Chicken Drumstick
-
Posts
2,465 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Chicken Drumstick
-
-
They look similar and share some basic design similarities too, but a D1 and 2 are quite different really.How does the d1 v8 compare to the d2 v8 in terms of drivability/comfort? I realise the obvious differences like size and stuff but I am considering getting a v8 on lpg and was trying to weigh up between the last of the d1's or an early d2
thanks
Dave
A D2 V8 will likely have ACE (active cornering enhancement) which makes them very different in the corners. They are also likely to air rear suspension, so on the whole will be more refined with lower NVH levels.
That said the big alloys and thinner profile tyres probably don't aide the ride quality.
Engine wise the 3.9 and 4.0 are quite similar in terms of performance. Early Disco 1 are 3.5 though and don't use an electronically controlled auto box.
Guess it comes down to how much you want to spend and what you are after though.
-
Is this for ALRC events? As they still allow a pretty broad variety of tyres.Gent's,
My CCV truck has always been shod with 265 / 75 R16 Bronco Grizzly Claw tyres which worked very well.
I can no longer find these and am in urgent need of a new set of boots.
Can anybody give me a opinion on the following two tyres for off road only use please?
1) Malatesta Kaiman
2) Insa Turbo Special Track (Obviously heard about these but I'm looking for a comparison).
I have a limited choice in tyres I can use (MSA Yearbook for CCV Vehicles) so opinions in the above would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Mick.
As for the tyres, well I guess it comes down to several points and your preference upon them:
-looks, does this have any bearing at all?
-terrain, different tyres can work better on different surfaces
-driving style, some tyres are known as diff breakers for a reason. Also if you want the ability to spin the wheels up or use the hand brake then you might find less than ultimate grip slightly more usable
If it is ALRC rules then they allow a max inflated diameter of 33", although they don't specify on how this is measured. Personally I'd argue that they'd have to use the manufacturers ratings and not a tape measure.
For trialling narrow tyres are often preferred as they allow more steering lock and a narrower vehicle. But then terrain type might dictate a wider tyre as a better bet.
Also what sort of pressures will you be running?
Popular sizes I've seen:
235/85R16 - quite narrow and fairly tall
256/75R16 - more chunky than above (look better??) and similar height
31.10.50R15 - similar overall size to the 265's
7.50's - should be narrow and fairly tall, although many recent 7.50's seem to be similar sized to the 235's
205's - limited axle clearance but can work very well on soft grass and allows maximum steering lock
That said, I recently stumbled across these:
They are a Simex Extreme trekker copy but offer in 33.10.50R16 and 33.9.50R16. They sound like the ideal ALRC trialling tyre assuming you have enough body clearance to run them.
-
Thing is though, it's not clear cut at all and guidelines don't mean it's actual legislation.Here's a link:
http://www.direct.go...hicle/DG_191068
The relevant bit is:
That is pretty clear cut if you ask me.
BUT, don't be scared about it, it's a bit like an extended MOT test, others have been through this in the forum, and I will be soon, the IVA Inspection Manual is your friend -downloadable from Business Link website.
The main point of note is the title "Radically altered". There is no definition for this, personally I'd argue that an otherwise non altered Disco but bob tailed isn't that radical at all. It reality it has had less affect on vehicle ability and safety than swapping a Series III from a hard top to a full tilt.
So if it 'isn't radically altered', then none of the following conditions such as chassis welding would apply at all.
You could also argue that replacing the rear cross member on a Defender is just as 'radical' in terms of the work involved, yet as a repair this would need no inspection what so ever.
-
Cheap wrong rate parabolics will offer up carp ride and poor articulation and wheel travel.
Haystee make the best parabolics or the slightly cheaper genuine Rocky Mountains Spares ones as they are a direct copy. Not yet seen or heard of any good reports of any other make/brand of parabolics and nearly all are way too higher a spring rate for off roading a lightish Landy.
-
What do you think of the Maxi's?I paid £108 each for my recip maxi's three years ago....they were hard to track down ...i also saw the forum posts saying they were £60 each.... fisherman's tail !....
luke
-
It's been a while since buying any new 4x4 tyres. But just been browsing some prices and even remoulds seem to near to £150/tyre excluding fitting!!! When did this happen?
For example I just tried Googling for info on the Recip Maxi 3D, a few posts from 2006-2009 with people saying £60/corner or £220 for a set.
Looking at current prices they are £116/tyre
Pretty much double the price in only a handful of years. Is this true across all the 4x4 tyre market?
-
I agree that I doubt you'll find a true objective comparison. By that's true of most tyres.
Othe things to consider, Simex's are readily available in large sizes 33-36"+. With many remoulds you often struggle to find better than a 235/85.
Also some Simex sizes can be had as crossply rather than radials. With bead lockers and super low pressures they will perform differently to a remould.
This isn't to say remoulds aren't any good. I like them and have run many types/brands and will be buying more. But my Simex's (Jungle Trekker II's) have been brilliant. They've been used hard on the road for 20,000 and still have a brilliant edge and loads of life. Fairly smooth and will sit at 70-75mph fine, grip better than BFG AT's on the road and are better than any other tyre I've used so far off road.
Would I buy Simex again? Sure thing.
-
I can agree with all that.Good point, well made.
I do not know much about engine maps and thermodynamics I am sorry to say. I do know that a standard Defender can be driven flat out all day. My chipped one upsets it's exhaust manifold/studs when driven flat out for prolonged periods. On this basis I suppose that Landrover tuned the Td5 fuel maps to take account of the importance of emissions, economy, longevity, driveability and to be low enough powered not to place undue stress on drivetrain components, though without inside knowledge I can only guess and make assumptions.
Of course manufacturers work down to a price/fit parts which are just good enough. I never disputed that.
Car makers have to make vehicles which work well in all circumstances but which are attractive to customers with a limited budget, so there will always be compromises made. If we want to 'tune' a vehicle to be specially good at one particular thing (off-road use?) then that is often at the expense of another aspect of potential use (going to the shops!).
Chris
-
Did a bit of searching as I thought this might be a common topic, but didn't really find much tbh.
Anyhow, most of the bigger (and smaller) Landy parts suppliers seem to be stocking and selling plastic front wing replacement panels these days.
Now I've got nothing against sticking to Birmabright wings, but I'd love to hear some real world feedback on these plastic jobbies.
Points of interest would be:
-Who makes them? Is there only one company or lots with some to be weary of?
-How do they fit?
-What finish and texture are they (anyone got any pics of some installed?), are they smooth or do they feel like textured plastic?
-How well do they paint and can they colour and texture match the Birmabright top wings and other panels well?
-How flexible are they off road, as in are they brittle and likely to snap/crack, or are they fairly flexible willing to take a knock and shrug it off?
-How strong are they? As in, do they mark and scuff with ease?
Thanks.
-
Ah, with you, they look good
-
If it worked then manufacturers would do it because they would sell extra units based on the improved fuel economy and performance gains and because of the lower excise duty banding based on the consequently reduced carbon emissions. It would also mean less time, effort and money spent in meeting minimum required emissions standards in the first place. Car makers do not spend millions designing and manufacturing complicated engine/fuel management systems when they could fit a bit of bent Tin instead!
Don't get me wrong, I know these things don't work, couldn't possible work. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's a flawed logic to assume that just because a car maker doesn't use it, then it's rubbish.
For instance the stock tune/map on a Defender Td5 is total an utter pants, even compared to the fairly rubbish Disco TD5 map. Yet Land Rover still built and sold them like it on purpose.
A better map, as we all know can yield a more efficient engine, more torque, more power, better drive and often better on fuel - so using your logic above why didn't they do this?
Indeed, if car makers truly spent their million to build the BEST they could, then where would it leave companies like X-Eng who make better than OEM bits?
Anyhow, that was all I was saying, nothing more, nothing less.
Creative accounting, love it!
Chris
Creative maybe, but not holey inaccurate
-
Mmmmm, here we go round the mulberry bush
Paper filters filter, K&Ns just let more cack through, and make your intake noisier Si, don't get me started on Homeopathic 'medicine'
Just to make clear, I did say synthetic weave, a K&N is a cotton weave and totally different. Aircraft and heavy plant machinery tend to use synthetic weave as it out flows and out filters and out lasts paper.
Something like these guys: http://www.donaldson.com/index.html
-
It's worth noting that boost is a measure of resistance not flow, if you are now seeing more boost without adjusting the turbo, then likely it is flowing the same but with more resistance.
-
From the other side of the argument, where cost is not an object, e.g. Ferrari, Porsche, Bugatti Veyron etc,do they fit them? I doubt it...
Tis true, although even at such levels you'll still often find them using paper element air filters and not synthetic weave ones, despite the later out flowing, out filtering and out lasting paper elements. So maybe they still don't 'optimise' everything despite the profit margin.
-
I think this has been covered many times before...if its so good, in the drive for ever more stringent emmsions requirements why don't the manufacturers already fit one?
Not that I'm denying what you are saying, but I'm not sure it's a truly valid argument.
Manufacturers build cars to a standard dictated by cost and time to assemble (and other factors). If this standard can be met, then they won't add on extra bits even if they do offer benefits.
And it can be summed up as a cost thing really.
For example, if a car maker builds 200,000 cars per year and they can meet the 'standard' without such a device, then why would they spend the extra to add it?
Even if the cost price plus labour to fit it was say £2-4 in total, over 200,000 units tha'ts £200,000 - £400,000 lost profit.
-
Can anyone tell me what colour this is, or a way of finding out what colour it is. 1989 on an F plate.
Someone said it might be marine blue, but looking here:
http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk/nonmetallic.html
Marine blue is only listed to 1987.
Thanks for your help.
-
why anchor top & bottom the standard springs aren't.
They can fall out under full articulation, I've even seen it happen on a standard 90, although rare. Standard springs are retained at the bottom normally.
-
Thank you for the replies. I shall certainly look into the Tomcat springs, but they sound exactly what I'm after.
-
I like to compete in certain events that don't allow dislocation cones. But it doesn't mean I don't want to use the vehicle outside of such events. If that makes sense.
Having browsed some American forums and ones with some Oz guys, such setups seem far more common over there. But shipping springs back is pricey.
-
Hello, rather hoping someone can advise me. Can anyone tell me where I can buy some long springs for a Defender?
The reason for this is I won't be running a dislocating setup, instead the springs will be retained top and bottom. But I'd like to be able to run some +5" shocks and make use of the travel. Std springs would be too short for this and most aftermarket ones I've seen seem to be of a HD variety and designed to work with dislocation cones, so again are too short.
The vehicle is a Tdi pickup but with a full cage and the fuel tank in the pickup bed.
In terms of use. It is road legal, but it will mainly be used offroad, so I'm happy for a compromised road setup.
Many thanks for your help.
-
A number of years ago, on I think a different forum someone was showing some pics of angled bushes for the rear trialing arms (where they attach to the chassis) and claimed they allowed more travel and less binding.
No idea if it's true or not. But does anyone know anything about them?
Thanks.
-
Bump! Any progress on this idea, even if only on paper or the computer screen?
Bill.
Hi, no more progress yet I'm afraid, just starting to gather bits I'll need. Although if I'm honest I don't expect to make much progress until after winter. Once I finish up a few more sketches I'll post them up though.
-
285/75/16 fedima sirocco.similar to simex pattern excellent off road.measure 33.5 inches
Cheers. That's exactly the kiddy. Found them on here: http://www.28x4.com/Fedima_Tyres.html
No prices though, so will give them a call tomorrow.
-
i have 4 wheels and tyres 8 x 15 good offset 33.12.50.15 wrangler mud terrains i might sell. i also have teh 5th new wheel but never got around to buying the 5th tyre.
there used for teh last 2 years but pretty good nick have easily 10mm left. im not looking for the world if your interested.
Thanks for the offer. Really wanting 16" tyres as I have some 1 ton rims I want to run though.
Paper filters filter, K&Ns just let more cack through, and make your intake noisier 
Simex clones..............
in International Forum
Posted
75% of 285mm is 213.75mm
x 2 = 427.5mm
convert to inches = 16.83"
+ 16" for the rim means it should be 32.83" tall.