Jimmy Two-Jacks

December 18, 2012

Hello All,

I have seen this and wonder if it would work in a defender 200tdi , i.e would a standard alternator cope with this?

I understand the battery would be flat in no time fast if the engine wasn't running but would it cope when it was running?

It's the type you wire direct to the battery rather than frying the cigar lighter :rolleyes:

Cheers

J2J

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item43b6db765f

December 12, 2012

I got it sorted out it was M10 (1.25 fine) I just re=tapped the supplied hafnut and all is well. :i-m_so_happy:

December 11, 2012

Nyloc nut at base of gear lever is a M10 http://www.lrseries....Y110047L&page=1

Thank you I will have another try :rolleyes:

December 11, 2012

SimonR will know as he supplies both of those with his X-Defend gear locks

Ahemmm....Thats why I ask as the ones he sent me don't fit my vehicle :hysterical: Its not any fault of his kit as it all worked very well. I think its my probably "Made on a Friday aternoon from the bits bucket at the factory truck" :unsure:

I have sent him a message but thought for the cost of two nuts I could just get two from Oxon fastenings my local suppliers to save any hasle and get the job done.

December 11, 2012

I thought so to but the thread seems too course on the M10 nut I have

December 11, 2012

Hi All I need to find the thread of the knob (so to speak) of the hi/lo box shift lever on my early 200tdi. I thought it was M10 but an M10 nut starts but stops as its not the right thread also the securing nut at the base of the main gearbox lever that is a LT77 TYPE.

Anyone know?

Cheers

J2J

December 11, 2012

Sorry Western I cant seem to upload anymore images it tells me there is an error with the server I will try later

These are they:

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item19d5dd213b

Cheers

J

Ok here you go

December 11, 2012

Well I fitted the roof lights and light bar and an illuminated switch in the cab to run independant of the main lights as I dont want them for road usage and the led lights are not "E" marked and so can not be used on the highway.

I have just got to get the mother in law to make me some covers to keep me legal whilst on the road

The images below show

1: Normal Lights Dipped

2:Normal Lights Full Beam

3:LED Roof lights

Thanks again for the help :i-m_so_happy: .

j2j

December 1, 2012

Thanks All..No need for the bucket of sand then :i-m_so_happy:

December 1, 2012

Defender doors are too light and flimsy as it is, Series doors are even worse. They'll let more noise in, and the split design means it's harder to get a good seal at the top. Especially if driving at speed

Then there's the issue of door cards. Quite rare. And the sliding windows, which will be fine for a year or so before they start rattling/leaking. And not being able to have a fully open aperture will become annoying!

Put simply I don't mind the Series doors on a vehicle of the relevant age as they're part of the character and appeal of the vehicle. Same as the drum brakes, leaf springs etc. But I wouldn't put them on a Defender.

I have military two part doors on my defender and as James says the seal at the top is very difficult to mantain and you end up resorting to extra closed cell seals to keep the water out.

They suit me because my truck is a shed on wheels and has no frills not even carpet or a wireless but if you want comfort and a drier cab look for one piece doors.

J

December 1, 2012

Hi All I have finally got round to plumbing in the boost gauge after my inter-cooler upgrade and pump tweak (very minor tweak) on my 200tdi 90.

It worked well but the needle seems to sit almost at 1BAR for most of the time the vehicle is being driven.

I know I have posted before asking the correct boost pressure and was told no more than 1 BAR but this gauge has a colour scale that follows the pressure level and the 1BAR marking is well within the red section :unsure: .

The gauge sits half way when idling as I think this dial could be fitted to petrol engines and in that case read vacuum as well as positive boost. Perhaps that's the reason for the scary coloured scale. That seems to infer that your engine is about to melt :unsure: . The temperature gauge doesn't seem to move higher than usual at just below halfway so perhaps its nothing to worry about

Should the needle sit around 1 BAR but not quite most of the time or should I keep a bucket of sand in the cab <_< ?

Cheers

J2J

December 1, 2012

Well I have been practicing with the modified crimps and heat shrink and think I can probably make a passable job of It.

Thanks for all the info. I will post some images when I fit the lights.

Cheers All

J2J :i-m_so_happy:

December 1, 2012

Are you stationed at Dalton, as your location suggests? I can prob give you a hand if you need any help as I'm local...

Thanks Jon,

I am not on Dalton but not far away If I get stuck I might take you up on that offer.

Many thanks

J

November 28, 2012

Good advice from Jon

I wire them like this -

The above diagram doesn't show it but, of course, the '+12V' is from a fused supply

Also, the wire gauge shown is for 55W halogen lights, the gauge could be down-sized for LEDs, but not too small, as you don't want a voltage drop.

I use a continuous length of the larger gauge cable, with the conductor exposed and the smaller gauge 'spur' to each lamp crimped onto it it, using a splice crimp, which is then over-sleeved with adhesive-lined heatshrink, as this picture sequence illustrates -

. . .

. . .

Using a male/female connector at the gutter, so that the lightbar can be removed, is a good idea.

For your purposes, a 'standard' 070 (1.8mm) Econoseal connector is more than adequate - http://www.polevolt....Connectors.html

But, for halogen lights, I use the Econoseal 187 (4.8mm) Series, which will accomodate 3.0mm² cable, and has a nominal current rating of 25 Amps -

. . .

.

Thanks for the advice got the cable on order.

Where did you get the crimps from?

Regards

J

November 28, 2012

Thanks all for the help.

j

November 27, 2012

Hi All,

I have just bought myself four spot beam led roof bar lights for my 90 and was hoping for some advice as to wiring them.

Am I right in thinking that its best to wire the four in parallel through a relay switched Independent of the headlight controls in the cab as I don't want them for road usage?

I used an online watts to amps calculator and put in the 4x lights @ 15watts each that came to 60 watts at 12volts making 5 amps?

So would I be OK with say 10 amp 12volt auto wire and say a 10amp fuse?

Any ideas as to how to junction/split the four live feeds from the single wire coming from the fused battery supply, connector block perhaps?

Sorry to seem thick electric stuff has never been a strength.

Cheers

James

November 4, 2012

Jimmy, whilst that is a good idea, it will involve drilling through the galvanising. Do you know how strong tek screws are? I've used them on farm buildings and they worked well, but I'm concerned that if I was to put a winch rope around the tree slider for what ever reason, it may sheer the screw?

Harry

Hi Harry,

I am sure the tek screws would give up under that kind of force. Maybe the bolt option would be better .

Cheers

J2J

November 3, 2012

On the heater front, running on 24v makes it go too fast and make too much noise! I've bought one of these:

http://www.4qd.co.uk/prod/1qd.html in 24v (they do 12v as well) to give me variable 0 to 24v. I plan to convert the original heater slider to a 10k linear potentiometer which will control the 4QD speed controller.

The speed controllers from 4QD are first class (though the one linked to is not the best of them, it is cheap though). I've used lots and of them in the past. With this one, you need to careful not to reverse the power connections or it will let the Smoke out!

I think this should give me the best of all worlds!

Si

OK bear in mind I know nothing of electrical stuff :blush: but is this the sort of thing you meant when you said a linear potetiometer?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Slide-Potentiometer-10K-Linear-/290774508867?pt=UK_BOI_Electrical_Components_Supplies_ET&hash=item43b382e543

November 3, 2012

Scott,

If you do go Is it group members only? I quite fancy that, it sounds good and very near to me

J2J

November 3, 2012

If it was a genuine LandRover retrofit kit it would have been fitted with a TD exhaust. Or at least should have been as one would have come with the kit.

I think it is having just looked a td exhaust system :blush:

November 3, 2012

I drilled a hole through one side only of the slider fixings and outriggers and fixed it with a tek screw. That keeps it anchored ok

November 3, 2012

Petrol exhausts are a different ball game to diesel and turbo diesel exhaust remove a silencer and you'll probably end up melting valves.

Sorry Vulcan I should have elaborated on the question. My 90 was a 2.5 petrol and then it was fitted with a 200tdi I think by Land Rover. Anyway I recently ordered a 200tdi straight through section to remove the central box thinking a 200tdi exhaust was fitted to the engine at the time of conversion (foolish I know) but it didn’t fit as the people who replaced the engine had used the 2.5 petrol exhaust from the original engine.

So I tried to coble something together and ended up with a mess. So thought If I got a straight through for the petrol system I could just bolt it on instead of bending and cutting and welding pipe.

Cheers

J

November 3, 2012

Hi All.

With the first frosts of the year knipping at the extremeties and the 90 heater down to one speed again I have been pondering if the resistors (I think) in the heater blower can be replaced and if so how easy is it.

I have a bilge blower lying about in the shed from an older non LR vehcle project and saw the post on supercharging your heater and toyed with using that.

If I used that and didnt want to or couldnt use the native speed controler what would I need controler wise to regulate the speed of the fan?

On a seperate note does anyone know if a straight through mid section exhaust is available for a 2.5 petrol 90 and who sells them if they exsist ?

October 23, 2012

Update Reply from Labour MEP.

17 October 2012

Our ref ps/ph

Dear Mr Lees,

RE: Proposed amendment to the periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC

Thank you for alerting me to your concerns over proposed changes to the requirements for classic or heritage car owners, please forgive the delay in issuing a reply.

These are proposed changes that have been put forward by the European Commission in July. The usual EU legislative process is for the European Commission to initiate legislation and then for the European Parliament and Council (where the 27 national Governments sit) to scrutinise and amend the proposals before any changes are passed into law. At this stage the European Commission's proposals have just been transmitted to the European Parliament and MEPs will over the coming months have the chance to put forward changes they feel are necessary to improve the European Commission's text. This means that we have a lot of scope to change elements of the Commission proposal that we do not like and this is precisely the work that my colleague, Brian Simpson, who leads for Labour MEPs on transport issues, will be doing over the next few months.

Regarding the Commission's revision proposals, any new changes must be about finding a good balance between ensuring high standards of road safety and putting in place rules that are proportionate to the associated risks. I have raised your concerns directly with my colleague Brian Simpson and while he welcomes some of the sensible changes proposed by the Commission, he is not in favour of imposing excessive regulations that in effect prevent owners of historic and/or modified vehicles from continuing to enjoy their pastime.

It is for this reason that last week he raised your concerns over the alleged restrictions on modifying vehicles directly with the European Commission. In the meeting with Commission officials responsible for writing this legislation they clarified that the new legislation does not in any way prevent vehicle owners from modifying their vehicles. We believe the confusion may have stemmed from the new requirement for vehicle manufacturers to provide testing centres with access to the technical information necessary for MOT tests. This requirement, however, does not in any way mean that all components would have to conform with those which were on the car when it was first registered or that vehicles will be failed their MOT test due to alterations.

The intention is simply to ensure that vehicle manufacturers release technical information that could assist and facilitate testers in doing their job. The legislation does not make any reference to failing motorists on their MOT tests on the basis of modifications to their vehicle. You can find the reference to this requirement under Article 4 of the legislative proposal by following this link

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/road_worthiness_package/proposal_for_a_regulation_on_periodic_roadworthiness_tests_en.pdf.

Earlier this month the EU Transport Commissioner, Siim Kallas, attended the European Parliament's Transport Committee where he confirmed the information listed in this letter.

I hope this response has helped allay your concerns over the new EU changes affecting MOT tests.

Yours sincerely.

Peter Skinner

Peter Skinner MEP

Labour MEP for South East England

European Parliament

Rue Wiertz

Brussels, 1047

Tel: 0032 (0) 22847458

Fax: 0032 (0)22849458

Email: peter.skinner@europarl.europa.eu

I have so far posted the responses to my letters of concern here on the forum in order that we might be able to draw comparison between the stances taken from political party to political party on this.

Cheers

J2J

PS

If anyone is getting fed up with the updates..Just let me know and I will stop posting them up.

Hi All,

Just in the reply from the conservative MEP with a forward of Statement by Jacqueline Foster

Dear Mr Lees,

Thank you for your email regarding the proposed ban on car

modifications.

In reply, I thought you might like to see the statement attached from

Jacqueline Foster MEP, Spokesperson for Transport and Tourism, which

sets out the view of the Conservatives in the European Parliament.

Trusting that this is helpful to you.

With best wishes,

James Elles MEP

Conservative Member - South-East Region

Statement by Jacqueline Foster MEP on the European Commission's proposed regulation on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles

The proposed regulation, which is part of the 'Roadworthiness Package', was submitted to the European Parliament during the summer recess. It has not yet been considered, or even studied, by the Parliament's Transport Committee.

When the Transport Committee has reached its view of this proposed regulation, the matter will be referred back to the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, which comprises national Transport Ministers from around the EU.

I realise this process is very bureaucratic and I do not expect a decision on this proposal before the end of 2013.

As a Conservative MEP for the North West, and as Spokesman for Transport & Tourism, I am concerned that this is yet further interference by the EU in matters which, certainly in the case of the United Kingdom, have been handled perfectly well until now.

I do not believe that roadworthiness testing should relate to modifications, alterations or improvements to vehicles. Most historic vehicles will have been modified at some stage and so testing against its original characteristics, as the proposal suggest, is simply unworkable. I shall be making robust arguments to the Committee on these issues.

You will be able to follow its progress through the web site of the European Parliament and I shall also endeavour to keep in touch with you.

In the meantime, I am pleased that the Federation of British Historic Vehicle Clubs has also confirmed that it has submitted comments to the Department for Transport and I would urge you to also contact your Member of Parliament, if you have not already done so.

Well too soon to say, but it seems the message is getting through that the implementation of the changes would cause serious damage to many people (voting people).

J2J

J

October 17, 2012

Update with reply from Green MEP:

Dear James ,

Keith has asked me to thank you for your e-mail and to respond to it on his behalf. I apologise for the delay in doing so - our office receives a large volume of constituent correspondence on a daily basis, and it sometimes takes us longer to respond than we would like.

As you are aware, the European Commission has recently proposed legislation to tighten and harmonise across the EU the existing requirements for vehicle roadworthiness tests. This proposal comes under the 'Roadworthiness Package' which aims to enhance road safety and to reduce traffic-related emissions.

Technical faults in vehicles are a major road safety concern, with more than 5 people dying onEurope's roads every day in accidents linked to technical failure. A recent impact assessment on road safety in the EU has shown that the measures proposed by the Commission under the Roadworthiness Package could save more than 1,200 lives a year and avoid more than 36,000 accidents linked to technical failure. Please see the following press release from the European Commission for more information:
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/555&

Keith is committed to improving road safety and reducing traffic-related emissions, and works hard to promote these issues through EU legislation. In principle, Keith and his fellow Greens/EFA colleagues in the European Parliament therefore welcome the aims of this proposal. However, it is important to be aware that the proposal is currently only in draft form and is in the very beginning stages of negotiations between the European Parliament (made up of MEPs) and the Council (made up of national ministers). The details of the draft legislation are therefore open to change, which makes it impossible to say at this stage whether Keith and his colleagues will support or oppose the legislation.

Upon reading your e-mail, Keith was concerned about the potential impacts of this proposal on the historic and modified car industries and agrees with you that EU legislation should not prevent vehicle owners from carrying out modifications, as long as they are not dangerous. These concerns were raised at a recent meeting of the Transport and Tourism committee, and Keith waspleased hear reassurance from the Commission that the proposals will not outlaw vehicle modifications. Having researched the issue, it seems this has been an unfortunate misunderstanding of the proposed legislation, stemming from inaccurate reporting on the issue across theUK. The legislation in factstates that for vehicles which have been modified between roadworthiness tests, it will now be a legal requirement to resubmit the vehicle for testing to ensure that the modification is in line with safety requirements. I am sure you will agreewithKeith that this is a common-sense measure which represents a positive step towards protecting the lives of road users.

Keith is sympathetic to concerns that some of the proposals may imply extra costs for road-users and testers. However, given the number of road accidents this legislation is expected to prevent each year, Keith would rather see lives saved than safety measures not adopted because of price.

It is also worth noting that the frequency of roadworthiness testing in the UK will not change under the proposed legislation. The current system in the UK, under which vehicles must be submitted for testing 3 years after registration and then every year following that (3 - 1 - 1 system), is in fact more stringent that the Commission's proposals for a minimum requirement of a 4 - 2 -1 system.

I hope that this information has been useful and goes some way to allay your concerns. Keith understands that this is a very important issue for you, so please be assured that Keith values your views and has considered your objections carefully. He has also asked me to let you know that he has raised your concerns with the Green transport advisors, and together they will carefully consider any adverse impacts of the legislation on the historic and modified car industries in any upcoming negotiations on the legislation.

As previously mentioned, Keith is strongly committed to improving road safety, both at EU level and across his constituency. For some examples of the work that Keith has been doing in the European Parliament and across his constituency in this area, please see the transport section of his website at:
http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk/category/transport-aviation/

Please do not hesitate to be in touch if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,

Krysia Williams

Constituency Caseworker

Office of Keith Taylor MEP

Green Party MEP for South East England

The European Parliament

Rue Wiertz

1047 Brussels, Belgium

Tel: Fax: +32 2 284 9153

www.keithtaylormep.org.uk

If you would like to receive Keith's bimonthly e-newsletter please

e-mail keithtaylor@greenmeps.org.uk putting INFO as the subject header

Update Reply from Labour MEP.

17 October 2012

Our ref ps/ph

Dear Mr Lees,

RE: Proposed amendment to the periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC

Thank you for alerting me to your concerns over proposed changes to the requirements for classic or heritage car owners, please forgive the delay in issuing a reply.

These are proposed changes that have been put forward by the European Commission in July. The usual EU legislative process is for the European Commission to initiate legislation and then for the European Parliament and Council (where the 27 national Governments sit) to scrutinise and amend the proposals before any changes are passed into law. At this stage the European Commission's proposals have just been transmitted to the European Parliament and MEPs will over the coming months have the chance to put forward changes they feel are necessary to improve the European Commission's text. This means that we have a lot of scope to change elements of the Commission proposal that we do not like and this is precisely the work that my colleague, Brian Simpson, who leads for Labour MEPs on transport issues, will be doing over the next few months.

Regarding the Commission's revision proposals, any new changes must be about finding a good balance between ensuring high standards of road safety and putting in place rules that are proportionate to the associated risks. I have raised your concerns directly with my colleague Brian Simpson and while he welcomes some of the sensible changes proposed by the Commission, he is not in favour of imposing excessive regulations that in effect prevent owners of historic and/or modified vehicles from continuing to enjoy their pastime.

It is for this reason that last week he raised your concerns over the alleged restrictions on modifying vehicles directly with the European Commission. In the meeting with Commission officials responsible for writing this legislation they clarified that the new legislation does not in any way prevent vehicle owners from modifying their vehicles. We believe the confusion may have stemmed from the new requirement for vehicle manufacturers to provide testing centres with access to the technical information necessary for MOT tests. This requirement, however, does not in any way mean that all components would have to conform with those which were on the car when it was first registered or that vehicles will be failed their MOT test due to alterations.

The intention is simply to ensure that vehicle manufacturers release technical information that could assist and facilitate testers in doing their job. The legislation does not make any reference to failing motorists on their MOT tests on the basis of modifications to their vehicle. You can find the reference to this requirement under Article 4 of the legislative proposal by following this link

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/road_worthiness_package/proposal_for_a_regulation_on_periodic_roadworthiness_tests_en.pdf.

Earlier this month the EU Transport Commissioner, Siim Kallas, attended the European Parliament's Transport Committee where he confirmed the information listed in this letter.

I hope this response has helped allay your concerns over the new EU changes affecting MOT tests.

Yours sincerely.

Peter Skinner

Peter Skinner MEP

Labour MEP for South East England

European Parliament

Rue Wiertz

Brussels, 1047

Tel: 0032 (0) 22847458

Fax: 0032 (0)22849458

Email: peter.skinner@europarl.europa.eu

I have so far posted the responses to my letters of concern here on the forum in order that we might be able to draw comparison between the stances taken from political party to political party on this.

Cheers

J2J

PS

If anyone is getting fed up with the updates..Just let me know and I will stop posting them up.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Gallery

Blogs

Posts posted by Jimmy Two-Jacks

Important Information