Is some sanity returning?

[gritineye]

This has just been re-listed, it was £400.00 starting bid last time..http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/scammell-explorer-brand-new-gearbox-couplings-x2_W0QQitemZ250757898028QQcategoryZ122309QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp4340.m263QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DDLSL%252BSIC%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA%252BUA%252BFICS%252BUFI%252BDDSIC%26otn%3D8%26pmod%3D250754099737%252B250754099737%26po%3D%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D6390916251059317921

 

Maybe everyone is going to the propshaft option these days.

[antarmike]

Yes sanity is returning, I sold my Explorer so I don't need this any longer, you can't get more sanity than that.....

[gritineye]

Yes sanity is returning, I sold my Explorer so I don't need this any longer, you can't get more sanity than that.....

 

I some cases sanity is in the eye of the beholder......Antar......Explorer........Antar........hmmm.......just can't make up my mind!..:-D

[antarmike]

Thornycroft engineering, Scammell engineering, Thornycroft engineering, no contest......(AEC engineering anytime!!)

Edited January 15, 2011 by antarmike

[rbrtcrowther]

how much is a propshaft conversion? is there a man who can knock them out to order or do parts need to be machined?

[antarmike]

how much is a propshaft conversion? is there a man who can knock them out to order or do parts need to be machined?

 

Every conversion is likely to be unique because of the wide variety of engines and where they are dropped into the frame.

 

The main trouble is the lack of room at the front of the gearbox, where the gear lever turret casting is very close to the input shaft.

 

I have seen some Explorers running on Land Rover couplings but this seems lunacy to me,, they may be small enough to fit, but I don't fancy being 150 miles from home, with a coupling designed for 50 to 90 BHP having to transmit 305 BHP at far lower revs, hence far higher torque.

 

The best option is stay original and since a Scammell Register man has new build couplings, and all the drawing jigs, moulds etc, to repeat production runs, I cannot see why some people are taking such risk of being stranded miles from home.

 

Anything is possible, but rubber couplings are a far better engineering solution than Hardy Spicer type joints.

 

I have looked at AEC drive shaft couplings since I reckon they also provide a better answer than Hardy Spicer types.

[rbrtcrowther]

land rover shaft would seem a tad small but i would have thought with a 1st gear ratio of about 3.5 to 1 on the landy gear box plus a bit more reduction in the transfer box. Flooring the landy in first would put about 150 to 260 horse power through the propshaft at much lower than engine speeds. Landy engine about 4000 rpm flat out divide 3.5 is about 1140 revs.

 

So about 200 hp at 1140 rpm.

 

Of course this is in my reality where i choose my own physics so i might have compleatly arsed up the maths:red:

 

just my thoughts based on how a winch with a tiny diesel engine that can pull many tons up a slipway with a multiplication of hp and torque through a drop in speed through gearing.

[gritineye]

Agree with Mike on this prop-shaft thing, to my mind rubber vibration damping is needed in the link between engine and gearbox, Scammells had the choice and chose rubber after using UJs early on.

 

However quite a few Explorer owners swear by their prop-shaft conversions, but I suspect that if any of them with high torque engines did any serious mileage pulling a propper load, then they would soon have needle bearing failure of some sort, the engineering is just wrong in my opinion.

 

But going to a few shows a year and keeping a close eye on things like most of us do, a prop-shaft will most likely do the job OK for years.

[gritineye]

Now these are hard to find, and finish an Explorer off nicely, won by any one we know?..scroll down the page. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250754163628&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:1123

Edited January 16, 2011 by gritineye

[Adrian Barrell]

Flooring the landy in first would put about 150 to 260 horse power through the propshaft at much lower than engine speeds. Landy engine about 4000 rpm flat out divide 3.5 is about 1140 revs.

 

So about 200 hp at 1140 rpm.

 

Of course this is in my reality where i choose my own physics so i might have compleatly arsed up the maths:red:

 

 

 

 

You can't 'make' horsepower! You can increase the torque using gearing but you will always lose power through friction etc.

[antarmike]

It will take far more torque to to rotate the wheels of an Explorer because they are larger dia than land rover.

 

Landy axle ratio is often not 3.5:1, quite a lot are 4.7:1 .

 

 

Landy Gearbox/ transfer gearbox in top is underdrive at 1.15:1 , , Explorer gearbox is overdrive, but Prop is after gearbox in Landy, but before gearbox in Explorer, so in rough terms the effect on multiplying torque is about the same in each case, and I am ignoring that.

 

I cant remember the ratio of explorer diff, but walking beam is 2:1? so this roughly cancenls out difference in wheel size between Explorer and Land Rover.

 

Even the Rover 3.5 V8 is only around the 100 BHP mark, and far less than standard Meadows Explorer, Consider that people are putting 305 Rollers and bigger into Explorers, how can a Landy Propshaft coupling last any time, or give any reliability.

 

The is not much scope for fitting a larger Harder Spicer at the gearbox end, in the restricted space by the gear lever turret casting.

 

Some people put a solid coupling at this point and only have a U.J. at the clutch end of the shaft, where a much larger Hardy Spicer can be fitted.

 

I cannot see the logic, or the engineering argument that says you can run with a shaft with a flexible drive at one end only.

 

It is said that Gearbox and Clutch should be perfectly in line, hence coupling is not needed.

 

However if perfectly in line U.J. at front end will not move, hence grease will not be distributed, and Brunnelling will result.

 

If two units are to be driven with a Hardy Spicer carden shaft, then it is normal practice to offset one unit sideways out of line so that on each revolution, the U.J. works and changes angle and keeps the grease moving.

 

I can't see U.J. proshafts ( in the way many people install them in Explorers) are a solution to anything, just a bodge, and unlikely to be reliable.

Edited January 16, 2011 by antarmike

[rbrtcrowther]

I had a spot of bother with both my couplings when i got it home:( So i went and had a mould made to re rubber the old aluminium segments. the engineer ripped me off and took almost a year to make the bloody thing and then when the rubber company did the job we found that they came out a tiny bit small so i had to skim a tad off the lip to fit them. All in all i spent too much money on a mould that makes couplings a tiny bit too small.and it would have been cheaper to buy yours. but at least i have two nice re rubberd couplings that will hopefully last a while. that reminds me i must get the mould back from the rubber company and adjust the size. the rubber company charged about £40 to re rubber each coupling.

Edited January 16, 2011 by rbrtcrowther

[berna2vm]

Thornycroft engineering, Scammell engineering, Thornycroft engineering, no contest......(AEC engineering anytime!!)

Here here:-D

[julezee001]

I would tend to agree that Landrover propshaft U/J's would be too small for serious work in place of the original metalastik couplings. The other problem would be that they also have no give in them at all, and if used in conjunction with an original solid (unsprung) Explorer plate, would at least probably lead to a harsh take up of the drive, and at worst break something in the transmission.

 

Jules

[gritineye]

This has just been re-listed, it was £400.00 starting bid last time..http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/scammell-explorer-brand-new-gearbox-couplings-x2_W0QQitemZ250757898028QQcategoryZ122309QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp4340.m263QQ_trkparmsZalgo%3DDLSL%252BSIC%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUCI%252BIA%252BUA%252BFICS%252BUFI%252BDDSIC%26otn%3D8%26pmod%3D250754099737%252B250754099737%26po%3D%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D6390916251059317921

 

Maybe everyone is going to the propshaft option these days.

 

Didn't sell...no bids

[rbrtcrowther]

Still not a bad price for TWO brand new onesi If i had the cash spare i would stump up for them . I have seen people asking similar amounts for ones that have been on the shelf for twenty five years:shocked: They are made of rubber and glue after all. not sure i would have piece of mind having removed perished old coupling to then fit another old coupling.

Most of the explorers i have crawled under at shows have been converted to shafts and one has been running for 5 years on one. The CS Ellis one is on a shaft and he says its great.

[Lwt Big Cheese]

"Even the Rover 3.5 V8 is only around the 100 BHP mark.."

 

Whilst I bow to your knowledge on trucks, your Landrover Horsepower is slightly selective. For your edification I cut and paste the following:

 

The Rover 4.6 underwent several changes throughout the years, which led to some changes in horsepower (hp) output. From 1996 through 1998, the 4.6-liter produced 225 hp at 4800 rpm. The 1999 model year saw two versions of the Rover 4.6: The base 4.6-liter delivered 222 hp at 4,750 rpm, while the Callaway special edition offered 240 hp at 4,750 rpm. The Rover V-8 produced 222 hp at 4,750 rpm from 2000 through 2002. In its last two years, 2003 and 2004, the Rover V-8 saw a decrease to 217 hp at 4,750 rpm.

Torque

As with the horsepower, the minor engine changes through the life of this engine led to variances in the torque output. From 1996 though 1998, the Rover V-8 produced 286 foot-pounds of torque at 3,500 rpm. In 1999, the base V-8 delivered 300 foot-pounds of torque at 2,600 rpm, while the Callaway edition figures were 280 foot-pounds of torque at 4,000 rpm. This engine produced 300 foot-pounds of torque at 2,600 rpm from 2000 through 2004.

 

Read more: Rover 4.6 Engine Specifications | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7428280_rover-4_6-engine-specifications.html#ixzz1BQAqnvoN

[mike65]

IIRC the Rover V6 originally fitted in the Land Rover (Stage 1) was actually around 90 BHP.

The same engine in the car was producing getting on for double that.

Rover in their infinite wisdom decided it was easier to detune the engine rather than improve the brakes.

The BHP is not the killer it is all that lovely torque the V8 produces. Tje torque from one of them can destroy clutches and gearboxes with ease, especially those not meant for that. Especially used in anger. VW Beetle (Type 1 ) gear boxes and clutches are suppose to take about 140-150 BHP unmolested but a Rover V8 can destroy the clutch in 3 miles and eat gears like they are Smarties.

So I can well believe that a Land Rover UJ would not last long when used in anger on a Scammell

 

Mike

[antarmike]

"Even the Rover 3.5 V8 is only around the 100 BHP mark.."

 

Whilst I bow to your knowledge on trucks, your Landrover Horsepower is slightly selective. For your edification I cut and paste the following:

 

The Rover 4.6 underwent several changes throughout the years, which led to some changes in horsepower (hp) output.A.....

 

 

You appear not to have read what I posted and therefore you comment and associated paste is of little relevance.

 

I specifically had the 91 BHP Stage one, and the 120 BHP 101 FC in mind when I said it was around 100 BHP. (this was I believe the first production Land Rover to use the Buick derived engine.) And I clearly stated the 3.5 engine not the 3.9/4.0, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 or the 5.0 litre.

 

http://www.series123.com/AUShomepages/index65/index.html

 

There were other applications but in general Land Rover have pushed everything by upgrading engines, weights of vehicles axle loadings etc without necessarily upgrading all associated components.

 

As a result Land Rovers are not always that reliable (eg steering joints on the series 2b that never got any larger and were essentially series one ball joints put onto a 1 1/2 ton payload truck)

 

A lot of propshaft UJ sizes and the like also were chosen for lower power applications and not always increased when larger engines were fitted.

 

My point was that basic Land Rover propshaft joints from the 91 BHP V8 of the stage 1 may have remained in use on later models.

 

Land Rover 101 FC user manual "Minimum BHP at Flywheel 120 BHP."

Averaging 101 and stage 1 BHP gives

(91 + 120) / 2 = 105.5 BHP (or as I said around 100 BHP.)

Edited January 18, 2011 by antarmike

[Grumpy]

Comparing Landrover engine output to Scammell engine output is meaningless in this situation.

 

As Mike says the propshaft of a Landrover is between the gearbox and axle, only when the Landrover is being used in 4th gear high box is the propshaft subjected to torque equal to the engines output. In lower gears the propshaft sees substantially more torque.

 

I would have though torque levels a propshaft sees on a Landrover V8 is more than it would be subjected to on the back of a 180 Gardener or whatever you have stuffed in the front of your Scammell.

 

Might be wrong but the following is based on a 3.9 V8, R380 gearbox & LT230 transfer box.

 

The torque available to the driving axle is the engine torque multiplied by gear reduction through the gearbox.

 

231 lb ft x 3.39 (gearbox) x 3.21 (transfer box) = 2,514 lb ft

[rbrtcrowther]

Thats sort of what i was getting at but was having trouble explaining. In fact i have never seen anyone break a propshaft (i'm sure it has been done) but have seen way too many snapped half shafts and blown diffs.

[N.O.S.]

One reason for using something like Landrover UJs is that they will fit the small space available.

 

Your average British truck propshaft UJ is too large in diameter to fit. However new UJs of greater capacity and much smaller diameter than Brit ones from breakers yards are readily available - just depends how big your budget is.

 

Interesting calcs on the Landrover propshaft torque. Quite deceptive. But don't let your foot slip off the clutch at the wrong moment :blush:

 

What's the big rush on huge horsepower for Scammells - are we all getting lazy about gearchanging or something?

[julezee001]

I would have thought using a propshafts with u/j's between the engine and gearbox would probably be fine if the clutch plate has damping springs, as they help prevent shock loading. On the original Meadows clutch, the driven plate is just plain steel with the linings riveted on. The "give" was in the metalastic couplings.

 

Personally the 220 Eagle works well for me. It goes up most hills happily in top, will pull a Scammell Crusader with a T34/85 out of the way with the brakes coming on, and will bump start a T54 in reverse with no problem. It's not quite as quick as a petrol one, but it will go three times futher on a tank of fuel!

 

Jules

 

Jules

[Grumpy]

Lorry propshafts are that much larger because for the torque increase due to gearing of the gearbox same as the Landrover.

I have spent many years offroading Landrover's some with very tasty V8’s in them. Managed to blow Diffs, Halfshafts, Drive Flanges, Clutch Centres, Gearboxes etc. mainly due to shock loading, never snapped a UJ.

 

The big Unimogs use a propshaft as drive from the clutch to gearbox; they are roughly the same size as the Landrover ones.

 

My Father used to work in the R&D department as Hardy Spicers; unfortunately he passed away three years yesterday. However from memory the Landrover has 1350 UJ’s these have a short term rating of 1240 ft lb and continuous rating of 309 ft lb according to the books I found at Mothers.

 

The flange diameter of a 1350 is roughly 5 inches, what’s the biggest diameter you could fit in?

 

I fully know what you mean about them not looking anywhere near big enough, it just doesn’t look right. However when you look at how much this stuff is over engineered perhaps it’s a suitable solution. It’s not only the Japs that can make things smaller, lighter and stronger.

[N.O.S.]

I use a smallish diameter UJ from a Magirus Deutz dumptruck on a most extreme duty application running between 0 - 60 rpm (I mean rotation to stall in a nanosecond and makes my teeth rattle.....) and pulling 3,700 Lbf ft, I know from other similar applications that it will take two or three timnes that with no trouble.

 

Just imagine what the joint's capability might be at engine speed and relatively smooth power flow :shocked: