Dave W

No, they changed to a more "car like" prop that lays across the top of the slam panel. Not sure when the change was made but I assume it coincided with the TD5 as the civilian 300TDi had the sliding,folding,scissor thing.

Before adding a spare wheel to the bonnet, make sure you know what you're letting yourself in for by trying one first to see how it feels trying to open the bonnet and locate the prop. Having to lift the weight of the spare with one hand while you fumble about trying to locate the prop securely isn't fun. The prop on the TD5 bonnet probably isn't man enough to hold the bonnet up with the spare, you might need to upgrade the prop to a heavier duty version too. Bear in mind that if the prop fails or a gust of wind lifts the bonnet off the prop while you're under there the bonnet edge, with the weight of the spare behind it, will do you a serious injury - I'd go as far as to say it could well be fatal. As others have said, the TD5 bonnet isn't really strong enough to take a spare wheel without some serious strengthening. A puma bonnet should do the job as it's a lot sturdier but visibility might be a problem with the wheel sat on the hump. Best bet would be a 300Tdi or earlier bonnet.

FWIW I've temporarily fixed (for about 200 miles off road) one of these pipes by attaching a pair of mole grips to the end and tie wrapping the mole grips to the chassis. It did the job and only took a few mins. Once I was out of the stage I then replaced the pipe with the spare I was carrying but the "fix" kept me going and the tandem braking system meant there was only a slight change in braking performance.

You'll need a new front prop (the BW has a different nose length) and also a different output shaft on the ZF. The output shaft that goes into the BW transfer box only has splines along around half of it's length. The LT230 needs them full length. Not a big problem as the output shaft just bolts on so not a problem to change them. There is also an adaptor bracket that bolts to the top of the ZF to take the LT230 high-low-diff shifter mechanism although you can probably make something up it's a lot easier if you can get the actual bracket (around £60 IIRC). The Disco II cable shift is easier to fit but more expensive. Neither the LT230 or the BW have a Hi-Lo switch, I can't think of any Land Rover that did other than the fully electronic ones on the later Rangie etc...

If you use the CompuShift ECU to drive a Disco II auto you have the option of using it as a flappy paddle setup if you wanted to. Using this mode can give you better performance although it won't do your fuel consumption any favours. Anyone that doesn't want to mess with it can just leave them alone or you can switch them off.

I have a twin tube fluorescent lamp, it provides plenty of light, doesn't take much power and I've had no issues with vibration problems. It's mounted at the back of the cab so it lights up the whole of teh interior without dazzling you. You can pick them up cheap from caravan spares places.

Doh, just realised this is the Discovery forum so all my useful insight on the difference between Defender 300 and TD5 bonnets was wasted !

I think what you are looking for is PU adhesive, there are a number of brands and it's often known as Sikaflex. It comes in a range of colours and has a myriad of uses but on cars it's used as a means of sealing panels together because it's permanently flexible and can be painted. As well as sealing and sticking panels it also reduces vibration and dampens noise. You can buy adhesive and none-adhesive variants and it's much hardier and stable than silicone as well as staying flexible, like you say, like super strength bluetac when it's "dry". It's also petrol and diesel proof so can be used to seal fuel fittings, unlike silicone which turns to jelly at the first sniff of petrol fumes. Frost sell the Dinitrol version... http://auto.frost.co.uk/frost/Panel%20Sealer but all decent auto factors will have a version of it (prob a lot cheaper !), just ask for panel sealer or Sikaflex. Sikaflex is one of the Land Rover Holy Trinity - Tie wraps, tank tape and sikaflex.

There are a few alternators that have both and they are wired in parallel so you can use either set of connections. I always buy alternators and spares from Woods these days, they have an amazing stock holding both of complete alternators and the spare parts for them.

No, you don't need the extra connector. That's only needed if you drive the coils direct (without EDIS) and you fit the coil drivers inside the MS box. You should never fit the coil drivers in the box anyway IME as they produce too many spikes and induce noise into other areas of the PCB.

Not sure if this helps but I always seem to go through a "middle phase" of every project where progress seems to slow and it's easy to get disheartened. I usually end up building to a deadline which, I think, helps speed the build up, not least because it forces you to "find a temporary solution" to a problem. Often those temporary solutions aren't perfect BUT they get the project moving again and allow you to build on them at a later date. Most of my deadlines have been imposed by upcoming competitions and in every case I plan to have at least a couple of months testing before the competition but almost invariably end up still putting the final touches together on the night before ! Perhaps you should set a deadline for a competition you want to enter next year and send in an entry form. The major advantage of this comes as you get closer and realise you can't get everything done so start prioritising. I split my list of jobs into Essential, Important and Nice to Have that way you can concentrate on getting the Essential stuff done without getting sidetracked. When i look at my "Nice to Have" list from when I was building my motor for Australia in 2008 there is still stuff on there that I haven't done even now and I didn't miss having. As for the current problem, if you look for a perfect solution and there isn't one be prepared to compromise and move on. If it bugs you then at a later stage once you've used the truck for a while and have a better understanding of it's true strengths and weaknesses you can revisit it and maybe find a better solution. I often find that my compromise solutions actually work really well and end up being permanent. It doesn't pay to be a perfectionist when building a vehicle, at least not if you want to actually get to drive it at some point ! In this specific case, if you can't use a combined hi-lo/diff lock lever then why not use two levers. Both levers can operate North/South and can use either bowden or rigid bar links of any length. A combined lever may be traditional and perhaps preferable but two levers side by side take up a lot less room and are far easier to fabricate/accommodate. I'd look at two fabricated levers spaced on a single pivot bar side by side. The left hand one operates hi-lo, the right hand one operates the diff lock, that way you could use rigid bar to link to both rather than having to worry about bowden cables.

The flapper 3.5 Plenum/manifold is easier to MegaSquirt than the hotwire because the idle control is built in and you don't need to worry about it. You could use the injectors from the GEMS manifold if the flapper injectors are low impedance but MS will work happily with both anyway.

You fooled us with the 4.0, as above, no benefit really in changing to a GEMS manifold. Thor manifolds are available, I've seen a few come up - I have one in the garage somewhere.

The only problem I can think of would be the clearance (or lack of) for the distributor. Obviously you don't need the distributor as such for the ignition if you go MS but you do need something to drive the oil pump. You'll need to supply a fuel pressure regulator (an adjustable after market one like the Mallory one) as the Thor doesn't have a regulator on the manifold (or a return) but uses a regulator at the pump instead. This isn't a bad thing though as it will allow you to adjust the pressure to suit your engine/fuel requirements/injectors.

TBH I was thinking about using the plastic coated copper pipe that the LPG system uses and, as you say, using a short length of rubber pipe at each end. The LPG pipe is rated to a pressure easily high enough for EFi and it would be a lot neater running 3 lengths of that along the chassis. I decided that I'd be adding 4 extra connections into the system doing it this way so discounted it in the end but as I haven't bought either yet I'm still open to suggestion. There's little difference in price per meter of the two pipes.

I'm about to start adding brake pipes, fuel pipes, wiring looms etc... to a galvanised chassis. Does anyone have any suggestions on the best fittings to use and how to attach them to the chassis ? I have 3 fuel pipes to run the length of the chassis (2 petrol EFi rubber, 1 LPG rubber coated copper), a brake pipe and the main loom to the rear. I'm thinking of using P clips attached with hex head self tappers, painting over them with a zinc rich paint. For brake pipes again either p clips or those plastic snap in connectors. Whilst I'm at it, any galvanic corrosion experts out there that can suggest the best way of isolating the body panels from the various steel fittings that will be attached to it ? I've got a full set of stainless bolts/nuts which I realise can be worse than normal steel for galvanic corrosion...

There are a few good reasons for not allowing hydro steer, as others have said already there are reasons of keeping the sport affordable and keeping vehicles vaguely road legal. To claim that it gives no advantage is daft. If it doesn't give you an advantage why would you go to all that trouble fitting it when standard power steering does the job ? From an organisers point of view the first problem is that of safety. Most modern steering systems use hydraulic assistance and in the event of a failure in the pipework/pump/engine the vehicle can still be safely steered while you slow it down or recover it. Full hydraulic systems usually have no such safety system built in and the effect of the engine stopping or a pipe/valve failure can result in no steering at all or the steering going instantly to full lock. Some systems are better than others, some seem to lose steering all together when the engine dies and others can still be steered through the hydraulic system for a period of time. Perhaps you could offer a demonstration to show your steering capability after disconnecting a pipe to the rams or the pump by driving a slalom course ? If nothing else it would act to educate organisers that have reservations about the redundancy of the systems ? It may not satisfy those that are looking at "level playing field" reasons but it might go some way to alleviating the concerns/enlightening those looking at safety. All organisers have their target audience in mind and if you don't fall into that target audience then you need to either go to another organiser's event or change. I'm pretty sure the organisers were already removing full hydro steer vehicles from their regs long before you fitted it to your vehicle so why would you carry on and fit it anyway when other competitors shied away from doing it ? There are a lot of regs I don't agree with in the challenge competitions at the moment and there are some competitions where the standard of vehicles taking part and the standard of scrutineering fall well below the standard I'd accept. I choose the competitions where the event organisers have my confidence that they are capable or running the event and have regs that are consistent and I can meet with them. In some cases I've asked if they would be willing to change their regs and, if not, I just don't enter. There are lots of events out there to choose from and some event organisers will not only welcome you but will set the event out with 4 wheel steer, full hydro steer, 44 inch plus tyres, forestry tyres etc... as their baseline vehicle. That way you get to compete against people with similar vehicles, after all it's supposed to be a sport not an engineering competition.

For off road purposes I found the Quaife diffs gave marginal, if any, advantage over open diffs other than being relatively indestructable. The problem with them is that they are designed to distribute power when both wheels have traction, in terms of directing power to the wheel with most grip they only work within a very small band and as soon as the difference between the two wheels exceeds that band it acts like an open diff with all the power going to the wheel with least/no traction. I used them for both trials and challenges and struggled to find any situation where they gave better performance than an open diff. Not sure about benefits when used with TC though as I've not tried that but I wouldn't expect any great improvement. I spoke to Quaife at length about my disappointment with the diffs for off road use and I sent the diffs back to them a couple of times to make sure they were within spec before getting one of their engineering types on the phone. He said that the problems I was experiencing (no difference between Quaife and an open diff off road) was to be expected because the diff simply isn't designed for off road use and they would never recommend their diffs for that purpose. The diff needs resistance from both wheels to work and as soon as one wheel loses traction all the power will be sent to that wheel.

I'd be amazed if a scrutineer would fail this arrangement. Most scrutineers seem unable to accurately measure wheel spacers never mind follow all your wiring to figure out if the alternator power cable is isolated ! the MSA reg simply states that the switch should isolate all circuits. If you want to be pedantic it could be argued that having the alternator power feed connected to the vehicle side of the isolator also doesn't meet this requirement IME the only test I've ever seen done on an isolator switch is to ensure that the engine stops when it's activated. Connecting the alternator to the battery side of the switch passes this test.

It may be that there are different boxes/arms out there but the boxes and arms I have all have missing splines that make it virtually impossible to get the arm on in the wrong place (unless you get it about 90 degrees out !). All I do on mine is put the box into the middle of it's travel and then put the steering arm on as close to straight ahead as it can go given the "keyed" splines.

Which engine ? Which version of the engine ? Which ancillaries has it got ? As you mention 3 belts I'll guess at 3.5 or 3.9 V8 with left hand mounted alternator and no air con ? That being the case... The power steering to alternator belt is just a case of undoing/releasing the tensioner bar (again depending on year it might have a screw adjuster in the middle). Once the tension is off it it comes off easy enough. The crank to power steering belt is tensioned with the power steering pump, loosen the bolts and it will swivel, taking the pressure off the belt and allowing it to be removed. These nuts/bolts can be a real pain to get to and I have, in the past, had to resort to removing the distributor to get them loose - you may get away without or just removing the dizzy cap. The crank to water pump belt is tensioned with a small idler pulley underneath the air con compressor position. Just loosen the cinch bolt and it will rotate allowing you to take the tension off. You should be able to remove the belt without removing the fan as you can take it off the crank pulley first. make sure when you refit the crank/water pump belt that the tensioner is all the way back on it's shaft, it can creep forward when you are tensioning it and ends up pulling the belt out of line. To double check it just check by eye that the belt and pulleys are all in line with each other once tensioned. HTH

You can use the OEM crank sensor, no problem. No use if you want to use Ford parts to run your motor but fine if you drive the coils direct. It's a VR sensor that works with the normal MS v3 PCB circuits. the number of teeth and position varies depending on the age/ECU being used.

Not trying to teach grandma to suck eggs or anything BUT putting tyres on and off the rim with tyre levers shouldn't take much physical effort at all once the bead is broken. Just make sure you keep the opposite side of the tyre in the well of the wheel and most Land Rover tyres will almost fall off the rim. As I said earlier, with most rims, it's more about technique than force. Putting the tyre on the rim with washing up liquid as lube can normally done without levers at all, assuming the wheel has a decent well in it.

A green lane is a road, you are not "off road" so your normal insurance should be just as valid regardless of the condition of the road's surface. The problem is that some of the staff assume that "green laning" involves driving "off road" so just asking the question "am I covered for green laning" is pretty meaningless, especially given that "green lane" isn't a recognised term legally anyway. A better question might be "will this insurance cover me on all adopted highways, regardless of road surface". Driving off the road or on private roads isn't normally covered by any normal insurance policy.

They also claim to do agreed value "at no extra cost" but what they don't tell you is that they will only agree up to the book value of an unmodified LR...