boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #1

I have two new FRC4320 stub axles, for which I bought seals and FTC4319 bushes.

The bushes are too big for the recess in the stub axle, and too big to do anything useful on the CV joint shaft. I know I'm being stupid, but where is the bush meant to go. The seal fits perfectly.

BT have just f*cked up my landline (bband still working), mobile doesn't work here and I can't 'phone anyone for guidance.

edit got numbers wrong

 

Last edited: Apr 7, 2017

neilly

Well-Known Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #2

I do not know why, But.

ftc4320 shows up as a spacer. not a stub axle.
ftc3419 I cannot find.

Cheers

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #3

Sorry, got the number wrong - it's FTC4319

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #4

It's part 3 in the diagram. 1989 car without the needle roller.

 

neilly

Well-Known Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #5

Yeah, I gathered that, for the front wheels.
As per your previous post from Mar 21st.
It does get a mention in the LR workshop manual for (1983 ~1995).

Cheers

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #6

Mmm. Ignore the Mar 21st thread. I made a big mistake. I'm in a vicious circle of doubting myself over everything connected to axles.

Today's problem seems to be real. The parts book picture shows the bush, and as you'd expect, it goes in behind the seal so that the bush gets lubricated by the swivel oil/grease and the seal stops that getting out to the wheel bearings etc.. The parts book also seems to show the bush as having a larger diameter than the bush, which the ones I have certainly do. Snag is that there's nothing on the stub axle for them to fit into, and they wouldn't do anything to support the CV shaft anyway. Or I'm, missing something.

 

neilly

Well-Known Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #7

Here is what is written in the workshop manual. Just scanned them , I hope they are readable.
About all I can help with.
Hope you get it sorted.


Cheers

 

Attachments

• IMG_20170407_0002.pdf

  782.1 KB · Views: 145
• IMG_20170407_0003.pdf

  812 KB · Views: 130
• IMG_20170407_0004.pdf

  752.4 KB · Views: 122

jamesmartin

Well-Known Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #8

boguing said:

Mmm. Ignore the Mar 21st thread. I made a big mistake. I'm in a vicious circle of doubting myself over everything connected to axles.

Today's problem seems to be real. The parts book picture shows the bush, and as you'd expect, it goes in behind the seal so that the bush gets lubricated by the swivel oil/grease and the seal stops that getting out to the wheel bearings etc.. The parts book also seems to show the bush as having a larger diameter than the bush, which the ones I have certainly do. Snag is that there's nothing on the stub axle for them to fit into, and they wouldn't do anything to support the CV shaft anyway. Or I'm, missing something.

Click to expand...

i thought you had later stub axles with the shorter cvs etc

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #9

Problem solved. Wrong stub axle in one of the boxes (right number on the outside though). Odd thing is that this other one has seal and bush ready fitted.

 

neilly

Well-Known Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #10

Blimey @boguing

You sure are having fun with those stub axles aint ya......Glad to see you got it sorted.
Who sent you the wrong parts?

Cheers

 

jamesmartin

Well-Known Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #11

boguing said:

Problem solved. Wrong stub axle in one of the boxes (right number on the outside though). Odd thing is that this other one has seal and bush ready fitted.

Click to expand...

is the one on the left shorter ie ftc3154 that uses needle bearing

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #12

jamesmartin said:

i thought you had later stub axles with the shorter cvs etc

Click to expand...

You're going to make me admit it aren't you?

I'm building up two front axles. One is from an '89 110, the other from an ABS era RR Classic. I've finished the RR one, no problem. For various reasons, which I'll reveal one day, the 110 axle has had a bit of modification, some of which has been easy for me to visualise and draw, but I've made several mistakes in the actual implementation, leaving me unsurprised when something goes wrong. Three weeks ago I got the rest of the parts to finish building it, and as I started I noticed an old pair of short stub axles on the bench. And thought it was odd that I was holding long new ones. So started that thread and then sent the long stubs, bearings seals and CV joints back and replaced them all with the short ones. Bolted it all up. Put a wheel hub and disc on, and there's no thread to put a nut on. Ah. Must have the 110 hubs on the RR axle - take them off and they fit. Then I notice the short stub axle on the RR axle, and a very dim light bulb comes on.

New long stubs ordered, arrived this morning and you know the rest. You can see why I'm doubting myself. And feeling a bit guilty about blaming a non-existent mechanic for perpetrating a big bodge.

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #13

jamesmartin said:

is the one on the left shorter ie ftc3154 that uses needle bearing

Click to expand...

Not the needle roller types that I've seen.

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #14

neilly said:

Blimey @boguing

You sure are having fun with those stub axles aint ya......Glad to see you got it sorted.
Who sent you the wrong parts?

Cheers

Click to expand...

I've come across better forms of entertainment..

From Shop4Autoparts, who have been superb. I'll let you know what they say and how it happened.

 

neilly

Well-Known Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #15

OK,

Hope you get it sorted easily, I have used them as well and never had a problem. Maybe just one of those "silly" mistakes.

Cheers

 

boguing

Well-Known Member

Full Member

• Apr 7, 2017

• #16

Got one end all finished, quite reassuring that the numptiness wasn't mine. S4A have said sorry, but couldn't get another one out until Monday. That was at 3:36. Not that impressed.