PDA

View Full Version : FC101 - Woods DC Front Driveshaft



101RRS
21st March 2013, 05:20 PM
Has anyone put in a Woods WWW.4XSHAFT.COM (http://www.4xshaft.com/) double carden driveshaft in the front of their 101? If so how have they found it and has it resolved the '101 rumble' issue.

Thanks

Garry

Lotz-A-Landies
21st March 2013, 06:15 PM
A DC joint shouldn't be a solution as the two flanges are parrallel, DC joints are for when you have different angles between the output flange and the diff input flange.

AJ says he has reduced his noise by tilting the engine gearbox assembly down on the RHS therefore lowering the output flange and reducing the height difference.

I have wondered what would happen if you made a prop shaft with two appropriate CV joints instead of the spicer type joints.

(Now if you rotated the pinion angle on the front Salisbury, and made the appropriate counter-rotation to the swivels, then the DC joint shaft would be just the thing.)

101RRS
21st March 2013, 07:48 PM
Thanks Diana - does beg the question as to why the D2 and the Stage 1 have DC shafts and their two flanges are parallel.

I am familiar with most of the methods that people have proposed to fix the 101 issue but I have never actually found anyone either here or the UK that have first hand experience in resolving the issue.

Hence my question here to see if anyone has actually used a DC shaft and can comment first hand on its success or other wise. I am not going to spent reasonable $$ on something that may not work. I did that a few years back and got a shaft made on the advice of a recognised "expert" and while the shaft is better than the original it is not worth the money I paid for it.

Cheers

Garry

101 Ron
21st March 2013, 08:44 PM
I found a sure fire way to fix the front tail shaft rumble.
it is low cost.
it works.
It has been proven on my 101 for a six month period.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And the the method is to remove the silly thing....problem solved.:D:D:D

Lotz-A-Landies
21st March 2013, 08:49 PM
I know for sure that the Stage 1 doesn't have have it's pinion parallel, it is angled up.

Can't say anything about the Disco pinion however they have rubber donuts instead of spicer joints and I do know that when the ZF conversion happened to my RRc we had to put the front prop shaft out of phase, which is the alternative to a DC joint.

We tried putting Iain's MG II's prop shaft out of phase on Sunday without success (on the noise/vibes).

101 Ron
21st March 2013, 08:56 PM
To fix the so called problem with a double carden joint on one end of the shaft and a normal uni joint on the other end is to roll the diff centre which is alot of work.( this is the best method )
The other method is to use a cardon joint or CV joint on each end of the tail shaft, but the limited lenght advailible for the front tail shaft would make that arrangement high wear and if not done right , much weaker than standard.
Another method which would reduce the rumble would be to reduce the weight of the front tailshaft, but that is in the too hard basket too..

.......what is the problem with the front tailshaft rumble........?
nothing really gets hurt ? and uni joints are cheap and easy to do if needed.

101RRS
21st March 2013, 09:00 PM
I know for sure that the Stage 1 doesn't have have it's pinion parallel, it is angled up.

Can't say anything about the Disco pinion however they have rubber donuts instead of spicer joints and I do know that when the ZF conversion happened to my RRc we had to put the front prop shaft out of phase, which is the alternative to a DC joint.



I will believe you on the Stage 1 front but the D2 does not have rubber donuts on the front shaft - rear one only.

cheers

Garry

Lotz-A-Landies
21st March 2013, 09:04 PM
There is a double CV retrofit for the rubber donut half shafts on the Lotus Elan, so I don't know why it couldn't be done on a 101 prop-shaft, just need stronger CV's.

101RRS
21st March 2013, 09:11 PM
Now this is not a post about how do I fix the "101 rumble" but a simple question as to whether anyone has actually fitted a Dc shaft and what was its impact was. :)

Everyone (including myself) has a theory on how to fix the issue but I have not actually come across anyone that has actually done it.

Not having the front driveshaft in does make the 101 very nice to drive - very smooth and very quiet.

Garry

101 Ron
21st March 2013, 09:12 PM
A DC joint shouldn't be a solution as the two flanges are parrallel, DC joints are for when you have different angles between the output flange and the diff input flange.

AJ says he has reduced his noise by tilting the engine gearbox assembly down on the RHS therefore lowering the output flange and reducing the height difference.

I have wondered what would happen if you made a prop shaft with two appropriate CV joints instead of the spicer type joints.

(Now if you rotated the pinion angle on the front Salisbury, and made the appropriate counter-rotation to the swivels, then the DC joint shaft would be just the thing.)

the flanges are not completely lined up parrallel and there is also a slight side ways non compensated off set.
The other problem is when you work 5.56 to 1 diffs at highway speeds with high angles on the unijoints the centre of the tail shaft has to go though four cyclic changes of speed per revolution and inertia forces increase with speed which is why the problem increases with speed.

Another part fix is 4,7 diffs to reduce tail shaft speeds
Another part fix is the over drive if fitted allows power to be placed on the drive shafts longer going down hill as power or torque though the tailshaft tames the inertia buzz on the over run by not allowing the rail shaft to buzz or rattle around from ome side of the crown wheel and pinion teeth to the other.

The above is not here say but automotive fact .
Few people seem to get a handle on really why the 101 makes a tailshaft rumble.
A front tailshaft with a cv.cardon joint on one end must not have the drive flanges parallel and and at different heights or constant velocity can not be achived.( standard 101 landrover arrangement)...............one drive flange must point at the other to achive constant velocity using a CV /cardon joint on one end of the shaft, and therefore the need to roll the front diff if using this arrangement.

Lotz-A-Landies
21st March 2013, 09:20 PM
<snip>
AJ says he has reduced his noise by tilting the engine gearbox assembly down on the RHS therefore lowering the output flange and reducing the height difference.
<snip>
Anthony Johnson, says he has reduced the vibrations and noise by lowering the RHS of the engine and transmission. Major mods to the RHS chassis bracket/engine mount and other mods to the RHS gearbox mount and he says he has the quietest prop shaft of any 101 he knows.

We found the bottom of a couple of bottles of red talking about this very subject on Saturday night.

Send him an email and ask.

101 Ron
21st March 2013, 09:41 PM
Anthony Johnson, says he has reduced the vibrations and noise by lowering the RHS of the engine and transmission. Major mods to the RHS chassis bracket/engine mount and other mods to the RHS gearbox mount and he says he has the quietest prop shaft of any 101 he knows.

We found the bottom of a couple of bottles of red talking about this very subject on Saturday night.

Send him an email and ask.

I Too have spoken to AJ about this at lenght and it would be a improvement in my books as it improves that sideways miss alignment and gives a effect of slightly reducing the steep tailshaft angles.

DasLandRoverMan
22nd March 2013, 04:32 AM
I found that the autobox conversion (with a Borg Warner transfer) which pushed the transfer box back around 4 inches, and the front transfer box flange probably 6 or 7 inches back eliminated any rumble from the front prop, probably because the angle was reduced quite a bit.

The rear prop was running at what looked like an impossibly steep angle, but never gave trouble.

101RRS
22nd March 2013, 03:06 PM
I know for sure that the Stage 1 doesn't have have it's pinion parallel, it is angled up.



I got a friend to have a look at his stage 1 and the diff is not tilted up.

So I take it that no has or knows of a 101 with a front DC shaft.

Cheers

Garry

101 Ron
22nd March 2013, 03:10 PM
I though Peter P got a DC shaft done ?

Sitec
25th March 2013, 09:30 PM
Hi. Sorry, one thing I never tried was a double Carden joint. I did however get rid of the drone from the front shaft. The first thing I tried was building a front CV type prop shaft using Range Rover CV's welded to modified flanges, and bits of props... It worked but hummed as the shaft speed is nearly 6 times faster than wheel speed. This was not the only problem.... 5km and the boots would disintegrate with the speed and I didn't have the guts to keep going as I valued my sump!!!!! The next line of attack was 4.7:1 diffs out of a Ser 3. This really helped and halved the noise, but it was only finally cured when I dropped the truck engine in and the gearbox went back 150mm. IMO the hum/drone/vibration stems from the fact that when a standard prop shaft with two uni joints is rotating at a constant speed, the 'shaft section' between the two uni's is actually accelerating and decelerating twice with each revolution due to the 'cross' type joints. This is only made worse by the 101 as its props run a lot faster than a Defender or Disco, and the front prop is nearly twice as steep in its running position!

Lotz-A-Landies
26th March 2013, 10:01 AM
Hi. Sorry, one thing I never tried was a double Carden joint. I did however get rid of the drone from the front shaft. The first thing I tried was building a front CV type prop shaft using Range Rover CV's welded to modified flanges, and bits of props... It worked but hummed as the shaft speed is nearly 6 times faster than wheel speed. <snip>Actually when you calculate tyre circumference per Km against the tyre circumference in the Range Rover donor the CV prop shaft is only running about 3.6 times the speed it would when connected to the RR wheels.

There are much stronger CVs than Range Rover ones and if dissassembly is a risk nothing would prevent enclosing the CV in a metal cage/shield.

rick130
26th March 2013, 11:47 AM
Gary, ring or email Tom Woods and tell them of the problem and a suggested solution.

BTW, the Stage 1 and DII both have the t/case outputs pointed up, so in an ideal world need a DC, as should every non 101 full time 4wd Landy but as we know phasing the uni's works (to a point) and was a cost effective 'solution' for Land Rover, so that's what they did.

101RRS
26th March 2013, 12:52 PM
Gary, ring or email Tom Woods and tell them of the problem and a suggested solution.

BTW, the Stage 1 and DII both have the t/case outputs pointed up, so in an ideal world need a DC, as should every non 101 full time 4wd Landy but as we know phasing the uni's works (to a point) and was a cost effective 'solution' for Land Rover, so that's what they did.

Thanks - have been in contact with Tom Woods - he is not familiar with the vehicle or the issues - he will just build what I ask him to build after I have provided all the measurements.

I will not be proceeding as it seems no one has experience with this in a 101 and I am not going to spend somewhere around $800 on the off chance it might work - hence this thread asking for first hand experience.

I am not sure I follow your statement that the Stage1 and D2 have their output shafts pointed up. As far as I am aware they are parallel with the chassis.

Garry

rick130
26th March 2013, 01:43 PM
I believe there's more driveline tilt with the Stage 1 vs a Series and I think the pinion points up at the t/case like all the other Landies but happy to be corrected.

The DII has the diff pinion pointing up at the t/case too.

Sitec
27th March 2013, 09:29 PM
Actually when you calculate tyre circumference per Km against the tyre circumference in the Range Rover donor the CV prop shaft is only running about 3.6 times the speed it would when connected to the RR wheels.

There are much stronger CVs than Range Rover ones and if dissassembly is a risk nothing would prevent enclosing the CV in a metal cage/shield.

Pos didn't make myself clear.. With a 101 diff ratio of 5.9:1 (nearly 6 revs of the prop to one of the wheel) as oppose to the Range Rover diff at 3.54:1 (3.5 revs of the prop to 1 rev of the wheel, with the original 101 gearing and the right foot buried to the floor (as it always was with mine!), that poor CV would have been doing nearly 6 times the speed....

Lotz-A-Landies
27th March 2013, 09:51 PM
Pos didn't make myself clear.. With a 101 diff ratio of 5.9:1 (nearly 6 revs of the prop to one of the wheel) as oppose to the Range Rover diff at 3.54:1 (3.5 revs of the prop to 1 rev of the wheel, with the original 101 gearing and the right foot buried to the floor (as it always was with mine!), that poor CV would have been doing nearly 6 times the speed....I understood exactly what you meant.

At speed for speed the tyres on a 101 are only turning 80% of the speed of the Range Rover tyres, although my mental arithmetic had several input errors (didn't know the 101 ratio for one), correcting them for the actual diff ratio in the 101 at 5.9:1 the CV prop shaft would still only be turning 4.7 times the Range Rover CVs on the halfshafts.

If you were running 4.7:1 diffs my calc was almost spot on.

BTW: The 3.54:1 diff ratio on the RRc plays no part in the calculation because the CVs turn the same RPM as the wheels.

Lotz-A-Landies
28th March 2013, 03:06 PM
The other factor is that a RRc is more than capable of running all day at 140KPH. (That was my standard speed between Sydney and Melbourne back in the 1980's.)

When you consider the RRc CVs at that speed (1.01K RPM) and the probable V-Max (110 KPH) of the 101 on standard diffs the 101 prop shaft is turning 3.68K RPM (2.92K RPM on 4.7:1 diffs)

Still very fast, but possible on the correct CV with appropriate lubrication.

Sitec
1st April 2013, 07:50 PM
Fair enough. Still fff fast in my opinion! Guess usin old CV's and home made props I was never game enough to really go for it as I've had props part company with vehicles before!!! :)

Lotz-A-Landies
1st April 2013, 08:24 PM
Yes very fast indeed, but if an appropriate CV can be found its worthy of a trial.

101 Ron
4th April 2013, 04:05 PM
101 landrover factory diff ratio is 5.57 to one.

Lotz-A-Landies
4th April 2013, 04:28 PM
101 landrover factory diff ratio is 5.57 to one.Hmmm thats what I punched in the first time! ;)