Military Vehicles, August 1996,: Re: full vs semi floating axles
Re: full vs semi floating axles
Gale Barrows (barrowsg@rapidnet.com)
Wed, 21 Aug 1996 21:47:44 -0600 (MDT)
>In message Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:58:54 -0700,
> gpool@pacific.net (Granville Pool) writes:
>
>> To me, in my off-roading in the back of beyond, a more compelling
>> advantage of full-floaters is that if (or, in my case, with a
>> 10-spline-axled Land-Rover, *when*) I break an axle, my wheel won't fall
>> off and I can still drive home on front-wheel drive.
>
>Glad you said *when* Granville.
>I have had two LR, an SWB and an LWB. I have broken at least 3 rear axles on
>the SWB, all of them on the shortest of the two (the one on the right as
>you look at the vehicle from the rear). I suppose that the longer of the
>two has just enough more torsion elasticity more than the shorter of them
>to save it. On the LWB, I haven't broken any. The SWB was petrol with a
>greater torque than the diesel of the LWB. Seems to me that
>the rear axles are designed just a little too close in tolerance to break
>point.........Or is it a problem that all floating axle vehicles encounter??
>
>regards
>Gerry
>
It almost sounds like the axles are heat treated in such a way on the short
axle that the axle is hard for the full length. The splined section and the
outer bearing end should be hardened and apparently are but in the process,
perhaps the entire axle gets hardened. Perhaps spot annealing could be done
(aftermarket by any shop set up to do heat treating) to the middle section
of the axle only. seems like this would allow more flexing before breaking.