Prop shaft too short?

[bmcecosse]

LA has a good point about the diff, possible length of nose - although have never heard of such a thing - it IS really the only variable left!

[linearaudio]

.....may be I should reverse it into a wall to shorten it.....

Spot the obvious error!! You can't get the propshaft to mate, thus no drive, thus no shortening cure

Have to try something else!

Has anyone else confirmed that propshaft length? Not doubting that Declans information is in error, just it would be really annoying to ultimately find there were two different lengths around!

[PSL184]

Just checked 2 props in my garage - both measure 51.5"

[linearaudio]

Just checked 2 props in my garage - both measure 51.5"

This is a real teaser now! Must surely be in the length of the diff as all else is checking out OK. Sun is out today, time to measure up a bit!

[Bradmoneypit]

This work lark really interferes with Morris Minor time!!!!

I have managed to measure from the prop side of the diff flange plate to the back of the diff casing where it bolts to the rear axle. A straight line measurement between these two points across the bottom of the diff is 7.5inches or 185 mm.

I have also taken out the axle stands and the car is now flat on the floor, no noticeable change was seen at the gearbox end.

Does anyone have a measurement from a standard MM1098 diif they could compare this with?

[PSL184]

I have managed to measure from the prop side of the diff flange plate to the back of the diff casing where it bolts to the rear axle. A straight line measurement between these two points across the bottom of the diff is 7.5inches or 185 mm.

Mine measures 7.5" also

[Bradmoneypit]

This is really weird, all the bits seem to be the right length, sort of in the right place and where they should be.

I will go and have another thunk about this. Thanks for the quick response.

[moggydriver62]

I can't get to mine to measure now but is ,the centre bolt
midway between the eyes on the spring.If not maybe springs
are wrong way round.

[bmcecosse]

This was discussed earlier - doesn't matter which way round springs go. Looking again at the pics - the gap between engine and battery does look a bit on the high side,

[Bradmoneypit]

Sorry, do you mean the engine is a bit too high? I looked at the gap between the bottom of the gearbox spline and the cross member, this is very small approx .25 inch. The engine towers are brand new from Bull Motif. I still think the problem is towards the rear as the angle of the clutch bearing shaft that attaches to the gearbox, is if anything indicates the gearbox/engine is a little too far backwards.

I am going out to strip down the rear end this evening and put it back together again, to see if I can encourage any forward movement.

[linearaudio]

I think our Scots Sage may have been referring to the gap laterally from the heater water valve to the battery tray- but personally I would say it's just about right- an inch further back and it would foul! You are right about it appearing too far back if anything, by the gearbox mount. How accurate was your wheelbase check? Can't remember if that was a"compared" check or a stated Manual figure. It's not too hard to lose an inch measuring wheelbase, but even then the most likely culprit would be the front rear spring hangers, and it's hard to see how they could end up that far out! For a start you would never get the rear hangers to line up with the spring eyes, unless your rear shackles are sitting at their furthest rear position with no load on the springs??
Unloaded, the rear shackles should point a little forwards, under full deflection they go back far enough to "clump" the chassis flange! Worth a check unloaded! After all, we are grabbing at passing straws on this one!!

[Bradmoneypit]

I will have a play with unloading the springs before stripping the back down.

Its a shame you guys aren't closer to York, I'm getting very close to alcohol incentives to passing MM owners!!!!

[bmcecosse]

I was suggesting the engine looks to be slightly too far forward - not high. Not much in it! But i know when i fitted the 940 head - the valve became VERY close to the battery - in that picture - there seems to be plenty of room. And - now you reveal it's got NEW 'towers' - I would wonder if the problem could be there. The wheelbase figure I quoted is from the Workshop Manual - only given for the earlier MM and series II, but I doubt it changed any when the 1000 was introduced - they certainly don't mention any revised figure.

[linearaudio]

Can't be an inch in it though- if anything the gearbox mount looks a little too far back-another inch and it wouldn't have a hope of lining up! My money is on the rear spring front mounts being welded on too far back.

Unfortunately 300 miles is too far to travel for a beer, especially when we have Adnams just up the coast!

[PSL184]

Maybe some pics of the spring mount positions..... ??

[Bradmoneypit]

Hi guys, I did compare the new towers with the originals and they seemed to be exactly the same (height and angles).

I had a peek between the bellhousing and the steering rack that gap is very close too, not sure how much clearance is needed between them, but if the engine is much further back the bellhousing and steering rack will start to touch, and I will start to have trouble with the clutch relay assembly.

Just out to have a play, will remeasure the wheelbase, the unloaded springs check and the gap between bellhousing and steering rack before the strip down. Thanks guys.

[Bradmoneypit]

Back again, had a look at the gap between bellhousing and steering rack... actually resting on the rubber inspection cover.

Took some photo's of the spring hangers and the rear wheel.

I also measured the distance between the front spring hanger and rear Passenger side= 47.25", drivers side= 46.75".

I am wondering whether the new front spring hangers have been welding too far back, which could explain why the rear wheel seems to be not higher in the wheel arch... see following photos.[frame][/frame]

[Bradmoneypit]

The rear spring hangers pivot holes, haven't been changed.[frame][/frame]

[Bradmoneypit]

Finally the gap between the top of the rear wheel and the wheel arch. The car has been off the stands for several hours, but still may ease down a little, but still looks a little out of place... may be wrong![frame][/frame]

[linearaudio]

I would put money on the spring hangers being wrong- with the weight off the wheels, the rear shackles should point forwards, not back as yours appear! Somewhere that eye-eye dimension exists- I know JLH supplied it to me the other year when I was suffering spring troubles. The fact that you have half an inch discrepancy from one side to the other is not good in the first place!

Checking back- the figure I had quoted, and checked, was 43.5" hole centres from front mounting to rear hole in chassis. No way I could conjure up your 47" dimension, suggest you re-check. Don't give up now, we are getting close to an answer, even if it may not be a particularly pleasant one!!

Also, with the car weight on my springs, the rear shackle angle is slightly forward, not to the rear like yours!

Another check- the floorpan goes from horizontal to an upward angle around this front hanger point. The front of my front hanger bracket is about an inch forward of this point. It could be very tempting to fix the new hanger bracket so the front edge lined up with the bend point in the floor, which would give your 1" discrepancy!!

If this is your problem, then don't be tempted to take up the 1" with a spacer at the prop-diff flange joint, as your big trouble will still be that the rear shackles will foul the chassis flange as soon as you put any load on the springs-something which tends to occur with weak springs/heavy loads anyway. This then puts huge strain on everything as the spring tries to deflect whilst both ends are effectively immoveable!