Talk About Network

Google





Car and Auto Forums > Landrover > Re: UJ's ... ag...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 8 of 20 Topic 9872 of 10286
Post > Topic >>

Re: UJ's ... again !!!

by Ian Rawlings <news06@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Jul 8, 2008 at 07:39 PM

On 2008-07-08, steve <steve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Can you state that clearly for me Ian, and would it apply to a 101 ? The

> Yokes on the prop should be how far out ? 90 degrees, or just a bit ? 
> Why should the rear prop be lined up ?

Well basically, the UJs on the landy propshafts aren't continuously
variable joints, if you force them to work at an angle (as they
normally do) then if the driven side turns at a constant speed, the
other side of the joint will "pulse" faster and slower as the joint
rotates.  To cancel this out, on the other end of the propshaft you
line the other UJ up so the pulsing from one is cancelled out by the
pulsing from the other.  This unfortunately means that the angle the
shaft works through is lessened, so on the Defender, the front prop
shaft ends are not aligned, the two yokes that hold the UJ are offset
by about 45 degrees.  In theory this should mean that the front axle
gets a pulsing drive, it seems it's not noticable though, I've never
noticed anything too bad.

All the above knicked directly from the Defender service manual, page
172, Propellor Shafts.

And for reference, "lined up" means that both yokes on the prop shaft
are vertical at the same time as each other.

No idea if the above is needed on the 101, the misalignment is only
done on the Defender front to increase the angle the shaft can work
through as it's so short.

-- 
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
 




 20 Posts in Topic:
UJ's ... again !!!
"Paul - xxx" &l  2008-07-08 15:42:02 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Lee_D" <new  2008-07-08 16:52:52 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Paul - xxx" &l  2008-07-08 16:00:53 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
Mark Solesbury <markso  2008-07-08 17:09:57 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
Ian Rawlings <news06@[  2008-07-08 17:21:38 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Nige" <nige  2008-07-08 17:39:29 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
steve <steve@[EMAIL PR  2008-07-08 18:58:28 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
Ian Rawlings <news06@[  2008-07-08 19:39:34 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Oily" <mart  2008-07-08 20:43:41 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Paul - xxx" &l  2008-07-08 20:44:12 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Oily" <mart  2008-07-08 21:56:14 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Paul - xxx" &l  2008-07-08 21:07:03 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
Dougal <Dougal@[EMAIL   2008-07-08 23:21:25 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
Dougal <Dougal@[EMAIL   2008-07-08 20:35:30 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
Ian Rawlings <news06@[  2008-07-08 21:02:51 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Oily" <mart  2008-07-08 21:37:38 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
Dougal <Dougal@[EMAIL   2008-07-08 19:23:15 
Re: UJ's ... again !!! ... sorted.
"Paul - xxx" &l  2008-07-09 10:51:23 
Re: UJ's ... again !!! ... sorted.
Dougal <Dougal@[EMAIL   2008-07-09 21:27:45 
Re: UJ's ... again !!!
"Peter" <pet  2008-07-09 11:20:42 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
localhost-V2008-12-19 Thu Jan 8 13:42:05 PST 2009.