Dave W

If you want a tee piece for tyre inflation don't use the small solenoid mounting holes, use the larger port that the pressure switch fits into. ARB sell a kit for this purpose that includes a T piece, airline and quick release coupling. The small ports are 1/8 BSPT The large port is 1/4 NPT, as is the air input/filter connection. So if you want to make your own kit up it should be easy enough to do

As others have said, a few years ago now (think it was when BMW took over) they had a blitz on people using Land Rover as part of their business or club name. Lots of UK companies were forced to change their names and became "Land Rover Specialists". If they are concerned they should buy a new domain and point that at the web site as well, get the media involved and let Land Rover know directly that the club will be starting a media and internet campaign before hand to let people know the tactics that Land Rover are using against their own customers and "fans". If you do have to give up the domain then you can keep the web site going under the new domain anyway. I'd stand my ground personally and will do if they ever try it on with any of my domain names that contain land rover in them.

100 inch is a good compromise, it's about as long as you can get before you start having problems with ramp over and problems in among the trees when it gets tight. The longer the wheelbase, the more stable it is in general and the better it moves over the ground. Try driving a classic Range Rover down a rough track and then drive a 90, the first thing you'll notice is the relative lack of pitch you get in the Rangie which makes the 90 feel a lot less comfortable. I think the 100 inch wheelbase was chosen initially because of the Range Rover. As has been said already long wheelbases also give you extra traction in a lot of situations and it's surprising what a difference it can make with stability on both climbs and descents. 110s are pretty much the ideal BUT for UK challenge events it's hard enough getting a 100 round some of the sections these days, never mind a 110. My team mate runs a full length 110 so my 100 is the short wheel base in our team This.... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=seCdQvGglbM&feature=user Would not have happened to a long wheel base IMV.

14CUX uses "unusual" lambda sensors, they cover a much narrower band than normal narrow band lambdas and the types aren't interchangeable. My guess is that the ones you got from the states were "normal" zirconia lambda sensors. These generate their own voltage. The 14CUX uses Titania lambda sensors that modify a supplied voltage. As for being long lasting, both ECUs are solid state, there is nothing to wear out and as long as they have been constructed correctly there is no reason why an MS ECU can't outlast us all. As long as the constructor cleaned the board of flux and used a decent protective lacquer they'll last forever.

Ah, so it's a 3.9 engine then. 4.0l was the same capacity as the 3.9 but was fitted with the Thor EFi, no distributor, banana manifolds, crank and cam sensor and knock sensors. Are you going to use fuel only or fuel and spark ? If both, have you sorted out a toothed wheel and VR sensor ?

Put the transfer box into neutral and the auto into park. As long as you flat tow it it'll be fine. Can't see any reason to remove propshafts unless you're going to put it on a suspended tow of some kind.

Plasma 12 for me every time, no question. The only time I've broken one in competition was due to using a very worn aluminium hawser that allowed the rope to run on the edge of the winch mount and it cut through. Entirely my own fault as I used the hawser when I knew it needed replacing.

I'm not a fan of MegaJolt for a number of reasons, IMV you'd be better off going down the MS route even if you don't use it for fuelling. That way you don't need to go EDIS and can add fuelling later, EDIS simply sits between MS and your coils and limits what you can do with it. I know others will disagree, FridgeFreezer for one as he's an EDIS fan As regards the 14CUX it's a good, robust ECU. It copes with fuelling conditions that MS simply won't do and has the benefit of thousands of man hours of R&D specifically for your engine. The downside to it, for me, is the requirement of several expensive parts for it to work, like the AFM, and the ECU itself. I carry a spare MS ECU (never needed to use it) with me so that if anything ever went wrong with my motor I can simply swap in the single spare ECU that controls everything for the ignition and fuelling on the engine. On my old EDIS setup I had to carry a spare EDIS unit as well as the MS ECU. When you change to an ECU that can vary the ignition timing based on something other than RPM from something that (with the exception of overrun) is limited to a pretty linear advance curve based on RPM you can get extra power out of the engine. To do that though you also need to change the fuelling map to suit the new ignition curve, that IMV is where the 14CUX suddenly starts to look very limiting compared to MS. Running Magajolt/squirt to control ignition only means it can't do much beyond mimic the existing distributor and, that being the case, the only benefit is the extra water resistance.

Unlikely you've killed the ECU. Does the fuel pump run when you turn the ignition on ? (It should run for a few seconds as soon as you turn the ignition on to prime the system).

First stage of testing is the power supply test off the top of my head... that's about 30 mins into an 8 hour build so there will be a lot of bits left ! The reason I asked where you were was that I prefer to be hands on when I build kits up for people, I normally build the ECU then come along and help install it into the motor. With the 4.0 you'll be able to use the factory crank sensor so at least there are no problems with setting up the wheel decoder. I know TVR rebuilt the engines depending on the model they were fitting them to but assume they don't replace the crank/cam sensor setup... Is there a specific reason you went with MS2 ? There's nothing on a normal 4.0 that would require MS2 so wondering if there's something unusual that you needed. Do you know if it has 4 VB921s with the kit to drive the coils ? Has he already hacked the case where the LEDs normally mount to fit the coil drivers internally ? I normally fit the coil drivers into a small aluminium cast box that mounts near the coil packs, it gives some protection from noise in the loom and means you don't have to add an extra connector to the ECU. You have to use screened cable from the crank sensor to the ECU. To use the stock idle control unit you'll need to modify the pipework and put a restrictor of some kind in, this restrictor will set the cold idle speed as the Idle control can only be used as a simple on/off switch without an external control board. I use a piece of round bar of the correct diameter for the pipe and drill a hole down the centre - te bigger the hole the faster your cold idle. If you want to use the idle control built into MS2 you'll need to find a way of fitting an earlier stepper motor IAC to the engine. Do you want to build a new loom for the engine or chop up the existing one ?

I may be able to help, depends where you are

It does seem a bit strange to lock it, kind of glad it was as I hadn't read it until Lara posted this topic so would have missed an interesting read

Yep, got one here myself for our event next month. There's a NEW challenge permit that's on it's way through the mill at the MSA at the moment that is aimed specifically at winch challenges rather than trying to combine 3 permit types into a single one. Should make life a lot easier in sticking to the spirit of the regs as well as the letter Should be available next year although it might get delayed until 2010 - depends on what needs to happen to it to get it into the blue book. I was told that, as it's not a rule change as such, it should go in next year but who knows ! Hope to get over for the pre-Christmas challenge btw, will have to see what my finances are like and what state my motor is in when I get back from Ireland.

LOL I wonder if slamming your ***** in a door counts as an eye wash facility ? It'd certainly make your eyes water...

There was no speed limit on the event but yes, on normal CoR events there is/was a blanket speed limit. If there had been a speed limit on the event I wouldn't have said it was a speed event.

Like I said earlier, it's not the first UK event of it's kind because it's been done in the Ironman Challenge. It was about 3 years ago that I did that event, great fun tearing around the Scottish mountain sides in the snow and ice in January. Not saying it's a bad idea, quite the opposite, but let's not start off by claiming it's the first of it's kind in the UK when the credit for that belongs to CoR as far as I am aware - if anyone knows of an earlier challenge event to use this format please shout up. To run it under an MSA permit... In terms of regulations for the event, it can run under a standard point to point permit as these are already designed to allow teams of 2 vehicles and include provision for recovery of team members. As part of that you'll need to use a credible scrutineer, all helmets will need to be MSA stickered, roll cages and mountings MSA approved, fire extinguishers to MSA standards, cut off switches etc... Marshals will need to be available at every point and only one team will be allowed at a point at one time, any footpaths or tracks will need to be marshalled and/or taped off to avoid head ons between teams travelling in opposite directions. You will also need one or more rescue vehicles on the site to handle/evacuate anyone who is injured (not sure if these need to be accredited rally rescue teams). You'll also need to supply a central first aid facility with eye wash (this can just be a standard H&S at work first aid kit). Any competitor taking part will have to be a member of either the organising club or an invited club (can't remember how many clubs you can invite on a clubman's permit). They will also need to hold an MSA license suitable for the event level. I'd definitely be interested in giving it a go BTW If there's one event my engine wants to take part in it's one where you get to use your right foot a lot, just need to start saving for the fuel now !

Pro-Comp will tell you that it broke because you don't have a strap to limit articulation and they are not designed to support the weight of a wheel/axle pulling downwards. That was their response when both rear shock absorbers on my Defender lost their top eyes first time out. You could weld it back on without any problems and it will be stronger than the original weld, however, the eyes also split if the weld doesn't give way, again, been there, done that. The metal of the eye is so thin that the metal ripped in half when I cross axled it for the first time. Replace them with Lovell's or OME instead, Pro-Comps lasted 6 hours on my Defender, OME lasted 2 years and, so far, Lovells have lasted 8 months and still no sign of any problems.

It should work fine, the MAF (airflow meter) should automatically correct the fuelling in most conditions as the 3.5 will take less air. If you haven't done already it'd be worth replacing the cam with a standard 3.9 cam while you're at it.

Marix are selling a range of tyres that look very similar to the greenway lineup, they do a nice Simex copy in a 235/85 too which looks interesting. There's a few places selling them in the UK now. http://www.marix.it/prodotti_eng.php/idcat=22 Not sure why but they don't list all the sizes on their web site.

That suggests that it's something other than a stepper motor at the end of the wires, maybe it has an onboard control board. Do you think it's safe/possible/advisable to take the top off the shock absorber and get to whatever is housed inside ? I'm assuming that, as it's at the top of the shocker rather than in the hydraulic end it's a modification made to a shocker that was already manually adjustable rather than a major mod to the hydraulics.

You do know this has been done before by COR ? I think it was the Ironman Challenge where we had to complete as many laps as possible over 2 days, navigating between waypoints and winching where necessary. They set up 3 different courses, each with it's own set of waypoints, that way you had 3 different circuits to "learn" before you could start driving without navigating. It was a good event format though I don't remember there being many finishers after 2 days !

I can see where this would/could be an issue, especially at low engine speeds, but I'd have thought that this would have been taken into consideration in the design of the sensor and it's positioning. I'd have expected the IAT to be used purely as a baseline input rather than one that has a huge influence on the fuelling. Obviously it's used in conjunction with the startup barometric pressure to determine air density but the majority of tuning and therefore fuelling is based on the exhaust gas "outputs" rather than the "inputs". It's one of the compromises we face as an alternative to a MAF meter I guess. I can see that this would be more of an issue if you were running without a lambda sensor, maybe I've never found an issue with this because I tend to run closed loop lambda low down in the rev range or it may be that it's because my IAT has always been thermally protected from the engine in my installations. Even on the LS1, where the IAT is built into the throttle body, the throttle body itself is thermally insulated from the engine as the inlet manifold is plastic. Not sure how much spare memory there is left in MS but I can see an argument for having some sort of CLT comparative IAT adjustment for those that need it. Still think they'd be better off repositioning the sensor though Next time I have my snorkel uncovered I'll look at fitting an extra IAT somewhere nearer the intake(at the back of the cab) so i can see the difference in reading between that and the engine mounted one as the engine temp goes up. It'll be an interesting exercise anyway as I've often wondered how much the air is heated as it passes along my snorkel which runs from the back of the cab, alongside the gearbox and then up and over the engine !

Pictures can never do a V8 justice, click on the youtube vids in my sig to capture the most important part of a V8... it's sound !

What I meant was, with MegaSquirt, you don't need the EDIS box whereas you do with Megajolt. Since they added the VR conditioner to the MS V3 board it makes EDIS pretty much obsolete. So one ECU with MegaSquirt or 2 ECUs with MageJolt.

Not sure about using Megajolt, it just seems to me that it's more hardware than MegaSquirt and gives you less options in the longer term... not like the price difference between an MS v3 kit and a Megajolt kit is that much and EDIS-8 units aren't that easy or cheap to get hold of in the UK (or at least they weren't 4 years ago when I installed mine).