Thread: Is Bigger Really Better?

IMO the Jeep CJ suspension from prior to 1975 was the best off road of all the commonly available leaf suspensions.
Fantastic articulation from funny little short springs, even with the heavy duty suspension pack option that all the Australian imported ones sported.

The secret was a narrow, parallel railed chassis with underslung springs. This narrow spring base allowed excellent articulation, particularly with the 3" backspace Sunraysias that were an option in Australia. Spring rates (and wheel rates) were identical front and rear so the chassis stayed more or less flat as the axles went about their job.
The downside was that it really felt like you were going to roll much earlier than a TLC 40 Series or Series Land Rover as the body just went floppsy on sideslopes and used to scare the bejeezus out of me. They also body rolled on road much more than a Range Rover from the same period
Gearing with the stock 3 speed box was poor, even with the 4.27:1 Dana diffs. (44 in the rear, 30 in front) and the Dana 20 t/case only had a 2.03:1 low range.
The Warner T18A 4 speed was available as an option in NA and it used a 4.42:1 first gear, but they were never imported into Australia with this 'box.

I talked to Bill Larman once about this and he said that he had to double diff lock his Series Rovers and use very aggressive tyres for the day to keep up with mates with stock CJ5's and CJ6's off road.

Originally Posted by B92 8NW

It really depends what you intend on using the vehicle for. The only times I believe that my 300Tdi auto lacks power is when towing and overtaking. ...

I would add headwinds to your list. Pretty frustrating when traveling into head winds all day, flogging engine at high rpm's and egt's, can't use top gear, can't reach the speed limit and pulling over to let semi's past.

So 300Tdi had to go - Isuzu 4BD1-T is better (bigger) for what I want.

I wouldn't mind a Land Rover V6 or V8 diesel in the engine bay, but not easy to find and electronics are beyond my capabilities.

Series rovers have a much shorter front leaf than the Japanese equivalent.
While this limits potential travel, it makes for a much better approach angle - look at how much chassis sticks out in front of a 40 series TLC for example. I'd like to think that this was a deliberate design decision by Landrover.

I'm of the general view that bigger is better, to a point - Hummers are going too far.....
Part of the reason (and there are many) that Landrover lost the mainstream 4WD market in Australia to the Japanese and relegated Landrovers to an enthusiasts vehicle was the fact that buyers didnt/dont want weak axles and diffs (Nissan/Toyota diffs arent that much heaver than Rover diffs). Buyers also wanted an engine with decent power and torque output. The Toyota 2F/2H engines for example were a lot more appealing to the mainstream market than what LR had to offer.
The use of small drivelines by Landrover in a large 4WD is more to do with convenience of component availablity and British cultural/taxation quirks rather than sound design/marketing decisions. I find it easier to accept this, rather than to try and justify it.

Don't let having a widdle motor, dent your pride, its how you use it that counts

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Nothing to do with the spring bushes - the Landcruiser steering linkage design was appalling - the drag link from the relay connected to the tie rod, not the steering arm, so that the first bit of movement only rotated the tie rod - which not only introduced free play, but ensured rapid wear of three tie rod ends. In addition, the steering relay had the vertical separation of the two bearings about one inch (compare Landrover's six inches), with the vertical separation of the pullpoints on the two arms about four inches. This meant that any play on the bearings was amplified by about four to one, and as the bearings were heavily loaded by steering forces, and very small compared to the Landrover ones, wear was rapid. In my experience the relay arms rocked noticeably even after the first couple of thousand miles.

John

I would say that contributed then, rather than nothing to do with.

I've just checked out my Series ute which has LC60 axles in it with LC60 PAS - I'm not sure how that compared to LC40 steering linkages but it sounds the same where it connects into the axle. The balljoint at the PAS box is aligned so that the draglink radiates out directy from the balljoint rather than being offset - so rotation is irrelevant. Down at the axle, the draglink connects directly into the tierods ball joint (which is silly as slop develops) but it is offset so that the centreline of the draglink is still aligned with the tierods balljoint. The links will all rotate, but it doesn't affect the relationship between the steering knuckle and the drag link.

Pics to follow

Originally Posted by Slunnie

Pics to follow

This is LC60 steering transplanted

Steering box end with boll joint in the centre of the linkage.


Drag and Tie connect - note that they are close to parrallel and the draglinks ball joint is aligned with the tie rods balljoint by using an offset mount on the tierod.


Unobscured


When the steering linkages rotate on the tierod balljoints it makes no difference to the steering, and the linkage setup shouldn't induce rotation.

40 series had a steering box, then a relay box, crap set up

Originally Posted by rovercare

40 series had a steering box, then a relay box, crap set up

Just as well Landrover never used a relay box....