Thread: Swivel housing on my 1971 2A, what's with these raiko bush bolts

There are a few Land Rover bolts that didn’t get changed from Series I to Series III.
Axle drive flange bolts were always BSF for example.
i’m sure the swivel hub bolts are also BSF but I’ll have to check.

Colin

Originally Posted by Cap

On the topic, has anyone used the bearing that comes with the kit? I ordered the kit but have read that the bearing quality is not very good, so it is recommended to use the original if still in good condition.

I've not purchased a kit but I have fitted the aftermarket taper roller bearing.
Is the assumption that because it's a 'no-name' bearing it's poorer quality ? That may be correct so if your original is perfect, no rust pitting, no marks on the outer track from the rollers then probably OK to use it

Originally Posted by gromit

There are a few Land Rover bolts that didn’t get changed from Series I to Series III.
I’m sure the swivel hub bolts are also BSF but I’ll have to check.

Swivel hub bolts on mine are 7/16' BSF.
Interestingly after a quick look at a Series I, II & III there are studs where the steering arm bolts on and bolts for the Railco.

Earlier wheel nuts are 9/16" BSF, always difficult to find a suitable wheel brace. I've managed to get a couple from Trash & Treasure markets and purchased a Britpart one which was very cumbersome & poorly made.



Colin

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

Yes, I knew about the Hotchkiss connection. The Morris/Hotchkiss OHC engine used in the mid-twenties had a poor reputation but it was what they had so it went into the first MG's. MG marketing people tried to disguise their engine's humble origins by putting MG branded cast camshaft cover, side plates, oil filler and falsely describing the dimensions. They published the bore size as different to what it was to make potential customers think it was MG's own engine. Thus confusing a couple of generations of repairers.

The first MG (May 1924) was simply a custom body on the standard Morris chassis, with the standard Continental derived side valve Hotchkiss engine. They had slightly modified steering, higher diff ratio, flatter springs, shock absorbers, and a different carburettor. 1926 saw vacuum boosted brakes, and carburettor types changed regularly, but the engine remained the same basic side valve design.

The OHC engine was introduced in the Morris Minor and the MG Midget in 1928. It was designed by Wolesley, which was personally owned by William Morris at the time. By 1932 it was replaced in the Minor by a side valve version, not sure about the MG.

On an axle I'm removing from a vehicle I found studs & a bolt (as JDNSW mentioned).
DSCN4792 by Colin Radley, on Flickr

Colin

My first car was a MG J2, always thought it was a 1932 make, but I have been told it was a1934 make.
It had a overhead cam, two main bearing crank.
The valve layout was inlet-exhaust-inlet-exhaust ect
Cable brakes
i belive it was the same engine as the 1920s morris minor
morris were still useing there own threads in the 1950s

Originally Posted by JDNSW

According to my parts books, both S2a and S3 had BSF, but these came in two sizes - 7/16 and 3/8, and both studs and bolts were used, although the S3 book shows only bolts.

Presumably any given vehicle would have started life with the same on both sides!

The thing to note with these swivels is that one of the four studs on the steering lever (not the top railco) is a special stud that is a tight fit in the hole in the lever, and should go back in the same hole.

Hey John, I just took the nuts off mine on both sides, and the arms came off easily. I didn't notice any of the four studs being tighter than the others, but I don't plan on taking the studs out so do I need to be concerned at all, or just move on ?

Thanks
John

Originally Posted by JohnboyLandy

Hey John, I just took the nuts off mine on both sides, and the arms came off easily. I didn't notice any of the four studs being tighter than the others, but I don't plan on taking the studs out so do I need to be concerned at all, or just move on ?

Thanks
John

If there were no signs of movement, probably not. If concerned, you could check the diameters of the unthreaded shanks of the suds, and you should find one is slightly larger. Note that it is supposed to be an exact fit, not a press fit, so it should not make the arm hard to remove.

On the other hand, if there was signs of movement, you have a problem, because the hole in the arm is probably enlarged.

The connection primarily relies on the friction between the arm and the shims, but with the fitted stud making sure that any movement is so small that it cannot induce significant wear in a reasonable length of time.

Originally Posted by JohnboyLandy

Hey John, I just took the nuts off mine on both sides, and the arms came off easily. I didn't notice any of the four studs being tighter than the others, but I don't plan on taking the studs out so do I need to be concerned at all, or just move on ?

Thanks
John

On the series 3 stage one front end I am putting on Maselai there are two interference fitted studs on the lower arms each side. In opposite corners.
The fitted diameter is slightly bigger than the thread. the other two the shank is the same as the thread.