Dave W

I think you're over-egging the pudding a bit there. The GEMS sensor and wheel/pegs are encased inside a purpose built housing that keeps them, for the most part, clean and mechanically protected. The chances of a GEMS set up going wrong are extremely small and the most likely point of failure is the sensor itself, which can be changed easily and quickly in situ. If it weren't for the "standard" 36-1 giving you more options when it comes to ECUs there would be very little in favour of making your own wheel/sensor to bolt onto the most exposed part of the engine. Normally on any engine fitted with an OEM sensor I'd use that if possible over something I bolted on myself. The only real reason for considering an additional wheel in this case is that of cost/availability of the modified flywheel when you're using a manual box. If it were staying auto then IMV it would be a "no brainer". Obviously if you're looking at a hybrid MegaSquirt/EDIS setup then you have no choice but to bolt your own wheel and sensor on the front because the EDIS won't work with anything else but that's a different issue.

If you are happy with the idle you might want to set the filter in MLV so it only processes entries over, say, 1200 RPM. This will also help you process larger files as the filter is applied very early on. The fuelling map should be fairly flat and it will/can take a number of runs to iron it out. remember the fuelling map represents fuelling over/under the base figure that is calculated from the figures supplied (injector rates, capacity, cylinders, air density (air temp/MAP). You are not setting the absolute fuelling required for a specific RPM/MAP but, instead, are making small corrections to the underlying value. When you say you used 3 logs do you mean you did a log, ran MLV, corrected the map, did a second run/log etc... ? Remember that all MLV is doing is adjusting the fuel map to a predetermined mixture. If you aren't sure what it is doing then view the log yourself and see where the EGO level is during your run and, if applicable, see if the EGO correction when it's in closed loop is having an effect and bringing the EGO either side of the target stoich. Because MLV relies on the EGO reading, if you are using a narrow band sensor it can only correct the fuelling so far each run if the fuelling is a long way out to start with. If your EGO correction is set to a max of 5% then the correction it can apply is approx equal to the range of the lambda sensor plus the 5% correction. For common areas of the map I find it quicker to run a short (10 min max) route that includes as varied conditions as possible (hitting as many areas of the map as you can for as long as you can). Log the route, run MLV against the log, adjust and repeat.

On the sensor side of things, it's probably easiest/cheapest to add a 36-1 to the crank pulley with a VR sensor. As well as giving you the option of EDIS or direct ignition control with Megasquirt it's also compatible with numerous other after market ECUs. You can use the OEM reluctor/sensor with Megasquirt without any problem if you can find a suitable way of adding it with a manual gearbox. As for suppliers, there is a list here... http://www.msextra.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=22372 If you consider buying one off ebay there are a couple of warnings here (as well as useful info about MegaSquirt in general)... http://www.msextra.com/viewforum.php?f=94

As the Safari roof is a separate panel bolted to the 109 roof, you might be able to take the panel off the 109 roof and fit it to the 110 roof ? I think it's just bolted on but it's a long time since I saw one in the flesh.

On the CATS thing, if the engine is older than the vehicle then the age of the engine determines the requirement not the age of the vehicle, emmission requirements work that way too. I can't remember when they were made mandatory but I have a feeling it was 1998 in which case the 1997 engine doesn't need them.

Megasquirt...

It doesn't really cost anything as part of building a motor. If you consider just the additional work involved in modifying the wheelbase I'd guestimate it'd come out at about half a day and material costs would involve a few pieces of steel plate, some MIG gas and wire. Adjusting the wheelbase is actually one of the easiest parts of a build. If you're starting with a 110 chassis it's even easier as you don't need to make a filler section. It took me about 2 hours to shorten mine and an hour of that was spent with the tape measure. That doesn't really have much effect on a build that took me 6 months to complete. If you're building a new motor then why not go for, what you consider to be, the optimum wheelbase for the different uses you are putting the vehicle to ? After all, choosing 100" doesn't stop you adding a decent suspension setup as well...

I run that configuration on mine, same length shocks are fine, if you think the geometry needs it just use lowered top mounts. As well as offering better performance, doubling up shocks gives better shock life as they run cooler (do less work) and if one does fail you still have one left to keep you going.

I use a lot of Britpart stuff and overall have saved a shed load of money by using them over the years and it's not uncommon for items that are unobtanium at a main dealers to be available from stock through Britpart. It's difficult to know which parts fall into the GOOD category because I fit so much and never normally notice the GOOD bits, especially service items. The BAD bits are normally easier to notice as they kind of draw attention to themselves.... "old style" Defender light units (tail/brake, indicator and sides) with the bullet connectors are really bad at the moment, the brake/tail units are made of plastic that melts when the body of the bulb gets hot, causing the bulb to fall out... not ideal really ! I've started using AllMakes instead for these. The "new style" light units with the detachable bulb holders are fine apart from the contacts. I buy Britpart units and then buy genuine replacement bulb holders. For some reason the genuine bulb holders cost the same as the Britpart ones and are much better quality, the rest of the light unit on the other hand is identical between Britpart and Genuine but the Britpart is a fraction of the price. Britpart wiper blades will last forever, the rubber is so hard it'll wear through your windscreen before it will wear the rubber away... the main downside of that being that they don't actually remove much water from the windscreen because they only touch in a couple of places because they won't "mould" themselves to the screen. The wiper arms seem to be good though. Their bottom Defender door seals (the ones that attach to the sills) are made of a rubber-like compound that is so hard that you can't shut the doors properly after fitting without the aid of a body jack or a passing Rhino... so probably best avoided. Strangely the main door seals seem to be the same as the Genuine ones and work fine. Most of the Land Rover oil seals on my motors are Britpart items, never had any problems with them apart from when a mechanic fitted the grease wheel bearing type instead of the oil wheel bearing type, no real surprise that they leaked, the replacement Britpart seals of the correct type were fine. HD steering arms are good as are their castor corrected front hockey sticks and their bent rear trailing arms. Their replacement Defender seat squabs are very good quality as are their waterproof seat covers. The ball joints on my HD steering arm set have been fine really, I fitted them in late 2007/early 2008 time and had to replace the first TRE last month, the other three are still fine. Running into a tree stump at high speed last weekend has put a bit of a dent in the drag link though. Obviously the branded stuff they sell is all pretty good, the Polybush stuff is good (although not as good as Super-Pro nowadays. The EPC brake pads and disks are good for those who like to use their brakes "enthusiasticaly", the ARB stuff is... well, ARB stuff.

Driving the box without a kick down cable is a bad idea and will cause all sorts of problems. It's used for more than just kick down and I'd be concerned about the damage you may have done inside the box when you snapped the cable. When you replace the cable you'll be able to check the internal mechanism for any obvious signs of damage.

I'll PM the info to you and maybe you can try and bring pressure to bear and nip it in the bud while it's still in committee stage.

My only concern with the new permit is if they decide to go ahead with the MSA scrutineer requirement. It'd be OK for clubs like the AWDC (who's representative was OK with it) that no doubt have members who are registered as MSA scrutineers but for smaller clubs like ourselves that are running closed to members events where the finances are already pretty tight it could make the event untenable. The cost of the scrutineer could easily cost as much as the land for the event.

The "three permit" permit was, in my view, introduced as a quick fix to meet the demands of clubs like ours that wanted to run challenge events at a club level, I think that was introduced in 2002. in 2001 we tried to run a challenge style event under a trials permit and spent ages in discussions with the MSA about how we could actually run the event within the regs. The new permit/event definition is aimed at simplifying and clarifying things to make sure the permit better matches the events. The new permit has come about thanks primarily to the work of the AWDC coming up with a permit definition that covers pretty much all aspects of current challenge events but at the same time loose enough to allow events with different flavours to run under it without having to "stretch" the rules a bit. I think the only reason it's taken so long to get a specific permit is simply because nobody managed to put a description together to describe what a challenge event actually is !

There's more to it than that, the challenge permit is defined as a combination of up to three off road permit types and, as part of the permit process you need to choose which three. Oddly the only event type you really want to avoid is the only one that mentions winches as that's aimed at a static vehicle winching an object ! Most clubs are using a combination of trial, team recovery and orienteering but it varies depending on the type of event they want to run. Our annual "daily driver" type challenge combines trial, orienteering and gymkhana permits but we don't allow GPS, winches etc.. Hopefully it will all be made simpler in 2010 with the new challenge permit although, again, this is still a general permit that allows all levels of challenge event, winching or not.

I couldn't disagree more. What about daily driver challenges ? What about challenges that don't include winching ? You need to remember that the challenge permit is there to cover EVERY type of competition, not just a bunch of tray backs beating on trees and rolling through sections to see who can break the most bits... The MSA regs are there to provide a baseline for the event, it really is down to the event organisers to determine if a roll cage is required and to set the event out accordingly. To do otherwise will stop events from running that have no need for roll cages.

There is no "Winch Challenge" tick box. Roll cage regs are easy. If the event permit type requires a roll cage then it must conform with the Blue Book regs. If the event SRs require a roll cage, it must comply with MSA regs. If the permit type doesn't require a roll cage and the event SRs say something like "roll over protection recommended" then the cage doesn't need to meet MSA regs. There are no "grades" of cage, basically if a cage doesn't comply with MSA regs then it's not a cage at all as far as the regs are concerned. Challenge events are currently a combination of three permit types (see my first paragraph) so cage requirements will vary depending on which three events the organisers are combining. If they choose an event such as "point to point", like the XTC, then MSA roll cages are mandatory. Next year, if approved, there will actually be a Challenge permit and there are currently suggestions that this permit will require an MSA scrutineer to attend.... which will wake a few people up ! Roll cages won't be required for this permit although I suspect a lot of organisers will require them in their regs and, if they do, the cage will need to meet MSA regs.

Loaded the wrong MSQ ?

According to the DVLA web site if you change the capacity you need an engineers report or similar to confirm the new capacity, if you change the serial number (same capacity) you shouldn't need a report... of course they may still ask for one to prove the capacity hasn't changed. I'm about to send them a change of engine number with no capacity change so I'll see if the advice on their web site is worth the bandwidth it takes up.

Bilsteins are normally very stiff, much stiffer than most other gas shockers of a similar build. They tend to give a harsher ride but much improved handling.

You really need a tank of some description, to make life easy the pressure switch on the tank should turn the compressor off at 90PSI and on below 80PSI. You could possibly use a regulator but running a compressor when you have the lockers in for a period of time is a waste and may well lead to the compressor overheating, not to mention the noise ! You should also have a pressure relief valve to ensure the tank can't exceed it's safe working pressure if something goes wrong with the electrics and leaves the compressor running. You probably don't want to be anywhere near a steel tank that is pumped up past it's tested pressure...

What Pat said.... The centre diff isn't designed to sustain a speed difference across it for any period of time and it can be damaged by doing so. It's not the same as getting stuck in mud because you'd have the centre diff locked in that scenario. You CAN test a vehicle this way but eventually you will kill one and when you do there is every chance that it will lock up, launching the vehicle out of the rollers.

It pretty much depends on the way the trials are set... Some trials are a test of steering lock and vehicle size. Gates are set to be the obstacles rather than the terrain and if your vehicle can't turn on a sixpence you're pretty much stuffed. For this type of trial you need a small tyre that gives you the best possible turning circle. Some trials use wide gates with a choice of lines and it's down to the driver to choose the best route through the terrain. Turning circle is rarely an issue so for this type of trial larger tyres will give better ground clearance. You need to find the best compromise for yourself between turning circle and ground clearance. The Land Rover club I belonged to before my current club used to run "stick fights" that had less to do with the terrain and more to do with turning circle so I competed in an 88 inch coiler running 205R16 diamonds, it was extremely rare that the lack of ground clearance caused me an issue on their trials. In my current club they are normally set with wide gates and you have to drive the terrain more than fight the gates so I use 235/85s as they give decent ground clearance without restricting the turning circle too much. Whatever tyre you choose it's always worth spending the time to make sure you're getting the best steering lock from them. Lift the front end and sit it on axle stands and check that you're getting full lock on both sides, especially on Series vehicles where it's far from unusual to have good lock in one direction but not the other. Increasing the toe-in SLIGHTLY on coil sprung motors can improve your turning circle too.

I suspect you are correct to ensure good earths from the block to the battery. It's worth remembering that a very common problem with the original flapper installation was failure of the earth connection on the rear of the LHS cylinder head which is where the original loom was earthed. You could well be seeing the same problem if you have used the existing earth connections in the loom. If you have the MS earthed using the original loom you might want to provide a more reliable earth direct to the battery, this was one of the changes LR made when they moved to the hotwire system.

Providing you use the complete setup from the donor engine there is no reason I can see for it to need remapping. The AFM will compensate for the extra air going in and increase the fuelling accordingly. That's one of the benefits of an AFM, it gives the ECU precise (ish) measurement of the air mass going into the engine. Obviously a remap wouldn't do any harm but it shouldn't be necessary for, effectively, an engine capacity change.

If you want to move away from electromechanical stuff... a Triac will do exactly as you describe and will automatically turn off without an additional "pulse" when the power is removed from it. They are available in a huge variety of voltage and current ratings. Essentially it's a solid state switch that turns itself off when the current through it's contacts stops. So you can hook your ignition supply to one side of it and the load to the other. You connect the extra switch to the "gate" of the Triac. It won't conduct anything until you momentarily apply power to the gate. After that the only way you can stop it operating is by turning the power off to it, effectively dropping the current below it's threshold level or hold current. If you know the load current and voltage (12V ?) I can suggest a suitable part if you want to go that way.