Shorty - my 1952 80' Series 1

Garry, these springs were of my 2a 88" and not the right height for the 80"; the length (end to end) was fine tho. The Prop shaft knocks the cross member as the vehicle now rides well above std height.

Previously when I have replaced springs I have done it with the vehicle off the ground, firming them up and then tightening them well and truely with the vehicle back on the ground and weight on the springs. Then after a few days and some knocking around, I re-tighten them. Haven't had any trouble yet. Things settle down after a week or two.

Thanks Troy - that explains it :D

Shame you have to modify the cross member though.

Garry

Troy

Just be carefull with the uni joints . As the prop shaft will be at a steeper angle, the uni joints may not have enough room to turn freely .

My 80" has got high rear springs .. previuosly somebody had them reset .. not me .. Anyway.. the prop shaft just fits .. the angle is steep and the uni joints just make it around without fouling .
Mike

Mike, I shall be measuring the crossmember up on the weekend and shall ensure that I look at the prop shaft before I cut anything. Thanks again.
One uni-joint is already clagged and I will be replacing that but I shall be sure to have a good look at the whole thing ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

I have to put new springs in my "Baby" - series 1 88.

I am interested to know what you did with the springs to cause the problem - ...

...Thanks
Garry

---

Garry

There are a number of issues that can cause the ride height to be too high:

• Firstly, with new springs made in Australia the thickness of the leaves is greater than it was in the series 1 days because of the steel stock sizes that are available. The original springs were both thinner and contained less leaves in S1 days, mainly because the weight of the IOE engine.
• 2 Litre diesels and vehicles with capstan winches had an extra leaf added, bringing it up the the same count as the SIIa springs.
• When replacing springs, make sure you put an anti sieze compound or grease the shackle pins and leave them loose until the vehicle is on the ground and bearing it's own weight. Then tighten up the pins and locknuts.
• If the springs are still too tall to allow the prop-shaft to fit, take a leaf or 2 out of the spring pack.
• There is a LR Parts supplier in Melbourne who supplied me some springs to use on my 1951, (front springs to fit 1951 through series 3 they said) when fitted up with the engine installed and the capstan on the front, and elephant sized me jumping up and down on the front they still wouldn't move. They were removed and some good 2nd hand ones refurbed and fitted up with excellent results.

Hello

Just commenting on Diana's comments. I agree with everything but: the grease on the shackle pins , I read somewhere it's not a good idea . In order to function as designed ,the rubber spring bushes and pins/shackles need to be locked together as one unit . I'm wondering if grease in there would make things a tad slippery .

The give in those rubber bushes are the secret to Land Rovers 'walking abilty' across undulating terrain. WW2 Jeeps have a higher amount of 'chassis twist' compared to a Land Rover , which has a much more rigid chassis. WW2 Jeeps have screw in type , all metal spring bushes which have little 'give' in them , hence the chassis twist for 'walking' ability .

Thats my theory anyway .. Make sense or not ? Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Garry

There are a number of issues that can cause the ride height to be too high:

• Firstly, with new springs made in Australia the thickness of the leaves is greater than it was in the series 1 days because of the steel stock sizes that are available. The original springs were both thinner and contained less leaves in S1 days, mainly because the weight of the IOE engine.

---

You are right there - in the late 70s my then series 1 had sagged springs so I took the handbook into the spring man and asked him to make me a set - which he did and on pick up he said - "oh by the way I didn't have the old imperial sized steel so I made it in metric thickness metal - so what I responded - he said that to be on the safe side he went to the slightly larger thickness - needless to say it was a harsh ride bit still better than the original sagged springs. I just accepted it as being 'normal'.

It wasn't until I bought a series 3 a few years later that I realised how well a leaf spring landie could ride - silly statement I know but compared to my old series 1 the series 3 rode on a cushion of air.

Yep - been there - done that.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by series1buff

Hello

Just commenting on Diana's comments. I agree with everything but: the grease on the shackle pins , I read somewhere it's not a good idea . In order to function as designed ,the rubber spring bushes and pins/shackles need to be locked together as one unit . I'm wondering if grease in there would make things a tad slippery .

The give in those rubber bushes are the secret to Land Rovers 'walking abilty' across undulating terrain. WW2 Jeeps have a higher amount of 'chassis twist' compared to a Land Rover , which has a much more rigid chassis. WW2 Jeeps have screw in type , all metal spring bushes which have little 'give' in them , hence the chassis twist for 'walking' ability .

Thats my theory anyway .. Make sense or not ? Mike

---

Mike,

I think the shackle bolt will always turn inside the bush when new, it's only friction between the steel sleeve in the bush and the shackles that puts the rubber into torsion. Diana's comment regarding greasing is maybe to ensure the bolt doesn't rust in the bush so that it can be removed in the future without the use of a hacksaw or gas axe. If the shackle bolts are done up tight enough once the springs are bearing the weight of the car it shouldn't be an issue.

Regarding the spring steel availability...... a colleague who restores Morgan 3-wheelers discovered many years ago that imperial sizes were becoming scarce and brought all he could lay his hands on and stacked it under his house.......


Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromit

Mike,
.... Diana's comment regarding greasing is maybe to ensure the bolt doesn't rust in the bush so that it can be removed in the future without the use of a hacksaw or gas axe. If the shackle bolts are done up tight enough once the springs are bearing the weight of the car it shouldn't be an issue....

Colin

---

Mike

Colin has got the comment on the grease in one, the preference is to use an anti-sieze compound on the shackle pins, or in the absence of that then use grease to make the removal of the shackle pins possible 5, 10 or 30 years down the track.

The pins and lock-nuts should be done up tight when the vehicle is sitting on it's own weight. The friction will prevent the pins turning and the bushes to do their job.

Diana

P.S. Colin, make sure that your mate doesn't sell his imperial sized stock to the scrappers that he leaves it to someone who can use it for it's proper purpose.

P.P.S. (Addit) I should have mentioned on my earlier post. If you have worn out S1 springs, particularly ones where the main and 2nd leaf have worn into each other and can not find a good second hand set to refurbish, then there is another option before you buy a new set.

The problem of sagged springs is usually the main and second leaf. The spring widths and lengths are the same for all 86", 88", 107", 109" and for the front of the 80" from late in 1950 through the end of production. Similarly for the rear springs after 1953. Instead of throwing out the originals, take the spring pack apart and replace the main and second leaf with leaves available for the series 3. For the 80" narrow spings, consider having a new main leaf and possibly the second leaf made then reburbish the remaining leaves from the original set.

hey Troy, this is what i tried to explain to you via PM, you can salvage one good one out of this, its a case of 1+1+1 still =1, will try and get pictures of the other stuff