Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71

Thread: No more Salisburys..

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,681
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Nanny state UK...
    Posts
    3,253
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tusker View Post
    I've gone around 360 degrees several times - is that an oxymoron?
    My favorite oxymoron is "US Military Intelligence"

    M

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Nanny state UK...
    Posts
    3,253
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by revor View Post
    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

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Melrose SA
    Posts
    2,838
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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

  5. #45
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    29,534
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by djam1 View Post
    .....
    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
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Melrose SA
    Posts
    2,838
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Thanks John I was thinking of 109 inch actually forgot about 88 inch

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    East-South-East Girt-By-Sea
    Posts
    17,665
    Total Downloaded
    1.20 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    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

    You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,681
    Total Downloaded
    0
    snip..
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    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 View Post
    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

  9. #49
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Safety Bay
    Posts
    8,041
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Melrose SA
    Posts
    2,838
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!