Guest Yin717 Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 My Dad and I have always had a love for Land Rovers and our love has grown more for Lightweights. We have always been amazed at the way the army had engineered them. I know a brief history on them but I was wondering if you guys had a better explanation? I would be really grateful. Also if possible, would you be able to tell me the differences between the normal series Land Rover, the Lightweights inspiration, and a Lightweight, it might help me and my Dad when we come to improve one. Thanks Ieuan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirhc Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I am not sure I like the word 'improve' in your message, they are perfectly ok in standard form, but there is a great book on them if you can find it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Half-Ton-Military-Land-Rover/dp/1903706009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I'd recommend getting over to http://www.LR4x4.com and asking about there, a lot of very helpful & knowledgeable people on there. I'm on there too, but you can't have everything :rofl: Fun fact: Lightweights are heavier than normal Land Rovers, they are only lighter when you dismantle them for transport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
private mw Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 lightweight nice ive owned 2 previously and always regret selling them :coffee: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastblock Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I only just tried one for the first time this weekend and was surprised at how uncomfortable it is to drive off-road. I'm used to a nice soft-sprung Gaz69. I think I can safely say now that I don't want one although I did consider buying one in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I only just tried one for the first time this weekend and was surprised at how uncomfortable it is to drive off-road. I'm used to a nice soft-sprung Gaz69. I think I can safely say now that I don't want one although I did consider buying one in the past. If anything the lightweight is smoother off-road than a standard short wheelbase by virtue of less leaves in the springs and less inter-leaf friction. I think the main reason for less leaves was weight reduction but also helps in the comfort department, as long as they haven't been flattened by overloading. One improvement may be to fit the more modern type parabolic springs. Again even less inter-leaf friction and smoother ride. Not too sure about the quality of some though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I think the main thing with light weights is to make sure you get a good one to start with . Some parts have now become quite expensive. Bulkhead top rail springs to mind. Not too bad a job to change and used to be around £120. Now upwards of £400 :shocked: Alot of parts seem to get replaced with cheaper and incorrect civilian spec. Lights spring to mind. Head lights can be quite expensive to get the correct military type. Also a full set of side and indicator military screw types add up. Half shafts are another. The correct flat ended type on a light weight are harder and more expensive to come by so often get replaced with civvy spec with seperate drive flange and greater projection. Rear crossmember is another area. Prone to corrosion and often lazily replaced with a civvy shaped one instead of the straight military type. Also in the corrosion department are footwells. Different than on normal models as they show outside the land rover and form the outer skin of the door pillar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 If anything the lightweight is smoother off-road than a standard short wheelbase by virtue of less leaves in the springs and less inter-leaf friction. I think the main reason for less leaves was weight reduction but also helps in the comfort department, as long as they haven't been flattened by overloading. One improvement may be to fit the more modern type parabolic springs. Again even less inter-leaf friction and smoother ride. Not too sure about the quality of some though. ================ Originally the Lightweight GS had 5 leaf front springs but not a good idea, in the 1970's the GS was fitted with the 7 leaf fronts (same as FFR). The rear springs are heavy duty from the civilian Optional Parts. Springs do have fewer leaves than standard civilian but the leaves are thicker , the reason is to make them more compliant under full load cross-country. At one time most people ran their springs dry , better opinion now is to keep them oiled , nothing to stop you using standard 109" rear springs with two thick helpers when you are fully loaded. Difficult choice with parabolics because two leaf are best unloaded , load them up and you need three leaf (and you need to play about with shocks) . IMHO stick with quality convential leaf springs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 I think the main thing with light weights is to make sure you get a good one to start with . Some parts have now become quite expensive.Bulkhead top rail springs to mind. Not too bad a job to change and used to be around £120. Now upwards of £400 :shocked: Alot of parts seem to get replaced with cheaper and incorrect civilian spec. Lights spring to mind. Head lights can be quite expensive to get the correct military type. Also a full set of side and indicator military screw types add up. Half shafts are another. The correct flat ended type on a light weight are harder and more expensive to come by so often get replaced with civvy spec with seperate drive flange and greater projection. Rear crossmember is another area. Prone to corrosion and often lazily replaced with a civvy shaped one instead of the straight military type. Also in the corrosion department are footwells. Different than on normal models as they show outside the land rover and form the outer skin of the door pillar. ============== The earlier reinforced 5'-0" overall (same as body width) axles were discontinued in 1980 for the "rationalized axles" , these are wider due to the hub-caps. Pros & cons for both type - good axles either way. A post 1980 with rationalized axles will have 11" front brakes (as 109") with a few other advantages. Chassis after 1980 were all shocking for corrosion, still a few mid-1970 chassis all original good. Value according to pricing the bits that are still good , better to spend £1000 and another £2000 on a new chassis re-build than £2500 on a glam job (show me one with a sound chassis) and only have £500 left to sort it - because you will not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 ================ At one time most people ran their springs dry , better opinion now is to keep them oiled , nothing to stop you using standard 109" rear springs with two thick helpers when you are fully loaded. I've always oiled my leaf springs. Dating to back to my times of trialing, gives better axle articulation and hence traction, can sometimes be the difference between clearing a section. Having been around a few vintage car shows I've observed many leaf sprung cars with the leaves wrapped in leather. Presumably to contain the grease or oil lubricants. Anyone ever tried it? I imagine more of a problem with off-road vehicles as it will hold grit and accelerate wear in the leaves. I wasn't aware that the later lightweights went to `ordinary' halfshafts, always assumed it was a later bodge. Certainly one of the lightweights character indentifiers for me is the flat ends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxy Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 The Lightweight springs in fact have greater free curvature , this is why the 7 leaf front (FFR & later GS) have 22mm packers between the bump stop and underside of chassis. The ride height is upwards a bit compared to a civvy 88". If used mainly on surfaced roads a better choice is standard 109" rears , standard 88" petrol fronts (or diesel if you want firm). Original Lightweight axle hubs were oil lubricated from the axle. Later Lightweight axles are more or less civilian spec. (after the 1980 88" upgrades "rationalized") same spec. as 109" on front with oil slingers, locking ring at end of stub-shaft with snap ring , internal oil seals in end of axle tube (so no longer oil feed to hubs) - so not at all like the earlier S3 axles. The hub caps can be metal or plastic and are a slightly different profile to original series. Arguably the earlier reinforced axle casings were stronger (1 ton rated) but IIRC the later casings are 750 kg. rated so still well over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Yin717 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Thanks for your posts guys this will be more useful. I've been keeping my eye for them and we have a really good mechanic in our village who can assist but even he doesn't know everything. lol. Thanks for your hints and tips, if you have any more please post them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.