Thread: '06 wheel bearing

If there is no spacer there should be 2 nuts, the first to adjust preload and the second as a lock nut with a washer in between to bend over the flats.
The spacer as used in the later Puma’s has a single one use nut set up.
I’ve converted from the one nut set up to the earlier 2 nut system for ease of repairs and maintenance.
Cheers Kyle

Thanks for the reply Kyle.
the single staked nut was started on the TD5 from what I've read up on.

D1's all have the setup you described(as do RRCs) that I've had experience with.
But this one is definitely a single nut job, and no spacer when dismantled, hence why my concern about previous work done on the car.

Originally Posted by AK83

Thanks for the reply Kyle.
the single staked nut was started on the TD5 from what I've read up on.

D1's all have the setup you described(as do RRCs) that I've had experience with.
But this one is definitely a single nut job, and no spacer when dismantled, hence why my concern about previous work done on the car.

I agree with your concerns, having not encountered the spacer previously it would be easy to leave out and the preload not adjusted correctly.

Swap to double nut.

Originally Posted by W&KO

Swap to double nut.

You reckon better?

Noting that this isn't my vehicle too tho, helping out a member.

I'd have thought this newer spacer setup would be better long term once done properly.

EDIT: sorry the reason I ask if better, is that I'd have thought that long term the spacer design would negate the probability that the stub axle would wear, like my D1 had.
I only just did all four stubs on my D1 couple weeks back.
I did a couple of noisy bearings about 18 months prior and noticed about 0.001mm or so play between bearing and stub, so went about getting all new bits.
Only got the chance to do them all recently.
On taking out the two bearings that I didn't do, both those bearing seats wouldn't come off the stub axle on removing. No problem, all went to the scrap anyhow.
I did keep two of the old stubs, the bearings I did change months ago, as they could be 'usable' for someone in an emergency. I wouldn't, as the tho mm or so of play would concern me for a long term solution.

When I pulled all mine apart, I couldn't see any signs that they(stubs) had been done at any point in the D1's 400K life, so at least they tend to last.
Other experience with stub axles was old RRC, I did the two fronts too.

But my reason for asking why go back to the twin nut type is that I'd have thought that the spacer design would hold the bearing seat more securely on the stub as they gradually wear over time, and hence less likely to collapse themselves inwards and potentially wear the stub axles.

Doing the job of measure endfloat, undo it all install correct spacer .. etc. isn't an issue, and the member this relates too did say his Defer is a long term proposition for him as of current.

All comments re this topic appreciated.

Originally Posted by AK83

Noting that this isn't my vehicle too tho, helping out a member.

I'd have thought this newer spacer setup would be better long term once done properly.

EDIT: sorry the reason I ask if better, is that I'd have thought that long term the spacer design would negate the probability that the stub axle would wear, like my D1 had.
I only just did all four stubs on my D1 couple weeks back.
I did a couple of noisy bearings about 18 months prior and noticed about 0.001mm or so play between bearing and stub, so went about getting all new bits.
Only got the chance to do them all recently.
On taking out the two bearings that I didn't do, both those bearing seats wouldn't come off the stub axle on removing. No problem, all went to the scrap anyhow.
I did keep two of the old stubs, the bearings I did change months ago, as they could be 'usable' for someone in an emergency. I wouldn't, as the tho mm or so of play would concern me for a long term solution.

When I pulled all mine apart, I couldn't see any signs that they(stubs) had been done at any point in the D1's 400K life, so at least they tend to last.
Other experience with stub axles was old RRC, I did the two fronts too.

But my reason for asking why go back to the twin nut type is that I'd have thought that the spacer design would hold the bearing seat more securely on the stub as they gradually wear over time, and hence less likely to collapse themselves inwards and potentially wear the stub axles.

Doing the job of measure endfloat, undo it all install correct spacer .. etc. isn't an issue, and the member this relates too did say his Defer is a long term proposition for him as of current.

All comments re this topic appreciated.

I would strongly recommend converting to the older 2 nut/lock washer method of bearing adjustment. I see no technical advantage in the newer staked nut/spacer method, but it would be easier & quicker in a factory assembly situation, which was, of course, why it was adopted.

In a home maintenance context, one needs to have a selection of different sized spacers available if a bearing or hub change is necessary. This is expensive and a nuisance! With the 2 nut method, all one needs is a supply of lock washers when bearing maintenance is undertaken. Also, periodic adjustment of pre-load is very easy.

Cheers,

Lionel

Originally Posted by Lionel

.... This is expensive and a nuisance! ....

Thanks Lionel.
This much was obvious to me, remembering I'd just done all fours on my D1.

Those spacers are silly expensive for what they are!

Originally Posted by AK83

You reckon better?

Noting that this isn't my vehicle too tho, helping out a member.

I'd have thought this newer spacer setup would be better long term once done properly.

EDIT: sorry the reason I ask if better, is that I'd have thought that long term the spacer design would negate the probability that the stub axle would wear, like my D1 had.
I only just did all four stubs on my D1 couple weeks back.
I did a couple of noisy bearings about 18 months prior and noticed about 0.001mm or so play between bearing and stub, so went about getting all new bits.
Only got the chance to do them all recently.
On taking out the two bearings that I didn't do, both those bearing seats wouldn't come off the stub axle on removing. No problem, all went to the scrap anyhow.
I did keep two of the old stubs, the bearings I did change months ago, as they could be 'usable' for someone in an emergency. I wouldn't, as the tho mm or so of play would concern me for a long term solution.

When I pulled all mine apart, I couldn't see any signs that they(stubs) had been done at any point in the D1's 400K life, so at least they tend to last.
Other experience with stub axles was old RRC, I did the two fronts too.

But my reason for asking why go back to the twin nut type is that I'd have thought that the spacer design would hold the bearing seat more securely on the stub as they gradually wear over time, and hence less likely to collapse themselves inwards and potentially wear the stub axles.

Doing the job of measure endfloat, undo it all install correct spacer .. etc. isn't an issue, and the member this relates too did say his Defer is a long term proposition for him as of current.

All comments re this topic appreciated.

I’ve never experienced the staked nut arrangement.

My previous defender did 400,000 on the one set of bearings and i suspect they’re still rolling around.

Two nut arrangement works just fine and easy too set up, no need to carry a torque wrench and dial gauge or what ever is required for the stack nut.

My current defer’s bearing have 120,000 on them and hopefully will keep spinning for another 300,000.

I do struggle to understand the number of failures that pop up and the number that seem to just replace.