OK ive got a new plan bubbling along and im looking for some suggestions and ideas.

Ive just agreed to buying this as the basis of the next project.

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/20021255136856618370533.jpg

I don’t really want a 101 and it’s got a bent chassis, which basically makes it a pile of useful (and expensive) parts. To go with this I have a choice between a 11A 109 that ive just been given and a 11A 88 that was wifey’s daily transport until she rolled it a year or two ago.

OK here is what I want to end up with:
An out and out off-road vehicle with no requirement to be practical at all.
Having said that 4 adult seats all with harnesses.
Lightest possible weight (ignoring the huge and heavy axles)
35” tyres with the option to go larger later.

My first thoughts are like this:

Use the 109 as the basis, shortened to 100” with the rear overhang reduced to the same proportions as an 88. 101 axles mounted SOA running their standard fitment 900x16 tyres (35” translated to US speak). Springs to be rear length TIC parabolics at the front and something undecided at the rear. 5.75 101 diffs coupled to an Ashcroft high ration transfer case (31.8% increase over standard). This should give me higher than standard road ratios and lower than standard low ratios. Standard 11A main box behind a 2 ¼ four pot (don’t laugh I like them) fitted with a growing collection of ACR power plus bits. A full cage designed to fit under a canvas top and protect rear seat passengers. Last but not least minimised bodywork and bumpers.

So im looking for some opinions to knock this plan into shape before I start laying out any (more) hard earned than I already have. Some help with gear ratio calculations would be welcome along with some ideas of where to save weight on a series vehicle (I really would like to pursue this one).

Do your worst folks :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

Nigel

Two Words:


You Suck.


:flipoff2:

j

Oh thanks for that John:flipoff2:

I didnt reveal that I had to banckrupt myself so much to buy this pile of parts that the liklyhod of this thing being running before 2005 is pretty slim:( :( :(

Ive got to run off now before I get locked in by security I look forwards to seeing what you folks make of this by the time I get in tomorrow morning:D

sounds like a good plan to me.

i would run TI parabolics sprung over front and rear, probably 3leafers to deal with all the flexing.

i would argue to shorten it somewhere around 104-105" and then with the rear overhang of an 88", it will be nimble yet still have a long enough wheelbase where it will be stable on climbs as well.

the michelin XLs that are on there right now will work well off road, not as good as a swamper in most conditions but still very good.

the 2.25 four is a good motor but the problem that i have run into is that the transmissions arent terribly good. the suffix A is the strongest and has the lowest gear ratio, but with no syncros. the later series III boxes have a lessened first but syncro. you decide. a trick is to take a transfer box from a SIII (2.8:1) and a suffA tranny (3.8:1) to achieve a better low range. i have heard that it makes all the difference in the world from a few people.

back to my original point with the motor is that the engine itself is a fine power unit, but since there are no good trannys for it to mate to then it is really obsolete. i think you would be better off taking the drivetrain from the 101 (3.5 V8, LT95) and using that.

but thats just what i would do :D

Here is what I would do:

Pull the LT95 and send it to ME please.

As far as gearing, for offroad with a 2.25 you want a SII t-case with a late suffix SIIa tranny, this is the strongest and has the lowest 1st gear (9V has it backwards). The downside is you can't ashcroft a SII t-case so if you want the extra on road speed you are SOL. The V8 and LT95 are much more powerfull but the 2.25 is much easier and more durable and cheap.

As far as suspenion what I would try (I have zero experience with SOA rovers so take it FWIW) is SOA front with 2 leaf rears and SOA rear with chevy 63in springs (with the front mount moved forward). Is the 109 a SW or regular? If it is a SW I would leave wheelbase where it is and maybe bob it but probably not. If it is a regular I would cut is down to 100 or so (a la swiss prototypes). I would also be very temped to use the 88 chassis with the rear mounts moved back for a ~95-100in wheelbase (like Sam's truck). It seems that in the UK there is much less of a need for wheelbase than in the US. The 88 would also save weight over the 109. Other than gutting it of interior (if it is a SIII) and making sure the frame is not full of mud (believe it or not this is a big one) there is little to save in weight on a series that I have seen. A cut down rear x member comes to mind though.

The toy guys really have the science of leaf springs down pat so do a little surfing over there. 38 x11.00x16 or 37x13.00x16 boggers would be a nice tire for the truck. Someday the portal 88 will have a set of boggers.

Ron

Adam

TIC parabolics are a given for the front but the rear still needs deciding. Over in the UK we have a lot of medium weight commercials, most of which use 1 or two leaf parabolic springs in the rear. Rear springs off one of these is looking favourite at the moment.

"""""i would argue to shorten it somewhere around 104-105" and then with the rear overhang of an 88", it will be nimble yet still have a long enough wheelbase where it will be stable on climbs as well.""""""

Over in the UK we don’t have the requirement for the kind of wheelbase that you folks are finding useful. My 109 is just to looooooong (a lot of that’s down to the rear overhang though) and I don’t like the way 88s pitch and bob about all the while so 100” is looking like a fair compromise. I have heard that the 101 has an excellent steering lock so it should get about OK.

The drive train from the 101 is a little rich for my pocket besides which I just like my 4 pots. On average the 4 pot can be kept running no matter what with the minimum of tinkering and no fancy tools. Also there is no reason why it can’t be encouraged to give nearly as much grunt as the V8. The V8s are all together more tricky territory for a simple soul like me and I don’t like tricky when im up to my knees in some English bog in the pouring rain.

Who needs syncro anyway:flipoff2:

Ron

As it is outside the current plans the LT95 could be looking for a new home. I don’t know anything about its condition yet but there would be a transfer to go with it as well. I am planning to part out the bits of the 101 I don’t need in an attempt to recover some of the cost. The engine will probably make its way into wifey’s Range Rover at some stage (just so I can use that as the excuse for buying it;) )

Gearing is the big question mark of all this at the moment as there are so many options. I know about the early transfer/late main box combination but I don’t think this works if you use the Ashcroft high ratio conversion. This consists of a new set of gears and a re-machined case so no choice there. You can Ashcroft a S11 case but you have to buy a new centre pin etc. to go with the new gear set and then you end up with the same set of ratios anyway.

My other option would be to put 4.7 R+Ps in, rely on the 35” tyres to raise the road ratios to a sensible level and talk to Ashcrofts about the low ratio transfer case they have mentioned on their site. Choices choices eh!

The 88” chassis modded to 100” would indeed be lighter than the 109 cut down and may be worth looking into when I get to the stage of having all the bits in one place. So far I can’t really see any other place to loose weight out of a series.

This thing will be used mainly in the dirt with some rock work thrown in. Most of the rock will be wet and slippery not like your desert conditions. What would be a good crawl ratio to aim for do you think?

Nigel

I never had an issue with stock series gearing on 32s so I would shoot to match the same gearing adjusted for use with 35s.

I would just do ashcroft to late IIa tranny and call it a day if you want highway speed (which could be interesting with 101 axles and XLs). I think it will be plenty low with 101 salisbury gears. I might even skip the ashcroft as I can't see wanting to do much more than 60 in the beast.

Ron

I am going to be getting in touch with Ashcrofts over the next week or so. That should give me some definate answers on the gearing issue.

One of the Questions that has just occured to me while looking at the ARB website is exactly which diffs is this thing running now. ARB only list a locker for the 4.7 Salisbury diff. Does anyone know if they do a locker for the 5,75 (Serious 1)?

If the darn thing is fitted with 4.7s then with 35"s ive already got my higher road ratios and need to look into reducing the low range.

I have the possibility of another 101 rolling chassis to add into the mix so if the axles are a success then I may end up with a pair under my road going 109 as well. For this aplication an increase in its road speed would be desirable. These are fairly modern axles and I dont see to much of a problem building them into something that behaves its self at speeds over 60 mph.

Nigel,

101 Fc axles + relatively long wheelbase + rear seating + full cage +big tires + 2.25 L + SIIA tranny = heavy underpowered truck that eats trannys. Build on the Rover V8 and short-bellhousing LT95 in the FC for at least marginal power to weight ratio and strength.

ARB doesnt make anything for a 22 spline 5.75 ratio salsbury. I dont think thats the correct ratio anyway, Im pretty sure its 5.37:1 . . . Trachtech makes a detroit for the 101 FC salsbury. 22 spline, 1.437 inch diameter, 5.37 gears. The part number is 225SL-183.

If you want a light truck look at building on the rover axles rather than the FCs and ditch the rear seating and cage (you have a wagon for the road right?).

-Regards
-Ike Goss

Originally posted by Leafsprung
Nigel,

101 Fc axles + relatively long wheelbase + rear seating + full cage +big tires + 2.25 L + SIIA tranny = heavy underpowered truck that eats trannys. Build on the Rover V8 and short-bellhousing LT95 in the FC for at least marginal power to weight ratio and strength.

ARB doesnt make anything for a 22 spline 5.75 ratio salsbury. I dont think thats the correct ratio anyway, Im pretty sure its 5.37:1 . . . Trachtech makes a detroit for the 101 FC salsbury. 22 spline, 1.437 inch diameter, 5.37 gears. The part number is 225SL-183.

If you want a light truck look at building on the rover axles rather than the FCs and ditch the rear seating and cage (you have a wagon for the road right?).

-Regards
-Ike Goss

Hello Ike

I hear you on the heavy underpowered truck thing (I thought all series trucks were suposed to be heavy and underpowered:rolleyes: ) but compared to the 109 SW that I normally run im only going to be adding the extra that the 101 axles weigh over and above the series axles (my 109 SW runs a Sailsbury rear anyway) and a cage of some sort. While I will be removing 9" of chassis to reduce the wheel base, most of the rear over-hang, chassis and body work. Not to mention that this will be based on a topless plain 109 body as opposed to the complex and heavy SW body. If it equals the weight of my current 109 I cant imagine it would work out more than it.

A re-built engine will be used with as much of the ACR power plus tuning kit as can be afforded at the time giving a useful increase in power while retaining the simple 4 pot.

Use of this engine is why im keen to lower the low ratios.

It looks like you are right about the ratio. Someone told me it was 5.75 but ive poked arround and done my homework today and from two or three sources it seems that the correct ratio is 5.57 (you live and learn).

Can't argue about the availability of the ARB for the 101 Sailsbury as im still 1000 miles away from this thing and can't walk round the corner and check. However the company that are selling it claim they fitted the ARBs. I guess I will find out when I get to see it.

I cant just ditch the rear seating and cage even though I have the 109 SW for the road because I have a wife and two teenage kids that like to come along to play when the toys get taken out :D :D

What did the slug say when riding on the turtles back?

WEEEEEEEEEEE

Even with that Acr Junk, a 2.25 powered two ton mutt is going to be a slug I have a stock 109 wagon with a locked rear and a healthy 2.25 and it doesnt like to climb the driveway . . . Consider:
1000 lbs - axles
500 - tires
500 - frame
200 - cage
200 - body
400 engine
200 - trans/transfer
100 - steering
100 - winch
200 - rad, fuel tank misc junk
600 - Est. weight of avg. goofy/happy british family of 4
Thats still an easy 4K lbs . . .

Check again on that 101 8HA Salsbury ratio Im still pretty sure its 5.37 not 5.57.

Regards
-Ike

You can modify an ARB locker to fit a 101, it just needs new side gears. I think Wise Owl innovations has done a few sets, otherwise you have to get them fabbed from scratch like my mate Tim had to do...
http://home.off-road.com/~landy/Tim.htm

I think you might be wasting a perfectly good 101 - why not use that as the basis of a build? Do a coilover 101 - and I gotta say it seems kinda perverse to swap a V8 for a 4 pot...

Ike

Just checked the Land Rover sales brochure for the 101 (available as a scan online) and guess what:

Diffs 5.571:1
8HS front
8HA rear

A 2.25 with a full set of 'ACR junck' has pretty much the same hp as the V8 in the 101

A big ass yank V8 would be nice although paying for the broken drivetrain bits wouldn't be.

I like the acurate weights you are quoting but it does not change the fact that my 109 SW already has all that weight and to be honest with you when the engine is on song it does what I want it to do. Yes a little extra power would be nice but I dont feel the need for more than I can get out of a 2.25.

Having said that I could perhaps be tempted by a 2.8 lump of 'ACR junk' :flipoff2:

I still dont see that the project truck is going to work out any heavier than the 109 SW even with the optional 'goofy/happy british family of 4' installed.

Originally posted by CT
You can modify an ARB locker to fit a 101, it just needs new side gears. I think Wise Owl innovations has done a few sets, otherwise you have to get them fabbed from scratch like my mate Tim had to do...
http://home.off-road.com/~landy/Tim.htm

I think you might be wasting a perfectly good 101 - why not use that as the basis of a build? Do a coilover 101 - and I gotta say it seems kinda perverse to swap a V8 for a 4 pot...

CT
There is nothing definate about the ditching of the V8 yet im still very much in the kicking ideas around stage.

As common wisdom on here is indicating that ARBs wont go into 101 axles without some specialist work I will be speaking to the company selling this truck again to ask for more information.

This particular 'perfectly good 101' happens to have a bent chassis and along with that I dont realy want to end up with a 101 as such and so I dont plan on building up the 101.

Your mates 101 is coil sprung but a coilover 101 sounds like a pretty unstable combination.

Nigel

Nigel,
Even if it does not weigh more than the 109 wagon (which Im betting it will), it will still be a severly underpowered slug. If your cool with that no problem.

Yes you can get the same 100 hp that a 101 fc V8 puts out from a 2.25, but you can get 200 hp out of the V8 without too much trouble AND it has a tendancy to last much longer than a 2.25 AND the weight isnt that much different AND you already have one.

Everyone I have talked to that has fitted the ACR kits (6 people) claim only marginal or barely noticeable performance increases and they arent cheap either. Here in the US the kits are 1800 bucks, you can buy a complete rebuilt chevy V8 for that money! (prices are probably different over there)

Whats the link to that sales brochure, pretty much every other 101 FC site on the web quotes 5.4:1 (which I assumed was a rounded up 5.37:1 ratio) and the detroit literature quotes 5.37:1. So I am still unsure about the ratio.

-Happy building
-Ike

Guys,

Hate to quit pimpin', but I do have an ARB with re-cut side gears to fit a 101 Salisbury axle, and it's *for sale*.

When I was looking to purchase an ARB to fit the 101 axle, they didn't have anything that would work with the funky axle spline count, so I took the gears had them broached and re-cut and re-hardened.

I *think* that ARB is planning on actually producing the side-gears to fit the 101 axle, so you might be able to buy one from them if now not, in the near future.

Ike

Here you go one sales brochure link

http://www.fourfold.org/LR_FAQ/FC/FAQ.FC.101_sales_brochure.html (http://)

I got my head together and worked out the ratios this weekend for my original plan (900x16 - 5.57 diffs - Ashcroft high ratio transfer - 11A main box) And it would have given me a 20% increase in the high range and a 10% (aproximatly) decrease in the low range, including the effect of the larger tyres. Pretty much just what I wanted to end up with although the high ratios would have been a bit tall.

Building this project without the V8 comes from the original plan to simply buy a pair of axles and combine them with a 109. A plan that was going well untill I was offered this complete 101 and may now get changed.

I enquired about the ARBs and it turns out that the side gears were re-cut by Ashcrofts to suit the 101 shafts. At the same time 4.7 diffs were fitted so that scraps an hour or twos worth of maths. If I still decide to go with the 2.25 then I have found out that I can get the parts to re-build the transfer to give the same effect as the early transfer/late main combination. Including the effect of the larger tyres this would give me a 10% increase in the high ratios (from the tyres) and a 10% decrease in the low range (including the effect of the larger tyres).

After all this I am begining to come to the conclusion that I should just find a new chassis for this thing and get used to the fact that I now own a 101:rolleyes:



That would just leave me looking for another pair of axles to carry out the original plan:D

if you really really dont want a 101 then lets talk about you selling it :D

Originally posted by 9V
if you really really dont want a 101 then lets talk about you selling it :D

Very subtle Adam but no you cant have it:flipoff2:


Having gone in search of 101 axles and happened to buy a pair already fitted with ARBs im not about to be selling it (unless you want to buy it minuss the axles of course) even if it does give me a headache trying to work out what to do with it:(


Who bought all the cheep 101 axles Craddocks were selling a while ago?