|
|
Post by foglaursen on Jun 5, 2017 7:20:39 GMT
My problem was not a displacer after all. It turned out to be a corroded steel pipe connecting the displacers. I am now in the process of fitting a NOS pipe. Peter  |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jun 5, 2017 11:33:21 GMT
That's probably the least difficult to resolve. Can you ascertain whether the pipe corroded from the outside or inside?
regards
David
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jun 6, 2017 6:49:48 GMT
Survey Results
We would like to thank Forum members and others who provided details on what they would be willing to pay if it proves possible to remanufacture hydrolastic units.
Around 30 owners responded with 27 answering some or all of the specific questions.
There was a clear majority only interested in retaining the hydrolastic suspension (23/27) as the unique feature of the crab.
There were 24 owners who provided details as to the price they thought reasonable for a remanufactured unit.
< £200 = 2
£200-£300 = 18
£301-400 = 2
£500+ = 2
The spread of suggested prices possibly reflects the potential value and condition of the owners’ cars and their value to them personally. I will not make a comment as to whether this will be a realistic assessment until we have some hard manufacturing cost and volume forecasts
Other comments
One owner in Australia noted that he did not wish to invest any more in his crab unless a solution can be found. I imagine that this view could become more widespread?
Two owners noted that they had sufficient stock of spare units so would not be interested. (I hope these do not fail after storage as has been experienced.
Another owner noted that he is getting old and has five cars so would not be interested in further investment for the crab.
Where do we go from here?
LOCI plan to carry out a survey of their members who do not participate in the Proboards or Google Forums so we can build a bigger picture to discuss with the 1100 group members.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jun 6, 2017 6:57:05 GMT
Rear ride height and suspension pressures.
We would be very grateful if members who have crabs without rear end sag and the correct front ride height could take a measurement from the centre of the rear hub to the wheel arch. 1800heap (Nick) is carrying out a range of tests on hydrolastic units at present and needs this information for his complex calculations. His car is currently without an engine so it sitting very high at the front!
Also if anyone has a pressure gauge it would be helpful to know what pressure is required to achieve the correct front ride height on old displacer units.
Many thanks
David
|
|
|
|
Post by foglaursen on Jun 7, 2017 7:46:26 GMT
That's probably the least difficult to resolve. Can you ascertain whether the pipe corroded from the outside or inside? regards David The pipe part in the engine compartment is corroded from the outside. Inside there is no corrosion. Tricky to get the new pipe past the engine. Peter |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jun 8, 2017 1:53:34 GMT
At least it's reassuring to see there isn't any internal corrosion. Good luck installing the new pipe.
regards
David
|
|
|
|
Post by foglaursen on Jun 10, 2017 9:01:04 GMT
After several hours of work I succeeded in getting the pipe in place. It does not look pretty but at least it is not leaking (knock on wood). I hate these steel pipes which cannot be bent and are rusting. Brake pipes and petrol pipe has been exchanged with copper ones. Next time (and there will no doubt be a next time) I will install a copper pipe for the Hydrolastic system. Concerning data for ride height the results are given below. Immediately it looked good: I set the front height at both sides to 36.5 cm and the pressure was 220 psi on both sides. However, when I measured the height at the rear, the right side was clearly lower than the left side. I therefore measured the height to the top of the vertical piece of the sill both front and rear. This showed that the right side was lower than the left side. Therefore, I pumped the right side up to 37.0 cm. Measuring the sills now gave about the same height. The front wings have been changed at some point, but they seem to be installed correctly. Apart from that there has been no significant welding to the body. There are “rally” bump stops at the rear. There are new tyres on 13” rims on all wheels and the tyre pressure is correct. Heigth to wing, cm Heigth to sill, cm Pressure, psi Front Rear Front Rear Left 36,5 34,1 32,2 34,0 225 Right 36,5 33,3 31,4 33,3 225 Right 37,0 33,8 31,8 33,8 245 Peter |
|
|
|
Post by foglaursen on Jun 10, 2017 9:34:06 GMT
Left Right Right Height to wing, cm Front 36.5 36.5 37.0 Height to wing, cm Rear 34.1 33.3 33.8 Height to sill, cm Front 32.2 31.4 31.8 Height to sill, cm Rear 34.0 33.3 33.8 Pressure, psi 225 225 245 Didn't look as I thought. Tried this, not much better. |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jun 10, 2017 10:40:14 GMT
Thanks Peter, that's very useful. It appears the Australian cars may have modifications so they ride higher (presumably for the same pressure?) so it would be helpful to have some data for them if possible.
I seem to recall there were some reniforced nylon interconnecting pipes produced at one time that were claimed to be easier to fit. Not sure if they are still around or reliable.
regards
David
|
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Jun 10, 2017 11:56:15 GMT
Peter
Well done on the pipe replacement. Not easy if you don't have a hoist! Thanks for the meaurements.
There are a few factors that will effect the front to rear trim. If you are having trouble with this on one side for example.
Wear on the knuckle joint where the displacer connects to the radius arm is a good example. It is also worth checking for play in the rear radius arm bearings.
We are also looking into how much effect ageing displacers have on trim as this has been reported as a possible cause.
Nick
|
|
|
|
Post by foglaursen on Jun 10, 2017 17:28:08 GMT
Peter Well done on the pipe replacement. Not easy if you don't have a hoist! Thanks for the meaurements. There are a few factors that will effect the front to rear trim. If you are having trouble with this on one side for example. Wear on the knuckle joint where the displacer connects to the radius arm is a good example. It is also worth checking for play in the rear radius arm bearings. We are also looking into how much effect ageing displacers have on trim as this has been reported as a possible cause. Nick Thanks for the information. I have in fact exchanged the knuckle joints in the left hand side (both front an rear). The right hand side probably still has the original ones. So the pressure on this LH side should be the correct one. This explains the higher pressure needed on the other side. This does not explain the strange ride height measured at the front wing. This must be due to a slight misalignment when the new wings were fitted many years ago. Peter |
|
|
|
Post by 1800heap on Jun 11, 2017 6:59:55 GMT
Thanks for the information. I have in fact exchanged the knuckle joints in the left hand side (both front an rear). The right hand side probably still has the original ones. So the pressure on this LH side should be the correct one. This explains the higher pressure needed on the other side. This does not explain the strange ride height measured at the front wing. This must be due to a slight misalignment when the new wings were fitted many years ago. Peter Hi again Peter You are most likely correct about the front wing replacement being the culprit. I am not entirely convinced this is fully to blame though, especially as you say that you have replaced knuckle joints on only one side. I also would not trust floor to sil measurements 100% which is why BL used hub to front wing heights as a setting point. I am not looking at the car though, so its just a gut feeling looking at your measurements! As I said worn components mess with the front to rear trim. Ie can make the rear trim low with front set correctly. It is more likely a combination of factors in my humble opinion. As long as its not annoying to look at all good! Nick |
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Jan 10, 2019 12:06:55 GMT
No we haven't forgotten!
I have just received an update on the remanufacture of the hydrolastic units. First the good news it appears that all of the original Dunlop documentation has now been found and good progress has been made with the development of the units by a "large automotive organisation" which is partnering the sponsoring company and I was told is very enthusiastic.
However, because of Brexit the R&D budget has temporarily, we hope, been reduced which inevitably means delays. As indicated earlier it is likely that the first units to be made available will be for the ADO16 (1100/1300)range which also fit the crab rears.
Next update will be mid year.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on Dec 4, 2019 5:37:14 GMT
A quick update. Unfortunately the established motor components company commissioned to remanufacture the displacers has not been able to devote resources to this project for some time as a result of the down turn in the auto industry and the need to refocus on developing components for non ICE vehicles. There is still considerable will to remanufacture the units but it is not possible at this time to set the time frame.
I will keep you up to date with any developments.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewa on Dec 4, 2019 7:38:49 GMT
Thanks for the update...what a shame. On the one hand it is difficult to believe that there’s not some engineer somewhere who could come up with a new improved displacer let alone a repro of the original but given the relatively low prices people are prepared to pay and the volumes involved I guess it doesn’t make sense? I see that people are working on spring/shock conversions which may be the only solution long term..or air bags!
|
|
