Lucky 8's new Project D2 - Bigger and Better than the last one
#111
#112
Don't you have Ashcroft thirds at the shop? I thought this build was big and bad. I mean, maybe you don't have Force 9's, but at least get a decent carrier.
I'm a D1 guy, and while I can understand why some people might prefer the softness of the DII, there's some things that I don't think a big lift can fix. But since Lucky 8 has plenty of experience with the DII and the P38 project vehicles, and I have none, maybe you can comment on them.
I've read a number of people comment that the Watts link is a limiting factor on the rear suspension. Personally, I think the Watts link may be better than a panhard rod, and what concerns me more than the link are the rear radius arms. I think it must be the radius arms in the rear that limit flex as much as they are known to do on the front of all solid-axle Rovers.
The other shortcoming that comes to mind are the axles with the open cv joints and cartridge hubs. I don't really understand the rationale behind these axles. Is there anything better about them, or were they just a step backward?
I sometimes find myself contemplating the DII or the P38 because there are so many of them in decent shape. The majority of the D1's and RRC's available are trashed. It's getting especially rare to find a clean classic nowadays. But when considering the DII or P38, the transfercase swap is not what concerns me as much as the axles and suspension. I could see resolving the radius arm issue with a 4 link kit, but it's a lot of work to put into an axle I don't see love for.
I'm a D1 guy, and while I can understand why some people might prefer the softness of the DII, there's some things that I don't think a big lift can fix. But since Lucky 8 has plenty of experience with the DII and the P38 project vehicles, and I have none, maybe you can comment on them.
I've read a number of people comment that the Watts link is a limiting factor on the rear suspension. Personally, I think the Watts link may be better than a panhard rod, and what concerns me more than the link are the rear radius arms. I think it must be the radius arms in the rear that limit flex as much as they are known to do on the front of all solid-axle Rovers.
The other shortcoming that comes to mind are the axles with the open cv joints and cartridge hubs. I don't really understand the rationale behind these axles. Is there anything better about them, or were they just a step backward?
I sometimes find myself contemplating the DII or the P38 because there are so many of them in decent shape. The majority of the D1's and RRC's available are trashed. It's getting especially rare to find a clean classic nowadays. But when considering the DII or P38, the transfercase swap is not what concerns me as much as the axles and suspension. I could see resolving the radius arm issue with a 4 link kit, but it's a lot of work to put into an axle I don't see love for.
#114
First you buy these. (I think its E10 just buy a lisle set for 10 bucks.) (I think its 18 MM, you should own a full set of gearwrenches anyway.)
First jack up the frame for better access to the mounts. Use the Gear wrench to loosen the nuts on the engine side of the mount. Then remove both botom nuts and use the E10 to remove the stud from the motor mount. (circled) Then fully remove the engine side nuts. Jack up the motor and slide both mounts out. Remove the studs from the new mounts and slide them in. Put the studs back in and lower the engine. Put all the nuts back on.
First jack up the frame for better access to the mounts. Use the Gear wrench to loosen the nuts on the engine side of the mount. Then remove both botom nuts and use the E10 to remove the stud from the motor mount. (circled) Then fully remove the engine side nuts. Jack up the motor and slide both mounts out. Remove the studs from the new mounts and slide them in. Put the studs back in and lower the engine. Put all the nuts back on.
#115
#120