Jump to content

Chicken Drumstick

Settled In
  • Content Count

    1,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Chicken Drumstick

  1. Thanks. Haven't had an issue with bushes though. The plate has sheared off diagonally along the bottom crossing over one of the U bolt holes.
  2. Have managed to shear off the lower rear shock mount on the spring plate. Looks like I may need to perform some R&D. Although it has lasted a good number of years since modding my 88. Can anyone help locate any of these? I’m assuming they are not remanufactuered at present. As il struggling to find them. I can find a couple of different spring plates listed for the front axle. Anyone know how these differ to the rear or if they can be substituted?
  3. In a positive or negative way?
  4. Can’t see a few feet of water being an issue air intake wise. As long as you aren’t parked in it, well up the grill will be fine with the stock intake. Water proofing the electrics on a petrol will be more important.
  5. I’m running Rough Country shocks on mine. Full details in my build thread.
  6. Hi. Only just seen this. Apologies for the delayed reply. I did did have an attempt 2. But I didn’t really find anything that out performed the halogens. The halogens are also quite resistant to being dipped underwater such as when fording. The last set of MR16’s I actually pulled them apart and removed the driver board from the unit and remote mounted in a sealed box high up in the engine bay. My final idea was to actually build a custom MR16 using one of the led units I’d got. Using a better LED and driver. But I never finished the project. I might pick it up again next winter though. Less need for the lights during the summer.
  7. Gearing wouldn't need touching, but everything the engine bolts or plumbs into would. It would be a massive amount of work to gain less power, less performance and a lot more noise. I'm a Tdi fan, have two 200Tdi's, but they are completely inferior to the latter engines in every regard.
  8. Disco 2 chassis is very different. As is the p38. Disco 1 and RRC are very similar.
  9. Thanks for the info. Was after a tubular bumper for an RRC. They built me a custom one to my specs for my D1 many years ago which has been great. And would happily have got another.
  10. Apologies for reviving an old thread. But does anyone know if Guardian are still in business? Their site seems to have gone, but I guess they could be trading under a different name these days. Thanks.
  11. The Jimny is a bit oddball, the UK has only been allocated 1000 vehicles for the first year. I believe dealers only know their allocation until March at present and you can't actually order one, only by on allocation. I'm sure any new Defender will sell well initially for the yuppie status. But LR would be fools to restrict numbers to 1000 units in the UK.
  12. On a different note, I have booked a test drive in the new Jimny for 2 weeks time. To me this is far more what I'd want from a new Defender.
  13. Tcs worked. Especially with the dark p38. It wouldn’t have driven through the axle twister if not. But the older systems don’t always seem to work first time. You have to back off the the throttle completely and try again. Same with the Jeep JK system. You can hear the tcs in the p38 from inside and it flashes the light on the dash when active. I have it in my p38. Although mine is 4 wheel rather than the earlier 2 wheel system. But I don’t have it on video.
  14. Maybe not the best vid for this. But one I had uploaded. At 3 min there is a DSE p38 with rear axle tcs. You can hear the engine revs increase when it’s in use and no power is being cut. There is a bob tailed V8 p38 at the beginning Of the vid. I think it too has rear tcs on it. And again you can see when it goes through the hole the engine revs aren’t restricted by use of the tcs (when the left rear wheel spins at 1m 12sec).
  15. No arguments from me. I admit I’m not so familiar with the newer stuff. The older tcs systems don’t reduce the engine output, other than through increased load that is. But no actual cutting of the power.
  16. I don’t know for sure. But my expectation would be the tcs would behave differently in the different terrain response modes. As well as a difference between high and low range. @Red90 do you know if they were in low or high and what mode they were using for the terrain response in the LR3?
  17. Off road TCS shouldn't be cutting engine power, it only applies the brakes. At least that is how it works on my p38a and on late model Defenders.
  18. Jeep's Quada Drive II system looks appealing, the TCS controlled some E-diffs, rather than brake force distribution. I guess this sort of thing would work well on any new Defender.
  19. It's funny how traction works out sometimes. I recall we were problem tracking an issue on my brothers 90 the other year, we decided to lift the bonnet off and drive up the field to a steep muddy ascent on the off road course. And put it in low 1st and let it tick over, we hoped it would just sit there and spin the wheels in the wet grass. With diff lock out, it would slowly climb the slope. With difflock in, it would just spin two wheels and stay where it was. I think with the diff open, it was almost like a dumb tcs system, and the diffs slowly allowed power to easily be applied to one wheel at a time. Which kept varying, with the centre diff locked, of course the front and rears were forced to rotate at the same speed.
  20. Range Rover uses a viscous centre diff and can't be locked. Makes it very good when working for most things and a better turning circle off road, but as you found out, no good with a broken shaft/prop. This would be true for p38a's and some classic RR's too.
  21. TCS (in most cases) is a substitute for a limited slip diff, not a full locking diff. It has many advantages over locking diffs. Primarily in the fact it requires no user intervention. It also allows you to retain your steering lock, full diff locks, especially at the front will give you the turning radius of a starship. TCS is also good for changing conditions, such as running in snow, slush and wet tarmac. Full diff locks are also a bit of a blunt instrument, as they will force the tyres to spin at exactly the same speed. This is mostly good, but can cause issues at times. I'm not knocking full lockers, they are brilliant at what they do and for specific off road use. Which is why they are optional on all modern Land Rovers for the rear axle since the D3 (except the Defender). For most people I suspect front and rear TorSen ATB's with TCS would prove to be a more usable and superior solution, but would cost more.
  22. Road based cars might do this. But a proper off road tcs shouldn’t be removing power. Quite the opposite in fact. To make it work you’ll need to accelerate a bit. Some numpties can’t drive and will back off the power as soon as the tcs kicks in. Maybe this is what you’ve seen?
  23. I hear what you are saying, but I was hoping to find a fairly "bolt-in" option, without lots of bespoke bits. The T-Series seems ideal, just hard to source these days. If a KV6 could be used instead for only marginally more effort, but allowing it to retain fairly standard drivetrain bits, then all the better. And it would seem a nice option. Personally I've not heard much bad about the KV6 either. I think early handbuilt ones had a few production issues, but the 825 Sterling we had never missed a beat and then was owned by someone local for many years afterwards. My brothers ZS180 was likewise fault free. The KV6 is a pretty awesome engine. It shares next to nothing in common with the 4 cylinder K-Series, although I like these too. The KV6 is supersmall and compact, even for a V6. It's shorter than a 1.8 K-Series and doesn't weigh much more either. It might not make the highest headline power output, but it is only 2.5 litres. 177bhp/180PS, but they have a lot more torque than the 4 cylinder engines. And I suspect with a few mods would fairly easily be provoked to around 200hp. Powerwise this is a solid 3.9/4.0 RV8 territory. As for fitting one. Research so far has suggested that the O/L/M/T Series engines and KV6 share the same bolt pattern. Although I can't confirm this. This would make sense as they all mount to the PG1 gearbox. I'm not sure if the PG1 has a traditional removable bellhousing or not, being as it's a FWD gearbox. I know the M and T Series have both been used with the LT-77/R380, although I'm guessing this is done by a specific bell housing? Anyone able to confirm if a Discovery Mpi bell housing is unique to it or not? On the assumption of the above, I do wonder if you could use the MPI bellhousing and mount to a KV6.
  24. With all the talk of engine swaps recently. And the talk of the T Series. It got me considering if the Tdi in my 88 was the right choice. It does everything I want of it. Apart from one thing, it’s bloody noisy! I’ve tried a few things to make it better and yet it is still hugely too unrefined really and loud inside. I use the vehicle a lot, and often for long journeys, touring or laning. I would truly love to get the noise levels down. Sadly it seems finding a T Series engine is a lot harder than it used to be. I’m sure there are still some out there. But I didn’t find any the other evening when looking. My brother then said what about the KV6. He had a ZS180 and our Dad had a 2.5 Sterling 800 with such an engine. And they where fab. I know both the KV6 and the T Series mate to the PG1 5 speed gearbox. Does this mean the KV6 will also mate to something like an LT-77 or Series LT-76? Anyone done or seen anything like this? I’m pretty sure the KV6 was only ever installed transversely which might present other issues. Although a Land Rover engine bay is pretty spacious. Thoughts/info?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy