|
|
Post by tommydp on May 5, 2011 22:55:25 GMT
Hi! Well, finally got the engine sorted I'm working on a driveshaft wobble issue. There is some regular up and down movement of the driveshaft when rotating the wheel. I've changed the CV joint, driveshaft and hub bearings. There was quite a lot of slack in the CV joint, and one of the bearings was bad.
However, the wobble/ up and down movement of the shaft is still there. I guess it will have to be the rubber coupling then? Can anyone please shed some light on correct assembly of this?
Does the shaft have to be in a straight line, and can you tolerate any visible wobble? Earlier I've just tightened the nuts on each U evenly and been fine. Perhaps I've got a bad coupling, might be due to my trouble with the Princess gearbox..
I'll try another coupling tomorrow.
Regards, Tommy:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by kelsham on May 6, 2011 11:28:54 GMT
Hi I have changed them in the past without any difficulty, other than moving the driveshaft back far enough.
Are you sure the coupling is properly lined up wit the u bolts?
If it is try for wear at the gearbox output shaft.
Regards Kels.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on May 7, 2011 2:08:55 GMT
Hi, I am back in Thailand after enjoying unseasonal dry and warm weather in the UK. As Kels says check the alignment of the shafts when attaching the rubber "doughnuts". A further couple of thoughts, is the engine and gearbox aligned or possibly twisted on the engine mountings? Also you mention you are using a Princess gearbox - I believe that requires some mods to the (lower) engine tie-rod mounting that could be inducing a twist? I have read about other issues with the Princess gearbox that would suggest it can affect the tension on the drive shaft. Perhaps someone who has experienced this can give a definitive answer? regards David Hi! Well, finally got the engine sorted I'm working on a driveshaft wobble issue. There is some regular up and down movement of the driveshaft when rotating the wheel. I've changed the CV joint, driveshaft and hub bearings. There was quite a lot of slack in the CV joint, and one of the bearings was bad. However, the wobble/ up and down movement of the shaft is still there. I guess it will have to be the rubber coupling then? Can anyone please shed some light on correct assembly of this? Does the shaft have to be in a straight line, and can you tolerate any visible wobble? Earlier I've just tightened the nuts on each U evenly and been fine. Perhaps I've got a bad coupling, might be due to my trouble with the Princess gearbox.. I'll try another coupling tomorrow. Regards, Tommy:-) |
|
|
|
Post by tommydp on May 7, 2011 8:12:14 GMT
I used to have a Princess gearbox, but went back to the original one when I put in the new engine. I wrote the thread about pressure on the driveshafts etc when it came to the Princess gearbox:-) I'm using the same coupling though, perhaps it was damaged in some way.
Engine mounts appear fine, not sagging etc. They are quality Unipart/ BL items. There is a bad bush on the lower tie rod, however, I'll try to fix that. I can't see that this wil make a visible wobble at the drive shaft when I jack up the car and turn the wheel though, but perhaps I'm wrong..
Also, I've replaced the engine shock absorber with a tie rod. Perhaps that's not a good idea? I've done it on previous 1800s though, as I got tired of the big flat mountings breaking down in no time.
Guess I'll try another coupling first and fix the lower tie rod. Then perhaps go back to the shock absorber and adjust the lower tie rod.
Thanks, Tommy:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on May 7, 2011 15:24:40 GMT
I found that fitting the additional shock absorber as fitted to the 1800S was a good compromise between longevity of the large engine mounting and vibration transmitted to the passenger compartment. When you say you are jacking the car up, I assume you are jacking it under the lower suspension arm so that the drive shaft is in its horizontal plane and with the wheel hanging down. (Sorry if this is a stupid question but I frequently miss the obvious!). I belive the LOCA (Australia) have stronger /modified large engine mountings for sale and there is a mod of a Landrover mounting that I have heard is good, anyone any knowledge? I used to have a Princess gearbox, but went back to the original one when I put in the new engine. I wrote the thread about pressure on the driveshafts etc when it came to the Princess gearbox:-) I'm using the same coupling though, perhaps it was damaged in some way. Engine mounts appear fine, not sagging etc. They are quality Unipart/ BL items. There is a bad bush on the lower tie rod, however, I'll try to fix that. I can't see that this wil make a visible wobble at the drive shaft when I jack up the car and turn the wheel though, but perhaps I'm wrong.. Also, I've replaced the engine shock absorber with a tie rod. Perhaps that's not a good idea? I've done it on previous 1800s though, as I got tired of the big flat mountings breaking down in no time. Guess I'll try another coupling first and fix the lower tie rod. Then perhaps go back to the shock absorber and adjust the lower tie rod. Thanks, Tommy:-) |
|
|
|
Post by tommydp on May 7, 2011 18:08:13 GMT
Well, I changed the rubber coupling and mounted it very accurately, tightening the nuts evenly with the driveshaft horizontal, put a block of wood between lower bump rubber and upper suspension arm. I also loosened the other coupling and tightened it again the same way.
Prior to this I mounted the shock absorber again, as it seemed my tie rod arrangement instead of this made the lump tilt somewhat backwards. I then changed the lower tierod bush.
At least the couplings don't squeek when turning the wheels now, as they used to do and the whole coupling seems more straight when driveshaft is horizontal. I guess they were out of alignment some way. The driveshafts seem slightly out of balance still though, but I'm not sure if this matters.. Wer'e talking millimeters.
On the road, luckily, the annoying vibration at certain speeds has gone away. There is some wobble at very low speed, but I guess this is due to the tyres and/ or wheels. Steering wheel is very fine, no shake at any speed. Tyres are fairly new, but cheap and bad I guess. They are very hard to get here. Bought them last year, though new they are made in 2005, Chinese or something and rock hard...
I'll check the wheels for balance and eventually fit proper, new 175/ 70 14, which are easier to get here. Actually I find my steel studded 175/ 70 14s far more comfortable! They are a proper brand, too. Turning the present, cheap tyre wheels, they have slight movement in/ out, that is if I watch a thread of the tyre it doesn't go in a straight line in one full rotation of the wheel.. We're not talking much here either, but I like it perfect... Does it matter? All wheel bearings are new by the way.
Well, after all I'm getting closer to my goal: a perfect crab! The engine btw is perfect. Fuel consumption is about 0,95 litres pr kilometer with a lot of short journeys and city driving. I'm very pleased with that.
Regards, Tommy
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on May 9, 2011 5:56:09 GMT
[quote author=tommydp board=tech thread=168 post=952 time=1304791693
I get confused converting litres/km to English MPG but your figures of 0.95 litres / km look dreadful !! I would have thought around 0.095 would be more reasonable if I have pressed the right numbers on my calculator?
As far as the cheap tyres go the movement could be due to a damaged wheel or the tyre if you are sure the wheel bearing is sound. Try swopping the tyres around to see if there is any difference. Do you find the steering heavy with the 70 profile tyres (I'm not sure if you have power steering)
Regards
David
I'll check the wheels for balance and eventually fit proper, new 175/ 70 14, which are easier to get here. Actually I find my steel studded 175/ 70 14s far more comfortable! They are a proper brand, too. Turning the present, cheap tyre wheels, they have slight movement in/ out, that is if I watch a thread of the tyre it doesn't go in a straight line in one full rotation of the wheel.. We're not talking much here either, but I like it perfect... Does it matter? All wheel bearings are new by the way.
Well, after all I'm getting closer to my goal: a perfect crab! The engine btw is perfect. Fuel consumption is about 0,95 litres pr kilometer with a lot of short journeys and city driving. I'm very pleased with that.
Regards, Tommy[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by tommydp on May 9, 2011 7:05:53 GMT
LOL:-) My mistake! 0,95 litres in 10 kilometers of course:-) About 29 miles pr gallon, I think:-)
|
|
|
|
Post by tommydp on May 9, 2011 13:40:56 GMT
www.onlineconversion.com/fuel_consumption.htm0.95 litres/ 10 km or 9.5 litres/ 100 km then... Seems to be 29.73 miles/ gallon. According to "The cars of BMC" overall consumption for a mk 2 is 27 mpg. (Mk 1 is 24 mpg). The reason I'm stuck at using 0.95 is because this is standard over here, it's 0.95 litres pr Norwegian "mil" (= 10 km). When writing this earlier I mixed "mil" and km:-) I'm very pleased with this, as said there's been a lot of short trips and city driving. And my right foot is not very light...
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on May 10, 2011 7:40:35 GMT
Having been brought up on mpg I find that here in Thailand where they use litres/100km I am always converting to mpg even though here and in England I buy in litres. Your figure of nearly 30mpg is similar to what I used to get from Mk1, II and III versions but mainly on long journeys so you seem to have everything properly set up now. regards David www.onlineconversion.com/fuel_consumption.htm0.95 litres/ 10 km or 9.5 litres/ 100 km then... Seems to be 29.73 miles/ gallon. According to "The cars of BMC" overall consumption for a mk 2 is 27 mpg. (Mk 1 is 24 mpg). The reason I'm stuck at using 0.95 is because this is standard over here, it's 0.95 litres pr Norwegian "mil" (= 10 km). When writing this earlier I mixed "mil" and km:-) I'm very pleased with this, as said there's been a lot of short trips and city driving. And my right foot is not very light... |
|
|
|
Post by threelitre on May 10, 2011 11:01:57 GMT
It looks like a very good figure. I rarely managed to get our 1800 S to use less than 10l/100km (or into the 30mpg area) - this only happened on a UK holiday with lots of A- and B-road driving and keeping to the speed limits. When the car was still young, the typical Autobahn consumption was about 13l/100km (21mpg). The 360km (225mls) drive to my grandparents was close to not being able to complete on a single tank of fuel. But the S always feels happy driven at 85-90mph.
Regards,
Alexander
|
|
|
|
Post by dave1800 on May 10, 2011 11:54:59 GMT
I think the higher speeds you are legally able to drive in Germany has quite an effect on the 1800 as it is hardly any more aerodynamic than a brick! Also the milder cam on the standard car gives very good consumption even in town conditions. I remember my Saab 900 and 9000 used nearly 50% more fuel in heavy traffic than the 1800 but gave similar results at higher speeds. Regards David It looks like a very good figure. I rarely managed to get our 1800 S to use less than 10l/100km (or into the 30mpg area) - this only happened on a UK holiday with lots of A- and B-road driving and keeping to the speed limits. When the car was still young, the typical Autobahn consumption was about 13l/100km (21mpg). The 360km (225mls) drive to my grandparents was close to not being able to complete on a single tank of fuel. But the S always feels happy driven at 85-90mph. Regards, Alexander |
|
|
|
Post by threelitre on May 10, 2011 13:29:28 GMT
My father's simple rule was speed in kph divided by 10 = consumption in l/100km - based on many years of ownership. It is not too bad, just a tad bit pessimistic. The S is strong, but a bit of a drinker, even if I tried my best to get a modestly lean mixture with properly synchronised carbs. On the other hand I find it difficult to stay on the slow side of 80mph with the 1800 S - it always wants to take me beyond 85mph  My Maxi 1750 is much more economical than the 1800 S - even when driven fast I never encountered more than 11l/100km. Usually it will be between 8 and 9 l/100km when traveling at speeds between 70 and 80mph. Regards, Alexander e |
|
My Maxi 1750 is much more economical than the 1800 S - even when driven fast I never encountered more than 11l/100km. Usually it will be between 8 and 9 l/100km when traveling at speeds between 70 and 80mph.