217354 bush for front stub axle

[gromit]

I've just removed one of the front stub axles on my Series 3 and found that there is no bush fitted (although it's machined out for a bush).
I've been told that the bush wasn't fitted on the Series 3, is this correct ?

In my Series 2 parts manual it states "217354 Bush for driving shaft. Early type stub axle" which sounds like maybe not fitted to Series 3 might be correct.

Because the vehicle is a bitsa I'm not sure whether bushes should be fitted or not. Because the stub axle is machined for a bush should it have a bush ??


Colin

[Xtreme]

Colin, is this the bush that the inner hub oil seal seats on?
A photo of your stub axle would be handy.

As I recall, the "Early type stub axle" was fitted with a replacable bush (which required heating to fit) but from Series III onwards the area that the seal ran on was machined as part of the stub axle. If damaged, you either speedie sleeved it or (IMHO and a better/easier alternative albeit at a slightly higher cost) replaced the entire stub axle.

If the seal surface is not too far gone it may be salvagable by an hour or so's work with some wet & dry sanding and then using and strategically fitting one of the double lipped oil seals.

[gromit]

Colin, is this the bush that the inner hub oil seal seats on?
A photo of your stub axle would be handy.

As I recall, the "Early type stub axle" was fitted with a replacable bush (which required heating to fit) but from Series III onwards the area that the seal ran on was machined as part of the stub axle. If damaged, you either speedie sleeved it or (IMHO and a better/easier alternative albeit at a slightly higher cost) replaced the entire stub axle.

If the seal surface is not too far gone it may be salvagable by an hour or so's work with some wet & dry sanding and then using and strategically fitting one of the double lipped oil seals.

No, the bush is the one inside the stub axle that the drive shaft sits in (or doesn't in the case of an S3 ?)

Colin

[gromit]

The Father-in-law was visting the other day and we were discussing the missing bush.
He thinks that the shaft being supported in 3 places (the drive flange, the 217354 bush and the roller bearing) would create problems unless there is some end float in the universal joint (sideways play once the cups are installed).
I'll have to check my parts manual to see if the driveshaft UJ was a different part number to the propshaft UJ, thinking about it one is sealed and one isn't so they will be different numbers.

A propshaft UJ has no endfloat, maybe changing to a common UJ meant that the bush wasn't needed (or could cause problems if fitted ?).
The bush seems to be difficult to obtain, I found a company in the UK that makes them but at 20GBP each.......

I've also hit another problem with using a propshaft UJ for the driveshaft but I'll save that for another thread.


Colin

[JDNSW]

I think the bush was simply omitted because it was found that no problems resulted from running without one. Unless being a real stickler for period accuracy, I would simply not worry about it being missing. If you are worried, making one should be a simple turning job, able to be undertaken by any engineering firm or amateur with a lathe.

John

[B.S.F.]

I've been using a later stub axle without a bush for years . It is impossible to fit a bush to these. If I remember rightly that end of the stub axle has no step but has a slight taper to allow more movement of the stub shaft without touching it. The bush is a standard engineering item and should be available from any good bearing shop. W.

[B.S.F.]

I just had a look at an old stub axle. There is no step.I'm sorry I should have checked before I posted. W.

[gromit]

I've been using a later stub axle without a bush for years . It is impossible to fit a bush to these. If I remember rightly that end of the stub axle has no step but has a slight taper to allow more movement of the stub shaft without touching it. The bush is a standard engineering item and should be available from any good bearing shop. W.

Unfortunately the bush isn't available, I've tried.
It's sintered and thin wall, I could match the OD or ID but not both and they were longer than needed.
I did consider buying one with the correct ID, fitting on an expanding spigot & machining the OD then machining to length.

The vehicle I'm working on has a recess for the bush in one stub axle but not in the other stub axle (mix of parts over the years). Seems the bush was dropped during 2A anyway.
I do know the whereabouts of 2 NOS bushes at a reasonable price if anyone desperately needs them.


Colin

[wrinklearthur]

Unfortunately the bush isn't available, I've tried.
It's sintered and thin wall, I could match the OD or ID but not both and they were longer than needed.
I did consider buying one with the correct ID, fitting on an expanding spigot & machining the OD then machining to length.

The vehicle I'm working on has a recess for the bush in one stub axle but not in the other stub axle (mix of parts over the years). Seems the bush was dropped during 2A anyway.
I do know the whereabouts of 2 NOS bushes at a reasonable price if anyone desperately needs them.


Colin

I think those bushes were originally for locating the Traka joints in the 80".
If fitted up nicely with U/J's they may save the spline for a bit longer in the driving flange.
.

[JDNSW]

I think those bushes were originally for locating the Traka joints in the 80".
If fitted up nicely with U/J's they may save the spline for a bit longer in the driving flange.
.

I think you may have nailed it! Just took a few years to realise that it was not necessary (or to use up the stock of parts!).

John

[gromit]

I think those bushes were originally for locating the Traka joints in the 80".
If fitted up nicely with U/J's they may save the spline for a bit longer in the driving flange.
.

Arthur,

That might be the reason, but as you say, if the bush was fitted in a vehicle with a UJ it might save the splines.
The only thing then is you need to grind a bit off the end each of the four 'arms' to allow some float in the UJ otherwise something else will wear/fail. That's why I'm thinking the UJ became a common item between propshaft & driveshaft meaning the bush was best left out because you couldn't have float in a propshaft UJ.
If you think about the flexing when in 4WD on full lock under power it explains why the driveshaft nuts are often loose (despite being split-pinned) and the driveshaft has eaten it's way into the back of the drive member.



Colin

[gromit]

Had a look at the Tracta joint (because I'm not that familiar with it) and found that it gives exactly the 'float' I'm talking about needing with a UJ.

The site below has a brief explanation of CV joints and there is an interesting comment on the use of UJ's. 'Very strong, simple to make but they need complicated support bearings when used in drive axles'
constant-velocity joint : definition of constant-velocity joint and synonym of constant-velocity joint (English) (http://dictionary.sensagent.com/constant-velocity+joint/en-en/)

Tracta gave constant velocity so was it a 'backwards' move to change to UJ's ?

Anyway, my thinking is still that the bush was removed because it could potentially cause problems with propshaft UJ's.


Colin

[gromit]

Read my SIII workshop manual last night and it mentions the bushes and reaming them to the correct size.
So they went during 2A production but did they reappear on Series III ?


Colin

[wrinklearthur]

The Father-in-law was visting the other day and we were discussing the missing bush.
He thinks that the shaft being supported in 3 places (the drive flange, the 217354 bush and the roller bearing) would create problems unless there is some end float in the universal joint (sideways play once the cups are installed).
I'll have to check my parts manual to see if the driveshaft UJ was a different part number to the propshaft UJ, thinking about it one is sealed and one isn't so they will be different numbers.

A propshaft UJ has no endfloat, maybe changing to a common UJ meant that the bush wasn't needed (or could cause problems if fitted ?).

Hi Colin

I think that when the outside drive axle is held tight against the drive flange, the axle end float should be and is done, inside the side gears of the diff.
I say that because if you look at the wear mark on a old or well used front drive axle, that mark is always longer than the spline in the side gear.

This dosn't apply to the 80" tracta joint as both the swivel pin 'C' ends of the drive axle need to be fixed inrespect to the tracta joint block for the joint to work
.

[gromit]

Hi Colin

I think that when the outside drive axle is held tight against the drive flange, the axle end float should be and is done, inside the side gears of the diff.
I say that because if you look at the wear mark on a old or well used front drive axle, that mark is always longer than the spline in the side gear.

This dosn't apply to the 80" tracta joint as both the swivel pin 'C' ends of the drive axle need to be fixed inrespect to the tracta joint block for the joint to work
.

Arthur,

I probably confused you with my description.

I mean 'side-float' in the UJ rather than end float in the axle. Difficult to describe without using my hands and that probably won't help you unless we video conference....

If you imagine all the tolerances within the axle, bushes, UJ, swivel hub etc. etc. The inner part of the shaft is supported in the diff and the roller bearing, the outer end is clamped against the drive member and guided by the bush. Even with the wheels pointed straight ahead what are the odds that all 4 support points are in-line ? Pretty remote.
Now turn the wheels and things get more complicated. Is the centre you are turning on even the same as the turning centre of the UJ ?

When I ran through it with the father-in-law we had the drive shaft, stub axle and a workshop manual on the kitchen table (Tracy wasn't impressed, I only got away with it because it was her Dad). The FIL worked at PBR with R&D many years ago, they had a similar issue with a vehicle and the solution was to grind a bit off the ends of the UJ arms, problem solved.

Maybe removing the bush allowed the outer end of the shaft to move a bit (flogging out the drive member in the process).

The more I think about it the more I'm surprised it works.


Colin

[wrinklearthur]

The more I think about it the more I'm surprised it works.

Hi Colin

A harmonious working relationship could be said of it.

Got to go, Mum's home.
.

[JDNSW]

Had a look at the Tracta joint (because I'm not that familiar with it) and found that it gives exactly the 'float' I'm talking about needing with a UJ.

The site below has a brief explanation of CV joints and there is an interesting comment on the use of UJ's. 'Very strong, simple to make but they need complicated support bearings when used in drive axles'
constant-velocity joint : definition of constant-velocity joint and synonym of constant-velocity joint (English) (http://dictionary.sensagent.com/constant-velocity+joint/en-en/)

Tracta gave constant velocity so was it a 'backwards' move to change to UJ's ?

Anyway, my thinking is still that the bush was removed because it could potentially cause problems with propshaft UJ's.


Colin

A good reference, but has a few errors - for example, it claims early Citroens and Landrovers used universal joints, where in reality early Landrovers used Tracta joints (as did most original Jeeps) and all except the earliest Citroen Traction Avants. The Tracta joint was introduced in 1926 by Gregoire for his Tracta front wheel drive racing cars.

The dropping of the Tracta joints by Landrover was a backward step in the sense of less engineering "purity" but was a forward step in reducing manufacturing costs and decreasing maintenance costs. It coincided with the change from full time four wheel drive to part time four wheel drive, when it was realised that most Landrovers spent most of their time on roads.

John