/tooth pitch radius
If you increase both the torque and the pinion size by the same proportion, the tooth load will be the same.
John
....That is a page copied from an article many years ago in the taken-over
UK magazine 'Overlander' written by Michael Green.
(Its a bit of a 'crock'...!!
..." journalistic license..!!" )
That is the only 'Southpaw' Roadless 109" built & apart from this one here, the only other one R/T knew of to have been exported. (Its a petrol one).
It spent some time under evaluation in Montana, before going to Canada,
(Where noone has yet come up with much of its story, but its remains are (allegedly) buried in the tip at Prince George B.C.)
....& before Ben grabs his spade & heads for the West Coast,
its also thought that the axles were not on it.......
Having read all the fascinating info you guys are putting up re Dana axles, is there anywhere one can get (or a web page to visit) where one can get a definitive i/d chart or guide to identifying the various types & models ......??? They don't exactly seem to be big on casting numbers
into casings, & whilst I know one when I see one, & know that the 'little'
numbers go with the smaller/lighter/shorter ones (as fitted to Jeeps, etc)
& the beefier longer ones have bigger numbers, what decides front/rear,
full/semi floats, etc....??
...& whats the equivalent Dana model to an 8HA Salisbury....?? Is there a lower ratio for this axle than fitted to 101"s?
I have to confess that if I wanted just a beefy (but not authentic-looking)
axle(s) for a Roadless replica, then the ZF series fitted to a number of
makes of tractor including Fords & Internationals thru' late '70s/mid '80's
would probably suffice....you would have a nice small diff, planetary hubs
...steering for both ends, self-locker diff centre as standard on later models (which...since its a 'Lock-Right', suggests that a fully lockable centre could be substituted, monster stubs/bearings, 8-stud hubs, well capable of handling some big feet....they hang terra tyres on them & they have to carry front end loaders....greasable everything (pins/joints),...& ...
...they may not be too expensive from a breakers yard.
Only thing to then sort out would be anchor moorings....they are un-braked....but the swivel castings have bolt points for mudguards that would be well up to holding callipers....which could work over 8-stud discs,
from a lorry, that would fit on the long tractor wheelstuds...?? Maybe..?
Or....you could go with the 'ferrari' logic;....you spend so long getting it all
going, you don't care about stopping.......
Our two later 4-WD Internationals have these....the german-built 744
doesnt have a locker diff, & its a l/h assy....the Doncaster 785 has a r/h
axle with locker.
Unlike the GMC on the B-450, these can't be flipped round....that was a fairly forward-thinking design feature of those axles to suit handed t/boxes
...& does anyone know where these originated....??
(I don't think they came from Marmon-Herrington, did they...?)
UK magazine 'Overlander' written by Michael Green.
(Its a bit of a 'crock'...!!
..." journalistic license..!!" )
That is the only 'Southpaw' Roadless 109" built & apart from this one here, the only other one R/T knew of to have been exported. (Its a petrol one).
It spent some time under evaluation in Montana, before going to Canada,
(Where noone has yet come up with much of its story, but its remains are (allegedly) buried in the tip at Prince George B.C.)
....& before Ben grabs his spade & heads for the West Coast,
its also thought that the axles were not on it.......
Having read all the fascinating info you guys are putting up re Dana axles, is there anywhere one can get (or a web page to visit) where one can get a definitive i/d chart or guide to identifying the various types & models ......??? They don't exactly seem to be big on casting numbers
into casings, & whilst I know one when I see one, & know that the 'little'
numbers go with the smaller/lighter/shorter ones (as fitted to Jeeps, etc)
& the beefier longer ones have bigger numbers, what decides front/rear,
full/semi floats, etc....??
...& whats the equivalent Dana model to an 8HA Salisbury....?? Is there a lower ratio for this axle than fitted to 101"s?
I have to confess that if I wanted just a beefy (but not authentic-looking)
axle(s) for a Roadless replica, then the ZF series fitted to a number of
makes of tractor including Fords & Internationals thru' late '70s/mid '80's
would probably suffice....you would have a nice small diff, planetary hubs
...steering for both ends, self-locker diff centre as standard on later models (which...since its a 'Lock-Right', suggests that a fully lockable centre could be substituted, monster stubs/bearings, 8-stud hubs, well capable of handling some big feet....they hang terra tyres on them & they have to carry front end loaders....greasable everything (pins/joints),...& ...
...they may not be too expensive from a breakers yard.
Only thing to then sort out would be anchor moorings....they are un-braked....but the swivel castings have bolt points for mudguards that would be well up to holding callipers....which could work over 8-stud discs,
from a lorry, that would fit on the long tractor wheelstuds...?? Maybe..?
Or....you could go with the 'ferrari' logic;....you spend so long getting it all
going, you don't care about stopping.......
Our two later 4-WD Internationals have these....the german-built 744
doesnt have a locker diff, & its a l/h assy....the Doncaster 785 has a r/h
axle with locker.
Unlike the GMC on the B-450, these can't be flipped round....that was a fairly forward-thinking design feature of those axles to suit handed t/boxes
...& does anyone know where these originated....??
(I don't think they came from Marmon-Herrington, did they...?)
Hi Nick, I have so many numbers and specs circulating inside my brain
(I rarely write anything down or make blueprints of the stuff I make) that I sometimes get all the information scrambled, but as for Sals and Dana equivelants, all I know is thatDana 44's are equivelant to the smaller salisbury diffs used in Volvo Lapladers(non portal) and many Jaguars.
The Dana 60 is equivelant to Salisbury 8ha as used in LandRovers, including 101, Stonefields, RB 44's, some english site dumpers etc.
I could be wrong but I do not think their is a Salibury eqivelant to the larger dana 70's or 80's. I am sure others can fill in the gaps.
Thanks John, you have confirmed my theory about relative ring and pinion strength verses gearing.
ANYONE out there in Vic Australia know of any lonely looking Ferret scout cars that can be picked up for a song?
Bill.
(I rarely write anything down or make blueprints of the stuff I make) that I sometimes get all the information scrambled, but as for Sals and Dana equivelants, all I know is thatDana 44's are equivelant to the smaller salisbury diffs used in Volvo Lapladers(non portal) and many Jaguars.
The Dana 60 is equivelant to Salisbury 8ha as used in LandRovers, including 101, Stonefields, RB 44's, some english site dumpers etc.
I could be wrong but I do not think their is a Salibury eqivelant to the larger dana 70's or 80's. I am sure others can fill in the gaps.
Thanks John, you have confirmed my theory about relative ring and pinion strength verses gearing.
ANYONE out there in Vic Australia know of any lonely looking Ferret scout cars that can be picked up for a song?
Bill.
I just took a drive down to Aussie Army disposals who have a ferret scout car as a mascot vehicle outside their shop. the vehicle is sitting on a raised platform so i was able to get a reasonable view of things. The complete planetary hub and brake assembly seems to be ideal for the conversion we have been discussing here. The Girling style brake backing plates almost completely fill the inside of the 16 inch wheels, so brakes should be ok if we adopt the Ferrari philosophy. The 8 stud wheel pattern appears to be the standard SAE pattern for commercial vehicles ,so suitable wheel rims for 11.00x28's shouldn't be a problem. There appears to be a booted Birfield joint. There is no swivel ball as such because it has independant suspension but adaptability looks good. The coil spring suspension and steering ball joints are very substantial, indicating that this armoured vehicle is a lot heavier than its compact size suggests. The planetary hubs are larger than on the Roadless but do not protrude very far.
A faded specification sheet on the front suggested that it was built in 1960 and restored in 1980. it is permanent 4wd with no centre differentials, so the entire drive line not only has to be strong enough to propel the vehicle across country on its large heavy 9.00x16 bullet resistant run flat tyres, but also has to be strong enough to cope with the enormous torsion windup forces when the vehicle is driven on sealed roads. I remember seeing these quite regularly on the road in the 1960's.
I think there are many ferrets and spares available in the UK and maybe even here in OZ, so if any of you become really serious about building a Roadless replica, then I would say that this is your best source of components. Bill.
A faded specification sheet on the front suggested that it was built in 1960 and restored in 1980. it is permanent 4wd with no centre differentials, so the entire drive line not only has to be strong enough to propel the vehicle across country on its large heavy 9.00x16 bullet resistant run flat tyres, but also has to be strong enough to cope with the enormous torsion windup forces when the vehicle is driven on sealed roads. I remember seeing these quite regularly on the road in the 1960's.
I think there are many ferrets and spares available in the UK and maybe even here in OZ, so if any of you become really serious about building a Roadless replica, then I would say that this is your best source of components. Bill.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests