Not good vibes!

[nedflanders]

Hi just fitted a 2" lift to my TD5 and I'm now getting a weird vibration. It only happens at 60kph when slowing down, above and below that speed nothing. Took the front prop off and took it for a drive and vibration gone. The UJs feel OK with no free play but do rotate very easily. Has the lift shown up free play in the prop I can't feel? The angles when it's fitted don't look bad at all?? It feels more like a balance issue but why would the lift cause this?? Confused and my head hurts :(

[hans]

Hey my 2002 defa 110 does exactly the same thing. Dead on 60 Kay's especially down hill I get That weird vibration Clutch in. And brakes on. Still get it defa hasn't been raised at all so bit like you can't find the cause
I thought it was the disc covers but no .
Seems to me that the noise comes from the right hand front wheel

[aptfab]

The front prop shaft is very short so it gets a bit angry without too much effort.
It doesn't happen to every vehicle, only some. There are several options though to sort this out - castor correction bushes, castor correction arms, double card an front prop shaft and adjustable panhard.

[n plus one]

Hi just fitted a 2" lift to my TD5 and I'm now getting a weird vibration. It only happens at 60kph when slowing down, above and below that speed nothing. Took the front prop off and took it for a drive and vibration gone. The UJs feel OK with no free play but do rotate very easily. Has the lift shown up free play in the prop I can't feel? The angles when it's fitted don't look bad at all?? It feels more like a balance issue but why would the lift cause this?? Confused and my head hurts :(

A double cardon front prop is often needed when lifting a TD5 (and a Puma) - interestingly it's actually in ARB's installation instructions, but many seem to get away without it on a TD5 (but rarely on a Puma).

[POD]

The front prop shaft is very short so it gets a bit angry without too much effort.
It doesn't happen to every vehicle, only some. There are several options though to sort this out - castor correction bushes, castor correction arms, double card an front prop shaft and adjustable panhard.

I'm a bit mystified by how caster correction could solve propshaft vibration? I would have thought that rotating the axle with bushes or modified arms would increase the rear uni joint angle by lowering the rear of the diff pinion.

[rar110]

I'm a bit mystified by how caster correction could solve propshaft vibration? I would have thought that rotating the axle with bushes or modified arms would increase the rear uni joint angle by lowering the rear of the diff pinion.

It rotates or tilts the front axle housing so the diff center points more toward the gearbox. The unis then don't work as hard & likelihood of vibration is reduced.

The front radius arms will tilt the axle to some extent when the chassis is lifted by taller springs. However further tilting is often needed to deal with steering & vibration problems. It made a difference in my case.

[n plus one]

It rotates or tilts the front axle housing so the diff center points more toward the gearbox. The unis then don't work as hard & likelihood of vibration is reduced.

The front radius arms will tilt the axle to some extent when the chassis is lifted by taller springs. However further tilting is often needed to deal with steering & vibration problems. It made a difference in my case.

I would have thought that caster correction would rotate the front diff anti clockwise (when viewed from the drivers side of the car), as raising the vehicle rotates the diff clockwise?

If this is the case, it would actually create a more challenging set of angles for the front prop, which has been my understanding to date.

[POD]

I would have thought that caster correction would rotate the front diff anti clockwise (when viewed from the drivers side of the car), as raising the vehicle rotates the diff clockwise?

If this is the case, it would actually create a more challenging set of angles for the front prop, which has been my understanding to date.

Exactly my thought.
Raising these vehicles has almost zero effect on the angle of the front universal joint, as the chassis end of the radius arms are in very close alignment to where the universal joint at the gearbox end of the front propshaft is, i.e. an imaginary line drawn between the left and right radius arms where they pivot at the chassis, would pass almost precisely through the universal joint at the gearbox end of the front shaft. The angle of the diff pinion and the front uni joint doesn't change much, if at all, with raising or lowering of suspension (which is why slotting and rotating the swivel housings is the best way to correct caster on these vehicles), but the rear uni angle changes quite a lot.
Perhaps rotating the axle, resulting in more equal angles between the two universal joints, may (??) improve the vibration problem?? Seems the wrong way to go about it to me, as it is effectively increasing the angles of both uni joints, but I'm no engineer.

[rar110]

I would have thought that caster correction would rotate the front diff anti clockwise (when viewed from the drivers side of the car), as raising the vehicle rotates the diff clockwise? If this is the case, it would actually create a more challenging set of angles for the front prop, which has been my understanding to date.

No rotates it clockwise a bit further.

[POD]

No rotates it clockwise a bit further.

Sorry but that is incorrect. Raising the vehicle decreases the caster angle by rotating the axle forward, resulting in approximately zero caster with a 2" lift, instead of the required 2 degrees positive (from memory) caster. This results in poor tracking and continued input from the driver is required to keep the vehicle in a straight line. To correct this problem and restore the caster angle that has been lost with the suspension lift, the king-pins have to be rotated back to where they were, either by rotating the swivel housings, which is done by slotting the bolt holes, or rotating the entire axle by means of eccentric bushes or modified radius arms.
To rotate the axle further forward would result in more negative caster angle, rather than restoring positive caster.

[nedflanders]

Went to a driveshaft place today and explained what was happening, they said basically if the vibration is there all the time it would probably be the UJ's at too much of an angle, if the vibration is only at a certain speed it's more likely the sliding joint is nearing the end of it's travel. I can either fit a spacer or as I've got a spare prop that's too long I can have that shortened to the length I want.

I'm convinced it is a prop issue as the vibration disappeared when I ran it without the prop.

[rar110]

Sorry but that is incorrect. Raising the vehicle decreases the caster angle by rotating the axle forward, resulting in approximately zero caster with a 2" lift, instead of the required 2 degrees positive (from memory) caster. This results in poor tracking and continued input from the driver is required to keep the vehicle in a straight line. To correct this problem and restore the caster angle that has been lost with the suspension lift, the king-pins have to be rotated back to where they were, either by rotating the swivel housings, which is done by slotting the bolt holes, or rotating the entire axle by means of eccentric bushes or modified radius arms. To rotate the axle further forward would result in more negative caster angle, rather than restoring positive caster. There you go. I understood further rotation of the axle was required to bring the prop shaft to the original angle ie the rotation caused by the lift wasn't sufficient. I'm confused again about how rotating back the other way helps with UJ vibration.

The impact on steering geometry makes sense.

[POD]

I'm confused again about how rotating back the other way helps with UJ vibration.

The impact on steering geometry makes sense.

Yeah I don't think it would, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

[POD]

Went to a driveshaft place today and explained what was happening, they said basically if the vibration is there all the time it would probably be the UJ's at too much of an angle, if the vibration is only at a certain speed it's more likely the sliding joint is nearing the end of it's travel. I can either fit a spacer or as I've got a spare prop that's too long I can have that shortened to the length I want.

I'm convinced it is a prop issue as the vibration disappeared when I ran it without the prop.

Again I'm prepared to be corrected, but I wouldn't have thought that lifting the suspension would affect the sliding joint? Again, due to the position of the gearbox-end UJ in relation to the radius arm-to-chassis pivot point.
It seems to be fairly well established that lifting these vehicles can cause vibration due to the increase in angle at the rear UJ and that a double-cardan shaft is the best fix. Have you looked at the sliding joint to see whether it is in fact over-extended? I would have thought that the money you will spend to have your spare shaft modified might be better put toward a Tom Woods double-cardan shaft. That's what I've decided to do when I lift my 130 this year.
Tom Woods' website is quite informative on this stuff.

[n plus one]

Again I'm prepared to be corrected, but I wouldn't have thought that lifting the suspension would affect the sliding joint? Again, due to the position of the gearbox-end UJ in relation to the radius arm-to-chassis pivot point.
It seems to be fairly well established that lifting these vehicles can cause vibration due to the increase in angle at the rear UJ and that a double-cardan shaft is the best fix. Have you looked at the sliding joint to see whether it is in fact over-extended? I would have thought that the money you will spend to have your spare shaft modified might be better put toward a Tom Woods double-cardan shaft. That's what I've decided to do when I lift my 130 this year.
Tom Woods' website is quite informative on this stuff.

The pivot point of the radius arms is a little different to that of the transfer case/front prop - consequently the prop will need to lengthen/shorten as the diff moves up/down. From memory, the prop lengthens as the diff drops, so a lift will extend the sliding joint which may then have too little overlap (though I doubt this would be an issue with a moderate lift).

I reckon it's the rear uni - an I issue I solved in my 09 110 with a TW shaft (which has proven reliable to date).

[Bush65]

I concur with POD and n plus one.

nedflanders, the driveline place gave good advice, except for what they said about the extension of the driveshaft. Do not fit a spacer, or change the overall length of your driveshaft.

I have no doubt that the vibration after the lift was caused by the increased operating angle of the universal joint at the transfer case end of the front driveshaft. This is common with rovers, however some are OK and some are bad (both these are subjective).

It could be that you have a little wear in the uni joints, and your flange bolts may not have been tight enough and the change in angle has been enough to cause the vibration.

Changing to a driveshaft with a double cardan joint at the transfer case is often the only solution that works well with a rover. You could try a front driveshaft from a disco II, but they weren't originally fitted with greaseable joints so it would pay to fit new uni's. They us a different flange at the transfer case, so that is another item you would need.

[rar110]

I had a look at my front axle last night and it has been rotated the way I thought was correct, with castor correction bushes, ie with the pinion pointing more toward the gearbox.

This was done a few years ago after vibration from taller springs. It seemed to fix the problem of vibration. But I think I also had UJs done at the same time. So that may have been the fix. I later fitted standard height springs again as the kids had trouble getting in & out of the 110.

Maybe I should swap a new set of standard bushes back in. The current bushes are probably flogged anyway.

[nedflanders]

Cheers for all the advice, going to try a new prop I had lying around first, the uni's feel alot tighter being new. it's getting shortened as it's too long so will know by friday, the prop was off a military Landie so has heavy duty unis anyway.

[hans]

All these answer are regarding a lifted defa but mine is still stock standard with the same problem. So should I start looking at the front tail shaft for the vibration thanks

[n plus one]

All these answer are regarding a lifted defa but mine is still stock standard with the same problem. So should I start looking at the front tail shaft for the vibration thanks

Is yours tall? Ie right up at max 'standard' height - if so this might be your issue as the uni angles are marginal when standard.

[POD]

I had a look under my 130 this arvo, and the position of the rear uni on the front tailshaft is quite a bit higher than the position of the radius-arm-to-chassis pivot point; I recall on the range rovers (I drove them for 18 years before getting the defender 12 months ago) I noticed that the pivot point of the propshaft and the radius arms were almost exactly in line. Perhaps the difference is part of what leads to these problems with the Defenders. The geometry is such that the tailshaft will extend somewhat as the springs extend, but the angle of the front uni joint will change very little. The angle of the rear uni joint of course changes dramatically with ride height, as the shaft is quite short.

[sdt463]

Cheers for all the advice, going to try a new prop I had lying around first, the uni's feel alot tighter being new. it's getting shortened as it's too long so will know by friday, the prop was off a military Landie so has heavy duty unis anyway.

I have the same problem although my vibration is between 65 & 70.
My 130 has not been lifted but I have done a lot of heavy towing ( 25000 Ks at well over 3 ton ) which did cause some front universal problems recently. Ned could you please post the results of your prop shaft change.