WesBrooks

Fella was back in work today who has a defender TD5. The arches on that are very roughly 60mm from the body so all should be fine. The +2" arches must look huge!

Engine oil temperature would be monitored to indicate early signs of bearing wear so that it could be addressed with a minor overhaul, unlike the complete rebuild this engine needed even before it was stripped. I'd be comparing the readings on the gearbox temp to the temperatures listed on the Ashcroft site. Over temp tail tell would suffice, but seeing the needle head towards too-hot would allow me to adapt my driving to avoid the need to stop and allow the box to cool. I'm expecting slow green laning and occasional towing to be tough on the autobox oil. I'd welcome suggestions to favourite after market gauges. I prefer ones that have warning lights in them so that I reduce the number needed elsewhere and it directs your attention directly to the gauge reporting issues. Dash will be a custom kitcar style build with RDX/carling switchgear. No requirement to be a direct replacement. Fair point on the voltmeter. I'll consider that one carefully.

Hi all, My barrage of seemingly unlinked questions continues! Gauges. I've like more instrumentation than standard so that I can get a good idea on the current condition of the engine and transmission on top of the seat of your pants indicator! As a bare minimum I'd like the following: Speedometer Tachometer Water Temperature Engine Oil Temperature Engine Oil Pressure Fuel Gauge As it's an automatic I'd also like to add: Gearbox oil temperature As it may get a winch at some point: Voltmeter Should gearbox oil pressure be considered or would this make itself painfully obvious by no drive or gear change? Perhaps just a tail tale light like the transfer box? Is what I've suggested missing anything obvious on the gauge side? My watch can do the job of the clock! There would be a collection of warning lights. Cheers.

Found reference to 90mm on another forum. Also found defender width to be 70.5"/1791mm. This might however be including some protrusions outside the surface of the wings. I'll have another look at my body this evening.

Very roughly I think swapping to ET0 with 285s would leave the wheels sticking out 18mm. Assuming the bodies are equal width then that's make the spats about 40mm proud of the body.

No rush, but if you could check next time you are out that's be great. I'd have to compare the defenders body width to the Sahara body width. Should be able to guess from what you've said though thanks. 285 works out at about 11 1/4 " width.

Yes, I want to use either standard or +2" extra wide spats for the defenders. Are you using the standard ones? How far do they protrude from the body?

Wheel offset change from ET33 to ET0 Tyre change from 235 70 16 (29") to 285 75 16 (32.8") Increase in vehicle width (per side) in mm: 33 + (285/2) - (235/2) = 58mm (Tyres further out of the arches) Decrease in inside tyre to car clearance: (285/2) - (235/2) - 33 = -8mm (More room between tyre inside side wall and suspension) Need to know: ~ If 58mm is going to be covered by the +2" arches. ~ If a 33mm offset change is significant enough to cause bearing issues. Increase in width is rough compensation (hopefully more than) for raising CofG by 2" and to ensure there is minimal, if no rubbing issues. I'd like to maintain full lock.

Hi All, Project build is a rebody based on a '95 D1 V8i chassis and running gear. Can some one let me know how much the standard width arches extend from the arches? Assuming the +2" ones are 2" wider as the name suggests! I'm giving some thought to tyre/wheel choice at the moment. Current thoughts are steel modular. Wheel: Modular 8J 16" ET0 Tyres: 285 75 16 Bfgoodrich KO2 Currently fitted are: Wheel: alloys 7J 16" ET33 Tyres: 235 75 16 I'm having to rework last nights calcs this evening as I'd assumed I had 255s currently on where as I've actually got 235. The diameter will be raised from 29" to 33". I expect the tyres to be out an extra 58mm or so from standard. This should give 25mm extra room on the inner side than needed. Will this be enough with a 2" lift to maintain the standard steering lock? Is the 33mm change in offset enough to trigger warnings on excessive wheel bearing wear or is this only really an issue with the deep dish, negative offset (ie further out from the diff) wheels? If possible I'd like to avoid using spacers and buy the right wheels first, but understand if guessing it would be safer to buy over positive offset and use spaces to offset outward. Thanks for any advice.

Sorry, didn't mean to give the impression I was knocking the cost of the kit. I was just trying to figure out what engine was best to aim for in terms of GEMs or Thor and if either could be run with just an ECU and no other boxes of electronics from the donor. Ideally I want to get a second hand engine that I've seen running which I'm confident is in reasonable nick to run until MS becomes viable.

Had a look at this site: http://www.megasquirt-v8.co.uk/ms_faq.php This would give the impression the 4.0 had less issues with slipped liners than the 4.6 engines? I thought the issue was block tooling wearing out and the increase in bore to reach the 94mm bore used in 3.9/4.0/4.6? Guess it could be purely the mapping on the 4.6s... So if Thor it looks like you'd have to budget for MS from the start?

Afternoon all, More speculative questions! This is not currently underway but I'd like to know what would be involved in running a 4.6 thor engine stand alone? Is it best to spec for direct to MS or can you power the engine ECU and get it to run the engine without needing to talk to any other vehicle electronics? I understand direct to MS is an option, but for a build ECU and kit you won't see much change from a grand. I'd like that as a winter project another year after enjoying it as is for a while! I'm interested in the 4.6 for the cross bolting and larger journals. The interest in the Thor is the better low RPM torque curve. Is GEMs then swap top end at a later date a better option, or does the crank sensor in the thor make KS a neater install on that engine? I'm guessing odds are better blocks the earlier you go? Cheers, Wes.

My last involvement with tinkering with vehicles was old '73 and '74 beetles! Needless to say I'm not used to the shear quantity of rust found on my '95 disco! ;-) Ace. Sledge hammer on the shopping list. :-D

It had been involved in a front end prang at some point. Damage appears to be limited to in front of the cross member. I've been looking for an excuse to get a sledge hammer! A Wilko sledge is a reasonable expense verses the £100 - 200 for the hydraulic pump and ram, particularly if I buy a 10 but find I need a 20!

The front right chassis leg has bent towards the centre line by about 10mm at the tip. Looking at a hydraulic pump and ram body repair kits. I appreciate more is easier but will 10 ton do, or will I need 20? Chassis is a '95 Discovery V8i.

This was the bit I missed on the Ashcroft site: "Small" is used on the 300 Tdi, P38 diesel and the TD5. "Medium" is used on the 3.9, 4.0 and the later 4.6 P38. "Large" is used on the early 4.6 P38"s. Note the large converter can only be used with the stage 2 as it will only fit the 4HP24 front end. So large not needed for mild tunes. Medium is standard for V8s. What sort of mileage life do you get out of the medium converters? I don't think my truck saw much off-road work as it's transfer box lever was frozen. It did have a toe-hook though... So for the ironies if looking for a donor 4.6 engine & box I'd want a 95 or later for cross bolting & thor inlet or earlier for a better block and bigger converter! Any idea on the rough year for the larger converters? I presume all of the more fancy electronic controlled boxes (eg D2) are medium converters? Edit: Noddy mistake there. 4.6 engines started in 1996 so all cross bolted? Wouldn't this mean all serpentine belts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine#3.9.2F4.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Efficiency_and_torque_multiplication That's a good read. So 3.9 converter with a tuned 3.9 or 4.6 would generally mean hotter oil if you really push it - easily monitored with a seperate guage and dropped with the auxilary oil cooler (rusty hedgehog on the D1s). The lock up clutch in either isn't liable to slip unless worn out or the engine is seriously tuned?

Thanks again for the information just building up pieces of the puzzle while I'm building pennies for the next stage! Would the mid sized converter fit with only replacing bolt on parts between the crank and gearbox - or is it the same as used on the 95 3.9? Edit: While the converter is slipping I did read something about a torque multiplication. Does this mean that the slipping converter isn't all bad as is the case with clutch slip under load? I just like the idea of a lower lock if I've gone to the effort of making it breathe easier throughout the rev range!

Thanks for the screen shot. That doesn't show any dimensions for the centre (inner rail) body floor mount points or heights of the two bulk head mounts. I'm aware of how to open it I just don't see why portable document files should need an exe to run. I can't run random exe files at work and very slow to trust them at home as you've no idea what they are attempting to do to a windows machine. I'll try to view the pdf files directly from home (linux) when I get a chance. Edit: Apologies, my previous jig comment was probably a little unclear. I'm not trying to repair the chassis I'm considering making a significant section from scratch. My body conversion based project uses the discovery floor and bulkhead. There is significant repair work required to the floor, footwells, and inner wings and I'm considering fabricating the whole lot with a simple box section and angle frame while hopefully re-using the centre tunnel, pedal asembly, and steering column mount. I will brace the current remains before lifting it all out, but I'd rather trust measurements from drawings for the 8 mount points it will use rather than be confident on 4 of them and reverse engineer the remaining 4 from a chassis I know has had a heavy knock.

Yes thanks, I realise the link between the RR Classic and D1. Here's the diagram normally shown for the RR Classic which shows the width from the centre datum line for the bulk head mounts but not the height from the horizontal datum. The mounts on the inside of the rails (forward of the rear trailing arm mounts) have no dimensions at all. http://workshop-manuals.com/landrover/rrc/76_chassis_and_body/repair/chassis_america_only_1990_onwards/page_958/ Downloading the rave link again but I did not see the drawings in the D1 section last time I looked. The forum has one direct link as follows, but this has the same problem: http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=57078&st=0&p=502896&fromsearch=1entry502896 Just to be clear I'm not accident checking any more. I want to create a jig. Edit: Nearly finished downloading your original link...! Edit: Files need additional installs, or running on software bundled in the zip so can't see that at work. Not sure why that should be the case, shouldn't be necessary.

Thanks, I'd had a flash through that a few months back but missed that.

Morning! I've seen that the 4.6 converter is larger than the 3.9 and locks up earlier. On my 3.9 at least I'm looking to mega squirt (after run in), do a mild tune on a 3.9, and port the heads a little while keeping the valves the same size. General aim is to improve efficiency and bring BHP up to around 200 ish. At most I'd be swapping to an early serpentine cross bolted 4.6 ('95 ish?) on to the original box. Given there's hopefully a general increase in torque across the rev range I'd like to go a size up on the torque converter. Is it a straight swap or will it physically not swap? Not yet got as far as checking if ratios in the box change for the standard 4.6 too. As an aside which are your favorite reads for V8 tuning that don't mainly focus on tuning for light vehicle/fast road use? Thanks, Wes.

While useful the Rave manuals I downloaded for the discovery did not detail the chassis dimensions. I was able to look at the Range Rover Classic for the main sill body mounts which was fit for purpuse but I now need information on the heights of the bulk head body mounts and the inner rail mounts just behind the transmission brake. I am searching on google when I get a chance but most hits are for defenders and series land rovers...

That's the part. Any one got any idea if this is dynamic or fixed proportioning of the pressure and is orientation critical? I've got to remake my brake lines due to heavy corrosion and the inner wings maybe completely different to stock. I'd like to not have to worry about keeping the orientation the same. However, if it lowers back brake pressure more as the truck pitches forward under braking then I'll need to keep the orientation fixed.

Can anyone point me to a good description of what this valve is? I think it is dropping the brake pressure to the rear wheels to balance the braking. Is this s straight proportional drop? If I move it do I need to keep the orientation of the unit the same? Thanks, Wes.