Settled In
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About twodoorgaz

  • Rank
  1. PS: for interest, if I did add 4.1 diffs to the equation then taking the above setup (Defender TD5 R380 PLUS V8 5TH GEAR + 1967-onwards series transfer + 4.7 diffs + 30.7" tyres (235/85/R16s)) but swapping the diffs to 4.1... would give me very similar gearing to a late, manual NAS D90. Have to do a bit of research on availability of 4.1 diff parts. NAS Defender 90 - R380 Defender TD5 R380 PLUS V8 5TH GEAR + 1967-onwards series transfer + 4.1 diffs + 30.7" tyres (235/85/R16s)
  2. Thanks all very much indeed! Think I'm sorted now and thought I'd update this thread with the conclusions. You were quite right - there's not a lot in real-orld terms between the TDi/5 and V8 boxes when you run the numbers. Basically it turns out that, when run through a Series transfer and standard series 4.7 diffs, a TD5 defender box can give almost identical ratios as a standard SIII box, and the same 5th as series 4th+OD. If you throw in 4.1 diffs and the optional V8 5th gear (offered as an option by the Ashcrofts and the like) then you get close to factory defender V8 gearing too. The defender TD5 R380 box is commonly available - and is compatible with the stumpy pinion/bellhousing - and comes in suffix K (bigger bearings) and suffix L (bigger bearings and shot peined components) flavours which is massive bonus. (he says… hopefully I've got the following right) Responding to the above posts: Fridge - yep, regardless of whether I stick with the 4.6 or switch back to the 3.5 I'll be keeping a skinny GEMS front cover (coilpack either way for waterproofing). The timing case I have is actually one from a disco II which points the oil filter forward 45-degrees the same as a RRC and makes for a better take-off for the remote oil filter (P38 is points straight down out of the side of the timing case). Bolt-on with the 4.6, or a bit of work on the crank for fitting the shallow timing case if I stick with 3.5, but no great issues there. That photo is incredibly useful - it shows the clearance to be actually better than I thought it would be as I'd like to stick with an engine fan and like you, my rad will sit on the crossmember, so should be bags of space. Also your comments on the clutch have calmed my nerves a bit re: strength and it is no longer a factor in deciding between the two engines (just comes down to heart vs. head - or carbs + MJ vs MS). The aim is to build a Series V8 conversion of old, but with a bombproof alternative to the 4-speed + overdrive. Had a really good chat with a potential gearbox builder today and have come up with a formula, turns out a standard Defender TD5 box is almost bang on the money. Here's the comparison: Defender TD5 R380 + 1967-onwards series transfer + 4.7 diffs + 30.7" tyres (235/85/R16s). For comparison, in a traditional conversion - Series III gearbox and transfer box + Fairey Overdrive + 4.7 diffs + 30.7" tyres (235/85/R16s). You'll see that on the TD5 combo 1st is very slightly lower than the SIII box (but nowhere near as low as the SIII one ton) - no bad thing when pulling away with a trailer and 1st low will be great crawler. I rarely use 1st in a standard SWB Series anyway as it a bit low for road use. 2nd and 3rd are virtually identical. 4th is identical (1:1) and 5th is almost identical to a SIII in overdrive top. Now the R380, being a 5-speed offers a bit more flexibility as during the recon the 5th gear can be changed to an even higher unit (V8 spec) for more relaxed cruising, this gives the best of both worlds - slightly lower 1st and slightly higher 5th, but still balanced nicely across the range. Defender TD5 R380 PLUS V8 5TH GEAR + 1967-onwards series transfer + 4.7 diffs + 30.7" tyres (235/85/R16s). This is the setup I'm going for. Rather than try for super-high gearing in 5th to make it cruise like a Disco, if I stick with the above it should give a nice vehicle to drive - with very similar (but fractionally more usable) ratios as a traditional Series V8 conversion. Also a bit easier/cheaper as I only need to source one more component - a Def TD5 Suffix L mainbox. I already have everything else. Thanks again everyone - massively appreciated.
  3. Hi folks. Does anyone know if the V8 R380 in disco/disco II was made in suffix L, and if so what year it was introduced? Obviously the TD5 box was made in an L but for a V8, the latest I've seen on the 2nd hand market is suffix K. thank you.
  4. Thanks very much for the detailed reply FF. re: your queries: 1: I have a 4.6 already which was my original 1st choice nice find as the seller included an int. serp timing cover . I've also given some thought to swapping it for a 3.5 - looks nice on original carbs and definitely won't stress the 9.5" clutch (your points on the clutch noted). 2: clutch - I've heard of 9.5" clutches (which I'm limited to due to the stumpy R380) starting to slip on higher torque motors. LR always fitted their V8s with 10.5" clutches. Are your 4.6s on 4-cylinder gearboxes or ones with V8 bell housings? 3: Its an all-rounder. Some off road work, mainly on road. I've had both D90s and Discos in the past and note they have slightly different gearing - for this application one that drives like a disco would be ideal (slightly higher ratio). I don't yet have an R380 mainbox so options are 4-cyl 300TDi/TD5 or V8 Disco (assuming the stumpy input pinion I have is compatible). 4: useful to know re: the diffs. I'm leaning towards 4.7s with the 5th gear on the R380 taking the place of a Fairey OD on the original box. I don't need to improve low-speed crawling, but not willing to sacrifice it too much in exchange for higher cruising. With 3.54s this gives 2209RPM@70mph - possibly a bit low and with 4.7s, 2933rpm which is possibly a bit high. 5: regardless of which R380 I go for, I'll definitely be having the V8 5th (ashcrofts can include it on any build). Tyres will almost certainly be 235/85R16s. aah decisions, decisions - last thing to buy is the mainbox.
  5. Does anyone know if the Stumpy R380 input pinion (suffix K/L, 22 spline) is compatible with the Discovery V8 R380 gear set? Have a stumpy R380 conversion kit and looking to build a mainbox with correct V8 ratios - obvious starting point is a disco v8 R380. Can either convert the Disco gearshift to Defender with a shifter adaptor or strip the whole thing and reassemble into a scrap defender TD5 R380 casing. Also does anyone know if they built the disco V8 R380 in suffix L, or did it stop at Suffix K? (guessing a Disco II 4.0 manual would have the strongest V8 r380 but not sure of the suffix). Thanks.
  6. I'm always asking folk for measurements. Happen to have a stumpy R380 bellhousing and a Philips V8 adaptor plate to hand so thought I'd post the measurements in case they're of any use to anyone: From gearbox mounting face to engine mounting face it is exactly 15.8cm (6.25 inches). Interestingly I understand that the short car-type LT77 V8 bellhousing is 7.25 inches. As the R380 mainbox is 1 inch longer than the LT77 then the two gearboxes (LT77 + short car bellhousing and stumpy R380 plus Philips adaptor) are exactly the same length and both share a 9.5inch clutch. For info the Phillips plate fits perfectly onto the stumpy bell housing. The Stumpy bell housing has one hole less than a series bell housing (over the aperture for the clutch fork) - you could drill it through or do without like Land Rover did. Thats why the plate is canted-up t the back. may be of interest to owners of other classic cars.
  7. PS Daan - your truck was actually the inspiration for the wheels. I always have one-ton rims on my builds, so I bought 6.5J 130 wheels. But for safety I really wanted tubeless (have run tubes in tubeless tyres in the past and never felt great about it). I'll be running BFG Muds (closes thing I can find with a decent speed rating but with high shoulders like factory cross plies). After reading about the wheels on your hybrid I contacted a company down south who are going to band a set of late defender 5.5j tubeless steels to replicate my 130s but tubeless. Cost is amazing (well, free), I bought my rims cheap so the profit from the resale value is more than enough to buy and modify the defender rims.
  8. Thank you Daan, I'll take that on board. I appreciate the Series transfer box is always a bone of contention - most people go LT230 and understandably baulk at the cost of the adaptor. I've seen and driven both but prefer the physical fit of the Ashcroft-Series adaptor - no need to scallop the bell housing crossmember or use prop spacers, no concerns re: handbrake drum clearance, less reduction in rear prop length and its more than strong enough for anything a RV8 can throw at it. I simply have Richards include a 2nd pair of bolt-up gearbox crossmember mounts 102mm further back and it slots in beautifully. in the future, if I want to refit the original box, 10-mins with a grinder to knock the extra mounts off and the chassis is back to factory (plus no issues re the "topic that shall not be referenced" on this forum). Downside is silly, silly cost of the kit, a much noisier transfer box than the (even) stronger LT230 and no option to move to permanent 4x4 (shame as I already have stage 1 CVs for strength over stock UJs). Very much a personal choice, that's difficult to explain, but 'feels' right for the project (traditional '60s/'70s V8 conversion and only injecting modernity where essential to give the system the strength it would need to have been sold by the factory). I'm leaning away from the 4.6 V8 and P38 steering I bought and onto a 3.5/stock steering for the same reason. MJ is another example - by adding this and the Disco gems timing cover I gain a little extra space at the front which was another issue back in the day that couldn't be solved with period technology. Once fitted I'll be tweaking the front panel - adding a custom brass radiator to give the cooling it needs but (if I can avoid going over the front crossmember) retaining the SIIA wide top tank. I have wild ambitions of finding a way to fit a fixed fan (rather than viscous) to the serpentine pulley - probably overly ambitious, but I'll cross that bridge when the engine is in place. MJ, Gems Serpentine front cover and R380 mainbox are the modern prices I have to pay to make a traditional conversion perfect.
  9. Hi folks - looking for a bit of advice here. I'm getting closer to starting assembly on my next build - last one was focused on the quality of the restoration (museum piece and totally stock but boring to drive and a bit fragile), this one is keeping the shabby bodywork and all effort is going into the divetrain. I write, surrounded by cardboard boxes from Ashcroft and other suppliers. But I'm massively confused with the ratios to choose for the donor diff/R380 before they go for recon. Not so much final drive, more whether the gaps between 1st-4th will be appropriate for a V8 (aiming for a factory feel) Into a SWB 1969 Series IIA is being stuffed the following: BOUGHT: Rover V8 plus Gems front cover (have a 4.6 for MS but its a bit much for the clutch so still toying with a traditional-looking 3.5 on clockwork SUs with MJ) YET TO BUY: 9.5" 130 (HD) TDI clutch BOUGHT: Milner Philips series V8 adaptor and engine mounts YET TO BUY: A R380 (Defender, Suffix L) - not yet bought the donor box (will be going straight to Ashcrofts) BOUGHT: Stumpy R380 conversion kit (bell housing, clutch fork/parts and Suffix L input pinion which will be turned-down to fit spigot) BOUGHT: Ashcroft to Series transfer box adaptor BOUGHT: Series IIA transfer box (have a suffix C but can change to the earlier suffix B) BOUGHT: 24 spline shafts to go in rear axle YET TO BUY: rear diff (ratio TBC), will be rebuild with ATB and 24-spline (nice little touch - a PowerLok LSD was a rare factory option in 1969) BOUGHT: 235/85/R16s BOUGHT: standard rear prop (will be shortened) YET TO BUY: skinny Disco V8 front prop for addl. clearance over bell housing crossmember (will be lengthened) YET TO BUY: chassis (standard Richards but with a 2nd set of bolt-up crossmember mounts 102mm further back). All above bolts straight in. TBC: steering. Have all the bits for a P38/Defender setup. If I go for a powerful engine I'll go P38 for feel, and will have the brackets put on the chassis, if I use a 3.5V8 aim for traditional+, then I'll stick with stock. Things I have no choice about: 44A Suffix L main gearbox - the 050A (petrol) parts are NLA so I have to have it rebuilt to 44A (300TDI) spec. 235/85/R16 tyres. Things I can change: 5th Gear - I can have Ashcroft build it with either the standard (0.77:1) or higher (0.73:1) V8 5th ratio Series transfer box - I can use the pre-1967 suffix B or post- Suffix C gearing here Diffs - I can have the diffs built to series (4.7) or coiler (3.54) ratios. Now final drive ratios are easy (4th is 1:1 in all boxes, 5th can be picked to give the best cruising RPM). The problem I have is 1st-3rd. I've been in a 200TDI/Zeus-bellhousing LT95 RRC and it was horrible - the gaps in the gearing did not suit the TDi at all. Fine once you got in top though. I'm doing something similar in reverse - a V8 onto a Diesel box and am terrified that the ratios will be ill-suited to the V8. Example 1: With the 44A R380, 1969 transfer box, standard diffs and 31.7" (235) tyres I get the following: High Table Speed/Gear First Second Third Fourth Fifth 10 MPH 2113 1220 800 572 441 20 MPH 4227 2441 1599 1145 882 30 MPH 6340 3661 2399 1717 1322 40 MPH 8454 4882 3199 2290 1763 50 MPH 10567 6102 3998 2862 2204 60 MPH 12680 7322 4798 3435 2645 70 MPH 14794 8543 5598 4007 3085 80 MPH 16907 9763 6397 4579 3526 Example 2: With the 44A R380, 1969 transfer box, coiler diffs and 31.7" (235) tyres I get the following: High Table Speed/Gear First Second Third Fourth Fifth 10 MPH 1592 919 602 431 332 20 MPH 3184 1838 1205 862 664 30 MPH 4775 2758 1807 1293 996 40 MPH 6367 3677 2409 1725 1328 50 MPH 7959 4596 3012 2156 1660 60 MPH 9551 5515 3614 2587 1992 70 MPH 11142 6434 4216 3018 2324 80 MPH 12734 7354 4818 3449 2656 Example 3: With the 44A R380 with V8 5th, 1969 transfer box, standard diffs and 31.7" (235) tyres I get the same 1st-4th as example 1 but with the following in 5th: Fifth 10 MPH 419 20 MPH 838 30 MPH 1257 40 MPH 1676 50 MPH 2095 60 MPH 2514 70 MPH 2933 80 MPH 3352 Example 4: With the 44A R380 with V8 5th, 1969 transfer box, coiler diffs and 31.7" (235) tyres I get the same 1st-4th as example 2 but with the following in 5th: High Table Speed/Gear Fifth 10 MPH 316 20 MPH 631 30 MPH 947 40 MPH 1262 50 MPH 1578 60 MPH 1894 70 MPH 2209 80 MPH 2525 Any advice would be very, very welcome. I can use the Ashcroft Ratio Calculator (see here) but I'm not great on interpreting the results.
  10. Thanks guys - I'll use the Microcat for now and will keep an eye open for a paper copy too.
  11. Hi folks. We are starting the process of importing a late Discovery 1 from Japan. Being something of a part number nerd (all those years of building Series IIIs living by the parts catalogue), I'd like to systemically identify all the parts that differ between the Japanese and UK models (aside from the obvious - speedo, radio, parts of the loom, etc). and from that I'll decide what I want to replace (already have a large stock of Disco bits). Before I commit to buying a parts catalogue like this one if anyone has one to hand can they let me know if there are comments in the various frames saying where parts differ between markets (e.g.: Japan/ROW only, etc). Thank you very much.
  12. Just a quick one folks, in case its of any use. Came across a Jeep wrangler 2.5 intake manifold today struck with how similar the layout is to a 2.25/2.5p. They made the Jeep/AMC 2.5 4-cyl in SPI and MPI - if anyone is planning a MS install they may be a good source of parts (same capacity, same 4x4 application, very easy to source parts, etc.). Can't see it being very difficult to have an intake modified to take the full shebang with injector/mounting bosses/carb base changed to match throttle body, etc by a aluminium specialist (either based on a stock 2.5 rover or an aftermarket one with no hot spot like a ACR SU intake & tubular exhaust manifold). Trigger wheel and the rest is wiring (he says…) Would love to see what a nicely built 2.5 NA would make (104bhp and 26mpg?) Anyway - see attached for an MPI. TBI pics online.
  13. Just a quick update folks. Got the first pile of donor bits and got quite lucky: for a crate of lager less than a ton I picked up a 4.6 block and heads fitted with an intermediate serp front end. Still trying to work out the rest of the parts the PO used to build it though.
  14. Yes the Q&A that the ACE did with the VOSA policy team was absolutely brilliant. You never seem to see anyone referencing it, when it is pretty damn clear when applied to a LR chassis re: what you can do and what you can't. I hope I'm not in breach of any forum rules here - I've always avoided discussing SVA/IVA. If only someone copied it before the ACE site went down... Oh wait - someone did. All of the following is information gained by ACE when questioning VOSA on what constitutes a 'modified chassis': "Quote Chassis and Monocoque Modification VOSA Clarification on Body/Chassis points rules Some of you will have taken the time to find the rules that govern how much you are allowed to modify your vehicle before its identity is called into question. Whilst the 8 points system has been in place for at least 27 years (in its current form) DVLA have been sadly remiss in making the guidelines relating to car modifying known to those that it affects. We will shortly be adding articles to show how the system works in relation to various vehicles but this is the description as published by DVLA. Rebuilt vehicle 8 points system: - An existing vehicle uses a similar system: - The guidelines shown above are not specific about their application. ACE have attempted to clarify certain areas that go to the very root of a car's identity, and how much you are allowed to modify the chassis or monococque, before you lose the 5 points it represents. We have been liasing with both DVLA and VOSA to clarify this area. Initially we received this reply from DVLA: "When assessing a modified/rebuilt vehicle, DVLA's main interest is to establish whether the original identity has been compromised by the changes made. If a vehicle has been modified from the original manufacturer's specification or if not enough of the original components have been retained in the build, the vehicle identity will change and IVA will be required to register with an alternative registration number. Due to the very nature of rebuilding or modifying vehicles from their original manufacturer's specification, DVLA assesses each vehicle on its own merits based on the documentary evidence provided and a physical inspection of the vehicle. The INF 26 information leaflet, and the information given on the website, is issued as a guideline to the registration of rebuilt, radically altered or kit converted vehicles. They are not meant as technical guides. However, both clearly indicate that if modifications are made to the chassis or monocoque bodyshell, or if the build does not include enough original, major components (as listed) the identity of the vehicle will change. The information on is regularly reviewed to reflect changes in legislation VOSA have provided the following response to your questions; Chassis. Q) What is classed as chassis? Is it purely the outer longitudinal rails or are the crossmembers between these also a part of the chassis? A) Chassis should be taken to include crossmembers. Q) We know that cutting or shortening a chassis is classed as modification but is this relative to the vehicle wheelbase i.e. the chassis must remain uncut between the 2 axles but anything forward of front or aft of rear suspension mounts can be removed? A) Chassis includes the full original length of the longitudinal members including to the front of the front axle and to the rear of the rear axle. Q) Is it acceptable to remove bodymounts, which contribute no strength to the chassis when changing a body to a different style /make? A) Yes, providing they are additional to and are not an integral part of the chassis structure. Q) Is it acceptable to strengthen a chassis by the addition of boxing plates a process that involves turning a 3-sided open chassis rail into a fully enclosed 'box' chassis? A) Yes, providing the original structure remains unchanged. Monococque. Q) What is the definition of a monococque ? A) A design in which body and chassis are all one unit. Q) Why does cutting into a monococque affect the vehicle identity if it retains the same shape /profile as before. A) Cutting is considered to be modifying the vehicle from its original specification. Any modification to the chassis/monocoque body is considered to render the vehicle no longer original specification or of original identity. Q) Is it acceptable to modify a vehicle bulkhead and/or transmission tunnel when performing an engine change or fitting another make? A) No, Assuming this is in relation to a monocoque structure. This would be considered a modification to the structure. Q) Is it acceptable to fully weld sections that are spot-welded as part of the original construction methods, to increase the strength of the body? A) Yes, providing the original structure is retained. ACE felt that further clarification was needed from VOSA so we sent more questions. The following responses are from the VOSA Press Office:- The answers to our chassied vehicle rules queries seem mainly straightforward, However, we have further questions based on the answers supplied. Q) As chassis strengthening is allowed, are we correct in assuming that additional crossmembers would also be allowed? A) It is important that the original chassis structure is retained unmodified, and while it is acceptable to strengthen areas and include additional brackets or crossmembers, It would be limited to additions within the existing chassis frame structure. Additional chassis structures, i.e. extending the outward parameters of the original chassis structure would be considered a modification. Q) It is the monococque rules that need the most clarification. Your reply states that any cutting of the monococque" is considered to render the vehicle identity no longer original specification or of original identity ". This would suggest that any crash repairs necessitating cutting and removal of panels or chassis sections, or restoration work would call the vehicle's identity into question? We presume that the point should really be that any cutting... other than in factory designed joining areas...would be the actual criteria? A) In this respect it is necessary to differentiate between modification and repair. Any repair process that is in line with manufacturer's recommendations and that returns the structure to its original specification would not be considered to be a modification. Q) Would the modification of wings to allow clearance for larger wheels fall foul of the regulations? We presume not as the common fitment of sunroofs does not create issues as this is a non stressed item of the monococque, the same as wings?" A) When considering a monocoque structure, it is necessary to consider what constitutes cosmetic panels that do not significantly add to the structural strength and which panels provide structural integrity. In general front wings modified in this way would not constitute a modification to the monocoque structure. With reference to the further query, VOSA have advised that they would prefer the following statement: What constitutes a monocoque is that of how an OEM manufacturer would view it. The chassis or `cage` assembly and all components that form it, less any cosmetic panels or infills that make no structural consideration to the monocoque or its component parts. However, we must emphasis that this information is given for general guidance and each case will be judged on its merits. Whilst none of this is definitive, and it contains the usual 'Judged on it's own merits' criteria, it does answer a lot of questions where the modifier has only been able to speculate in the past. It means we are aware of what we can or cannot do and still retain the 5 points from the start of any modification process. So, to summarise the above information: Chassis It is acceptable to box original chassis and also to add additional crossmembers but not to alter the existing chassis in any way to allow for their installation. It is acceptable to remove NON STRUCTURAL body mounts and engine / gearbox mounts. It is NOT acceptable to shorten, or lengthen the chassis, either in between standard suspension points or fore and aft of these. Any additional items welded creating a longer overall chassis are classed as modifications. It would however be acceptable to bolt a reasonably sized additional subframe to existing mounting holes. Any outriggers (as opposed to continuous chassis frame) fore or aft from the chassis would need clarification from VOSA as to their purpose before removal or alteration was accepted. This would be based on their purpose and whether they formed part of the vehicles original Type Approval. Monococques It is NOT acceptable for the bulkhead, or transmission tunnel area, to be modified. The specification for a monococque will vary with each manufacturer and the decision on what are acceptable modifications will be based on those criteria for each vehicle. It is acceptable for additional seam welding to be carried out. Should there be any further questions relating the above information on specific vehicles ACE would be willing to assist in further clarification on an individual basis. The above information relates to only 5 points (awarded for original unmodified chassis / monococque) of the 8 points system for retaining vehicle identity and we will be clarifying other sections in the future."
  15. And as mentioned it has 10 bolt heads. so: 4.6 block (confirmed by 46xxxxxxx engine number and crossbolts), 4.0/4.6 heads intermediate serpentine timing cover and water pump but with v-belt pulley. i'll check the key way in the crank tomorrow night - that will initially tell me if it's an interim 3.9 or 4.0/4.6 crank (if the latter I'll whip off the sump to differentiate between the two) the camshaft definitely has a skew gear for the dizzy. still no idea on the pistons though