From: Daryl Walford on 22 Oct 2007 04:32
>> I've never noticed any difference when I've left the hubs locked for
>> long periods but the advantage is 2WD low range if you want it:-)
> on series landies, if you leave the hubs out for a loong time you
> can stuff the front slip joint, coz the splines are sliding against each
> other in the same spot `cause of suspension movement ...locking hubs
> were after market on all series cars, imho, they are not worth the
> effort as fuel economy seemed unchanged, and front axle internals get no
I know its a good idea to lock the hubs in occasionally to lubricate the
Apparently in damp climates like the UK the diff can rust badly if its
not constantly in oil so thats why Landrover didn't fit freewheeling hubs.
From: Noddy on 22 Oct 2007 04:32
"Andy" <nospam(a)no.no> wrote in message
> OzOne and Noddy. Keep going on like you have been and you're likely to
> be the third :-D
I don't mind you calling me, but can you come up with something different
that separates me from those two? :)
From: Ron on 22 Oct 2007 04:41
Daryl Walford <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in
> JD wrote:
>> Daryl Walford wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>> One thing that certainly doesn't make any sense to me at all is
>>>> that Ford would be seriously contemplating the idea of such a
>>>> vehicle for production when the market for them at the time would
>>>> have been next to nothing.
>>> Just as well Toyota didn't think that way when they started making
>>> Landcruisers all those years ago or they would have missed out on a
>>> lot of money.
>>> The market for 4WD utes may have been small in the early 70's but
>>> its huge now and if Ford had known that they could have developed a
>>> good product over the last 30 odd years that could have been a
>>> competitor to the Japanese who have a strangle hold on that market.
>> The Landcruiser, of course, was developed at the request of the
>> Japanese government for government use (I seem to remember originally
>> for police use), and Japanese government civilian and military sales
>> propped it up for the first twenty or so years of production. Ford in
>> the US had been in a similar position in the US during the war, but
>> opted not to pursue it after the war, leaving it to Willys, so there
>> is zero likliehood that Ford Australia would have tried it without
>> government backing.
> I doubt the Landcruiser was "propped up for the first twenty or so
> years", 10 maybe but I doubt even that, AFAIK the first Landcruisers
> (there were earlier versions but they weren't named Landcruiser)were
> built in 1954 and by the mid 60's they were selling more than 50,000
> per year.
I know zit about the japs and their 4WD's, but the first photo of a
Landcruiser that I have is 1951 and it looks almost identical to a WWII
The first pic of a Nissan Patrol was in 1952 and also looked similar to a
From: Noddy on 22 Oct 2007 05:58
"Ron" <dodo(a)hotmail> wrote in message
> I know zit about the japs and their 4WD's, but the first photo of a
> Landcruiser that I have is 1951 and it looks almost identical to a WWII
> Jeep :-)
> The first pic of a Nissan Patrol was in 1952 and also looked similar to a
> WWII Jeep.
I can't remember if it was the Patrol or the Cruiser, but the first of one
of them was almost a direct lift of the Willys MA, which was the first
production jeep Willys made before they moved to the more common MB.
Mitsubishi also made 4wd's based on early Jeeps, and so much so that many of
the parts were interchangeable.
From: John McKenzie on 22 Oct 2007 06:32
> "John McKenzie" <jmac_melbourne(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > The friend of the family that had the ex SES willysd had em - but he
> > diy-ed it - not sure the source.
> A few blokes in the club I used to be in had them, and there used to be a
> "kit" available to convert them.
> Not that all that many old jeeps saw regular off road duty I expect, but
> having to get out and manually engage the front hubs always seemed like the
> greatest waste of time ever in my opinion.
To some extent I agree. I'd go a little further and mention my own
misgivings about having the front diff 'stationary' for extended periods
sitting in diff oil, and the rest exposed to air. Can't be good for it
> > He reckoned it made about 1-2mpg difference, but I don't recall exactly
> If it did, his front diff had an awful lot of drag.
It'd have to make _some_ difference, maybe Michael can get to the bottom
tosspam(a)aol.com abuse(a)yahoo.com abuse(a)hotmail.com abuse(a)earthlink.com
abuse(a)aol.com vice.president(a)whitehouse.gov president(a)whitehouse.gov
sweep.day(a)accc.gov.au uce(a)ftc.gov admin(a)loopback abuse(a)iprimus.com.au
I don't need a shepherd because I'm not a fucken sheep abuse(a)msn.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME(a)localhost -h1024(a)localhost root(a)mailloop.com
abuse(a)federalpolice.gov.au fraudinfo(a)psinet.com abuse(a)cia.gov
$USER(a)localhost abuse(a)sprint.com abuse(a)fbi.gov abuse(a)asio.gov.au