No more Salisburys..

I've gone around 360 degrees several times - is that an oxymoron? - about what to do with this diff issue.

I'll start another thread about a group import of Salisburys. Or is that Salisburies. Where's Ron when you need him?

Regards
Max P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tusker

I've gone around 360 degrees several times - is that an oxymoron?

---

My favorite oxymoron is "US Military Intelligence" :D

M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revor

I dunno.. I'm going to have to side with the "this company must be crazy" Group in this one.. The rover type Diff was origanally designed in the late 30's for the Rover P3 sedan. Good stuff at the time.. But some 65 years later the best they can do is add a couple spider gears and call it an improvement (P38) Sorry testing or not that's silly.. Nissan see's Folks putting big tires and lockers in thir trucks and build a bigger rear end, Toyota see's the same thing and encourages the aftermarket to impress upon them what it will take to keep the car from breaking, Jeep see's the trend and put's in bigger diffs AND Lockers from the factory.. LR sees what is happening with their trucks and down grades? Even a slight downgrade (say Dana 60 to a Dana 50) would be stupid. But to go from a tried and proven diff that will hardly wear out and resist tons of abuse to the "latest rendition" of a piece of (explitive deleted :)) shows the company has finally lost it's mind.

Sorry I'm very opinionated when it comes to diff's.

---

So are we talking about the strength of the diff in a standard vehicle or a 'modified' one?

Me... I'm talking about a standard vehicle.

M

I discussed this with Mal Storey a while back and I'm fairly sure I understood him to say that the P38 diff is a retrograde (poorer design/ weaker) step even compared to the standard Rover diff.
Face it guys Rover diffs seems to be fine in the front of most vehicles they got away with it in the Range Rover as most of them in thier day were shopping trolleys.
They removed Rover type diffs from the rear of the Series 2a back in 1969 ish
I wish they would share the drugs around that they were smoking when they decided to get rid of the Salisbury maybe the altered state of reality would make it a better world.
Clearly the manufacturers have lost sight of thier mandate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djam1

.....
They removed Rover type diffs from the rear of the Series 2a back in 1969 ish
.....

---

The Salisbury has never been used (ex factory) in any short wheelbase Landrovers, including Rangerover and Discovery. It became standard for 109 S2a from suffix H (about 1971), replacing the ENV axle that had been optional (and standard in the One Ton). A lot of earlier 2as have been retrofitted with the Salisbury.

The Rover diff has performed quite satisfactorily in the front of most and in the rear of all short wheelbase Landrovers for over fifty years. Failures in long wheelbase vehicles in the sixties led to its being replaced in the rear (although it was usually the axles that failed, not the diff). Obviously they think that they have now strengthened the diff enough that it can be fitted to the rear of the long wheelbase vehicles again, and this may be the case - but I would be a bit suspicious of it until there is a good track record - and certainly there seem to be at least a few problems showing up. Apart from cost there are good reasons for using the lighter and smaller diff, provided it is not a source of weakness (ground clearance, unsprung mass).

John

Thanks John I was thinking of 109 inch actually forgot about 88 inch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Obviously they think that they have now strengthened the diff enough that it can be fitted to the rear of the long wheelbase vehicles again, and this may be the case - but I would be a bit suspicious of it until there is a good track record - and certainly there seem to be at least a few problems showing up. Apart from cost there are good reasons for using the lighter and smaller diff, provided it is not a source of weakness (ground clearance, unsprung mass).

John

---

John

The p38a diff is different to the traditional Rover diff even the Range Rover classic/county style, the big difference is that they have removed meat from the back of the crownwheel, presumably to save on cost and weight so they can add more trim and fiddly bits inside the cab. This would be the same as removing 2/3 of the foundations from a high-rise building and the result is now the teeth flex in from the base and fail.

Diana

snip..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Apart from cost there are good reasons for using the lighter and smaller diff, provided it is not a source of weakness (ground clearance, unsprung mass).

John

---

Also provided that the axle tube strength is up to it. Defenders do have a high payload.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

John

The p38a diff is different to the traditional Rover diff even the Range Rover classic/county style, the big difference is that they have removed meat from the back of the crownwheel, presumably to save on cost and weight so they can add more trim and fiddly bits inside the cab. This would be the same as removing 2/3 of the foundations from a high-rise building and the result is now the teeth flex in from the base and fail.

Diana

---

And yet ther pinion bearings are different - the P38a style is better supported. I don't get it.

Regards
Max P

All you guys who carry on about TATA buying LR,they would in my opinion stop this from happening as Ford no doubt forced this on LR to save cost as TATA would not.TATA are starting from scratch to get into the Euro market which is why they are trying to buy LR and they would if there smart not cut corners and build very good vehicles.Ford want sales and dollars,even if they make crap. Pat

Actually if you look at TATA vehicles they are usually really simple and strong maybe their people will be at home with the Defender.

Who knows it may be a good thing for this end of the market at least.

Just not sure about a TATA Range Rover sport