Collar for semi-floating axles

[Lotz-A-Landies]

A mechanic friend has a customer present his 1955 S1 for failed seal on rear axle. Upon disassembly the collar was found to have migrated down the halfshaft and was sitting next to the diff. The bad thing is that the part was purchased from a usually reliable supplier and fitted by another supplier/mechanic. Neither will be named.

The problem is that the replacement had to be manufactured locally and instead of machining the ID it was drilled leaving 0.005" oversize instead of a tolerance fit (usually 0.0005" undersize).

A local engineering shop is prepared to manufacture the item using a CNC lathe and a good condition original assembly is being dissassembled to check the hardness of the component and double check sizings. The price estimate is about $50 each ATM, but the more made in the batch the cheaper each will become.

Four collars have been ordered by the seminal customer and I have ordered a further 2 for myself to keep as spares. Anyone interested in any for themselves, need to contact me before midday tomorrow and the batch will proceed.

Diana

LRSeries1@optusnet.com.au

[series1buff]

It is one of those awkward things about early Land Rovers that we all face at some point .

In my case . I made up the special collar puller device and it worked well. I hoped to re-use the original collars and after asking a experienced mechanic friend, he said it would be OK . I checked the tolerences before re-assembly and I came up with a bang on .006 interference fit . Luckily the seal surface area on the collars was in good shape, no scoring .

The big mistake I made was using bearings of dubious quality . As it's a pain of a job, you want to use the best you can afford . I've been told certain Ferguson tractors use the same rear hub bearing .. and F100's as well - Is that correct ?

I used a 20 ton press for assembly and it really struggled to do it . I managed to bend the heavy plate used to assemble the thing as suggested in the manual.

I've heard of horror stories of mis-fitting collars - one supplier sells them it seems in a miss and hit fashion..you takes your chances and see what comes in the mail - if it fits correctly your lucky .

Mike

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The batch is 10 collars ATM.

[LRO53]

I got one of these collers from Four Wheel Drives Melbourne. Around 6 months ago. Peice of crap just slid right down the shaft. Could not be bothered to go through the hassels to return it....

Got a Britpart coller from England Perfect! $18 AUD!

Here's a good one:

How much do you think an exhaust for an 80" is?

Try $291.65 Landed in Australia - John Craddock Limited UK

That's the Full Exhaust- Engine Pipe, Silencer, Shields
Bolts straight on! No messy pots and pans. Maybe a local exhaust shop might be able to do cheaper but this is correct and fits 100%

And Four Wheel Drives want to charge $203 for the Engine pipe and $143 for the Muffler! That's not including postage! Crazy......

[Lotz-A-Landies]

When we looked on Craddock's site the semi-floating axle collar (Rover part 07297) was not recognised same with Dunsfolds.

Did you get the Brit part from a local distributor like Rovacraft or British Motor Imports?

Diana

[LRO53]

Part Number: 90217398

90217398 FRONT HALF SHAFT COLLAR | shop | www.lrseries.com | L. R. Series (http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/2142/90217398-FRONT-HALF-SHAFT-COLLAR.html'search=217398&page=1)

[gromit]

I used a pair from Four Wheel Drives and they fitted OK.
They came sealed in a plastic bag inside a cardboard box, FWD's carefully removed them from the boxes and just gave me the collars in the plastic bags. I guess the manufacturers details were on the box and they didn't want me to see this.
Only one size (not stated) was available so it either fits OK or it doesn't. Also had to polish the surface where the seal runs because as supplied it looked like the seal would be quickly damaged by the rough finish.

It would make sense to get a batch made locally but the ID would have to be matched to each axle to get the correct interference fit and the correct grade/hardness of steel used.

The other solution is to do what the previous owner had done to mine, weld the old collars back in place :o
I used a 20T press to press the collars on but had to grind through & split the originals (once the weld had been ground off), some pictures are in this thread http://www.aulro.com/afvb/series-i-land-rover-enthusiasts-section/46683-getting-series-1-ready-cooma.html

The bearing is readily available (Mike, I was also told it's an F100 wheel bearing) from any bearing shop. I have the bearing number at home if anyone needs it.

Colin

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Part Number: 90217398

90217398 FRONT HALF SHAFT COLLAR | shop | www.lrseries.com | L. R. Series (http://www.lrseries.com/shop/product/listing/2142/90217398-FRONT-HALF-SHAFT-COLLAR.html'search=217398&page=1)Thats the FRONT half-shaft collar. In the 1954 - 1957 parts catalogue its listed as Rover 217398 (which is the same part number as in the series 2/2a parts catalogues for Front halfshafts)

HOWEVER in the 1954 - 1957 parts catalogue the rear axle "Hub retaining collar" is listed as Rover Part 07297 a different number. Now I don't know what the difference is, but I'm pretty sure Rover would not have made a new part and new part number if the two collars were the same.

On the fitting collars to axles to check interference fit, that sounds a bit shonky to me. If axle half-shafts had different diameters at that point then we'd also have to match wheel bearings to half-shafts and it is plainly clear that we don't do that. It is a factor of poor engineering practices that have allowed the collars to be made with different ID.


I used a pair from Four Wheel Drives and they fitted OK. ... I got a collar from them and it was loose on the half-shaft so I had to send it back. My guess they must have acquired that batch from the same mob as the other one came from.

Diana

[chazza]

My manual says that the collars are a "selective fit".

One that I bought was too big so I made my own on the lathe with a 0.003" interference fit. I think it is good advice to use Loctite Shaft and Bearing mount on it when assembling. The hardness of the one I bought was pretty soft (using a centre punch test) so I used mild steel, working on the premise that steel is harder than the seal and I can always make a new one anyway :D

Cheers Charlie

[JDNSW]

My manual says that the collars are a "selective fit".

.......... The hardness of the one I bought was pretty soft (using a centre punch test) so I used mild steel, working on the premise that steel is harder than the seal and I can always make a new one anyway :D

Cheers Charlie

The hardness of the seal is a lot less than the hardness of the collar made of any type of steel - but the problem is that the hardness of the collar is less than that of the most common form of grit from the road - quartz - except in the case of very hard steel. What happens is that minute particles of quarts get embedded intyo the seal, turning it into an abrasive grinding tool. For long life, it needs to be as hard as practical.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

My manual says that the collars are a "selective fit". ...Once again poor British engineering practices being brushed over by the stroke of the technical writers pen.

They should all be manufactured the same, like the Japanese seem to be able to do in the millions of units while the Brits can't do it in the tens of units.

How can they justify sending a part into deepest darkest Africa just to find that it isn't a "selective fit" what rubbish is that.

[groucho]

Once again poor British engineering practices being brushed over by the stroke of the technical writers pen.

They should all be manufactured the same, like the Japanese seem to be able to do in the millions of units while the Brits can't do it in the tens of units.

How can they justify sending a part into deepest darkest Africa just to find that it isn't a "selective fit" what rubbish is that.




A selective fit. It maybe ok for a large workshop with 50 or 60 in a bin.
what do you do, buy 8 to get 2 to fit. Send the other 6 back for a credit?

[gromit]

Parts that have to be fitted together with a known interference either have to be made to a high precision ($$) or the alternative is to selectively fit the parts. You have to remember we are talking late 40's early 50's I don't think the Japanese manufacturers were any different at the time.
You also need to compensate for wear if collars are fitted and removed several times over the life of the axle because metal is removed each time. No good having a 'standard' size collar that won't fit to a worn axle.....

At the time the local Land Rover agent would have had the range of collar sizes or they would be a phonecall and snailmail away.

I can understand the market today trying to supply a 'standard' size because it's too hard to stock a range of sizes for what is probably a relatively low turnover item. Plus we now have the benefit of 'bearing fit' adhesives which were not available in the 40's & 50's.

Back in those days some companies even selectively fitted pistons. You had a '0', '+' and '-' depending on the size the block had been bored to.
Pistons were matched the size the bores ended up. Probably allowed wear on the boring tool to be compensated for.


Colin

[series1buff]

the device used to remove the collars . You need a large stout vice and a stilson wrench .. and a length of pipe for leverage ..and strong muscles :o

Mike

[Lotz-A-Landies]

...

Back in those days some companies even selectively fitted pistons. You had a '0', '+' and '-' depending on the size the block had been bored to.
Pistons were matched the size the bores ended up. Probably allowed wear on the boring tool to be compensated for.

ColinIf that were the reason rather that the lack of good "precision" engineering, then why don't we "selectively" fit bearings right next door.

It is the same reason that Land Rovers leak, the myth of British Engineering, all hype and no substance.

Diana

[gromit]

Diana,

The bearings need an interference fit that is enough to stop the inner race from spinning on the shaft so it can be a heavy interference or a light interference and still do it's job.
The collar has to be a controlled interference because it is all that is holding the axle & wheel in place axially.

I remember many years ago the 'oil leak' problem being aimed at British bikes, the Japanese bikes apparently didn't leak.
When you dug a bit further you found that the Japanese bikes were very new at the time and were almost always dealer serviced, the British bikes were home serviced/maintained. Put together properly and properly maintained they didn't leak (same as Land Rovers).
Unfortunately the myth continues....

I've run many British bikes and Land Rovers over the years and they didn't leak unless a seal had failed or they were from an era when the manufacturer only made a token attempt at sealing, but this can often be overcome.
My 1957 Panther has a gaping hole in the back of the chaincase that the gearbox mainshaft passes through, it does have a lip surrounding the hole that diverts oil around it but that's all. I cured the problem about 25 years ago by adding a foam disk that seals the rear of the hole, keeps the dirt out and slows leaks down to the occasional drip. Not sure if any '57 Japanese bikes had the same design problem.



Colin

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Still won't accept it.

New parts should have the correct precision engineered component. Worn components may need an under-size collar you order after measuring it with a micrometer. I'll keep saying it, bearings are never selective fit.

If the Brits have such good engineering why does a Land Rover have a paper gasket under under a drive flange which has all the shock loads and stresses of driving, why was the cap on the same hub merely a press fit without an "O" ring seal for so many years. An Archimedes screw on the crankshaft instead of an oil seal, I can go on and on and on and on.

It's just crappy engineering.

[gromit]

Diana,

I guess everyone has their own opinion, but personally I would have to disagree with your 'crappy engineering' comment.

The screw type main seal was common to car many manufacturers of the time (and much later) , paper gasket under the drive flange isn't a problem if the bolts are correctly tightened, cap on the hub doesn't leak on my S1 (yet) but an O-ring seal or modern sealant will be used if it does leak.
The problem is you cannot produce a 'Rolls Royce' for the price of a Land Rover so parts are 'cost engineered' for mass production both then and today. This can lead to problems which are often fixed under warranty or cured by the time the re-vamped model is released.
There is also the additional problem of comparing 40's engineering methods with what we have available today.

I like them the way they are and accept that we now have better engineering methods and solutions , some of which can be used to keep them on the road 60 years after they were introduced.

Back to the original point, bearings and semi floating axle collars perform very different functions so you need different interference fits. Today you could probably rely on a bearing fit adhesive and a common sized collar but you would need to talk with an axle specialist to confirm that this would be acceptable.

Colin

[JDNSW]

Diana, you are comparing 1940s British engineering with 1980s Japanese engineering - and I can vouch from personal experience that 1960s Japanese engineering was nothing to get excited about! (speaking Toyota Landcruiser - I had one from new as a company car, and could give a long list of engineering and manufacturing shortcomings)

And the other point is that there seems to be confusion between manufacturing precision and engineering. Manufacturing precision is having selective fit or one fits all in this case - engineering is replacing the semifloating axle with a full floating axle as Rover did in 1958, to be followed by Toyota about ten years later, or designing and manufacturing a suitable diesel in 1956, to be followed by Toyota fifteen years later.

Manufacturing precision is limited by available machinery. Rover has always had very small production runs compared to major manufacturers (even when part of Leyland) and hence had to make do with old or cheap manufacturing equipment. It is a shortcoming, but difficult to see what they could have done about it. But it is not an engineering shortcoming, it is a manufacturing shortcoming.

John

[dennisS1]

This wonder of Jap engineering is just like the Bunning’s are the cheapest crap.
Forget about great Jap engendering of the 50s because it has all rusted away.
I wouldn’t compare present Jap crap with British of the 50s, I can drive my 1948 Land Rover across a muddy clay pan without the front guards been damaged try that with an unbreakable Hilux.
Owned A Toyota once never again, got way to familial with the internals, O I forgot the legendary reliability.
Try a new Land Cruiser V8 puts a leg out at 30K, no warranty because the owner used 4WD to much.
As for the Retainers just push it off with a press 10 Ton is fine, clean it up and put it back, no problem must have some thing to do with the way they are engineered.
Dennis
PS. You must give the Japs credit for copying; they just need to get it right.

[chazza]

An Archimedes screw on the crankshaft instead of an oil seal, I can go on and on and on and on.

It's just crappy engineering.

An Archimedes screw, or reverse-helix, is actually a very good engineering solution for keeping oil in where it should be.

In this application, it wasn't realised at the design stage that submerging the Land Rover in water, would have the unfortunate consequence of the screw directing water into the place where it shouldn't be :(

You forgot to mention that the designers realised the error of their ways, following customer comment, and replaced the screw with a seal, which whilst solving the ingress of water problem, created the problem of seals wearing out, which the brilliant reverse-helix had dispensed with. :)

Cheers Charlie

[Lotz-A-Landies]

An Archimedes screw, or reverse-helix, is actually a very good engineering solution for keeping oil in where it should be. not to put too fine a point on it, the Archimedes screw is a solution to keep oil in the crankcase:
except when going up very steep inclines when the oil level and flow overcomes the capabilities of the design and not only does the oil flow out it flows onto the the clutch housing where it can be thrown around to get into the pressure plate. (But that is O.K. too because if the crankcase oil doesn't get to the clutch plate, the gearbox oil will overcome the Archimedes screw on the primary pinion going down the steep decent to get deposited directly on the pressure plate.)
except when wading through rivers when the design pumps water into the sump and gearbox.
except when operating in dusty conditions, when the dust and oil gets mixed into a grinding paste. But that's O.K. because the grit will eventually be filtered out maybe by the bypass oil-filter system.
All at the same time when US manufacturers and almost everyone else were using oil seals.

You forgot to mention that the designers realised the error of their ways, following customer comment, and replaced the screw with a seal, which whilst solving the ingress of water problem, created the problem of seals wearing out, which the brilliant reverse-helix had dispensed with. :)

Cheers CharlieYes the designers did realise the error of their ways and replaced it with a seal on the model 5 years later, after they had built about 100,000 units.

Who's 1948 had to have it's engine rebuilt after 12,000 miles because of the dust ingress in the region around Broken Hill where it was first sold?

[JDNSW]

As you very well know, Diana, the 1948 Landrover was a stopgap measure to keep the company alive in the face of sheet steel rationing. As such minimum changes were made to components and designs already being manufactured, including the reverse helix "seals". These were quite effective on road cars in the English climate, and either the cost or time of changing the design was not practical for this stopgap vehicle, but it was changed (along with a lot else) when it became clear that the design was more than a stopgap.

The sales figures for the early Landrovers clearly show that their engineering was not considered inferior by the contemporary buyers compared to their competitors. It was not until the Series 3 that Rover was able to meet demand for Landrovers.

There is no doubt that in hindsight the designs could have been improved, and even at the time there were many improvements that could have been made - and many of these were made, although the size of the company made major changes difficult, and the 'downfall' of the Landrover was the decision of the company (imposed by their new owners Leyland) to stick with the same basic design (really the one introduced with the 86/107) when the S3 was introduced rather than introducing the improved designs they already had with the RR.

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

John

I know what you are saying, however a lot of the arguments really don't stand up. Yes they knew of the problem about the Archimedes screw from as early as 1949 when they were having to replace engines under warranty and even wrote a Rover service bulletin about a rope seal fix during the 1595cc engine, however instead of fixing the problem for the 1997cc Siamese bore engine all they did was change the oil level and it was not till the 1997cc spread bore engine that they added a seal.

The primary pinion continued to leak oil on steep decents right through Series 2 until something like suffix G or H of series 2a.

The hub caps didn't get an "O" ring till late series 2a, and an "O" ring was never added to the drive flange/hub interface which would have solved most of the leakage under there. How often do you see a Nissan, Land Cruiser or Jeep of the same era as the series Land Rover with oil all over the wheel rim? Almost never.

No one will convince me that it's anything other than crappy British engineering compounded by bean counter accountants.

Diana

[gromit]

Diana,

I now understand your comment about the scroll type rear main seal.

What you have to consider is that they used an existing Rover engine and the designers probably never considered exactly how the product would be used. Remember that this was a diversification from their core business of making road going cars. Was the delay in rectifying the problem due to the cost of the change, the percentage of failures or just a 'head in the sand' attitude ?

You suggest 'bean counter accountants' are part of the problem. All companies have to return a profit so the 'bean counters' are an important part of a successful business.
Unfortunately the real problem is us, the people who purchase the cars. We want the lowest possible price so mass produced items such as cars are cost engineered. If you buy a new car today (wherever it's made) you will have some problems, especially if it is a newly released model. Most of these problems come about from cost saving to build the car down to the price the market will bear.

We should be thankful about the way Land Rovers were made. The Meccano type construction, interchangeability of parts between models and the fact that they chose aluminium for the panels. If it wasn't for these things then many, many more would have been scrapped over the years.

Back to the original discussion..... 'selective fit' was/is a way of reducing manufacturing costs not 'crappy engineering'.


Colin

[Lotz-A-Landies]

IMHO You've all been re-educated by the propaganda.

Show me a German, US or Japanese car after 1948 that has a selective fit on something.

[JDNSW]

IMHO You've all been re-educated by the propaganda.

Show me a German, US or Japanese car after 1948 that has a selective fit on something.

Virtually all diesel fuel injection equipment (injectors/pumps) had key parts selective fit regardless of country of origin at least into the 1980s.

Citroen achieved a world first in the late sixties by producing height controllers for their cars which were made to the same precision of fit as fuel injection equipment, and did not need selective fit (these used selective fit prior to then). These controllers are a simple spool type hydraulic valve - but use no seals, and operate at 8,000psi; and don't leak.


John

[gromit]

The link below is for algorithms for 'selective fit', the paper was produced in 1997. Now I don't confess to fully understand it but wanted to use it to reinforce that selective fit is still a valid engineering assembly method.

The selection & matching of the components is probably now done using visual recognition software & robotics but it is still a way of getting close tolerances without excessive cost.

http://people.commerce.ubc.ca/faculty/mccormick/L12immd11a.pdf


Colin

[Lotz-A-Landies]

O.K. I seem to get the consensus of opinion.

Back to the collars, OEM parts have been hardness tested, a variety of axles checked for size and Carl has now been quoted $44.00 each for the collars including tax. Production will occur on Friday and I have to let him know numbers by Thursday morning. I have my order and an order from Mark in Fairy Meadow which has made a batch possible.

Any others need to contact me or Carl Hendrickson in Thornleigh (02 9481 7363) to place their order.

Diana

[LRO53]

When we looked on Craddock's site the semi-floating axle collar (Rover part 07297) was not recognised same with Dunsfolds.

Did you get the Brit part from a local distributor like Rovacraft or British Motor Imports?

Diana

Sorry for my late reply

The Rear Collar is now under part number

7297L - John Craddock list it as 1948-1958

Cheapest price ive found

Dunsfold 7297L - 12.98 GBP = $25.91 AUD