Thread: Front stub axle bush

Originally Posted by Warb

My wife's '59 Series II has brass bushes in the front stub axles. The parts book tells me these are part number 217354, for "early type stub axle". Having sourced these parts, and cleaned the old stub axles and stub shafts, I have discovered that one of the stub shafts (part 242520) is severely damaged on the surface that runs in the bush - I suspect a universal may have died at some point as there is other damage inside the swivel ball assembly. Clearly there is no point in fitting a new bush and then re-using the damaged stub shaft, as the bush would likely be ruined very quickly and the clearance would be well outside the specified 20-28 thou.

My Series II/IIa parts book lists only one type of stub shaft (242520) and one type of stub axle (556373), but then lists the bush specifically for "early type" stub axles. Does anybody know if the stub shaft changed at all? Were the same stub shafts used with the "later" stub axles that presumably didn't have the bush?

In a nutshell, if I purchase a new stub shaft (242520) will it work in my "early type" stub axle after I replace the bush, or do I need a later type stub axle to match?

The bushing is really only a hangover from the 80''wb days when Tracta joints were used. LandRover later realised that the bush is not necessary with universal joints, and the metal that is removed to accomodate the bush weakened the stub axle, so later 'strengthened' versions didn't have the bore for the bush.
Bill.

Originally Posted by wagoo

The bushing is really only a hangover from the 80''wb days when Tracta joints were used. LandRover later realised that the bush is not necessary with universal joints, and the metal that is removed to accomodate the bush weakend the stub axle, so later 'strengthened' versions didn't have the bore for the bush.
Bill.

But do the later stub shafts (outer drive shafts) have the machined shoulder that runs in the bush? Will a (for example) Bearmach stub shaft fit an early type stub axle with a bush?

From what you have said, logic would suggest that if the stub axle is missing the rebate for the bush, then it's ID must be smaller than the bushed version with the bush in place. So the worst case is that if the stub shaft doesn't have a shoulder it will still fit but with a larger clearance to the bush - which is irrelevant if the bush isn't needed/working anyway....?

Later stub shafts still had the machined surface, but Rover have always used up old stock, so the ID of the inner end of the stub axle which was just rough finished gave sufficient clearance between the two.
The clearance between the bush and the stub shaft was very loose at any rate.
The inner halfshaft is positively supported by the large roller bearing in the swivel ball.With universal joints due to slight pivot geometry differences between UJs/swivel pins it isn't practical to positively suppot the stubshaft too, so the variance is accomodated by movement in the splines of the stubshaft and driveflange.
Bill.