sparg

Well, here we are, all these years later older and, er... wiser(?) Replaced that other vibrating td5 90 (which eventually was nicked off my drive) with a later, cleaner, whiter doublecab 110. Been jolly good, had two trips to Spain (which the wife says she never needs to do again) and so o. All went well 'till the ECU exploded (£600+!!) but now, with a weird sense of deja vu, this morning I heard just the hint of a 'twitter' - sounded as though from engine bay, but a little later, accelerating in 5th uphill, about 50-60 - a deep, slight vibration. Sounds like UJs, so dived in to a friendly LR chap's garage (I was wearing smart clothes) - but he couldn't find any play in them. I haven't given up on that idea, though - have to wait for it to develop. But, my question: if not UJs, what else?

out of interest, why not old oil?

yep, that's the one I've been using. But see earlier postings about the possibilities that some additives contain contaminants whose long term effects may not be known. I should say that I'm still experimenting with 2-stroke oil - it seems to make my engine smoother, but I haven't yet experimented with varying the quantity to find the best cost/benefit relationship. I've been cautiously using 250 ml per 70L tank. Whether I could have similar results cheaper by using old engine oil (from my own car) I don't know yet. If anyone else is thinking of carrying out experiments - I've been quite experimentally 'sloppy' - really, to have anything scientifically valid, one has to be quite rigorous and objective about test procedures. It's hard to escape the possibility that one gets the result one hoped for - people subconsciously drive more cautiously when they are looking for an economic miracle. So, I'm going to embark on a long term test over 5K miles (10 weeks) driven over the same route (my daily round trip to work is 95 miles approx) to iron out variations. I will not be able to compare this to 'before additives', since I didn't, if you see what I mean. If I had, i would have been able to separate the results (if any) of the "injector cleaning" function of the additive from the improved cetane effect. However, I can say that, prior to additives, I covered more than 5K miles in the 110 doublecab TD5, and averaged just under 27 mpg, so I'll be using that as my benchmark. So, if anyone else covers fairly substantial mileage in a defender of whatever type, and are thinking of testing, can I encourage you to be more rigorous than I've been in in objectively documenting 'before and after' phases of the experiment? keep an exact record of mileage, fuel receipts and amounts of additive used at every stage; you can't argue with real, hard data. After all, if my rather haphazard experiments seem to indicate a 10% improvement in economy (and some unquantified improvement in engine usability), that's a real result and worth telling people about

Update: I'm still using additive alternate weeks/ tankfuls, and consistently averaging 31.6 mpg in a 110 double cab pickup, TD5, 130K on clock. I also use 2-stroke sparingly - about 2-300 ml per 70 litre fillup - not really more power as such, but smooth revving ( I find a slightly harsh vibration under acceleration in higher rev range; no rev counter, so I don't really know what 50mph in 4th is). The millers definitely smooths out the power at the bottom end - it will quite happily pull from below 30 in 5th (though not with breakneck acceleration) whereas before, I had to change down to accelerate to avaoid that kangaroo effect. An unexpected result: cornering is better! - that is, dry country roads, 40-60mph, up and down speeds, the improved torque seems to translate into more surefooted planting on the road - and without being up and down the box.

I notice the Mudstuff handles are screwed onto the underside of the gutter - are these into the headlining fitting holes - are they already threaded? - I ask because: a) I'm lazy and don't want to pull the headlining down, and b) I'd like to use those holes (if they are threaded) to mount bars in my doublecab, to clamp small speaker units on. Given the high noisefloor in a defender, and the shortage of good speaker mounting points, the best way to have good quality sound without causing hearing damage is to use small HF speakers near head level. There are various psychoacoustic reasons for this (don't ask), and I'm experimenting with possible solutions. Flat panel distributed mode loudspeakers (DMLs) attached right across the headlining can work, but the solution is expensive since dmls have relatively poor sound pressure levels (SPLs) and so you need a lot of them. So, piston drivers (conventional speakers) and high level mountings (attached where you'd put grab handles) would be good. The aim is clarity, not bleeding ears.

Hi all I had thought that it might be wise to use additives sparingly. The results I've had over 2 tankfuls, just under 900 miles, - 31.266 mpg. I've said before that, short of cruising at a steady 50 mph all day, the sort of mileage I do is probably the gentlest sort - not slow, but the majority of the journey is between 30 and 60, only about 15 stop /give way junctions (though I certainly use the accelerator appropriately). It's a double cab p/up 110 td5 with 120K on clock. Unfortunately, I don't have quite as precise figures for consumption on the same roads without additive. However, I do now when I had to fill up, and I'm certainly getting an extra 40 miles (conservative estimate) per tank, and my estimated consumption was 27 mpg. that would mean better than 15% improvement! Next, I want to try a Bearmach tuning module I've just agreed to buy, to see if it gives me a similar power/torque performance. In the meantime, if I can bear to go back to the old sluggish setup for a tankful, I should try to draw some more precise figures for the non-additive state.

Just had it suggested (over on Landyzone) that it could conceivably be that I previously had poor compression (rings or valves) and the improved cetane ratig has compensated for it. That might imply that a healthy engine wouldn't see the gains I'd made, which kind of make sense. initial back-of-the-envelope calculations conservatively show an improved economy of 10% - but I'm skeptical, since if it was that easy, everyone would be doing it. To put figures on that, for countryside driving - accelerating and decelerating, up and down the box, rarely stopped, rarely high speed cruising - topping out occasionally at 70, usually in the 40-60 range, - I usually get 26-27 mpg out of a 110 doublecab td5. This last 440 miles, I've had what seems to be 33 mpg! - that difference can't be right. I need a much better set of figures, and even so, the explanation is more likely to be that I haven't (for the last 20K miles) been getting the performance I should have been. This is much more likely than the idea that I've stumbled across some 'magic formula'! I'll collect better figures and post them

Yeah - what I can't get my head around is why I might have been having this flat spot problem in the first place. I'd even wondered if it was a pedal mapping problem, or was it just that the td5 engine is inherently not very torque-y below the turbo range, and that couple with the 110 being heavier than my previous 90. However, now it's like I have a different turbo fitted! Of course, all this doesn't explain why the performance gains fall away at higher revs...

Well, I decided to experiment, and not put additive into the next tank full. I got about 10 miles, and in exasperation, stopped and put a 50ml treatment in again. The old lethargy at low revs was back. I had to work the box to get up to speed. After the treatment, about a couple of miles along the road, the new low end pulling power had returned. At varying speeds, between 35-40mph and and 60+ mph, it was like driving an automatic. So the effect is certainly not down to 'cleaner operation' (which, according to the instructions, should ensue after about 200 miles - but I had done 400), so must be down to increased cetane rating.. So it looks as though a £90 fillup needs a £2.50 shot of additive to run nicely. The question is: do I actually make that up in increased fuel economy? My next task is to measure, with and without, a tankful each time, taking the same journey each day. Will post result in a couple of weeks.

I notice this thread seems too old to resurface. Still, I'm now going to try a fill up without additive, to see if the low-end flat spot returns

know this crops up every now and then, but hadn't expected that, on adding the appropriate measure of millars (2003 td5 110 with 100K on) because I thought cleaning the injectors a bit might be a good idea (how do these cleaner reckon to work?) I was suprised by an instant improvement in low-end performance. Clearly, the additive is raising the cetane rating. I'm finding that the slight hesitation at low revs, when changing gear or setting off is removed. The vehicle now accelerates quite happily from 30mph in 5th (on the flat) - I always had to change to 4th to do that. I'm also finding improved fuel economy - quite definitely, though I haven't precisely measured - but travel same route every day and know from experience where the fuel guage will be after each 50mile journey. This improvement is very likely down to a drastic reduction in gear changes on corners and hills. What I'm not finding is any improvement in revving - and that might be down to something else (binding wastegate actuator, mucky MAF, atc) - the vehicle was always 'reluctant' to rev - it 'wants' to change out of 3rd at 30mph, out of 4th at 40-45 mph, and, whilst now blissfully quiet at 50 -55mph, the engie noise gets a bit thrashy at 60-65. IN fact, given a long enough airfield, it will actually climb through 75 upto 80+ (on the clock) but it's bloody noisy. So now, with the improved bottom end, it has a power band that is usable, but still narrower than (I feel) reasonable. My old 2002 '90 that was prematurely 'recycled' by we_pike_anycar.com was more willing - though it had no cat +straightthru centre pipe. You could hear the turbo whistle for miles - I can't hear my current one at all (though it must be working, or it would never reach 70, I'm sure) So I'm thinking that the additive is working at the moment, not because of cleaning but through increased cetane rating, but this has more effect at low revs and the advantage is neutralised at higher revs by the engine's inability to take advantage of it I wonder if a boost gauge could tell me more?

Yeah, see your point - a harder spring might thump slightly more, but resist being 'thrown' by the rapid 'lentghten-compression' cycle that a pothole induces. The pro comp shocks don't help, I think

I should just say that I haven't managed to try it on a right-hande with appropriately placed pothole - I just haven't found one. BUT... on a left-hander with a pothole hitting the right wheel, theings aren't neraly so bad. This could point to the left suspension (that traditionally takes more hammer on British roads), OR that anyhow, the behaviour on the suspension under load differs from that when it's unloaded As it is, I simply couldn't imagine how a defender such as mine could possibly handle more power - it would leap into a field!

I thing panhard rod bushes would be a good thing to do, even though it's not particularly wander-y. revisiting this issue of dampers seems to be a good idea. A further observation about this 'axle bounce' thing: I notice that it's when the inside wheel (well, so far, that's been the left wheel) on a corner hits a significant pothole. That is, the suspension on that side is unloaded somewhat, then the wheel 'falls down' the hol, then swiftly is thrown up, at 50mph. The result is that the axle makes 4 bounces (well, 3 + original impact) successively diminishing. It being a beam axle, the whell that is loaded (the 'outside' wheel on the corner) is also affected. Hence, the vehicle 'tramps' outward on the corner. When one thinks about it, this double stimulus (down then rap[idly up) has to be the hardest challeng for a suspension with so much unsprung weight.. The fact that it occurs at the 'drooping' end of the axle might also have something to do with it? In that case, might an anti-roll bar help by reducing that 'droop?

Hmm - don't think I can see such brackets, It's not really the steering jumping - it's the vehicle jumping...

right, I might try that... has anyone experience of fitting leaf springs to a TD5?

Apologies for cross-posting, I'm casting across several forums. Sorry, I've searched, can't seem to find much on road comfort (perhaps unsurprisingly!). My problem: An '03 defender 110 double cab p/up, TD5, 100K on clock, almost all road use (it's not even scratched!). I've run it for the last 24K round France a couple of times, bit of Spain, used every day for work (100mile round trip) In many ways, quite civilised compared to may last (90 with +2", terrafirma prosports, straightthrough exhaust, 33" wheels - knicked off the Drive.) BUT... It does roll more (it's a pre antiroll bar model), and though the 110 doesn't suffer 'nodding dog' syndrome like the 90, it's on-road behaviour ought to be improvable. It's on standard tyre size, General Grabbers (32psi front, 35 rear), good turn in, someone's put poly bushes in rear trailing arms (whatever you call 'em) but not everywhere else (the rest of the set are in a box in the garage). Fairly modest procomp replacement dampers just before I got it Mostly, though, I 'm dissatisfied with: a)suspension - bumpy corners, the front axle bounces a few times, sometimes the vehicle changes direction - on certain interesting potholes, at 50mph, the back end can hop slightly sidewise, pointing me elsewhere than originally intended by a few degrees. Also, it does 'fall down' every pothole, bouncing and thumping along. I know, it's a defender... but my question is: can defender suspension really not be improved upon? Is it underdamped, or overdamped? - ride comfort on undulating but undamaged roads is fine. But potholes make the axle bounce a few times, which would sound like the axle was underdamped. But if the shocks were firmer, the springs would tend to be even less adaptive to the contour of bumpy roads. I'm wondering whether, for my use (usually lightly laden, very rarely towing), I might be better with actually softer springs and see if I can get AR bars retrofitted to counteract roll? - or might progressive springs be a decent route? I'm prepared to take a while investigating this, as it's non-urgent, but it seems to me that the standard criticisms of defenders' ride are justified. The 'one size fits all' agricultural suspension pays little more than lip service to comfort, but could it actually be tailored to suit? Lastly, of course - even if it could, I wonder to what extent it could be made adjustable - I know that's what air suspension is supposed to be about, but I have a car with that, and I'm not a big fan.

Damn! - we (over on Landywatch) thought it had gone quieter this last week. I've lost count, but in the last two months, there must be something like 12 gone in the sheffield and NE derbyshire area. We suspect there's a chop shop somewhere to the east of sheffield (can't say more on an open forum). Lincolnshire and Humberside are also risky. It seems quite conceivable there's a professional containerisation-and-export business operating in the area; it's not just a rise in opportunist drive-aways (though it's probably fearless rascals that remove the vehicle for a fee,, there's probably organised crime behind the scenes) Oh, and we suspect they do read some of these forums. Ordinary factory measures are surely not much deterrence, so extra measures, including combinations of standard and non-standard defences (which still have to be legal!) are advisable. That said, there are only so many ways, overt and covert, to disable a Land rover - and the villains probably know most of them better than we do. It's really a case of putting enough obstacles in their way to encourage them to move on; the downside is that they are obstacles in your way!

oh, both posts came through at once, sorry

Were all these in the sheffield area this last week?

Just trying to keep track of things in the Sheffield area - were all these in this last week?

Over on Landywatch, they've been keeping an eye on Uk hotspots for theft, checking what deterrents were in use (Landyzone have drawn up a spreadsheet as well) and building up something of a profile of theft operations. unsurprisingly, most go at night. Most go from the home - on the drive or on the road outside the house. This tells us that the thieves stake out the territory, work out what security there might be, plan the operation out then move in quietly and fast. Reports indicate that 'prospectors' are seen casing an area quite regularly. It seems probable that thieves also watch the forums, so that, as more online chat about methods occurs, thieves become more cautious (possibly moving on to another area). It appears that the factory security measures are inadequate and offer little by way of deterrent. Having said that, an appreciable number with aftermarket electronic and physical devices still disappear. By the last estimate, a Disklok" takes approximately 119 noisy seconds to defeat, whilst the next best steering wheel disabler takes approx 117 relatively quiet seconds Many (but I don't have the statistics) vehicles are taken near routes that quickly arrive at ports - so 'chop shops' probably exist near most major container ports; whilst nice new vehicles may be exported whole, older vehicles might be dismantled within an hour for containerised shipping -"agricultural spares" The 'braves' that do the dirty deed probably don't make the lion's share of the profit - that's for the 'businessmen' that have the resources and nous to do the breaking and identity laundering. Trackers are probably most useful in the early stages of a theft operation, but would probably become detached from the vehicle at later stages. Whilst you'd think the 'choke point' would be the container ports, in practice the haul is virtually home and dry by that time. The police probably know all this as well as we do, but, to be pragmatic, it's a relatively small business next to some of the things they have to deal with. If there is an answer to this problem, it probably isn't going to come from official sources. regards

I'm interested in this as I just had a defender stolen, and have therefore lost most no-claims bonus. Is there any forum where representatives of insurance industry can be asked about recommendations for security measures to help keep vehicles secure and premiums under control? regards

In the UK, the onset of wintry weather heralds a steep increase in 4x4 thefts. It appears that LRs are particularly attractive because they are ultimately recyclable and poorly defended. If we don't clamp down on this, insurance premiums will go through the roof. Given that villains may well be reading these forums, it is not easy to discuss extraordinary security measures. Nevertheless, the principle of employing multiple measures designed to slow down theft attempts and compromise thieves' anonymity is no great secret. Parking the vehicle overnight so that access for tow vehicles, Hiabs and the like should be arranged where possible. park the vehicle with wheels turned to full lock. They can easily smash the steering lock (a few seconds) but the vehicle can't be towed easily until they do that Don't rely on the alarm sounding the vehicle's horn - they disconnect that first (hardly giving away a secret here!) Any advice on better doorlocks would be handy - though they can still smash the window. Extra devices - especially in multiples - are advisable. they can find them, one by one - but the clock is ticking. Nevertheless, thieves are technically competent and probably have experience of more different Landrovers than you do! They know what it would take to stop one being easily started, and know what sort of measures people employ. If you can alarm the space where the vehicle is parked overnight, all the better. Something built into the nearest building is harder to circumvent. Something that does more than the simple squawking of a house burglar alarm is required - if you are not in, the neighbours might be irritated and not particularly motivated to act fast. If the thieves wait a while, and no-one comes to investigate, they may well go ahead anyway Remember: if they can get it stared without waking the neighbourhood - you won't be able to stop them, and they will run you down if you try to get in the way; a landrover is very hard! Some physical measures that would mean that starting and moving the vehicle would simply have to be a noisy affair, might help. Tons and tons of light, especially if it flashes, is accompanied by an announcement, might be awkward for them. A ship's anchor chain would be marvellous! - but how it is attached to the vehicle is the potential weak point. In any event, the measures you use must be easy enough for you to apply so that you always do. And after all that, when you park it in a car park, it is still vulnerable- as the owner of a defender in Bakewell found, the other day. regards all

A bit of an update: no sign of the above LR, I understand, but in October November there have been (just to my knowledge, cross checking between Landywatch and Landyzone) about 8 (probably more) defenders stolen in Sheffield region and NE Derbyshire. There is a skillful and determined gang working the area. Disklocks, pedal locks, immobilisers and security lights don't really put them off. Please do pass on warnings, report thefts to Landywatch, and take extra measures to inconvenience thieves. Oh, and be careful! - they WILL run you down if you get in the way!