 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Land Rover Cars / November 2004drive shaft conversion kit vs. rubber coupling
96, disco I The rear rubber coupling is going on the rover. Should I replace it with the conversion kit for 400.00 U.S. or the rubber coupling for 90.00 U.S.? The conversion kit eliminates the rubber coupling using a traditional u-joint. The kit includes a new driveshaft, rear yoke conversion kit, spacer, mud shield... Is it an upgrade? if so how much more dependable? Thanks! Does your transfer case leak because I wonder if it is caused by the drive shaft. .....mine has the rubber thing I think the seal is leaking. > 96, disco I > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Thanks! > Does your transfer case leak because I wonder if it is caused by the drive > shaft. .....mine has the rubber thing I think the seal is leaking. No, the transfer box is not leaking. Although...the rear pinion is leaking. People Hi, the transfer box and rear diff pinion seals may leak just because they are LR seals (and those tend to leak anyway) The universal joint at the rear type of propshaft is the type used on very first version of Discovery vehicles (1989 up to 1994 model years) and this was replaced with the rubber coupling type in order to reduce the NVH related problems (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) It is extremely succesful at doing so and if I were you I would NOT replace it. In fact I have replaced a universal type propshaft with a rubber coupling one on my 1993 evented ex Camel Trophy Discovery 200Tdi when I also replaced the manual gearbox and LT230 transfer box with an autobox and viscous coupling transfer box from a Range Rover Classic back in 1998. I still have absolutely no problem with the rubber coupling propshaft BUT, this type of propshaft (rubber coupling) has a tendency to split the coupling when it is forced to operate at increased angles (ie when you increase the suspension travel or you make use of the full suspension travel for prolonged time and apply much torque to it) Replacing the rubber coupling type with a UJ type is not a cure though since even the UJ ones do not work well if you increase the suspension height from 1" upwards. Problems are more apparent with suspension lifts of 2" and more though. If I were you I would also check the proper balancing of the propshaft. If the balancing is upset it creates a lot of unwanted vibration and this causes problems to the universal joints and to the transfer box and rear diff seals and components. An easy way (and tested by myself as succesful) is to use the active balancers easily found in the USA. I have used those on a good friend's Discovery with a +2" suspension lift which has caused problems to his transfer box which had to be replaced. After fitting those active balancers the vibrations problem stopped and it is now almost a year that he is using his car without any more problems from the transfer box or with the rubber coupling on his propshaft. If you need more information for the active balancers please let me know. Take care Pantelis Giamarellos LAND ROVER CLUB OF GREECE > > Does your transfer case leak because I wonder if it is caused by the drive > > shaft. .....mine has the rubber thing I think the seal is leaking. > > No, the transfer box is not leaking. Although...the rear pinion is leaking. >In fact I have replaced a universal type propshaft with a rubber coupling >one on my 1993 evented ex Camel Trophy Discovery 200Tdi when I also replaced >the manual gearbox and LT230 transfer box with an autobox and viscous >coupling transfer box from a Range Rover Classic back in 1998. There's a point here which you may not be aware of: the reason why that conversion kit is $400 is partly due to having a complete propshaft in it - they're a different length, very likely. The BW transfer box ex-RR is about 2" shorter between flanges than the LT230, and as such, needs a longer rear shaft. try fitting it to a 110, for which only 1 length of shaft is to be had :-/ The front shafts are I suspect all the same length - certainly, the standard 110 one and the RR one that came with the autobox/BW bits were identical. dunno if 90 ones are the same as well, but I reckon they might be. Austin Hi, The propshaft HAD to be replaced but if I remember well (and this swap was done 6 years ago) the rubber coupling propshaft was in fact taken from a Discovery and not from a Range Rover Classic. But I may be wrong after all these years. Take care Pantelis > >In fact I have replaced a universal type propshaft with a rubber coupling > >one on my 1993 evented ex Camel Trophy Discovery 200Tdi when I also replaced [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 110 one and the RR one that came with the autobox/BW bits were identical. > dunno if 90 ones are the same as well, but I reckon they might be. >Austin Hi, > >The propshaft HAD to be replaced but if I remember well (and this swap was >done 6 years ago) the rubber coupling propshaft was in fact taken from a >Discovery and not from a Range Rover Classic. But I may be wrong after all >these years. quite possible, I spose. maybe they altered the front shaft instead. But when I put the autobox in the 110, using the standard gearbox mounting plates, the front one lined up and the back one was 2" short. |
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
|
©2009 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.