Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Want to know about 110/county Vs Stage 1 swivels and CVs

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    East-South-East Girt-By-Sea
    Posts
    17,662
    Total Downloaded
    1.20 MB

    Want to know about 110/county Vs Stage 1 swivels and CVs

    Have been reviewing my variety of workshop manuals and parts catalogues and find I have gaps in knowledge around County 110 swivels and CVs. Plus I want to clarify some myths.
    1. I have been lead to believe that Stage 1 and County CV's are interchangeable one way. Is this true?
    2. If the CVs are interchangeable are the swivel balls the same part number?
    3. Can County Swivels, CV's and housings be fitted in place of Stage 1 swivels? Any problems (reduced track width or similar)?

    You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.

  2. #2
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    29,516
    Total Downloaded
    0
    1. Can't help

    2. I don't have a County parts book, but I believe that the bolt pattern between the axle housing and ball are different on the coil sprung Landrovers - and although the axle housing and ball are both different part numbers from other Series 3 for the Stage 1, the bolt pattern is the same - at least the gasket has the same part number, meaning the swivels are not interchangeable between the Stage 1 and coil sprung Landrovers. The railko bush is also very different between the Series and coil sprung Landrovers, and although the Stage 1 is different again, it is similar to the Series rather than the coil sprung ones. (I think the differences in ball, housing, railko, etc are only small differences from other Series 3 to allow for larger dimenions of the CV compared to the U-joint rather than any similarity to the new design for the the coils sprung vehicle (originally RR))

    3. Even if County Swivels, CVs and Housings could be bolted to the axle housing, and my guess is they could, subject to revising the bolt pattern, you still have the basic problem that you have fitting RR axles to any leaf sprung Landrovers - the track rod needs to go through the springs.

    John
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    East-South-East Girt-By-Sea
    Posts
    17,662
    Total Downloaded
    1.20 MB
    Thanks John

    I thought I heard that the wheel face to the axle housing flange on a 110 swivel was shorter than the series assembly. Which even if they did bolt up, would mean a reduction in turning circle.

    For the track rod: I may have a lead on a LHD RH swivel which would mean the track rod could go at the front with the drag link coupled to the track rod.

    You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.

  4. #4
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    29,516
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies View Post
    Thanks John

    I thought I heard that the wheel face to the axle housing flange on a 110 swivel was shorter than the series assembly. Which even if they did bolt up, would mean a reduction in turning circle.
    ....
    I just went out and measured it with a tape - not the most accurate, but as far as it goes, there is little difference, about 9.5".

    Then there is the problem of inner half shaft length - the County shaft will be too long, but I expect you can get one shortened and resplined.

    I presume this is a scheme to fit disc brakes to a FC?

    John
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    East-South-East Girt-By-Sea
    Posts
    17,662
    Total Downloaded
    1.20 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    I just went out and measured it with a tape - not the most accurate, but as far as it goes, there is little difference, about 9.5".

    Then there is the problem of inner half shaft length - the County shaft will be too long, but I expect you can get one shortened and resplined.

    I presume this is a scheme to fit disc brakes to a FC?

    John
    Yes and to have standard parts sort of, but am still considering a Zeus kit, but would like a ventilated rotor with a larger swept area by the calliper and a master cylinder that will fit on a SII/SIIa brake pedal box. (I don't want to have a dome protruding out the front of the body to use a 6cyl pedal box.

    You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    13,786
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies View Post
    Have been reviewing my variety of workshop manuals and parts catalogues and find I have gaps in knowledge around County 110 swivels and CVs. Plus I want to clarify some myths.
    1. I have been lead to believe that Stage 1 and County CV's are interchangeable one way. Is this true?
    2. If the CVs are interchangeable are the swivel balls the same part number?
    3. Can County Swivels, CV's and housings be fitted in place of Stage 1 swivels? Any problems (reduced track width or similar)?
    1. The only difference is the stub shaft length (IRC Stage1 are ~10mm longer)
    2. no
    3. cvs yes if you use county rear hubs as well

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!