Fj60 vs Fj62

[Mike S]

hose routing is different between the 60 PS and 62 PS bxes,

M

 

[AndrewP]

You probably know this, but there are 2 FJ60 boxes. 81-84 they had a square mount pattern on the frame. 85-90 they had an offset to the bolt mounting pattern.

I *believe* but am not certain that FJ62 boxes are the same as 80 series boxes.

The early FJ60 boxes (81-84) had a better steering shaft and u-joint arrangement, in my opinion. It's replaceable, rebuildable, and less prone to slop.

Since you are doing a custom job, any high pressure hose you get made up will be custom also, so the mounting arrangement of the hose does not matter.

An 80 series Pittman arm will fit on the FJ60 series splines and vice-versa if that matters to you. The amount of drop is slightly different and the 80 series Pittman is beefier/heavier/stronger.

If you buy a used box, West Texas Offroad will re-seal it for you for $150 or so. That's a wise investment of funds.

Regarding full float axles: They are better for load carrying, and can facilitate towing off the trail in a broken axle scenerio, however, the Semi float axles have inner axle upgrades available and the FF do not. In my book, at this time, the stronger axle (in torque) can be built with the semi-float FJ60 axle, and that's what I would use. It's also cheaper, and more available. Do your home work here. FF axles are better in theory, but unless you can get a ChroMo inner for it, I would build a semi-float and get the Poly Performance inner axles.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

You probably know this, but there are 2 FJ60 boxes. 81-84 they had a square mount pattern on the frame. 85-90 they had an offset to the bolt mounting pattern.

I know there are more than that, but I'm not sure which ones are interchangeable beyond the mounting difference. The early 80/81 boxes differed in some fashion from the 81-85, and the 85-87 differed in some way from the 88-90... but as Mike pointed out it could very well be hose configurations too. I'd be interested to get all the lineage hammered out, I know I've always just gone off of the frame mount, I guess I've never really considered the hose configuration.

Regarding full float axles: They are better for load carrying, and can facilitate towing off the trail in a broken axle scenerio, however, the Semi float axles have inner axle upgrades available and the FF do not. In my book, at this time, the stronger axle (in torque) can be built with the semi-float FJ60 axle, and that's what I would use. It's also cheaper, and more available. Do your home work here. FF axles are better in theory, but unless you can get a ChroMo inner for it, I would build a semi-float and get the Poly Performance inner axles.

Actually chromo shafts for the FF (inner styles and 1-piece shafts) have been available for alot longer than Poly's SF shafts. Places like Dutchman and Williams have made them off/on over the years... I think Moser has made them too. As of current Poly Performance is making them, same price as their SF stuff. So considering the actual shaft strength at the breaking point is 100% identical, the FF has the natural advantage, when (not if) you break a shaft, you can drive it out. FF's also have the strength advantage at the diff, stronger carrier in locked applications as well as the possibility of actuall running an e-locker or cable locker, all things you can't do with a SF. Honestly I tend to beleive the FF is stronger just as is... I picked up 8 FF's in Cali when I replaced mine. Between the 8 rigs we put them in we had broken 15+ SF shaft, including 3 in my rig... to date (knock on wood) not a single shaft has failed, all stockers too. Crazy. I carry a spare set of shafts, just as I did with the SF stuff, but at least with the FF I don't have to fix it RIGHT where it broke. I remember sitting in the middle of the Little Sluice in the dark hours fixing a broken shaft... and on Rattlesnake in the snow.... and on Constrictor when I told my wife I would be back in a couple of hours...

The SF is faaaar more available, and if you do have a shaft fail... a spare could be 2-3 days away (as could a SF for that matter). Brakes are 6's between them, and 3rds are of course interchangeable (well into the FF at least). If you can find a good deal on the FF (under $500), I'd say its worth it? Otherwise build a SF and upgrade as needed.

 

[AndrewP]

I know there are more than that, but I'm not sure which ones are interchangeable beyond the mounting difference. The early 80/81 boxes differed in some fashion from the 81-85, and the 85-87 differed in some way from the 88-90... but as Mike pointed out it could very well be hose configurations too. I'd be interested to get all the lineage hammered out, I know I've always just gone off of the frame mount, I guess I've never really considered the hose configuration.




Actually chromo shafts for the FF (inner styles and 1-piece shafts) have been available for alot longer than Poly's SF shafts. Places like Dutchman and Williams have made them off/on over the years... I think Moser has made them too. As of current Poly Performance is making them, same price as their SF stuff. So considering the actual shaft strength at the breaking point is 100% identical, the FF has the natural advantage, when (not if) you break a shaft, you can drive it out. FF's also have the strength advantage at the diff, stronger carrier in locked applications as well as the possibility of actuall running an e-locker or cable locker, all things you can't do with a SF. Honestly I tend to beleive the FF is stronger just as is... I picked up 8 FF's in Cali when I replaced mine. Between the 8 rigs we put them in we had broken 15+ SF shaft, including 3 in my rig... to date (knock on wood) not a single shaft has failed, all stockers too. Crazy. I carry a spare set of shafts, just as I did with the SF stuff, but at least with the FF I don't have to fix it RIGHT where it broke. I remember sitting in the middle of the Little Sluice in the dark hours fixing a broken shaft... and on Rattlesnake in the snow.... and on Constrictor when I told my wife I would be back in a couple of hours...

The SF is faaaar more available, and if you do have a shaft fail... a spare could be 2-3 days away (as could a SF for that matter). Brakes are 6's between them, and 3rds are of course interchangeable (well into the FF at least). If you can find a good deal on the FF (under $500), I'd say its worth it? Otherwise build a SF and upgrade as needed.

That's cool that the FF inners are available, but I have heard that they are only available as custom units. The Semi's on the other hand are available by picking up the phone and ordering.

Your point is well taken, that everything else being equal, the FF is a more desirable design. I used a semi-float with Poly inners for my 40 build and am going to do the same as I build my 60 series.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

That's cool that the FF inners are available, but I have heard that they are only available as custom units. The Semi's on the other hand are available by picking up the phone and ordering.

That could very well be the case, I've never dealt with Poly on the FF shafts. I'll be finding out soon enough though

Your point is well taken, that everything else being equal, the FF is a more desirable design. I used a semi-float with Poly inners for my 40 build and am going to do the same as I build my 60 series.

Definately not a wrong way to go... the SF is a great setup and with Poly shafts it will likely be the only setup you need

I'm gearing up for a 60 build right now too... still up in the air on the axles. ARB, 3.70's, Longs and ??? Where's the build thread on your 60

 

[Yorker]

I'll have to mull it over. The Ambulance won't be used for any rock crawling but it will likely be on 9.00 16s and locked in the rear- plus it will have potentially have a lot of weight on it.

The stock rear Land Rover axle used on an 109 ambulance is a Dana 60- AKA the Salisbury- but Land Rover uses an odd derivative of the Salisbury that uses only 1.24" 24 spline axles- full floating of course though.


The Land Rover front axle is 1.1" 10 spline crap- clearly inferior to anything Toyota used.

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I've done the FJ60 swap using the "early" vintage I suppose. I also have an FZJ80 box. I would imagine it is the same an FJ80 box but could not say. There are definitely noticeable differences between the FZJ80 and 60 series box, for what its worth... Here is a photo of the 60 series box. See how I plated the frame, a little easier but a lot more to drill through, worked absolutely great...

These are really old pictures, last one shows it the night I literally set it up... Again, worked wonderfully...

 

[Yorker]

Thanks Andre!

No shackle reversal?! What is up with that?

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

It was actually because of how I placed the steering (which was related to where the engine was). I probably could have figured it out but it turned out to become incredibly complicated to shackle reverse. I even relocated the spring hangers to run a FJ62 front axle so I very very easily could have shackle reverse at the time other than these complications. You can see that the leaf would have interfered with the steering how it was placed. I used really short shackles as you can see so this kept things nice and low, it handled and flexed great, so I never felt the need to shackle reverse particularly with such small shackles... That said particularly on a 40 and other short wheel base, it is a good idea

 

[Yorker]

I used really short shackles as you can see so this kept things nice and low, it handled and flexed great, so I never felt the need to shackle reverse particularly with such small shackles...

I understand. There is a theory amongst some some LR owners that a shackle reversal isn't the best idea in the world. I think if you search for "pig rooting" on Pirate in the LR forum you might come up with the thread.

Naturally on LRs our shackles are to the rear but the theory is that they cause problems on hillclimbs. You end up with the front end hopping about and pounding the piss out of the front axle. If you can find the debate about it it is somewhat convincing. The fellow who made home made portal axles puts forth a good argument abougt it.

I can't remember his name but here is his 88"

 

[greenmeanie]

Thanks lads,
From this discussion I take away that:
1. There are differences between the FJ60 & FJ62. These are not significant like reverse rotation if you are mounting to Land Rover.
2. FF axles are the way to go if I go the Toytoa conversion.

The next question I have is how do the e-lockers faere for reliability in the dust and mud?

It's always fun learning about other machinery. Thanmks for the good discussion.

Cheers
Gregor

 

[Yorker]

Anti shackle reversal

Andre here you go:

It has been several years now since I converted my series 2A to coil front suspension, but before that I had always meant to have a go at doing a front spring shackle reversal. About 30 years ago I owned two almost identical series 1 80 inch Land Rovers .One was a 1948 with front shackles, the other was a 1950 with rear shackles.Both vehicles were in good condition with near new springs and dampers. In various cross country comparison tests, ie steep rocky hill climbs and surmounting short vertical obstacles etc the 1948 was always superior and just got on with it ,whereas the 1951 model would hop up and down or the front end would rear up causing the truck to slew sideways to the slope in a single bound, which can be pretty scarey on any vehicle let alone one with such a short wheelbase and narrow wheel track.
Anyway, many years of offroad travelling in my series 2A in company with Toyota LandCruisers, Nissan Patrols, Jeeps etc has convinced me that for mountain goat type offroading, Landeys have got their front shackles at the wrong end of the spring. I'll give an example of what I have observed happens on a steep climb. When a leaf spring LandRover is climbing a steep difficult slope some of the front end weight is transferred to the rear axle by gravity so the front springs are unloaded slightly and the front of the vehicle sits higher on its springs. Due to torque reaction, the front diff pinion wants to rotate downwards causing the shackles to swing forward, lifting the front of the vehicle even higher. The spring now has alot of camber (arch) both for and aft of the axle assembly, so now the front axle is even less positively located to the chassis. Any forward thrust that the front axle assembly can develop merely cambers up the spring even more until the stored energy in the spring is greater than the thrust of the axle, then it releases this energy, sometimes so violently that the front end can leap into the air. I have witnessed a Stage one V8 front end literally leap sideways 6 feet due to the release of this pent up energy resuting in two broken springs, snapped propshaft and both expensive Koni dampers destroyed.
Now let me attempt to explain what happens when a Toyota Landcruiser with front shackles attempts the same climb. Gravity is gravity so weight transfer to the rear still occurs, so the tendency of the front end to sit higher is still the same,The front diff pinion due to torque reaction still wants to rotate downwards, but because the shackles are at the front of the spring, they swing forward and actually pull the sprung mass down, counteracting weight transfer. Because the spring is compressed, the spring is also relatively flat and straight giving the axle a more positive location to the frame to transmit forward thrust thus increasing traction, The more forward thrust the front axle can develop, the more the front end pulls down compared to vice versa with the LandRover setup. This makes the vehicle both more capable and safer to operate in steep
and offcamber terrain. Another advantage which I won't go into much detail about is that the front propshaft slip joints last a heck of alot longer.
Is anyone reading this convinced enough by my argument to give shackle reversal serious consideration ? By fabricating a few simple parts you can experiment with the principal without disturbing your chassis . If anyone is interested I will explain how in a later post.
Bill.

http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=8&t=7572

http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?act=UserCP&CODE=00

http://pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?t=481320

 

[AndrewP]

My experience: I rebuilt my FJ40 2 years ago and did the spring over and a shackle reversal. I would not do it again, though as set up it does handle great.

The only good part is that is does significantly improve your attack angle. That has been useful in the boulders of the Sierras. The downside is the shackle at the rear that hangs down and can occasionally hang up on a rock or whatever. It also requires that you use a long travel slip joint in the front shaft, which is an additional $200 expense. Last but not least, it changes your spring perch angle, so you have to factor that in when you do the cut and turn.

I'm building my 60 now, and keeping the shackles up front where they belong. If in the end, I prefer the SR, I'll keep an axle housing in reserve to do a new cut and turn.

I met a guy in Rubicon springs with a Series Rover from the 60s set up with Toyota mini-truck axles. It seemed to work just fine.

 

[Yorker]

I met a guy in Rubicon springs with a Series Rover from the 60s set up with Toyota mini-truck axles. It seemed to work just fine.

That was probably the guy from Inchworm. I think his LR is all Toyota under its skin.

I've noticed the same thing- with a series LR the front end starts hopping up and down when you are doing a hillclimb and it starts to falter. I've done the same hillclimbs in a FJ40 that was similarly equipped and it didn't do this pig rooting. I always thought it was because the FJ40 has longer springs and or a heavier engine- the 2 f is what 700 lbs? the LR engine is ~450 I think.

Anyway it is an interesting theory, it is kind of funny to think that someone in Australia was thinking of doing a shackle reversal on a LR to put the shackles in the front!

 

[cruiseroutfit]

Shackle Reversal, one of the biggest build debates out there. I've owned both, my SOA FJ55 was not SR'ed, nor was my orignal FJ40, however my current FJ40 is. I can say with certainty that I would do it again on a 40, we'll see on a 60?. It has minimal if not zero effect on flex, your not changing the characteristics of the spring/shackle relationship, your changing the dynamics and direction of it. I will say that a "properly" done SR is far different from a hodge-podge built SR that doesn't accomodate leaving the spring mounting points somewhat parrallel to the ground. As with anythings, there are pro's and con's which result in tradeoffs, one must make the decision with their use in mind