tlc_axle.htm

tlc_axle.htm Number of hits on this page:

About Semi- and Full-Floating axles on a Land Cruiser

To: LandCruisers@tlca.org Send reply to: LandCruisers@tlca.org From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date sent: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:54:20 +0000 Subject: Re: 100 Series Semi-Floater? On 22 Apr 98 at 19:01, Joe wrote: > What's the difference between floater or non floater ??? Basically: on a Semi-Floater the wheel and half-shaft are one unit....while on a Full-Floater the half-shaft and wheel are separated, the wheel being mounted to the axle all by its own. Result, In case of a half shaft breaking: With a FF the wheel will remain on the axle, while a SF will loose the wheel (think the brake components offer some resistance, but not much....disks seem to be incompatible with SF's anyway, at least on Cruisers). Factory lockers *always* come with full floaters....more chance on a half shaft breaking....and the diff carrier being closed, there is no window in the diff to access the C-clips with which the halfshaft/wheel on a SF is attached. > How do i tell what's in my 78 FJ 40??? > Or in A 97 80 series?? - Front = FF (always) Rear: - Disk brakes = FF (don't know why) - Factory locker = FF (see above) - Rear lid on the pumpkin = SF (the only way to remove the half-shaft/wheel on a SF is by pulling the C-clips inside the diff first) - No rear lid = FF - Relatively large protruding hubs = FF (hard, if not impossible to see on a fat alloy rim, with hub covers) (note that the above only applies to TLC's, other brands can be different) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Bill Fiora" To: "LCML" Subject: Rear ARB in Front Diff. Date sent: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:11:31 -0500 Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org I recently bought two ARB lockers from TPI for my FJ40. They sent me two of the rear units, and told me that they always install a rear unit in the front diff, because it is a stonger locker. I've never installed ARBs before. Does this make sense? Will the rear unit work in the front? TIA. Bill Fiora, TLCA #4144 wfiora@earthlink.net 4/80 FJ40, 6/91 FJ80 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@tlca.org Date sent: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 20:23:34 +0100 Subject: Re: Rear ARB in Front Diff. Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org On 13 Dec 99 at 9:11, Bill Fiora wrote: > I recently bought two ARB lockers from TPI for my FJ40. They sent me two of > the rear units, and told me that they always install a rear unit in the front > diff, because it is a stonger locker. > > I've never installed ARBs before. Does this make sense? It *does* make sense, but NOT for reasons of strength, au contraire. > Will the rear unit work in the front? TIA. Yep. The key word here is 'full-floater' vs 'semi-floater'....all Cruiser front axles are FF, while most US rear axles are SF. SF's come with C-clips, which require access through the diff carrier. Hence Toyota puts in a 2-pinion carrier. Buy a factory locker, and you get a) a FF, and b) a closed carrier with 4 pinions. Buy an ARB for a SF, and you get 3 pinions, with a window where #4 would have been. Buy an ARB for a FF, and you get the same 4 pinions as factory, without C-clip window. Therefore, an FF-ARB will only fit a FF-axle (regardless of front or rear), while a SF-ARB will fit both FF and SF....the only downside is that it has one pinion less, so a SF-ARB is *less* strong (and not as your shop claims, more strong). A few more notes about SF's and FF's are on my homepage: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm Willem (who curses Toyota for cheaping out on FF's for a measly US$150 difference, since a FF would have made a cute Quaife gear-driven LSD possible) Jan -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: bmusil@attglobal.net Date sent: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:54:06 -0700 To: LCML Subject: Re: Rear ARB in Front Diff. Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:11:31 -0500 From: "Bill Fiora" Subject: Rear ARB in Front Diff. I recently bought two ARB lockers from TPI for my FJ40. They sent me two of the rear units, and told me that they always install a rear unit in the front diff, because it is a stonger locker. I've never installed ARBs before. Does this make sense? Will the rear unit work in the front? TIA. Bill Fiora, TLCA #4144 wfiora@earthlink.net 4/80 FJ40, 6/91 FJ80 This is the kind of BULLSH*T I hate to hear. Don't know who you talked to over there so I will give them the benefit of the doubt that somebody there must know the real truth. I am an authorized ARB dealer and here IS the straight scoop. Most of the time we install the RD08 (rear semi-floating) in both ends and it does work, but it is absolutely NOT true that the RD08 is stronger than the RD02 (full floating locker)... here's why. The RD08 has a window machined in the case for access to the block that spaces the axles out to retain the "C-clips" and therefor has one LESS spider gear (or pinion) with which to transfer torque. The RD02 doesn't have a window cut in the case and has all 4 spider gears SOOOO... it's at least 25% stronger without factoring in the strength lost by having a window cut into the case. The real reason for using the RD08 in both ends... is.... the rear axle provides the greater percentage of the driving force, if you were unfortunate enough to break the rear differential for what ever reason... you could swap the front differential into the rear and proceed on. You could not swap the full floating RD02 into the rear... you wouldn't have a way to retain the semi-floating axles. Admittedly this is a whole bunch of work to go through (swapping two rear ends)... but if you were way in and the trail out was too nasty for front axle only operation... then at least you HAVE the option... it just a matter of going to all the work to USE that option. That's the reason and the truth! Brad Musil (aka Bam Bam) Date sent: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 21:50:21 -0600 From: Michael Greenway Organization: @Home Network To: landcruisers@tlca.org Subject: Re: Rear ARB in Front Diff. Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Thanks Brad for pointing out that TPI had told a fib. One question for all you ARB owners: have you ever broke a spider? I have broken ring and pinions, busted birfields, and even cracked u-joints but never have I broke a spider in a ARB. When it is locked aren't the spiders out of the picture? Just curious? Thanks again Brad for giving everyone the straight scoop! Michael Greenway TLCA #3000 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@tlca.org Date sent: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:07:04 +0100 Subject: Re: Rear ARB in Front Diff. Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org On 14 Dec 99 at 21:50, Michael Greenway wrote: > Thanks Brad for pointing out that TPI had told a fib. One question for > all you ARB owners: have you ever broke a spider? I have broken ring and > pinions, busted birfields, and even cracked u-joints but never have I > broke a spider in a ARB. When it is locked aren't the spiders out of the > picture? Actually no, and this applies to all on-demand lockers, whether ARB, Schwartz (Germany, vacuum), KAM-differentials (UK, cable or airpressure), Toyota electric or Toyota cable. Only one half shaft is locked to the carrier (sleeve or dog-clutch), whereas the other half shaft is locked through the then motionless spider-gears/pinions....there is no other mechanical connection between left and right half shaft....only thos pinions. So this *is* an effective 25% decrease in strength. Whether those pinions are the weakest link (as your first questions relate to) is another matter, but there is a good reason Toyota supplies its lockers with full-floater and 4-pinions.... -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: "80s COOL international" <80scool@yahoogroups.com> From: "Norm Needham" Date sent: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:27:40 +1100 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: [80] semi floating rear ends Hi Folks, Nobody tells me nothin' no more. The boys have fitted a few lockers to 100 series since that model appeared. It was not till last week that someone mentioned semi floaters that I had a close look. For the last 2-3 years, all us Aussies who have been saying that we have not seen semi floating axles in Land Cruiser since the mid 70s have been lying through our teeth. The 100 has semi floating rear axles! This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure they are up to the task. Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.com To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: Eric Madsen Date sent: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:23:46 -0700 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] semi floating rear ends At 11:27 PM 2/26/01 +1100, you wrote: >The 100 has semi floating rear axles! >This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure they are up to >the task. What's the law for SF rearend in Oz? Everybody talks about how SF rearends are illegal in Oz. eric Eric Madsen [mailto:cruiserman@earthlink.net] Boise, ID, USA To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: "Greg Goulden" Date sent: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:40:19 -0000 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: [80] Re: semi floating rear ends --- In 80scool@y..., Eric Madsen wrote: > >The 100 has semi floating rear axles! > >This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure they are up to > >the task. > > What's the law for SF rearend in Oz? Everybody talks about how > SF rearends are illegal in Oz. > eric > > Eric Madsen [mailto:cruiserman@e...] Eric, I don't know where you heard that? Most 4WD vehicles over here have SF rear ends, including the Nissan Patrol, Toyota Hilux, etc. Only the exclusive, heavy duty 4WD's have the FF's, like the 75's, 78's, 80's and 105's......and then there's the LR Discovery?? Regards, Greg Goulden 2000 HZJ105 Safari TDI w/ FF rear end! Melbourne, Oz. To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: "Greg Goulden" Date sent: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:11:40 -0000 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: [80] Re: semi floating rear ends --- In 80scool@y..., "Norm Needham" wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Nobody tells me nothin' no more. > > The boys have fitted a few lockers to 100 series since that model > appeared. > It was not till last week that someone mentioned semi floaters that I > had a close look. > For the last 2-3 years, all us Aussies who have been saying that we have > not seen semi floating axles in Land Cruiser since the mid 70s have been > lying through our teeth. > The 100 has semi floating rear axles! > This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure they are up to > the task. > > Cheers * > Norm Needham * * Norm, They haven't got you sitting in a dark corner with a mushroom shaped hat on have they??? :-))))) Just to clarify:- 100's (eg. UZJ100, HDJ100) with IFS have semi-floating rear ends. 105's (eg. FZJ105, HZJ105) with SFA have full floating rear ends. This is why my service book states the 100's as having "sealed for life" rear axle bearings :-). I'm sure as you say they will be up to most tasks! Has anyone noticed that the GVM on the 100 IFS vehicles with the SF axle is higher than the 105's??? Regards, Greg Goulden. 2000 HZJ105 Safari TDI Melbourne Oz. To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Priority: normal From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 16:57:55 +0100 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] Re: semi floating rear ends On 26 Feb 01 at 21:40, Greg Goulden wrote: > --- In 80scool@y..., Eric Madsen wrote: > > >The 100 has semi floating rear axles! > > >This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm sure they are up > to > > >the task. > > > > What's the law for SF rearend in Oz? Everybody talks about how > > SF rearends are illegal in Oz. > > eric > > > > Eric Madsen [mailto:cruiserman@e...] > > Eric, > > I don't know where you heard that? Most 4WD vehicles over here have SF > rear ends, including the Nissan Patrol, Toyota Hilux, etc. I believe it's more about the C-clip-inside-diff concept for keeping the halfshaft(+wheelflange) onboard than the full-floating design itself. Hilux semi-floaters don't have C-clips, they use some construction on the outer end. > Only the exclusive, heavy duty 4WD's have the FF's, like the 75's, > 78's, 80's and 105's......and then there's the LR Discovery?? Mate, all Rover 4x4's have full-floaters. They better have, since the C-clip concept means loosing a wheel when the shaft breaks. IOW: While the C-clip is a decent concept on a Cruiser (apart from the very nasty side effect of not being able to choose & install aftermarket LSD's/lockers with a closed-carrier design (like Torsen/Quaife), it would mean your typical Solihull product would not have any wheels left soon after it leaves the dealer parking lot....;)) Willem (used to have a 109 for the company, keeping the half shafts in stock ourselfs....it only took one employee leaving it in 4wd onroad, and you could set the stopwatch for the 'bang' that followed....8-)). {heck, I wonder whether that isn't the main reason that Rovers have 4wd in the first place....to limp home with frontwheel drive....;)) Jan -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> From: "Norm Needham" Date sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:43:06 +1100 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] semi floating rear ends From: Eric Madsen > > What's the law for SF rearend in Oz? Everybody talks about how > SF rearends are illegal in Oz. > eric > That's a new one for me! It would make about 70% of 4WD owners and 100% of conventional car owners outlaws. Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.com To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Priority: normal From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date sent: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:08:36 +0100 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] semi floating rear ends On 27 Feb 01 at 21:43, Norm Needham wrote: > From: Eric Madsen > > > > What's the law for SF rearend in Oz? Everybody talks about how > > SF rearends are illegal in Oz. > > eric > > > That's a new one for me! > It would make about 70% of 4WD owners and 100% of conventional car > owners outlaws. But how many of those have C-clips? Not even the Hilux has them, which is a semifloater. And it was an Aussie diff company telling me so, as from 1973 to be exactly. They probably meant SF in the context of Cruisers, while they should have stated 'C-clip'. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> From: "Norm Needham" Date sent: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:47:59 +1100 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] semi floating rear ends From: Willem-Jan Markerink > On 27 Feb 01 at 21:43, Norm Needham wrote: > > > From: Eric Madsen > > > > > > What's the law for SF rearend in Oz? Everybody talks about how > > > SF rearends are illegal in Oz. > > > eric > > > > > That's a new one for me! > > It would make about 70% of 4WD owners and 100% of conventional car > > owners outlaws. > > But how many of those have C-clips? > Not even the Hilux has them, which is a semifloater. > > And it was an Aussie diff company telling me so, as from 1973 to be > exactly. They probably meant SF in the context of Cruisers, while > they should have stated 'C-clip'. > WJ, I think they may have been pulling your leg. I have NEVER heard this. Have you ever seen a broken axle on a Hilux...or a Jeep? It's not long before the wheel takes on really odd angles and seizes brakes, or rips the axle/bearing holding mechanism apart. Then the wheel usually falls off (or near off) Cheers * Norm Needham * * Traction4 / ARB Northside * Sydney, Australia * Trac4@bigpond.com Trac4@telstra.comanyway! To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Priority: normal From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date sent: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 21:40:53 +0100 Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [80] semi floating rear ends On 28 Feb 01 at 11:47, Norm Needham wrote: > From: Willem-Jan Markerink > > > On 27 Feb 01 at 21:43, Norm Needham wrote: > > > > > From: Eric Madsen > > > > > > > > What's the law for SF rearend in Oz? Everybody talks about how > > > > SF rearends are illegal in Oz. > > > > eric > > > > > > > That's a new one for me! > > > It would make about 70% of 4WD owners and 100% of conventional car > > > owners outlaws. > > > > But how many of those have C-clips? > > Not even the Hilux has them, which is a semifloater. > > > > And it was an Aussie diff company telling me so, as from 1973 to be > > exactly. They probably meant SF in the context of Cruisers, while > > they should have stated 'C-clip'. > > > WJ, > I think they may have been pulling your leg. Don't think so Tim....;)) > I have NEVER heard this. Must have stated this several times over the past few years.....:)) > Have you ever seen a broken axle on a Hilux...or a Jeep? It's not long > before the wheel takes on really odd angles and seizes brakes, or rips > the axle/bearing holding mechanism apart. Then the wheel usually falls > off (or near off) Okay, what if we restricted this rule to *passenger* vehicles only?....;)) All this per David Lintern from LDS 4wd Division Pty Ltd in Springwood , in January 1995 (thank god I copy thermo-faxes....:)). If ya can't trust Ozzies, who can you trust in this world?....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: tlove@pein.org To: "RMLCA" , "Diesel Land Cruiser List" Subject: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:54:10 -0500 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net Hello folks Are all 60 series front axles interchangeable? If so what is the going price for a rebuildable front axle? I am looking for a summer project, ie. total rebuild of a front axle and then swap it into my HJ in the fall? Thanks Jeremy Love TLCA#6638 86 HJ60 tlove@pein.org Date sent: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:35:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility From: "fj40@getglobal.net" To: , Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net > From: tlove@pein.org > > Hello folks > Are all 60 series front axles interchangeable? If so what is the going price > for a rebuildable front axle? I am looking for a summer project, ie. total > rebuild of a front axle and then swap it into my HJ in the fall? Thanks Jeremy > Love TLCA#6638 86 HJ60 tlove@pein.org Hi, The HJ60 axle and the FJ62 axles are gusseted for extra strength. The regular FJ60's are not. There are some driveshaft flange differences, I think 4/1985 through 1990 have the correct flange. Other then those differences all of the 6x series axles are the same as far as size/parts interchangeability etc. HTH- James- NH, USA - mailto:fj40@getglobal.net TLCA # 8768 1978 FJ40 - 4" lift/Hyper Shackles/no slip rear/33's/etc. 1996 LX450 - Lockers, Leather, Premium Sound, w/lots of trail dents:) 1987 HJ60 "Kanga" - The Street Cruiser. From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date sent: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:52:24 +0100 Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net On 23 Jun 01 at 15:35, fj40@getglobal.net wrote: > Hi, > The HJ60 axle and the FJ62 axles are gusseted for extra strength. > The regular FJ60's are not. > There are some driveshaft flange differences, I think 4/1985 through 1990 have > the correct flange. > > Other then those differences all of the 6x series axles are the same as far as > size/parts interchangeability etc. Btw, how about rear axles....are there any more differences between 1983 and 1990 than full- vs semi-floater? Brakes? Flanges? Splines, diff- or wheel-side? Bearings? Last week I located a full-floater, from a HJ-61 (with LSD; German 61's often had LSD's, and only therefore FF I guess), which would finally allow me to proceed with a locker, probably an OEM cable-locker (can be had for US$1000 new, entire 3rd member). Being 87-90, I don't expect any incompabilities with my 1987 HJ-60, and if any, only a minor detail with the brake connection. Also a nice excuse to squeeze in another OME leaf, and create 11311....;)) Btw, I just browsed around a bit on Jan Schille's site.... http://www.geocities.com/landcruiser75/ ....and noticed that the newer 78-series comes with a default 4-spider ('differential pinions') diff carrier....which automatically means full-floater (no way to access the C-clips, semi-floaters were 2-spider). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Philippe Trottier" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:34:58 +0300 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net > ....and noticed that the newer 78-series comes with a default > 4-spider ('differential pinions') diff carrier....which > automatically means full-floater (no way to access the C-clips, > semi-floaters were 2-spider). No "C-clip" doesn't mean Full floater... Phil From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date sent: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 21:45:19 +0100 Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net On 24 Jun 01 at 22:34, Philippe Trottier wrote: > > ....and noticed that the newer 78-series comes with a default > > 4-spider ('differential pinions') diff carrier....which > > automatically means full-floater (no way to access the C-clips, > > semi-floaters were 2-spider). > > No "C-clip" doesn't mean Full floater... I doubt Toyota copied the design of the 4Runner/8" rear axle, a semifloater without C-clips (it's more that they moved the C-clips to the wheel-side if I understand that design correctly)....not if they have a true FF on the shelves. (and it would be a bit counterproductive to beef up the carrier and half shafts (at least it says so in that article), while not using the most beefy overall design....remember from one of my postings many moons ago: the difference between SF and FF is a measly US$150....I have an official pricelist somewhere proving this....dazzling criminal from Toyota to cheap out on this!) Btw, while I'll have that FF open anyway: are there any aftermarket half-shafts that are much stronger than stock? Just in case I also ever manage to mount that 1/2.8 low gear ratio from Marks4wd, or throw in an entire 250hp/600Nm drive train from the latest 1HD common rail incarnation....gotta be prepared for the next 20 years, don't I?....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: michel_bertin@hotmail.com To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:09:43 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net >From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl > >Last week I located a full-floater, from a HJ-61 (with LSD; German >61's often had LSD's, and only therefore FF I guess), which would >finally allow me to proceed with a locker, probably an OEM >cable-locker (can be had for US$1000 new, entire 3rd member). When you say OEM cable locker for landcruiser would you have a part number for that. I've been asking Toyota for about a year if that was available. Thanks, Michel Bertin 1990 BJ75 1986 HJ60 1985 BJ70 Date sent: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 21:01:48 -0400 From: cubillan@earthlink.net To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net michel_bertin@hotmail.com wrote: > When you say OEM cable locker for landcruiser would you have a part > number for that. I've been asking Toyota for about a year if that was > available. > > Thanks, > > Michel Bertin > 1990 BJ75 > 1986 HJ60 > 1985 BJ70 Be prepared for SERIOUS sticker shock, not to mention the additional parts you have to source to make it work. Best to do a Toyota electric locker, probably cheaper in the long run.... H. From: pstraub@home.com To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:38:28 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net ----- Original Message ----- From: > (and it would be a bit counterproductive to beef up the carrier and > half shafts (at least it says so in that article), while not using the > most beefy overall design....remember from one of my postings many > moons ago: the difference between SF and FF is a measly US$150....I > have an official pricelist somewhere proving this....dazzling > criminal from Toyota to cheap out on this!) Just because the FF can carry a heavier load than a corresponding SF, it does not mean that everyone wants a FF. There are several problems with the FF that everyone should contemplate before running out and getting one. The bolts that hold the axle flange to the hub is far weaker at transmitting torque than any part of the SF design. I installed a FF in April. I sheared off the six studs in June. The FF has 4 taper roller bearings in grease. These need to be packed regularly. The SF has 2 roller bearings in the gear lube. These never need maintenance. This is a significant maintenance cost, and if you blow a bearing because you failed to do this maintenance, and you wreck the spindle, then you need a whole new axle housing. $$$$. So, even though the SF is only $150 cheaper from Toyota, the maintenance and repair costs over the life of the vehicle can be significant for a third world farmer. This is why not every Cruiser comes with FF rear - just the ones that need it. Peter Straub From: "Philippe Trottier" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:24:53 +0300 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > > (and it would be a bit counterproductive to beef up the carrier and > > half shafts (at least it says so in that article), while not using the > > most beefy overall design....remember from one of my postings many > > moons ago: the difference between SF and FF is a measly US$150....I > > have an official pricelist somewhere proving this....dazzling > > criminal from Toyota to cheap out on this!) > > Just because the FF can carry a heavier load than a corresponding SF, it > does not mean that everyone wants a FF. There are several problems with the > FF that everyone should contemplate before running out and getting one. > > The bolts that hold the axle flange to the hub is far weaker at transmitting > torque than any part of the SF design. I installed a FF in April. I > sheared off the six studs in June. > > The FF has 4 taper roller bearings in grease. These need to be packed > regularly. The SF has 2 roller bearings in the gear lube. These never need > maintenance. This is a significant maintenance cost, and if you blow a > bearing because you failed to do this maintenance, and you wreck the > spindle, then you need a whole new axle housing. $$$$. > > So, even though the SF is only $150 cheaper from Toyota, the maintenance and > repair costs over the life of the vehicle can be significant for a third > world farmer. This is why not every Cruiser comes with FF rear - just the > ones that need it. > > Peter Straub Errr, Humm well maybe ... Here everyone has FF, no one ever regreased the hub... front and rear for that mather and people here sell their cruisers when they have around 500Mm So far so good for maintenance... and it is not even written in the user manual... Did you put the 2 guide pin or just the 6 bolts ?, the 2 guide pin take the torque, the bolts transfer the torque by the flange face not the bolt themself A different point of view, Phil From: crushersrule@home.com To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:48:16 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net > Errr, Humm well maybe ... Here everyone has FF, no one ever regreased the > hub... front and rear for that mather and people here sell their cruisers when > they have around 500Mm > > So far so good for maintenance... and it is not even written in the user > manual... > > Did you put the 2 guide pin or just the 6 bolts ?, the 2 guide pin take the > torque, the bolts > transfer the torque by the flange face not the bolt themself > > A different point of view, > Phil > i had a 97 HZJ with FF rear with only 12,000 miles on it and the rear bearings went. weird feeling when the rear axle is sticking out a foot and a half past the sheet metal when driving down the road... maintence highly recommended. Wayne From: "Philippe Trottier" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 19:27:04 +0300 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net > i had a 97 HZJ with FF rear with only 12,000 miles on it and the rear > bearings went. weird feeling when the rear axle is sticking out a foot and a > half past the sheet metal when driving down the road... > maintence highly recommended. > Wayne Hello, Yes maintenance OK, but 12,000miles is nothing, we put on them 500 000 to 750 000km on them, just changing the oil ,sometime...(I do know folks that never even looked at them.) My bet is something was terribly wrong at the installation. Phil From: crushersrule@home.com To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:24:55 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net > Hello, > > Yes maintenance OK, but 12,000miles is nothing, we put on them 500 000 to 750 000km > on them, just changing the oil ,sometime...(I do know folks that never even looked at them.) > > My bet is something was terribly wrong at the installation. > > Phil yep, rough abuse. ex-mine truck carrying 5000lbs on a regular basis and lack of maintence = short life. From: "Philippe Trottier" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:15:35 +0300 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net > yep, rough abuse. ex-mine truck carrying 5000lbs on a regular basis and lack > of maintence = short life. > Wayne Here they pull Highway speed, horse trailor of about the same weight... my guess this is a one of (aka bad luck), and thank you for specifying the use/abuse... that makes a big difference on the reliability issue... I know a BJ-45 that worked on open mine with a 1800Kg compressor, bolted on instead of the bed, every day was off road with that on the back... the truck got sold with 250 000km. also not kind owners, but careless employees. Military Bj-75/PZj-75 are used with Electric Generators, usually a V8 + genny they are carried everyday from place to place... (-HINT- they don't need genny where road is) Phil From: m37@gci.net To: Copies to: "Peter Straub" Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 10:44:32 -0700 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net Original Message ----- From: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > > (and it would be a bit counterproductive to beef up the carrier and > > half shafts (at least it says so in that article), while not using the > > most beefy overall design....remember from one of my postings many > > moons ago: the difference between SF and FF is a measly US$150....I > > have an official pricelist somewhere proving this....dazzling > > criminal from Toyota to cheap out on this!) > > Just because the FF can carry a heavier load than a corresponding SF, it > does not mean that everyone wants a FF. There are several problems with the > FF that everyone should contemplate before running out and getting one. > > The bolts that hold the axle flange to the hub is far weaker at transmitting > torque than any part of the SF design. I installed a FF in April. I > sheared off the six studs in June. > > The FF has 4 taper roller bearings in grease. These need to be packed > regularly. The SF has 2 roller bearings in the gear lube. These never need > maintenance. This is a significant maintenance cost, and if you blow a > bearing because you failed to do this maintenance, and you wreck the > spindle, then you need a whole new axle housing. $$$$. > > So, even though the SF is only $150 cheaper from Toyota, the maintenance and > repair costs over the life of the vehicle can be significant for a third > world farmer. This is why not every Cruiser comes with FF rear - just the > ones that need it. > > Peter Straub I had a FF When I lived in Bristol Bay in SW Alaska on a 77 FJ45 (that I put a Perkins diesel into). Mark now has it, the rear frame is rusted out, I'm using the drivetrain in a Dodge Carryall.. Anyways, I messed up the metal threaded piece that seals the spindle tube from its' exterior. As a result, the wheel bearings on the left were lubricated by gear oil, whereas the ones on the right were lubricated by the grease. We may look inside this axle this winter, but I had no problems with it. There could be an issue of the inner bearing being somewhat starved for oil because it would only get the oil spinning off the outer bearing, but I suspect any time the vehicle is on any incline (of course the left is the high side on crowned roads with LHD) it gets lots. Charlie ----- From: pstraub@home.com To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:47:48 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philippe Trottier" > Did you put the 2 guide pin or just the 6 bolts ?, the 2 guide pin take the > torque, the bolts transfer the torque by the flange face not the bolt themself I had one guide pin. Those things are really strong. When I spun off the axle flange, it sheared off the one guide pin that was in the hub. I went through 8 drill bits, two punches and a diamond studded dremmel bit, a lot of heat and some nuts that were welded to the pin before I gave up myself and took it to the real mechanic. They went through another two drill bits, two stud removers, and a tap. It's out, and now the axle flange has two pin guides. Those things are really strong. But, there is something else to know. With a locker in the rear, the nuts on the flange tend to loosen off. I came home from a weekend of wheeling and all 6 nuts on were hanging on by a few threads each. I assume that the same had happened moments before I sheared off the 6 nuts and one guide pin. Wayne recommended to me that I tighten the bolts every week, as his backed off every week in his Yellow Monster FJ45 bush hog. Peter Straub Date sent: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:23:22 +0900 To: dtlc@helios.net From: stedman@ans.kobe-u.ac.jp Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net At 17:47 6/26/2001 -0600, you wrote: >But, there is something else to know. With a locker in the rear, the nuts on >the flange tend to loosen off. I came home from a weekend of wheeling and all >6 nuts on were hanging on by a few threads each. I assume that the same had >happened moments before I sheared off the 6 nuts and one guide pin. Wayne >recommended to me that I tighten the bolts every week, as his backed off every >week in his Yellow Monster FJ45 bush hog. Exactly which nuts are these, having not had my FF apart yet I am in dire need of this tidbit. Dave Stedman Kakogawa Japan N 34� 45' 45.2" E 134� 52'22.3" stedman@ans.kobe-u.ac.jp stedman@canada.com From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:30:35 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net >The bolts that hold the axle flange to the hub is far weaker at transmitting >torque than any part of the SF design. I installed a FF in April. I >sheared off the six studs in June. hmmm, just replaced 2 sheared studs and a sheared dowel pin last night. This was after shearing all 6 studs and both dowel pins several months ago. I'm getting WAY too good at drilling and retapping broken studs :-( >The FF has 4 taper roller bearings in grease. These need to be packed >regularly. The SF has 2 roller bearings in the gear lube. These never need >maintenance. This is a significant maintenance cost, and if you blow a >bearing because you failed to do this maintenance, and you wreck the >spindle, then you need a whole new axle housing. $$$$. Sounds eirily familiar... Jeff Zepp TLCA #4063 From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:45:46 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Philippe Trottier" >> Did you put the 2 guide pin or just the 6 bolts ?, the 2 guide pin take the >> torque, the bolts transfer the torque by the flange face not the bolt themself > >I had one guide pin. Those things are really strong. > >When I spun off the axle flange, it sheared off the one guide pin that was in >the hub. I went through 8 drill bits, two punches and a diamond studded >dremmel bit, a lot of heat and some nuts that were welded to the pin before I >gave up myself and took it to the real mechanic. They went through another two >drill bits, two stud removers, and a tap. It's out, and now the >axle flange has two pin guides. > >Those things are really strong. Now having extracted 3 of them I can say that PARTS of them are strong, but not all. I have discovered that they are case hardened, that is the outside surfaces are hardened, about a depth of perhaps 1mm. Inside they aren't much harder than a standard grade 8 fastener. When they have been sheared, the "soft" middle is exposed and can be drilled. I have a drill bit (Ti coated) permanently embedded in the one I extracted last night. Once it got stuck, it was easy to pull the dowel pin out. >But, there is something else to know. With a locker in the rear, the nuts on >the flange tend to loosen off. I came home from a weekend of wheeling and all >6 nuts on were hanging on by a few threads each. I assume that the same had >happened moments before I sheared off the 6 nuts and one guide pin. >Wayne recommended to me that I tighten the bolts every week, as his backed off >every week in his Yellow Monster FJ45 bush hog. Yup, BTDT, in fact I have gotten in the habit of checking every few days. Occasionally need retorquing and occasionally one or the other dowel pins will have backed out a few mm and will require a well aimed whack with a ball pien hammer before I head down the road. When I redid the rear this time around, I took extra care to thoroughly clean the inside stud threads in the hub with solvent (they were soaked in 90wt mixed with cutting oil), blow out with compressed air, then apply blue locktite to the threads of the studs, then seat the studs well with doubled up nuts. We'll see how long they hold up, drove to and from work today then rechecked torque when I got home, all seems well so far. Jeff Zepp TLCA #4063 From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: [DTLC] 60 series front axle compatibility Date sent: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:50:31 -0600 Send reply to: dtlc@helios.net > >Exactly which nuts are these, having not had my FF apart yet I am in dire >need of this tidbit. > > >Dave Stedman Dave, these are the nuts that hold the flange of the axle to the hub. 12mm hex, 8mm x 1.25mm threads. They thread onto the 6 studs which are fastened into the edge of the hub, parallel to the axle. Under the nuts go split lock washers and then cone washers, just like a front hub. With a locker in the rear, they do tend to loosen up on their own. Jeff Zepp TLCA #4063 From: comptona@ozemail.com.au To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] Loose FF studs/nuts Date: Thu, Jun 28 2001 12:14:14 GMT+1100 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net >I've enjoyed following this thread. I am curious about the loosening with a >locker symptom that some of you have had. Enjoyed it ?@!?!? I am terrified with this thread!!. I rebuilt the front hubs on my HJ60 a couple of months back & I lie awake at night trying to recall just how well I did tighten those bolts up. The thought of shearing them scares me. I don't carry enough Plutonium tipped drill bits with me when I am "out of the office". Compton Subject: Re: [LCML] full floating axles...? From: Dominic von Stoesser To: landcruisers@tlca.org Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Date sent: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:52:20 +0300 On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, at 04:41 , landcruisers-request@tlca.org wrote: > lots of non usa models did. My HZJ75 did, for example, as did my friend Willie's UN-spec FJ62. > for heavy duty applications, takes the weight off the axles...if you > snap an > axle, you don't lose the wheel. Also, Toyota's method for locking the diff (by locking the short sideshaft to the diff carrier) involves a 4 spider gear 3rd member, which requires a full-floater as you can't get to the C-clips with that many gears. I saw perhaps the best endorsement for FFs I have ever seen the other day. A fully-laden, but SF-equipped, HZJ75 experienced an axle breakage (long side, right at the outside of the axle just outside the wheel bearing) whilst travelling on a moderately washboarded (= hot and therefore relatively ineffective shocks) at 50mph. The wheel sort of disappeared into the bush, and the Cruiser very nearly overturned - only driver skill saved the 3 occupants' lives. Perhaps the Cruiser was overloaded, perhaps the axle was already damaged, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps - but with a FF axle, there would have been no danger (and probably no breakage, either). As for swapping them into a 40: the least modification in terms of moving/modifying spring perches etc. seems to be the 70 series FF axle, as it's apparently only 15mm wider than a 40. cheers - dom From: "Ben Claydon" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] full floating axles...? Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Date sent: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 23:42:15 +1000 Ooh what a can of worms!!! Here in Australia it is hard to find SemiFloaters. Less than a month ago I broke my first rear FF, snapped shear at the flange. Stopped, pulled the flange off, slid out the broken axle, plugged the hole where the axle would seal with a rag, winched to the top of the hill I was on, then drove home! Very hard to do on SF! Unfortunately my detroit locker found that also a good time to die and stopped working less than an hour later. There are other factors to deal with on FF. This has been gone over many times before..... heard of the archives? Benno /\ / \/\ /\ / / \/ \ / ) \ /\ /\ V8J47 Bobbed Tray Back 5Spd LPG PS )enno \/ \ TSL36 Detroit FFrear ARB front York air From: Bob Firestine Subject: Re: [LCML] full floating axles...? To: landcruisers@tlca.org Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Date sent: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:06:14 -0700 (PDT) --- ige gustavson wrote: > lots of non usa models did. > > for heavy duty applications, takes the weight off the axles...if > you snap an axle, you don't lose the wheel. Also: They allow you to use OEM electric or cable lockers. With custom-made axles, you could add selectable hubs to the rear (good for flat towing). Hubs sticking out in the back look really cool. Downsides: Bearings have to be serviced and it's not as easy as the front to get the preload right. Normally expensive to obtain and not as cheap to add rear discs. If you decide to go this route, the 70 series units are easily adapted to 40's (by relocating the spring perches), then you get self-adjusting drums and have the option of adding rear discs (from an 80), or buying them with rear discs already. The rear disc option will probably necessitate a move to 16" wheels for caliper clearance. Bob ===== Bob Firestine gutsrus2k@yahoo.com TLCA #1394 Fresno CA USA 71 VJ40 "GUTSRUS" D.D. TBI350 PS SM420 Front discs 66 FJ45 SWB project rig "Bones" AND 93 FZJ80 "Tourmalina" From: "Christo Slee" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] uzj-100 Questions from a Newbie Send reply to: landcruisers@tlca.org Date sent: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:44:17 -0600 > > At 08:11 PM 9/20/2002 -0400, MShepherd@deandortonford.com wrote: > >1) I am considering either a 1998, 1999 or 2000 model. Are there > >significant differences in those years? Any big reasons to > buy one year > >over another? > > It depends what continent you're asking from. By default, > I'll just assume > N.America . 1998 was the first model year that the UZJ-100 came out, > but it was 1999 when the rear-aircon was available. 2000 was > the last year > they had factory installed diff-lockers, and thus full > floating rear axles. > Toyota quality on Cruisers has been quite consistent over the > years, so > there is no "bad" year really. Drexx, going to burst your bubble here now. The rear axle is a semi-floater without C Clips :-))) or :-((( Christo Slee From: "Richard Danner" To: Subject: [LCML] FF help Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:57:44 -0500 I recently bought a full floater axle off of an '78 FJ45 from a junk yard in South Bend, IN for FJ40. At GSMTR in 2001 I broke my semi floater at the top of trail #2 and spent the next 6 hours on top of that hill trying to get the axle replaced. If it wasn't for Rob, who is the same Rob referred to in the latest TT and is the local Wildlife manager stopping buy and helping, I'd probably still be up there. This was not only my first trip to GSMTR but only my second trail ride. It still amazes me. The other drivers in our group stayed right and helped. Offered jacks, diff oil, whatever to help my son and I. And Rob was just passing by and saw we needed help and spent his whole day not only helping, but doing most the work. Hey I'm a decent mechanic, but when you see someone who really knows what he's doing you get out of the way. Anyhow, after an experience like that, when I saw that FJ45 in the yard I instantly thought FF. I'd never be stuck with a broken axle and a wheel that wanted to walk away from my truck again. So I purchased the complete FF axle with diff, 4:10 gears & drums for $100. But here's the sad part. Like I said all I wanted at the time was the FF axle. The truck was complete except for the oil pan. They removed the front axle to get to it but it was right there beside the truck. Except for that the truck was complete. Yeah it had rust - Mid west rust - But is was all there. Anyhow it was muddy out, and the guy on the fort lift couldn't pull the truck out of the line from the front. He kept getting stuck in the mud. So he moved a couple other vehicles and put the forks right through the cab from the side. Twisted and totaled the sheet metal - sad. Someone probably would've paid decent money for a complete truck. What an Ass. I would of loved to have it but I already had one project in the garage and no room for a second. Anyhow after putting the FF in the FJ40 I soon realized there was one more important part I should have gotten. The balancing valve on the frame to balance the brakes between the front disks and rear drums. The drums on this FF are much bigger than my Semi-floater's were. And she stops quick. A little too quick. So, Does anyone know how I fix this problem? I went back to the junk yard but the truck was gone. Should I get a valve from SOR? Will that fix the problem or does someone know of another option? Please reply off-list. rdannere@earthlink.net Thanks in advance. And Rob if your out there, many thanks to you and let me know where to send the beer. Richard From: Herb Peyerl To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] FF help Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:30:10 -0700 On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:57:44PM -0500, Richard Danner wrote: > Anyhow after putting the FF in the FJ40 I soon realized there was one more > important part I should have gotten. The balancing valve on the frame to > balance the brakes between the front disks and rear drums. The drums on this > FF are much bigger than my Semi-floater's were. And she stops quick. A > little too quick. there's a "balancing valve on the frame"? Neither of my two FJ45's (one a '78 and the other a '77) had them. They came with 4wheel drums, and the same larger drums allaway around. Personally, I went with front-discs on my 45 and converted the FF to toyota discs so I have 4w discs with the stock FJ45 booster and master cylinder. I have a beef with FF axles though. It's probably my fault for putting a welded center-unit in. But first I had trouble with the little seal in the axle nut not being inserted all the way. That caused leaking. So I fixed that. Then the studs on the axle-face kept backing out and some would fall out before I discovered it. Then I discovered both of the hardened pins were broken. So I replaced the pins, locktighted the studs in (except for the one that broke, that required drilling and re-tapping). Then I was good for couple months but then the nuts kept loosening. So I replaced the lock washers but I couldn't get the nuts on tight enough without spreading the lock washers apart. So I went out and bought some high-collar lock washers and finally got the drive plate to be on solid, with no leaks. Then a couple weeks later, I discovered all the lugs had worked their way loose and had ovalled out my rim, the stud holes in the rotor and the stud holes in the hub. There's just no winning. I'm gonna pull the welded diff out now and put in an open diff. I've had enough of this. I can't afford a real locker. From: "Rob Blumel" To: "'LCML'" Subject: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:49:20 -0400 Hey all, For the background behind my earlier parts post... This past Friday I took off or work to de-install my noisy lock rite. It went fine, and, except for a wet behind, the removal and installation passed without incident. One of the things I was most careful about was installing and ensuring that the C clips were fully seated. The thought of losing an axle and tire at speed was not enticing, so I checked and double checked that everything was as it should be. Or so I thought. Saturday morning, my buddy and fellow lister Rob Dudley and I were scheduled to install his new Dobinson 3" lift onto his 60. As such, I had taken great care to pack all the necessary tools and jack into my 60 rather than my 40 (because it was raining) for the drive over to the shop, which was graciously lent to us by CLCC member Scott Curtis. We were up and out of the house by 7:30. Off to Home Depot for some 6x6's to use as jack stand stands, and for breakfast. As we weren't meeting Scott at the shop until 9:30, at 8:15, when we had everything and were fed, I decided that now would be as good a time as any to run by and get my truck inspected, as it had expired in April. Felling buoyed by our good planning and success thus far, we were hopped on the highway for the 15 minute jaunt to the service station I use for inspections. Now, to understand what transpired next, you have to have a grasp of the traffic and enormity of the Greater Washington DC area Highway system. Major highways and throughways bisect our Nations Capital. Couple that with a burgeoning population, and traffic is pretty heavy no matter what time it is. Which, by now, was about 8:30 am. The exit to Route 66 west is a long, sweeping 2 lane left exit that jaunts and curves over to the northbound lane of Route 66 from the inner loop (northbound) of 495. As we exited and started up the incline of the exit, we began a long left turn. Mind you, we were at highway speeds in my sprung over, 36" TSL shod FJ60. THUNK, grrrrrr grrrrrr. Rob, to Rob D.: Hmm. That's a funny noise. Rob D., ashen: mmm hmmm. WHAM! (sounds of grinding. Rear end of truck dramatically lower. Rob sees sky. Notes DS rear tire with axle attached in rear view mirror warbling crazily behind him. ) At this point, my breakfast almost made a speedy exit. I will mention that it was MONSOONING. Pouring rain. Which is why we were in the 60 in the first place. Perfect. Realizing the seriousness of my situation and knowing exactly what had happened, I immediately call AAA for a Flat-bed. In 10 minutes, I have the truck jacked up and the wheel and axle ready to go back in the housing. I've lost the rear brake drum completely. This is important as without the rear drum, brakes all around are non-functional. No e-brake. Also important is that without the rear axle, an open differential is fully open. NO nothing. Me putting it in gear did no good. And being in 4 wheel drive did nothing without the hubs locked. The important part here is that we remember that I am disabled in the right hand lane of a long, sweeping left exit in what most of you (save for those from DC or LA) would consider heavy traffic. Cars were zooming by and spraying water on me as I worked. Many barely missed me. After about 10 minutes, and while I was aligning the axle into the housing, a VA state trooper pulled up to monitor the situation and warn oncoming traffic of the impediment I was causing. At the time, something in the back of my mind thought the office had parked awfully close to me. I pushed it aside and continued the job of raising my beast to right her. I finished in about 15 minutes, and, without taking time to asses the situation, I let the truck down. (*It's important to note that my 60 is rather tall, allowing for easy access to the rear axle. So much so that I sat cross-legged as I removed the lock rite the previous day.) The jack I was using was a mini-floor jack, easily portable, but diminutive in size, which necessitated my presence underneath the rear of the truck to jack it up or release pressure. As I released the pressure, the truck settle on its wheels and immediately gravity took over. As I was "parked" on a slight incline, Newton's law asserted itself and my 60 made a beeline for flat ground. I, still being under the truck, reached back, grabbed the rear bumper, and swung myself out from under the truck. I landed and immediately tried to stop the truck. The truck was not moving fast, and, as there were two of us (Rob D. was assisting in the recovery), had it been dry, we may have slowed it or stopped it long enough o get a block under the tire. (See: Rain, and why it makes things slick) Our efforts yielded very little fruit. As the ground was wet and slicked with oil (lots of gear oil) we just slid. Rob D. jumped in the cab to hit it in gear, which it was, and I tried in vain to stop my Cruiser. I was unsuccessful, but the 1998 Crown Victoria, parked just a little too close to a large vehicle, succeeded. At the last second, I jumped out of the way and my 60 slammed into the police cruiser, with the officer behind the wheel. I will take a moment to note that when asked to assess the damage to my 60, my answer, much to the credit of the LobsterFab rear bumper, was, "None." Which, oddly enough, was the same for the crown vic's front bumper. Owing to the extreme height differential, the Crown Vic's front bumper was unscathed; saved from assault by the front grill and hood. Needless to say, a bad situation had just become much, much worse. Long story short, no one was hurt. Because his car was no more than 10 feet from my 60, it didn't hit too hard. The cop filed an accident report and we exchanged insurance info. I was not cited, ticketed or otherwise reprimanded. I was towed home by AAA, got my truck parked outside my house, loaded the tools into the 40, and by 10:30, we were pulling springs for the lift on Rob Dudley's 60. The lesson learned here is two fold: 1. Check your work often. I was certain that the c-clips were seated, but I should have triple-checked by tugging the wheel and tire harder. 2. In a recovery situation, regardless of time constraints, take a moment to consider safety options. If I had taken more than 10 seconds to asses the situation, I would have thought to block the front tires to prevent what happened. I'm just lucky no one was hurt. Let my misfortune be a lesson to everyone that safety needs to be paramount. Rob Blumel Marketing Vice President, TLCA 82 FJ60 77 FJ40 Alexandria, VA From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:12:55 -0600 so curious, did you reinstall the center block that holds the axles apart? it goes over the pin that is held in with the 12 mm bolt in the housing?? Wayne www.crushersrule.com have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? Calgary Alberta Canada From: "Briggs Evans" <78fj@comcast.net> To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:19:02 -0500 Will the cross-shaft and block (I think those are the correct terms) fit in place in the carrier if the c-clips are not seated properly? I thought the purpose of the block was to keep the axle shafts from moving enough to let the c-clips come out? IIRC, the block part is not needed when the lockrite is installed but is very important in a c-clip axle other wise. Briggs From: "Rob Blumel" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:38:15 -0400 -----Original Message----- From: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com [mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com] On Behalf Of Briggs Evans Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 11:19 AM To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... > Will the cross-shaft and block (I think those are the correct terms) fit > in place in the carrier if the c-clips are not seated properly? I > thought the purpose of the block was to keep the axle shafts from moving > enough to let the c-clips come out? IIRC, the block part is not needed > when the lockrite is installed but is very important in a c-clip axle > other wise. > > Briggs No. Unless the c-clips are seated, the crosee shaft should not fit. Or so I thought. Rob From: "Rob Blumel" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 13:56:01 -0400 -----Original Message----- From: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com [mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Smith Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:24 PM To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... > curious, did you put the brass shims back in? and did you check for > clearences? > Wayne www.crushersrule.com > have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? > Calgary Alberta Canada Yup, and yup. The clearances were honestly probably out of spec, but not excessive. Rob From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 09:50:22 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Blumel" To: Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 9:38 AM Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... > All things LCML: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > No. Unless the c-clips are seated, the crosee shaft should not fit. Or > so I thought. > > Rob the cross shaft will fit but the block won't... Wayne www.crushersrule.com have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? Calgary Alberta Canada From: "Rob Blumel" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 11:52:18 -0400 -----Original Message----- From: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com [mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Smith Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 11:13 AM To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... > so curious, did you reinstall the center block that holds the axles > apart? it goes over the pin that is held in with the 12 mm bolt in the > housing?? > Wayne www.crushersrule.com > have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? > Calgary Alberta Canada Yup. From: "Rob Blumel" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:03:16 -0400 -----Original Message----- From: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com [mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Smith Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 11:50 AM To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... > the cross shaft will fit but the block won't... > Wayne www.crushersrule.com > have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? > Calgary Alberta Canada The block and cross shaft both fit perfectly. From: "Rob Blumel" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:06:14 -0400 http://www.man-a-fre.com/feature_items/fullfloater.htm $495 +$150 shipping. Just in case you wanted to know... Rob From: "Jose A Merced" Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:07:14 -0400 On Mon, 12 May 2003 11:34:22 -0400 "Rob Blumel" wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com >[mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com] On Behalf Of Jose A Merced >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 11:13 AM >To: landcruisers@birfield.com >Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... >> >> After reading that, I think I want a FF for my 60. > >That's exactly what I thought. And I am seriously considering it. >Cha-Ching $$$$. > >Rob > Approx $500 for Specter. From: Todd Oldenburg Subject: Re: [LCML] Just in case my life wasn't exciting enough... To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 12:10:19 -0400 Rob Im glad your OK I think your lock right was telling you that there was something funky with the carrer and not itself Im sure you will find a alot of wear with the side gears (brass shims worn like Jeff Zepp said ) letting them move in and out just enough to let the "C" clip fall out with everything buttoned up and put together right. I do have a complete FJ60 rear drum to drum siting in the shop for cheap $150 you pick it up :) Todd Oldenburg FJ4079@comcast.net Trenton NJ From: "Rob Blumel" To: "LCML" Subject: [LCML] Removing the lock-rite, replacing the spiders... Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:52:02 -0400 I'm getting ready to walk out the door and do this - anything I should remember? Seems like it should be the opposite of installation, right? Rob Rob Blumel Marketing Vice President, TLCA 82 FJ60 77 FJ40 Alexandria, VA From: Andrew Farmer To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] help - axle info 40 f/f rear Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 15:10:05 +1200 Have a 40 with fully floating rear diff. Non original - not sure of donor vehicle. Problems with diff oil leaking into one wheel bearing. Discovered the seal area on one axle (long) is 35.5mm The seal, and onther axle are 38mm Are there different axles, and different seals? Does the other seal fit the same lock nut? Or has someoine turned down my axle? Or do I have a long asle from something else (60 maybe)? If different seal, p/no? Thanks Andrew Farmer FJ40 Wellington, New Zealand. -- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 09:03:06 -0700 From: TomQ Subject: [DTLC] FF axle seal To: "DTLC (E-mail)" , "LC Mainlist (E-mail)" Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Hi all I am putting the Toyota Electric Locker in a FF rear axle I got from Australia. I got a rebuild kit to replace all the seals and bearings. Additionally I got a new axle with the long splines on it to be able to use with the locker. Here is my problem it looks like the new axle I got has a smaller diameter in the area were the inner oil seal would be (this seal goes inside the big nut). I checked some other FF axles that happen to be near by and some have the slightly larger size and some have this slightly smaller size (no I can't switch axles). So I am looking for a seal that would be slightly larger. Unfortunately my local NAPA store is not user friendly. Does anybody know of a on line catalog any where. Here are the stats: My stock seal says on it: AMAANPO 402798 35006 I also checked a Timken cross reference catalog and it says that a 417344 might be the same as the above (althoug I am not possitive that is right). The AMAANPO seal above is set up for a 38mm (or so) inner axle. What I am looking for is one for a 36mm. Any help would be great! TomQ, Alameda,CA #3169, KG6EUW '72 FJ55 Under Restoration '73 FJ40 2F FI, H55F Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:54:50 -0700 From: "Rob Lassman" Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF axle seal To: dtlc@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomQ" Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:03 AM > Hi all I am putting the Toyota Electric Locker in a FF rear axle I got from > Australia. I got a rebuild kit to replace all the seals and bearings. > Additionally I got a new axle with the long splines on it to be able to use > with the locker. Here is my problem it looks like the new axle I got has a > smaller diameter in the area were the inner oil seal would be (this seal > goes inside the big nut). I checked some other FF axles that happen to be > near by and some have the slightly larger size and some have this slightly > smaller size (no I can't switch axles). So I am looking for a seal that > would be slightly larger. Unfortunately my local NAPA store is not user > friendly. Does anybody know of a on line catalog any where. Here are the > stats: > > My stock seal says on it: > > AMAANPO 402798 35006 > > I also checked a Timken cross reference catalog and it says that a 417344 > might be the same as the above (althoug I am not possitive that is right). > > The AMAANPO seal above is set up for a 38mm (or so) inner axle. What I am > looking for is one for a 36mm. Any help would be great! > > TomQ, Alameda,CA #3169, KG6EUW > '72 FJ55 Under Restoration > '73 FJ40 2F FI, H55F How about a speedy sleeve, its just the seal portion of the shaft? Rob Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:05:00 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF axle seal From: andre@collegeinternetsolutions.com To: Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Try Kurt at cruiseroutfitters.com, he has a very good catalog with various bushing and sizes, he's also doing a few full float conversions himself and if he doesn't have it in stock than he can probably get it. But, I have not heard of a smaller inner axle seal, generally they are a universal part. You can possibly have it sleeved, which happens occationally mostly by people who run their axles with blown seals for too long and do damage to it. But it's expensive, I found a machine shop locally who did it for $50 US(?) once upon a time... Andre From: "Andrew Farmer" To: References: <005101c352c6$3df7fb50$6501a8c0@tomqnotebook> Subject: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:16:44 +1200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "TomQ" Sent: 26 July 2003 4:03 AM > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > Hi all I am putting the Toyota Electric Locker in a FF rear axle I got from > Australia. I got a rebuild kit to replace all the seals and bearings. > Additionally I got a new axle with the long splines on it to be able to use > with the locker. Here is my problem it looks like the new axle I got has a > smaller diameter in the area were the inner oil seal would be (this seal > goes inside the big nut). I checked some other FF axles that happen to be > near by and some have the slightly larger size and some have this slightly > smaller size (no I can't switch axles). So I am looking for a seal that > would be slightly larger. Unfortunately my local NAPA store is not user > friendly. Does anybody know of a on line catalog any where. Here are the > stats: > > My stock seal says on it: > > AMAANPO 402798 35006 > > I also checked a Timken cross reference catalog and it says that a 417344 > might be the same as the above (althoug I am not possitive that is right). > > The AMAANPO seal above is set up for a 38mm (or so) inner axle. What I am > looking for is one for a 36mm. Any help would be great! > > TomQ, Alameda,CA #3169, KG6EUW > '72 FJ55 Under Restoration > '73 FJ40 2F FI, H55F I had the same problem. The axle with the smaller seal surface is a later axle, they come from a different housing and use a different seal location. Getting a seal is easy - just went to my local bearing supplier with the old seal and the new axle. Sorry cant remember what size it was :( HTH Andrew Farmer FJ40 Wellington, New Zealand From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:02:21 -0600 >Hi all I am putting the Toyota Electric Locker in a FF rear axle I got from >Australia. I got a rebuild kit to replace all the seals and bearings. >TomQ, Alameda,CA #3169, KG6EUW Try 90310-35001. Thats the same as a 93-97 FZJ80 or a non-USA FF rear of the same vintage. Jeff Zepp Kittredge CO USA 1971 (Moab Tested!) & 1976 (Under Construction) FJ40s Rising Sun 4WD Club/TLCA #4063 http://members.aol.com/jeffzepp Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:22:11 -0400 From: "Dave Tay" To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF axle seal Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net "Rob Lassman" wrote: >How about a speedy sleeve, its just the seal portion of the shaft? >Rob Tom's problem is that the later FF axles have smaller sealing surface diameter than the older FF axle. The difference here, if I read correctly, is about 2 mm. I don't think there is Speedisleeve that thick, unless he stacks up several layers. Interesting finding at least between the older and the newer FF axles is besides the sealing surface OD, the length is very close. The newer axle shaft is only about 2-3 mm longer on the short side. If Tom can find a seal that works, this would allow those of us running a factory locker in the older (pre e-brake) FF axles. Dave Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:06:45 +0300 From: larsg@aland.net To: dtlc@helios.net Cc: TomQ Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF axle seal Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net TomQ skrev: > > Hi all I am putting the Toyota Electric Locker in a FF rear axle I got from > Australia. I got a rebuild kit to replace all the seals and bearings. > Additionally I got a new axle with the long splines on it to be able to use > with the locker. Here is my problem it looks like the new axle I got has a > smaller diameter in the area were the inner oil seal would be (this seal > goes inside the big nut). I checked some other FF axles that happen to be > near by and some have the slightly larger size and some have this slightly > smaller size (no I can't switch axles). So I am looking for a seal that > would be slightly larger. Unfortunately my local NAPA store is not user > friendly. Does anybody know of a on line catalog any where. Here are the > stats: > > My stock seal says on it: > > AMAANPO 402798 35006 > > I also checked a Timken cross reference catalog and it says that a 417344 > might be the same as the above (althoug I am not possitive that is right). > > The AMAANPO seal above is set up for a 38mm (or so) inner axle. What I am > looking for is one for a 36mm. Any help would be great! > > TomQ, Alameda,CA #3169, KG6EUW > '72 FJ55 Under Restoration > '73 FJ40 2F FI, H55F Yes, newer (or older?)axles are larger diameter, the smaller seal is 90310-35001 while the larger is 90310-36003, Toyota part number that shold be.. From: "Andrew Farmer" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:18:19 +1200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Zepp" Sent: 26 July 2003 12:02 PM > >Hi all I am putting the Toyota Electric Locker in a FF rear axle I got from > >Australia. I got a rebuild kit to replace all the seals and bearings. > > >TomQ, Alameda,CA #3169, KG6EUW > > Try 90310-35001. Thats the same as a 93-97 FZJ80 or a non-USA FF rear of the > same vintage. > > Jeff Zepp > Kittredge CO USA > 1971 (Moab Tested!) & 1976 (Under Construction) FJ40s > Rising Sun 4WD Club/TLCA #4063 > http://members.aol.com/jeffzepp Won't work (tried it). The early seals fit in the outer w/bearing lock nut. The new seals fit in the axle tube and have a different OD. From: Jeff Zepp To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 09:22:01 -0600 (GMT) Andrew Farmer wrote: > Won't work (tried it). The early seals fit in the outer w/bearing lock nut. > The new seals fit in the axle tube and have a different OD. In his case he already tried the early one and it didn't fit. At least I assume it was the "early" style seal, because the part number he posted was different. Are there THREE different rear axle seal styles for FF rears? Any way, like I posted, I know that 90310-35001 works for 93-97 USA spec FJZ80s with FF rear and same vintage non-USA FF rears. As a brief aside for USA listers, according to my Toyota dealer's parts system, not ALL 93-97 FZJ80s had FF rear. I've never seen an FZJ80 that didn't, but that's what the parts system says. Jeff Zepp From: Mark Whatley To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:59:46 -0800 Jeff Zepp wrote: > As a brief aside for USA listers, according to my Toyota dealer's parts system, > not ALL 93-97 FZJ80s had FF rear. I've never seen an FZJ80 that didn't, but that's > what the parts system says. > > Jeff Zepp Nick Demerest's '93 FZJ80 came witha semi-floater. Mark... -- Mark Whatley Owner, Cruisers Only, Wasilla Alaska Mailto:cruiser@mtaonline.net Technical Editor, Toyota Trails, TLCA Mailto:techexchange@tlca.org Alaska Cruiser Trek 2001! http://www.aktrek.somewhere.net Alaska Cruiser Trek 2002! http://www.xplorn.com/ACT2002 Alaska Cruiser Trek 2003! http://www.xplorn.com/ACT2003 From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:39:56 +0200 On 27 Jul 2003 at 9:22, Jeff Zepp wrote: > Andrew Farmer wrote: > Won't work (tried it). The early seals fit in the outer w/bearing > lock nut. The new seals fit in the axle tube and have a different OD. > > In his case he already tried the early one and it didn't fit. At least > I assume it was the "early" style seal, because the part number he > posted was different. Are there THREE different rear axle seal styles > for FF rears? Anyway, like I posted, I know that 90310-35001 works for > 93-97 USA spec FJZ80s with FF rear and same vintage non-USA FF rears. > > As a brief aside for USA listers, according to my Toyota dealer's > parts system, not ALL 93-97 FZJ80s had FF rear. I've never seen an > FZJ80 that didn't, but that's what the parts system says. > > Jeff Zepp Don't think this was an 80-series, but a leaf-sprung J4/6/7. Otherwise he would never have had to search for one in Australia in the first place....plenty in the USA. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: Jeff Zepp To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 13:56:02 -0600 (GMT) Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: > Don't think this was an 80-series, but a leaf-sprung J4/6/7. > Otherwise he would never have had to search for one in Australia in the > first place....plenty in the USA. I figured it was probably a late (90's?) model 70 series axle housing which is why I posted the part number that I knew would work for these. They haven't sold Land Cruisers in Canada since the last FJ62 in 1990, so if you want a later FF rear you have to try somewhere other than North America. Most of the same vintage non-USA FF rear part numbers interchange with the USA spec FZJ80s as far as seals, gaskets and bearings go. It all depends on the vintage. Andrew was guessing it was an earlier vintage FF rear as from a 40 series before the spindle design changed. Jeff Zepp From: "Andrew Farmer" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:05:18 +1200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Zepp" Sent: 28 July 2003 7:56 AM Willem-Jan Markerink wrote: >> Don't think this was an 80-series, but a leaf-sprung J4/6/7. >> Otherwise he would never have had to search for one in Australia in the >> first place....plenty in the USA. > > I figured it was probably a late (90's?) model 70 series axle housing which > is why I posted the part number that I knew would work for these. They > haven't sold Land Cruisers in Canada since the last FJ62 in 1990, so if you > want a later FF rear you have to try somewhere other than North America. > Most of the same vintage non-USA FF rear part numbers interchange with the > USA spec FZJ80s as far as seals, gaskets and bearings go. It all depends on > the vintage. Andrew was guessing it was an earlier vintage FF rear as from a > 40 series before the spindle design changed. > > Jeff Zepp Pretty sure it was a 40, as he mentioned his seal fitted in the w/brg lock nut, which was changed on the later 40s and there after. Andrew Farmer FJ40 Wellington, New Zealand From: "Andrew Farmer" To: Subject: Re: Re: [LCML] FF axle seal Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:10:34 +1200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Zepp" Sent: 28 July 2003 3:22 AM > Andrew Farmer wrote: >> Won't work (tried it). The early seals fit in the outer w/bearing lock nut. >> The new seals fit in the axle tube and have a different OD. > > In his case he already tried the early one and it didn't fit. At least I > assume it was the "early" style seal, because the part number he posted was > different. Are there THREE different rear axle seal styles for FF rears? > Anyway, like I posted, I know that 90310-35001 works for 93-97 USA spec > FJZ80s with FF rear and same vintage non-USA FF rears. > > As a brief aside for USA listers, according to my Toyota dealer's parts > system, not ALL 93-97 FZJ80s had FF rear. I've never seen an FZJ80 that > didn't, but that's what the parts system says. > > Jeff Zepp The early seal fits in the w/brg locknut. The late seal fits in the axle tube. BUT - the early housing has a different diameter axle tube than the later housing, so you can't fit a late seal to an early housing. Or put early w/brg locknuts on a late housing. This is for 40 f/f rear diffs, they may have changed the seals on the later models. Hope this explains a bit better... Andrew Farmer FJ40 Wellington, New Zealand From: Jeff Zepp To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] was FF axle seal now FF upgrades Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:56:08 -0600 (GMT) Jeff Zepp wrote: >> As a brief aside for USA listers, according to my Toyota dealer's parts >> system, not ALL 93-97 FZJ80s had FF rear. I've never seen an FZJ80 that >> didn't, but that's what the parts system says. >> And Mark Whatley replied: >Nick Demerest's '93 FZJ80 came witha semi-floater. Disks or drums? Mountains States Toyota's system only shows drums for SF rear 80 series. I know of a non-USA 70 series FF rear with drums, and Christo and I are trying to figure out if an 80 series disk FF hub will interchange with a drum version. The dowel pin holes are elongiated and no longer hold their share of the torque from the axle flange, leaving the studs to break whenever they feel too stressed. Rob Mullen suggests upgrading to 8mm dowel pins from the stock 7mm, and of course Benno from down under suggests retapping the hub to accept m10 studs, same as knuckles. I think new hubs would be best, but perhaps all three? New hubs, 10mm studs and cone washers, and 8mm dowel pins. Where can an end mill be found to profile the holes for 10mm cone washers? Then maybe put the Lock Right back in there (been running open since Moab). I realize it's not Rockwells, but it seems that under some stress, stock components can use some upgrading. Jeff Zepp From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:18:28 +0200 On 10 Aug 2003 at 4:06, Dustin Fitch wrote: > How about factory FF FJ60 axles? Is there any difference in spline > count as opposed to semi-float 55's? I'm guessing not, as 55 carriers > are supposed to bolt in and be good to go. But if axle breakage did > occur, replacement would be quick and snappy. But for your situation, > Dana 60's would probably be the most bulletproof. Tons of people > have'em under cruisers, as well as 350's, which I've heard are lighter > than 2F's. I'd almost have to go with a V8 if I was sprung over on 37 > or 38's, and planning to swap in heavy Dana axles. By that time, > weight would'nt even really be that much of an issue, esp. if you had > the power to propel it, and the hardware to take the abuse. As for > trimming weight, do you know how much each tire/wheel weighs, and have > you made a comparison to that weight and the weight of an aluminum > wheel and your tire? How about finding a mid 90's wrecked Dodge > Cummins with a NV4500, and the axles you want. Swap everything out, > then you'd have one hell of a beast, and still have a inline six!! > Whoa!! Latre!~! Dustin 77 FJ 55 -- Another Toyota-only alternative: weld 80-series knuckles onto 60- series (front) axle. If possible find a later HJ60/61 front axle, those have a reinforced gusset running underneath the long-side half shaft (to cope with the larger weight). -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema From: Morgan Fletcher Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:07:36 -0700 writes: >> Another Toyota-only alternative: weld 80-series knuckles onto 60- series >> (front) axle. If possible find a later HJ60/61 front axle, those have a >> reinforced gusset running underneath the long-side half shaft (to cope >> with the larger weight). > > no need to bother looking/paying for the late axle, if you have the means > to weld knuckles you certqainly have the means to make your own gusset. I have an FJ62 housing in my garage, just harvested the diff and other parts from it. Any of you want it? I can deliver it to Mudrak for a cut-and-turn too if you want. A 60-series FF rear would be nice, but not a significant upgrade. Same diameter at the splines, which means same likelihood of breakage in the rear. I could get a little more stance, but if I'm gonna swap axles I'll go GM 1-ton. Also, I hate the idea of notching the pumpkin to run 40/45/55 springs on a J6 axle, and I don't like the other hacks to make it work either. 80-series knuckles have the steering arms on the wrong side of the knuckle. I know OTT makes a steering arm that goes on the top, but it's very expensive and there are only two bolts to hold it on. Christo Slee broke how many birfields at BHCC, in his 80-series buggy? I think it was 5. D60/14-bolt still sounds like the best combo... Morgan -- VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV >> Morgan Fletcher 63 FJ40, 76 FJ55, 94 FJ80 TLCA #5973, Oakland, CA << >> Illegitimi non carborundum http://www.birfield.com/~morgan << From: Wngrog@aol.com Message-ID: <1dc.f1860a5.2c68c603@aol.com> Subject: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema To: fj55@birfield.com Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 06:12:19 EDT In a message dated 8/11/2003 2:40:36 AM Central Daylight Time, leviticus@red-canyon.net writes: > So Nolen, what is the difference in diameter between the J60 FF axle shaft > and the J60 SF axle shaft? Having a FF actually smaller than a SF just seems > dumb to me. Where I come from, a FF is an indication of beef, not lighter > duty. Is there anyone out there making aftermarket FF axleshafts that are bigger > than stock, or at least stronger. > Full float axles are designed with 2 bearings holding the axle. This allows the axle to hold more PAYLOAD not have more actual strength. A FF Cruiser axle can haul more weight, but is smaller than a Semi Float. Thing is though, a Semi Float is the same size as a FF axle at the spider gears/locker, which is a weak point of a SF Cruiser axle. My 35 spline Semi Float Dana 60 is the same sixe throughout the length of the axle shaft, unlike a Cruiser axle that necks down to fit in a locker. There are two schools of thought on FF Cruiser axles, some think they are stronger, some don't. I personally like them a ton, but for the cost difference, you do not gain enough by switching them with SF Cruiser axles. Nolen Grogan From: nutsandbolts To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:32:30 -0700 > Full float axles are designed with 2 bearings holding the axle. This allows > the axle to hold more PAYLOAD not have more actual strength. > > A FF Cruiser axle can haul more weight, but is smaller than a Semi Float. > > Thing is though, a Semi Float is the same size as a FF axle at the spider > gears/locker, which is a weak point of a SF Cruiser axle. From my point of view I wonder if there are other factors involved in the strength issue. Since the SF necks down to the same diameter as the FF, it can be no stronger based on the weakest link factor. Since the weight of the vehicle is carried by the housing, the axle doesn't have to deal with that, but only torsion. A SF approaching critical load will flex, or try to flex only over the short section after it necks down if it approaches critical load. Since there isn't much room for this, it fails rather quickly; this is where Morgan's broke btw. A FF will have more axle length to distribute the torsion flex because of it's uniform size and will therefore handle greater torsion load, perhaps significantly more. At least that what it looks like to me. Make sense? john From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: fj55@birfield.com, landcruisers@birfield.com, dtlc@helios.net Subject: [FJ55] FF vs SF (was: Morgan's dilema Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:41:13 +0200 On 11 Aug 2003 at 8:32, nutsandbolts wrote: > From my point of view I wonder if there are other factors involved in > the strength issue. Since the SF necks down to the same diameter as > the FF, it can be no stronger based on the weakest link factor. Since > the weight of the vehicle is carried by the housing, the axle doesn't > have to deal with that, but only torsion. A SF approaching critical > load will flex, or try to flex only over the short section after it > necks down if it approaches critical load. Since there isn't much > room for this, it fails rather quickly; this is where Morgan's broke > btw. A FF will have more axle length to distribute the torsion flex > because of it's uniform size and will therefore handle greater torsion > load, perhaps significantly more. At least that what it looks like to > me. Make sense? That's my view too. While Toyota *might* have choosen the FF only for carrier-access reasons in case of factory LSD's, they did *not* have this argument in case of the factory locker, unless as an argument for the 4-spider design (not sure whether the LSD has 4). Yet all factory locked Cruisers come with a FF (the Hilux/4runner/Tacoma axle has a different design btw, being SF with locker; axle-retaining is done on the outside), so Toyota must have decided it was stronger, and probably not just for the 4 spiders only (do the 3-spiders in the ARB-locker ever fail??). All that said: it might still not be strong enough for a certain application, but at least it's stronger than the SF. Note that this doesn't say anything about increased maintenance or related vulnerable parts either....there is a subtle difference between bulletproof and foolproof....;)) [*] starting with HJ61, most German HJ61's have FF because of this, but *not* because of lockers! (wasn't an option there, nor in Holland) Btw, for those new to the subject, tons more info & opinion from various lists has been collected in this file: http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/tlc_axle.htm Think I'll add this thread too, don't think this argument of weakest- link/smallest diameter/same-spline-diameter & compound-stress was used before. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Cc: "Morgan Fletcher" Subject: Re: [LCML] FF vs SF (was: Morgan's dilema Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:14:53 -0600 >> From my point of view I wonder if there are other factors involved in >> the strength issue. Since the SF necks down to the same diameter as >> the FF, it can be no stronger based on the weakest link factor. Since >That's my view too. >While Toyota *might* have choosen the FF only for carrier-access >reasons in case of factory LSD's, they did *not* have this argument >in case of the factory locker, unless as an argument for the 4-spider >design (not sure whether the LSD has 4). >Yet all factory locked Cruisers come with a FF (the >Hilux/4runner/Tacoma axle has a different design btw, being SF with >locker; axle-retaining is done on the outside), so Toyota must have >decided it was stronger, and probably not just for the 4 spiders only >(do the 3-spiders in the ARB-locker ever fail??). > >All that said: it might still not be strong enough for a certain >application, but at least it's stronger than the SF. As Nolen mentioned in the thread on your web site, not stronger from breaking, just twice as much bearings for handling more payload. That's a heck of a thread BTW, I only had time to read a portion of it. >Note that this doesn't say anything about increased maintenance or >related vulnerable parts either....there is a subtle difference >between bulletproof and foolproof....;)) Boy is THAT an understatement! >[*] starting with HJ61, most German HJ61's have FF because of this, >but *not* because of lockers! >(wasn't an option there, nor in Holland) I don't know if it's true, but I have heard a rumor that the reason Toyota made the FF rear for 40s at all was for the Aussie market. It's a legal requirement down under. FF rears are available in USA for some years of Hiluxs, duallies. >Btw, for those new to the subject, tons more info & opinion from >various lists has been collected in this file: > >http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/tlc_axle.htm > >Think I'll add this thread too, don't think this argument of weakest- >link/smallest diameter/same-spline-diameter & compound-stress was >used before. Willem-Jan, did Morgan break a rear FF axle on his pig? I know he isn't on the LCML any more, but appears to be on the pig list. FWIW, I have broken a (previously stressed) FF rear axle, but never a SF. I have seen a number of SFs break, and it's always near the splines where they enter whatever locker the rig is running. The smallest diameter, as noted. I have the SF axles out of my 76 FJ40 right now, and the other night I was staring at them wondering in my head, why they are such a large diameter at the hub/seal. Of course the smaller inner part of diameter of both SF and FF axles is for compatibility at the side gear/locker end in the diff. For those who are contemplating FF rear for the possibility that they are stronger on the trail, they are not, they can not handle any more torsion than a SF, they can only handle more payload. For those who are contemplating them for the "safety" that if an axle breaks your wheel doesn't fall off, well, that's true, but if the bearings go out then the wheel can fall off, seen it happen. If you break your pinion with a rear FF as I have done, it is helpful that you don't have to fish the pinion out to allow the wheels to turn. My experience with FF rears is that maintenance is a PITA, and if you run locked with low gears and big tires you are asking for trouble with the dowel pins and studs shearing. There are workarounds for these issues, but it's still a weak point of the design for carrying torsion. My FF rear has saved me from having to do more extensive trailside repairs than would otherwise be the case a couple times, and it has also caused me trouble from the dowel pins and studs that I have never had with SFs. Jeff Zepp Kittredge CO USA 1971 (Moab Tested!) & 1976 (Under Construction) FJ40s Rising Sun 4WD Club/TLCA #4063 http://members.aol.com/jeffzepp From: TomQ To: "DTLC (E-mail)" , "LC Mainlist (E-mail)" Subject: [DTLC] FF axle oil seal fix Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:32:02 -0700 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Hi all, Remember I was trying to put a Toyota locker in a "old" FF axle? I ordered the new axle with the long splines on it so it would work with the locker. The problem was that the stock oil seal (the one that fits into the nut) would not work with the new axle. It seems that the new axle was a little smaller (just where the oil seal was) then my old axle was. Well went to a mega seal distributor and they found one that will work. The seal is from CR (Chicago Rawhide) and is number 14157. 36mm inside, 47mm outside, 7mm thick, with a lip of MHSA7 (what ever that means). Just posting it so it is in the archives... TomQ, Alameda,CA #3169, KG6EUW '72 FJ55 Under Restoration '73 FJ40 2F FI, H55F To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema From: Morgan Fletcher Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:49:47 -0700 "Dustin Fitch" writes: > I've been wanting to go with J60 axles for awhile, but did'nt know that > the pumpkin was pushed out more due to the long side being longer. For > some reason I figured the added length was distributed evenly on both > sides. I definitly would not want to go through the hassle of making > outboard spring and shackle mounts. Argh! The short side inner shaft of an FJ40/FJ45/FJ55 is the same shaft as the short inner on FJ60/FJ62s. > So Nolen, what is the difference in diameter between the J60 FF axle > shaft and the J60 SF axle shaft? Having a FF actually smaller than a SF > just seems dumb to me. Where I come from, a FF is an indication of beef, > not lighter duty. Is there anyone out there making aftermarket FF > axleshafts that are bigger than stock, or at least stronger. I'm not Nolen, but both shafts are the same diameter where they enter the splined side gears of the differential. Since the differentials are basically the same, that makes sense. The semi-floater axle shaft is maybe 7mm thicker for most of its length, before it necks down right before the shafts, whereas the FF shaft is the same consistent thickness for its entire length. > Oh yeah, this one is for Morgan himself. What was your pig equiped with > when you were only running 33's, as far as lockers, and gearing? Did you > break much way back in those good 'ol days? Open front, no-slip rear, and no I didn't break much. But for my first time through the Rubicon I was basically surfing the rocks. Luckily I had low gears, good protection and power steering. That was with an SUA pig on 33s. :) Morgan -- VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV >> Morgan Fletcher 63 FJ40, 76 FJ55, 94 FJ80 TLCA #5973, Oakland, CA << >> Illegitimi non carborundum http://www.birfield.com/~morgan << From: nutsandbolts To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 08:32:30 -0700 > Full float axles are designed with 2 bearings holding the axle. This allows > the axle to hold more PAYLOAD not have more actual strength. > > A FF Cruiser axle can haul more weight, but is smaller than a Semi Float. > > Thing is though, a Semi Float is the same size as a FF axle at the spider > gears/locker, which is a weak point of a SF Cruiser axle. From my point of view I wonder if there are other factors involved in the strength issue. Since the SF necks down to the same diameter as the FF, it can be no stronger based on the weakest link factor. Since the weight of the vehicle is carried by the housing, the axle doesn't have to deal with that, but only torsion. A SF approaching critical load will flex, or try to flex only over the short section after it necks down if it approaches critical load. Since there isn't much room for this, it fails rather quickly; this is where Morgan's broke btw. A FF will have more axle length to distribute the torsion flex because of it's uniform size and will therefore handle greater torsion load, perhaps significantly more. At least that what it looks like to me. Make sense? john From: To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 1:12:21 -0400 > > So Nolen, what is the difference in diameter between the J60 FF axle shaft > > and the J60 SF axle shaft? > > Thing is though, a Semi Float is the same size as a FF axle at the spider > gears/locker, which is a weak point of a SF Cruiser axle. > > My 35 spline Semi Float Dana 60 is the same sixe throughout the length of the > axle shaft, unlike a Cruiser axle that necks down to fit in a locker. lets think about all this a little differently, lets not say the SF axle ne= cks down. lets say the SF axle gets bigger instead. heres my point, a FF sh= aft does not carry the weight of the rig, hence the size being the same thr= oughout, 1.3 " at both ends. the SF shaft on the other hand does carry the rigs weight, so it will leave= the carrier at 1.3" and get bigger to about 1.5" the rest of its length. t= his is simply to beef the shaft at the bearing end where the load is. now heres where some of the argumant comes in, some ppl say the SF axle is = weaker cause it necks down, but where it is necked down it is 1.3", same as= the FF. so, which is stronger?? i think in this example the weight of the rig is more critical than the tir= e size because a heavy rig will tend to bend or bind the SF shaft putting s= tress inside near the carrier which seems to be where they always break. bu= t the same heavy rig will distribute its load evenly over the FF shaft beca= use there is no fulcrum effect. clay From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: fj55@birfield.com, landcruisers@birfield.com, dtlc@helios.net Subject: [FJ55] SF vs FF (was: Morgan's dilema Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:46:22 +0200 On 14 Aug 2003 at 1:12, shavedape@cox.net wrote: > > > > So Nolen, what is the difference in diameter between the J60 FF > > > axle shaft and the J60 SF axle shaft? > > > Thing is though, a Semi Float is the same size as a FF axle at the > > spider gears/locker, which is a weak point of a SF Cruiser axle. > > > > My 35 spline Semi Float Dana 60 is the same sixe throughout the > > length of the axle shaft, unlike a Cruiser axle that necks down to > > fit in a locker. > > lets think about all this a little differently, lets not say the SF > axle necks down. lets say the SF axle gets bigger instead. heres my > point, a FF shaft does not carry the weight of the rig, hence the size > being the same throughout, 1.3 " at both ends. the SF shaft on the > other hand does carry the rigs weight, so it will leave the carrier at > 1.3" and get bigger to about 1.5" the rest of its length. this is > simply to beef the shaft at the bearing end where the load is. now > heres where some of the argumant comes in, some ppl say the SF axle is > weaker cause it necks down, but where it is necked down it is 1.3", > same as the FF. so, which is stronger?? i think in this example the > weight of the rig is more critical than the tire size because a heavy > rig will tend to bend or bind the SF shaft putting stress inside near > the carrier which seems to be where they always break. but the same > heavy rig will distribute its load evenly over the FF shaft because > there is no fulcrum effect. Another argument why weight *is* much more relevant than torque only: Chances of snapping a halfshaft are largest uphill, with the tire climing a near vertical object, according to Murphy with the other wheel hanging in the air. At that moment, more than 50% of the vehicle weight rests on that single halfshaft. Add double/triple/quadruple torque over stock, and Murphy starts smiling....:)) Btw, a stock HDJ-100 with factory lockers can put about 20.000Nm on that single shaft.... (divide by 1.36 for ft-lbs) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: fj55@birfield.com Subject: Re: [FJ55] Re: Morgan's dilema From: Morgan Fletcher Reply-To: fj55@birfield.com Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 08:28:40 -0700 writes: > lets think about all this a little differently, lets not say the SF axle > necks down. lets say the SF axle gets bigger instead. heres my point, a > FF shaft does not carry the weight of the rig, hence the size being the > same throughout, 1.3 " at both ends. the SF shaft on the other hand does > carry the rigs weight, so it will leave the carrier at 1.3" and get > bigger to about 1.5" the rest of its length. this is simply to beef the > shaft at the bearing end where the load is. now heres where some of the > argumant comes in, some ppl say the SF axle is weaker cause it necks > down, but where it is necked down it is 1.3", same as the FF. so, which > is stronger?? i think in this example the weight of the rig is more > critical than the tire size because a heavy rig will tend to bend or bind > the SF shaft putting stress inside near the carrier which seems to be > where they always break. but the same heavy rig will distribute its load > evenly over the FF shaft because there is no fulcrum effect. Clay, you are a smart guy and you have lots of experience. But I've got to disagree on the vehicle weight being a factor for SF rear axle shaft breakage. The fulcrum you speak of is so close to the downward vector (rummaging through what's left of high-school physics in the sieve that is my brain) that the upward force exerted at the diff is not great. Additionally, the inner shaft is so securely anchored in the side gears that there is no upward motion possible. I think that for the weight to play a factor in breakage at the splines, motion would first be involved. I don't think upward tension is enough to make a difference. Every broken rear axle shaft I've seen has either shattered or twisted at the splines, and both of mine failed in situations of extreme torque. Both involved the vehicle attempting to climb a very steep slope on very rough terrain, so that more force was required for the rear wheels to push the vehicle up the slope. The second one failed when the side that remained unbroken - and thus was getting all the power - was trapped behind a rock bigger than the tire. http://www.birfield.com/~morgan/20030712-13_rubicon/img_4954-md.jpg (At the time I thought I had a broken locker rather than a broken axle shaft, and my spotter convinced me to try to drive out of my stuck, against my judgement.) The idea that the FF shaft is better able to handle the twist along its uniform length than the necked-down SF shaft kinda feels right to me, but I don't think the weight-bearing aspect of SF shafts contributes to their failure, when the failure is at the splines. But what do I know? Morgan -- VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV >> Morgan Fletcher 63 FJ40, 76 FJ55, 94 FJ80 TLCA #5973, Oakland, CA << >> Illegitimi non carborundum http://www.birfield.com/~morgan << From: Sean Bybee To: landcruisers@birfield.com, dtlc@helios.net Subject: [LCML] rear FF studs Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:37:05 -0800 I've read on Pirate and in archives about rear FF axle to hub studs can sheer off if the nuts come loose. Anyway, what do you guys think of using these to help alleviate the problem? http://www.nord-lock.com/ Also, would using 10mm class 12.9 help too? Thanks, Sean From: Herb Peyerl To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] rear FF studs Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 05:52:30 -0600 On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 10:37:05PM -0800, Sean Bybee wrote: > I've read on Pirate and in archives about rear FF axle to hub studs can > sheer off if the nuts come loose. Anyway, what do you guys think of using > these to help alleviate the problem? > > http://www.nord-lock.com/ > > Also, would using 10mm class 12.9 help too? I doubt you could get an M10 bolt in there. Not enough meat... They really are a PITA (FF)'s... I've not broken a stud but I've had the nuts come loose. I found that even grade-8 lock washers would spread apart and fly across the room while torquing down the nuts on the studs. I finally bought some high-collar lock washers and my problems went away. I also switched to an open center unit and that really made everything better... I mostly dislike my FF but I gotta say, my '40 with a rear SF has a broken wheel stud right now and, without looking into it, I think I need to jack the truck up, drain the diff fluid, pull the diff cover, pull the c-clip, pull out the axle shaft, change the stud, and then put it all together.... It's not the 10 minute job that it would be on a FF... Though it does speak volumes when I know ever piece in my FF rear axle but that I've never been inside a SF in my whole life... From: "Gary Breitbach" To: Subject: [LCML] re: rear FF studs Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 07:53:12 -0700 I've not had any problems with my studs in several years. I use self locki= ng nuts. Now the axle seals are a different story for me... And as far as Wayne not thinking FF are what they are cracked up to be, wel= l that puts FF in the same class as disk brakes and flexible suspensions. = How much more encouragement do you need to go out and get one for your self= ? :-) They are stronger, much more easily serviced, allow greater freedom in lock= er choices, and you don't have to leave your truck all alone out in the mid= dle of nowhere with a implied "spare parts here" sign after braking an axle= . I'm still a little sensitive to leaving my LC alone out of sight :-(. Gary Breitbach / KD7TGF breitbach@comcast.net TLCA# 6227 '76 FJ40 Portland (Cedar Mill), Oregon -- From: Sean Bybee Subject: RE: [LCML] re: rear FF studs To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 07:29:19 -0800 > I've not had any problems with my studs in several years. I > use self locking nuts. Now the axle seals are a different > story for me... What size of tires and what locker are you running? What do you think of the nord-locks? From: "Peter Straub" To: Subject: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:28:39 -0600 having owned both, here's the facts about FF vs. SF rear ends. Yes, believe it or not, I am going to do a fair assesment for a change... FF is Good for... Carrying more weight without risking breaking an axle shaft. towing more weight without risking breaking an axle shaft. If you do break any part in your axle, you can still drive home without a spare part (I drove from Tok, AK to Leduc, AB on a broken axle!!!) Putting heavy tires onto the studs. Easier maintenance to wheel studs and bearings. FF is Bad for... Requires more maintenance (wheel bearings, seals... same problems that the front axle has) *If* you run a welfare locker (i.e. a non-selectable locker), then the studs are guaranteed to will work themselves loose. If the studs work loose for any reason, then the dowels can work themselves out and if the if the dowels fall out, you'll shear off the studs. The good news is that if this happens, you say, damn. You throw the axle in the back of the truck, turn on your locker, and keep driving. For those that think that stronger studs are the way to go, you are mistaken. The studs do not carry much of the torque. It's the dowels you need. As long as you have both dowels securely in place, you should be OK. The front axle actually captures the dowels under the selectable hub housing so you can never loose them. The rear FF axles have no such captured dowels, and they can work themselves out and disappear. that's why you hear about rar FF axles shearing the studs, but never front FF axles. Peter Straub From: "bmccoin" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:03:42 -0400 > -----Original Message----- > ................. > For those that think that stronger studs are the way to go, you are > mistaken. The studs do not carry much of the torque. It's the dowels you > need. As long as you have both dowels securely in place, you should be OK. > The front axle actually captures the dowels under the selectable hub housing > so you can never loose them. The rear FF axles have no such captured dowels, > and they can work themselves out and disappear. that's why you hear about > rar FF axles shearing the studs, but never front FF axles. > Peter Straub So why not "cap" the dowels so that can't fall out? From: Jeff Zepp To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 11:05:05 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Peter Straub wrote: > having owned both, here's the facts about FF vs. SF rear ends. Yes, believe > it or not, I am going to do a fair assesment for a change... I also own both, and have a few things to add. My FF runs on 35s and (had) = a lock right. Peter is right on the money about everything he wrote, includ= ing sheared studs; I have broken so many I keep a "rear axle kit" in my spa= res. Includes left hand drill bits, taps and helicoils, along with spare st= uds, dowel pins, cone washers, nuts and split washers. Getting the boken pi= eces out can be a chore, but I have done it so many times I have gotten pre= tty good at it. I have broken a rear FF axle. I finished the trail and back to camp in 3 wh= eel drive, drove home (360 miles on the highway) in one wheel drive. When = I broke a pinion I didn't have to fish the pinion out to get the wheels to = turn, just pull the axle shafts and tossed 'em in the back. I have never broken a SF, but have seen a number of them. The carnage at Mo= ab each year can be fairly spectacular. You name it, someone's broken it. M= ost recently, I broke my lock right, it got jammed up in something and all = my studs and both dowel pins sheared. Half shaft came flying out. This time= , I put spiders and side gears back in, and have had no problems since runn= ing open. As Peter says, selectable locker is absolutely necessary for the = cruiser FF design. That's probably why you don't see the cruiser FFs having= problems on 80s. There's a lister in Oz named Benno who says he fixed his stud problem by ta= pping to m10 and using unbreakos. So there is enough meat there (barely). R= ob Mullen suggested increasing dowel pin size from 7mm to 8mm. I haven't tr= ied either of these approaches but they must work for somebody. The stud/dowel problem in the cruiser FF design is real, but I believe it i= s mainly from oversize tires, autolocker and low gears. Take away the auto = locker or the over sized tires and it isn't much of a problem. But, the way= Christo Slee wheels his 80s, I am sure it's just a matter of time before h= e breaks one though :-) Jeff Zepp From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 11:08:35 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Straub" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:28 AM Subject: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles > having owned both, here's the facts about FF vs. SF rear ends. Yes, believe > it or not, I am going to do a fair assesment for a change... > > FF is Good for... > Carrying more weight without risking breaking an axle shaft. > towing more weight without risking breaking an axle shaft. > If you do break any part in your axle, you can still drive home without a > spare part (I drove from Tok, AK to Leduc, AB on a broken axle!!!) > Putting heavy tires onto the studs. > Easier maintenance to wheel studs and bearings. > > FF is Bad for... > Requires more maintenance (wheel bearings, seals... same problems that the > front axle has) > *If* you run a welfare locker (i.e. a non-selectable locker), then the studs > are guaranteed to will work themselves loose. > If the studs work loose for any reason, then the dowels can work themselves > out and if the if the dowels fall out, you'll shear off the studs. > > The good news is that if this happens, you say, damn. You throw the axle in > the back of the truck, turn on your locker, and keep driving. > > For those that think that stronger studs are the way to go, you are > mistaken. The studs do not carry much of the torque. It's the dowels you > need. As long as you have both dowels securely in place, you should be OK. > The front axle actually captures the dowels under the selectable hub housing > so you can never loose them. The rear FF axles have no such captured dowels, > and they can work themselves out and disappear. that's why you hear about > rar FF axles shearing the studs, but never front FF axles. > > Peter Straub nice fair assessment. i have had the front come loose also. both when i ran the lock rite and the welded in the front...i also sheered one (yes, only once) off when turning the tires at a high rate of speed in the snow and grabbed some dry ground with the passenger tire... took the axle end, hub right off...interesting to see. Wayne www.crushersrule.com http://www.luxuryimports.ca/index.html have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? Calgary Alberta Canada From: Sean Bybee Subject: RE: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...unbreakos & dowel pin To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:49:43 -0800 > There's a lister in Oz named Benno who says he fixed his stud > problem by tapping to m10 and using unbreakos. So there is > enough meat there (barely). Rob Mullen suggested increasing > dowel pin size from 7mm to 8mm. I haven't tried either of > these approaches but they must work for somebody. What are unbreakos? Are they bolts or studs? What would one use to replace the dowel pins? Aren't they a hardened steel? Sean From: Herb Peyerl To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:24:23 -0600 On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 06:45:28PM -0800, Sean Bybee wrote: > So, what do guys think of the nord-lock lock nuts? Seams like they would > help prevent the nuts on the studs from coming loose in the first place Possibly. You're better off starting with making sure your dowel pins don't go anywhere... Don't use a non-selectable locker. You can invest in those nuts and see how well they work. So far the high-collar lock washers are working wonders for me and they're cheap and readily available. From: Sean Bybee Subject: RE: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:26:42 -0800 > -----Original Message----- > From: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com > [mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com] On Behalf Of Herb Peyerl > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:24 PM > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 06:45:28PM -0800, Sean Bybee wrote: > > So, what do guys think of the nord-lock lock nuts? Seams like they > > would help prevent the nuts on the studs from coming loose in the > > first place > > Possibly. You're better off starting with making sure your > dowel pins don't go anywhere... Don't use a non-selectable > locker. You can invest in those nuts and see how well they > work. So far the high-collar lock washers are working > wonders for me and they're cheap and readily available. Are they just ordinary high-grad/class washers? From: Herb Peyerl To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:52:23 -0600 On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:26:42PM -0800, Sean Bybee wrote: > Are they just ordinary high-grad/class washers? Not sure. I went to the fastener shop that I trust implicitely and explained my problem. They said "Oh, you need some high- collar lock washers"... So that's what I got. They're black, look like spring-steel, are thicker than your traditional M8 locks, but don't have as much 'surface area' when looking at the bolt/nut contact face... Does that make sense? This picture looks about right: http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/WASHCWS.cfm Or this photograph: http://www.scottnet.com/Catalog/25980_page.htm From: "Gary Breitbach" To: Subject: [LCML] re: rear FF studs Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 21:08:35 -0700 >> I've not had any problems with my studs in several years. I >> use self locking nuts. Now the axle seals are a different >> story for me... > >What size of tires and what locker are you running? > >What do you think of the nord-locks? I'm running 35x12.5s and I ran a lock rite for a while, and the last three = years I've been running Toyota electrics front and rear. Not familiar with nord-locks, but if they are the ones I just looked at las= t night, the two pieces washers, they looked like they should work. I did = not quite picture the delta angle alpha and beta they were talking about, i= t looked to my like tightening slid down ramps, and loosening would have to= step over the ledges, and the whole thing relied on the knurls top and bot= tom to grip the nut and stationary surface, not a lot different from regula= r lock washers. I think the knurled surfaces will rotate before the center= gap steps over the ledges, so the two parts will be very similar to a soli= d washer, relying on the outside surfaces for grip. I would still opt for = locking nuts and proper torque. Locktite may be a good idea too, but I use= anti-seize on all my bolts, so I don't use locktite. Gary Breitbach / KD7TGF breitbach@comcast.net TLCA# 6227 '76 FJ40 Portland (Cedar Mill), Oregon -- From: Herb Peyerl To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 22:11:40 -0600 On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 08:02:16PM -0800, Sean Bybee wrote: > BTW, what size of tires and what kind of locker are running? 33x12.5's and I was running a Lincoln Locker but pulled it and have been running open for a couple years now... Had lots of problems with a FF in conjunction with the Lincoln Locker. Only minor problems with nuts loosening themselves since switching to open until I got the high- collar locks... No problems since then. From: "Gary Breitbach" To: Subject: [LCML] re:The Truth About FF rear axles Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:29:27 -0700 Hummm, since I don't seem to know about all these problems, I should probably mention a point about mine. Mine is not the Toyota FF, it is the Warn FF conversion. In four years, with an easylocker (not lockrite, sorry) for about a year and Toyota electrics for the rest, and 35s, my only problems are as follows: First year I blew four of the Warn premium hubs, which they replaced each time for free, then finally got me drive flanges instead of the selectable hubs. I have not had a problem since. Two long axles warped on me, I think they had a problem with their annealing process. They tried to tell me my axle housing was bent, but I had the ability to prove to them their axles were not straight, so they replaced them both. The axle seals have been a problem, but they have finally come up with a double seal, and I polished the seal surface on the axle myself. Warn did not, and claimed it was not necessary, but I don't believe it. The one side I've done this on has not leaked in over a year, a good sign for me. Still have the other side to do. Other than dealing with the infancy failures in the beginning, no problems in the last two years or so, I don't know that they will need any more maintenance then my SF required. I'm sure the bearing in the SF axle needs to be serviced at some time, and the wheel bearings on the FF are easier to get to. Other than that, what other service is required? Well there is servicing the third member, I never did have to service my SF axles, but I did have to service my third member as few times, and the FF makes a very noticeable difference in that. I remember Mudrack pulling a bad lockrite out of the back of someone's rig on Rubicon, and putting in a set of spiders he had. There were a couple winches setup and people holding on to a couple high lift jacks trying to keep the rig in the air and off of Mudrack. None of that suspension engineering, danger or putting everything back away would have been necessary with a FF. I don't know about pins and breaking bolts, I have a large very thick collar welded to the end of the axle tube with four gussets that brace this collar to the tube. Six 3/8" bolts hold the spindle to this collar. The spindle also has a machined portion that slips into the axle housing a little bit with an O-ring on it. The disk brake bracket is sandwiched between the spindle and the collar. The axle itself is a 4340 alloy (so is the drive flange), much stronger than stock, and is a larger diameter than the SF axle without any necked up or down portions (stress risers). I believe the Toyota FF axle is a smaller diameter than the SF axle because the design did not require as strong an axle. So, I'm not familiar with the Toyota FF axle, but I am with the Warn kit for the LC, and it is a modification I would do again. The design of the FF is much better than the SF, and Warn's implementation is pretty stout. And true, unless you have a big V8, there is little chance you will break the stock SF axle, but the improved serviceability of the third member, and the ability to drive away from a broken axle (not too likely) or a broken third member (pretty likely) are well worth it to me. Unfortunately one of my original motivating factors with going with the Warn axles and suspension was that I would never have to pay for breakage in those areas again. I fully intend to be driving this same rig for 50 more years. I'm still a bit miffed that Warn bailed on that part of the original agreement. Gary Breitbach / KD7TGF breitbach@comcast.net TLCA# 6227 '76 FJ40 Portland (Cedar Mill), Oregon -- From: Sean Bybee Subject: RE: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:05:59 -0800 > -----Original Message----- > From: landcruisers-admin@birfield.com > [mailto:landcruisers-admin@birfield.com] On Behalf Of Dominic > von St=F6sser > Has anyone considered drilling another two holes for another > pair of dowel pins? > > And yeah: if you can, use a selectable locker. My company's > fleet of HZJ7xs all runs FF rears, and they see *heavy* use. > Most of them are locked, but with ARB or OEM; we've had > absolutely no problems with the FF axles ever due to dowel > pin/stud issues. > > Cheers - > > dom You would have to drill two more holes in the axle end flange too. I would think this would be difficult as the axles are hardened, AFAIK. Sean From: Sean Bybee To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: [LCML] RE: [LCML]FF rear axles...replacement dowel pins & studs/bolts Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 15:38:27 -0800 > The stud/dowel problem in the cruiser FF design is real, but > I believe it is mainly from oversize tires, autolocker and > low gears. Take away the auto locker or the over sized tires > and it isn't much of a problem. But, the way Christo Slee > wheels his 80s, I am sure it's just a matter of time before > he breaks one though :-) > > Jeff Zepp Well I did a search on unbrakos and they're rated to about 190,000 psi. Class 12.9 studs/bolts tensile strength is 177,000 psi. Now as fare as replacement dowel pins, what would one make them out of? Chromoly or maybe even 300M? What that be strong enough? Sean From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:45:27 -0600 Sean Bybee wrote > > Well I did a search on unbrakos and they're rated to about 190,000 psi. > Class 12.9 studs/bolts tensile strength is 177,000 psi. > > Now as fare as replacement dowel pins, what would one make them out of? > Chromoly or maybe even 300M? What that be strong enough? > > Sean You would have to drill two more holes in the axle end flange too. I would think this would be difficult as the axles are hardened, AFAIK. The axle flanges are not hardened, only the shafts. They could be drilled. To do it properly it would have to be done on an index. Jeff Zepp Kittredge CO USA Rising Sun 4WD Club/TLCA #4063 http://members.aol.com/jeffzepp From: "Jeff Zepp" To: Subject: Re: [LCML] RE: [LCML]FF rear axles...replacement dowel pins & studs/bolts Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:50:38 -0600 Sean Bybee wrote: >Well I did a search on unbrakos and they're rated to about 190,000 psi. >Class 12.9 studs/bolts tensile strength is 177,000 psi. > >Now as fare as replacement dowel pins, what would one make them out of? >Chromoly or maybe even 300M? What that be strong enough? They are case hardened steel, not any exotic alloy. They are hard on the outside, but soft on the inside. When they shear, you can get a drill bit to bite into the sheared end and out they come. The hub itself is just mild steel. Jeff Zepp Kittredge CO USA Rising Sun 4WD Club/TLCA #4063 http://members.aol.com/jeffzepp From: Sean Bybee Subject: RE: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:54:37 -0800 > The axle flanges are not hardened, only the shafts. They > could be drilled. To do it properly it would have to be done > on an index. > > Jeff Zepp > Kittredge CO USA > Rising Sun 4WD Club/TLCA #4063 > http://members.aol.com/jeffzepp > Ok, I'm dumb, what do you mean exactly? What does it mean to do it "on an index"? Sean To: landcruisers@birfield.com From: Dave Stedman Subject: RE: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles...nord-locks Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:11:51 +0900 >Ok, I'm dumb, what do you mean exactly? What does it mean to do it "on an >index"? An index is a device for rotating things a specific amount. So if you wanted three new holes you would mount the axle in an index and locate the first hole, then drill it and then crank the index 120 degrees for the next one. I would also like to add that the pin will only take load if it is a tight and straight fit to the hole. So drilling in your driveway with the old black and decker is right out of the question. Sean unless you are getting consistent failures in this area forget about going to all this trouble. I do not foresee you having problems with you axles since they have cable lockers. All of the guys here that run cable lockers run the stock axle outer bits and I have never seen a part made to replace them. If it was prone to failure some Japanese guy would be selling a kit for $1000 for sure. Dave Stedman Kakogawa Japan N 34=B0 45' 45.2" E 134=B0 52'22.3" stedman@ans.kobe-u.ac.jp stedman@canada.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: landcruisers@birfield.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 03:55:57 +0200 On 8 Oct 2003 at 13:03, bmccoin wrote: > So why not "cap" the dowels so that can't fall out? Would a wire-lock not be strong enough? That's how they secured nuts and bolts in the old days too.... -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] To: landcruisers@birfield.com From: Mike Keith Subject: RE: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:05:57 -0500 At 08:55 PM 10/13/2003, you wrote: >LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > >On 8 Oct 2003 at 13:03, bmccoin wrote: > > > So why not "cap" the dowels so that can't fall out? > >Would a wire-lock not be strong enough? > >That's how they secured nuts and bolts in the old days too.... > >-- >Bye, > >Willem-Jan Markerink Willem, Safety wiring nuts and bolts is still the preferred method for flight controls on most aircraft. If it works for that I think it'd work just fine on any cruiser. When I redid my 2F I Lock wired all the rod and main cap nuts. For the dowels on the rear of the full floater I think that a thin piece of sheet metal cut to the same size as the hub and drilled for the lugs and place between the hub and wheel would keep any dowel from working out. Mike -- From: Herb Peyerl To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:04:37 -0600 LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 09:05:57PM -0500, Mike Keith wrote: > Safety wiring nuts and bolts is still the preferred method for flight > controls on most aircraft. If it works for that I think it'd work just > fine on any cruiser. When I redid my 2F I Lock wired all the rod and main > cap nuts. For the dowels on the rear of the full floater I think that a > thin piece of sheet metal cut to the same size as the hub and drilled for > the lugs and place between the hub and wheel would keep any dowel from > working out. ok. This isn't as complex as all that but I'm wondering why we're bothering with studs/nuts when we could just be using bolts? Keep the cone washers (cursed things), take the studs out, and put bolts in... hmm.. maybe that wouldn't work because of the cone washers compressing against the bolts.... From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 06:33:44 -0600 my understanding of the wire locks was 2 fold, one to prvent the nuts or bolts from turning and secondly if they did turn then the wire would be slightly off showing a problem was occuring... Herb, i have used bolts in the past for the FF rear and had good success. Wayne www.crushersrule.com http://www.luxuryimports.ca/index.html have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? Calgary Alberta Canada From: Herb Peyerl To: landcruisers@birfield.com Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:40:43 -0600 On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 06:33:44AM -0600, Wayne Smith wrote: > Herb, i have used bolts in the past for the FF rear and had good success. With cone-washers or without? From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] The Truth About FF rear axles To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:43:38 -0600 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Peyerl" Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 7:40 AM > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 06:33:44AM -0600, Wayne Smith wrote: > > Herb, i have used bolts in the past for the FF rear and had good success. > > With cone-washers or without? > with Wayne www.crushersrule.com http://www.luxuryimports.ca/index.html have you laughed 8^)) at a jeep, lately? Calgary Alberta Canada Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:02:06 -0500 From: "Dave Tay" To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: [DTLC] FF rear hub failures Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net With all the talk on the various boards of upgrading the rear FF hub studs to 10 mm, I thought I'd share a personal observation. When I rebuilt my rear axle (mostly Austalian 160,000km) I saw rust at the point where the studs enter the hub. The dowel pins were involved to a degree but not as severely: http://home.comcast.net/~dtay/rusted_studs_FF.JPG It seems that the space under the cone washer tends to trap moisture on vehicles used under severe conditions and the studs get severely weakened by the rust. After wire brushing the rust off, intact steel remaining on the stud is reduced by quite a bit: http://home.comcast.net/~dtay/Rusted_FF_studs.JPG I know that some people believe the hub failures are related to the dowel pins as they carry most of the load. But could Toyota have realized this problem and upgraded these studs to 10 mm in the 100/78/79 series? I replaced all the studs with new 8mm ones from Toyota, but I am contemplating on using the 78/79 series 10 mm studs if I can locate the correct countersink drill bit for the hub and axle shaft flanges. Your opinion please? Dave Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:26:27 +1100 From: Brian Monger Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF rear hub failures To: dtlc@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Dave Tay wrote: >With all the talk on the various boards of upgrading the rear FF hub studs to >10 mm, I thought I'd share a personal observation. When I rebuilt my rear axle >(mostly Austalian 160,000km) I saw rust at the point where the studs enter the >hub. The dowel pins were involved to a degree but not as severely: > >http://home.comcast.net/~dtay/rusted_studs_FF.JPG > >It seems that the space under the cone washer tends to trap moisture on >vehicles used under severe conditions and the studs get severely weakened by >the rust. After wire brushing the rust off, intact steel remaining on the stud >is reduced by quite a bit: > >http://home.comcast.net/~dtay/Rusted_FF_studs.JPG > >I know that some people believe the hub failures are related to the dowel pins >as they carry most of the load. But could Toyota have realized this problem and >upgraded these studs to 10 mm in the 100/78/79 series? > >I replaced all the studs with new 8mm ones from Toyota, but I am contemplating >on using the 78/79 series 10 mm studs if I can locate the correct countersink >drill bit for the hub and axle shaft flanges. > >Your opinion please? > >Dave Dave, I have performed this modification on a HZJ75 while I was doing a springover. the 10mm studs are available aftermarket from Don Kyatt. for the drill, I took a regular high speed steel countersink bit and ground it to the correct taper for the cone washers, and hand cut new clearances for the teeth. it didn't look too elegant but it works just fine. the steel of the rear drive plates and front locking hubs is not hard and cuts easily. on the rear it might be necessary to find some washers of a smaller OD otherwise the brake drum is not easily withdrawn over the new studs - the washers supplied with the aftermarket kit are slightly too large. might not be a problem if you source the goodies from toyota. cheers Brian Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:21:54 -0500 From: "Dave Tay" To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF rear hub failures Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Brian Monger wrote: >Dave, > >I have performed this modification on a HZJ75 while I was doing a >springover. the 10mm studs are available aftermarket from Don Kyatt. > for the drill, I took a regular high speed steel countersink bit and >ground it to the correct taper for the cone washers, and hand cut new >clearances for the teeth. it didn't look too elegant but it works just >fine. the steel of the rear drive plates and front locking hubs is not >hard and cuts easily. on the rear it might be necessary to find some >washers of a smaller OD otherwise the brake drum is not easily withdrawn >over the new studs - the washers supplied with the aftermarket kit are >slightly too large. might not be a problem if you source the goodies >from toyota. > >cheers > >Brian Brian, do you know a guy by the name of "dumbdunce"? LOL I'll consider sourcing the parts from Toyota. Do you get the impression = Don Kyatt's hub studs are stronger than OEM? On the countersink issue, my other option is to have a friend with a mach= ine shop to countersink the holes on a mill. What do you mean when you s= aid you had to hand cut new clearances for the teeth? Dave Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:46:34 +1100 From: Brian Monger Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF rear hub failures To: dtlc@helios.net Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Dave Tay wrote: >Brian, do you know a guy by the name of "dumbdunce"? LOL > >I'll consider sourcing the parts from Toyota. Do you get the impression Don >Kyatt's hub studs are stronger than OEM? > >On the countersink issue, my other option is to have a friend with a machine >shop to countersink the holes on a mill. What do you mean when you said you >had to hand cut new clearances for the teeth? > >Dave He might be my evil twin - don't listen to anything he says though, he is a fool and not to be trusted!! no data on the strength of the aftermarket studs, they were just cheaper and more available. if you have a machine shop handy there are any number of ways to cut the countersinks more accurately. when I ground the countersink drill to the cone washer taper (I got it close by hand, it is about a degree or so out), it took the 'edge off the teeth on the countersink - warning, bad ASCII art coming up! before grinding the teeth look like this in profile: /| / | this is the 'leading' or cutting side / | then after grinding they look like: _ / | / | (where the 'flat' on the top of the tooth is really an arc of the diameter the tool has been ground to at a given point - near the bottom (pointy) end it is quite round, near the top, it is flatter. as is, the tool will not cut as the 'edge' has no clearance and cannot be fed in to the material to be cut - so the back/trailing side of the tooth has to be cut back to allow the leading/cutting edge to bite. also I had to change it from a 6 tooth to 3 tooth as I didn't have a grinder small enough to clearance 6 teeth without chopping into the leading edge of the next following tooth. this should be avoided as a 3 tooth cutter can cut non-round holes, but it seemed to go ok. I can take a pic of my tool if you like but it's not something I'm super proud of. also I still owe PTO photos. the winch got a good workout yesterday, we took a run down and up winchbreak pass, anyone familiar with the trail will be impressed that I drove up it in the bundy! :) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:23:55 -0500 From: "Dave Tay" To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF rear hub failures Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Brian Monger wrote: >He might be my evil twin - don't listen to anything he says though, he >is a fool and not to be trusted!! > >no data on the strength of the aftermarket studs, they were just cheaper >and more available. > >if you have a machine shop handy there are any number of ways to cut the >countersinks more accurately. Heheh, he sure sounds like your twin brother... Another possibility to consider is to get axle shafts from a 78/79 series= which already have the correctly sized taper in them. I'd guess the axl= e width and the hub bolt pattern is still the same so the shafts would wo= rk in a 75 series? The same applies to the front locking hubs, no?=20 But buying new axle shafts, hubs etc. is much more expensive proposition = than redrilling your present axles... Dave From: w.j.markerink@a1.nl To: dtlc@helios.net Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:10:26 +0100 Subject: Re: [DTLC] FF rear hub failures Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net On 22 Dec 2003 at 1:23, Dave Tay wrote: > Heheh, he sure sounds like your twin brother... > > Another possibility to consider is to get axle shafts from a 78/79 > series which already have the correctly sized taper in them. I'd > guess the axle width and the hub bolt pattern is still the same so the > shafts would work in a 75 series? The same applies to the front > locking hubs, no? > > But buying new axle shafts, hubs etc. is much more expensive > proposition than redrilling your present axles... > > Dave Unless the latest 78/79 (note that there is also an older light-duty 5-door LR/RJ/VZJ/KZJ-78/79!) has grown wider than the previous generation, it is not the same width as either 60 or 80 series. (I think it is smaller than 60, not sure) I was once offered a 75-series FF for my 60, and had to refuse it.... -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:08:47 +1100 From: Brian Monger Subject: [DTLC] 10mm hub stud upgrade tech with pics To: dtlc@helios.net, 80scool@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net pretty bare bones but it gets the message across. http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11856 enjoy Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:49:56 -0800 From: Dave Tay To: dtlc@helios.net Subject: Re: [DTLC] 10mm hub stud upgrade tech with pics Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Brian Monger wrote: >pretty bare bones but it gets the message across. > >http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modules/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=11856 > > >enjoy Most excellent. I wonder how in the world I would find a countersink drill bit with the right taper angle, unless it is done up in a machine shop. What do you think if a regular stud and nut with a locking washer were used in place of the cone washer? Dana full floater axles use no cone washers on their axle shafts. Dave To: LCML , dtlc@helios.net From: "Dominic von Stoesser" Subject: [DTLC] full floaters saved lives Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:44:55 +0200 Reply-To: dtlc@helios.net Hi all! Sorry for the cross post, for those subscribed to both lists. Time for an anecdote. A tour of my company's just came back, and the guide had a tale of woe and horror to tell. All this was in a 2001 HZJ79. It all started on New Years Eve in the afternoon, when he noticed a squealing coming from the right rear wheel, along with a loss of power. The handling had gone a bit squishy as well, so he thought it best to stop and have a look. He was horrified by what he saw: All 5 wheel (14mm) studs had sheared off, and the wheel was resting solely on the hub casing of the rear full floater axle. Closer inspection of the remaining wheels revealed that *all* of the wheel nuts were loose. He managed to scavenge one stud from each of the remaining wheels, and sort of fasten the wheel back on the hub, though the stud holes were so reamed out as to be loose. He limped to Opuwo (a town the name of which means "the uttermost end" in Otjiherero) to effect repairs. Of course, on New Years Eve, there are no sober mechanics anywhere in the oKaoko region... He pitched up at the door of an acquaintance with a Ford F250 and a welder, and they welded a bunch of Ford studs into the existing holes, which of course is a death sentence to that particular hub. The tour continued without losing too much time, and finished uneventfully. The guide was very surprised to have survived this experience unscathed, and reckoned that if he'd lost a wheel abruptly he'd have tipped the Cruiser over, possible injuring or even killing everyone inside. The full floater hub bought him a little time, which let him notice the problem before it turned potentially lethal. Just thought I'd share... Cheers - dom From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] full floaters saved lives To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 07:40:13 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dominic von St=F6sser" To: "LCML" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:44 AM Subject: [LCML] full floaters saved lives > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > Hi all! > > Sorry for the cross post, for those subscribed to both lists. > > Time for an anecdote. > > A tour of my company's just came back, and the guide had a tale of woe > and horror to tell. All this was in a 2001 HZJ79. > > It all started on New Years Eve in the afternoon, when he noticed a > squealing coming from the right rear wheel, along with a loss of power. > The handling had gone a bit squishy as well, so he thought it best to > stop and have a look. He was horrified by what he saw: All 5 wheel > (14mm) studs had sheared off, and the wheel was resting solely on the > hub casing of the rear full floater axle. Closer inspection of the > remaining wheels revealed that *all* of the wheel nuts were loose. > > He managed to scavenge one stud from each of the remaining wheels, and > sort of fasten the wheel back on the hub, though the stud holes were so > reamed out as to be loose. > > He limped to Opuwo (a town the name of which means "the uttermost end" > in Otjiherero) to effect repairs. Of course, on New Years Eve, there > are no sober mechanics anywhere in the oKaoko region... > He pitched up at the door of an acquaintance with a Ford F250 and a > welder, and they welded a bunch of Ford studs into the existing holes, > which of course is a death sentence to that particular hub. The tour > continued without losing too much time, and finished uneventfully. > > The guide was very surprised to have survived this experience > unscathed, and reckoned that if he'd lost a wheel abruptly he'd have > tipped the Cruiser over, possible injuring or even killing everyone > inside. The full floater hub bought him a little time, which let him > notice the problem before it turned potentially lethal. > > Just thought I'd share... > > Cheers - > > dom > There is a good chance that he would have noticed the problem much earlier if he had a semi floater since the wheel wouldn't have had the hub as a stabilizer... I have experienced the rear wheels coming loose and they usually let you know before you have lost the nuts let alone the studs... I have even had wheels come of the rear before and all that happened to me was the ass squated when i eventually came to a stop... Good to see no one was hurt. See you on the trail.. Wayne Calgary Alberta Canada From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dominic_von_St=F6sser?= Subject: Re: [LCML] full floaters saved lives To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:12:51 +0200 On 06 Jan, 2004, at 16:40, Wayne Smith wrote: > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > there is a good chance that he would have noticed the problem much > earlier > if he had a semi floater since the wheel wouldn't have had the hub as a > stabilizer... I'd hate to say. Thing is, on a corrugated gravel road, road rumble will often cover up any wheel shimmy that might be there; there might not have been any warning. I once had a SF-axled FZJ80 dump a rear wheel on me for similar reasons, and I had no warning at all since the road was really rough. > i have experienced the rear wheels coming loose and they usually let > you > know before you have lost the nuts let alone the studs... True enough, but see above. > i have even had wheels come of the rear before and all that happened > to me > was the ass squated when i eventually came to a stop... Lucky you... > good to see no one was hurt. We're all pretty relieved that it went so well in the end. Cheers - dom From: "Robert Blumel" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] full floaters saved lives Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:34:36 -0500 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dominic von St=F6sser" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:12 AM > On 06 Jan, 2004, at 16:40, Wayne Smith wrote: > > > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > > > there is a good chance that he would have noticed the problem much > > earlier > > if he had a semi floater since the wheel wouldn't have had the hub as a > > stabilizer... > > I'd hate to say. Thing is, on a corrugated gravel road, road rumble > will often cover up any wheel shimmy that might be there; there might > not have been any warning. I once had a SF-axled FZJ80 dump a rear > wheel on me for similar reasons, and I had no warning at all since the > road was really rough. > > > i have experienced the rear wheels coming loose and they usually let > > you > > know before you have lost the nuts let alone the studs... > > True enough, but see above. > > > i have even had wheels come of the rear before and all that happened > > to me > > was the ass squated when i eventually came to a stop... > > Lucky you... > > > good to see no one was hurt. > > We're all pretty relieved that it went so well in the end. > > Cheers - > > dom > I lost an entire rear wheel AND axle on my semi floater, and all I saw was sky as the rear end hit the ground. I'm sprung over on 36's, so you can imagine I had pretty far to fall. I'd rather have the full floater. Blumel From: Wayne Smith Subject: Re: [LCML] full floaters saved lives To: landcruisers@birfield.com Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:42:46 -0700 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dominic von St=F6sser" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:12 AM > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > > On 06 Jan, 2004, at 16:40, Wayne Smith wrote: > > > LCML Homepage: http://www.birfield.com/mailman/listinfo/landcruisers > > > > there is a good chance that he would have noticed the problem much > > earlier > > if he had a semi floater since the wheel wouldn't have had the hub as a > > stabilizer... > > I'd hate to say. Thing is, on a corrugated gravel road, road rumble > will often cover up any wheel shimmy that might be there; there might > not have been any warning. I once had a SF-axled FZJ80 dump a rear > wheel on me for similar reasons, and I had no warning at all since the > road was really rough. > > > i have experienced the rear wheels coming loose and they usually let > > you > > know before you have lost the nuts let alone the studs... > > True enough, but see above. > > > i have even had wheels come of the rear before and all that happened > > to me > > was the ass squated when i eventually came to a stop... > > Lucky you... > > > good to see no one was hurt. > > We're all pretty relieved that it went so well in the end. > > Cheers - > > dom The 'hey that looks like mine' as the tire passes you and goes bouncing over a fence into the field is a weird feeling till you look in the rear view mirror and see something is missing. Foot off the gas, don't touch the brakes and when the speed is slow enough the back comes down gently... See you on the trail.. Wayne Calgary Alberta Canada From: "Robert Blumel" To: Subject: RE: [LCML] full floaters saved lives Reply-To: landcruisers@birfield.com Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:41:57 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Wayne Smith Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 5:43 PM > The 'hey that looks like mine' as the tire passes you and goes bouncing > over a fence into the field is a weird feeling till you look in the rear > view mirror and see something is missing. Goot off the gas, don't touch > the brakes and when the speed is slow enough the back comes down > gently... > See you on the trail.. > Wayne Calgary Alberta Canada Yeah, mine was like, "Holy Sheet! I should NOT be able to see the sky." And then, glancing quickly into the rear view, watching the rear tire and axle wobble crazily into oncoming traffic; that was definitely something I'll never forget. Oh yeah, and my co-pilot throwing his breakfast all over the cab. I found a petrified biscuit under the front seat 2 days ago. Rob

If you have any question, remark, comment, want to share some philosophy or just want to express your opinion about these pages, feel free to send email to: w.j.markerink @ a1.nl
Back to main page & table of contents: Main Page

About Semi- and Full-Floating axles on a Land Cruiser

If you have any question, remark, comment, want to share some philosophy or just want to express your opinion about these pages, feel free to send email to: w.j.markerink @ a1.nl