Retroanaconda

Biggus diffus

The “pretender” starts at around £45k for a 110 so actually around 12% more.

Articulation is good for recreational off road vehicles and showing off, but there is less need for it in the working vehicle world. Most commercial utility fleet 4x4 users are running pickups or other vehicles with far less suspension travel than the old Defender - and it’s more than enough for their uses. So if the Grenadier is to be the utility workhorse that people think it will be, then it’s really not an issue.

Nothing per se, it’s just a potentially more elegant solution to do away with it which removes a joint and simplifies removal of the caliper and/or upper swivel pin slightly. The sealing of the banjo bolt washers to the caliper face is something that concerns me slightly as normally of course the hard pipe flare would seal within the port in the normal way, however I’ve not heard of this being an issue in reality. Clearance to the spring etc. is key hence the banjo mentioned, and getting the length right so there is enough to avoid damage on extremes of suspension movement but no extra to get caught up in stuff.

Has anybody got any long-term feedback on converting the front brake flexible hoses to run direct from the chassis to the caliper rather than with the short fixed pipe on the swivel? I’d be interested to hear if there are any issues with the setup. If anyone has any pictures too that would be extra helpful!

Not quite, I’ve moved it to the Series room for you. Welcome to the forum, whereabouts are you based?

Thanks all, I’ll need to speak with some more companies and see what their approaches are. I’m less worried about general accident damage repairs as I’ll just insist it goes to the dealer for repair as is my right, it’s the windscreen cover that is a bigger issue. But looking at the cost of the LR insurance (who are the only ones to put in writing that they’ll use genuine parts) I would be reasonably safe going for the cheaper options and then just paying the difference in screen cost if I do break another one. I looked at LV as I get a discount from them, they may be an option as they allow you to pick your own windscreen repairer if you pay a bigger excess.

I need to renew the insurance on the 110, which is approaching five months old. Having never had a new car before, or indeed anything that I wouldn’t just repair myself, the issue of which parts an insurer may choose to use has never been relevant. I have learned the hard way however that the vast majority of insurers have a clause in their policy that allows them to use non-original parts for any repairs. This is an issue while the car is under warranty as if I were to have any future issue with a part that had been replaced with a non-original version LR would quite rightly refuse to honour it as I’ve not used the proper bits to repair it. All the ones I’ve found policy booklets for so far have the same standard get-out clause that they may use non-original parts of ‘similar quality’ (yeah...right!). Can anyone recommend an insurer that will guarantee to use genuine parts for repairs at least for the first three years of a cars life? So far the only one I’ve found is Land Rover themselves* - £300 dearer than who I’m with now but I can handle that for a few years if it’s my only option as it will no longer be a problem once out of warranty. * Interestingly despite the big claim on their website front page about using genuine parts their underwriters policy still has the same get-out clause in

Yes, top one is the older solid bar type with the bend for diff clearance. Bottom one is the later straight hollow tube type. Both measure 820mm or so hole centres.

Pretty sure they should be the same length. I have one of each here and they are:

It’s always interesting how different our perceptions can be. I have a Samsung ‘somethingorother’ as my work phone which runs Android and I find it frustrating and complex to use compared to my own iPhone 11. The iOS just seems so much more intuitive and Android is clunky and awkward. I recently upgraded from my old iPhone 6 to the 11 to allow me to use CarPlay, that phone was quite old and I hadn’t noticed it slowing down at all. I changed my iPad too as my old one is now approaching 8 years old, that had started to slow up and was struggling with some websites etc. but after that length of time I don’t find that unacceptable. It’s now relegated to os mapping & gps duties in the car where it’s shorter battery life is not an issue. I’ve had ‘rugged’ phones in the past but always found them some way behind normal models in terms of development, but I guess this gap as shortened or disappeared since the advent of common operating systems across different makes/models.

My understanding was that 3-bolt and 4-bolt boxes (both Adwest) share the same drop arm, however the pipe fittings are different with the former being imperial of some kind (presumably BSP or similar) and the latter metric. The 6-bolt boxes are made by Gemmer and have a different spline shape so the drop arms are different. They do however share the same pipe fitting threads as the later 4-bolt Adwest boxes, so can be swapped easily so long as you get the arm. I swapped a 6-bolt for a 4-bolt in my 200Tdi years ago, pipes went straight over no bother.

Have split the vehicle-specific discussion into the topic below:

21st century motive power, 17th century suspension Are we not overdue another update from Ineos? Seems ages since the last one. I’m keen to see the interior layout.

Or the single pin slider and a wood screw Not much use if you genuinely need to adjust the height often though!

The Dixon Bate adjustable (which I think your part number resolves to) is an excellent bit of kit.

Missing the point, the financial viability of the repair is irrelevant in this case. Your own insurer has a clause in their contract with you that they will only pay out a certain amount in relation to the value of the vehicle, which allows them to deem the insured vehicle financially unviable to repair and therefore write it off. With the other party 100% at fault there is no such agreement and that party is liable for all damages their actions, or inactions, have caused. It’s their insurers job to cover those liabilities. If someone crashes their £500 Fiesta off the road and into the front of a house and does £50k worth of damage then the insurer will pay out, no one would financially write off a house. It’s just that for normal vehicle accidents the insurance companies prey on peoples misunderstanding of the legal situation to dodge their responsibilities.

As expected they are fobbing you off in the hope of getting out of paying for an expensive repair. With you being no-fault you are in a strong position. Taking it to legal action is the next step if they refuse to be reasonable. The cost of the repair compared to the value of the vehicle is irrelevant in this scenario - i.e. an economic write-off is impossible. They could try it on safety grounds but I’d push back on this as it isn’t some modern euro box, the chassis are readily available new as are pretty much all the panels and other parts, so there is no reason why it cannot be safely repaired.

It’s dealer fit though, all the accessory packs are.

The genuine hub caps are good - mine have been on for years without issue.

It’s an Allmakes sub-brand, generally their better quality OEM type stuff.

As a matter of principle only your own insurer can financially ‘write off’ your car as per the terms of their agreement with you, i.e. they will not pay more than X to repair, where X is a number determined by the market value. However you will be (or should be) claiming off the other party and their insurer. They do not have this option and legally you have every right to request that they put everything back how it was before the accident, even if this means repair costs of more than the vehicles value or indeed even a straight replacement with another vehicle of similar spec/age/condition. They will try and fob you off with a write-off and lower value payout but it’s your call in this case not theirs. They may try and claim the vehicle is not safe to be repaired but that’s not really relevant to a Defender as everything can be replaced unlike modern cars with monocoque bodyshells etc.

Thanks folks. It’s definitely a power coating process rather than plastic dipping/coating. They do two grades, Colourgalv and Colourgalv Marine. The latter has an additional primer stage from what I can ascertain. Here’s the specification sheet for it. https://higalv.co.uk//wp-content/uploads/Colourgalv-Marine-specification-for-website.pdf Longevity is what I’m interested in. Chassis do flex as we know so it’ll need to not crack and flake off at the first sign of that. Abrasion damage off road is unavoidable but likewise it would be good if that didn’t lead to large-scale delamination.

My 90 has a galvanised chassis which I painted a few years back during the swap - T-wash followed by two coats of Buzzweld Chassis-in-One. This adhered well but wasn’t durable/thick enough and had effectively been worn away by salt and road dirt in certain areas within a year or so. Because of this and the fact that I need to make some modifications to the chassis for the rear tank etc. I will get it blasted and re-galvanised, so I need to do it all again. Apart from the longevity issue with the paint it was also a major pain to do and took nearly two days, so I’m looking at other options. The plant that I will be using offers a product called Colourgalv which is a powder coating process applied after galvanising. I’m not sure on cost but it will save a hell of a lot of time and hassle painting. My preconceived opinion of power coating is generally that it’s rubbish and cracks allowing water to get in behind, but that may be just poor prep and quality control whereas the factory colourgalv process has a much higher standard of application. I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts on this option.

Don’t skimp on the concrete - a decent C30 mix won’t be expensive and combined with some reinforcement mesh will give you good strength. If you can get the truck right up to the building then it will be fairly easy to get it in there and smooth it off. Doing it within the building will give you a challenge in terms of tamping/levelling as the walls will prevent you using the top of forms to do this. Perhaps you could set some angle iron a few inches in from each side which you could then run the tamping board along? Underlying ground conditions will dictate the thickness of slab you’ll need. On decent ground I’d have thought that 100mm would do given that you’re not putting a building on it?