Thread: Blown spicer yokes S2B front swivels.

Here is the repair using a SIII 109 halfshaft:



He cut, center drilled, inserted a 8mm bolt, balanced and welded the pieces together.

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

My guess is that with the stronger ENV diff the yokes became the weakest link in the chain and the reason for the size of the swivels on the 101.

Diana

The 101 has a sals in the front and CVs rather than yoke unis. So not sure your reasoning holds up.

Garry

What a grim sight!

Before I fitted the FWHs to my 2b, trying to turn tightly in low range resulted in wind-up severe enough to stall it. Thankfully, the UJs were still fine when I pulled it apart.

Dan.
69 2a 88" pet4, 74 3 109" pet4, 68 2b FC pet6.

Originally Posted by garrycol

The 101 has a sals in the front and CVs rather than yoke unis. So not sure your reasoning holds up.

Garry

Garry the original 101" prototypes had ENV axle assemblies probably ex-S2B and the prototypes also had S2B engines and transmissions. By that time they would have been experiencing the problems with the spicer joints and instead of merely using the Range Rover swivels and CVs they beefed up the swivels and CV's for the production 101's. After all I understand the payload specified for the S2B (1525Kg) and max drawbar pull (1975Kg) are not all that different to that of the 101".

Also, had the forward control continued into series 3, I reason that they would have migrated from ENV to Salisbury front and rear the same as the 1 Ton normal controls did. The reason for the change is that the Salis is closer to a hypoid diff than the ENV which is a spiral bevel.

Well that is what my reasoning is, you may not agree.

Cheers
Diana

BTW - what are the chassis number sequence of a 101"?

I do not know much about the prototype 101s - I am sure the first ones would have been based on the series 2 fc - however the gestation of the 101 was nearly 10 years so I am sure the prototypes would have had plenty of variations. I am surprised that the 101 had leaf springs in some respects and not the RR suspension - however at the time coils were not considered to be good load carriers (remember the new HQ came in for critisism at the time fore its rear coils). It would have been nice to gave at least front coils - the parabolics on a 101 are not nearly as good as thet are cracked up to be - the rears in particular have poor articulation and the ride is not great.

The 101 has a payload of 1 tonne and and tow capacity of 1.5tonne. Now before people say that is not much for such a vehicle - afterall a disco is something like 3.5 tonne - it should be remembered that the 101s rating is for cross country/offroad and at speed - never being in civilian production it never got an onroad rating - by comparison a disco offroad is 750kg I believe so on that basis the 101 should have about twice the capacity as a D1/D2 on road.

Garry

Garry

I think you are correct about development over time, but isn't that what doing prototype builds is all about. I do know that the 101 prototype that came out for the Australian Army testing had ENV axle assemblies and a Ford Falcon motor.

Regarding payload the S2B cross country payload is specified at 1270Kg so in truth a 1 1/4 ton by mil spec. There is only one drawbar pull spec on the S2B where the payload has both specs.

Leaf Springs Vs Coils. Leaf springs are actually better for loads than coils because the load is carried at multiple points, including the shock absorber mounts, whereas coils are a concentrated load adjacent to the shock mount. It is why 130s have a reputation of cracking the chassis. If you look at the myriad of little white utes around the place most of them have rear leaf suspensions. Leaf springs are also a more stable platform for towing. However I will acknowledge that front coils would be an advantage, particularly for passenger comfort.

Diana

Just thought I would post a pic of the S2B with the broken halfshaft - don't you just love their version of a tropical roof.



Diana

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

............
Also, had the forward control continued into series 3, I reason that they would have migrated from ENV to Salisbury front and rear the same as the 1 Ton normal controls did. The reason for the change is that the Salis is closer to a hypoid diff than the ENV which is a spiral bevel.

Well that is what my reasoning is, you may not agree.

Cheers
Diana

........

I think there is too much made of the supposed strength of a hypoid versus a spiral bevel diff. Certainly a hypoid C & P is is stronger, everything else being equal, because of the tooth load is shared over a larger area. But when did you last see a diff fail because of lack of tooth area? Firstly, in my experience, all the diff failures I have seen have been something else broke or flexed, and C&P damage was either because a bit of metal went through the mesh, or the other failure (or overloading) allowed them to move out of mesh. Hypoid design has the drawback that it has much greater sliding action between the teeth, putting greater demands on the lubrication, so that they are more likely to fail because of lubrication failure (e.g. water contamination).

The reason that the motor industry has long ago largely gone to hypoid diffs has nothing to do with the strength - it is because they allow the prop shaft to be lower, which is an advantage in most on-road vehicles. But not, I might add, on the front prop shaft of a 101 where it imposes greater angles in the U-joints, in exchange for a bit more room for the engine.

My guess is that the reason for going from ENV to Salisbury during development is the same reason the One Ton did - either the whole setup is a lot stronger (not because it is hypoid, but because it is not bolted together and is simply better designed), or possibly the supply tender came in lower.

And it can't be "closer to a hypoid" - if the pinion and crown wheel axes are not in the same plane, it IS hypoid!

John