retropower

Browsing pics on the net, they appear to vary in height by at least 10mm between one discovery and another !!!!!!!

Talking about the round pads with bolt holes. They appear taller on the rear of a discovery which would explain why the square pads don't touch possibly!

Internet wisdom says the body mounts are identical between the two but with two chassis next to each other the "bosses" that the body mounts sit on are taller on the discovery, well the rear 4 are anyway. Any thoughts? Trying to work out if I'm missing something or if the boss heights are just dictated by a production jig and the height variation is just making up for variation in the fabrication? Certainly the bosses must be drilled to a jig as the holes vary relative to the boss centres wildly from chassis to chassis!!

Yep, mine is the plastic top type with remote cooler. I trimmed a small section of the upper bulkhead yesterday (the bit that would clear the wiperlinkage on a lhd

Cheers, will try and post some more, that was a test and I forgot I had left it up!. All my pictures are on my Facebook and I can't post them properly on here with them hosted there unless I'm missing something. They are also taken with a carp phone so not great! Should finish the bodyshell metalwork tomorrow then it's shell off to blast and zinc spray, rebuild chassis etc. In terms of firewall clearance, it's not too bad. I expected to need to remote the oil filter, then found I could get it out ok, but then raised the engine a further 10mm to maximise axle clearance and now I can't! I think a small alteration to the firewall above it will allow it to come out. If not I will go back to making a takeoff plate and remoting it.

Engine mounted

Wj furber salvage at prees Heath used to have a number of Austin gypsys, wonder if they are still there?

Sometimes when this happens you start to think someone has it in for you! I had two separate consecutive sets of faulty hydraulic cam followers from two different suppliers a couple of weeks back!

Ok, yep it will bend gas pipe. A cage made from that will be better than no cage. I'm just used to working with motorsport regulation where that would not be acceptable as the material must be seamless and steel of minimum 350n/sq mm tensile strength

Unfortunately, from experience I can tell you that bender is no use for building a roll cage. It will bend pipe, not tube, and thus has dies sized for imperial pipe not seamless tube. Roll cage tubing (cfs3 or a better equivalent cds) will also kink if bent with those dies and no internal support. I bought a pro tool ratchet bender years ago after messing about with a hydraulic push unit

Thanks western! Looks like a good shout, had a quick google as I know nowt about 110's, and it seems you are dead right! Will get hold of some 110 calipers and pads, thanks again

I'm starting to wonder if all the vented disc applications used twin feed calipers. Certainly a good number of discoveries had single port front calipers but I've only seen them with solid discs

Ps the om603 powered mercs did not use dual mass flywheels and I don't know of many manual gearbox failures on them due to idle chatter and that kind of thing.......

I certainly won't disagree on the dual mass subject (my business is building vehicles and re-engineering them) and on a 4 cylinder engine they make a massive difference. Less so on a 6 cylinder. using the dual mass delete wasn't intended solely to delete the dual mass, it was primarily because I don't have any flywheel either single or dual mass as the om606 was never available in the uk in a manual form to my knowledge. Most people seem to adapt the om603 single mass. I chose to use the sprinter version. more a case use of availability than idealised design!

Hi don't suppose anybody could come up with the part numbers for discovery 1 single port vented disc calipers could they? I'm restoring a classic Range Rover and I want to fit the later discovery front-rear split system rather than the usual diagonal split with double port calipers (I build vehicles for a living and I'm aware of all the various pros and cons and personally prefer a front rear split system). i have all the parts from a '94 disco but it has solid discs and I want to use vented discs i can find everything but single port vented disc calipers!

Yep, but I'd rather wait until it's up and running in case something isn't right! Don't want to cause folks a load of problems. Hasten to add I have no business interest in it either, I'm keeping Gaz fab posted on what's happening as he doesn't really have the time to look into it but already has some of the bits

Another point is that your Perkins makes its peak torque at around 1400 rpm, and at that speed the individual torque "pulses" as each cylinder fires will be quite substantial, giving the gearbox a hard time with shock loading. It's that that would break it rather than the actual output numbers

You might be right! Got to remember there's a hell of a lot of reduction gearing on a tractor though. The later parts of the transmission (i.e. Near the wheels) are subject to massive amounts of torque due to the gearing. The engine and primary gearbox a lot less so

Yep very true! R380 is rated for 380nm of torque. I'd guess your massey is possibly a 4.236 Perkins non turbo if it's 80 hp and not too new maybe (guess possibly more likely a phaser these days perhaps)? The 4.236 non turbo are rated at 250 to 275nm torque I think, so the r380 would surprisingly be ok! The om606 is rated at 330nm in standard form, again ok in the r380 and surprisingly more than the Perkins 4.236

Not with you on milling the flywheel? It would be nice to move the input shaft a couple of mm closer to the end of the crank to get the last couple of mm of spline engagement, I would need to add material on to the flywheel to achieve that. I ground off 3mm of the "cup" lip on the end of the crank to allow the sprinter flywheel to sit against the crank face, could that be what those guys were referring to? to be honest, I've generally found I'm better off doing my own thing as everybody has a different opinion! I didn't want an auto but everybody kept saying the r380 wouldn't fit or that I needed an om603 flywheel and spacer etc. I considered merc manual boxes but the 220 and 270 CDi manual boxes are rated for slightly less torque than the r380, yet "everybody" on the net who usually haven't tried both, reckon the r380 is cheese and the merc boxes are fine. My experience is that the merc boxes are ok but still not that tough and much more work to fit when you take the divorced transfer into account or the coupler to the ml gearbox. Merc themselves derated the om605 to preserve the 270cdi manual box! an upgraded r380 should handle 500nm

Ps ps just buying a td5 would miss the point entirely, an. Om606 is barely getting started when a td5 is tuned to destruction !

Ps that's the cheap bit tho, an uprated r380 is a lot more and an om606 will mince a standard one I think!

Complete flywheel kit with clutch £225, adaptor plate depends on what Gaz fab would want, (I did a deal on a plate as he only really wants to sell complete kits to fit the auto box so I offered him £150 for the plate alone on grounds it would save that much of my time drawing it up myself!)

Om606 plus r380 box mated. Tdi input shaft, v8 bellhousing, smt/Gaz fab adaptor plate, sprinter dmf delete flywheel, tdi friction plate, sprinter pressure plate. all looks ok. About 2.5 to 3mm shy of complete clutch spline engagement. I don't think that will be an issue, I can face off 3mm of the bellhousing if it was a problem. Need to make spigot bushing but doesn't look tricky