Retroanaconda

Try MTC6757

Panhard rod is worth a check.

There are loads of working vehicles with automatic gearboxes.

So yes, as it was classed as non-commercial it attracted the higher tax rate. A hard-top of the same year would have just had the standard rate (c. £250) as per above. It was your assertion that the commercial variants attracted the higher tax that I was disputing, as it is in fact the other way around.

Was it a commercial variant classified N1 or a non-commercial (SW) variant classified M1?

This is almost entirely incorrect Tdci has the solid flywheel as above, with Td5s being the ones with DMFs. The former doesn’t suffer with DMF failure as above but the clutch is carp, though at least that’s cheap to swap. And it’s the commercial Tdcis which have the cheaper tax rate. A certain number of Station Wagon variants during the 2.4 Tdci period were classified as M1 passenger cars rather than N1 commercial, and so are taxed at a high rate based upon emissions. All the other (commercial) variants in this period are taxed at the standard rate, as are all variants in other years of production. The difference is a few hundred quid a year and, unless you’re barely using it, amounts to a miniscule proportion of the total cost of running the vehicle. I wouldn’t let it put me off buying the right one.

Personally having driven many examples of both my preference is for the Td5, I don’t like the later dash of the Tdci (though the heater is good!) and the gearchange is horrible. The higher gearing of the Tdci does make them faster and more comfortable on longer journeys though and there’s no doubt that the Tdci lumps are powerful and torquey. I’d still choose a good Td5 over a Tdci. Your budget is quite healthy so you may be able to get an earlier vehicle which has had a galvanised chassis/bulkhead swap, this would preempt the two biggest problems that occur as the vehicles age. As always with Defenders though they’re all much of a muchness, and a good one of any given variety will be better than a poor one of any other. General condition and evidence of good servicing/maintenance is far more important than age or mileage.

If you want to do it the ‘official’ way then yes. And use standard pipe work etc. for the engine. But leaving the gearboxes where they are means you can leave your floors, tunnel and propshafts standard. At the cost of custom engine pipe work etc. though you may need that anyway depending on availability of Defender V8 stuff.

I’ve never had a problem with genuine ones, which are made by Waxstat I believe.

It’s all just nuts/bolts or simple wiring, with the exception of the instrument pack. This is CANBUS driven on the Puma/Tdci and so requires some fiddling to work with an older Td5 engine/vehicle. You can either do away with it and fit the Td5 gauges/lights into the later binnacle, or I believe there are now CANBUS adaptors available that will take the signals from your older vehicle and drive the newer gauges. Youll also potentially have issues with the gearstick interfering with the dashboard. I’ve read various conflicting reports with solutions ranging from bending the gearstick to fitting Discovery shifters and making up a custom centre console.

Looking through it you are correct Barrie. The 300Tdi/V8 Td5 gearbox mounting position is about 2” forward of the old 4-cyl/200Tdi one. Hence the bulge in the front of the seatbox to clear the transfer box front output housing and the different propshaft lengths. You have numerous options for mounting the boxes in this position: The old early V8 mounts which use the same 3-bolt triangle as the 4-cyl mounts in the photo above but have the actual rubber mounts further foirwards The 300Tdi gearbox crossmember with the integral mounts A Td5 or Tdci chassis which has the mounts welded to the chassis All three options will, used with the correct rubbers and corresponding gearbox halves and with the correct gearbox variant, put the gearboxes and engine in the correct position for the V8, 300Tdi, Td5 or Tdci.

If you get an axle from 1994 to 2002 you’ll just need the matching radius arms. If you get an axle from 2002 onwards then you’ll need the above plus a panhard rod and also the bracket that attaches the panhard rod to the chsssis. Plus bolts and replacement bushes as required.

I did mine entirely myself over a number of weeks (about 14 days worth of work if I recall correctly), there's a thread in the members vehicles forum which covers the process. I was in for around £4k in total once I'd finished, and I only replaced what was necessary (plus a few bits that made sense in terms of access etc.) - the chassis was over half that.

I had issues with alignment with the Richards chassis that I used. An outrigger was around 1/2” out of position. Conversely when I did the 90 using a Marsland chsssis the body went straight back on with no issues. Plus the Marsland ones look a lot better, being made to the same design as the original. There is argument however against this and in favour of Richards in that the four single sheets approach they use does in theory mean fewer internal rust traps. But the galvanising mitigates that to some extent. They're all F-ing expensive now, but nobody does a re-chassis on a Land Rover purely for financial reasons. For the OP - my advice would be to fix up the one you have. You could spend more on a newer one, but in 10 years or less it will be in the same boat. Spend the cash on the old one and the chassis at least will last for donkeys years.

The main vehicle harness comes in lots of varieties for the differing engines, specification levels and international markets. As such it’s unlikely that your vehicle will have the wiring unless it was specified from the factory. Not impossible though. That said it’s not too hard to add supplemental wiring yourself.