Jump to content

joe1

Settled In
  • Posts

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

11 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
    Berks

Previous Fields

  • Interests
    Discovery 300tdi, 90 300tdi in refurb phase, Beluga Black RRC Vogue 300tdi waiting in line.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,114 profile views
  1. The answer is to do with the fact that the chassis engine mounts have at some point been moved rearwards by around 45mm. I found someone's diagram (attached) for installing 300 TDI mounts (in a standard 300 TDI position) together with measurements and once I knew where to focus attention I could see (minimally) the original signs of mount locations. The 300tdi cross member made the situation worse because it tries to move everything forwards by around 4cm too.... In that case my existing prop shafts will be useless so I'm going to opt for using lt77 gearbox mounts, hang the engine and gearbox off those whilst deciding on the best place to relocate the existing engine mount brackets to....... I can also raise the mounts very slightly because currently the timing belt case is incredibly close to the pas box. Many thanks to everyone here who have been with this epic saga!
  2. Interesting. So if this is a 200 TDI chassis would that explain the differences I'm seeing.....ie engine sitting further back than in a standard 300tdi....and not being able to line up a 300 TDi gearbox cross member with the rubber mountings I've double checked the handedness of the lt77 transmission mounts and these are on the correct sides..the nearside bracket with a curved bottom section to clear the exhaust I haven't as yet compared the handedness of the rubber engine mounts... These were as fitted in an original disco that was running around
  3. It's interesting that the chassis engine mounts appear to be the OEM ones because I can't see any signs of modifications in that area. Not a very good photo below but they are horizontally flat mounts which made me think they must be 300 TDI mounts. However if I do relocate the engine mountings to match the 300TDI crossmember then the propshafts will probably be wrong (I'll attach photos of these prop shafts as well the total length of rear prop shaft is round 67/68 cm and front is about 70/71cm). Btw it's also looks like the original owner had trouble with fitting because the exhaust-down pipe has been cut and welded. I've got a few more measurements I've taken on the chassis.... 1) from rear edge of near side chassis engine mount to center the transmission crossmember mounting slot NS is 75.5cm 2) from rear edge of front cross member box section (ie the rad support member) to the front of the NS engine mount is 56.5cm
  4. That looks to be the answer. I've spent some time this week swapping in a TDI gearbox cross member.... Just look how far out the transfer box Mount is in relation to the cross member....the whole engine and gearbox is sited about 4cm too far to the rear....and this is despite the fact that the chassis engine mounts appear to be original position (I'm currently searching for some tech drawings to give original chassis dimensions). Duh!!
  5. I'm in the middle of rebuilding the above parts into a secondhand TDI chassis. The way the whole thing sits in the chassis looks a little wrong to me so tell me what you think. ......The handbrake drum is around 3 inches away from the offside chassis rail, and the timing cover ends up really close to the steering box. To my eye if the transmission mounts were moved over towards the offside by about 1.5 inches it would be better. See photos 1. I reused the chassis cross member from the old chassis and did not use the 300TDI cross member - mainly because previous owner had modified the cross member to clear the exhaust..... And I suspected the 300 TDI cross member would foul the exhaust. Current mounts are I believe lt77. 2. Propshafts fit okay. And engine fitted right in on the unmodified TDI chassis engine mounts 3. Previously the engine ran with its viscous fan, whereas now it will need electric fan, and I presume that the old chassis had NA engine mounts and were modified -although it went into the bin years ago so I can't really verify 4. I realise a short bell housing r380 would be a lot better but unfortunately I'm stuck with what I've got Thoughts please...
  6. Yes... @Doorknob and @Maverik the sponge gasket on the top bracket had a lot to do with the problem ....it was old and swollen in places ...once cleaned up it all sat more closely and the bottom bracket just needed a 2mm shim inserted to take up the final slack. Thanks guys,,, on to the next challenge in the rebuild..
  7. Yesss... well spotted!! Its going to take a lot of shims for what looks like a 8mm gap, but iI'll have a play later and connect the linkage for a closer look. Thanks!
  8. I'm just rebulding a F reg 90 Def with what is probably a 2/300 tdi bulkhead. When I put the old steering column on the bulkhead the lower steering column bracket (the one with the 4 mounting holes) sits off the vertical face of the footwell by about 1/2 inch. Otherwise, positioning of the column looks right and it looks like it will be in the right position for the steering linkage ...tho I've not connected this yet. Obviously I can weld/extend the bracket so it fits flush, but it seems odd? Where there any differences in steering columns or depth of footwells between early and later Defenders? Any thoughts welcome. Thanks! Next pic shows the actual gap with the bracket I'm talking about
  9. Thankyou muchly gentlemen!!! When I dismantled i was thinking 3 months..but 3 years did stretch my memory somewhat. Cheers! Joe
  10. Call me a blithering idiot. I dismantled the dash on this F ref def90 three yrs ago and I thought it was all obvious. However (in the pic below) i cant work out where the panel that is laid across the gearbox actually fits!! Any thoughts welcome! Thank you kindly....
  11. Thank you all for helping. I was also doing a bit of searching and found this earlier post - about half down there is a nice diagram of the same style bonnet and the buffers are indeed shown as mrc5016. (Shame that the manuals site landroverv8.com is now error 404 though) https://forums.lr4x4.com/topic/94129-stage-1-v8-bonnet-buffer-bracket/ It seems that if the cable operated latch (mrc6978) was fitted there was no secondary latch fitted on the bonnet.... (Edited for anyone in the future reading all this) to add that I was misreading the parts diagram in the above link - mrc6978 is part of the latch in conjunction with mrc6977 - must have been goggle eyed that night to not see that. So it is as MikeTomcat below says. And as Snagger below says mine is probably not a military bonnet after all. Thanks everyone!
  12. Thank you all for helping. I was also doing a bit of searching and found this earlier post - about half down there is a nice diagram of the same style bonnet and the buffers are indeed shown as mrc5016. (Shame that the manuals site landroverv8.com is now error 404 though) https://forums.lr4x4.com/topic/94129-stage-1-v8-bonnet-buffer-bracket/ It seems that if the cable operated latch (mrc6978) was fitted there was no secondary latch fitted on the bonnet....
  13. Pic shows underside of a bonnet as fitted to a def 90 that came to me. It originally had bonnet pins fitted so I plated over the holes did some bodywork and thought I'd refit it with a new striker. But Duuuh - should have looked more closely!! I've realised it didn't have a latch fitted even though the slam panel is in fact std defender. So I suspect this is in fact a military bonnet (spare wheel mounting holes and absence of latch mounting ??) so current plan is to put new (locking) bonnet pins in and use it as is. - Yes I might need to put a latch on as a fail safe for the bonnet pins - But what rubber buffers should mount to the 4 brackets ringed in red at the top of the photo - Are these mrc5016 or something else ? TIA
  14. Interesting that the Force Gurkha price is similar to the Mahindra Thar - similar vehicles but the Thar seems a little better designed for offroad activity eg.(approach/departure angles). But the Thar apparently has Mahindra's own mHawk engine (which I know nothing about) - so the Merc engined Force might be positioned better for marketing purposes....
  15. Just to add - at the risk of providing confusion with another option - that you can add 10% of 2k hardener to some synthetic enamels (Lechler is the one I know of). This supposedly, according to Lechler, makes the finish harder and more chip resistant.But I don't have any longterm experience of how well this finish holds up fade-wise so I can't really recommend it, but it does perhaps provide an option for non-spraying application. The question of whether isos are present in brush/roller application is undecided - but I would err on the cautious side and use a A2/P3 mask anyway. But at least you wouldnt be spraying isos around the neighbourhood with that method.....
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy