Ikea 6X6D - anyone have an allen key? [Archive]

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2011, 03:00 PM

sure,

but do you need the metric, imperial, BSW, ISO, JSA, or BSP sized allen key?It's Ikea - don't they just have one size?
Diana,

Must admit I've never seen a flat pack Landie before......:eek:A mechanic took the D150 apart to do surface rust treatment of the chassis without the owners permission, then asked for a few thousand $ to put it back together. The whole episode then ended up in court, but the owner died before it could be re-assembled. I bought the D150 from the estate.

33chinacars

30th October 2011, 03:13 PM

Nice Jigsaw puzzle :angel::angel:

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2011, 04:05 PM

justinc

30th October 2011, 05:21 PM

Been playing around with a few bits today.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/06/1017.jpg

I really thought that the vehicle would be a C6X4 with selectable 6X6. But playing with the mechanism on the "B" axle above (modified Rover diff) I find that the drive to the "C" axle is a lockable diff, giving C6X6. :BigThumb:

Diana :)

Excellent find, I would be very happy with that!!! I would love to help, but difficult from all the way down here, and of course you can ask as many Q's as you like. Something tells me though you won't have much trouble working it out:D

JC

Bushie

30th October 2011, 05:24 PM

Not that hard to post an allen key :D:D

Martyn

Lotz-A-Landies

30th October 2011, 05:47 PM

Am quite looking forward to the project. :)

The big issue is that it came from Steptoe & Son's yard and there was a Disco I also disassembled with boxes of bits stored next to and on top of the D150 boxes of bits. So knowing which bits belong to what and what's missing will be a challenge. Knowing what goes where is a challenge whenever you get a car jigsaw I suppose.

The D150 is a 1991 build 3.5 carby V8 LT77. Not happy about the small V8 on such a heavy vehicle, so am looking at fitting a 4BD1 (which I have) but it's a Stage 1 4BD1 so doesn't have the PAS pump. Don't laugh at me, I'm going to use the LT85 on the Isuzu, at least for the time being to save on headaches. I also have a Defender under dash a/c unit so am seriously considering fitting it as part of the re-build, but need to find the fittings for the A/C pump on a 4BD1.

The part you haven't seen is the chassis, it went up to a steel fabricator and Landy enthusiast's factory for the mods to the engine mounts. It looks very straight although there seems to be a bit of chassis worm inside the laminates of two reinforcing straps. So they are coming off to perform a Mk1 eyeball inspection and repair. Then the fun bits are deciding what other mods will happen! :) :) :)

Thinking of an extra-cab and maybe a narrow rear door on the LHS to access the rear area. Have been discussing the mods with Daniel at Mulgo, who will likely do the body panel mods.

Decisions decisions!

Diana

JDNSW

30th October 2011, 08:53 PM

Sounds very interesting! And, for what its worth, my 4BD1 has had a non standard A/C installation for nearly twenty years now. (pictures available if wanted, but really just pointing out it can be done).

John

33chinacars

31st October 2011, 12:24 AM

Well it may be a jigsaw but still one hell of a project. Keep us update with your progress. Can't wait to see the final incarnation.

Gary

Lotz-A-Landies

5th November 2011, 04:42 PM

So many extra bits on this vehicle! :D

So far this weekend I have wire brushed, primed and painted all the rear links, as discussed in another thread, I acquired a pair of 130 trailing arms to replace a damaged and bent pair. I think the 130 trailing arms may be thicker walled than the 110 D type, I haven't got some bathroom scales so can't check weight, suffice to say the 110 links "ring" when the wire brush on the angle grinder removes the paint and rust, the 130 ones don't or ring much lower.

Looking at the state of the bushes I'm going to replace all of them, and actually purchased a lot a few weeks ago. So far have done the front radius arm bushes, but that's it.

With the "A" frame, I'm assuming there is no Boge unit. When I replace the A frame ball joint, do people use OEM or are there better options?

Off to the hospital to see dad and pick up mum now, check back in later.

Diana

Lotz-A-Landies

5th November 2011, 11:17 PM

I have had great news tonight! Very happy just now! :banana:

Have just negotiated to buy a dual cab for the project! Thanks JerryD :TakeABow: :)

So now I don't have to build an extracab, but now to modify a d/c to fit the 150 so it should be like this one in the UK. (Also ex-Southern Electricity)

http://www.overlandvehicles.co.uk/Images/truck.jpg

Although the tray will be a steel ICR type thanks to another AULRO member Mark Lomas. :twobeers:

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

wagoo

7th November 2011, 08:12 AM

Do you know who manufactured the thrudrive leading diff Diana?An exploded view would be interesting.One would hope that the Rover pinion hasn't been modified to the point that a standard one can't be fitted in the event of CWP failure.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

7th November 2011, 10:54 AM

No idea about the manufacturer, suffice to say that the whole vehicle was assembled by Land Rover Special Vehicles. Even the chassis mounts have part and batch numbers stamped on them.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/06/1017.jpg

Taking a close look at the assembly without dismantling, it seems that the original nose of the diff casting has been machined off. To that a new part which forms the back of the drive transfer has been welded back on. The position of the new part seems to suggest that this holds the front bearing of the pinion (unless the bearing mount was retained when the casting was machined down). This arrangement leaves the pinion spline clear to the side to connect to whatever mechanism drives between the parallel shafts.

If you look at the image above, you can see a castle nut near the rolled up control tubes/sensor wiring. This appears to be the original nut at the end of the original pinion.

Diana

wagoo

7th November 2011, 08:39 PM

No idea about the manufacturer, suffice to say that the whole vehicle was assembled by Land Rover Special Vehicles. Even the chassis mounts have part and batch numbers stamped on them.
Taking a close look at the assembly without dismantling, it seems that the original nose of the diff casting has been machined off. To that a new part which forms the back of the drive transfer has been welded back on. The position of the new part seems to suggest that this holds the front bearing of the pinion (unless the bearing mount was retained when the casting was machined down). This arrangement leaves the pinion spline clear to the side to connect to whatever mechanism drives between the parallel shafts.

If you look at the image above, you can see a castle nut near the rolled up control tubes/sensor wiring. This appears to be the original nut at the end of the original pinion.

Diana
I agree it does appear to be the original pinion nut, but it looks like it protrudes too far forward of the actual gear chamber in the case, which suggests to me that the pinion spline may have been cut deeper to place the drive gear behind the outer pinion bearing.
Unless the diff has been turned upside down, it would seem that the thrudrive unit has a train of 3 gears arranged in a cloverleaf pattern.it's quite a bulky unit and if as you suspect it has a lockable interaxle differential, then I'd hazard a guess that it may be an SMC built unit.The long front snout may have a viscous coupling, as I veguely recall SMC claiming they had some kind of limited slip device in their thrudrives.It's a shame they didn't apply all that engineering to a Salisbury diff though.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

7th November 2011, 09:05 PM

Bill

I'm not sure who SMC is.

The CW/hemisphere is not inverted. Could it be a Morse chain drive?

On the inter-axle unit there is a vacuum diaphragm similar to the CDL unit on an LT95 (you can see it between the brake hose and axle housing) and there is a switch on the LT230 CDL linkage, so that when the LT230 CD is locked so is the diff on the inter axle drive.

I believe the it is a diff mechanism on the inter-axle drive as I can turn the flanges on either end in different directions and produce simultaneous rotation of the hubs on the axle assembly, by varying the rotation at each end or by turning the inter-axle flanges in the same direction.

Diana

wagoo

7th November 2011, 09:31 PM

Diana. Sandringham Motor Company (SMC) built many 6x6 Landys, beginning back in the Stage One V8 era. Their chassis and leaf suspension conversion was a bit pants, with no load sharing and virtually no articulation. but the firm did apparently survive into the coil spring era. There is a website called LandRover Madness or something similar that gives some information on the various 6x6 conversion firms.
Not sure morse chain drive would have been employed.Anecdotally,it wasn't all that successful on the Arkana Toyota 6x6 tourist wagons due to chain burnout from excessive heat generation.The gear chamber on the Landy thrudrive, to me doesn't appear wide enough to accept an appropriate size morse chain to presumably drive 2 differentials.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

7th November 2011, 09:48 PM

VladTepes

7th November 2011, 09:57 PM

Lotza - that'll be a ripper of a rig !

Think of the turning circle !!!!!

FYI
MR Automotive in Qld make a fully servicable (adjustable etc) A-frame ball joint.

wagoo

7th November 2011, 10:07 PM

Thanks for the heads-up re SMC (AKA Sandringham 6)! :)

It seems to me that the through drive is a shaft arrangement, was only thinking a Morse chain for the drive to the Rover diff pinion. I know the BW transfer in my RRc has a Morse chain to the viscous unit which drives to both front and rear axles so can't see why it wouldn't be sufficient to the drive the adjacent pinion nor generate that much heat.

I can see you are asking me to open this assembly up! ;)

Diana

Whilst it would be cool to see 'the guts' of the thrudrive tomorrow;) I am a patient man and you have alot of work a head of you, so I'm very happy to wait til the rest of the truck is reassembled.Wednesday or Thursday will be fine by me:)
Bill

Lotz-A-Landies

7th November 2011, 10:11 PM

Lotza - that'll be a ripper of a rig !

Think of the turning circle !!!!!

FYI
MR Automotive in Qld make a fully servicable (adjustable etc) A-frame ball joint.The Queen Mary II can do a U turn in the in it's own length, my 150 should be less than that! :D (QMII's length that is) Actually if I understand automotive theories correctly, a bogie drive turns around the mid point between the two axles, which means that the turning circle of a 150 with the second axle at 110" will be the same as a 130".

Thanks for the MR info!

Diana

wagoo

7th November 2011, 10:56 PM

The Queen Mary II can do a U turn in the in it's own length, my 150 should be less than that! :D (QMII's length that is) Actually if I understand automotive theories correctly, a bogie drive turns around the mid point between the two axles, which means that the turning circle of a 150 with the second axle at 110" will be the same as a 130".

Thanks for the MR info!

Diana
Rover obviously don't conform to standard automotive practice by calling that model the 150.
I'd always understood that there was two accepted methods of describing the wheelbase of 3 axled vehicles. Using your numbers above, one way is
110''+40''. the other example is, 130'' BC40'' BC = between centres.
Not sure the turning circle theory would necessarily apply to a loaded vehicle on a non load sharing bogie suspension.But my old 6x6 with load sharing, and a wheelbase of 74''+39'' seemed to conform to that theory and manouvered as if it were a 4x4 with a wheelbase of around 94''.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

7th November 2011, 11:10 PM

Bill

The VIN lists it as a 110 with three axles listed on the Rover Group data plate, there is no other data plates yet found. The Land Rover computer system lists it as being dispatched by something like Land Rover Fleet and even lists a recall notice on the winch mounting, hence in-house build. I need to investigate this data again, as I may now be able to buy the original winch.

Maybe you are correct and the 150 refers to the extended wheelbase 130s made by Foley etc. Should I call it a 130 +/-20 then? :D

You may have read that I'm considering making it load share by replacing the coils with Firestone air bags (al la Isuzurover's County) and coupling them together on each side.

Diana

BTW would I have seen a video of your series 6X6 with the LROCV? A SIIa with a single wheelarch for the rear bogie?

abaddonxi

8th November 2011, 08:46 AM

<snip>There is a website called LandRover Madness or something similar that gives some information on the various 6x6 conversion firms.
<snip>

6x4 and 6x6 (http://www.lr-mad.co.uk/en/6x4-and-6x6)

Huzar 6x6 (http://www.lr-mad.co.uk/en/huzar-6x6)

Looking forward to more of this thread, Diana.

wagoo

8th November 2011, 01:04 PM

Bill

The VIN lists it as a 110 with three axles listed on the data plate.

Maybe you are correct and the 150 refers to the extended wheelbase 130s made by Foley etc. Should I call it a 130 +/-20 then? :D

You may have read that I'm considering making it load share by replacing the coils with Firestone air bags (al la Isuzurover's County) and coupling them together on each side.

Diana

BTW would I have seen a video of your series 6X6 with the LROCV? A SIIa with a single wheelarch for the rear bogie?

I think the correct British terminology would be 130'',40''BC. that is assuming that the distance from the front axle to the centre of the bogie is in fact 130'' and not 150''.
Interconnected airbags would certainly make the suspension versatile, and with manual control isolator valves, could be used to adjust and vary the individual ground pressure between the axles when the vehicle is lightly laden in certain cross country terrains where too much floatation can be a significant disadvantage.

There were a couple of videos circulating the net that were posted by a member of the LROCV, but they don't seem to exist anymore.If the vehicle you saw had small auxilary wheels under the belly and in the bumper position, then it was mine.If not, there are, or at least were a couple of other private build series 2 6x6s around Vic.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

10th November 2011, 10:22 PM

A couple if pics of the chassis taken today.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/687.jpg

In this pic, you can see the special mounts for the rear trailing arms.
You can also see the significant reinforcement just in front of the B axle, where the floor of a dual/cab or 110 wagon would normally be and in the background 110 Defender ICR brand tray to be used in the project.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/04/145.jpg

Diana

Lotz-A-Landies

11th November 2011, 08:48 PM

Thanks to Stuart prop. of Graeme Cooper Automotive allowing me to use their press and mandrels, I was able to push out all the old suspension bushes and push in new ones and still have time for other activities. So now only have to pick up the dual cab, add the body mounts to the chassis and building can begin.

Unfortunately family commitments will prevent any more work for a fortnight. :(

Diana

Blknight.aus

11th November 2011, 09:37 PM

on the turning circle thing....

generally you set up so that the ackermans principles make it turn between the bogie axles.

But it can be done so that the turing point is nearer to the front or rear axle and in the case of some very exquisite setups in front of the intermediate axle. based on the military 6x6 the turning point for the rear set is close to but just forwards of the center of the bogie.

Lotz-A-Landies

11th November 2011, 09:55 PM

I did think about fitting a front axle to the rear which would make it's turning circle on the middle axle or the same as a 110.

Maybe a project for the future! :o

BTW: Dave, did you ever find out the pin number for the reverse solenoid on the NATO plug for the Haulmark trailer?

Casper

12th November 2011, 09:59 PM

123rover50

13th November 2011, 06:08 AM

Has anyone else spotted this one,

LANDROVER 110 Dual Cab / Hard to Find 6 WHEEL DRIVE | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/LANDROVER-110-Dual-Cab-Hard-Find-6-WHEEL-DRIVE-/250929453138?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a6c8f9852#ht_500wt_1413)

Cheers Casper

Interesting. Does not appear to be load sharing but not many photos of underneath.

He has owned Land Rovers since 1941:(

What does that say.

Didiman

wagoo

15th November 2011, 07:46 AM

I did think about fitting a front axle to the rear which would make it's turning circle on the middle axle or the same as a 110.

Maybe a project for the future! :o

Good luck finding CV joints that could handle the strain in the rear end .
Mal Storyhad to use 101 birfields for his 4 wheel steer units.
Bill.

uninformed

15th November 2011, 10:53 AM

would that not make for some funky loads/stresses, being that the rearmost axle is so close to the "middle" axle....I would have though it better to fit 2 rear steer axles in the rear and have them plumbed (hyd) in sync so that 1 joystick controls both and they only ever turn in the same direction as each other.....still independant of the front. Bill, I would think the longfield Toy 80 series CV's in 30 spline be a good option for a rover rear steer. with some machining of them and the swivel ball, they should be able to be made to fit....

Diana, excellent work so far. Would you be able to get some clear close up pics of the rear most trailing arms mounts (from in front, behind and how they attach to the chassis ontop of/underneth and on the inside rail.)

cheers,
Serg

Lotz-A-Landies

15th November 2011, 11:31 AM

wagoo

16th November 2011, 02:16 PM

Not a problem Serg, but not for a fortnight.

From my inspections so far, it appears to be a 110 chassis with the side rails cut at exactly the mid point of the spring mounts, then a 40" length of straight RHS in a clamshell design (same as chassis) fitted in between the front section of the 110 chassis and the rear section.

Next time I'm up there I'll measure Fred's 110 wagon to compare the trailing length of the 130 BC 40* chassis'

Diana

* Is that the correct description Bill (Wagoo)?

Yes Diana that's correct. British vehicle, British terminology.
Re Daves mention of Ackerman angles.I run reverse Ackerman linkage on my series LandRover to good effect.But they have bolt on steering arms that can be re arranged. All coil sprung LandRovers, 90's, 100'', 110'', 127s, 130s etc have cast on steering arms with identical Ackerman angles, so obviously Rover threw Ackemans theory out the window long ago.
I'm interested to know how the angles can be adjusted or set to suit a given wheelbase.
Bill.

TonyC

16th November 2011, 03:08 PM

Good luck finding CV joints that could handle the strain in the rear end .
Mal Storyhad to use 101 birfields for his 4 wheel steer units.
Bill.

Given the small amount of steering lock the rear wheels would need to make a 6X6 steer around the centre axle, would the unis out of a Series work? Or are they weaker then some of the CVs available?
Or some other uni joint for that matter.

Tony

disco2hse

16th November 2011, 03:31 PM

A mechanic took the D150 apart to do surface rust treatment of the chassis without the owners permission, then asked for a few thousand $ to put it back together. The whole episode then ended up in court, but the owner died before it could be re-assembled. I bought the D150 from the estate.

Seriously!?! I hope the mechanic got nothing from the estate.

Anyway, that is a very cool project. Really just making a post to subscribe and to lend support, albeit from afar.

Alan

Lotz-A-Landies

16th November 2011, 03:53 PM

Given the small amount of steering lock the rear wheels would need to make a 6X6 steer around the centre axle, would the unis out of a Series work? ...
... TonyTony
I take it you are talking about the CV's in the 80" as the uni joints in the series are not constant velocity and would be much less than ideal in a constant 6X6, so think, as a minimum, I'd use county/110 swivels and a Salisbury diff, but as Bill suggests even they may too weak.

All a project for another day.

Diana

TonyC

16th November 2011, 04:24 PM

Tony
I take it you are talking about the CV's in the 80" as the uni joints in the series are not constant velocity and would be much less than ideal in a constant 6X6, so think, as a minimum, I'd use county/110 swivels and a Salisbury diff, but as Bill suggests even they may too weak.

All a project for another day.

Diana

Hi Diana,
Did the 80" have CVs? Glad I've learnt my "something" for today:D
I had forgoten that yours is constant 6x6, that was way back in the thread:angel:
Still, given the very small steering lock that would be needed on the back wheels, if 40" is 36% of 110" then I assume the rear would only need 36% of the steering lock that the front would need, I would be surprised if the unconstantness of the unis would be noticed. After all Jeeps still use open knuckles with unis in their constant 4X4s don't they?

Tony

Lotz-A-Landies

16th November 2011, 05:15 PM

Hi Diana,
Did the 80" have CVs? Glad I've learnt my "something" for today:D
I had forgoten that yours is constant 6x6, that was way back in the thread:angel:
Still, given the very small steering lock that would be needed on the back wheels, if 40" is 36% of 110" then I assume the rear would only need 36% of the steering lock that the front would need, I would be surprised if the unconstantness of the unis would be noticed. After all Jeeps still use open knuckles with unis in their constant 4X4s don't they? <Yes but they are only Jeeps aren't they!>

TonySome people call them "tracta joints" but they are a crude CV, essential when you consider a large proportion of the 80" (until early 1951) were constant 4X4.

isuzurover

17th November 2011, 12:41 AM

Given the small amount of steering lock the rear wheels would need to make a 6X6 steer around the centre axle, would the unis out of a Series work? Or are they weaker then some of the CVs available?
Or some other uni joint for that matter.

Tony

Series front axle UJs are ridiculously weak and puny. They wouldn#t last 5 minutes in a rear-steer application.

You are right though that you wouldn't notice having unis instead of CVs with rear steer.

To have reliable rear-steer in a vehicle like that you would need these:
http://www.polyperformance.com/shop/images/D/CVJ-60-D1-400.jpg

However Dana 60 CVs would also be fine. Either option would require conversion to open knuckles (swivels).

Lotz-A-Landies

14th December 2011, 12:37 PM

Haven't made a post here for quite a while it seems, but don't think that nothing has been happening.

The chassis has been repaired. The problem was a little chassis worm, not a lot but it needed to be attacked. :(

If you know the 130 chassis my 6X6 has been modified/reinforced in a somewhat similar manner with a section of flat bar/strap laminated on the top and bottom sides of the chassis side rails. Unfortunately, unlike the later 130 chassis the laminates were only stich welded and not fully seam welded. The result was that moisture penetrated between the chassis and laminate, which allowed rust to start forming and then errupt out the top. The reinforcement was removed to reveal only a little surface rusting of the chassis rail, this was treated and then a new laminate welded back in place this time fully seam welded to prevent further moinsture penetration. Both rails had the laminate removed, then repaired top and bottom, although the chassis worm had only attacked the top of one rail.

The chassis has now been fully inspected inside and out with no other issues detected.

An Isuzu engine mount jig has been borrowed and the conversion from V8 mounts to 4BD1 is happening this week. And next is the modification to the front dumb irons for the Norforce bullbar.

Other activity was a trip up to Queensland last weekend to pick up a '96 Defender dual cab body. Thanks to JerryD, the Ho Hars, Mr and Mrs Zulu Delta 534, Juddy, Blk Knight, Hodgo, Tim, and Firey and others for a very social time.

The body took a trip out to Western Sydney last Monday to examine the modifications that will be required to amalgamate the body and chassis together, and the body is now back at my house.

The issues are that a Defender 130 dual cab is not the same in the rear floor/wall/wheelarches as the 110 station wagon. I need to modify the flat floor and re-create the inner wheel arches and chassis mountings the same as in the 110 S/W tub. The other issue is that there is a significant reinforcement of the chassis ride rails in the same area as the rear passengers footwell that will require boxing (see LHS of image below). So last evening after work I started removing the rear floor.

More updates to follow.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/12/687.jpg

Lotz-A-Landies

16th December 2011, 08:44 PM

Diana, excellent work so far. Would you be able to get some clear close up pics of the rear most trailing arms mounts (from in front, behind and how they attach to the chassis ontop of/underneth and on the inside rail.)

cheers,
SergRHS bracket from RHS
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/12/572.jpg

RHS bracket from RHS rear quarter
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/12/573.jpg

RHS bracket underside from RHS rear quarter
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/12/574.jpg

LHS bracket inside - taken from RHS
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/12/575.jpg

LHS bracket underside taken from LHS rear quarter.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/12/576.jpg

LHS bracket taken from LHS cente axle position
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/12/577.jpg

Hope it is understandable?

Today I also salvaged the front third of a 110 wagon tub.

Diana

uninformed

24th December 2011, 09:59 PM

this is why they were called "Tracta" joints:

Tracta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wagoo

26th December 2011, 06:21 PM

Dianna, You no doubt have thoroughly researched LandRover Special Vehicles 6x6 conversions. Have you come across any information on whether they did a thrudrive conversion to Salisbury diffs?
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

26th December 2011, 06:43 PM

wagoo

26th December 2011, 07:57 PM

Bill

Nothing to date has revealed such a drive, but you can bet if they did, I would be seeking one.

In fact given that I have a NOS county Salisbury assembly I have even considered using the current Rover diff thruedrive as a donor or pattern.

Diana

Not thrudrive exactly, but many years ago I cut the axle tubes off a series 3 Sals. With the pinion shaft fitted I spun it in my lathe between centres and machined back the pinion housing. I then welded on a steel flange and trued it up with the intention of bolting a Foley style drop box that I fabricated which would have used 3 large helical Lt95 transfercase gears to get sufficient offset for the second propshaft to clear the diff casting.
Unfortunately I got burgled and the drop box among alot of other stuff was stolen, so I lost interest in the conversion. I still have the diff housing, but being series 3 width and lacking the A frame ball joint mounting on the casting it wouldn't be of any use to you would it?
Bill.

uninformed

26th December 2011, 08:41 PM

why would they steal that stuff.....bloody :angrylock:

wagoo

26th December 2011, 09:03 PM

why would they steal that stuff.....bloody :angrylock:
Scrap metal theives. When it was worth over $300 a ton.About 15 tons got nicked including my custom built Dana 60/Sals front/ rear assemblies. Transit/LandRover Diffs, and 3 vehicles. Anything that was heavy and relatively compact.Soul destroying enough if it was just standard off the shelf stuff, but a lot of it was custom designed and made, that I spent countless hundreds of hours and put my heart and soul into making. :mad:
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

8th February 2012, 08:04 AM

On Australia Day we met a fellow looking for input to the design of the replacement for the Defender, this fellow had worked for Land Rover for several decades, so I asked about my Defender 6X6 and today an answer has returned.

As I suspected the vehicle was an approved conversion on a 110 chassis, an incomplete 110 was sent to Reynolds Boughton (originally the Scottorn Trailer factory) and was then converted to 6X6, after that the cab chassis was sent for fitting of the cherry picker. After both conversion completed and tower body fitted, the vehicle returned to Land Rover Special Vehicles for finishing and dispatch to the customer.

So my vehicle is confirmed as Land Rover Special Vehicles with the through drive by Reynolds Boughton.

The concern is that Land Rover still own one of the same conversions used on the Land Rover Experience track, but owing to problems of lack of spares for the middle axle it is now 6X4. :(

Looks like I am going to look to having a "Plan B" commenced almost as soon as the vehicle is back on the road. This will definately be on a Salisbury assembly!

isuzurover

8th February 2012, 05:54 PM

...

Looks like I am going to look to having a "Plan B" commenced almost as soon as the vehicle is back on the road. This will definately be on a Salisbury assembly!

A very sensible idea... Personally I would give Bill enough folding stuff to make it worth his while, the run of a nice lathe somewhere, and a couple of blokes to do the heavy lifting for him (to save his back/arthritis).

wagoo

8th February 2012, 11:04 PM

A very sensible idea... Personally I would give Bill enough folding stuff to make it worth his while, the run of a nice lathe somewhere, and a couple of blokes to do the heavy lifting for him (to save his back/arthritis).
I'm afraid my heyday is in the past Ben. It takes me a week now to accomplish what I used to do in a day. As I mentioned somewhere else, most of my mates or contacts where I used to get splining, brooching or jig boring done have either passed away, retired or just become too expensive. In the old days I could even get Hollingers to do stuff at affordable rates.
It just occurred to me Diana ,that Reynolds Boughton are not likely to build something weaker than the Rover diff. So do you know what part of the thrudrive assenbly is prone to failure? Could it be the LandRover parts that actually failed? In which case an Ashcroft CW+P and 4 pinion carrier may be a solution. If the actual thrudrive is the weak link it may only be something like the power divider differential that possibly could be deleted in favor of a simple dog clutch drive disconnect. I think power divider gear breakage would be unlikely unless RB used silly udersized gears.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

4th April 2012, 05:03 PM

Have recently been doing a little more research. The through-drive system used in my 6X6 defender is the same system as in the Scottorn 6X6 Range Rovers, although my rear axle is a Salisbury unit.

http://www.lr-mad.co.uk/images/LR/scot8.jpg

Here is the brochure for the Scottorn RR 6X6 http://www.lr-mad.co.uk/dwnld/Scottorn_6x6_brochure.pdf
(Source LR mad UK)

Lotz-A-Landies

5th May 2012, 10:47 PM

The new cab and chassis were mated for the first time this afternoon. Everything is going O.K. The OEM brackets are fitting where they are supposed to fit. Now have to box around the OEM reinforced chassis rails. Next week the tray should be offered up and the brackets modified or moved.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/05/1170.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/05/1285.jpg

Then the chassis can go off to paint.

During the past week I have been having correspondence with Reno at Accu air in the US about an air suspension controller for Ikea. The advice has come back against a 3 axle controller and to treat the rear axles as a 2 individual corners, otherwise the two axles would be fighting each other. Further they agreed with my idea of running each side of the two rear axles in parrallel with a single sensor on the 3rd axle. While I thought it only necessary to run parrallel off road they Reno says on road too. The only difference was the idea to switch off the e-control of the axles off road so that oposite articulation of the two rear axles wouldn't be compounded by the EAS attempting to correct the situation.

isuzurover

6th May 2012, 11:32 AM

... The advice has come back against a 3 axle controller and to treat the rear axles as a 2 individual corners, otherwise the two axles would be fighting each other. ...

Which we have all been saying all along!!! :angel:

Lotz-A-Landies

6th May 2012, 06:36 PM

Which we have all been saying all along!!! :angel:Yes but Reno is a salesman, who one must obey, you on the other hand are just some fancy sort of plumber! :o ;)
Diana :wasntme:

Addit: Wasting work time ATM. Was just re-reading the brochure (link above (http://www.lr-mad.co.uk/dwnld/Scottorn_6x6_brochure.pdf)) on the Scottorn RRc 6X6 and spied for the first time the specification of the through drive. (Too much looking at pictures!)
"Second Axle: "Scottorn" through-drive silent chain, spiral bevel. Lockable differential engaged/disengaged and differential locked by vacuum from gearbox mounted switch..."
A lot of the aspects like the vacuum operated switch on the gearbox is the same and presumably the ratio. What it confirms is the drive to the middle axle is via a morse chain not a gear set. It also means that modifying a Salisbury for the same design is quite possible, removing the vulnerable Rover diff from the system.
What I don't know is if the Rover diff is also lockable.

Lotz-A-Landies

12th May 2012, 09:17 PM

Todays effort.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/10/117.jpg

The tray is 2200mm inside the combing.

Just to confirm it's not off some foreign jobbie!
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/05/880.jpg

The tray originally came from a single cab Defender 110, so all the mountings underneath, mudguards, tool-boxes all had to come off. Then it was a matter of making up new mounts so we re-used the mounts from the tower body leaving the centre clear for a later addition of a trundle tray or just tent pole tubes etc.

The photos are actually taken as soon as the tray was lowered, it has been fixed about 30mm higher in the same height the tray was fitted to the 110. There is only about 300mm overhang at the rear, less than half the overhang on the 110.

MR LR

12th May 2012, 09:28 PM

Hi Diana

Are you using the 6x6 for any particular task or building it up as a collectors vehicle, (i can relate to both haha), 6x6 has always intrigued me, hopeful one day i'll buld one of my own, maybe on my new D2 haha. Nice build by the way, your cars are all very interesting

Cheers
Will

Lotz-A-Landies

12th May 2012, 10:46 PM

Hi Will

I'm building it back up because it was wasting away dissassembled under tarps at a mates place. It's a factory conversion, partially built in the Solihull factory, sent to Reynolds Boughton for conversion then returned to the Land Rover Special vehicles factory for completion and delivery to the customer.

The factory coil spring vehicles are so rare in this country that it needs to be working, even though I'm taking it to Land Rover Au Isuzu specs, because petrol is a thing of the past and 2.5 litres isn't enough for a vehicle with a GCM of 7.5Tonnes.

I'll use it for general running around, and a little touring and I'm hoping it significantly out performs a 130 in those roles. It will have the ramp over angle of a 110 and the space and load capacity exceeding that of a 130. But the turning circle of a 130.

Diana

easo

13th May 2012, 12:31 AM

I like it.

mrapocalypse

17th May 2012, 01:39 PM

Lotz-A-Landies

17th May 2012, 02:30 PM

I often wonder why they don't rig the rear diff with a trailing arm instead of a leading arm system.

If you swapped the brackets and linkages around on a front diff - or welded them to another Salisbury rear, even use the Panhard rod.
That would put the two sets of rear wheels as close as you liked, with the trailing arms chassis mounted about at the rear crossmember.
By using either a front or rear housing you could put diff input in the position you choose either offset for PTO and centre bearing as per Perentie.... or right behind the middle diff for through drive as per Ikea and G-Wagon!

Yes, I often wonder this!I would imagine that you would want significantly stronger radius arms (like those on the front) to compensate for the shock loads when you hit pot holes etc.

Dependant upon the drive type and diff offset, you also need sufficient inter-axle spacing to allow for articulation and and prop-shaft angles/slider joints. A through drive will require a greater inter-axle spacing or have an articulation limitation over a system with opposite diff offsets.

jorjatom68

17th May 2012, 08:09 PM

jorjatom68

17th May 2012, 08:28 PM

Just finished looking at all the pictures. You would want to look at getting disc brakes on the rear or you will have no end of trouble with the drums. Series rovers dont pull up and you have one on the back and the discs on the front as well. I converted to discs on the back and a stage one master cylinder. Pulls up like a dream now even when loaded and a fair sized trailer.
The taper on the middle diff wont last off road either I'm going to graft on one from the salisbury as they are a bit beefier.

Lotz-A-Landies

17th May 2012, 08:57 PM

Those are fairly broad statements, a significant proportion of trucks still have drum brakes and they are hauling many more tons of weight than this Defender ever will. I have had Series Land Rovers with drum brakes that would put you through the windscreen if you were unbuckled, it is all to do with boost and adjustment. Many 1 tonners coming off the showroom floor still have rear drums, just look at the current Mitsi Triton Triton Specifications - Triton Specs - Mitsubishi Motors Australia (http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com.au/vehicles/4wd/triton/specs-and-features/specifications/4x4-club-cab-diesel/specifications).

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you mention the "taper"????

Would love a Salisbury on the middle axle and even have a NOS Salisbury rear axle assembly for the job, but transferring the through drive will be a significant bit of engineering work.

You have never shown us the images of your chain drive 6x6 assembly you posted about last year (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/technical-chatter/131763-6x6-diff.html#post1508553)?

JDNSW

18th May 2012, 05:34 AM

Lotz-A-Landies

18th May 2012, 10:30 AM

I have to agree with Diana - if you compare the braking performance of the rear drum braked and rear disc braked Landrover 110/early Defender, the only practical difference is that the drums need regular adjustment and are more susceptible to loss of effectiveness when wading. In normal operation you would not know which you have. Surely this is a good comparison?

JohnJohn

The other areas where disks are superior to drums, is in the heat dissipation. Drums brake systems will liquify the drum/lining interface on periods of prolonged braking such as steep winding decents. Drums also have difficulty in being utilised in computerised braking functions: ABS, traction control, decent control and stability control.

In spite of those benefits, at present I'm not convinced retrofitting disks to the rear axles will be high on my priority list. Active air suspension will be a lot sooner. In the mean time I'm happy to use slower speeds and my gearbox as decent control.

I have however retrofitted Defender ventilated disk calipers to the front.

Diana

JDNSW

18th May 2012, 12:46 PM

John

The other areas where disks are superior to drums, is in the heat dissipation. Drums brake systems will liquify the drum/lining interface on periods of prolonged braking such as steep winding decents. Drums also have difficulty in being utilised in computerised braking functions: ABS, traction control, decent control and stability control.
......

Diana

I agree in general (although I doubt there is ever any liquefaction at the drum/lining interface) - but the problem with fade on drums is not so much heat dissipation (although this is a factor) as the fact that as the drums expand with heat, the shoes have to move further, resulting in loss of pedal, and, with two leading shoe, loss of self-servo effect magnifies any loss of braking power - but the drums in question are not two leading shoe. I doubt that the difference in dissipation is a significant factor - certainly the disc probably has a larger surface area (mainly because both sides are in air), but airflow to it is more restricted than with drums, particularly with the mudshields in place.

And I assumed there was no question of using computerised braking function in this case. The reason they don't work well with drum brakes is that the servo/anti-servo effect and amount of pedal of the drum brakes changes unpredictably as the drums heat up.

John

isuzurover

18th May 2012, 01:08 PM

Where did you come across this one. You will need a turbo on the isuzu or use stage one gears as the isuzu wont have enough grunt to push it along with a load on. I'm putting a supercharger on mine so I can run range rover gears because running up the highway at 90 sucks big ones

Isuzu trucks manage to move 5+ tonne payloads at highway speeds with a 4BD1.

There is a reason there are no factory supercharged diesels. Supercharging a diesel "sucks big ones" compared to turbocharging.

jorjatom68

18th May 2012, 04:29 PM

The middle diff in mine looks to be identical to yours and from my investigations comes from the same type of vehicle. When it was pulled apart there was a chain driving the pinion for the rear most shaft. With the brakes it did stop with the drums BUT if you like sitting under the truck more than driving it then stick with the drums. Because I use mine for carrying weight the drums needed adjusting every couple of weeks. You haven't owned a land rover if you think there drum brakes are superior to the discs.The army use 1979 F350 master cylinders, I was going to do this but pbr wont sell you one and for all the hassle of doing this I'd rather use a new one and it became too hard to find after market. They do this cause the rover master cylinders just dont push enough fluid to run so many wheel cylinders. I put disco rear calipers and the stage one master and the pedal is good. The taper I'm talking about is where the a frame joins the top of the diff. Where the ball joint bolts in mine got flogged out a couple of times.I've tried doing a few things to make the rover type taper work but with no success. This time I'm going to graft a salisbury type one on they are much beefier. I think it's the constant dragging of the rear end every time you turn that does it. Once it starts flogging sideways it doesn't take long before it becomes loose in all directions. The isuzu will work great with stage one gears with a four speed. If you could get a 5 speed to handle the extra strain the 6x6 set up puts on things it would be ok I think. All comes down to how much load it's going to carry. I'm going for a blower cause I want the low down torque it will give. When you have a few ton in the tray and a trailer on sand driving becomes a little harder.

Lotz-A-Landies

18th May 2012, 06:11 PM

OK now I know where your coming from.

Firstly I have owned Land Rovers since the 1960s and have had them with every type of braking system, however I neither believe drum brakes are superior to disks nor are they so bad that one would be afraid to drive it. The interesting thing is that Land Rover F/C & 6cyl/V8 11" brakes have a larger swept area to than the old drum brake Ford F150s with 351V8. The problem was always the lack of boost from the OEM Girling mastervac. The drum brake vehicles I had with the best brakes were using PBR mastervacs retrofitted out of F150/Holden Torana LC (Same parts).

As I said, the disk brake retrofit will be a medium term task, getting it back on the road being a higher priority. If you are able to find a master cyl/ booster unit that will fit I will be very interested to join in. The F350 master cylinders must be available somewhere, even if ex-US, but aren't the Army 6X6 also rear drum brakes?

On the through drive, not having taken it apart but studying the external arrangement, I would have thought the chain drive is to the pinion on the middle axle assembly and the gear/shaft drive is to the rearmost axle assembly?

I have been thinking of attempting to build a similar chain system onto the pinion of another Salisbury. What is most interesting is that the Army 6X6 G-Wagens just being rolled out to units have a through drive. My plans are to investigate if the Mercedes assemblies could be grafted into my/our Defenders. Watch this space!

I have had the A Frame ball joint mount come completely off a RRc housing, so am aware of the weaknesses. Your advice about upgrading is useful.

On the engine and transmission. This will be a work in progress, in the short term I will be using an LT85 5 speed and Disco LT230 ratios 1.211:1. The subsequent plans are one of "The Grubbs" Isuzu MSA 5speed gearbox/LT230 conversions, still on the Disco ratio. The engine 4BD1-T. I have a stage 1 4BD1 which will be the original engine with a turbo bolted on but no other mods, allowing me to build up a second 4BD1 (which I also have) as a full 4BD1-T spec, oil squirters etc. Super charging sounds interesting, but it may be a possibility on the second engine.

Would still be interested in images of your vehicle

Diana :)

justinc

18th May 2012, 06:22 PM

drum brakes are more efficient than discs until they are way out of adjustment, hot, or wet. I agree with John, a correctly adjusted set of rear drums on a 200Tdi 110 are just as good as the disc brake model IME.
And supercharging a 4BD1 (or most other diesels for that matter) isn't as good as turbocharging one, get the manifolding right and intercool it and it will be a way better set up.

JC

jorjatom68

18th May 2012, 09:47 PM

The army converted all rovers to disc. They have a conversion plate to mount the calipers and a special stub so you don't have to change the axles as well. The extra screwing of the back end just wrecks the bake adjustment and that leads very quickly to not enough fluid transfer when there is four wheel cylinders as well as 2 calipers. You just have to be spot on all the time with the adjustment, When mine wasn't loaded was fine, But add weight and I don't care how many 4x4's you have had it just isn't the same. I've had series 3 and county with no problem but ad 2 more wheels and you have no idea until the bills are coming out of your pocket. I think there is an after market fix for the F350 master cylinder but it just got too hard and I think there was dramas with size of the booster cause the army 6x6 are around a foot wider than a stock rover. The 5 speed would fix the problem of power, you just run out of power with the four speed and have to wait so long to be able to knock it back a gear. Have a fairy overdrive for it but I dont think it would take the strain. Just a turbo would make all the difference. Would like to know how it goes. I go off road a fair bit and the ability to get boost at idle will make it heaps better I think. The coils on mine make it sit good with about a ton in the tray. That's at the point when every one else is asking for another vehicle. It's just sitting down nice and actually getting full traction. That's where the air bags will be good if you can get them sorted. I don't think you will have trouble with the middle diff .If I haven't wrecked mine yet you will have to be pretty nasty to it. Mine has rover hub and pinion seals( front and back) and rover bearings. Apparently someone in germany makes these diffs so you may be on the right track with the merc thing.

Lotz-A-Landies

18th May 2012, 11:39 PM

I have a couple or RRc rear axle assemblies, any point attempting to canibalise the calipers and hubs of these?

jorjatom68

19th May 2012, 11:36 AM

Lotz-A-Landies

6th September 2012, 03:37 PM

The volume of the disco calipers is probably as big as you would want. Any bigger and the stage one master wont pump enough fluid and you could run into dramas with using and mounting a bigger one. The booster the army use is about 500mm accross. But they do use defender front calipers all round. I would measure the difference between RRc and disco rear. Slightly smaller would be super. The disco calipers aren't too dear. Just make sure you get pre ABS.Sorry for not visiting this thread for a while.

Ikea (was built in the Defender era) has Defender front disks which are being converted to ventilated rotors and calipers off a 1996 Defender and AFAIK the master cylinder is specified for the 3 axles by Reynolds Boughton/Land Rover Special Vehicles.

The booster unit is the same as used on the Defenders, not the Stage 1.

I have got so bored about getting the flaking paint off the chassis, I've decided to have it dipped. As a result the chassis will be going for a swim tomorrow morning and hopefully be back in the afternoon ready for primer and paint. :)

Diana

jorjatom68

21st October 2012, 06:44 PM

What is the bore size. If it's close to the stage 1 bore and fits the defender booster it would be so much easier to get the parts for.I finally got some photos of my truck. Only had it for eight years or so.

Lotz-A-Landies

21st October 2012, 06:53 PM

I haven't taken the Mcyl apart but it looks the same as the Defender Mcyl not the Stage one.

Am glad I had the chassis dipped, when it came out I could see rust under the bump stop mounts, so they have been removed and am fabricating replacments for the mounts. Without removing the paint I would never have seen the problem and the chassis itself would have soon been at risk of invasive rust.

Thanks for the image. Any chance of some piccies of the rear floor, seatbox and door area. Under the wheelarch would also be good!

jorjatom68

22nd October 2012, 10:05 PM

I'll try to get some on the weekend. It's made up of a ute rear that has been cut and shut on a wagon wheel arch. The roof is the wagon cut down too. I had the same trouble with the bump stops. Cause mine is plated on the sides I have to take the whole cab off to remove all the double plating as rust has got into it all. I'm going to give up on the supercharger idea as the bottom pulley is going to be too big to b able to run a clutch pulley on the blower. From asking around the clutch pulley seems to be the answer to getting the blower to work on a diesel without any hassle. Think I'll be like everyone else and have a turbo. Will just need to find one that works just above idle though as the weight these things carry and soft sand aren't going to like turbo lag too much.

Lotz-A-Landies

23rd October 2012, 01:54 PM

The recent thread on a compound turbo setup has been interesting or better still a variable vane turbo in a twin turbo system would be great. I have the sequential turbos on the D4 3.0 and there is barely any lag at all.

Immaculate! :) :) :) :)

jorjatom68

29th October 2012, 05:05 PM

I've been reading the thread on the compound turbo. My mate has put a turbo off a 300zx on his isuzu and it seems to have minimal lag with good power. I've got some photo's of the back of the cab and diff for you if I can get them attached. Took a few goes last time.I'm not real good at this stuff.

jorjatom68

29th October 2012, 05:11 PM

Just got a couple that I missed.

Lotz-A-Landies

29th October 2012, 05:14 PM

Thanks for those.

I didn't know you had already fitted up the air suspension?

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Diana :D ;)

wagoo

29th October 2012, 07:42 PM

Haven't visited this thread for a while. A Disco banjo housing has a stronger A frame ball joint taper bracket.Would the drum brakes requiring regular adjustment be due to the snail cams backing themselves off? I've struck this a few times over the years.Out of interest, has anyone measured a hot brake drum vs a cold one?Anyway, a quick pump of the brake pedal soon addresses the heat expansion issue. Don't know about liquification, but I read somewhere that fade is due to a film of gas at the brake shoe drum surface interface, and drilling the friction surface of the drum and/or brake shoes allows the gas to escape.
It was mentioned that the Thru drive may have been built in Germany. Could that company be Schuler Presses? the same company that did the chain drive variable torque split transfercase conversions for earlier RangeRover Classics?
Just from appearances, I don't think there is sufficient offset between the pinion shaft and the output shaft for the rearmost axle on the thru drive unit to clear the extra bulk of a Salisbury diff, whether the thru shaft is internal as on the Rover diff, or external.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

29th October 2012, 09:58 PM

wagoo

29th October 2012, 10:07 PM

Bill

I have recently agreed to the purchase of a DI Maxidrive. In light of your comment above, would you go to the trouble of retrofitting the through drive to the D1 housing?

It will make the disk brake conversion easier.

Diana
Diana, that would depend on how extensively the banjo housing has to be modified for the bolt on rear cover/thru shaft bearing assy . Judging by the photo, your housing already has the later A frame ball joint bracket.

bill.

jorjatom68

30th October 2012, 08:36 PM

I have the same trouble as you with rust under the bump stops, so all the stops have to come off. The disc conversion is not that hard just need a military conversion plate to copy off. Andersons land rover in hervey bay have some left overs from doing my conversion. The hard piece to get hold of is the military stubs. From there it's just bolting it together. To find which bits worked at the start but once we worked it out it all seemed easy as. The only hard thing is welding a plate to take the A frame plate from the other diff in the picture

isuzurover

30th October 2012, 09:52 PM

I have the same trouble as you with rust under the bump stops, so all the stops have to come off. ...

Why not attach the bump stops to the axle and reinforce the chassis contact area when repairing the rust???

fitzy

2nd November 2012, 11:24 AM

Lotz-A-Landies

2nd November 2012, 01:42 PM

Why not attach the bump stops to the axle and reinforce the chassis contact area when repairing the rust???Hi Ben

In my case we found the rust before any real damage has been done, we will reinforce the low side of the clamshell of the chassis rail which is the only place on one bumpstop where any penetration has happened. The old bumpstops have been repaired.

wagoo

2nd November 2012, 08:19 PM

RANGE ROVER 6X6 CUSTOM NSW ENGINEER CERTIFICATE 1986 | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/RANGE-ROVER-6X6-CUSTOM-NSW-ENGINEER-CERTIFICATE-1986-/271094500759?pt=AU_Cars&hash=item3f1e7dcd97)

Just for interests sake 6x6 rangie with 2 ford 9"'s
With such a low pinion, 9'' ford diffs are quite easy to convert to thru drives and don't require gear or chain driven pwer dividers with their attendant frictional losses. A firm in the USA does make thru drive crownwheel and pinion sets, but it's not too difficult to modify standard ones.
Bill.

Bearman

2nd November 2012, 08:39 PM

jorjatom68

4th November 2012, 06:03 PM

I think your right there. It was a few years back now. We did try to use all sorts of things until we went that way. There was a military 6X6 in town with holden calipers on it.

Lotz-A-Landies

4th November 2012, 08:37 PM

With such a low pinion, 9'' ford diffs are quite easy to convert to thru drives and don't require gear or chain driven pwer dividers with their attendant frictional losses. A firm in the USA does make thru drive crownwheel and pinion sets, but it's not too difficult to modify standard ones.
Bill.The Ford 9" are a very good diff although the hypoid nature of the pinion is critcal for the type of lubricant and AFAIK the closest Ford ratio to the 3.54 Rover/salisbury ratio is a 3.5:1 ratio.

However Ashcrofts in the UK have a front hypoid diff based on the ford 9" with the pinion at the top, so they may have a 3.54:1 cw/pinion set for the Ford.

uninformed

4th November 2012, 09:34 PM

AFAIK, when Ashcroft started to develop the "Force 9" it was based on a ford 9....by the time it was finished they have modded it to be their own. I think they had problems with Ford 9 gear sets in the front, and after not being able to find a reverse cut set or some one to make them, they re -designed their own so the tooth is symetrical, so it can ran on either side for front and rear applications. Im not sure if their new gear sets will bolt into a F9???

this is all from my dodgy memory so could be way off.

wagoo

5th November 2012, 10:12 AM

The Ford 9" are a very good diff although the hypoid nature of the pinion is critcal for the type of lubricant and AFAIK the closest Ford ratio to the 3.54 Rover/salisbury ratio is a 3.5:1 ratio.

However Ashcrofts in the UK have a front hypoid diff based on the ford 9" with the pinion at the top, so they may have a 3.54:1 cw/pinion set for the Ford.

I really wonder if the difference between 3.5:1 and 3.54:1 would be detrimental to the life of the centre differential anyway. It's only around 8 wheel revolutions per mile difference and the constant rotation of the gears actually may prevent the bevel gear teeth from Brinnelling.
I came across a site called 'six wheel appeal group' and was surprised at the numbers of 6x6 conversion to LandRovers that have been done over the years. I don't necessarily agree to these conversions being the answer to crosscountry load carrying duties when compared to a larger 2 ton 4x4 truck, but if there is still a demand for 6x6 conversions then an enterprising company such as Ashcrofts could do worse than develop the elegantly simple and strong 9'' thrudrive alternative to the fragile Rover diff based offerings.
bill.

Lotz-A-Landies

25th January 2013, 08:02 PM

I think I had a dream today, the dream involved going out to the factory to find Ikea's chassis fully painted (last weekend's dream) and that today I fitted wheels to the axle assemblies and then front radius arms, with new bushes at each end to the front axle and the freshly painted chassis, then front springs and panhard rod. Fantastical as that was my dream proceeded to, where I fitted to lower links and springs on the rear axle and lowered the weight of the chassis onto it's own suspension for the first time in at least a decade.

Diana :cool:

Lotz-A-Landies

26th January 2013, 06:58 PM

Today's effort re-fit the cab and tray ready for the 50Km trip to the chook shed, now it means I can get more than one day's work each week. :)

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/12/838.jpg

Bigbjorn

26th January 2013, 07:46 PM

I really wonder if the difference between 3.5:1 and 3.54:1 would be detrimental to the life of the centre differential anyway. It's only around 8 wheel revolutions per mile difference and the constant rotation of the gears actually may prevent the bevel gear teeth from Brinnelling.
I came across a site called 'six wheel appeal group' and was surprised at the numbers of 6x6 conversion to LandRovers that have been done over the years. I don't necessarily agree to these conversions being the answer to crosscountry load carrying duties when compared to a larger 2 ton 4x4 truck, but if there is still a demand for 6x6 conversions then an enterprising company such as Ashcrofts could do worse than develop the elegantly simple and strong 9'' thrudrive alternative to the fragile Rover diff based offerings.
bill.

Aftermarket suppliers in the USA make R&P sets for the 9" in a plethora of ratios for the hot rod and drag race communities. You could always consider a quick change centre like a Halibrand so you can swap between ratios for commuting, touring, towing, off road, and so on. For a 6x6 you would need three of them so might not be economical.

By the way, the opposite of hypoid is amboid.

have a look at The New Halibrand (http://www.halibrand.com)

Lotz-A-Landies

28th January 2013, 02:51 PM

Becoming one of the chook family!

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/01/161.jpg

This morning even acquired a roof rack to go over the tray for camping etc. Thanks Bob :BigThumb: Now just need or bend up some bows to support it and cut off the old leg stumps!

isuzutoo-eh

29th January 2013, 09:43 AM

Looks funny without the mid axle!

Lotz-A-Landies

29th January 2013, 02:05 PM

Looks funny without the mid axle!Wot U think my Defender 150 is funny looking! :mad:

:D ;)

I'm wanting to merge a Disco 1 maxidrive and it's disk brakes to the through drive mid axle, so it would have been a waste of effort to fit that extra axle just for the move.

It has all been a bit precipitate as I had hoped to lower in the engine and transmission prior to the move however my friends are retiring and they have just sold the factory. This meant they only had 6 weeks before having it as a vacant possession so I had to finish the painting etc and move. Having to work full time in a paid job, plus getting it ready and out in only 4 working (stinking hot) days over 2 weeks is pretty good.

The good thing is that, it's now mostly mechanical work, in a mechanic's shed which is only 28 minutes (excluding delays from rolled over B doubles) along the M5, instead of an hours drive each way M5/M7 Richmond Rd.

gunguy

29th January 2013, 02:59 PM

sure,

but do you need the metric, imperial, BSW, ISO, JSA, or BSP sized allen key?
or the left handed versions of the above

jorjatom68

6th July 2013, 06:25 PM

What's been happening. Has the truck got going yet.

Sitec

7th July 2013, 09:42 AM

Lotz-A-Landies

8th August 2013, 04:20 PM

Hi Sitec

That type system was manufactured by one of the conversion companies and even tested by JRA prior to the Australian designed Perentie 6X6 system being developed. In fact the double pinion design performed so poorly it lasted less than 48 hours when JRA tested it against the Sandringham 6 out on Wirraba Ridge off the Putty Road. That is why they designed their own.

I have seen one of the diffs. This one however had the outer bolt flange machined off the rear housing and the bearings secured with long bolts coming in from the rear of the housing. Once assembled and the preload on both pinion set the complete assembly was installed from the front. Never saw the housing, so don't know how they supported, sealed or secured the rear end of the assembly.

The problem with it is that the crownwheel is taking the load from both axle assemblies and there is no power divider or dog clutch arrangement. They frequently use FW hubs on the rear axle to disengage the rear drive on the highway.

It may work O.K. in muddy terrain but is a problem in rocky sandstone terrain so common around the Sydney Basin.

Lotz-A-Landies

29th September 2013, 06:43 PM

Had the rear cover plate off , the intermediate axle today.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/10/616.jpg

With the through drive shaft in place.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/60.jpg

The crownwheel count is 46 teeth, so Im guessing a 13 tooth pinion and a 3.54:1 ratio.

Was also looking at the brakes, sorry no images, however the bearing spacing is the same as those on the D1 axle, so I can mount the D1 hubs straight onto the Defender stub axles. The problem (as mentioned elsewhere) the hub face on the D1 hubs will make the track 10mm narrower each side.

My option is to run a narrower track at the rear or space the stub axles. My mate was working on Series disk brake adapters at the same time and we feel that we can make a 10mm spacer which will also become the calliper bracket. This will allow use of the Defender ventilated rotor on all six wheels. The down side is that it will require new axles half shafts, 10mm longer than OEM. The hoped for option of using the D1 Maxidrive axles is not an option as the Maxi splines into the diff are different to the OEM splines on the Rover diff. The Maxis were 15mm longer in any case.

Haven't looked at the rear Salisbury yet but am assuming the same issues. Does anyone know the different lengths of disk and drum Salisbury halfshafts?

Lotz-A-Landies

29th September 2013, 07:00 PM

Hello.
Very interesting thread, and yes, same as before.. How's it going.. Reading thru this reminded me of an article in LRO (issue 5 Spring 13) which has a home made 6x6 recovery truck. He's used the Rover pumpkins (yeah, I know Sals would be better and with the unboltable rear cover prob achievable..) He has two pinions on the front diff, then the second axle has the diff running upside down due to the prop direction change.. The second rear axle is engaged really simply by using modified free wheeling hubs on the rear axle flanges. No fancy expensive gearboxes, all stock parts and very simple. Keep up the good work!Was talking to an old chap who built a 6x6 Isuzu 110 from one of the original LT95 Isuzu 110 cab chassis, he uses a Ford 9" as the intermediate axle through drive although its actualy a 6X4 with lockable 6X6. Im a bit unclear whether the idling diff is the intermediate axle or the rear Salsbury, the drive lock was vacuum actuated.

Lotz-A-Landies

30th September 2013, 05:22 PM

Bugger!

My Maxidrive diff locker plans are going to manure. First the Disco 1 actuator is on the wrong side for the through drive so was planning to use it on the front axle.

Now we find it is one of the early 28 spline Maxis, which need a long slider gear gear to use on the front axle. (Which are no longer available) :BigCry:

Looks Like I'll be fitting a Maxidrive diff lock to my classic rangie.

Diana

jorjatom68

11th November 2013, 10:29 PM

I think it's 20mm from memory. You might find a diff from the military, they already have the conversion done. They use defender front calipers though.
The military stub is the bit you need then it's just a bit of plate to put the caliper on. Mine only just gets good pedal with disco rear calipers and a stage 1 master cylinder.

Lotz-A-Landies

12th November 2013, 07:44 AM

Hi I've purchased the later Defender stub axles which will correct the track difference. My Defender already has the narrow bearing spacing so there won't be any change in bearings. Was talking to Barry Ward at Hi-Tough Engineering (Maxi-Drive axles) and we may be able to make up any halfshaft differences with special or maybe even the HTE-X flanges.

Have also decided to use ventilated rotors on all axles so my mounting plates will be different and by using aftermarket callipers I can get the front rear bias correct.

mrapocalypse

8th October 2014, 06:48 PM

Any progress on this.

It's a cool beast. Hate to see it fade away.

I.

Lotz-A-Landies

8th October 2014, 07:04 PM

the holdup is the MSA transmission and the fact that I'm spending weekends moving the last of my toys off the now sold farm.

Lotz-A-Landies

4th December 2014, 03:20 PM

From the research i have done thus far:
<snip>
But intelliride might be the go becuase they are used on trucks and busses with 3 axles im sure and very customizable (windows based)From the investigation in the US, the suggestions have been to place sensors on one of the rear axles, probably the 3rd and have it managed as a single bag.

When off road, lock the sensors out of the system so they don't start reacting to the axle movements over terrain with the processor command outputs as if its a flat road.

AFAIK, the big problem (and its the same for bogy trucks) is that the air transfer between bags is not instantaneous so the bags are reacting to terrain events that have already passed.

Joining the bags together is the only way to get some form of load sharing, otherwise, on coils when climbing over steps, the entire load can be on a single axle and diff with the other suspended without traction.

Dougal

4th December 2014, 03:44 PM

From the investigation in the US, the suggestions have been to place sensors on one of the rear axles, probably the 3rd and have it managed as a single bag.

When off road, lock the sensors out of the system so they don't start reacting to the axle movements over terrain with the processor command outputs as if its a flat road.

AFAIK, the big problem (and its the same for bogy trucks) is that the air transfer between bags is not instantaneous so the bags are reacting to terrain events that have already passed.

Joining the bags together is the only way to get some form of load sharing, otherwise, on coils when climbing over steps, the entire load can be on a single axle and diff with the other suspended without traction.

The system should only attempt to level when stationary. Not when moving.
So it shouldn't be reacting to terrain at all.

Lotz-A-Landies

4th December 2014, 04:32 PM

Dougal

4th December 2014, 04:55 PM

However with EAS doesn't it also activate in an anti roll situarion when cornering? i.e. when cornering at speed the weight goes to the outside (centrifugal force) depressing the bags on that side , the sensor detects the vehicle low on one side of the axle, so increases pressure on that bag reducing the body roll. After the corner the excess weight on the outside wheel dissipates and the sensor detects high on that side so reduces pressure in the bag till the sensor registers the normal height.

**** no.
That's getting into the realm of active suspension where any incorrect instruction can make the vehicles completely unstable. This is PID control of servo-pneumatics, it's a seriously complicated field and not something you'd ever get into as a retrofit.

Simon (mechanical engineer from X-Eng) in the UK did have a tinker about 10 years ago and then gave up. You can read his exploits here: Sproklegrommet - The Unorthodox Engineers (http://www.sproklegrommet.co.uk/)

Notice the comments about having to pull power from the controller when it went unstable during tuning!

As well as the instability and safety issues there are also massive air consumption associated with trying to run active air suspension on the fly. The only things EAS will do on the fly is raise to ride height (from access or low-profile mode) or drop to low-profile height. The height adjustment is far too slow to be completed around the average corner.

Lotz-A-Landies

4th December 2014, 05:12 PM

:BigCry:

jorjatom68

11th December 2014, 07:17 AM

Try talking to the airbag man. Based in brisbane. I've briefly spoken to them about my 6x6. What I was thinking of doing to make it more stable off road was linking the two rear axles together on each side so the sharing occurs front to back not side to side. After speaking to road train drivers about the airbags on the double deck cattle trucks, they told me to be very careful about using them to share side to side as they've had some fall over because they react to slow. Sharing front to back should also help off road too, cause I have been hung up with 4 wheels off the ground. Only once and diff locks would have fixed that problem. I was also advised to keep coils in the steer, but was never really given a reason why. If it shared side to side on a separate system I can't see a problem, but the truck drivers see it different.

isuzurover

11th December 2014, 11:23 AM

Diana, i am sure i suggested a long time ago that you just use a dumb manual setup like i have been running for years. In your case you could add a valve to link the 2 bags on each side when desired. Forget any ideas of cross(axle)linking.

Lotz-A-Landies

11th December 2014, 11:36 AM

Hi Ben

Yes the plan, as we discussed ages ago, is along those lines. I would like bags on all 6 wheels, just so I can get it into the garage and have highway and off road heights so which controller to use is an issue.

Won't be cross linking, but will join the two bags per side at the rear together with large bore tubes to reduce resistance and improved air flow between the two bags and to enhance load sharing.

Still not decided about having lock outs controlled by centrally located solenoids or gates as this will reduce flow and induce an element of lag (wont it?).

Lotz-A-Landies

2nd February 2015, 12:27 PM

Progressing slowly with IKEA, over the weekend I was attempting to solve the problems caused by converting the rear drum to disk brakes. Just to summarise the situation.

Original specs:
Defender narrow bearing spacing drum brake hubs, Defender FRC8540 narrow wheel bearing spacing stub axles, FRC8506 30mm spline drive flange. (fitting Defender front hubs or Disco hubs will narrow track by 20mm)

Modified specs:
Disco 1 hubs, Defender FRC1740 narrow wheel bearing spacing stub axles (10mm offset to FRC8540) track now correct front/intermediate axle.

The problem is that by pushing the hub out 10mm the FRC8506 drive flanges sit outside the axle. HTE-859 (late Defender RRc/Disco) 25mm spline flanges are 5mm too short for the halfshaft splines, so to avoid having to replace the halfshafts we are going to modify the (35mm spline) HTE-859X by machining out 5mm of the spline forming a circlip recess and machining down the outside of the hub with 5mm more thread for the cap.

Lotz-A-Landies

31st March 2015, 11:04 AM

Just following up on the above.

I purchased 4 of the HTE 859 X flanges and machined 5mm off the (35mm) outer face making a 30mm spine remaining and extended the screw thread for the cap down by 5mm and everything fits up exactly as they're supposed to.

This means that I can use the standard County/early Defender halfshafts with 30mm spline I already have (or the HTE/MaxiDrive equivalent) merely for the cost of the replacement drive flanges from HTE. Barry W from HTE has been notified of the results, so perhaps he could be encouraged to make the flanges to order, instead of having to machine them down after purchase.

As the hubs are now oil floating, I'm going to retrofit the earlier rear hub oil seal type instead of the type for the grease packed hubs.

Dervish

2nd June 2015, 10:48 AM

Did you know that Ikea has an older brother (http://www.carsales.com.au/private/details/Land-Rover-110-1985/SSE-AD-3417037/?Cr=9)?

How is Ikea going, anyway? https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/06/1025.jpg (http://www.sherv.net/)

Lotz-A-Landies

2nd June 2015, 11:19 AM

Actually that is a narrow track civilian version of the Perentie 6x6. Quite a few of them about. Brian B (B52 on REMLR) has one in WA.

I do however know that Ikea has two brothers in Australia, one (a younger version) came in on the same import paperwork as Ikea. I don't think that either of them have been converted to 4BD1-T.

Regarding Ikea, am still waiting for an Isuzu MSA/MXA conversion kit for the gearbox. But looks like that option, or at least the adaptor shaft, is close

Dervish

2nd June 2015, 11:34 AM

Actually that is a narrow track civilian version of the Perentie 6x6. Quite a few of them about. Brian B (B52 on REMLR) has one in WA.

I take it you didn't get to the driveline photos?

Lotz-A-Landies

2nd June 2015, 01:56 PM

I take it you didn't get to the driveline photos?
No originally I only got blank page for the images, network traffic here where I am.

However that vehicle despite being coil sprung with a through drive is different to Ikea.
Ikea is 110 wheelbase between the front and intermediate axles (front of wheel sits almost under the dual cab, just like a 110 wagon), that vehicle is at least 130.
The through drive is different and appears to be driving off a second rear pinion where Ikea has parrallel shaft to the RHS of the diff body.

Ikea's diff.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/06/1017.jpg

130 6x6 on Carsales
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/06/1018.jpg
Note: The hat on the rear of Ikea's is bolted on where Carsales is a welded-on hat.

At best that 6x6 is a 1st cousin.

Lotz-A-Landies

17th May 2017, 07:06 PM

I'm back to working on Ikea.

The mid axle has been installed fitted with disk brakes donored off a 6x6 perentie axle.

The current issue is mating the dual cab from a 130 to what is effectively a 110 chassis. Have removed the 130 B pillars and door sills and am now installing the B pillars donored off a 110 county. My problem is that there are some fit issues, mainly that the DC cab roof seems to be about 10 mm rearward of the top of the B pillar.

Could people with 110 wagons take some pictures for me?

What I'm interested in is: the spacers/washers if any between the chassis and the base of the firewall where the long bolt goes through?
are there chassis mounts under the rear passenger floor connected to the rear door sill or only to the panel that supports the rear of the seat box (and B pillar)
what are the connections between chassis and the rear of the sill and rear door frame?

Any pictures will be appreciated. :)

Lotz-A-Landies

18th May 2017, 06:37 PM

I must of had some people confused today, was driving down the road and spied a 110 wagon in a car park so I stopped and had a good look at the fixings. Hope they didn't report me for placing a bomb or something????

Looks like the new rear body mounts are too far to the rear so will need spacers which isn't a problem, there are spacers everywhere on most Defenders.

Still its two steps forward and one step back, I removed the rear fixings and fitted the B pillar loosely into the roof and put in the four screws in front of the rear passenger footwell. Cut out the 130 door striker panel to the rear of the back doors only to find that the outer skin is double thickness so the 110 County B pillar assembly will need to be modified to accommodate the extra thickness. Also need to drill new holes for the Defender door strikers as early 110 have them in a slightly different location.

The wins today are that the special rear chassis outriggers will be able to carry the rear of the sill panel using standard Defender/110 wagon brackets and the brackets on the angled part of the C pillar will fit easily to the new 40mm RHS removable cross member using a standard chassis bracket. (I can't use the standard 110 wagon removable crossmember because of a large web installed with the 6X6 conversion to stiffen up the chassis.)

Dervish

20th May 2017, 09:41 PM

Have removed the 130 B pillars and door sills and am now installing the B pillars donored off a 110 county.

Good to hear Ikea is in progress. I'm curious as to how and why the above is happening - I can't make sense of how that will work in my head. It sounds like you've found the information you need but let me know if you still need photos. As for washers in the bulkhead bolts, yes they are usually present (up to 3) but there was obviously some process for determining how many (if any) were needed each side at the factory to get the bulkhead square.

Lotz-A-Landies

21st May 2017, 06:44 PM

Good to hear Ikea is in progress. I'm curious as to how and why the above is happening - I can't make sense of how that will work in my head. It sounds like you've found the information you need but let me know if you still need photos. As for washers in the bulkhead bolts, yes they are usually present (up to 3) but there was obviously some process for determining how many (if any) were needed each side at the factory to get the bulkhead square.

The double cab comes off a 130 which has a blank triangular infill panel in the rear bottom corner of the rear doors and the sill frame which is part of the B pillar assembly goes the full length of the bottom of the doors including the infill.

Ikea is a 110 between the front and middle axles and the wheels and the rear part of the 130 sill want to share the same point in 3D space. Also I need to cut away part of the rear body panel to re-create the front of the 110 wheel arch, which then takes away a lot of the strength and integrity of the C pillar. By grafting the B and C pillar assembly of a 110 I'm returning the integrity of the body and door above the middle axle.

Does that make sense?

P.S. You can see part of the re-created wheel arch in pic on the tilt tray and the problem of the sill where the wheel should be. The other pic is the 130 cab when I picked it up.
In the re-posted image of the two axles installed you can see the modifications/removal of the tray step and to the left and lower than that you can see an additional chassis outrigger immediately above the radius arm bush, this was donored off another damaged defender chassis and will provide the support to the rear of the sill and the rear passengers floor/seatbox.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/projects-and-tutorials/123422d1495014485-ikea-6x6d-anyone-have-allen-key-20170516_164415sm.jpg

Dervish

22nd May 2017, 05:36 PM

Does that make sense?

Yes, perfectly. I had read that there was 110" wheelbase to the intermediate axle but I hadn't fully absorbed the significance of it. It's a shame that a regular station wagon crossmember won't fit the chassis, that would've made things much simpler. You've got an interesting problem ahead of you - I'm keen to see how you get on. Provided you can retain the steel braces in the cab rear panel (130s have these, don't they? Or is it just single cabs?) I think you will have strength enough.

Lotz-A-Landies

22nd May 2017, 06:44 PM

Thanks Dervish

I'm intending to use the 130 rear seatbox which the top sits a little higher than the floor in the rear of the 110 wagon. As luck would have it there is a standard chassis bracket unused in the 110 wagon but by adding a removable cross member of 50mm height across those chassis brackets between both C pillars it can carry the standard bracket on the C pillars that usually bolt to the rear floor. I'm confident this will add significant support to the rear of the body, but this will be confirmed with the engineer on his next review.

I'll take some images tomorrow.

Lotz-A-Landies

23rd May 2017, 07:12 PM

Just some images to update the thread.

In the first image I've placed the 110 infill panel in position, you'll note that the rear panel isn't cut correctly, I'm waiting to finalise the mountings and fit before doing the final cut. You'll get the idea of the finish. You'll notice that the red floor panel is sitting up at an angle, this is because it's sitting on the reinforcing web of the chassis rails which is causing all the issues. The white line is the approximate cut line which will allow the floor to sit flat on each side, however I'm contemplating whether to have the middle section slanted along the angle of the web or to cut around the webs and box in just over the each chassis rail.

The second image is a birds eye view of inside. I've placed a length of 50mm X 50mm RHS in place of the new removable crossmember to show where it will mount near the top of the image you can see the bracket not usually used on the 110 wagon. At the bttom you can just see the bracket on the C pillar that usually bolts to the rear floor. Right of frame is the 130 rear panel with wheel well cut away and left of screen is the red floor panel (as described above)

The third image is a profile of the 130 seat box bolted in place. (Note that the front of this has been cut around the chassis webs, so is sitting at the final height)

The fourth image is similar to 3 but shows an intended treatment of the new panel between the seat box and sill/pillar assembly.

JDNSW

23rd May 2017, 08:16 PM

Have you thought about the alternative for the floor of just spacing it up by the required amount? How much are we talking about? - not obvious from the pictures.

Lotz-A-Landies

23rd May 2017, 08:44 PM

Hi John

Yes I did consider lifting the whole floor, but feel that will cause issues with the doors closing.

If you look at the last image in the set above, you'll see the cut-out in the front of the seatbox, its only about 35mm. Then if you look forward you'll view a pair of chassis brackets where the rib under the footwell floor rests and notice that these are about level with the slope of the chassis web. The thought were to put a fold at the back of the rib, wide enough to cover the chassis rails (or the whole middle floor) and slope up the rear of the floor to mate with the seatbox cut-outs. Then insert a couple of triangular panels to fill the gap between the outer horizontal floor and the sloped floor. (I can make them on my folding brake).

Of course I could lift the middle section of the floor and leave the outer sections original. However this would mean that the rear passengers would have one foot sitting higher than the other. (Not having ridden in the back of a 110 wagon, I've no idea if this would be a problem.)

Don 130

23rd May 2017, 09:12 PM

If it's only 35mm, I think I'd have raised the floor and the seatbox. You could always leave a suitable little recess/step at each side to accomodate door closing. I think that would look neat enough that most except the eagle eyed rivet counter would notice. The rear seat passengers always like the better view from being able to see over the heads of those up front. My two bobs worth.
Don.

Lotz-A-Landies

23rd May 2017, 09:33 PM

I have a couple of 110 floors and the 130 floor so I may try a couple of different designs and see what works best.

As for sitting higher, the 130 seat box bolts to the rear panel, so lifting the floor will only reduce foot well space.

cuppabillytea

23rd May 2017, 10:24 PM

Sorry Diana. I'm confused as to what the actual Chassis is.

Lotz-A-Landies

23rd May 2017, 11:06 PM

its a Defender 110 with Reynolds Boughton 6x6 conversion.

The 110 was part assembled at Solihull sent to the Reynolds Boughton (Scottorn Trailers factory) where they cut the chassis rails in the middle of the coil mount inserted 40" and stuck the original rear on behind the extension then the coil mounts were fitted and the vehicle sent back to Land Rover for completion and fitting of the cherry picker body.

It was one of these.