DaveSIIA

Can you work out the gear gate layout? R-1-3-5 to front and 2-4 to the rear would be LT77 - 200Tdi / V8 1-3-5 to the front and 2-4-R to the rear would be R380 - 300Tdi / V8 What is the diameter of the reduced section on the end of the input shaft? IIRC, ~3/4" (can measure later) would be a 4-cylinder application (Tdi), would have to pull a V8 box out from under the bench to measure that. Again, pic's and serial no would be definitive.

IIRC, the type approval wasn't retrospective i.e. it only applied to vehicles first registered after 1/8/98 (would have to Google for the exact details). Therefore it wouldn't apply to a 1990 RRC. Interestingly, a 110 SW with 9+ seats (driver + 8 or more) would be classed as M2 and therefore not covered under the EU Directive. Again, more research is required to confirm this.

I have a ~2 year old Exmoor extender kit and high backs fitted to my 300Tdi. Top of the seat back upper corners (where the head rest starts) is 775mm from the load bay floor. Lower corner (shoulder) is ~35mm lower. Back face of the seat back is 165mm rear of the centre of the seat belt top bracket bolt. Sounds an interesting plan, putting a 3-point centre seat belt in as I am sure it would solve one of the problems that your average family 110 user faces. Out of interest, how do you go about proving the integrity of the new mounts, brackets, beam, etc under impact conditions?

Studs are steel, with a M8 thread, and screw in to a hole in the head. They are readily available from most decent LR parts places or cut a length of M8 threaded rod (or a bolt) to suit. Someone must have wound it up a bit tight at some stage for it to have snapped.

Using my degree in stating the obvious (trained by SWMBO) - that is well and truely shot! I would replace both bushes while the panhard rod is off, and check the condition of the bolts. It would appear that the panhard rod bush is common to all age Defenders (ANR3410). If the vehicle is a bit of a hybrid, it is worth extracting the old bushes and taking them with you when buying new (assuming you have a local supplier), just to be sure.

Do you have details (drawing/photo) of the prepared test specimen, showing guage section, markings, etc? A photo could do with some means of ascertaining the scale.

Having seen the pictures of the worn bushes, the failure mode seems to be similar to that of the front arms of Defender/RRC/Disco. Movement of the chassis end of the arm is constrained, so the axle end bushes get twisted severely as the suspension flexes - particularly in cross axle situations. For the anti-wrap bar, would the chassis end link be longer lasting if designed like the anti-roll bar links for Defender/RRC/Disco? Basically a ball joint / track rod end at one end and an eye that takes a pair of Series shock absorber bushes at the other. Probably TRE to the chassis mount and rubber bushes to the anti-wrap bar. I suspect the axle moves away from square to the chassis as the leaf spring flattens on compression. One wheel up, other down and the chassis end of the anti-wrap bar would want to move laterally as well as trying to pitch up/down. The anti-roll bar type link would allow more freedom of movement in lateral or longitudinal axes, while resisting vertical loads of the anti-wrap bar. A bracket suitable for a TRE could be chopped off an old RRC axle case to save machining a bush with an internal tapered hole. Alternatively, a pair of hefty rod end bearings would do the job but the lack of compliance would probably transmit additional noise/vibration to the chassis.

Correct, but at a price. Electronic control of diff's has been done before as well. Therefore, the purpose of the project must be to demonstrate application of technology and to document it, rather than total blue skies thinking/research. Either type of project could fit the bill and would have interest to those who frequent this forum.

IIRC, there is just a gasket between the housing on the top and the extension housing that it is mounted to. Either replace the gasket or use instant gasket / RTV.

The law of diminishing returns applies to the thickness of sound deadening you can fit under the carpets. The Noisekiller kits provide a bit of weight to damp the panel vibrations and a soft(ish) core to reduce acoustic transmission. In terms of sound transmission, the seat box is barely treated in comparision to the bulkhead and transmission tunnel of the 110. I would make the effort to apply the kit to the box, and on the inside of the vehicle. If it was on the underneath / chassis side of the panel then the material would need to be an absorber rather than providing damping, so would have a more "open" face. The Defender roof panel seems to vibrate like a drum, so would benefit from some damping pads applied to the unbraced areas. The gap between the headlining and the roof panel could be filled with an acoustic absorber such as rockwool - only worthwhile if there is more than ~13mm gap otherwise there won't be much material in there. The pad to go on the bulkhead behind the air-con unit is probably an attempt to reduce transmission through the bulkhead. It may or may not be significant in your application. You might get an easier return on your time by making sure there are no leak paths for sound to get through holes in the bulkhead and gaps in door seals, etc. Fitting a new foam seal to the battery box lid made a noticeable difference in my 300Tdi. The thin pads are to damp vibration of the thin door panels and reduce acoustic radiation back in to the vehicle. My Td5 110 CSW had a noise killer type kit fitted and made a ~10dB(A) reduction (subjectively halving the noise level) at motorway speeds. My 300Tdi 110 CSW doesn't anything more than the standard factory fit and is somewhat noisier. I plan on using conveyer belting (cut to size/shape) to treat all the floor panels and lower bulkhead. The seatbase will get particular attention, as will the floor under the middle row seats. The rear seats have been removed so the back will be completely lined to waist height and a loadbed liner fitted on top. This doesn't sound that scientific an approach, but I doubt Noisekiller did that much science either.

It lifts off easily in one piece

Could do away with the hands free phone and also install a coffee machine / kettle My serious contribution to the project ideas is a transmission controller for ZF4HP22/24(electronic) auto boxes and/or US autos like 4L80E, etc. It would solve a lot of problems for those with engines more beefy than LR transmissions can reliably cope. Functionally similar to Compushift or Megashift project. It might need to (in no particular order) lock and hold any gear pick up from stationary in 2nd or 3rd (to reduce wheelspin on slippery surfaces) lock the torque converter in any gear sense engine speed / load and road speed monitor hydraulic pressure in the box apply logic to gear selection control solenoids for the hydraulic actuation use PWM control of torque converter lock communicate with vehicle systems - CANBUS, etc cope with vehicle power supplies be robust enough to survive heat/cold/vibration/shock/dust/immersion Plenty of meat there which have spin offs in the real world. Once finished, assessed, etc for your Masters you might place it in the public domain for others to take forward.

Why stop at Megajolt when Megasquirt is available? It would sit well with an engine bored out to +60 thou, cleaned up head with ~9.5:1 compression and a free flowing exhaust. FridgeFreezer will be along soon to evangelise. Or, putting the cat amongst the pigeons - go for a TD/Tdi! All depends what you want from the vehicle and how much you want to empty your pockets.

The question has to asked - Why?

I have to confess to having looked at buying something newer to replace my 304K mile old 1994 300Tdi 110 CSW. Bought at 2 years old with less than 20K on the clock and driven hard everywhere - up and down the UK (often with a fair sized trailer), lots of trips into Europe; down to the Med, up to northern Denmark, across to Berlin, Swiss Alps, Italy, hauling race cars to Spa, etc. We have racked up some miles together. There was a two year period with a chipped Td5 110 CSW which was fun until I got fed up with exhaust manifold warping and finally a cracked turbo housing! The Td5 had to go and the trusty Tdi was back in service, eating the miles again. It gets by on routine servicing and being worked. Much as a new Defender or newish RR appeals, I still enjoy driving the 300Tdi. A fortnight ago I had a run from the end of the Lleyn Peninsula, N Wales to just beyond Kilmarnock - a round trip of 771 miles. The drive up was 5 3/4 hours (including breaks), stay overnight, two business meetings and then back in the evening. That length of journey didn't cause any problems and I stepped out feeling pretty comfortable. Quite pleased with the 28mpg overall for a journey where I didn't hang around. The down side is that the door frames are getting a bit scabby, particularly the rear door. But these are easy enough to unbolt and replace. The back axle is getting a litle noisy and would benefit from a diff rebuild/reset. Some sound deadening wouldn't go amiss, so I'm working on that. The vehicle is worth more to me as a known quantity than I could sell for. It would have to be a serious offer to make me consider a change.

Get someone to press the brake pedal firmly while you try the 12/6 and 9/3 movements. Any movement would suggest play somewhere further in to the system. If so, try turning the steering wheel +/- 1/4 turn slowly and feel trackrod ends, panhard rod bushes for movement. Also worth watching the top/bottom swivel pins for unexpected movement.

Yes, you have probably lost your marbles - I speak from experience as mine are long gone Could this be the post you were thinking of?

Nice work, looks solid enough and unlikely to fail. A quick thought though - are you sticking with the 110 swivel housings and the track rod behind the axle? If so, isn't there a risk that the track rod would want to pass through the nose of the diff now that the castor angle has been corrected?

A bit of out of the box thinking - why not use a LT77 Defender bellhousing (shorter than the V8) and fabricate a back plate to fit the Audi engine? You could position the Audi starter motor anywhere around the flywheel so that it doesn't foul engine bits, exhaust, etc or the clutch slave cylinder. Previous posts on this topic have pointed to the details posted by integerspin which give the bellhousing bolt patterns for the 4 cylinder and V8. The 4 cylinder pattern would match the Defender Tdi, and change the V8 to Audi. Thickness of the adapter to suit the clutch setup. Machine the adapter from a suitable thickness plate, or cast and machine. The clutch release arm and post for the pivot could be from a V8 LT77/R380 so that everything appears in the right place lengthwise. This would keep a good number of components standard for when they break! BTW: My money would be on finding an Audi manual gearbox that mates to your engine and sorting out matching that to the LT230. R380's aren't the strongest of boxes.

There's a flap across the duct, just above the outlet. Poke a finger into the outlet and push the flap up enough for it to stay put, and the air will flow through the duct.

2nd & 3rd gears sit on a bronze bush that used to be a one piece assembly, now a two piece. When this wears or breaks then 2nd gear has a tendency to jump out on over run. The problem isn't with the 1st/2nd syncro but with 2nd gear moving along the mainshaft.

There's a good chance the bush that 2nd and 3rd gears ride on will be worn/broken and the circlip on the mainshaft (inside 3rd gear) broken. I've rebuilt over a dozen SIIA/III boxes with similar symptoms and found these, plus 3rd/4th syncro detent springs, were the common failures. What starts out as a simple fix becomes a gearbox rebuild. Bad news out of the way, the good news is that Series gearboxes are simple to rebuild and set up. Parts are available from the regular suppliers and the job takes a couple of hours once the box is on the bench. Attention to detail with endfloats and clearances pays dividends when you come to drive the box. All the information is in the factory manuals which can be found on various download sites. So long as the layshaft or gears aren't damaged, the cost isn't too bad as there are a few bearings, bushes and seals. Syncro rings/hubs are probably the most expensive parts. The box has to come out anyway, so it is worth a look inside to decide whether to do the job yourself or buy a recon exchange unit.

The bolt in the S3 layshaft is threadlocked in place. Select two gears at once to lock the box and get a decent enough length bar to undo. The input shaft and matching gear on the layshaft should remove as a pair as the bellhousing lifts off.

You need to remove the housing that sits over the input shaft, inside the bellhousing. Next, undo the nut or bolt on the end of the layshaft. The input shaft and layshaft gear should come away with the bellhousing.

David, Thanks for posting the link to RTC7016.pdf, that file had somehow slipped under my radar. I have a complete bottom PTO, with mechanical drive, sat in the garage awaiting completion of my IIA re-chassis. The plan is to run hydraulic from the bottom PTO and mechanical from the rear (one day!). Dave