Geoellis wrote:
With my ‘97 GEMS I am able to lock with the fob and unlock with a spare key blade. No immobilization issues. This seems to be a unique, yes positive, issue. Thoughts as to why so that I don’t change something and screw it up?
Where are you located?
Both mine have always worked like that.
th
At least, when all wheels have grip, the power is distributed evenly, which should be easier on the diffs, even if you are towing or flooring the pedal with the humongous power of the 4.6....
th.
Bought my first RR almost 32 years ago, my first P38 exactly 21 years ago, still haven't been able to sell any of them so the only profit is enjoying driving them.
th.
Gilbertd wrote:
It's also on rr.net. Looks to be a nice tidy car but advertised in the wrong place. Think about it, why advertise a car for sale to people that already have one?
Raise hand all ofyou that have only owned one!
th.
Start with removing that side. The ones on the other side are very likely to be in similar condition as the other three (1,3,7). Then you can decide if there is reason to continue on that side.
th.
If the handbrake is holding and with gearbox in P it would only turn if the transfer case is broken.
th.
It's quite common that people misunderstand how the bw transfer case works, there is a good diagram here:
https://www.4x4community.co.za/forum/showthread.php/249882-P38-Vibration/page2
And some discussions here on the other side
https://www.rangerovers.net/threads/p38-driving-with-rear-prop-shaft-only.356996/
The front drive goimg via the vc is misleading as it does not go through the vc itself, but the outer part of it.
th.
If you can move the front with rear and gearbox blocked then there is definately something wrong.
The transfer case is diff, and as with any other diff, if you can move one end with the other two blocked, something is wrong. The viscous coupling is there to provide diff lock.
As Ashcroft Transmissions put it:
"A common problem with the Range Rover BW transfer case is a “seized viscous coupling”. This can easily be identified by the effect it has on cornering, the tyres will “chirp” or “scrub”, as the vehicle is effectively permanently in diff lock. As a confirming check, put transfer case in “neutral”, handbrake on, jack up one front wheel and try to turn it, it should turn slowly with resistance, if locked solid the viscous coupling is seized, and will need changing before any damage to the diffs or CV joints occur."
They provide more detailed info in the technical part (as you quoted), here without any additions:
1) Secure the output shaft …
2) Apply a clockwise torque of 27 Nm to the (front propshaft) output flange nut. If no resistance to turn is felt, unit requires replacing.
3) If resistance to turn is felt, apply a clockwise torque of 20Nm to the (front propshaft) output flange nut for 1 minute, this should result in a rotation of approximately 25 deg – 30 deg. If no rotation or a greater force is required, unit requires replacing.
Note that in 1 they say output shaft (secured with handbrake or possibly both rear wheels on the ground and choked), not mentioning the gearbox.
th.
Was the gearbox in neutral when you checked?
th.
Just one though.
I would think that if in Park AND rear prop secured (handbrake or both rear wheels on the ground) you should not be able to move the front prop regardless of if VC is seized or not?
I kind of think it's possible to understand #18 so that no movement would mean VC is seized.
But I might be wrong of course, wouldn't be the first time.
th.
Usually it's enaugh to free up the slider, possibly new pin/boot, with no need to replace the caliper itself.
th.
And ten years + four minutes it is.
Congrats guys.
th.
And if the roof rack is not enaugh. It can tow three and a half ton.
th.
Lpgc wrote:
Who plans on still running a P38 in 2035?
I don't think I understand that question...
th.
Gilbertd wrote:
and then there's those that have two usernames of course......
Not directly related, but there are also those using different user names on each side...
th.
ps. The quoted user has a very valid reason for multiple names
That's not as good clickbait...
th.
Bought one (similar) some twenty or more years ago and it simply works. Recommend.
th.
Pump arrived, expect the rest tomorrow.
Only problem is the 40cm of snow we received from somewhere on tuesday...
th.
Tanks
Ended up sticking with the original setup. Mostly just because I don't want to have anything that I don't trust (like some fittings made by myself) hidden somewhere like behind the tank. If (when) the other fuel lines start to leak, I might as well use copper pipes, as they are not as out of reach.
Hopefully the parts will arrive before the weekend, if the weather will not be too bad I will try to do it then. And after that continue to fix the sill (and floor), both suffering from the same disease as the fuel pipes (the metal parts of them), oxidation.
th.
ps. edit to add that one reason that making the lines myself isn't as tempting is price. There are only two ships here that I trust to sell proper quality hoses. And other two that I think have the pipes. In both cases expensive here. So the difference in cost is less than in most other places.
Thanks
It's actually the hose that is leaking, so that's not an option.
Seems it's either the original way or cut both pipes and use copper (cunifer?) and hoses with non threaded filter.
th.