Chicken Drumstick

If the chassis has rotten, then I think maybe you have been unlucky. I have a 1991 Disco chassis which is solid and has never needed any welding. The bodies rust though. As for when to give in, well the most pragmatic approach would be cost. How much will it cost (time and money) to fix vs buying another one. As for what to do. Well there are lots of things. You could make a 100 Defender without any need to hack the chassis up. There are also kits like the Sahara: http://www.blitzworld.co.uk/sahara-4x4-jeep-road-legal-i308.html

Was a couple of weeks ago, but a good article on Channels 5's The Classic Car Show about the Range Rover. Has a small off roady bit against a modern Lexus 4x4. http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-classic-car-show Slightly embellished as I'm sure the Lexus would have driven up that slope at the end if they hadn't tried it from a dead stop. But goes to show just how good live axles really are Got to love the make believe on the inspiration of the RR had though... Image from the show: Showing the RR as the first Thing their researchers must be on crack, the Bronco image is of a model that ended in 1977, not started in 1978

Yeah not sure I'd have been looking at the servo first. What state are the pads/discs in? If they are worn unevenly that will need addressing. Seized calipers are pretty common too. Master cylinder is pretty cheap and easy to replace, so might be worth doing it while messing about with the brakes.

Thanks. Think I'll run the rear lights onto the same terminal that the dash lights are on then. Wonder why that terminal I used stopped working though? Seems odd. All I can think of is it's a switch fault that's stopped it becoming live.

Does anyone have a picture showing what terminals on the back of a Series III headlight switch should go to what? Not my switch, just borrowed from Google: Having issues with the rear lights (not brake or indicator, just rear lights). They did work fine and were fine for years prior. Using the pic above, the red wire terminal at the top, activates on stage 1 of the switch, i.e. sidelight position, these are wired into the dash lights on mine. The next terminal down on the bit that sticks out the back, this wire is permanent live going into the switch. Next terminal down on the back, has no wires in this pic, but comes live with switch in sidelight stage 1 position. Then the two wires at the bottom are the front sidelights and headlights (forget which). But one comes on in position 1, the other position 2. On mine, that 3rd terminal down was also blank with no wire coming off of it - should it have been? I had to repair the rear of the loom due to an off roading incident, but I think that is coincidence. I ran new wires from the front of the seat box, down to the rear of the vehicle for the indicators, brake lights and rear lights. The loom from the seat box up into the engine bay was intact however. That said, when I pulled the dash front forwards to investigate the rear lights, I couldn't see any wire for the rear lights, so I extended the new wire from under the set box, right up in the dash and hooked it up to the 3rd terminal down (the blank one), as it came on with the switch in the sidelight position. This has worked for a week. No idea if it was correct or not, but could find no trace of another wire in the dash for the rear lights. Tonight the rear lights have stopped working again. That 'blank' terminal still has the wire attached, but never becomes live any longer. The rear lights work if I unplug the dash lights and plug the wire in there instead. So I don't know if it's damaged the switch plugging them in there, or something else. Any ideas? As in, where should the rear lights have actually been be wired in originally to the switch? What is that blank terminal for? Why did the blank terminal stop working in under a week? Thanks.

Can't see the point in owning an AWD vehicle only to make it 2wd with no ability to use the 4wd without a workshop and tools. Plus the amount of fuel saving difference you'll see is likely very minimal.

How people drive and what they use the vehicle for, will make a big difference though. Personally I have no doubt a Series box can be reliable behind a Tdi. And as a rule we are more likely to read about failures, rather than successes. As few people will post up on the internet about not having a problem. That said, plenty of people break series boxes with the stock 2.25's. There is no denying the box can be fragile. Therefore anyone who has success running a Tdi on one, should probably be seen as more of an exception or rarity than the norm. Lets face it, the LT-77/R380 are theoretically rated for 380nm/260'ish ft-lb of torque. Yet a stock Tdi can eat them too.

Oh and yes, the 200Tdi swap is worth it. As ok as the 2.5TD is, the 200Tdi is much better. If you can afford the swap and have the time, then go for it.

I agree the old 2.5TD really isn't a bad engine. Sure it's not the speediest, but they trundle along just fine. As for the 200Tdi conversion. Yep as far as engine swaps go it's pretty easy. A 90 engine will be an easier swap, but more expensive to buy. A Disco engine is a little more work (do your research first), but are usually cheaper and easier to buy. Do note however, that while the swap is fairly easy, it always costs more than you originally plan. And it's not always the big expensive bits, but 10 items at £20 each suddenly adds up. Consider you'll want to replace the clutch while you have it all apart. Engine mounts will likely need replacing. Other hoses, connectors and pipes. Check out Steve Parker, they sell some pretty good conversion kits for doing this.

This all depends what you want to actually achieve from the suspension. For starters: -Why do you feel the need to fit "raised" suspension? Do the 35's rub? -Fitting longer shocks is not a suspension lift.

Depends what you want to do really. The STT's are pretty good multi purpose tyre and work well in the snow. But for me they are too tame and not really a mud tyre. If you green lane or off road a lot on normal British mud, then there are better off road tyres IMO. Teh GT Radial IMO looks way nicer in terms of visuals. Bigger lugs. That said I've not used or seem them used off road. In reality I expect they would be worse than the STT's on road and maybe only marginally better off road. For an MT patter they are still quite mild overall. However these would be my choice out of these too tyres. Re: sizing. A 12.50 will give you even worse turning circle than standard. And at 33" they are likely to rub in a few places, under full flex expect them to rub on the stock wheel arch spats and rub on the front radius arms. Nothing too major, but just a heads up. Also off road on mud, I mild MT this wide is not likely to offer the most traction. You'll need a much more aggressive tread or narrower tyres. On Sand they'll work well however. What modular rims are you looking at specifically? For a 12.50" section you should in theory go for a 10" wide rim. Wide rims with wide tyres with a big offset all means that there is a good chance they will stick outside the wheel arch spats and technically not be legal.

Firstly what do you want large tyres for? Not saying don't do it, but it's good to know the why. Are you wanting width, height or both? For example, tall narrow tyres are likely easier to fit than shorter wide ones. What rims are you wanting to use, as not all tyre sizes are available in all rim sizes. You'll also need the correct width rim for the tyre. But importantly, offset will dramatically affect if a wheel fits or not. Lastly, you say standard height, does this mean standard suspension? Is it air or coil at the back? Gearing - less of an issue tbh. Are you happy to trim the wheel arches? If so, then you'll be able to fit a lot bigger.

By stiffener, do we mean a vertical box tube running from top to bottom in the middle of one of the side panels? If so, we have a hard top here from a 1985 90, it has this stiffener on the passenger side, but not the drivers side.

The op was asking about a 1986 vehicle... 19 years prior to a 2005 TD5.

You miss the point by a country mile. If you want to report - go ahead. But why do you feel the need to then post about it too? All this does is provoke stupid legislation, checks and restrictions that will then affect lots of people doing nothing wrong at all and still won't stop criminals.

I disagree. If you want to be a Police office - go sign up. Or if you really must, report something yourself. Publicising bad things only ever results in ****ing things up for everyone else and is frankly a stupid thing to do.

Have a read: http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/cars/rover/40045mg-zs/engines-k-series/ Not Honda.

Honda have never owned Rover, the K-Series was all in house.

Should be no problem, you'll just import like any other grey import, be it from Japan or the USA. So you'll need an IVA and register the vehicle. Road tax will be the 'old' system. Anything over 1.6 litres is one rate, anything lower cheaper. This will make it the same to tax as a 2.5 200Tdi 90. Fuel wise, well petrol is more pricey here, currently about £1.00-1.10 a litre. Being technically an 'import', insurance might be more pricey.

I dunno about the brakes, but any pics of the Disco on 37's?

Sadly I think you'll struggle to find much in the way of tall narrow tyres. I've certainly looked in the past. Your most likely bet is if you can find some 'real' 9.00x16's if you are happy with 16" rims. These should be similar height to the originals. But tyres this size are rare. You might find some Mil or Agri tyres this size however. 35.10.50 16's is another size you might find, but often only in aggressive MT's patterns. Interco do some interesting sizes such as 34 9.50's that might fit the bill. Not sure where you can buy them though, places import to Europe, but not the UK it seems. And be prepared to pay. I've seen a vid (ages ago) of a C303 on Maxxis Creepy Crawlers. Pretty sure they weren't all that narrow though.

Why 35"? What vehicle? What sort of calipers and why would 16" leave less room? Do you have 17x7.5 rims already? You said not increasing width too much, but "too much" over what???

Can you please reference some specific reg that would make these illegal please.

I think this is the crux of it. There is no specific law or regulation that says these things are 'illegal'. This of course doesn't mean that they are legal however. But it is an important distinction. And proving a HID or LED is the sole cause of an accident is unlikely, if not impossible. Remember no matter how bright such a light might be, it simply isn't illegal to have as many as you like super bright spot lamps that activate on mainbeam.

You say that, but many modern cars do this kind of thing. My '99 Camaro has torque limiting by the ECU in the 1st two gears. And lots of modern turbo cars don't make full boost along with other ECU actions which also reduce output in lower gears.