Chicken Drumstick

Didn't realise this. Assume this is for all over drives not just the Roamer Drive? Bit of a shame.

Re: the transfer box. I think it comes down to what you want from the vehicle. IMO lots of people over gear the V8's. Now don't get me wrong, the V8 makes a shed load more grunt down low than a 2.5 petrol. But the V8 still does its best work at mid rpm or higher (especially with a sensible cam swap). We've just put a 3.9 EFI into a factory 3.5 90. It has slightly different gearing with the LT-85 5 speed and also uses a super tall transfer box 1.192:1 (35D). the 3.9 will pull it fine, well the 3.5 did, but the 3.9 is so much better It will pull 5th gear at 25-30mph quite happily. But I would say, it doesn't exactly feel zingy..... It always has plenty of power. But 3rd gear takes you well over 70mph and you don't really get to enjoy the V8 revs as much as you may think. My opinion is, shorter overall gearing would totally transform the character of the vehicle and make it more enjoyable to drive. But might not be too everyones tastes. In this particular example, swapping in some 4.10:1 diffs is likely the answer, as we have a pair sitting under the workbench. But with an LT-77 and 3.:54 diffs. I personally think a 1.6:1 would be the most fun transfer box option, but for cruising you would need to budget for an Over Drive such as a Roamer Drive. As the 1.6:1 would feel like the V8 is screaming its nuts off in 5th! The standard 1.4:1 transfer box would be the compromise between performance and cruising without the need for an over drive. The 1.2:1 from a Disco would I expect be very similar to our setup. Which while perfectly fine, has a somewhat lazy feel about the performance. I also have a 3.9 V8 in a Triumph TR7, although this runs a 4 brl carb rather than EFI. But it has very short gearing and is simply loads of fun, as long as you aren't on a motorway. It really does need an extra gear. In terms of the V8's I've always found in stock trim, the serpentine 3.9's rev a lot better than the earlier vee belt ones. Not entirely sure why. Either way, RV8's are know to wear cams and lifters, so it may well be worth also budgeting to refresh these. As worn ones will make them breathless a higher rpms and potentially be down 20hp +- A mild cam upgrade really wakes them up in the higher rpm and shouldn't sacrifice low end torque. Ultimately I feel it is very much a balancing act between the character of the engine and how the gearing effects this. Your personal driving style will also have a big bearing on this too. I don't have the 3.9 V8 90 on video, but it is worth noting that it is "comparatively" hard work to rev it out in the gears, as the gears are long. And out having fun will likely only result in 1 or 2 gear shifts. On the flip side, my TR7 with silly short gearing is very easy to rev out to the red line and rips through the gears. This is it, albeit with a cammed 3.5 (before the 3.9 went in), but with the same gearing. I think a similar character in a 90/110 would be pretty awesome!

I thought only the 110's had the 1.6 or did the 90s too?

What exactly is wrong with it?

Worth a 2nd mention about lack of heat out the front. Not an issue for most of the year. But if you live somewhere you do get snow often, it is likely to be more of a problem.

LED lights aren’t part of the MoT as far as I can recall. But would be Construction & Use. An MoT tester shouldn’t be looking at them apart from confirming they work, correct colours and dip beam pattern. The ones I’m running do have fans. As LEDs do make a lot of heat, but behind the emitter. I have 4 sets, plus my brother, Uncle and a friend running them. Had mine since 2016 and thus far no probs. Only the tint bothers me. Beam profile and cutoff is great. Better than the halogen bulbs. As for legalities I believe it is a bit of a grey area. Unless things have changed, there is nothing in Law to say they are strictly illegal. However there is also nothing to say they are legal either. So without specific mention they would require Case Law to set a precedent, which I’m yet to hear of anyone being prosecuted for so far. Thus IMO they rank in a similar vane to running something like 80/100watt halogen bulbs in a Land Rover instead of the 55/65w legally wise. For complete LED housings. I believe they are meant to be an approved housing. And should be fitted as per OEM installs. Meaning complete with self levelling and headlight washers. Although I freely admit this guidance was what I read at least 4/5 years ago. So things may have changed.

Many thanks. Might grab a pair of these in the New Year.

They don't look too bad design wise. But are still sadly cool white (6500k) and I suspect low CRI as high K values always are. Not knocking them, I run something of a similar design, that are also horrid cool white. https://budgetlightforum.com/node/50238

Couple of vids that might help steer you in your purchase.

I've found quality of the lenses can make a big difference with halogen (or LED bulbs). Running the same bulbs in different housings has shown to make a lot of difference to how well they light up the road ahead. Halogen can be made to wor ok, but may need to ensure you are getting good voltage and the right bulb selection. Having super bright additional lights (LED bar, etc) just compounds the problem, as they knacker your night vision when you drop to dip. However, even on a good dip setup I had a triple HID spotlight setup and it was too much when dropping down to dip. You'd think you'd turned the lights off. And they were actually superb. If this is the problem, maybe tone down your main beam setup for road use a bit. Light bars tend to offer flood light (wide area). Some tightly focused spot lights would allow you to see further down the road, but may make the transition back to dip more pleasant. In terms of LED units. I think they are very mixed still. And sadly such poor info to evaluate any of them as a rule, so it is a complete lottery. Most are super expensive, although sometimes they are just cheap Chinese rubbish (often with fake E numbers) and produce beams that must be illegal and will dazzle other drivers. Others are just pricey for the sake of it. The Trucklite design has been about for quite some time now. And looks period on a Land Rover. I don't think they are the best, but likely to be an improvement over most halogen setups, unless you had a really sorted setup. Prices don't seem to be too bad vs some other offerings and available from reputable sellers. I believe there are many copies or unbranded versions of this design however. No idea how the quality varies, but they are readily available. I'm also not sure, but believe there are LHD and RHD variants. And I suspect some sold in the UK cheaply are probably for LHD vehicles. Some might be worse and not even handed with just a generic beam. Most of the 'bug eye' design ones I've seen seem to cause lots of dazzle. This doesn't mean they are all rubbish, but I'd want to seriously check them out before laying out the cash. While I like having good headlights, I don't want to blind on-coming cars. There are a number of designs, but a few that seem to be pretty generic found on ebay/Amazon etc. Pretty much everytime I've seen these fitted the beam and tint is awful and very antisocial to oncoming traffic. Plus I personally don't think they suit the styling of a 90/110. Also with LED I think sometimes there is a placebo effect with them. The light is generally whiter (or bluer) which might make you think it is brighter and better than halogen. But quite often they aren't. In fact this is one of the major issues with LED lights (even OEM ones). Ideally you want something in the 4000-5000k neutral white range and preferably with something like 95CRI (colour rendition index). But all/almost all LED headlight makers only offer 6500k with something like 70CRI LEDs. Although many won't even publish this. A cool white tint of this high a kelvin number will generally cause more eye strain in the dark and will tend to bleach out colours. Especially greens and browns and make them all look rather greyish. This isn't to say to not go the LED route. But for me, I'd want to buy from a place that I know I could return them hassle free, should I not like them.

Umm, makes the vehicle look rather incomplete. You should be able to see the lower A-arm pivot. Obviously how LR have designed the front end, you are somewhat limited in what you can achieve. Maybe it'd look better in person, but for it looks a little 'exposed' and a bit homesprung.

Good video. Sadly no terrain even remotely similar round this way.... would love to have a go. Not knocking the New Defender. But I suspect driver and momentum played far bigger factors than the actual vehicle. Although plenty of power and a fast shifting auto may well have been handy vs some of the older models.

I believe the Lexus lump is often retro fitted to Hilux's so should make for a good choice. Axle wise, really depends on how you drive and the size of tyres you plan to run. The rear can fairly easily be upgraded with some stronger bits, although this can still cost a fair old wedge, depending on what you want to achieve. The front axle can be upgraded also, although if they are 10 spline Range Rover examples, to upgrade them requires more parts and the cost spirals. You'd probably find it cheaper to source a latter 24 spline front axle and upgrade that instead. Have a look here for axle stuff: https://www.ashcroft-transmissions.co.uk/ HD shafts, Crown wheel & pinion and diff centres. I'm a big of a fan of ATB diffs over full lockers. And usually a bit cheaper too.

Some sales figures for the new Defender. Source: https://carsalesbase.com/ Europe June - 1373 July - 1262 August - 602 September - 1362 October - 1231 USA (I can only see figures for two months) June - 600 September - 1300 For comparison. Europe (June thru Oct) Wrangler - 793, 979, 694, 872, 591 Discovery 5 - 560, 792, 311, 1127, 551 RRS - 1610, 1589, 827, 2184, 1514

Admit I've not looked for a while. I guess the V8 is maybe more desirable as a 'nice' car these days as opposed to a beater maybe. Hadn't realised such a price gap though. Pretty sure you can get a p38 for good money still. Either that or mine is worth more than I thought....

If you aren't doing big mileages I say consider a V8 one. However I would also 2nd a p38 Range Rover. Maybe slightly more fickle, but a nicer/better vehicle IMO.

You have to laugh at him keep referring to the 90 as small. He obviously hasn’t looked at the figures to see it is actually bigger than a Discovery 1.

Thanks. Suspect that is a bit tentative and not sure insurance could really be voided under these grounds. If you had a car rated at 150mph top speed and you had tyres rated for 130mph (U) fitted. Yet where involved in an accident at 42mph. I do not think an insurance company would legally be able to reject the claim solely on this basis. Fitting cars with winter or all season tyres could easily cause this situation. And is something recommended by places like the RAC. I'm also of the understanding that Agri tyres would also be legal, but you would be restricted to the speed rating of the tyre. However in this instance I would assume this would be seen as a 'modification'. So you should probably inform your insurers.

Maybe so. And I'm not saying anything underhand is going on. But rationally their channel only provides one side of the story.

Do you have a reference to the legislation for this? I've heard conflicting things. But I struggle to believe a tyre to match the vehicles top speed is actually a requirement for road use. Especially when some car makers don't even publish a top speed for a vehicle. So how'd you know what speed rating tyres you'd need?

So, not really had chance to follow up on this. I did re-fit my 7.00 x 16 tyres, as I was meant to be setting up an event this month. But that was cancelled due to the lockdown. Only had one chance to run the metrics at the same location and recorded 11.5sec on the 50-75mph run. I'd like to get some more runs in, but things were against me at the time. And the vehicle is now back on its 33.10.50R15's. So it will be something for the future. I have also discovered I have a binding rear brake, so this needs sorting too. But I hate doing jobs like that this time of year. So I'm not sure when I'll have it sorted for another run. Lockdown regs also look to be making a dyno session in Jan unlikely too. However the initial run would suggest the stats support that it is running better than before.

Not wanting to be a skeptic, but there is also a possibility that TLF are making this a little more dramatic than it actually is.... after all, their primary intent is viewer ratings and numbers. And what brings in this more than controversy? You only have to look at their marketing slogans on nearly all of their videos to get the gist of how they operate. And isn't is convenient that almost every car they have that needs controversy, seems to get it on their channel? How many issues did they claim to have with Tesla's for example. I'm not saying they are outright lying, but at the end of the day, you are only hearing one side of the story that is then dressed up for YouTube ratings.

I have the X3's on my 88. They go pretty well, not had much chance to try in anger in the dirt yet. For serious mud I'd say the KM3 looks to be a better pattern IMO. But I wanted something good all round including on the road. Plus I love the red writing on the sidewalls!!

I don't think there is much in the 18" rim sizes. 17's there is a lot more choice (early L322's used 17" rims, but I don't know if they clear D3 brakes). Although many of the mainstream tyre makers only offer BIG (35"+) in the larger rim sizes. Which is a no go really. The MALATESTA KAMEL is a BFG KM2 copy and available in a size that might work. They also do a AT copy in similar sizes too. http://www.malatesta.it/lista-disegni.php?codGenere=4 BFG also do 18" https://www.bfgoodrichtires.com/tires/mud-terrain/mud-terrain-t-a-km3.html

Dana 60 centres. Still pretty good axles and should be stronger overall than a Rover axle. I believe Dana had been supplying the Rover axles for many years however.