Teflon

Battery & Coil...... swap both and try again, after, as every-one has suggested, checking, double checking and tripple checking the dizzy isn't 180 about, and leads ARE all in the right places! Reason I say change coil & battery; sounds like the battery is weak, and that exacerbated problem of balested coil. 3.9's have a balasted coil which is supposed to give a beefier spark when the battery voltage drops due to the current draw from the starter, but if the coil is breaking down and / or the battery weak, you dont get any spark at all...... At least IN the engine..... Take the plugs out, and under atmospheric pressure, and with some load taken off teh starter, they give what seems like a good healthy spark.... Stick it back in the block, try again, pop, crackle, fart, and a little bit of promice but no life! As said, bump starting you dont have the starter motor putting a drain on the battery, so the coil doesn't suffer the voltage drop, but you cant try that, as I couldn't as I have an auto! You COULD try isolating the starter and running that off a seperate battery or jump leads from another car though......

Of course!..... Homor moment! Been too long since I did one with string! Yeah? Go on, elaborate.... Used to brush one tyre with water and roll back along the drive to leave a straight tyre track, then use a piece of string pulled tight between two helpers, bringing the string in until it touched the back side wall of the opposite wheel, then getting second helper to walk in until the string just touched the front side wall of the tyre, roughly accross the centre, then running around with a tape measure working out the triangle, then spending a few hours with a pocket calculator, arguing over high school triganomatory formulas none of us could remember to get the angle...... then arguing over whether that was half the toe in angle or all the toe in angle or double the toe in angle etc........... and then trying to remember whether any-one we knew had a tracking guage!

Cheers both; Checking the specs, they give 0 deg 2min toe out, which surprised me; and anoyingly not the track rod length between TRE centres, so going to be setting it up the old fasioned way with a bucket of water, and a bit of string, rolling up & down the drive! Its actually K44 LDY, the old lady-challenger, much abused and lacking in mechanical attension, so almost impossible to tell anything from the much cut up old BFG's she's wearing! Reason for querying toe in, was with such a large off-set from the steering centre, tendancy to 'flop' from centre due to the added leverage of the contact patch from the steering axis. Thought was a little added toe-in would compensate a little, but as the thing is set toe-out, it's set on the nervouse side anyway...... Its going to be a bit of a revelation to her owner too, having wheels that wag when the steering wheels twisted, having taken out about half an inch of back-lash in the steering box, plus new drop arm ball, plus tre's..... I expect she'll moan its a tad 'heavy'.... Anyhow, will set 'stock' and work from there, if no-one has tried and trusted 'correction' values.

Renewing the TRE's on a 90; got the RAVE and manuals for 'standard' figures, but this dang thing ent standard; its running 1/12" offset steelies, on 1 1/4" spacers; & 235/85 tyres; any-one know what tracking values would work well with such a set up; my GUESS is it would benefit from a tad of extra toe-in, but how much on the Track Rod?

As other comments, fuel starvation would be on my list, but only after looking at the dizzy. On load and under acceleration 'pops' would suggest loose vacuum hose, and or malfunctioning advance mechanism.... a spring popped off or a bob-weight 'stuck'. Have you changed the rotor arm lately by any chance? But, back to the fueling, filter would definitely be worth looking at, as woudl the pump.... BUT..... making me wonder here, as its a hybrid; I presume its had the rear overhang hacked of the chassis railes, a defender or home made x-member grafted in and a defendert tub dropped on the back. Now THAT would suggest that the original Rangie Petrol tank went west with the rear overhang, so, first question, where's your petrol tank, and what does it look like? Hybrids often get home made tanks wherever they can fit, some, get old series or defender underseat tanks; but either way, next problem is the pump. Original Rangie pump is an 'in-tank' submerged item, that rins in a 'sump' in the tank, that keeps it 'wet', the return line dumping excess fuel back into the sump. Lots of Hybrid faults end up being traced to the fuel pump, becouse after all the hard work is done, its a detail that tends not to get too much attension, and gets put together with whatever 'seems' to work..... So, not MANY hybrids use the OE sub-pump; instead they get something from a scrap-yard, or a generic unit from a motorfactors, that then lives outside the tank, and may or may not be coupled in with filter and properly arranged return line. If the OE pump IS used, though, iften NOT located in a 'sump', and so it isn't kept ;'wet' like it should, and tilting the thing up-hill, or making the back 'dip' from acceleration, can make the petrol run away from the pump....... so lots of stuff to have a look at there, before we could possibly give any more ideas. But check the dizzy first, look for loose vacuum hose from plenum to dizzy, and if thats attached & tight, try sucking on the plennum end and see if it 'holds' vaccum.... if you can carry on sucking, then you probably have a crackered dizzy diagphram. Next, as said is the advance mech; many people forget that EFi's have these, thinking the ignittion is 'mapped' by the engine ECU.... it isn't plain old fasioned 'contactless' distributor system on the pre-GEMS EFI's, but as the advance mechanism is 'hidden' under the sealed hall effect rotor and pick-up that you see when you take dizzy cap off, a lot of people dont realise its there! AND the springs are very easily dislidged if you pull the shaft up too far removing the rotor arm..... and that can then jam the mechanism or give any nmumber of 'curiouse' ignition faults; hence one of the first places I'd look. do need to apply a bit of caution though; the hall effect ignition trigger is sealed to detur DIY fiddling, but it can be taken apart and rebuilt, as long as you are careful setting the senor gap when you put it back together. A job best done with teh dizzy off the car and on the work-bench, to avoid lost little screws and springs and stuff, and easy enough and safe enough to do as long as you dont crank the engine between takling teh dizzy off and re-fitting, and loose your timing! Oh, also check the obviouse, like the spark plugs themselves, and the leads.... bit of mud splattered about and you can get all-sorts of faults from partial shorts or loose wires!

Ok, well, I have a little project on hand to make 'something' that looks a bit like this:- I have a 'plan'........ which looks like this:- And the metal arrived this morning! Now, I need to get the pipe bent to shape before the end of the week-end, when my local artisan of the torch will be collecting the old girl to weld those girders where her sills were, and IF I can have the pipes shaped for him, tack them on the outside! But I dont have a pipe bender, and my plumber-mate who I'd hoped would help me has just txt'd me to say his benders are too small! So I'm stuck! Can any-one help me make four bends in two tubes?

235/85's on grey 7" mods, fitted to 1978 SIII 109. Pic doesn't show it, but the tyres sat 'just' inside the arches by about 10mm or so. It was enough to 'fill' the arches for asthetics, without needing spats. I didn't adjust the lock-stops, and in normal use didn't rub the chassis at the extreme of lock, though I did note a couple of rub-marks after some harder off-roading, using a lot of articulation..... Steering was all new before I fitted them, so light and possitive, and I got away with a 14" metro steering wheel, though it did take a bit of force to lever the tiller round in the rough stuff - enough to make me think twice about anything wider. Oh, and she's riding about 1 1/2" high at the front about 2" high at the back, curtecy of parabolics........ you may encounter rubbing earlier if on plain leafs.

Timing should be between zero degrees BEFORE top dead centre and as much as 12 degrees BEFORE top dead centre, depending on fuel quality. LPG will demand more 'advance' so more degrees before TDC..... I'd start at about 4 Deg Before Top Dead Centre and work from there going more degrees before until I encountered 'knock'....... Range rover engines are designed to red-line at 5,000 rpm........ and to be Honest, I'm suprised you can get it to actually rev that high! Most start to struggle at around 4,500 and the fueling map on EFi's is intended to effectively limit them from going much over 4,750........ Sounds like you may have one that has been 'chipped' or other-wise 'messed with'....... Racers reckon that the V8 is good for ABOUT 5,500 rpm with what they consider to be reasonable reliability on standard valve gear, but Range Rovers have smaller valves than road going variants and normally run out of breath long before they reach those sort of engine speeds. As for your AFM......... I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to do.......... or what you mean when you say that the tapped hole on yours is open? Do you mean on the AFM or on the plenum? The cold start stepper and injector on the back of it perhaps? Only think I can suggest 'blind' is to look at the hose between the plenum and the AFM becouse these usually perish and drag air under load, so renewing that and clamping it up tight, so that all the air sucked into the engine has to go through the AFM often cures a lot of problems...... of if it doesn't eliminates ONE for further diagnostics..... And if you are running on gas........ those hoses tend to get split ot burst by LPG 'back-fire'......... so more likely to be damaged.

Been through the tech archive; where most 'input' to my consept sketch has come from; and the two pics I used as examples. first one, not being a replacement for the rotten sill behind, second one only patching the outer sill skin..... and cut around the door pillars, to my structural sensibilities, incorporating too many stress raisers for the full benefit of the added strength to be seen. Using box, to replace the entire sill, inner and outer, to my mind, first removes the lower lip where the inner and outer sill are normally joined, and provides a pair of equal stregth members to share the load evenly, while the smooth bottom should allow anything that strikes it to slide smoothly without snagging. 1mm wall thick tube for the tree-loop... I agree, thicker could have advantages, but in weighing up all the suggestions, came down from near two inch pipe and 2mm thick, first becouse of price, but also space, but lastly, the 'battering ram' principle. I actually DONT want the things TOO strong, I'd rather they got bent and absorbed hefty impact, than put all that force into the strenghtened sill, and hence to the body-mounts...... I was thinking 'weak link' if the loops take THAT muich of a hit, and bend or break, first it gives me a cause to pause and think about what the heck I am doing, and second, not SO onerouse to chop them off with the angry grinder and weld on new hoops, than have to start trying to get in and repair ditorted body mounts and out-riggers........ Do take your point about extending them further out. Measurements I have suggested put the outer edge of the tree loop 'just' beyond the widest virticle of the panels above...... bu maybe 1/4" or so. Hence question about tucking them into the door bottoms or extending them out an inch or so....... still undecided. Notion goes something like firther out they extend, more 'advantage' any 'strike' will have on them; extending them out, beyond vehicle outline makes the vehicle wider, so can give you more reason to strike something in a 'narrow' gap.... Tucking them in, gives you more clerance and less leverage, but less protection... Practically, where's the compromise to be made? Tree's USUALL are wider at the bottom....... when you negotiate an obsticle like this, you are USUALLY on a lean, away from the verticle, so the body is tilting to your advantage...... so pro's and cons?........ Would you say, 1" beyond the outline profile, rather than my suggested 1/4" or would you go further, perhaps as far as the width of the wing mirror, maybe 4-5"? That's roughly what side steps on my last two rangies gave me, which mounted lower I was forever using as 'sliders'! Was hoping that lifted and 'tucked' compared to steps, these tree-loops might get a bit less of a bashing! My near-side step on the 'old' rangie is hanging about three inches low, the bracket now so mangled that it lifts right up and bears on the plastic sill covers, as soon as it strikes anything, while the tubes themselves are so 'dinged' I really sont see much future for them.... Original 'thought' was to pull them off and remake / strengthen the brackets, then to simply cut the rails out and weld them to the H/D box sill....... but.... I dont think it's worth it, looking at the state of them! Yes! This was source of a lot of head-scratching. Side-steps were attached to out-riggers....... Within the practical constraints, it would be useful for whatever takes a 'strike' to bear that load and spread it into the main structural member, the chassis. Steps did that, and the 'weak link' was the bracket, then the out-rigger, BUT as soon as the bracket 'went' the step was bearing on the sill....... Meanwhile, the bracketry, hanging beneath the sill, and at right angles to the direction of travel, meant that there was less clerance, so more likely to recieve a strike, AND for that strike to 'snag'......... So, backing up in my thinking, notion was to 'add lightness and simplificate' as the old addage goes. Using HD box for the sill seemed a good idea as it was a lot simpler than fabricating from sheet, if not 'adding lightness'. Actual guage, though was deturmined by what I can get section in, and that's the 'lightest' guage I can find for 60x100. Using box, removed the lower seem between inner & ouiter sills, as mentioned, so seemed like a good idea to extend the section the full width between the arches, and chamfer the bottom edge to give as smooth a profile as possible to obsticles. And the following notion was to add the tree-loop as a 'finishing touch', again, keeping things simple and as smooth and uncluttered as possible. So the first 'objective' of the project was to simply cut out and replace a rotten section of steel. Second objective was if possible to make that job as 'easy' as possible Third objective, IF I'm doing works in that area, can I for any little extra effort, make any significant 'improvements'..... So what I have come up with, is a 'heavy duty' sill, NOT a sill protector. As such, the thinking is, it's NOT a bit of 'under-body' protection, it IS the underbody.... but a bit re-inforced, so that it can survive without protection..... or at least survive MORE without protection. In cold analysis of the debate between attaching protection to the sill or the chassis; conclusion I came to was, the 'best' way to do it was definitely to mount to the chassis, and only the chassis, as you suggest.... Looking at how I could do that, gavce rise to a LOt of ideas, and made me understanda bit better why a lot of the more curious mountings have been used. The most 'elegant' solution I came up with, was to make a 'low-profile' body-sill. Rather than 4" deep, as standard, make it just 2" deep, but from doubled up 1" wide thick box, to substitute for the strength lost from halving the depth... but bearing in mind, that with protection the sill itself shouldn't have to be SO strong. THEN, to make up 'propper' sill protection, using 3" as the main member, under the door bottoms, with a tree-loop off that. Then, to cut the outriggers off, and remake in 4" box, for added strength to the chassis, but with a second box tube inside the section to take an extension telescoping inside it, that would be welded to the slider member on the outer edge and bolted through the out-rigger....... Not EXACTLY but close to some of the examples I've found in archive on here and elsewhere.... some of them have actually added seperate outriggers to support the slider.......... Having contemplated THAT...... I realised I was departing seriousely from the original objectives; I was NOT designing something to replace the original rotten sill, NOT making life 'easier' for myself, and adding a huge amount of complexity to do something pretty much beyond what was intended........ basically, great idea but far beyond what I 'need'...... And having pondered that, I looked at the old side-steps again, and considered whether I'd get as much protection from either making those good and fitting them up around a 'plate' repaired sill, or buying new or better second hand ones to go round a plated sill........... The answer to which was 'probably'..... but not as 'elegantly'.... and not as 'smoothly'...... so back to the mantra 'Add lightness and simplificate'....... given that I can seriousely re-inforce the sill and add a bit of protection to it for £70........ IS that a good idea...... which I decided it was........ so having made that decission, time to check the merit of it, and 'tweek' the details...... Hence the post. Bottom line is, I'm NOT building an 'extreme' challenge vehicle here; its an 'every-day' all-round road car, used for ..... err..... I was going to say 'gentle' green-laning...... but I dont think that really 'fits' with the description of destruction wrought on my old side steps does it! OK...... used for 'fairly' seriouse green-laning, and future hope of contending 'club' RTV events. It doesn't have a 'lift' kit...... and I have little intension of fitting one. I have rarely run out of suspension travel, and really dont want to upset the allround balence of the car and bring about a load of other 'problems' just for the sake of a couple of inches of break-out........ She runs on 205's..... which are my biggest limiting factor, and before I do anything major to her, those will go in favour of 235/85's to give me an extra 1 1/2" inch under the axles, and every where else........ So, she is pretty much stock, and the thinking is, OK, lets NOT get carried away here.... I dont WANT an 'extreme' challenge truck, I like what I've got..... it just grates every time I clonk something underneath..... so rather than try and stop it clonking...... which I'll never do...... I'll just find something bigger to clonk it with...... lets just make it a bit tougher so that when it clonks...... its not going to have such dire consequences...... mean-while the 'clonk' giving me a 'twitch' and hopefully making me back off a bit! any of that make sense? So, from advice..... idea seems 'sound' question remains over width of hoop.........

Honey needs new sills, as you can see from this lot:- Now, contemplating the options..... scrapping the car NOT being one of them! My local friendly fabricator chappy, Dave, reckoned on folding complete new sills from sheet, butting them in and lap welding them into place, with some plate similarly formed around the bottom of the door pillars and a few other places.... But..... peering at stuff round here and elsewhere, I was pondering something more like THIS:- (Which is on a Disco,not a rangie, but either way......) Until I realised that THAT is NOT the sill, but a replacement for the plastic sill cover..... which made me wonder a little ad to how it was mounted, and how useful it would be..... But I came accross THIS:- Which would appear to be more along the lines I was thinking of.... So the difference is, that is a heavy duty sill with a tree-slider attached, but it sits 'inboard' of the body-line by about an inch, so the tree slider is running under the door bottoms. Except that is only an 'L' section with a tree slider attached, welded into the outside skin of the sill, not a complete replacement for the whole box. (which I pretty well need) But it is pretty close to what I had sketched........ if you can fathom this:- Top is profile of sills, with dimensions of how it came from Solihull. Basically a box of sheet steel, about 1/2mm thick, made from two pieces, seamed together along the bottom edge; measuring aproxomately 100mm deep by 60mm wide, excluding the seam; while it is 1420mm long, extending merely between the body-mounts. OK, beneath is my concept sketch; A single 100mm x 60mm box section of 3mm (Isn't that as thick as a chassis rail?) thick 'tube' to be lap welded in place of the sill section, but extended the full length between the wheel-arches, so at the top 1700mm long, but chamfered off on the bottom so it has a 'ramp' for anything to slide on. I would loose the 1/2 inch of seam beneath the sill.... but I think the extra thickness of steel would more than make up for it! (Thinnest section I can get in that size BTW) Now, as drawn, the chamfer is only 30mm or so deep, becouse that is all that is protruding beneath the panel line. Is it worth it, do you think? Is it worth the 'extension' of the sills, given they are sitting inboard of the door-bottoms, not flush with them? Next, the tree slider loop:- As drawn, the hoop is welded on the bottom edge of the sill section; made from 28.5mm round by 1mm thick tube, the pipe JUST fits into the gap between the bottom of the doors and the bottom of the sills, coming under the doors and out, the outside edge of the hoop running 150mm from the cill, which is 90mm outboard of the door bottom, but roughtly parallel to the outmost edge of the body. Is this too far? Further the tree-loop extends from the sill, more leverage any 'strike' has to bend it..... Would it be better to be just 100mm from sill, so JUST protruding beyond lower edge of door? Or would it be better to bring it out, I dont know, another 20-30mm or so? Or forget the hoop altogether...... wondering about a strike bending it up into the door bottoms?!? Better to have or not have? Bottom line is; priced up, its going to cost me just £70 more to make up something like this, than to simply 'remake' as original in sheet. (Tree loop accounts for about £30 of the added £70) I reckon its worth the doing......... but having decided so, and got a concept sketch, before handing it over.... want some input before I 'firm it up' into a design. Advice / comments pls And as I haven't posted on here B4; I'm not a welder, nor a newbie..... out of practice mechanical engineer, having been in 'Project MisManagement for ten years, before being dissabled. So even though I have a welding certificate I was awarded many MANY years ago, If my technical drawing is as out of practice as above.... my welding aint going to be much better, even if I could hold the torch steady!... Hence it's going to be done by Dave, an 'old hand' at the art, whose had Rangies probably twenty years..... but I dont think ever taken one 'off-road'?!?! bizarely! To my scrappy sketches and instructions.... gawd help us! Couple of thoughts; As far as I can tell, this SHOULD be OK for RTV under ARC regs...... which is an important consideration, as now dissabled out of bike-trials, thought I might give that a try..... Scrutineer at local club thought it would be 'OK', and cant find anything explicit to say its not in the 2009 Hand-book, but some-one may offer suggestion on the topic.....