Other Is a lightweight narrower than other series landies?

Hi again, this is just an idle question really. The other day I was trying to explain to some mates why the lightweight was called the "1/2 ton Land Rover", and I think it was on wikipedia where I found all the info about the weights when it was stripped down for transportation etc. While looking through that I read that the lightweight was made narrower to fit on a standard pallet. That was a new one on me! Is it true?

If so, what are the implications for using certain parts from standard series land rovers? (I've already seen that there's a specific chassis for lightweights, but I'm also thinking axles etc, which span the whole width of the vehicle).

Any thoughts or info much appreciated. Cheers.

Yes they're 4" narrower, standard Series axles or half shafts won't fit.

The" 1/2 ton land rover "comes from its military background and applies to its load carrying capacity.
It was made to strip down so that it could then be carried by the then standard heavy lift helicopter the Westland Wessex

4 inches?? I had no idea it would be that much! Well that's useful to know for future reference. Glad I asked!

tottot said:

The" 1/2 ton land rover "comes from its military background and applies to its load carrying capacity.

Click to expand...

I thought that was to do with it weighing half a ton once the canvas, body-panels, windscreen etc were removed for transportation in aircraft. Hence also being known as the "Airportable" land rover...

Er no,nowhere near enough weight was removed to get anywhere near half a ton.

Harrris303 said:

I thought that was to do with it weighing half a ton once the canvas, body-panels, windscreen etc were removed for transportation in aircraft. Hence also being known as the "Airportable" land rover...

Click to expand...

Doesn't really count if you have to take the car off to get it down to weight.

Vinlander said:

Doesn't really count if you have to take the car off to get it down to weight.

Click to expand...

Yeah it always seemed a bit strange to me. If they had to carry the rest of it in a different helicopter...

Ok I stand corrected. Although I thought the half-ton thing was more of a figure of speech than an actual fact.

It turned out to be heavier than a standard 88 in true LR R&D style

The pallet referred to was the then standard military one that could be carried by the transport aircraft of the time.A good friend of mine spent some of his military career pushing vehicles [ manly brand new mini moke's] out of the back of AW Argosy's over Saisbury plane testing parachute drop systems.He said many did not work and to see the splattered remains brought a tear to the eye.

They are narrower so you could fit them side by side in a C-130 Aircraft. Managed to squeeze in one more, maybe two in the hold but going side by side instead of head to tail

I've been driving and working on mine for about 4 years now and never even noticed a difference in size... Doh!

Now brainstorming what parts I might need in future that would be different to standard. Half-shafts seem to be available for a reasonable price so that's good. I guess a lot of parts for the steering gear must be smaller. And the diff/axle casing?

That's not to mention the vent panel that I definitely need, and the bulkhead that I probably need, and the chassis that I expect I will need at some point....

blue beasty said:

Yes they're 4" narrower, standard Series axles or half shafts won't fit.

Click to expand...

axles are std apart from flush hub caps and body isnt that much narrower std roof fits though pulled in a little more like an inch and 1/2 from memory

jamesmartin said:

axles are std apart from flush hub caps and body isnt that much narrower std roof fits though pulled in a little more like an inch and 1/2 from memory

Click to expand...

That's a relief to hear. Actually it was my dad's before mine and if I remember correctly it had a white hard top on it from an old SWB county or something similar when he bought it, which seemed to fit quite well (apart from it sat on top of the fittings for the hoops so had a nice half inch air gap all the way round!)

jamesmartin said:

axles are std apart from flush hub caps and body isnt that much narrower std roof fits though pulled in a little more like an inch and 1/2 from memory

Click to expand...

Checking up on this post '81 half ton axles are 4" wider than pre '81.

blue beasty said:

Checking up on this post '81 half ton axles are 4" wider than pre '81.

Click to expand...

Pretty big change of design in 1981 then. Maybe it was to do with changes in transport aircraft meaning they could use more standard parts after all. Anyway lucky for me mine's from 1983!

blue beasty said:

Checking up on this post '81 half ton axles are 4" wider than pre '81.

Click to expand...

i suppose a hub cap and thinner drive member could account for that, but you can fit rear lw capped half shafts in rear std axles similar to front but you need to swap outer shaft
presumably if there is a difference they just used std drive member set up after 81

jamesmartin said:

i suppose a hub cap and thinner drive member could account for that, but you can fit rear lw capped half shafts in rear std axles similar to front but you need to swap outer shaft
presumably if there is a difference they just used std drive member set up after 81

Click to expand...

Possibly, looking at the military forums parts are interchangeable with civvie apart from all axle cases and early lightweight half shafts.

blue beasty said:

Possibly, looking at the military forums parts are interchangeable with civvie apart from all axle cases and early lightweight half shafts.

Click to expand...

cases are the same as far as i remember apart from strengthener thats fitted to all military at the time