 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Double cardan propshafts |
 
|
|
|
| jst Member Since: 14 Jan 2008 Location: Taunton Posts: 7685  
|
What vehicle?
Some argue a puma benefits from DC prop due to different flange angles on std suspension. Personally i dont see the requirement on std setup. Cheers James 110 XS Utility 130 Puma Station wagon/camper (in the making) 90 Puma Hardtop |
||
3rd Dec 2019 5:16pm |
|
| JOW240725 Member Since: 04 May 2015 Location: Suffolk Posts: 7873  
|
If on standard power and tyres and little off-road why do you want to upgrade anything? James
MY2012 110 2.2TDCi XS SW Orkney Grey - http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic43410.html MY1990 110 200TDi SW beautifully faded Portofino Red - https://www.defender2.net/forum/post743641.html#743641 MY1984 90 V8 Slate Grey - https://www.defender2.net/forum/post744557.html#744557 Instagram @suffolk_rovers |
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 5:21pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018 
|
Can't really see any benefit if you are not lifting the vehicle.
|
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 5:29pm |
|
| windy81 Member Since: 14 Mar 2018 Location: North Wales Posts: 311  
|
double cardan is effectively a cv joint or so i read, making the front std front prop imbalance,smooth.
When I can i'll be putting a gwyn lewis dc prop on mine |
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 6:22pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 16876 
|
There is noticeably (just!) less vibration from the front driveline of a Puma when fitted with a DC prop.
The geometry of the driveline, with different front and rear flange angles, means that a standard propshaft cannot avoid some vibration. A DC prop does make a difference. |
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 6:31pm |
|
| a13x Member Since: 25 Sep 2011 Location: Burton on Trent Posts: 551
|
I have some play in the propshaft uj and might as well spend change the entire prop
|
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 6:58pm |
|
| Retroanaconda Member Since: 04 Jan 2012 Location: Scotland Posts: 2548 
|
By that logic why not replace the whole vehicle? UJs can be had for c. £25 each and its an hours work to change them with basic tools. |
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 7:23pm |
|
| jst Member Since: 14 Jan 2008 Location: Taunton Posts: 7685
|
^^^^^^ exactly. Spending for the sake of it. Cheers
James 110 XS Utility 130 Puma Station wagon/camper (in the making) 90 Puma Hardtop |
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 8:17pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 16876
|
Not really. In any application where the two flanges of the propshaft are not coplanar there will be an inevitable vibration, it simply cannot be avoided (it can if the flanges are not coaxial but are coplanar, which is a normal situation). On the Puma, the engine and gearbox are installed nose-up, and therefore there is no possibility of the pinion flanges being coplanar with the transfer box flanges.
The reason that this causes a problem is that the basic geometry of a Hooke joint means that unless unless the flange and shaft axis are exactly perpendicular, the shaft does not run at a constant speed but accelerates and decelerates twice per revolution, with the difference between the maximum and minimum angular velocities being proportional to the angle of deflection. This is impossible to avoid with a Hooke joint, it is simply a phenomenon of geometry. The result is that the output flange of the tranfer box may be rotating at a constant speed, but the propshaft itself is not, it is constantly accelerating and decelerating. With two Hooke joints running at matched deflections, the joints can be set up out of phase to minimise the effects of this, however when the flanges do not run in the same plane no amount of jiggery-pokery can eliminate all the torsional vibration. On the Disco2, Landrover in its wisdom felt it necessary to fit a DC propshaft to reduce this vibration, however on the Puma the mismatch in flange alignment is much, much greater than the Disco2 but in this case they did not consider it necessary, I assume because it was a crude agricultural machine bought by weirdos rather than a sophisticated machine bought by cool yuppies! Fitting a DC prop to a Puma does make the driveline smoother, and whilst some will argue it is not necessary others (like me) will argue it is worth the spend. Horses for courses and all that. |
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 8:42pm |
|
| Bluest Member Since: 23 Apr 2016 Location: Lancashire Posts: 3997 
|
I’d like a standard strength, or only mildly strengthened dc shaft. The Gwyn Lewis is way over top and consequently very heavy fo a standard untuned car in my opinion. 2007 110 TDCi Station Wagon XS
|
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 8:58pm |
|
| UtilityTruck Member Since: 09 Jan 2014 Location: Oxford Posts: 463
|
Based on blackwolf’s reply above, would a D2 prop fit? 2014 Keswick Utility 2.2
|
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 10:15pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 16876
|
Different length, different rear flange, I'm afraid.
|
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 10:18pm |
|
| UtilityTruck Member Since: 09 Jan 2014 Location: Oxford Posts: 463
|
Just the front flange then.. hurmm, 2WD conversion anyone?? 2014 Keswick Utility 2.2
|
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 10:46pm |
|
| BaronDefenders Member Since: 28 Jun 2019 Location: London/Cotswolds Posts: 806 
|
We fitted a Gwyn Lewis DC front prop to our 2.2 110. The reason behind this was that the mild OME 1” lift on it had put the prop at such an angle that it was making a rather lovely grinding noise. With the Gwyn Lewis prop this noise has disappeared. Deffo worth it if you’re lifting a Puma, in my opinion. Otherwise, might be a good option if/when you trash the original one. Charlie
1949 Series 1 80 (SOLD) 2002 Td5 90 (SOLD) 2008 Freelander 2 (SOLD) 1958 Series 2 88 Pastel Green (2019 LR Legends Best Restored) 1983 V8 110 Limestone (Previously owned by Tom Sheppard MBE) 2004 Td5 90 Santorini Black (Td5INSIDE Powered & Rebuilt by CSK) 2012 Puma 110 Zermatt Silver (Overlanding Build) Instagram: @BaronDefenders |
||
|
3rd Dec 2019 10:50pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
