another of life's little mysteries solved...

the unaccountable lack of turning right which Edward II has been
demonstrating turns out to be that the steering damper fitted is too short -
it was restricting the movement of the steering link from the relay to the
left-hand steering arm. Removing it and winding the lock stops in has
resulted in an SIII that actually turns, albeit not all that tight.

Seems to drive OK without it, and in fact the steering feels lighter and
easier. No obvious tendency to shimmy or anything, so I reckon I can live
without a damper.

The 110 did some impressive shimmies when it's damper was shagged, but then
that's a different system. Noted various iffy rubber gaiters on steering
joints. Wonder if any are the same as Disco ones, I've got some of them
spare... 2 RH ones, it seems, RTC 5869 I think... bugger. Paddock say 5867
for the series, 5869 for the disco. bet it's a different thread or
something.


--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"
John Donne (1571? - 1631) Devotions, XVII

Austin Shackles wrote:

>
> the unaccountable lack of turning right which Edward II has been
> demonstrating turns out to be that the steering damper fitted is too short
> - it was restricting the movement of the steering link from the relay to
> the
> left-hand steering arm. Removing it and winding the lock stops in has
> resulted in an SIII that actually turns, albeit not all that tight.
>
> Seems to drive OK without it, and in fact the steering feels lighter and
> easier. No obvious tendency to shimmy or anything, so I reckon I can live
> without a damper.
>
> The 110 did some impressive shimmies when it's damper was shagged, but
> then
> that's a different system. Noted various iffy rubber gaiters on steering
> joints. Wonder if any are the same as Disco ones, I've got some of them
> spare... 2 RH ones, it seems, RTC 5869 I think... bugger. Paddock say
> 5867
> for the series, 5869 for the disco. bet it's a different thread or
> something.
>
>

Since the steering damper was optional on all Series Landrovers, I am sure
you will manage OK without it.

All except very late S3 have tie rod ends with an unthreaded section - 110
and very late S3 have them threaded all the way, and I'll bet the Disco is
the same. They are not interchangeable. At least, it is possible to
interchange them, but the wrong ends will not lock on the tube reliably,
which is not really what you want on your steering - I have heard that a
number of fatal accidents have resulted.
JD

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:14:20 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Removing it and winding the lock stops in has
>resulted in an SIII that actually turns, albeit not all that tight.
>
It's not supposed to turn tightly! its a series!

>
> Seems to drive OK without it, and in fact the steering feels lighter and
> easier. No obvious tendency to shimmy or anything, so I reckon I can live
> without a damper.
>
You might want/need the damper off road, stops the shock of
hitting holes etc being transferred back into the steering wheel.
Keep your thumbs out of the spokes until you refit a damper,
nothing like broken thumbs to make your day when a steering
wheel spins out of control.

"Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:14:20 +0100, Austin Shackles
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Removing it and winding the lock stops in has
> >resulted in an SIII that actually turns, albeit not all that tight.
> >
> It's not supposed to turn tightly! its a series!

i've seen trucks with 200 inch wheelbases pull U-turns on roads that force
my series III into a 3 (or even 5) point turn.

On or around Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:26:36 +1000, "Samuel"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Tom Woods" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:14:20 +0100, Austin Shackles
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Removing it and winding the lock stops in has
>> >resulted in an SIII that actually turns, albeit not all that tight.
>> >
>> It's not supposed to turn tightly! its a series!
>
>i've seen trucks with 200 inch wheelbases pull U-turns on roads that force
>my series III into a 3 (or even 5) point turn.
>

has yours got a steering damper?

seriously though, it's made a big improvement. wheels now, on full lock,
come within about 1/2" from the spring.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

In message <[email protected]>
JD <[email protected]> wrote:

> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> >
> > the unaccountable lack of turning right which Edward II has been
> > demonstrating turns out to be that the steering damper fitted is too short
> > - it was restricting the movement of the steering link from the relay to
> > the
> > left-hand steering arm. Removing it and winding the lock stops in has
> > resulted in an SIII that actually turns, albeit not all that tight.
> >
> > Seems to drive OK without it, and in fact the steering feels lighter and
> > easier. No obvious tendency to shimmy or anything, so I reckon I can live
> > without a damper.
> >
> > The 110 did some impressive shimmies when it's damper was shagged, but
> > then
> > that's a different system. Noted various iffy rubber gaiters on steering
> > joints. Wonder if any are the same as Disco ones, I've got some of them
> > spare... 2 RH ones, it seems, RTC 5869 I think... bugger. Paddock say
> > 5867
> > for the series, 5869 for the disco. bet it's a different thread or
> > something.
> >
> >
>
> Since the steering damper was optional on all Series Landrovers, I am sure
> you will manage OK without it.
>
> All except very late S3 have tie rod ends with an unthreaded section - 110
> and very late S3 have them threaded all the way, and I'll bet the Disco is
> the same. They are not interchangeable. At least, it is possible to
> interchange them, but the wrong ends will not lock on the tube reliably,
> which is not really what you want on your steering - I have heard that a
> number of fatal accidents have resulted.
> JD

mmmm Better get this sorted out before somone kills themselves -
and I'm not joking.

RTC5867 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on RH Thread (1974)
RTC5868 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on LH Thread (1974)

608464 Series Track Rod End RH Thread To Suffix D (1974)
320902 Series Track Rod End LH Thread To Suffix D (1974)

RTC5869 Track Rod End-RH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I
RTC5870 Track Rod End-LH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I

Any letters on the end are related to the branding of the part
and have no bearing on the function of it.

The numbers above are the current LR part numbers - some list
different numbers that have been superceeded.

None of these are interchangeable. The two types of Series ones
have a shoulder or not. Look at the end of the track rod/drag link
- if there is an unthreded section at the end then a TRE with a shoulder
*must* be used. Failure to do this will result a serious accident (no
steering) - and a friend of mine is in a graveyard to prove it.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

On or around Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:09:49 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>mmmm Better get this sorted out before somone kills themselves -
>and I'm not joking.
>
>RTC5867 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on RH Thread (1974)
>RTC5868 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on LH Thread (1974)
>
>608464 Series Track Rod End RH Thread To Suffix D (1974)
>320902 Series Track Rod End LH Thread To Suffix D (1974)
>
>RTC5869 Track Rod End-RH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I
>RTC5870 Track Rod End-LH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I
>
>Any letters on the end are related to the branding of the part
>and have no bearing on the function of it.

Jolly good info. Is there an "early" and "late" divide on the series, or
are they all mixed up? Do those suffices refer to the vehicle/chassis
number suffix, or something else?

I guess looking at the rod (I assume the same joints fit on the drag link?)
would be a good plan before ordering, to make sure of getting the right
ones.

are the shouldered joints longer, BTW? That's to say, is the length of
thread in use approximately the same? Or is it that they're the same length
but with a shorter thread?

Paddock only appear to list the one kind, for Series... the RTCnnnn types.
Looking at the part numbers, I imagine the other pair are earlier, BICBW.

>None of these are interchangeable. The two types of Series ones
>have a shoulder or not. Look at the end of the track rod/drag link
>- if there is an unthreded section at the end then a TRE with a shoulder
>*must* be used. Failure to do this will result a serious accident (no
>steering) - and a friend of mine is in a graveyard to prove it.

good point. The threaded bit will not grip properly with an unthreaded
tube, I imagine, when you tighten the clamps on it. interesting to note
that the rod I took off the 110 (IIRC) had a plain bit, but the replacement
(bought with rod-ends, so no compatibility issues) didn't. So it looks like
the same confusion may exists on 90/110 as well.

I further STR that it had all-threaded joints in it... mind, it did have
double clamps on the ends.


I'll investigate mine in due course and doubtless order the appropriate
bits.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)

In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:09:49 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >mmmm Better get this sorted out before somone kills themselves -
> >and I'm not joking.
> >
> >RTC5867 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on RH Thread (1974)
> >RTC5868 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on LH Thread (1974)
> >
> >608464 Series Track Rod End RH Thread To Suffix D (1974)
> >320902 Series Track Rod End LH Thread To Suffix D (1974)
> >
> >RTC5869 Track Rod End-RH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I
> >RTC5870 Track Rod End-LH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I
> >
> >Any letters on the end are related to the branding of the part
> >and have no bearing on the function of it.
>
> Jolly good info. Is there an "early" and "late" divide on the series, or
> are they all mixed up? Do those suffices refer to the vehicle/chassis
> number suffix, or something else?
>

The change was officially Suff. D to Suff. E in 1974, but.....

> I guess looking at the rod (I assume the same joints fit on the drag link?)
> would be a good plan before ordering, to make sure of getting the right
> ones.
>

as you rightly say, with all the swaping about over the years the only
safe way is to have a look at the tube you are going to use.

> are the shouldered joints longer, BTW? That's to say, is the length of
> thread in use approximately the same? Or is it that they're the same length
> but with a shorter thread?
>

All the TRE's look about the same dimensions, which doesn't help. I suspect
there is a different taper on the versions for coil sprung vehicles, but
I havn't got anything to measure properly.

> Paddock only appear to list the one kind, for Series... the RTCnnnn types.
> Looking at the part numbers, I imagine the other pair are earlier, BICBW.
>

er, no comment?

> >None of these are interchangeable. The two types of Series ones
> >have a shoulder or not. Look at the end of the track rod/drag link
> >- if there is an unthreded section at the end then a TRE with a shoulder
> >*must* be used. Failure to do this will result a serious accident (no
> >steering) - and a friend of mine is in a graveyard to prove it.
>
> good point. The threaded bit will not grip properly with an unthreaded
> tube, I imagine, when you tighten the clamps on it. interesting to note
> that the rod I took off the 110 (IIRC) had a plain bit, but the replacement
> (bought with rod-ends, so no compatibility issues) didn't. So it looks like
> the same confusion may exists on 90/110 as well.

I have had 90/110 ones in with a slight shoulder - but I *think* that
this was due to the manufacturer assuming that the TRE would only be
screwed in so far.

>
> I further STR that it had all-threaded joints in it... mind, it did have
> double clamps on the ends.
>

The double clamps seem to be fairly randomly fitted - when I get to
that part of the Defender parts book all may become clear.

>
> I'll investigate mine in due course and doubtless order the appropriate
> bits.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

beamendsltd wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On or around Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:09:49 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>> >mmmm Better get this sorted out before somone kills themselves -
>> >and I'm not joking.
>> >
>> >RTC5867 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on RH Thread (1974)
>> >RTC5868 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on LH Thread (1974)
>> >
>> >608464 Series Track Rod End RH Thread To Suffix D (1974)
>> >320902 Series Track Rod End LH Thread To Suffix D (1974)
>> >
>> >RTC5869 Track Rod End-RH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I
>> >RTC5870 Track Rod End-LH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I
>> >
>> >Any letters on the end are related to the branding of the part
>> >and have no bearing on the function of it.
>>
>> Jolly good info. Is there an "early" and "late" divide on the series, or
>> are they all mixed up? Do those suffices refer to the vehicle/chassis
>> number suffix, or something else?
>>
>
> The change was officially Suff. D to Suff. E in 1974, but.....
>
>> I guess looking at the rod (I assume the same joints fit on the drag
>> link?) would be a good plan before ordering, to make sure of getting the
>> right ones.
>>
>
> as you rightly say, with all the swaping about over the years the only
> safe way is to have a look at the tube you are going to use.
>
>> are the shouldered joints longer, BTW? That's to say, is the length of
>> thread in use approximately the same? Or is it that they're the same
>> length but with a shorter thread?
>>
>
> All the TRE's look about the same dimensions, which doesn't help. I
> suspect there is a different taper on the versions for coil sprung
> vehicles, but I havn't got anything to measure properly.
>
>> Paddock only appear to list the one kind, for Series... the RTCnnnn
>> types. Looking at the part numbers, I imagine the other pair are earlier,
>> BICBW.
>>
>
> er, no comment?
>
>> >None of these are interchangeable. The two types of Series ones
>> >have a shoulder or not. Look at the end of the track rod/drag link
>> >- if there is an unthreded section at the end then a TRE with a shoulder
>> >*must* be used. Failure to do this will result a serious accident (no
>> >steering) - and a friend of mine is in a graveyard to prove it.
>>
>> good point. The threaded bit will not grip properly with an unthreaded
>> tube, I imagine, when you tighten the clamps on it. interesting to note
>> that the rod I took off the 110 (IIRC) had a plain bit, but the
>> replacement
>> (bought with rod-ends, so no compatibility issues) didn't. So it looks
>> like the same confusion may exists on 90/110 as well.
>
> I have had 90/110 ones in with a slight shoulder - but I *think* that
> this was due to the manufacturer assuming that the TRE would only be
> screwed in so far.
>
>>
>> I further STR that it had all-threaded joints in it... mind, it did have
>> double clamps on the ends.
>>
>
> The double clamps seem to be fairly randomly fitted - when I get to
> that part of the Defender parts book all may become clear.
>
>>
>> I'll investigate mine in due course and doubtless order the appropriate
>> bits.
>
> Richard
>
I think you will find that separate from the threaded and unthreaded bit of
the shank, there were also several different threads (BSF, UNF, Metric)
used on the tapered bit, but these are interchangeable, provided, of
course, you use the right nut. Part numbers for the superseded bits are not
listed in my book.
JD