RobSmith

Thinking about it it was only about 5 inches at the rear end of the springs so the chassis maybe only went up about 2.5" but there is plenty of axle movement space. I had another grinder adventure further forwards on the chassis today and discovered more rust behind the front outriggers. These had been previously changed so I had an exploritory grind and found it was not as sound as I thought...... there is now a big hole where it was ready for more fresh steel. Rob

I forgot to add that in these pictures the axle is not bolted in and the chassis is just resting on those wooden blocks in the pictures and why it might look close. I had to lift it up about another 5 inches today to get the bolts in to move it around. Rob

I have chopped away 2 inches and added 3 so a 1" addition in chassis depth. I did not want to cut away the full 3 inches as I wanted to leave as much of the chassis as I could so it held its shape. The bump stops had spacers between them and the chassis. I will remove these and then they end up in the same place. Rob

Nope, The spring mounts are in the same place. The bump stops had a spacer about 1"1/4 between them and the chassis. I am just going to use the bump stops without that spacer so they too will be in the same place. Rob Admin, I have tried logging out and re-booting. Hopefully you will not need to check this. If you do I will clear my cookies out. Rob

I have mine completely to pieces.... see "Series iii mix and match" for pics of mine. I am glad you worked out how much paint I might need That helps when the pain I want to use is expensive and I want to buy enough but not way too much. Rob

I forgot to mention our local car breaker has his own S3 landrover and every couple of years just refreshes the gloop on the underside with his homemade underseal, diesel and gearbox oil mix. It is all black and sticky under there but it seems to keep the rust away well. Rob

I have debated that. We live about 100yds from a galvanising plant. The outside might be fine galvanised but bits of the inside are quite well painted with a thick black gritty hard coating. They acid clean the steel before it goes in the zinc but it is only meant to get a bit of rust of and not thick paint. The hot zinc might burn off this coating but leave a mucky surface and the muck might still be in there and leave bits ungalvanised or piles of burnt off muck built up somewhere inside. I would rather have it known what is in there. I saw some gates several years ago made from big box section which is similar and they rusted from the inside where the zinc had not got bits. I think if it were all new then galvanising would be the best way forward but it is not all new and I still want it to be 1972...ish. I shall be re-galvanising the bumper, bumperettes and other bits that bolt on. All the bolts, except suspension, will be changed for stainless steel. There are not many of the original bolts left anyway Rob

Picture of the right spring mount. Note it does not stick out like the original as on the left hand side this will be the position of one of the exhaust silencers as I am changine to 200tdi. The exhaust will run around the outside of the LH fuel tank and then tuck back in to a short silencer in the big space there will now be: The outrigger behind the rh fuel tank. I have moved it back 1" 7/8 and created a simple bracket to pick up the fuel tank. Moving it back should prevent the big muck trap between the fuel tank and outrigger. This was packed with muck when I dismantled it so changed that. Spot the deliberate mistake! I cut the box section 1"1/4 too short so ended up welding a bit back on.... doh. Rob

I should have added the wax sloshing around hole is part way up the chassis is because the rear spring forwards mounting has a horizontal plate at the level of that hole. Another one got drilled at the top to allow air out of the sealed box so the suspension mount will fill up with wax and then drain out. I will go and take another picture. Rob

Is that the underside or the underside, sides and top of the chassis? I will need to paint my 109 soon. Rob

The plan is to seal up all the holes in the chassis except three drain holes in the lowest points. These have M12 nuts welded there now to allow me to plug up the drains. The chassis will have a couple of 1/2" BSP bosses welded onto the front legs of the chassis so I can then mix up a wax mix and fill enough so it slops around and gets everywhere inside. The plugs will be unscrewed to release the excess. I will mix up a mixture our local car breaker mixes up for his landrover. It is a mix of black underseal, bit of diesel and cleanish gearbox oil from the scrapped cars. This is for the inside but will have painted the outside first. The outside will be grit / sand blasted back to bare steel and I will then paint it with a couple of coats of galvafroid zinc primer. Then a coat or two of Tractol or Tekaloid undercoat (I forget the number). Then a gloss coat of Tractol or Tekaloid gloss. Then some sort of sticky gloop. Maybe the same gloop I am using on the inside. The bodywork is not getting touched at all. I still want it to look 1972. Rob

More pics. Chopping away the other side: Chopped away outside skin. Note repair has three puddle welds through onto the original doubling plate inside and the 10mm hole which is a wax sloshing around and drain hole. The back end. (This now has some extra bracing too) I have more photos to follow but need to remember to take the camera outside when it is light. Rob

Pics: Chopping out bottom 2inches of rust to get back to good steel. Chopping away around spring mount 3 inch x 3mm wall box section welded in. Chassis is now 1 inch deeper but that suits me. Note the additional box sections clamped to the top set to drawing dimensions to keep the chassis straight. More to follow Rob

Hi All, It is a long time since I have posted anything on the forum...... I have been grinding and welding and cutting and welding and more cutting, grinding and welding on the landrover chassis. The body is now off and the chassis bare. After an aweful lot of cutting and welding is now about 40% new metal I have been sticking to my plan of making all the sections sealed from water getting in but each section has holes drilled top and bottom to allow wax to flow throughout the chassis. I bought new outriggers and rear cross member..... Due to the quality and water capturing design I have not used any of them and have done my own thing. I will post some pictures shortly. Rob

I will have a look at the gear lever position tomorrow. I think from memory it is out of position but then most things are out of position by some amount. Rob

Hi All, I have a 1972 series 3. I have a 200tdi lump to go in it. I luckily got given another Series 3 that came with a new bulkhead. I have taken the flywheel housing off the back of the engine to add in the additional stud positions. At this stage I offered it up to the gearbox in the landrover and all seems ok except the starter 'blob' looks quite close to the bulkhead. The gearbox is floating all around a bit at the moment as it does not have the engine attached to it but I was wondering if I should have a best guess at a position and weld in a correspoding bulge into the new bulkhead for a bit of extra clearance around the starter? Rob

It is going down the 200tdi route. There is a discovery 200tdi engine sitting in the back of my car at the moment. I am just concidering how to get it out of the back of the car. It was easy getting it in there with a forklift. Rob

I will go for a 200di. Our plan is to use it for short distance trips and to tow things about that require a bigger towing vehicle. That towing would be for short distances (10 miles or less) It does not need to be fast at all. Fuel economy is important so I presume the 200di would be the best option. Rob

Hi All, I have a 1972 Siii Ex military FFR landrover. That had a siezed up solid petrol engine. It has a chassis that will require fairly major surgery to get it right so will be stripped right down to a bare chassis and then rebuilt. I have just been given an 'A; reg (1983ish) SWB diesel landrover. That had ben partially stripped to change the bulkhead and then not put back together for about 10 years. The chap who had it said it ran ok but there was some problem with the fuel injector / distributor thing. I have not figured out what quite goes on inside that yet. I am wanting to end up with a vehicle for tootling about short distances (less than 20 miles) and draging a heavy trailer occasionally. I think it is the 2.25 diesel with the pump pointing upwards. Should I use this engine or just go straight to a 200tdi or 2.5 diesel? The gearbox I have in my 1972 is a 'B' stamped gearbox and the one in the 1983 just has a long number. I cannot remember that off the top of my head but can go and get it if it makes any difference. Should I use this later gearbox too? Rob

18-22mpg. I am not wanting to drop below about 25-28 when driven normally. That is my reason for umming and arring about the Volvo lump. I should think it would do 25mpg ok but if a 200Tdi does 30+mpg then I could maybe put up with the noise and dissapointment of not doing something interesting. It is half past Tuesday so I will have more of a think later. Rob

55mph. Is that the sort of speed it likes to sit at on a motorway? Does it have an overdrive or is that just the standard box? Rob PS..... my replies are being approved by a moderator each time which takes a few hours or upto about a day so my replies get all out of sequence. Rob

I was a bit surprised and why I am asking about any engine changes / fuel injection etc. I suppose it could be achievable if it is set up nicely / driven sensibly etc. The V8 is not on my list of engine options as I think it is an excessivly big engine whirling around at the front of a geabox full of low ratios. I can imagine it would be good if you use your landrover for near vertical hills but around here is not required. Around here they build small mounds to put the trig points on to have sight lines over the hedges it is that flat. One reason for liking the volvo turbo setup is it can run fairly economically off-turbo but then can burp out lots of power if you ask it to. That makes it useful for me as most of the time it would be pootling about but occasionally might be asked to tow something big and heavy on the trailer. Rob

30mpg with the V8. That is not too bad either. Is that with carbs or fuel injection? / or anything to make the V8 more efficient? Rob

That is not too bad at all. Do you need to drive super steadily to do that and are you in a flat or hilly area? Rob

Thanks for the responses. What I am thinking is that I would like to have the 2.3 litre turbocharged volvo engine which would provide lots of grunt and also reasonably economical if driven sensibly and be quite fun to drive. Then comes the problem of the gearbox strength and halfshafts, its tax exempt status, cost and effort. It is fairly easy for me to get the engine installed but I am not realy wanting to change the gearbox and other things to make it reliable. Then from my first idea I start to think of lowering the amount of grunt the volvo lump produces so maybe go for normally aspirated or low pressure turbocharging the smaller 2.0 litre lump. Then I have low performance and low fuel economy so I might as well go for a 200Tdi setup like everyone else and get reasonable fuel economy. Hmmmm..... still have not figured out which way to go. More fuel efficiency figures would help. I did not realise the 2.25 petrol was such a thirsty beast. Rob