Disco axles with leaf springs

yea swop the diff for your series one wich will only work if you have fitted a 10 spline axle.

A website for the axle brackets?

Ta.

PM728 Rear Axle Spring Mount

is this what ur after?

Yrm do em too

Thanks mickdj, its not worth firkin about wi bits of rusty steel for a fiver each, they are doing that too cheap, I'dve paid 10 quid without worrying (hope their not listening).
I dont spose though theres any benefit in using the disco axle unless your original is fecked and another is unavailable.

I'm learning a bit, 10 spline disco axles ate compatible with series landys, what type of disco are the 10 splines on, is there a way you can tell just by looking on the street.

Does anyone do a kit for the front axle, a bit more complex tho you'd need wedges, steering arms and a couple of swivels as I hear the front prop input angle is diffo on the disco, and the susp is coils instead of leaf's.

Ta mate.

just weld the spring mount in a different place on the fronts

Teflon explained at length earlier theres a whole load of crap in the way fitting a disco front axle, the susp on a disco is coil not leaf, and the castor is wrong because the input shaft on the diff is diffo, and the leafs get right in the way of the steering arms.
c'mon tef give us more, but not too long.

well loads of people have done it ffs most of the 90s trial motors were series 1 and 2 on disco/rrc axles with v8 engines, if all else fails convert to coil springs its not that hard if you can fabricate your own parts

well i aint botherin now.

And I thought there was a whole load to it, wot about track rod clearance?

cowards lol

i just want an easy life but i shouldnt of got a landy then

G-man said:

well loads of people have done it ffs most of the 90s trial motors were series 1 and 2 on disco/rrc axles with v8 engines, if all else fails convert to coil springs its not that hard if you can fabricate your own parts

Click to expand...

Yup, most were coilers though, rather than leafers; and what's important on a comper, and what you can 'live with' as well as what the scrutineers will permit, as oposed to mr VOSPA man or plod in ths street, can be VERY different!

dr pepper said:

Teflon explained at length earlier theres a whole load of crap in the way fitting a disco front axle, the susp on a disco is coil not leaf, and the castor is wrong because the input shaft on the diff is diffo, and the leafs get right in the way of the steering arms.
c'mon tef give us more, but not too long.

Click to expand...

OK, but without pictures, very difficult, with pictures, easier to understand, but effoff complex! But I'll say it all again, if you want.....
Right, you have an axle, somehwere in the middle is the diff housing, on the ends of that are the swivils, and attached to them are the radius arms for the steering.
Coiler: the spring sits on a plate on top of the axle, and the axle is located by a link running forwards from the chassis to the axle; this is a 'leading link'.
As the suspension is compressed, link rotates about its pivot on the chassis, this tilts the axle as it does so. So, the angle between the greabox prop flange and the diff-nose prop flange would change.
So too would the angles of the steering geometry, most notably the 'castor angle'. Like teh forks on a motorbike, the steering pivot is angled forwards, this puts the 'effective' centre of the steering infromt of the tyre contact patch, so it works like the castor on a supermarket trolly, and the wheel follows where the steering axis leads, and the steering SHOULD 'self centre'.
Now, as you tilt the axle backwards compressing the suspension, that camber increases; it leans back more, so you start with a camber angle like a sports bike forks, that's fairly steep, giving little trail, as the suspension compresses, the angle gets shallower, more like a set of chopper forks, giving lazier steering, more tendancy for the steering to 'flop' when turned, and a lot more castor making it harder to steer against the increased self centering effect.
Now, when you fit a 'lift' kit to a coiler, obviousely, the situation is reversed, pushing the wheel further away from the chassis, you are rotating the leading link and the axle in the other direction, and the camber angle is going to get an awful lot steeper, making the steering very twitchy, and offering a LOT less self centering effect.... in fact, on some lifts, the amount that the castor can be effected is SO great, you actually risk reducing the camber angle to less than 90Degrees, at which point, you have a wobbly supermarket trolly, on your hands, becouse the negetive trail, means thet the wheels are actually ahead of the steering axis, and the dynamic is like trying to reverse a trailer in a straight line, darn thing constantly wants to go in any direction, but straight ahead.
OK, Leafers; axle sits on top of the leaf-spring, which acts as the location link, BUT unlike a coiler, it rotates about the dumb iron infront of the axle, rather than behind, so forms an effective 'trailing-link' (not quite so simple becouse the spring changes shape as it compresses as well.... but we can ignore that for what concerns us! And SOME-ONe at this point will have a brain wave and ask about hanging the leaf backwards, like a Willy's jeep, with he shackle at the front..... dont!)
Now, with a trailing link, as the suspension compresses, the link rotates in the opposite direction, as does the axle; again, the angle of the diff nose to prop flange changes, but more importantly, the castor angle is changing, but uinlike a coiler whose steering is going 'lazy' as the suspesnsion compresses, its going in the same direction as a lifted coiler, getting more nervouse, and risking going over centrre and taking on the geometry of a wobby supermarket trolley.
So; stick your coiler axle onto a leaf spring;having got the idea about how dire the consequences of clocking up the steering geometry are, you trun the axle so tha the swivils are aligned to give the same castor angle as a leafer axle, by taking some measurements from the king-pins.
Great, you now have steering geometry that SHOULD follow the same effective paths as a leafer.
BUT, the diff nose on a coiler axle is set at an angle that presumes its going to swing the other direction, and the angle it was inclined to on teh tube for the coiler set up, put it at an angle which was about 'ideal' at the mid point of the 'nominal' travel on coils.
Two things; first Leafers dont have as much travel as coilers, so even at full compression, the diff nose angle might not be anwhere NEAR the nominal for a coiler; second, doesn't matter, becouse on a trailing link, its going to rotate AWAY from its ideal, rather than towards it.....
Set the axle on the spring mounts, to get the diff-nose angle right, and you will screw up your nicely set camber angle.
So without changing the relative angle between diff nose and swivil, you will NEVER get the set up working well; either your steering will be out, or you are inviting UJ/pinion failures, and or drive line judder and vibration..... or you pick a compromise that wont suit ither too well.
That is one of the 'niggles' many people who have done this conversion have confessed to and shrugged off. "Yeah, well I just grease the UK's more often and change them before every MOT" or "Well, I mainly only use it off road, and dont do many miles" or "Well its a comper, so I live with it... used to stff breaking!"
But, not insurmountable, and if you have the fabrication dexterity to do this conversion; should be pretty simple, to fill the Swivil flange holes on the axle tube with weld; set the axle angle on the mounts to get the right diff-nose angle, THEN attach the swivils, turn to get the right castor angle, mark the pattern of the flange holes, and then drill the axle flange to take the swivil at the NEW 'corrected' angle....
And, to be honest, for the accuracy required, and being tool room trained, I'd happily do that on my drive, with a stick welder and black and decker drill! Its not THAT hard! and certainly a lot less hassle than living with shuddering UJ's and replacing diff-pinions!
So; you now have the axle sitting on the springs, and you have got the diff nose angle set to what it should be for a series, and the castor angle set to what THAT should be for a series...
But when you come to attach the track-rod, the springs are in the way, becouse on a coiler track rod is behind the axle, on a leafer, infront.
The 'USUAL' way around this is to simply lift the axle further away from the spring using some thick plate between spring and spring mount; between 30 & 60mmm seems to be whats needed; and that demands longer U-bolts, to reach round the axle, and moves the axle closer to the chassis, lowering the ride height.
...but the track rod clears.
If you have gone to parabolic springs, they are thinner, so standard U-bolts for thicker plain leafs may be all thats needed to get around the spacer; and the 1-2" 'lift' offered by a para can compensate for the lost travel and ride height....
If you have used plain leafs, the you'll need to get lunger customU-bolts, particularly a the off-side pair are shaped to go round the diff casing. and you'll loose ride high & trave, which might be clawed back by uising extyended shackles, but then that mod, is another that has dire consequences to steerng geometry and diff-nose angle, UJ & pinion life! As well, as denying you that faciity as a further 'upgrade' or mor articulation.
However, if you have done ths same job at the back, without spacer plates, you are now riding nose low, so have possibly screwed your camber angles back up, tilting the thing forwards like a dragster......obviousely more pronounced on a SWB....
Again, something that is often 'shrugged off' and OK, it is within the same kind of limits as going from a station waggon back to a truck cab or something; but remember, tilting the thing in that direction is making the steering geometry more nervouse, and it will get worse with suspension travel.
So if you have 'compromised' on the camber angle to avoid setting the diff nose angle without welding and drilling swivil flanges, you are again in that danger zone that large suspension travel can send you into negative camber and wobbly supermarket trolly terratory!
Which is why I dont like wedges. Its a cheap trick and makes hassle for you.
Mainly with the damper mounting. G-mans already found this at the back, but on the front, space the axle off the spring, and put the damper back on the spring plate where it belongs, and the damper can start fouling on the axle tube, or as it moves through a compromised arc, starts eating its hanger bushes..... more 'niggles' shrugged off.... and yes, again, they CAN be sorted with a bit of fabrication creativity.....
So, we now have to make the steering work, from the steering relay.
Drag link from the series is a tad short, to reach the radius arm on the near-side swivil on the wider axle; but, can be 'jiggled' to fit.....
Things taht dont work too well, are turning the relay arms away from 'precribed' geometry, as then you can get some wiered asymetric steering effects, and or over centering effects as the nominals are all thrown to pot.... 'only used off road.... dont notice it much'
And or by screwing the ball joints out to the limit of thier extension...... ("Never had one fall out yet..... mind, had to replace a couple I've bent')
Or by chopping two drag links in half and welding the longer ends together to make a longer link that reaches.....
'Never had it MOT's so wouldn't know if it would pass...... Scrutineers have never said anything......'
'Well, yeah, but covered in mud, most testers wouldn't notice.....'
'I ground the weld back and slid a dan-bar over it to hide the weld and make it stronger....'
But a custome cut Drag link, by this time sems little added effort for piee of mind.
So, all hunky dory, except for the 'niggles', and...... "well, the steering is a BIT heavy, and does feel a BIT funny..... but......"
Becouse the radius arm length for the drag link joint on the coiler swivil is about four inches long, where on a seriers, its about six.... so the 3 & 1/2 turns lock to lock of the series steering has become 2/3 that.... "Yeah, I have about 3 turns, lost about half a turn.... "
Except, you have more steering travel on the coiler swivils, so you should have increased the lock to around four turns, not reduced it to three..... "Well, Landy Steerings heavy anyway......"
OK, fine, but, reducing the leverage on the drag link, means that for the same steering effort, its taking 50% more force........ which is why so many 90's compers bent drag links so easy, so often!
Hence my conclusion, the 'elegant' way of avoiding all these niggles, is custom radius arms to match the series steering linkage to the coiler swivils.
Avoids the fouling issue with the track rod; avoids the raitio mismatch with the drag link; avoids the ride hight and suspension travel issue of using spacers, AND setting the diff nose angle and castor angle on the axle, avoids a lot of faffing about finding 'compromises' that might not work, or worrying about any of the other consequential problems of accelerated pinion or UJ wear etc.
Of the 'better' conversions, that has been how they have eventually solved it all; using the coiler axle, but cutting and shutting to make it 'fit' EXACTLY like a leafer axle, using modified or custom fabricated radius arms.
Problem here is that these are NOT complient to VOSPA or MOT regs; some were entirely fabricated, others were stock coiler arms cut and welded with leafer ends on and stuff like that....
They were used on compers, where they were NOT dissallowed by 'Club' regs; not sure about strict MSA or ARC rules, now or in the past, but they WERE allowed in SOME class competition, possibly by ommission on scrutineers part, or by 'relaxed' interpretation of club competition 'adherance' to regs.
They HAVE been fitted to vehicles on the road; again, possibly 'over looked' by MOT man, or 'freindly' MOT chap 'let them go'..... lots of specials are built that DONT comply with C&U regs, or SVA regs and 'get away with it', like all the tax exempt SII 'Range Rovers' knocking about......
So, end of the day, armed with knowledge, you do what you think is best; but to my mind; the 'best' way of doing that has been 'proven' to be with custom radius arms, copying series steering set up onto coiler axle, and to pass C&U by the letter, that needs custom cast or billet cut arms...
I've seen this conversion done many times with many variations, and yes it can be done by lining the axle up and welding on a higher spring mount at 'roughly' the right angle to compromise on camber and diff-nose angles, and get the axle above where track rod will foul; can be done using coiler steering links, worked by extended drag link from series relay..... BUT the more 'compromises' that are made to make the concversion easier or 'simpler' the more 'consequential' niggles that are caused that make the conversion less and less successful.
And KNOWING where all those niggles lie; seems stoopid to rush in and relive other people's problems when many could be pretty easily avoided.
Certainly if nothing else; if you are down there welding bits and cutting bits to the axle tube to make it fit; NOT spending that little time to set the diff nose and castor angles via re-drilling the swivil flange, would seem particularly perverse, KNOWING that it can save you so much hassle on the diff-pinion and UJ front, and let you get the steering geometry working so much better for you.... however you choose to get round the steering link problems, after.
On which notion; for a CCV 'Buggy'; ie something NOT for use on the road; an easier way to make 'custom' radius arms, than scratch fabrication, neater than welding extensions to stock radius arms, and cheaper than a billet arm;
Swivil end of a coiler arm, ball joint ends of a series arm. 'spliced' together. Each 'end' drilled about 1" down its length from the cut face; a 2" length of stock, around 10mm dia, turned to make an interference fit in the hole in each end, and aligned so that the two halves can be pressed together over the 'dowel', leaving about a 2mm gap between thier faces, and the reletive possition of the taper bores for the ball joints when bolted to teh colier swivil, where they would be on a leafer swivil, in relation to the king-pin. then the gap between the two halves of the arms around the splicing dowel, can be filled with weld, the weld dressed, and dressed and painted, would look like an original part................... But of course, that would only be to show the scrutineers, the level of attension in your engineering, wouldn't it?

Thanks for that, I had not understood the issue about the castor angle (did you mix up caster and camber there a couple of times), reading that took a while, but better than bashing a disco axle to fit then having to sort it.
Re drilling the swivel holes does not sound such an issue then, the steering arms is, however having read all you said, the spacer under the axle is the least of the evils, and if the same spacing is applied front and rearthen geometry, castor and suspension travel all remain correct by what you say, so spacing the axle up compromises on just the one point ride height.
On this thesis, my decision to use disco axles is pretty much based on whether loering the vehicle 2" is gonna be an issue, not being experienced with landy driving I'm gonna have to look into that.
The vehicle I'm looking at allready claims to have a 2" raising kit, that initially sounds great as I'd lose what I've gained end reult the same, However how does the kit work, is it just a couple of longer leaf hangers bolted on, if so then is that going to have screwed up the geometry in the first place, and bolting on disco axles just compounding the issue?,
Teffy maybe your the only person who can answer this.
The other solution to my issue though I've allready worked out, get a 200tdi which has a 10spline diff, and change the rear axle for a disco, and just put the disco diff in the series front axle, then If i use the r380 box fit the ashcroft selectable 4wd mod.
any comments on this.
PS whats the diffo between a salisbury axle fitted to the 109 and a 'standard' axle found on an 88?.

dr pepper said:

Teffy maybe your the only person who can answer this.

Click to expand...

OK pepe, lets start at the begining; talk of TDi's and r380's and salisbury axles makes me think we are looking at a full on hybrid excersize here, turning a rotten dizzy into an 'almost' a 90, using a 'cheap' SIII 'donor' for little more than the bodywork & log book!
Have a look at this:- V8 Conversion , I know it says V8 'conversion' but essentially its looking at how to utilise 'cheap' coiler bits, be they from a rotten disco or rangie, and press them into service to make a higher performance 'utility' landy.
Engine's different, running gears the same, most of the problems and arguments equally appliciable.
If what you want, is a low rent 90, then to be perfectly honest, flog the disco bits for spares, sell the series and go buy a 90! Or flog the SIII and buy a 'cheap' 90 to upgrade with the disco bits... 'cos its the irishman asked for directions saying, 'noo I wunnun be stairtin frum hiyre....'
If deturmined, then go the hybrid rout, build a coiler, either attaching coil mounts to the series chassis and adapting everything to take disco running gear, or use the disco chassis as is, and either cut the chassis down to drop series bodywork on top, or cut down LWB tub to fit the 100" disco wheel-base.
THAT is by far and away the 'easiest' way to get what you are after, give or take a bit of swearing!
If you apreciate the series, and want to keep it for the charms and qualities it has, well, identifying the good bits worth keeping, then the leaf-springs are a defining feature; the unasisted steering, something that really adds to the 'feel' of the way it drives, as does the selectable four wheel drive, multi-lever transmission, with all its 'faults' and weaknesses.
Series transfer box REALLY is the 'key-stone' of a series, loose that, and really you dont have a series any-more; luckily it is a pretty robust unit and hugely over engineered, so an Ashcroft kit to adapt that to a tougher main-box is a good way to go, as far as preserving series 'feel'.... BUT, next weak link then IS the axles, and they were NOT designed to cope with the kind of power we'd like to shove through them.
Keeping the series X-fer and selectable two wheel drive, means that the back axle sees twice the load it should, BUT, they can be upgraded a bit.
earlier 110's got salisbury back axles, as the 109's. Difference is they have a stronger axle casing, stronger diff and stronger half shafts. But they are a pig to strip, and difficult to fit alternative diffs or pinion sets.
109's had 4.7:1 diffs in them; 110's and stage 1, had 3.5:1 diffs in them; and thats about your choice. Series salisburies have same track width as series 88 and stage 1; 110's the standard 4" wider track width.
Tougher than the rover/env axle used at the front, or on earlier SII's and retained on 88"s, rover STILL didn't reckon the salisbuiry was strong enough for even the 90bhp grunt of a detuned stage one engine; hence permenant four wheel drive. Experience though has proved that they are 'tough enough' for most of us.
Fitting a salisbury to an 88", the spring bases are different; on a 109, the hangers are outboard of the chassis, on the outriggers, where on an 88" they are under the chassis rails, as at the front.
So, you need to adapt the mounts one end or other; if you want to fit a salisbury on leafs to an 88, then either you have to chop the spring mounts off the axle tube and weld them an inch and a half further in, to match the 88" spring base, or you have to weld 109 spring hangers onto the 88" chassis to match the axles spring base. OR you have to cut the leaf spring mounts of everything, and add coil mounts and hang them on a defender set up.
Obviousely if using a 110 Salisbury, then you have the same choices, except for using leafs you have to decide which spring base to adopt, or if coiling, you conveniently already have the mounts on the axle!
Wider spring base of the 109, can be useful as it makes the car more stable for road use or heavy loads, and on side slopes; it effectively increases roll stiffness, but by the same token it does reduce ultimate articulation a bit.
For compers, extra articulation was seen as a benefit, so preffered to keep the 88" spring base, and sacrifice the load carrying and on road stability, BUT? many, originally for ease of conversion, adopted 109 hangers and the wider base, and found that the added stability actually gave them more benefit more often, for the small sacrifice in articulation.
Using wider 110 salisbury on leafs, added track width would give lower roll resistance anyway, so permit the same degree of articulation as an 88" spring base, so advantages of wider spring base for side slope and road stability probably beneficial, especially as axle is likely to be able to artuclate far enough to start fouling bodywork or chassis, and any more would be wasted anyhow.
MAIN 'problem' of fitting a salisbury to an 88" is the longer diff-nose. On an 88" you already have a very short prop-shaft, and shortening it to fit between box and longer diff housing means some pretty extreme prop angles, and pottential for rapid UJ wear and possibility of yoke binding.
Carefully set up on the springs to get a good diff nose angle, salisburies have been used in competition with shortened standard props, and even worked on suspension given extra travel via parabolics and military/1-ton hangers and shackles, and in even more adverse set-ups where the gearbox has been relocated up to 4" back on the chassis rails to gain clerance for a v8 and/or gain better mass centralisation.
However, the dark art of prop mods has included some pretty dire mods, such as double cordon joints, ground yokes and thinned spiders....
For a reasonably 'tame' set up, the 'safe' option is a proprietry 'extreme' (wide angle) prop, ordered to length; a bit expensive, but it does the job out the box, and does so reliably, without too much hassle; the exponents of the art that make up thier own props from stock parts and late night machining have learned thier 'tricks' from a lot of broken parts, and they still dont always last!
As for using a wider disco axle on the back, narrower series on the front......
I dont 'like' mis-matched tracks; from an engineering point of view, for stability, that is also the 'wrong way round' if anything advantage lies in wider track at the front; think about three wheelers here, and single wheel at the front you have plastic pig, sorry relient robbin stability; one wheel at the back, two at the front and you have something more akin to a morgan tri-car....
Of the vehicles that have ever had mis-matched track widths, its tended to be narrower at the back, than at the front, things like the MKII Jag spring to mind here....
Practically, on a Lany, I dont know whether it would make a huge difference, but, looking for more strenght in the drive-line, I dont think it would do what you want. Longer shafts in disco axle, but subject to the same stresses, they are probably just as likely to break; if anything, narrower series rover axle is possibly a bit tougher as the forces dont have as much leverage to act on.
Using a 110 salisbury, same general idea, togher axle, but 109's shorter tubes and shafts would probably be that bit more resiliant, and not upset stability.
Matched axles, well its swings and roundabouts; you trade that bit of toughness for the added stability and articulation.
Two wheel drive vs four....
As said; dump the series x-fer, really you dont have a series, you may as well start with a defender; do it though and as you suggest, you have that problem of the UJ front quarter shafts, and either live with that 'niggle' or spend money on a Haystee conversion, or go for coiler axles.... on leafs of coils, and all that entails.
TDi motors.
Really I do NOT rate TDi motors in series landies, it is just NOT a good match; big problem with them, apart from being a hugely over rated engine, that isn't that powerful, and doesn't make the huge 'torque' people claim, or even prove that ecconomical, is that it relies on that turbo to do anything.
Without the blower, motor struggles to make 80bhp, which is only a couple of bhp up on an old 2.5NAD sherpa motor.
But, leave the blower on, here, look at the power trace:-

That's actually the dyno trace for the 2.8l TDV 'high torque' version of the 200TDi, same shape, slightly bigger numbers;
It dispells the myth about these things 'low down torque', they dont have any; 3.9l v8 has damn nearly as much torque at tick-over as the TDV does at peak!
What makes people SAY it has so much low down torque is the fact that it actually has so little, but ramps up what it can offer so quickly, as the blower spools up; it ramps like an austrian ski slope from 500rpm to a peak at less than 1500rpm, then drops off like its gone on holiday.......it's making power purely on revs, and at 3,800rpm, which is the power peak, its actually making less motive force than it does at tick-over, which is why these things have to be thrashed to get anywhere, and why they are so harsh at normal kind of road speeds.
BUT, its that tick-over to 1500rpm ramp thats the killer, thats where the motor feels most willing, and what you use under acceleration from a stand still.
So, you bury the pedal, motor doesn't offer much thrust, so you keep it burried, but willingly ramps up as the blower spools, and rapidly delivers a near three fold increase in torque, in a very short period.
THAT rate of change of load, is what kills series gear-boxes, becouse it just applies such a staggering amount of acceleration, the gear tooth forces and the prerssures between them are FAR what they would see from any other engine, even a V8 making near three times as much torque, but hardly varying the loadings as it changes speed.... and of course, in operation, you hit 2500rpm, motor stops being so willing, and you short shift, doing it all over again, rather than reving the thing out......
So, the motor would preffer gearing that kept the thing in that 'sweet-spot' under 2000rpm, but to do so, you need tall gearing, and if you use tall gearing then you will be transfering even MORE of that power as torque, rather than revs, increasing shaft and gear loadings even MORE..... on a box and drive train that just ISN'T up to the job...
So, if you want to use a TDI motor, then that series main box really isn't up to it; LT77 and ascroft adaptor to the series X-fer would save the box, but the next week link will be the axles. Salisbury would be good, but still more force than it was designed to handle, and on 3.5 diffs more still.
Especially as the LT77 has genuine 25% over drive fifth gear, and the seriers X-fer has less reduction in it than an LT230, to compensate for lack of that higher fifth gear, and use of 4.7:1 diffs......
Would make the gearing that bit more suitable for the power curve though, more so even than a disco's higher ratio LT230, but you would have to factor into your maintenence equations added load on the back axle.
Which ISN'T such a big deal, to be honest; and if there hass to be a wek link, rear half shafts are one of the easier 'fueses' to change when they go.
Which is why that arrangement is my preffered set up for a dream-rover; though I would add a few added precautions by way of drive line dampers on the prop-shafts and cush drives on the drive flanges, and if it were to be anything but a dream, I would probably have to go for an auto-box rather than an LT77, as I'm dissabled; and a torque converter gives a lot of drive line damping too. wouldn't STOP the TDi hitting the shafts like a sledge hammer, but take abit of the sting out of it!
Which brings us back to this all being a very involved conversion, and ultimately, the 90 being a much better place to start; coiling a series chassis bing the more 'sensible' way of avoiding too many problems; and using the disco drive line in its entirity, the logical conclusion.
Maintaining the series X-fer, for the 'feel' of the series Rover, on that adds some work, but not much in the greater equation, and does beg some compromises over reliability, but ones that arent too dire.
Keeping the Series unassisted steering, on a coiler is almost completely impractical, given the relay set-up, and the mentioned mis-match to the drag link ratios; but you could keep 'some' of the feel by using a non-assisted early range rover or 90/110 steering box.
Keeping the leaf springs though, with everything else changes to coiler gear; and you are really making life hard for yourself for that bit of tactile satisfaction...... but it IS do-able, and do-able without too many consequential problems IF you tackle it in the right way.
On which topic, when you mentioned the wedges, you suggested they didn't effect suspension travel, only ride height.
No, they raise the axle above the spring, closer to the chassis, so you loose whatever wedge thickness you have used as ride height AND travel, as the axle tube will have that much less distance to travel before hitting the bump-stops.
what was said was, that you COULD claw some of that travel and ride heght BACK by lifting the suspension, either with parabolics or 1-ton hangers and shackles, or both.
And on THAT topic, I have to mention, the common mod of using military shackles, ON THEIR OWN to raise suspension....
Longer shackles lift the tail of the leaf spring; on thier own, that lifts the axle about 2" further from teh chassis, but in doing so, tilts the axle back, screwing up the castor angle, which we've already mentioned, AND the diff-nose angle, ALSO mentioned.....
So IF you intend to use military shackles ON THEIR OWN, as part of this conversion, you need to factor them into the equyation before you start setting your diff nose angle and swivils for castor.
Next up, on the wun-tun and military variants, extended shackles were NOT used on thier own; they were used in conjunction with extended spring hangers at the front of the spring, to 'correct' the geometry and make the spring hang level.
This is a VERY good idea as it limits the amount of correction needed for the castor angle, and as the spring compresses, the castor ange will change less, as will the diff nose angle.
BUT, the diff nose angle does need to be adjusted slightly; I cant remember what the actual figures are, but, the original angle is set to be 'aboit' ideal at the mid point of the 'nominla' travel of a standard spring.
In suspension design, its presumed that at normal ride hight, you have aproximately 1/3 of the suspension travel compressed by the car at rest, then the 'normal' range of travel during use will be aproximately 2/3 of the available compression above kerb height, 1/2 of the 'droop' beneath it, 'full' droop, when the suspension 'tops out' is a facility presumed will not be used very often, as will 'topping oit' when teh axle hits the bump stops....
Which is to say, that the 'nominal' suspension possition in operation ISN'T the normal ride height, or ghalf way between normal ride hight and fully compressed.
Its 'normally' actually not far off, half full compression, from full droop to bottomed out; but that is a co-incidence of the sums rather than becouse it makes sense.
Anyway; IF you have increased travel, via parabolics and or extended shackles and or extended spring hangers, the diff nose angele ought o be 'tweeked' to match that of the series axle at 1/2 'normal' suspension travel, BUT at 1/2 your now 'extended' travel....
If only using extended shacles, then the effect of the tilted spring, makes matters a bit more complicated, BUT, as the spring compresses, it also flatens out, making the axle effectively twist.
Said that as the suspension compresses on a leaf, the trailing link makes it twist towards the gearbox, but as the spring flattens, it actually twists away from it; this is what makes extended shackle set ups so awkward, becouse by using one you have also tilted the axle away from the box, pointing the diff nose down, and the flattening of teh spring makes things worse, where on an extended hanger, it somehwat compensates for the twist from the trailing lking effect.
In which case, using extended shackles, the 'tweek' is to compensate a little by setting the diff nose angle a little high.
Anyway, MY head is realing contemplating all this stuff, and I'm sure its definitely off-putting to actually doing a conversion; thing is, its detail stuff about this specific convcersion, and merely where you need to do stuff to make it work.
Dusted over coil conversions in quick time, but if we went into those in to the same degree, as with my mention of castor correction for a lift kit, we could get into the same debates about how to set up the coil mounts and everything for variouse lifts or wheel-bases to keep the diff-nose angles reasonable and the steering geometry within limits!
As some-one used to always tell me; the devil is in the detail! Thats where you find problems, and if you've done your research properly, avoid them before they occur!
And yes, I probably did mix castor and camber up a few times; probably have again TBH!

Teflon said:

And yes, I probably did mix castor and camber up a few times; probably have again TBH!

Click to expand...

with those posts we'll let you off! cheers for posting that stuff, were a good read!

Allthough you have shot down some of my theorys is flames, your advice is appreciated teffy, and you know your stuff, I know engines you know landies, if I'd built something then realised that'd be ****e wouldnt it.

I had realised about the problem with the swivel hinge point with the disco axles and the leading and trailing link design issues referenced to susp travel on your last post.
But My point still hasnt been proven incorrect, I had realised that using spacers under the disco axle will lower ride height and reduce the susp travel by the same amount as the spacer, IF this can be lived with evrything else will be acceptable, castor/susp travel and steering.
So for a landy which is probably only going to see roads and campsites this will be ok, yes I know I'm making concessions however I'm not making these in production.
I dont want steering that flops, scrubbed tyres and poor handling, re-drilling hinge swivel points sorts this, and buys me a bit of time to organise fabbing some steering arms, I have access to a firm that can do cast steel forms, taper boring is an issue on such an irregular shape tho.
I'd probably fab up a linkage by welding disco/series and steel stock together make sure it fits and works and then use it as a pattern to make a mould for a cast steel blank, just out of interest I havent seen the setup so I dont know but would a bolt with a taper at one end to fit the series steering arm and a taper socket with means for a nut to be screqwed in at the other to fit the disco steering bellcrank work, sort of an extension to clear the leafs, I could make these easily enough.

So then seeing as disco engines are expensive and less than ideal I might just revert to my original transit engine idea, I'm sure they have their problems too, but they are a lot cheaper more common and I've had them in bits a few times.
Tother thing the landy I have been looking at claims to have 2 salibury axles, so thats a good start, I'll double check and maybe I should reach in mi pockets and buy it.
How do I check for salisbury axles, presumably from your text salisburys's springs are hung on the outboard side of the longitudanal chassis members.

And seeing as you've taken the time to write to me I'll explain what I'm doing. Starting with a deffy would have been better yes, but the mrs had a series for half of her life and she will only have a series, the petrol ones dont appeal to me for various reasons and all the diesel ones I've looked at have either been knackered or way above budget, and I want something to play with, so a conversion might be the right way for me to go.

To start with I'd just fit an engine to the landys box, and your quite right the yellow and red levers are what everyone remembers about the series, they are its soul, and if I've salisbury axles I could just leave it at that, assuming the ratios are ball park.

Thanks again for the constructive criticism teffy, and anyone else remotely thinking of an engine or axle swap TAKE the time and read all these posts, I was a landy rookie when I started 2 weeks back.

Well Pep, you are taxing even my knowledge mentioning Salisbury front axle; imediete thought is that here was never no such thing, but raiding the memory banks there's a seed of doubt..... 101 axles? I dont know!?!
Most likely, though and HUGELY useful is they are, is Stage 1 axles; pretty sure that was a Salisbury at the back, 109 width, but 3.54:1 diff, and up front, a 3.54:1 diffed axle, with CV joints to take the permenant four wheel drive of the Rangie four-speed gearbox... that MIGHT have also been a salisbury, but I couldn't say for definite either way.

I DONT think, that ANY front axle has had the wider 109 rear, out-board spring mount, spring base, whether Salisbury ot not, but again, deep into the exoteric confections of Landydom! I cant say for sure.

Trying to work out your lifted ball-joint arrangement suggestion; err..... not sure exactly what you are suggesting, BUT has been 'done'... sort of.

Piece of billet, taper turned at the bottom to fit coiler radius arm, taper bored at the top to take the ball-joint, and cross milled with a slot so lock nut could be attached to clamp ball-joint in the taper.

However, was crawling about under the rangie today, and NOT looking at steering arrangements, but trying to remove a starter motor, when my drag link fell on my head!

Had removed steering box, and tied link up out of the way, but scrabbling around underneath, I'd rolled over the wire and snapped it... DONK!

So I'm not sure which hit me first, steering link, or steering 'thought'! BUT, result was, I looked up, and noted the negligible clerence between the bottom of the diff-nose and the track rod between the swivils...

Which makes sense of the example I saw which used spaced off ball-joints on the coiler swivil arms, becouse basically, lifting the drag link to clear springs, you put it in the way of the diff....

Which explained some of the other convolutions this chap had gone to, with the lifted ball-joint idea.... in effect, he used a double cranked track-rod, and I THINK actually ran it OVER the top of the diff, rather than under.

(it was one of the less successful attempts I recall, and the 'stiffness' of the track-rod arrangement rather questionable; was a low rent P&P special tho' running dump truck tyres!)

Backing up to the start of your envissaged project, and applying the KISS principle;

TDi motor isn't a great match for a series; but, for what you have described the likely use will be, little perki-prima might be JUST the thing;
The conversions a little out-moded now, as supply of rotten mnontegos has dried up, and been replaced by rotted out disco's.... but it is still a conversion with a lot of merit.

90bhp, its as powerful as a stage 1 V8, people said it lacked torque, particularly low down, BUT, with that blower, it actually had as much torque down there as the 2.25 petrol, or certainly near enough for you to not really notice, and for 'light' off-roading, and road work, a VERY good choice, as it is one of the most ecconomical diesel conversions, and the engine is lively enough to rev to petrol rpm; so you get about 80mph out of it, on 4.7:1 diffs, all the power shifted as revs, not torque, so it gives the series drive-line an easy time.

Transit motors.... plenty to choose form and you probably know them infinitely better than me; crude, harsh, uncivilised, gutless, and HAVE to be thrashed to make them do anything, but will do it, and seemingly for ever, whatever abuse they are given!

Reports of fitment to Landies, and I think its one of Conversion & Preccisions specialties, the Ford & Peugot oil burners, strong pulling power, but not 'quick'; Dave chap that welded my sills in for me week or so back has an old NAD Tranny motor in a Rangie, on four speed; sounds like a coffee tin full of nails on a kango hammer...... and dont like doing more than 60.... has to thrash it to do anything, but thrashed, like an old cart-hourse, pulls abouut three times its own weight in load!

On a seeiries box, reports of failure are not as frequent for Ford-Pug motors, they dont seem to eat boxes like some conversions, but there are failures, and I suspect they put a bit more strain on an old box that would probably not last much longer with anything else on the front anyway.

Main thing with the tranny motor, I seem to recall is making it fit, and fit neatly, something to do with niggles surrounding engine mounts, exhausts and starter motors all being in inconvenient places.

If done neatly, then can be a reasonably useful conversion, but if too many shortcuts are taken, I believe its a nightmarfe to service, and can give hassle.

But,for what you have described you want to do with the car, I'd REALLY suggest you look into the Prima conversion; you could hang that on the front of a series box, minimum disturbance, and not change anything else, though, if you dont already have them, upgrade to servo assisted 109 Twin Leading Shoe brakes might be prudent.

For wider track and better stability, leave the standard axles in place, and if you want to keep the 'look' of standard wheels, a set of Defender or Wolf steelies, with wider rim and offset, on 25 or 30mmm spacers would give you a decent track imprvement, though more cheaply, a set of deeper dish eight-spokes or modular 7" rims would put the tyre wall flush with the wheel arch, and track width just about equal to that of a coiler axle with stock wheels.....

and that allows you to adjust the lock-stops for a little extra steering lock, provided you haven't gone silly on a tyre oversize.

Other alternative, that looks quite tidy on a series is Disco 1 steel wheels; 7" wide they are good for modern tyres, and if you want to go up to 235's, and look pretty at home.

Favoirite with the ARC compers, who have to use catalogue rover parts, and compers ingeneral, as they are one of teh strongest wheels for a Landy, but to get the off-set to kick the wheels out, they grind the centres out of teh rims, turn them back to front and weld them back in again!

You'd keep the series gearbox, steering suspension AND axles, which wouldn't be in as dire danger of being stressed;

get better road speed and performance as well as ecconomy (Enthusiasts of the conversion claim in excess of 40mpg from it!)

improved braking, and handling, and not have huge engineering hassles, or conversion costs......

would depend on finding a decent donor motor, though; BUT may be worth biding your time and looking for one already done...

Here, just for interest, check this out; reproduction of old LRO article on Prima into an S1. Fitting a Prima

yep glad you didnt completely dis my idea of fitting the disco front axle, and yep you got the idea of the extender arms for the steering rods, but not so much billet, I'd use steel bar probably 70mm dia, interesting comment about smacking the diff with the track rod though, need to check that out.
Prima engines, had a works car with a prima, either it was made on a friday or its not as good as its meant to be I didnt get on with it.
I think I'm gonna go tranny.
Just got a second hand conversion kit of ebay for 5o odd quid, so thats the way, me and the mrs can put up with rattly smokey old diesels, were both used to tractors and diggers, besides the whole idea of the landy was to get something that was the opposite of power steering and comfy seats and electric everything, neither of us would moan about driving to scotland wearing ear muffs, with babycakes its not a bad idea.

erm, mind if i just hijack eyr thread???

while yer on about axles and such, maybe it was the other thread, i'm in the process of rebuilding my rear axle (standard series affair, nowt fancy or home made) ive found one of the drive flanges to halfshafts has a bit of play. is there suposed to be any play in these? the half shaft splines look a bit rusty, must have been something to do with the oil/mud lubrication that were in the axle casing....