Dave W

I've used a 2.5 TD rad on both my 3.9 Defenders, they are the biggest radiators Land Rover have produced for a Defender and the fittings are spot on for a 3.5/3.9. The 50th Anniversary rad isn't as good because it was designed for a serpentine front end and uses a different coolant pipe layout. The oil cooler was a bit difficult to match up with the engine fittings, in the end I bought a couple of TD cooler pipes and used Yorkshire fittings to join them to the 3.9 pipes. The biggest problem is the bottom hose as you need to put a T piece into it for the expansion bottle assuming you use the big black plastic one. I used the T piece from a n/a 2.5 Diesel defender and welded in a smaller outlet as the pipe on the expansion bottle is smaller than the one the diesel engine used. The top hose can use a standard Range Rover item although it will fit better if you cut a couple of inches off it. The TD rad has 2 small pipe outlets, the same as the 3.9 Range Rover rad so no probs there either. Other than when the rad was full of mud or the electric fans died, neither of them has had any problems keeping cool.

That's why they invented laptops with wireless, allows you to view your favourite reading material (I'm thinking Land Rover related but whatever floats your boat) online AND keeps your legs warm too You know you've been there too long when your legs are either completely numb or you have the worst case of pins and needles ever AND at the same time you have 3rd degree burns on the top of your legs thanks to the laptop using you as a heatsink !

The internet is killing printed magazines in all areas of interest. Circulations are down and even LROi, backed by a publishing giant in the magazine world have hit hard times. Low revenues mean more advertising pages because they are reducing the cost of the advertising. That cuts down on editorial pages and they have to cut the expenses budget for those researching/writing the stories so they rely more and more on contributors. In the LR mag business this is made even harder by the quantity of magazines competing for the same advertisers and stories, not only are they undercutting each other on advertising costs but they are competing for the good contributions. Nett result is that the good content is spread thinly between them, advertising fills more and more pages and what's left has to be padded out with something and the cheaper that something is to produce the better. If it were possible to combine all the magazine content together you'd probably end up with a much better product once all the mediocre stuff was spiked. If someone were to collate the best technical articles from this forum into a monthly digest, you'd have a magazine which would make a far better read than anything the "professionals" are creating. Therein lies the problem... why would you spend money on a magazine when you can access a resource like this forum 24/7 ?

First off, I'll say that I'm less than convinced that there is any need at all for winch "sails" on synthetic rope, it's the equivalent of buying a "baby on board" sticker for your car IMV BUT... IF you are of the opinion that winch sails make any contribution to safety then you have to look at their intended use. If the sail is simply a weight on the line then you have to wonder just how much influence or advantage (safety wise) you're going to get from it. It's main purpose in life is to slow a rope down and it can't do that simply by weight alone. On the contrary a weight on it's own could be far more dangerous once the rope has accelerated that weight. Have you ever seen a conventional recovery rope break with a shackle on the end ? I've seen shackles go through a wind screen when a rope broke (conventional recovery rope, not winching). If all the winch "sail" is is a weight to add to the line I don't think it'll make a blind bit of difference to either the trajectory or the speed of a rope that has been subjected to several tons (mass wise) and has snapped as a result. On the contrary, adding any weight to the rope could well be seen as an added danger as the weight itself could cause injury if it is propelled at someone. If weight alone is sufficient then why not just put a D shackle in the middle of the rope ? By having a decent surface area a winch sail is designed to reduce the whipping action that you see when a wire rope breaks, as the rope snakes sideways the weight of the sail doesn't have much of an effect but the wind resistance of the sail can, in theory, slow the rope down and reduce the chance of injury. When a synthetic rope breaks it behaves differently to a wire rope due to the way the energy is stored and the way that they break. They don't "fall to the ground" normally, what they do is propel themselves at great speed towards the anchor (as most breakages seem to happen at the fairlead). I've seen, maybe, 20 synthetic rope breakages in competition and they have always followed the same path regardless of whether or not a winch sail was in use. If a winch sail was used then the sail ends up at the anchor point with the rope. The thing that impressed me most about the CCDA decision was that, to me at least, it was blindingly obvious once it'd been pointed out to me When a synthetic rope breaks it will fly along the line of the pull, give or take a couple of feet either side. If the hook comes away from the anchor point though you will have a hook flying towards the vehicle at great speed. Rather than rely on a winch sail somewhere between the half way point and the vehicle, attach the sail directly to the hook as that is the most dangerous object should it fly. With no floating winch sail to worry about there is no reason at all for a navi to be close to the rope at any time whilst winching so he/she is well out of the firing line if the rope breaks. IIRC the CCDA regs forbid a navi within 1 metre of a live rope under tension. As a bonus, the CCDA method removes the need for a navi to carry the winch sail and makes it nearly impossible for the sail to be eaten by the fairlead. It ensures that the sail is always used and makes the whole thing much more practical for competition use as the navi can effectively forget about it and get on with the job in hand. It should also prevent sails getting lost during the event, one less piece of kit to worry about collecting up after a pull. I've not seen the thing that Andy T is supplying so not sure what it is... but with due deference to Andy, if I have to use a sail I'd rather it was a sail rather than a weight. Having said that, there are always enough midges about in Scotland to slow any rope down as it flies through the air I wonder if we could interest a show like Mythbusters in testing the effect of winch sails on wire and synthetic rope when it breaks... they could stand their test dummy next to the hook and measure the impact or see if a wire rope really can decapitate someone, all in the name of science, obviously. None of us really want to see a navi decapitated, even for entertainment purposes. Change the rules to make a sail more practical and there's no need to design a sail that tries to get around the problems caused by the rules. Why are competitors bending over backwards to try and accommodate rules that have never been shown to make any sense or contribute to safety ?

I was talking to Patrick at Maddison 4x4 about something else today and mentioned your query. As suspected the ECU does produce a 12v signal BUT it can only drive the Compushift OR the rev counter, not both at the same time. It produces 2 pulses per revolution on pin 19. This suggests the problem is down to a current limit rather than a voltage problem, this could probably be resolved by using one of the circuits above anyway although if it is that sensitive on current you'll need to be careful not to put too much load on the ECU output.

It's called a winch sail because it's surface area is designed to provide wind resistance. A football has hardly any wind resistance so would be pretty useless as a winch sail. Most footballs are also far too light to act as a winch damper. Winch sails should weigh about 1kg when dry and measure 900mm x 500mm (450x500 when folded over the line), most commercial ones meet or exceed this.

If UK events were to adopt the Australian system, none of the listed "faults" with current sails would exist, at least for synthetic ropes. The rules AWDC run for all ropes only apply to wire ropes under CCDA regs although the CCDA regs are slightly more practical in the way they are laid out. It's good that someone has an idea to resolve the problems brought about by, IMV, ill judged regulations. Better to change the regulations though if the regulations are impractical or are, even worse, putting crew members into more danger than is necessary. Changing the regs would mean that the current sails everyone has bought would work just fine in a competition environment although it would also dramatically reduce the demand for an alternative product being promoted by one of the event organisers. But to answer the original question I'd pay £30 for a design that made life easier...

Have you asked Patrick about this ? I'm no expert on TD5s but I gave Patrick a hand on the TD5 auto prototype and that wasn't an issue that came up and I'm pretty certain the RPM was showing on the Compushift... I seem to remember playing around with the Compushift settings to get it to read the same as the Tacho on the prototype vehicle. The TD5 rev counter uses a 12v input so you can hook the Compushift directly up to the same feed. On the Megasquirt setup I have to use an additional circuit to convert the 5v output from the Megasquirt to be compatible with the Compushift and the TD5 rev counter I use (hence I'm pretty certain there must be a 12v pulse available on a TD5). The circuit I use on the Megasquirt is the top one in the picture Fridge has posted above.

The mechanism is seized inside the brake. It uses a plunger that, as it is pulled out of the drum, expands the brake shoes and, after wading in mud, this tends to seize up. You can normally release them by using a pry bar or big screwdriver to push the mechanism back, basically give the handbrake cable a hand as it can't exert much force at all when taking the brake off. Once released you really need to strip the mechanism, clean and oil it... or just take it off and replace it with an x-brake. Running an auto and, hence, rarely using the transmission brake, I used to have to do this on a regular basis and following scrutineering regularly had to crawl underneath to lever the mechanism back off as scrutineering was the only time the brake got used !

Software development is an area where this problem comes up all the time, most new features take "10 minutes" to add but strangely it's notoriously unusual for a piece of software to be released on the first expected date. A good solution to this in software development could also be applied to Land Rover maintenance. Rather than estimating a specific time you estimate in units. When faced with a task you break it down into units and give each unit a relative time. Pressing in a bush, for example might be estimated as taking 3 units while undoing a bolt is 1 unit. So in a job like changing a panhard rod bush you'd have 1 unit for each bolt (2) 4 units for pressing out the old bush and 3 units for pressing in the new bush. 3 more units to put the panhard rod back and tighten up the two bolts. So the whole job will take 12 units of time. The principle is based on the theory that if you took someone to the top of a tall building and asked them to estimate the height of all the surrounding tall buildings most people wouldn't have a clue how tall they were. If you asked them which buildings were taller than others it's a lot easier to get a precise answer. If the first bolt, which you estimated as 1 unit, takes 30 minutes because you have to cut it out then it's a fair bet that you should allow a total of 6 hours for the job (12 units at 30 mins each. If it comes out in 2 minutes then a 24 minute completion is looking good. Over time you start to learn what your personal unit is in real time and it's amazing how accurate you can start to become with your initial estimates and when you are asked at midday on Saturday "are you going to spend all bloody weekend under that Land Rover ?" you can reply along the lines of, "well this is a 45 unit job and I've achieved 2 units per hour so far, you work it out !"

Not sure if this is any help but if you click on the photo for the large version you can see them on mine - if you want something a bit clearer you'll have to wait until it's light They are sprung loaded and hook onto a plate on the wing. Never had any problems with mine. They are also useful for holding the front of the bonnet net !

Sorry, no idea, I bought them for the castor correction rather than weight saving, any saving in weight was just a bonus. It's possible they may even be heavier than the originals.

Been out and checked, mine are the plain "original" ones. I find the synthetic leather palms/finger tips work really well, not tried the pvc types though so can't compare them.

As far as the weight saving aspect is concerned it's not a great weight saving in itself but when you remove a similar amount of weight from all the components in the vehicle it can soon add up to a substantial saving. The important bit is to make sure you don't weaken the structure in the process obviously. Have now carefully inspected my Britpart arms, no sign of any problems, they aren't drilled under the axle (couldn't remember f they were or not) and the drilled area stops about 4 inches short of the first axle bush.

Mine was a factory V8, as has been said, all the ones I've seen factory fitted have a HUGE air box between the back of the engine and the bulkhead. If you're thinking of going EDISand/or Megasquirt it's easier (IMV) to use the Land Rover coil packs that bolt on the back of the V - that way you can get off the shelf HT leads easily. Moving the engine back would make that a lot more difficult too. When I fitted a V8 in my old SIII I had to move it back into the bulkhead, changing the spark plugs on cylinders 7 and 8 was an "interesting" exercise... If you're sticking with standard radiators the 2.5TD radiator is the best one for for a V8 - nice and big

I use the X-Eng one. To be honest though it's pretty rare we seem to use a ground anchor in competition these days, maybe 3 or 4 times in the last year and a bit. I suppose it depends on the events you want to compete in and the terrain... We used to get a lot of challenges set out across more open terrain with open moorland and peat bogs, nowadays most of them seem to concentrate more on trying to thread vehicles through trees. Having seen, used and destroyed D44 ones in competition I wouldn't say the D44 one is any stronger than an x-eng one but then I destroyed a D44 one with an Ibex 250S that weighs over 3 tonnes and my Defender weighs about 2.3 tonnes. As for the blade being replaceable on a D44 one, yes it is, but when the blade bent on ours it also twisted the arm so badly that neither were reusable. My only "criticism" of the X-Eng one is that it's a real PITA to mount on the vehicle whereas the D44 one has mounting kits available that allow you to quickly mount/dismount the anchor when it is needed. If you want an anchor that's easy to store and mount then the D44 wins hands down over the X-Eng. The only problem with the D44 mount is that, if you do bend the arm, there's no way of securing it in the mount.

I use the "Mechanix" gloves both for working on the vehicle and when competing in winch events. There are very few jobs I can't do while wearing them as they are tight fitting and you don't lose too much feel. The palms are a light leather so they give some protection against sharp edges as well as protecting you from the cold when handling metal outside. They are machine washable so when they get too dirty/oily they get washed with my overalls.

If it's an old/well used motor it's possible that debris/dust from the brushes and commutator has built up and is providing a path to the metal of the armature/spindle of the motor. Theoretically this could then find it's way through the gears to the drum which is electrically isolated from the case by the nylon bushes it runs on. It could also be caused by an insulation breakdown in the armature windings although dust is more likely. It's worth cleaning the dust out of the motor at regular intervals anyway as it will prolong the life of the motor.

As i posted earlier, the reason I didn't go for QT ones was not so much the quality of the weld that was there as that looked OK, I was more concerned that the welds weren't full length on the ones I looked at. This means, to my "if it looks right" school of engineering eye, all the stresses will be concentrated on the sections between the welds. Any twist along the arms won't be evenly distributed along the manufactured I beam arrangement. The Britpart ones are a similar design (an I beam made up of 3 strips of metal welded together) but they are welded along the full length of the arm. although tomorrow morning I'm going to take a very close look at how they are holding up, particularly between the 2 axle bushes !

Yep, been there, done that... if you forget to extend it you get 10 mins of women's doubles tennis and 2 mins of Dakar ! Thanks for the reminder

I've never liked the construction of the QT ones as all the ones I've seen are only part welded which seems a bit dodgy to me. I went for the Britpart caster correction ones instead as they look to be better made (fully welded) and are cheaper.

Already have it lined up on Sky+

Bear in mind it's a couple of years since I looked at this so the details are a bit vague now... it was one of those off the wall conversations I was having with a mate who was in the process of rebuilding a TD5 to fit in his 90 and he asked if MS was an option on it. My first reaction was that it couldn't be done because you needed sequential injection and, being 5 cylinders, this wasn't going to be easy on MS. After looking at the way the injectors were arranged in the disassembled engine that was ruled out as a problem. I'm pretty sure now that we decided that the TD5 uses a "fuel shot" system like a petrol EFi does, stored in a chamber behind the intake valve and for that reason injection timing wasn't an issue. The only thing standing in the way of bank injection was the aforementioned unique injector opening times although I suspected that was more of something that was nice to have "because they could" rather than something necessary to have. How/if you would be able to reproduce this on a 200/300 TDi is a different question altogether of course !

In theory, yes. I looked at the possibility of running a TD5 using Megasquirt and the only real issue I came up against was the voltages needed by the injectors as I've been told (although never had it confirmed) that they run off 48v. Having said that I never got past the "in theory" stage so no idea if it would have worked or not The TD5 injects above the valve so injection timing isn't an issue. I was told that each injector has to be calibrated and that the TD5 ECU gives each injector a different pulse length based on the calibration, not sure how much of that is really necessary though. Can't see it being that complicated though, after all if they can cope with the problems of using a mechanical pump/injection system an electronic version should be a doddle...

It's worth paying extra for good quality versions. The VWP ones are OK but aren't as well put together as the more expensive ones from Farnell or RS. For a switch that is going to cause you real grief if it fails and is likely to be used regularly, buy the best you can find. These are very good... http://uk.rs-online.com/web/search/searchB...t&R=0199318 IP67 sealed and very well put together. I've not seen any long toggles that are as reliable as the normal ones or sealed.