Thread: Lifted P38 on air - questions

Damn!! Threading the standard rod was the original idea, just wondering if it would weaken it though. Does anybody know what the id is on our standard rods? Could maybe slot it inside instead of over the top

Is this panhard rod discussion worthy of its own post? Keithy - hope you don't mind us hijacking the P38 EAS lift post - but this topic is related.

Once the i.d. of the panhard rod tube is determined, my plan would be to get hold of 2x RH thread weldable bung inserts, plus 2x LH threaded ones, like these:

WTF: Bung, Threaded Insert, Weldable Female - Midwest Control Products Corp.

And couple them with a jack screw (available up to 3/4" thread) and jam nuts - you'd have yourself a very strong set up.

Reckon you'd have to cut about 100mm out of the panhard rod tube, to end up back at the original eye to eye length with the jackscrew in the minimum length position. But this cutting length would need to be determined once the i.d. is known and therefore, once you can select the o.d. of the bung insert section.

Stage 1 completed. I have just picked up a set of 2nd hand panhard rods. Judging by their weight they definitely hollow. The bushes are still in place so at least that part of the project is a bit easier. I'm not going to get a chance tonight to do the first cut....but maybe tomorrow night?

Gary

It's fine with me guys! At the end of the day it's still related to the lift! Panhard on!

Step 2 completed. Cut and measure.....I must admit not not the results I was expecting.
Cutting completed.jpg
First the back, got the hack saw out and cut through: OD 30.3 mm ID 24.6 mm (this does vary depending on where the measurement is taken as the wall thickness is uneven).

Next the front: OD 30.3 mm ID 20.3 mm, I was starting to think the hack saw blade was going blunt because it was taking a lot more effort to cut through until the cut was complete. Why the difference? The only rational thing I can think of is that the front is more prone to impacts compared with the rear, hence the heavier tubing. Or was it 2 different Land Rover engineers designing and specifying different grades of tubing. I guess we'll never know for sure.
Tube thickness.jpg
My next step is going to be taking them to an engineering friend of mine and asking for some expert advice on the potential of threading the front panhard and maybe one of the weldable bungs in the rear as davidsonm suggested.

Any additional thoughts greatly appreciated....

====____
//__l_l_,\____\,__
l_---\_l__l---[]==[]
_(o)_)__(o)_)--_)__


Gary

Nice hacksawing. If the front is longer, it would have to be thicker for the same tortional rigidity. Is it. Can't remember.

Sound reasonable? But once you think about a loaded boot plus towing, there would be more lateral forces at the rear. The rears strsightness must help.

I'm sure there are more learned people lurking about on this forum that could explain.

Sounds like an inch and an eighth in old money. The ebay seller referenced a few posts back sells a kit to suit 1.125" od panhard rods. That's one solution I guess.

Just checked the weldable bung o.d. options. The 20.3mm front rod i.d. is 0.8" bang on. There's a bung with an o.d. of 0.795" or one at 0.817". Is 17 thou too much of an interference fit (shrink fit)? I'll check. Plus welding of course.

Or would the safer option be to have the slack?

Just musing.