Darren
-
Posts
165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Darren
-
-
Thanks for all the ideas folks, particularly Western as I think his pictures have enabled me to work it out.
The longer of the two tow bars does indeed appear to be from a TD5 model - presumably the crossmember design was changed slighly at that time. I've found a picture of a standard TD5 tow bar (below) and it, too, has the shorter horizontal angle peice.
The shorter to bar (now fitted) isn't a Disco/RR one as, AFAIK, they don't have the angled braces running back to the chassis as they are already integral to the standard arrangement.
The rear crossmember isn't a military pattern - they have square ends and, I think, don't have civiliam pattern tow ball mounting holes. In fact, looking at Westerns pics again, I think it's probably standard civilian pattern for it's year.
On closer inspection, the short tow bar that I've fitted appears to be exactly the same as Westerns', except that the top of the ladder has been shortend and the solid bracing bar re-welded in lower down. The welding for this solid bar is certainly less neat than for the bottom one and, in fact, means that the saddle won't fit on it's higher setting
I suspect it's been modified in this way so that it can be mounted slightly higher, thereby reducing it's effect on departure angle slightly. With the saddle on it's lowest setting and the ball on the lowest mounting holes, it's about 450mm above the ground, which is just about right for a caravan, not that it'll ever be used for such as my wifes' DII is the caravan tug. The main reason I want a DB tow bar is to use with my demountable winch, interchangeable with a recovery point and a standard tow ball for a small trailer and this now leaves me in a bit of a quandry. I could alter what I have by making the appropriate sized horizontal angle and move the ladder down so that the top two holes are attached to the crossmember. However, I'd loose the benefit of it being slightly shorter than standard and also have to faff around with a grinder so that a saddle will fit on the highest mounting holes. Alternatively, I could leave it as it is and forego the horizontal angle piece. It's still mounted with the same two tow ball bolts but I could, if they're not deemed sufficient, drill the crossmember and install two more 16mm bolts through the upper two mounting holes. Opinions, anybody?
I've included a picture of a trial fit of my demountable winch. On the second highest setting (the highest that the saddle will actually fit) it's positioned perfectly so that it clears the spare wheel and doesn't reduce the departure angle. The free spool lever does get in the way but I can solve that by rotating the end of the winch body so that it's on the front face.
-
My 110 has had replacement crossmember fitted at some point and I wonder if anybody can tell me what age of vehicle the replacement would have been the standard pattern for?
The reason I ask is that, without giving it much thought, I bought a Dixon Bate adjustable tow bar, cleaned it up, re-painted it and then discovered that not all of the holes line up with those in the crossmember
Then, armed with the knowledge of what I thought was needed, I bought a second DB towbar (which I believe is the TD5 pattern) only to discover that none of the holes line up despite looking like they should 
After a bit of umm-ing and ah-ing, I decided to fit the first one as enough holes line up for it to work, but I'm now wondering just what is so special about my crossmember to make this simple job so difficult. The crossmember has the series of larger and smaller holes in the rear face that appear to match the TD5 tow bar as well as the three 10mm threaded holes in the bottom face. However, the latter stand proud of the bottom face by about 6mm, which pushed the whole tow bar downwards and means that the main bolt holes don't line up. In addtion, the two outer 10mm holes are much further apart than the length of the steel angle on the back of the tow bar.
Is there another crossmember design between the earlier and later ones or is my crossmember just a very badly designed copy?
-
I fitted NAS lights to the front of my 110 at the weekend using the Bolt-on-Bits plinths. Because they allow the lights to overlap the raised edge of the trim panels, they are slightly further out than with the 'normal' way of installing these things, but I think they look ok.
Fitting them was quite easy (once I'd presuaded the old lights and their very rusty fixings to release their grip). The mounting holes lined up with those of the old lights, although the stepped back was tight up against the raised edge of the trim panels and didn't allow much of a tolerance. They're mounted with some nice stainless M3 button head bolts so hopefully won't be a rusty mess when they have to be removed in the future
It's worth noting that they effectively clamp the headlight trim panel in place and would have to be removed for future access to the headlight, although this would be the case with standard lights too. I took the opportunity to replace the trim panels whilst I was at it and the new ones were a different design to the originals in this respect.
The lights themselves work brilliantly and are very bright and clear. As others have noted though, the bulb holders on these Wipac versions are rubbish. Of the four I've fitted, two needed a good degree of fettling to make the contacts stay in place and one caused a short straight away as the contacts had moved and subsequently touched each other when the bulb was inserted. This was a complete pain because a. I didn't know where the correct fuse was on my 'wiring challenged' vehicle
and b. I'd soldered on the appropriate connector so spent ages trying to figure how I'd damaged the wiring before realising that the holder was to blame I've included a couple of pics of these stepped plinths alongside the standard ones for comparison. On the whole, I think they're very good although I'll be sticking with the standard ones for the rear. This is partly because I need to replace the corner cappings so cutting the holes isn't a big deal, but also because the stepped plinths move the lights further out than if fitted from scratch and I'm concerned that this will make them vulnerable to knocks, particularly the side lights on the 'barrel roll'.
Anybody want to buy four standard plinths?
-
I now drive a 110 every day after about 6 years with a Discovery (and lots of years with Series vehicles before). I think it's great, although the turning circle in my office car park occasionally makes for a few moments of fun.
I've also got two small children (3 yr old twins) that I take to nursery every day, so there's lots of locking and unlocking of doors. It's not a big deal, but I do plan to fit central locking at some point.
You can get loads of stuff in the back
As I permanently have two child seats bolted in the second row, I'm finding the bigger load space a real bonus over the Discovery.It is noisier than the Discovery and I'm not sure I'd be quite so keen if I had a long commute, but it's a very subjective thing and some people are more concerned about it than others. Other than that I find it a very comfortable ride and seating position (I've got Disco seats in the front). I'm also lucky in that I can use my wifes' Disco II for longer journeys if necessary
-
Ha, that is a very good point
Thanks cipx2, a process of deduction then (albeit one that can't really be faulted), rather than a specific source.
-
The original LR steel rims are part# NTC5193 for which the max. load is 1650 kg.
I'd be really interested to know the source for that info. Until now the only other figure I've seen quoted is 750kg by a guy on another forum. He was quite definite about it but, when pressed, couldn't provide any detail as to where the figure had come from, which is next to useless
-
Conversely, I ordered a set of four plinths via their ebay store last Wednesday and they arrived the very next day.
It's frustrating, I know, but don't hang a company based on just one transaction. There could be any number of reasons why they haven't responded.
-
Hmm, that's what I was afraid of - thanks.
-
Air there any issues with removing the two diagonal bracing bars to the bonnet catch to fit those RR fans? Or have you beefed it up with some sort of frame around the edge?
-
That's great, thanks. I'll definitely get them for the front as they'll save a considerable amount of faffing
-
Got any decent pics, Dan? The ones on the BOB adverts are rubbish. As I understand it, these things alter the position slightly when compared to the 'traditional' cut new holes method of fitting?
I've got a set of NAS lights in the garage ready to be fitted and could be tempted by these plinths before I start hacking things around - on the front at least.
I'll probably fit the rear by cutting the bodywork as they can be kept slightly more inboard that way. I've also got to fit new rear corner cappings at the same time, so a bit of extra faffing isn't a big deal
-
Impala Adventures run (or at least used to run) a trip a bit like that from Finalnd into Russia. Was good fun but hard work, by all accounts. ISTR the round trip was about four weeks .
-
No mention of tyre size in that excerpt Darren.
You're absolutely right. That was offered more as bit of general background to the whole thing than about the breakages. Nevertheless, they did have the problems when using very oversize tyres. I was reading an article by Geoff wassisname (the Land Rover engineer who had to solve the problem) in one of the LR mags only recently.
The following is also taken from the blurb by the other vehicle, which is at Gaydon:
The Range Rovers were standard, but fitted with much special equipment such as swamp tyres, petrol tank guards, snorkel exhaust pipe extensions, Fairy winches and roll-over bars. -
The Range Rovers that were winched and man handled almost all the way through the gap were only on 7.50x16 SAT's and they were breaking diffs on a daily basis.
That's not strictly true. For part of the trip they were fitted with very large flotation tyres as the 'ground' was about as solid as porridge. It was whilst they were wearing this huge rubber that they kept breaking the diffs - not helped by the gung-ho driving style either.
This summary of the whole trip was prepared by Dunsfold (who own one of the two Range Rovers):
Two Range Rovers, VXC 868K and this one, VXC 765K were flown into Anchorage by RAF Hercules aircraft. They departed Anchorage on 3rd December 1971.On 7th December the leading vehicle, VXC765K, crashed into a container lorry straddling the ice covered road helping a ditched motorist. "765" was extensively damaged. It was towed to Fort Nelson on a rope, then to Vancouver on a solid tow bar with the 'driver' wrapped in a sleeping bag. The temperature was -3 degrees C and there was no heater! The front of the vehicle was completely rebuilt by the Vancouver Leyland dealer using spares air freighted from Lode Lane.
The vehicles left Vancouver 14 days behind schedule but made up some time on the run south through the US. They arrived in Panama City on 12th Jan 1972, were 'jungle prepared' and set off into the Darien Jungle on 19th January.
The jungle crossing took 95 days, the vehicles achieving on an average day approx. 2 miles, and a fuel consumption sometimes as high as 3 GALLONS PER MILE!
On arrival in Medellin, Columbia and the 23rd April, the vehicles were thoroughly serviced and converted back to 'road-going' mode and then continued the run south. Through sections of South America, the vehicles were cruising at 90mph for hours on end and one 800 mile stretch of desert was crossed in 10 hours.
In the extreme south snow again became a problem, but a telex was sent to Lode Lane from Ushuaia on 10th June saying 'Mission Accomplished'.
-
There is a 'replacement' organised on Easter Saturday.
Ha, the pictures on that page have been pinched from my website
-
Thanks, all. I think I will go with sticking some ali on the underside afterall (although I'll have to clean off the waxoil first
). Welding, of any flavour, seems a bit over the top for some 6mm holes -
Thanks chaps, all useful info. I haven't done too much to progress the wiring issues but I have just replaced a lot of the dashboard and removed some non-standard switches. Now that everything is physically back where it should be I can tackle the wiring next
-
Thanks Western - just what I wanted
Thanks for the info, Mo. The temperature gauge does work (when the engine ever decides to warm up, but that's another story) and all of the significant warning lights seem to work - main beam, indicators, hazards, oil pressure, charge, diff lock and low fuel. The only one that I can think of that doesn't is the handbrake light. It's entirely possible, however, that it's just not connected but the info that Western has provided will help me to figure that out.
The glow plug light doesn't work, but then the Iveco engine doesn't have any glow plugs
-
I get my lasers to cut disks about twice the diameter of the hole and stick then on with a 2 part flexible adhesive
http://www.eurobond-adhesives.co.uk/productlist.php#sa
Penloc 1:1 brilliant but expensive
Always use aluminium disks so that no potential difference between materials if no access to a laser then a pair of tinsnips
You've got your own lasers? I'm impressed
Seriously though, I do quite like this approach, although it's obviously more fiddly than just pushing a plastic bung or fastner in. Is there any particular reason for the exotic adhesive or would something like Araldite or silicon do the job? -
Thanks chaps. Anybody know where I can get a wiring diagram for the TD5 instrument pack? To be honest, most of it seems to work as it should do. It'd just be nice to know what I'm looking at and also see if there's anything currently unused that I might be able to make use of.
I'll file the info on the TD5 speedo for future reference, thanks. I've got enough wiring to sort out as it is without adding to it at the moment
Is there any obvious way of identifying a TD5 bulkhead? I'm pretty certain the bulkhead has been replaced but it'd be nice to be able to confirm it.
-
Can anybody help put a date on the instruments in my 110? Whilst the truck is, on paper, a 1987/E reg, it's been extensively re-built at some point, I think by Frogs Island 4x4, and many of the body panels and other fittings are from later vehicles - the rear axle is also a later disk braked version.
Anyway, whilst fiddling with the wiring to the back of the instruments I managed to get an engine check light to light up on the warning light pack. I know the original 2.5TD would never have had such a thing so I'm guessing either late 300tdi or TD5? Looking at the rather worn state of the bezel, I think the speedo is the original, but the fuel and temp guage look much newer. The fuel gauge also has no damping on the reading, bouncing backwards and forwards when the vehicle is moving.
The gauge on the right is a VDO oil pressure gauge.
Any help would be appreciated. When I bought it I knew the wiring was going to be a bit of a challenge as several things didn't work (including the fuel gauge) as they hadn't been connected. However, the more I look, the bigger the challenge becomes. It seems that the whole vehicle has been re-wired from scratch with many relays mounted on what look like purpose made PCB's. There are three of these in a large waterproof box under the bonnet and one each in the rear light clusters, with each bulb having it's own relay and fuse!
-
Hmm, I've got a load of large headed rivets to hand so they might do. That Skiffy site has all sorts of useful looking stuff on it, though
-
You think you've got problems. I took the cover off of the fuse box in my 110 for the first time the other day to be faced with this! Still, at least it has blade fuses, I s'pose
-
I've just removed two forward facing seats from the rear of my 110 station wagon. It also looks like it's had bench seats fitted before that, too and all these ex-seats have left a large number of holes in the wheel boxes. These are currently covered with duct tape (what else?
) but I wondered if anybody had any good ideas for a more permanent, and elegant, solution?I don't want to just put bolts through as I want to keep the top surface flush (for rubber matting, eventually). The only other thing I can think of is to glue some small bits of ali to the underside? Possibly with silicon?
I suspect it's been modified in this way so that it can be mounted slightly higher, thereby reducing it's effect on departure angle slightly. 
Rear cross member identification
in Defender Forum (1983 - 2016)
Posted
No, mine was an ebay special