 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / July 2006Sailsbury Diff removal.
Ok it's looking more and more like the Diff has to come out (see Whrirr 101 Diff thread). Much talk is made of a speader (which I don't have) and some talk of prybars (gemmi?). Discuss. Lee D > Ok it's looking more and more like the Diff has to come out (see Whrirr > 101 Diff thread). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Lee D See workshop manual. You will note two recesses each side of the diff housing opposite the pinion side. To remove the diff assembly it is necessary to move these apart slightly using a some form of spreader. One variety uses a screw between the end of a pair of pivoted arms with lugs to go in the socket about half way along each arm. As the force needed is considerable, the whole setup has to be pretty sturdy. Fine adjustment is needed as it is important to only spread the housing just enough, overdo it and you permanently distort the housing, converting it to scrap. JD >> Ok it's looking more and more like the Diff has to come out (see Whrirr >> 101 Diff thread). [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and you permanently distort the housing, converting it to scrap. > JD And what a crap idea it is. The responsibility for this abominable creation is the Dana Corporation of America. What WERE they thinking of? Why did they not make the hole a few millimetres bigger? Huw > And what a crap idea it is. The responsibility for this abominable creation > is the Dana Corporation of America. What WERE they thinking of? Why did they > not make the hole a few millimetres bigger? Presumably you are being tongue in cheek ? Steve >> And what a crap idea it is. The responsibility for this abominable >> creation is the Dana Corporation of America. What WERE they thinking of? >> Why did they not make the hole a few millimetres bigger? > > Presumably you are being tongue in cheek ? Of course not. Do *you* think it is a good idea to have to use a case expander to get the diff out? Huw >>> And what a crap idea it is. The responsibility for this abominable >>> creation is the Dana Corporation of America. What WERE they [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Huw Well, could at least one of you explain the pros & cons of either?  SignatureSubaru WRX 'get behind me you weak minded fools'[ Range Rover 4.6 HSE 'comfy ride to hell' KTM 520, 'not for the faint hearted as they say.........' We might be going on a summer holiday, the Greece Ball rally!!!! >>>> And what a crap idea it is. The responsibility for this abominable >>>> creation is the Dana Corporation of America. What WERE they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, could at least one of you explain the pros & cons of either? Cons of Salisbury [Dana] axle....... case needs expanding to remove diff Pros of other axles....... case does not need expanding to remove diff. Huw >> and you permanently distort the housing, converting it to scrap. >> JD > >And what a crap idea it is. The responsibility for this abominable creation >is the Dana Corporation of America. What WERE they thinking of? Why did they >not make the hole a few millimetres bigger? have to agree with Huw, there. There's no good reason for making an aperture which is fractionally too small. and IIRC the difference is really small, not more than about 1 or 2mm. what I don;t know is why people don't, instead of pissing around with stretching the casing, take and angle grinder to the edges of the hole and make it the mm or so wider that it needs to be. Is there any good reason not to? SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" George Orwell (1903 - 1950) Animal Farm > what I don;t know is why people don't, instead of pissing around with > stretching the casing, take and angle grinder to the edges of the hole and > make it the mm or so wider that it needs to be. Is there any good reason > not to? It's a matter of a few thou, but it's what puts the preload on the main carrier bearings so it's fairly vital. And the design works bloody well in terms of being strong - I've yet to smash a salisbury pattern diff without being incredibly stupid (silly amounts of horsepower and serious abuse of the vehicle), but have had some interesting failures with banjo style diffs whilst being relatively sensible in the same vehicle. SignatureEMB >>> and you permanently distort the housing, converting it to scrap. >>> JD [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > make it the mm or so wider that it needs to be. Is there any good reason > not to? The stretching is NOT to get it OUT its to load the bearings properly - which is why its so bloody tough. The MAXIMUM deflection permissible is only 15 thou. Steve >>>> and you permanently distort the housing, converting it to scrap. >>>> JD [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >which is why its so bloody tough. The MAXIMUM deflection permissible is >only 15 thou. ah. Mind, I'd have thought you could load the bearings by other means - other diffs do. The strength of the diff is in how it's designed, mostly, not in the axle casing. Older rover diffs were not designed to take all that much power and/or torque, so if you overload them with a big engine they tend to fail. That's not an inherent design fault, simply that the diff was designed for a give power. The Dana ones are obviously designed for more power, but if LR set out now to design the rover-type axle, then the diff and half-shafts would be designed to take the load of the current engines. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt" (confound the men who have made our remarks before us.) Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes] > if LR set out now to design the rover-type axle, then the diff and > half-shafts would be designed to take the load of the current > engines. Much like Toyota have done with their Hilux diffs - similar design and size to the Rover unit but a heap stronger - I'm successfully running 550BHP (and LOTS of torque) through one in my race car and have broken 2 half shafts in 5 years. When I get a supply of tuits I'll have a go at marrying one into a LR diff housing. SignatureEMB > See workshop manual. You will note two recesses each side of the diff > housing opposite the pinion side. To remove the diff assembly it is > necessary to move these apart slightly using a some form of spreader. One > variety uses a screw between the end of a pair of pivoted arms with lugs to > go in the socket about half way along each arm. Hence I made the tool, I used a dial gauge to measure the spread accurately, and at 6 thou deflection, the diff gauge fell out into my waiting hands. Others have used chains and twelve foot scaffolding poles. Take your pick.... Steve Steve Taylor <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> uttered summat worrerz funny about: >> See workshop manual. You will note two recesses each side of the diff >> housing opposite the pinion side. To remove the diff assembly it is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve A scary movie.... (20 meg mind!) http://www.zen79997.zen.co.uk/diff/diff.MOV Lee D On Friday, in article <44a5263a$0$4885$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> > > See workshop manual. You will note two recesses each side of the diff > > housing opposite the pinion side. To remove the diff assembly it is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > waiting hands. Others have used chains and twelve foot scaffolding > poles. Take your pick.... 6 thou? All that for just 6 bloody thou!? It seems a tad excessive, doesn't it. SignatureDavid G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger. "I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six." David G. Bell wrote: > 6 thou? > > All that for just 6 bloody thou!? > > It seems a tad excessive, doesn't it. Its a hell of a load on the case though to get that deflection, so the bearings get a very hefty preload. Quite clever really. Steve > David G. Bell wrote: >> 6 thou? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Its a hell of a load on the case though to get that deflection, so the > bearings get a very hefty preload. Quite clever really. Clever? It's you that's joking now. You must be? It's a bloody abomination. Lucky then that they are generally reliable and strong so they don't need much attention normally. Huw they are generally reliable and strong so they don't need > much attention normally. You don't think that speaks for itself ? Steve > they are generally reliable and strong so they don't need >> much attention normally. > > You don't think that speaks for itself ? No! There are tens and hundreds of thousands of different reliable diffs in all kind of vehicles that don't need case expanders to remove. Huw >> they are generally reliable and strong so they don't need >>> much attention normally. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are tens and hundreds of thousands of different reliable diffs in all > kind of vehicles that don't need case expanders to remove. Different ? You reckon ? Steve steve <steve@thetaylorfamily.org.uk> uttered summat worrerz funny about: >>> You don't think that speaks for itself ? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve Well I think I've now got my head around the principle. The expander is not as I thought to afford enough space to get the crown wheel out but infact to release the preload which is generated by the case it's self (in the horizontal pane) and the correct shimming of the bearings to sort out the Diff backlash. In effect shoehorning the diff in and out, but the amount of actual movement is minimal. I've probably been told that twice today but until you actually work it out in your own mind then it's meaningless or it was to me... I've also got my head around the crushable collapseable doofer to again set up the preload of the pinion... I had to do a similar thing (minus the collapseable bit) when I assembled the IIa/Jag auto conversion transfer case. I can now see the logic in Steves hypothasis and understand that the design whilst frustrating to the technical lego experts like myself is actually a positive... several hours ago I was cossing it somewhat though. There has to be some strength in this principle as it's pretty much the only off the shelf Landrover Diff people flock to when uprating drivetrains, such as myself fitting a Sailsbury axle on my swb IIa when insalling the Jag lump. I was ignorant as to why they were better but now feel I've seen the light. Having also done further reading I wish Landrover had fitted some of the LSD / Lockers available from Dana range which would have further improved the standard performance of the marque, but I suppose it's a bit like the Freelander and Low ratios, how many will actually ever really need it. Lee D >Well I think I've now got my head around the principle. I'm a bit lost on them too. When you pull yours apart you'll have to let me know and ill pop round and have a gander. I often dont understant stuff properly till ive seen it being pulled to pieces! are 101 diffs a different ratio to 109 salisburies then? I can find you a 109 salisbury axle. Tom Woods <news@NOPSAMtomwoods.co.uk> uttered summat worrerz funny about: > I'm a bit lost on them too. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are 101 diffs a different ratio to 109 salisburies then? I can find > you a 109 salisbury axle. Stage 1 (109) 3.56:1 Nearly all other 109's 4.7:1 101 5.57:1 Thanks for the thought though. Lee D >>> they are generally reliable and strong so they don't need >>>> much attention normally. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Steve I have many tractors of many brands with diffs in front and back axles, all of which have cast iron housings and none of which need expanders [obviously] and all of which are reliable. There is no reason that Dana could not make a reliable axle that didn't need the case stretching to service certain components. Huw > I have many tractors of many brands with diffs in front and back axles, all > of which have cast iron housings and none of which need expanders [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Huw And look at the physical size difference, of course the tractor ones don't break! If they were smaller due to the physical space constraints of the design, they'd need to be made to a better, tougher design to be reliable long-term. As it stands, they have more space available and also they don't rotate anything like the same speeds, which as long as cleanliness is observed, increases the lifespan considerably. Gimme enough space physically and I could design a diff that would handle 4,000,000 bhp reliably from basic materials (no fancy metallurgy), but ask me to design it to fit in a certain space, I'd fall flat on my face! The Salisbury (Dana) type of diff mounting has been around for years, it is a good, strong and well-proven design that has been used in many forms by many vehicle manufacturers. It was designed by people (engineers) that knew what they were doing, not by people who merely thought they new what they were doing. Anyone who grinds clearance into a salisbury case is going to suffer premature bearing failure and possibly lunch their diff, it is designed to run with a certain preload, no preload = imminent failure! Badger. >Anyone who grinds clearance into a salisbury case is going to suffer >premature bearing failure and possibly lunch their diff, it is designed to >run with a certain preload, no preload = imminent failure! >Badger. OK, I accept that now that I know about it. doesn't mean that it has to be done that way. There are plenty of other diffs which are not like the dana ones. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt" (confound the men who have made our remarks before us.) Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes] >>Anyone who grinds clearance into a salisbury case is going to suffer >>premature bearing failure and possibly lunch their diff, it is designed to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doesn't mean that it has to be done that way. There are plenty of other > diffs which are not like the dana ones. You've hit the nail on the head. Even Dana make axles that don't need case stretching and they are perfectly good and reliable. Case stretching is NOT a pre-requisite for reliable diffs and just one look at the Salisbury shows that it does not have a particularly compact differential. Huw > >Anyone who grinds clearance into a salisbury case is going to suffer > >premature bearing failure and possibly lunch their diff, it is designed to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doesn't mean that it has to be done that way. There are plenty of other > diffs which are not like the dana ones. Very true, there are a lot of good designs out there, unfortunately some of the diffs that get labelled as bad ones are usually labelled thus due to failure after they were subjected to higher power/torque loadings than the manufacturer intended, as has already been said by your good self I think, further up the thread. Series jag XJ's used a slisbury differential unit, a lot smaller than a landrover one (I think the jag one was the 4HU and the landy is the 8HA?) yet it could reputedly handle 1000bhp. Bet if you put it in something as heavy as a landy it'd go bang long before that figure was reached. Lighter vehicles will spin a wheel at a lower torque figure, thus unloading the transmission. Badger. >> I have many tractors of many brands with diffs in front and back axles, > all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And look at the physical size difference, of course the tractor ones don't > break! Oh but they sometimes do. If they were smaller due to the physical space constraints of the > design, they'd need to be made to a better, tougher design to be reliable > long-term. As it stands, they have more space available and also they > don't > rotate anything like the same speeds, which as long as cleanliness is > observed, increases the lifespan considerably. I have no figures available but the front axles diffs are very compact, and so are the rear ones considering the extreme duty they are subject to. The front diffs are certainly more compact that the Salisbury and they probably turn as fast or faster, the axles having epicyclic reducer gears on the half-shafts as a rule to reduce the torque to which the diff is subject. > Gimme enough space physically and I could design a diff that would handle > 4,000,000 bhp reliably from basic materials (no fancy metallurgy), but ask [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what they were doing, not by people who merely thought they new what they > were doing. Yes, it is an old design and it is generally reliable, but it is not unique in being reliable. Huw > >> I have many tractors of many brands with diffs in front and back axles, > > all [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Oh but they sometimes do. I was referring to your comment about tractor diffs being reliable, I didn't mean that they never, ever break. They probably suffer less failures than landrover ones though? > If they were smaller due to the physical space constraints of the > > design, they'd need to be made to a better, tougher design to be reliable > > long-term. As it stands, they have more space available and also they > > don't > > rotate anything like the same speeds, which as long as cleanliness is > > observed, increases the lifespan considerably. > I have no figures available but the front axles diffs are very compact, and > so are the rear ones considering the extreme duty they are subject to. The > front diffs are certainly more compact that the Salisbury and they probably > turn as fast or faster, the axles having epicyclic reducer gears on the > half-shafts as a rule to reduce the torque to which the diff is subject. Right, I see. I must admit to not having a great knowledge of 4wd tractors, my involvement with tractors stopped (thankfully!) with the MF135 / International 474! I cut my teeth doing clutch changes on Majors and Dexta's!! My comments were directed towards the rear axles, I should have made that clear. I understand your comments re. higher speed and lower torque by using the epicyclic reduction, it's quite possible that they had to be designed that way to be compact enough to physically fit the application? Another consideration has to be NVH (noise, vibration and harshness), on a tractor you can design the diff helix angles etc of the gears for maximum strength, automotive design tends to be a compromise of strength v's NVH, even on landrovers! > > The Salisbury (Dana) type of diff mounting has been around for years, it > > is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > what they were doing, not by people who merely thought they new what they > > were doing. > Yes, it is an old design and it is generally reliable, but it is not unique > in being reliable. Absolutely. I can think of lots of makes of vehicles with very reliable diff units, BMW and Merc spring to mind, even Ford granada/sierra ones are pretty reliable if kept within their design criteria for power handling. Badger. >Yes, it is an old design and it is generally reliable, but it is not unique >in being reliable. I think the Salisbury axle on the back of Land rovers is a Dana 60. American dragster folk love it because it doesn't break. Some dana axles don't have to be preloaded and these tend to be swapped in favour of 60's. They must have something going for them.. SignatureMark Roberts >>Yes, it is an old design and it is generally reliable, but it is not unique >>in being reliable. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >60's. >They must have something going for them.. It's undoubtedly a good axle. point is that you don't have to make one like that to make a good one. SignatureAustin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that "Would to God that we might spend a single day really well!" Thomas À Kempis (1380 - 1471) Imitation of Christ, I.xxiii. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.