1. Home
  2. Land Rover 4WD vehicles
  3. another of life's little mysteries solved...

another of life's little mysteries solved...

the unaccountable lack of turning right which Edward II has been demonstrating turns out to be that the steering damper fitted is too short - it was restricting the movement of the steering link from the relay to the left-hand steering arm. Removing it and winding the lock stops in has resulted in an SIII that actually turns, albeit not all that tight.

Seems to drive OK without it, and in fact the steering feels lighter and easier. No obvious tendency to shimmy or anything, so I reckon I can live without a damper.

The 110 did some impressive shimmies when it's damper was shagged, but then that's a different system. Noted various iffy rubber gaiters on steering joints. Wonder if any are the same as Disco ones, I've got some of them spare... 2 RH ones, it seems, RTC 5869 I think... bugger. Paddock say 5867 for the series, 5869 for the disco. bet it's a different thread or something.

Reply to
Austin Shackles
Loading thread data ...

Since the steering damper was optional on all Series Landrovers, I am sure you will manage OK without it.

All except very late S3 have tie rod ends with an unthreaded section - 110 and very late S3 have them threaded all the way, and I'll bet the Disco is the same. They are not interchangeable. At least, it is possible to interchange them, but the wrong ends will not lock on the tube reliably, which is not really what you want on your steering - I have heard that a number of fatal accidents have resulted. JD

Reply to
JD

You might want/need the damper off road, stops the shock of hitting holes etc being transferred back into the steering wheel. Keep your thumbs out of the spokes until you refit a damper, nothing like broken thumbs to make your day when a steering wheel spins out of control.

Reply to
Roger & Lorraine Martin

It's not supposed to turn tightly! its a series! :)

Reply to
Tom Woods

i've seen trucks with 200 inch wheelbases pull U-turns on roads that force my series III into a 3 (or even 5) point turn.

Reply to
Samuel

On or around Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:26:36 +1000, "Samuel" enlightened us thusly:

has yours got a steering damper? :-)

seriously though, it's made a big improvement. wheels now, on full lock, come within about 1/2" from the spring.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

mmmm Better get this sorted out before somone kills themselves - and I'm not joking.

RTC5867 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on RH Thread (1974) RTC5868 Series Track Rod End Suffix E on LH Thread (1974)

608464 Series Track Rod End RH Thread To Suffix D (1974) 320902 Series Track Rod End LH Thread To Suffix D (1974)

RTC5869 Track Rod End-RH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I RTC5870 Track Rod End-LH Thread-Range Rover Classic/Defender/Discovery I

Any letters on the end are related to the branding of the part and have no bearing on the function of it.

The numbers above are the current LR part numbers - some list different numbers that have been superceeded.

None of these are interchangeable. The two types of Series ones have a shoulder or not. Look at the end of the track rod/drag link

- if there is an unthreded section at the end then a TRE with a shoulder

*must* be used. Failure to do this will result a serious accident (no steering) - and a friend of mine is in a graveyard to prove it.

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

On or around Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:09:49 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd enlightened us thusly:

Jolly good info. Is there an "early" and "late" divide on the series, or are they all mixed up? Do those suffices refer to the vehicle/chassis number suffix, or something else?

I guess looking at the rod (I assume the same joints fit on the drag link?) would be a good plan before ordering, to make sure of getting the right ones.

are the shouldered joints longer, BTW? That's to say, is the length of thread in use approximately the same? Or is it that they're the same length but with a shorter thread?

Paddock only appear to list the one kind, for Series... the RTCnnnn types. Looking at the part numbers, I imagine the other pair are earlier, BICBW.

good point. The threaded bit will not grip properly with an unthreaded tube, I imagine, when you tighten the clamps on it. interesting to note that the rod I took off the 110 (IIRC) had a plain bit, but the replacement (bought with rod-ends, so no compatibility issues) didn't. So it looks like the same confusion may exists on 90/110 as well.

I further STR that it had all-threaded joints in it... mind, it did have double clamps on the ends.

I'll investigate mine in due course and doubtless order the appropriate bits.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

The change was officially Suff. D to Suff. E in 1974, but.....

as you rightly say, with all the swaping about over the years the only safe way is to have a look at the tube you are going to use.

All the TRE's look about the same dimensions, which doesn't help. I suspect there is a different taper on the versions for coil sprung vehicles, but I havn't got anything to measure properly.

er, no comment?

I have had 90/110 ones in with a slight shoulder - but I *think* that this was due to the manufacturer assuming that the TRE would only be screwed in so far.

The double clamps seem to be fairly randomly fitted - when I get to that part of the Defender parts book all may become clear.

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

I think you will find that separate from the threaded and unthreaded bit of the shank, there were also several different threads (BSF, UNF, Metric) used on the tapered bit, but these are interchangeable, provided, of course, you use the right nut. Part numbers for the superseded bits are not listed in my book. JD

Reply to
JD

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.