LS26

Well, with a big fat bonus hanging in the balance I expect he would have said that it could fly if you wanted it to... Sorry - for some reason I am a bit cynical about car salesmen... Rog

Much of the work I am doing involves getting one or more wheels off, and I don't like to leave it wheel-less because it is on the font and I don't want it to look too much like a derelict, so I find that I use the Hi-Lift all the time - much preferring it to the trolley jack due to it's speed and ease of use. I do have jackable sills though and I practiced carefully until I really got the hang of it.. And I am always VERY careful - I read somewhere on here about somebody who was hit under the chin (i think) by a high lift jack handle - just the thought of that make me wince.... Rog

Yes - I was using 8.8 everywhere on this setup - unfortunately I thought that four-by-two box would be strong enough... Didn't think it through I guess (bit of a Muppet moment by me there). Rog

Yes! How true... Now (to go slightly OT)... In my youth I regularly used to strip threads when tightening nuts and then at the age of 30 (MANY years ago) I finally bought a torque wrench and the revelation began... I think I am probably correct in saying that most people over-tighten most nuts most of the time. This is probably even worse when the nut (or bolt) holds something with perceived high loadings, like tow-balls or wheels for example. I myself have seen a wheel-stud break (thankfully the others held) a short time after a friend 'really gave them some welly' with just a two foot extension... So hands up: Who over-tightens their wheel-nuts? Who even knows the correct wheel-nut torque and what that torque feels like? Rog (BTW According to the RRC manual, wheel-nut torque is as follows: 125NM for alloys, 110NM for steel. And yes - I had to look it up )

Looked at http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...mMakeTrack=true They say that they have "over 10,000 engines in stock" :o Rog BTW - why do Nissan Navara engines go pop? (no that's not the first line of a joke - I am genuinely interested since Japanese engines are normally so reliable...)

Many thanks to all for your detailed and informative replies - gosh this is a good place to come if you want to learn! I think that - from the sum of all above - I would be better saving for a few months and getting a professional job. Just a thought - what is the thinking WRT those steering guards that have built in recovery points? Maybe I could leave my effort as a bumper and fit one of those beneath? Rog

Thanks for the replies guys.. I was afraid that it was a bit puny - I guess it's back to the drawing board... Cheers Rog

After reading the comments higher up, I decided to try some Redex Diesel in my <ahem> non-Land Rover every day car - a turbo diesel Pug. I must say the results are REMARKABLE! It used to smoke horribly when floored at 60mph (eg when pulling out onto a motorway) - now - no smoke... It used to suffer quite badly from what I thought was turbo-lag (and what I now suspect was incomplete combustion due to dodgy injector spray patterns) and now - it pulls clean and instant... It used to take a couple of goes on the heaters in order to get a decent cold-start, and now - one go is enough... It feels smoother, it sounds quieter and I am sure that when I measure it, it will give better mileage. To everyone who suggested Redex - I say a hearty Thank You Rog

Hi all, I live in a 4x4 vacuum. I have no money so have to be inventive... My latest creation on the RRC is a jackable front bumper with recovery points - well there will be two, but there's just the one for now. What I want to know is - if I was axle deep in gloop, would you be happy to give me a pull on one of these: The bumper is 100mm x 50mm x 2.7mm wall (well about that thick anyway) and the bumper support brackets are made of sections of the same. The support inboard of the chassis is about 4" long so that the bolts for the recovery point go right through this as well as through the bumper. The supports both sides of the chassis legs are seam welded everywhere they can be. I know it's a bit pigeon, but there is plenty of penetration, believe me... Here's a shot of the rear supporting bracket: So... What's the verdict - do I grind it all off and start again? Or will it be enough Rog Oh - if it makes any difference, my intention when finished is to go for the odd green lane run and monthly RTV trials.

As if by magic... About two hours after posting the above, I was 'testing' my new home made jackable bumper on the RRC and I got the front wheels an inch off the ground and WAHEY!!! off she goes sideways . That'll teach me not to chock it with bricks - they just slid along Rog (phew! What's that smell?)

Agreed - I'd say 4ft. IIRC the extra foot has a reduced lift rating (?) and anyway if you ever need that extra foot of lift then when you get up there you'd better make sure you are wearing heavy duty underpants... Two tons of Rover on top of a spindly bit of cast iron is not for the feint-hearted or weak-sphinctered! Rog

Hmmm - They look pretty good to me Thanks for that, will. Roger

I tried something like this with my Fluke (£5 from a car-boot! ) and the big fat (probably expensive) fuse inside went POP... No further damage Had it years, and since I only use is infrequently; it's still on the same battery! (It does take a little while to get working on a cold morning though... a bit like me ) Rog

It's nice to get actual feedback like this... Anyone else use them who would like to comment? I quite like the 'unusual' look of these tyres and was thinking of getting a set, but was concerned over their (apparently) less aggressive tread than some have. Having said that, I have never actually seen them other than in publicity shots that seem to emphasize wide fitting and low (or is it high?) aspect ratio - presumably aiming at more road-biased users. It would be great if someone could you post photos of a real set in action or just parked on the drive - I just want to see what they really look like (preferably 31x10.5x15 as these seem to be cheap and plentiful) and also perhaps measure the actual diameter? Cheers, Roger.

Since the carbs are brand new it may be worth checking the float bowls too in case there is any manufacturing swarf in there... Rog

I've seen these things for sale at nearly £50 For that sort of money you would expect noticeable results - so how about if you check it out and let us know how you get on Rog

Any tales of similar remarkable benefits to V8s?

VERY MUCH ENDORSE THIS - I LOST £170 WHEN I BOUGHT FROM A SELLER CALLED 'AMAZON CLEARANCE' WHO WAS ONE OF THESE 'MARKETPLACE' JOBBIES AND THEN DISAPPEARED. Although my general experience of Amazon is GREAT and I would not hessitate to buy a camera from them (and have done so before), they were useless in this situation, stating that the contract was between me and the seller and all they had done was send him my cash and had therefore done all that they needed to. Emptor Caveat in the 'marketplace' ! Rog

Good work Bob, and good pics too.. I love looking at these 'work in progress' postings - keep 'em coming please :) Rog

More snow-play at:

I used bin-bags held up with duct-tape (I had to improvise with what was in my tool-kit and the camp-site shop) just behind the front seats once when I was on holiday in Scotland during -10deg weather; it made a remarkable difference! Rog

You should be more concerned to know that some of the airframe spares fitted in the last 15 years were probably made by a certain company I used to work for... (I walked out after a 'disagreement' with the factory manager over what constitutes a 'crack' in a component...) Rog

:o

Nice ideas! I particularly like the use of clear hose Rog

Ahh yes - Concorde was on my original list, but I removed it because I thought that some may object to it on grounds of the French connection.. On the Blue Circle radar thing - I once spoke to one of the aerodynamicists at BAe Wharton who had worked on Tornado on the air defence variant (the one that had the special radar). He was an engineer of the old school who had never liked the 'computer optimised' shape of the original Tornado because is 'looked' (to his experienced eyes) to be too stubby in the nose, and when the new radar came along which meant putting an extra metre length in between the ogive and the canopy, he saw the drawings and thought 'that looks better'... On the first test flight (with concrete ballast) it apparently out-performed the standard plane by significant margins in all areas! Incidentally - I was at Wharton to look at a Lightening with regard to fitting it with demolition charges: It was to be run as a radio controlled FSDTA (full scale drone target aircraft) in some missile trials and they wanted to be able to bring it down if they lost control of it. I designed charges to cut the wings off amongst other things... It never flew - budgetary cuts... Rog