Thread: Blown spicer yokes S2B front swivels.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I am sure you would eventually regret having a petrol engine in what is essentially a light-med size truck.

There are quite a few people using R380s behind 4BD1s.

Ben

But don't you just love the sound of a V8!

If I already had a 4BD1 turbo or not, the decision would be a lot easier.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Thanks Storm

Do I recognise that vehicle in your avatar? It's the same colour as one that Ken West had?

I'm in a bit of a dilemma right now. I have in my shed a 4.6EFI V8 from a Disco 1 and both an R380/LT230 combination plus a ZF 4HP22 also from a Disco. My mechanic mate wants me to use the 4.6/ZF combination, my friend with a perentie wants me to use a 4BD1/LT95 combo.

I would seriously consider the 4bd1-T option but I don't have one ATM.

Have you seen the PAS conversions that Anthony Johnson has done to some 101's? He used a "Toyota LC PAS box on an additional bracket fixed in front of the front crossmember to the RHS chassis rail. He then uses a modified steering bevel box (to reverse the output direction) from the bottom of the steering column.

I am looking at using a P38a PAS box in the same manner. But haven't fully worked out the geometry yet. (the P38a box mounts to the outside of the P38a chassis the same as the Toyota LC box.

Diana

Thanks Diana for the PAS info,the 2B isn't the one you suspect, the one I have has never been out of the area as far as its residence goes. I'm lucky in that I know its complete history from new and know a lot of the people who drove it before I bought it in 1982. The pic in the avitar was actually taken in 1982 just after restoration. One thing I've found with ENV diffs is that there are a couple of things to look out for if you pull one for any reason. The crown wheel bolts have a habit of loosening, I supect they might stretch. They should be replaced with grade 8 bolts if available or grade 5 if not. wash with solvent and apply Loctite 242 and torque up to specs using the locktabs. This seems to fix that problem. The other is failure of the pinion "nose" bearing. This is caused by lack of preload on the main pinion bearings. It's not as common as the bolt problem but does happen. If the diffs are setup properly in the first place they are very strong and will rarely give trouble. The use of the petrol V8 won't produce the horrifying fuel consumption as some of the comments indicated, the 2B with the 2.6 and all helical transfer case gave 11 MPG which hardly ever varied. The 4.4 returns 14-15 MPG and really ringing its neck in the bush 10 MPG. This is with .996:1 gearing in the LT95, so if your 4.6 is to be used with injection it should better that. The weight of a 2B is close to a Defender, Rangie or Disco anyway so the only difference should be from aerodynamics. Keep us informed on the progress.

Have been listening to all the posters and have decided to change my mind again. A friend has offered me a 4BD1 and also an LT85/LT230 combination so I think that I may go with that.

Even though I have the 4.6 EFI, R380/LT230, a ZF 4HP22, and some (repaired) 101 manifolds, I still think that in the long run the diesel will be a better option.

Gee I love the sound of a V8

Only just discovered this forum. The thread was about weak halfshaft universal joints and yokes. The cure of fitting stage 1 birfield joints is fine of itself, but in my experience an equally or more common point of failure on FCs is splitting the swivel balls just outboard of the bolt flange. This weakness was never addressed by Rover even on the Salisbury equipped SADF vehicles as late as 1976. The cause of this weakness is the unnecessarily large 3'' diameter roller bearing that supports the inner halfshaft. It doesn't need to be that large, and because it is it reduces the wall thickness of the swivel ball neck.If retaining universal joints, a bronze bushing provides more than adequate support for the halfshaft, so that a steel strengthening insert can be machined up, pressed into the bearing bore and welded in from both ends. The same if fitting Birfield CV's, except you don't need the bush because the joint is supported by the bushing in the stub axle.
I did this modification about 8 years ago when fitting portal hubs to my vehicle and haven't had any issues with the swivel balls despite the additional leverage imposed by the 4 3/4'' vertical and 2'' lateral offset and 36'' dia tyres.
Wagoo.

Interesting that you say that about the Sals SIIB using the standard SIIB swivel balls, because the Salisbury equipped SIII 1 Ton front axles had integral swivel balls on the axle housing the same as the 101 Land Rover and Toyota/Nissan.

BTW: I wish you had posted this earlier, as I only recently completed the CV conversion of the ENV housing you fitted to my vehicle when you removed the Salisbury. It would have been an easy modification to the Stage 1 swivels when they were off.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Interesting that you say that about the Sals SIIB using the standard SIIB swivel balls, because the Salisbury equipped SIII 1 Ton front axles had integral swivel balls on the axle housing the same as the 101 Land Rover and Toyota/Nissan.

BTW: I wish you had posted this earlier, as I only recently completed the CV conversion of the ENV housing you fitted to my vehicle when you removed the Salisbury. It would have been an easy modification to the Stage 1 swivels when they were off.

John Ayre (ULR) told me many years ago that a narrower version of the 6 stud 101 front and rear Salisburies were available as an option on normal control series 3 s but I've never come across any.
Because I was custom building my axles for the portals and making inner halfshafts from scratch, I made my strengthening inserts with an integral 3/8'' thick bolt flange to further beef things up. If your inner shaft splines are long enough I'd recommend this method, although a mate of mine just made non flanged inserts for his very heavy chev deisel powered LWb on heavily offset rims and hasn't had any issues in over 7 years of hard use.
Wagoo.

Edit. I may be able to provide some details on the prototype 101s. Around 30 odd years ago I was visiting a firm called Lake engineering in Moorabin. He had John Ayres 101 prototype in the workshop to which he was changng the ENV front and rear axle assemblies over to a new set of salisburies that John had imported. The old Env front end had grenaded a Ujoint and yoke and bits of it were poking through holes punched through the chrome swivel ball.John Lake was also commissioned to build a bottom power take off unit to drive a winch because the rear pto was set up to drive the powered trailer. The interesting part was that the transfercase was a separate bolt on unit, not cast integral with the gearbox as with production LT95 transmissions although the internals were identical. I don't know about the main gearbox, but I would guess it would have been an ENV unit as these were occasionally used on some military protype normal control LandRovers.
Edit no2 Rather than start a new post I thought I'd just add to this one regarding a couple of points brought up earlier in this thread. The first point is the weight difference between ENV and Salisburies. Having man handled and fitted both types on too many occasions I'd say the Sals are definately heavier. Some years ago I designed difflocks for 101s which were air activated via an internal pneumatic cylinder that was concentric with the axle tubes .After fitting a couple of prototype difflocks to a friends vehicle I had several more cylinders machined up to the same dimesions.However when I attempted to fit another set to another friends slightly later model 101 we found that the axle tubes on the front axle were considerably thicker, necessitating the hasty manufacture of an electric drill powered boring bar to ream enough metal out of the tube to allow the cylinder to be fitted .
The other point is a minor one, re Morris Commercial diffs.
From WW2 and maybe even earlier, up to the the last of the LD series Morrys they employed a split housing construction type differential common to many vehicles since the inception of the automobile.
The Morry diffs were very strong and capable of withstanding lots of abuse, but they owe nothing to ENV design.
About 40 years ago I modified Eaton rear diff assemblies from AA110 2wd international pick up trucks and fitted them to my old Landy with Landy swivels etc. these Eatons were roughly similar in size to the ENV diffs fitted to FCs etc but interestingly they had 2 pinion carriers and the crown wheel an pinions were of the stronger hypoid design. This would indicate to me that the ENV was not an Eaton design but possibly one from a British company that they took over, possibly Kirkstall, who supplied planetary reduction axle assemblies for the small production run of 11.00x28 tractor tyred Forest Rovers.

wagoo.

OK this is my take on a lot of the contents of your post.

John Ayre was correct about a series track version of a Salisbury front end. However this was for the early Series III 1 Ton vehicles, by the end of SIII 1Ton production they were using regular SIII Rover axles. (Probably the accountants again) The reason you may not have seen them was that the SIII 1 Ton model was not sold in Australia although some vehicles did get the 1 ton chassis.

John Ayre's 101 prototype now lives in Cairns still with it's powered trailer. There is a thread on it around here somewhere.

ARB recently did a batch of air-lockers for 101's - 101 Ron and Garrycol have them.

I remember reading in some magazine a long time ago that the LT95 box was designed by Ferguson/David Brown. It is likely that the 101 prototype still had one of the prototype LT95s before the single casting was developed.

Re ENV: You could be correct about the design basis, I was under the impression that the E is ENV related to Eaton in a joint venture with Nuffield to make diffs for something like or actually for Morris Commercial vehicles which one I'm unaware. It could be a furphy as no one has been able to produce any hard evidence about it.

Did you ever come across the 109 1 Ton prototype and trailer combination that was broken up in Melbourne? I remember meeting the guys who brought it in when they were in Sydney in 1974 however in 1978 or 1980 I saw the 1 Ton prototype vehicle in Alice Springs, but it was without it's trailer. When I asked the owners they suggested they bought the vehicle in Melbourne but it didn't have a trailer. The sad fact was that the trailer drive coupling was still attached to the rear cross member of the 109.

I do recall we had a military colored scottorn? powered trailer in the yard a very long time ago, but it was sold very quickly before I had an opportunity to look over it in any detail.No tug vehicle however. We also had John Ayres proto which Don actually sold a second time,a long time after a bloke who put down a not inconsiderable deposit just disappeared . Last I saw it was looking a bit worse for wear. I think I must be the only enthusiast not to have owned that vehicle at one time. It certainly changed hands a lot.
Wagoo.