ejparrott

I haven't clocked mine, but I do run straight from the turbo outlet to the manifold inlet, no intercooler. It's been that way best part of 10 years, and I can't say it's ever made any difference or done it any harm at any rate. That returns almost 40mpg on a run, so I'm not arguing. Fitting the intercooler probably would give me a touch more, but nearly 40 is still nearly 40

Never ever hit two hammers together!!!

I am modifying my chassis by fitting a Stage 1 V8 crossmember here instead. It's removable, but it's also further back, in line with the bulkhead outriggers

The worlds shakiest video! Edit:yeah I can't see them...I'll have to edit it some time

I bet all the photo's of mine have vanished thanks to photosuckit....

Stage 1 V8 has a cardan joint shaft I think

Calling all stage 1 owners! Would someone be kind enough to take a few measurements for me? After a long debate with Richards they still can't deliver me the parts I asked for so I'm resorting to making the chassis mods myself from scratch. I need to know if the Stage 1 bulkhead outriggers are the same width as any other Series 3 - I think they are just normal 109 outriggers. Also, if someone could make a drawing of the brackets that are welded to the chassis to support the cross-member. This is the Stage 1 V8 equivalent of the flywheel housing cross-member on a normal 88/109 Series 2/2a/3 chassis Cheers

That depends. I'm fitting Disco 1 seats, so there is no standard frame that will fit. Consequently whatever frame is employed will be custom made to suit, and can therefore be designed to incorporate features as required. Personal preference would be diagonal belts for the outers and lap for the middle on grounds of simplicity sake, a diagonal middle would be nice, but for a little used seat the top anchor might be problematic.

They are under every crossmember, but there's nothing provided on the rear crossmember or the front tabs, that's what got me thinking. It's a case of whether I add a pad in the restraints or not. I need to look up what a 109/110 seatbelt setup normally looks like, although it won't be appropriate for my seating.

What is the purpose of the rubber pads between body and chassis? Reason I'm asking, I need to beef up my load restraints and I'm planning to weld mount brackets to the chassis and tie the load restraints down to them, but without knowing the exact purpose of the rubber pads, being careful not to undo whatever it is they're doing! I'm also about to fit disco second row seats in The 109 and plan to fit seatbelts too, so same issue

I've got a very very similar motor to that, but no switch though, never have got to the bottom of exactly what it is

I never wish my 109 was a 110, ever. I don't offroad mine, I use the 88 for that, but I have been around many 109's and the PO of mine used to take it laning - it actually snapped it's timing belt on Devils Staircase, had to be rescued by a 90 pulling and a 110 pushing! I've upgraded to a TDi and have fitted power steering, and an LT77, so it's much nicer to drive than it used to be, however a decent rebuild would have took care of the gearbox...the steering I rebuilt 3 times before giving up on it. I had a friends in for rebuild for a while and the steering on that was beautifully light, mine I could never get nice

Out of interest, do some vehicle not use CV type joints? Would they fare better in a near straight configuration? I suspect they would suffer from offroading though

For a cool £1000 I think I'd rather just fit an overdrive

That is soooo tempting....

Richards have been using 1505mm as the centres for the outrigger bolts for a very long time. The problem would seem to be with your bulkhead

You do not need to modifiy the chassis to mount an LT77/LT230 combo, when I did my 109 I made custom mounts for the gearbox to pick up the original Series mountings

BSP tapered plug, from memory I? think the Salisbury is 1/2" BSP. Measure the diameter, subtract 1/4", that will be close enough to tell you

Think mines still running

Which, the disco crossmember?

Ah - here we go ;- The bracket that bolts to the LT77 : https://www.johnrichardssurplus.co.uk/land-rover-lt77-gearbox-mounting-ntc6282.html The disco crossmember showing the mount point in the middle : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Land-Rover-Discovery-Crossmember-Gearbox-Mount-200tdi-/352141572777?hash=item51fd45faa9:g:5CMAAOSwtTVZkrd1

I've already got a pair of the Glencoyne mounts in stock ready for the engine, I've been using normal Series 3 ones since the TDi went in 10 years ago or so an vibration is a problem. I can soon order another pair for gearbox. Decided I will actually mod the chassis to take the LT77/LT230 'normal' mounts, but I will also fit the Series removable crossmember in the correct place and leave my options open. Yes it will be quite easy to swap around and try out 2 mounts or 1, all that will be required is making a new gearbox crossmember and having it galvenized again. Anyone with a 200TDi disco should have just the single gearbox mount if I read the parts catalogue correctly Maverik. There seems to be a steel bracket that mounts on the LT77 and the LT230, with the rubber bush bolted to the bottom of that, and then the crossmember, I'll have a look see if I can find any photos, or I'll photo the parts catalogue

Interesting...what do we think then, go for a single central mount rubber for the LT77? Changing it won't be much issue if it does fail in time...undo bolts, jack under gearbox, drop crossmember and away you go. I wasn't going to bother with modifying the chassis for the original LT77 chassis mounts....been thinking about it since the chassis arrived and as it's bare steel I am tempted to drill and tube the chassis to suit...just in case... A single mount on the (customized) removable gearbox crossmember would be similarly easy to modify, and if I change my mind at any point, a new new crossmember isn't the end of the world!

Ever LR to my knowledge from 1948 up to discovery 200TDi had two rubber mounts for engine and two for gearbox, and the Defender 200 even kept that up. My knowledge gets a bit weak then but as far as I'm aware 300's, TD5 and later all reverted to the same 4 mounts. So. Why did the Discovery have two mounts for the engine and only one for the gearbox? Whats the benefit of having 3 mounts instead of 4? Is there one? Is it because of the funky Disco engine mounts that weren't used on anything else? Reason for asking, fitting the LT77 into my 88". The rebuild is imminent, the chassis has now arrived from Richards, and even nearly right. I've some magnifications to make to it and send it for galvanizing, but being August I'll probably wait until next year now to start the work. Anyway, when I did my 109 I made brackets to fit it to the original Series mountings on the crossmember. The thought was floating around, why do I need to fit 2 mounts, why couldn't I fit just one? I do know at least one person has fitted it with just 1 mount, I don't know how it behaves though. Is it something to be thought about, or is it not likely to work long term? Cheers all

Our digger man recently had the same thing done on his big digger, insitu re-boring of the worn hole, then sleeve