Scott - I still have my 52D.
I still hold Wisc State indoor 50’ 4-position iron sight record - I think
Likewise not in Bill’s league
1 Like
tony, I understand the bearings will work and the hub will fit, but it has a different shape to the hub carrier.
Yes, you are correct, I checked the Parts Manuals, and the E-type part num is different from the Saloons,
however the outer half shaft is the same part num 9407, its the inner one differs in length
1 Like
With the Water Throwers on order, p/n C20813 @ $9.04 ea., I moved forward to remove the 16 staking marks the factory (I believe) did. This would be very easy for those with a lathe, but it is still easy by hand. I used a Dremel with a grinding wheel and then dressed the circumference with a file and finally smoothed all with a wire wheel. I ground the stake marks from the top downwards as it sat in the vice (with copper jaws) and turned to the file when I hit bottom. I understand the land that the slinger fits onto is slightly tapered such that the inner edge diameter (toward the bearings) is larger that the outer edge diameter (toward the wheel splines).
I anticipate that the Water Thrower is an interference fit to the hub and may require heating the slinger while cooling the hub. Or, I may use the floor press. Conveniently, a Dodge Truck Diesel 3.5" SS exhaust pipe (free at the local muffler shop) just fits onto the slinger land after the staking marks are removed. I’ll cut it to length if that is the way to go.
I use the dental pick to “feel” if there is any staking remaining.
1 Like
The reason why the hub falls out like it did is wear on the hub. The hub is a relatively light press fit into the large inner bearing. It’s not meant to turn inside the bearing, which is what it is doing and that wears the hub. With that wear there is nothing holding the hub in when the shaft is removed. For me that has always meant a new hub and bearing. I’d appreciate a comment by some of the expert guys on this thread on whether the hub actually needs replacing under these circumstances. Can it be knurled? By the by it’s a very common problem in my experience.
Ohhh…I too would like to hear more comment on this. I’ll make a closer inspection of the old Splined Yoke and it’s Inner Bearing for wear between the two.
I have replaced the Inner Bearing and the Splined Yoke with a used one due to the snap ring issue; maybe it’s more relevant to inspect the replacement Spline Yoke for fit to the new Inner Bearing. I can also take measurements between the old and new Splined Yokes?
Bear in mind, I had worked pretty hard on the Half Shaft before it came out. First by attempting to correct the Snap Ring groove and then on the other end with an attempt to remove the Flanged Yoke U-Joint with a dead-fall hammer.
So, yes this would be correct: the fit of the old Splined Yoke is now irrelevant and it’s the fit between the new-but-used Splined Yoke and the new Inner Bearing that is relevant. I’ll check that.
Below are two pics of the new Splined Yoke after I cleaned it up. Maybe there’s a reason I’m going so slow on this project?
Sometimes I just don’t know what I’m talking about! Wish it weren’t true, but it is!! The Splined Yoke is not relevant at all to the issue Terry brought up. @inlinesix That’s because the bearing fits on the machined surface of the Hub, not on the Splined Yoke. I know one of you were about to tell me that, so I thought it best I point out my own mistake. Here’s the Hub with the old Inner Bearing. I just took this pic.
What is relevant is whether the inner surface of the bearing cone is worns…as in spinning. And the outer surface of the Hub where the Inner Bearing sits - does it have marks indicating the bearing was not secure to the Hub. Well…there are marks on the cone and the Hub, but not such that there is a groove indicating the bearing cone is spinning relative to the Hub. So, that is good right?
I measured the diameter of the inner cone of the old bearing = 1.624" to 1.625" . A bit oblong in a couple of spots. The surface of the Hub where this cone fits measures 1.626" to 1.627" (in just one spot). So it was an interference fit of MOL 0.002". The new bearing is tighter. Its inner cone diameter measures a perfect 1.622". That makes an interference fit of 0.004".
And the question becomes: is this a tight enough interference to prevent the inner cone from rotating relative to the Hub’s shaft?
I don’t plan to heat the bearing but I might cool the Hub. I’ll press the bearing into place with the Floor Press. I could also apply Loctite 290 Thread Locker. 290 is unique in that you apply it after the components are fastened and it wicks in between the components. Any comment on using this sealer?
An interference of 4 thou will not require any additional method of fixing IMHO
Rule of thumb, an interference of 0.001" per inch in diameter of the interfacing diameters, is used for a transmission fit. 0.004" interference is way beyond that for your 1.626" shaft and the fit isn’t required to transmit any load.
Is the new bearing a quality manufacture, or Chinese? What measuring equipment are you using to measure the bore of the cone? If your measurement is accurate, I would be checking against the size of other bearings, as for the old bearing to have worn 0.001" to 0.002", the bearing would have to have been spinning on the shaft. On the other hand, if there are no signs of wear on the bore of the old bearing, a 0.002" tolerance of a like bearing is rather extreme. A 0.002" tolerance is the area a poorly skill fitter and turner works in when they’re having a bad day. 
Regards,
Bill
Yes Robin, it seems quite tight to me, but then I have no feel for what it should be on this size of a shaft. I do know of other J-L members whose hub to splined yoke parted easily. And they installed new bearings and have many years on the hub without problems. thanks for the comment.
I confess that I’m still confused about what you are talking about. To clarify, here is the diagram from the SNG web site:
At first, I thought you were talking about the fit of item #27 (the splined yolk) with the internal splines of item #16 (the hub). These do not normally separate without some degree of persuasion, particularly if the “anti-click goop” that Jaguar used is still in place. However, if they have been disassembled in the recent past, and no goop has been applied, they come apart easily - it is not an interference fit.
Later, it seems that the conversation went to the fit of item #21 (Inner wheel hub bearing) on the machined shaft of item #16 (the hub). That should be an interference fit and not “fall off”. When you are setting up the end-float (or small preload if you don’t go by the Workshop Manual) the bearing is drawn down the hub shaft as the you tighten nut #31.
Could you clarify what came apart easier than you expected when you disassembled the hub?
1 Like
Mea Culpa David for the confusion. Terry had gone back to Aug 11 and read the part of this thread where I had stated the whole Half Shaft came loose from the Hub while I was working on removing the inside U-Joint and I said that was a “nice surprise”. Terry was concerned the reason it (that being the Splined Yoke still attached to the Half Shaft) separated from so easily from the Hub was because there was wear between the Hub (part 16) and the Inner Bearing (part 21). I.e., the Hub (16) came loose from its Inner Bearing (21) and this looseness helped enable the Splined Yoke (part 27) to come out of the Hub (16). At least that is what I took it to mean.
That wear between the Hub and its Inner Bearing may not segue into enabling the Splined Yoke to separate more easily, but I took the point as being there was wear between the bearing and the hub.
I got confused between the geometric relationships between the Hub, its Inner Bearing and the Splined Yoke and answered as if the Inner Bearing fit onto the Splined Yoke. Mea Culpa. Normally that Splined Yoke has to be pressed out, but as you state with the right conditions, the Splined Yoke may come apart easily from the Hub. As mine did. So, I corrected my answer as it did not make any sense. (I was surprised @Wiggles didn’t verbally smack me!)
So yes, the conversation took a wrong turn and I should have initially answered that the Splined Yoke does not fit to the bearing and then addressed the fit between the Inner Bearing and the machined shaft on the Hub. I know the new-but-used Splined Yoke (27) has to be used to set the pre-load of the Inner Bearing (21) onto the Hub (16) by trial and error. I have also ascertained that the Inner Bearing had not been spinning on the Hub. I have also ascertained that the new Inner Bearing will be a tighter interference fit onto the Hub than the old bearing. But my measurements were MOL indicators and not absolutes.
This then, sprouted the question as to what interference is appropriate. And @angelw kindly answered that. In answer to Bill: I made my measurements using a Mitutoyo caliper that is probably accurate to about 0.001" (six inch caliper). But I confess to not being overly concerned, hence not very careful in measuring, and I was just after a quick diagnosis whether the new bearing will be a tighter or looser fit than the original bearing. It will be tighter but how much so I don’t honestly know. I did not know the rule of thumb of one thousandths per inch and that is good to know…thank you. The original bearing is a Made in England Timken and the replacement is a Made in USA Timken. I don’t believe the original bearing shows wear due to spinning but there are marks - more like scrapes - on its inner cones inner surface. These could simply be from the process of pressing the Hub off of the bearing and several pics earlier in this thread show those marks. While it is difficult for me (there is no gauge on my press) to tell just how much force the press needed to remove the Hub from the Inner Bearing, it indeed required some force. The Hub did not “drop out” without effort. I truly doubt that bearing was spinning on the Hub’s machined surface.
I think at this point I am not inclined to make more accurate measurements of these bearings. I only have telescoping gauges to get inside measurements and I’ve never been satisfied with them. The new bearings are quality Timken bearings I obtained from SNGB. I may try to do a better job with my calipers, and I may not. They are the correct p/ns and match those of the original bearings shown below.
Scot,
Thanks for the clarification. It seems that I understood your original post correctly (fit of the splined yoke in the hub), but that Terry took the conversation in a different direction (fit of the inner wheel bearing on the machined shaft of the hub) resulting in my confusion. It sounds like your inner bearing fit on the hub will be fine. If your splined yoke remains a little lose in the hub you may experience clicking as the slack is taken up when accelerating or braking similar to when the wheel hub splines are worn. Some recommend using loctite or similar when assembling the yoke to the hub to prevent this. Having experienced the difficulty in breaking that bond in the past, I reassembled without, and was prepared to live with the occasional click…
Hey David, I most likely could not hear any clicking without amplification! For all the usual reasons:
+ 
+ 
+ 
+ 
++ 
The replacement Splined Yoke actually fits much tighter than the original one. I can push the old one into the Hub splines by hand, the replacement requires a bit more encouragement. My plan is to lightly grease the splines - grease on, lightly wipe it off - and go with that. I’d be curious to know what the factory did when they assembled the hub and carrier and the splined yoke.
1 Like
This has been discussed before, so there should be something in the archives. My understanding is that, as a result of customer complaints of the clicking, the factory started adding some “brown sticky goop” at some point in production. Several folks here (@John_M_Holmes springs to mind) had an awful experience trying to separate the splines as a result. On my car, one side took a lot of pressure on the press, while the other side was much easier. Hence, my decision to just use a little anti-seize when I re-assembled. It proved fruitful, as I had to change out the craptastic half-shaft UJs after the first Oil Leak tour, and the splines separated nice and easy.
1 Like
My apologies Scott. I misread your comment and interpreted as referring to the hub dropping out of the hub carrier which is caused by the hub turning on the inner bearing.
No worries, all is good Terry.
With the arrival of the Water Throwers and all the “fixes” attended to in this thread, I can now start assembling the Left Hub. I’ve made a Part 2 Thread here:
1 Like