Tanuki

My TD5 Defender suffered a similar thing - eventually I traced it to the wastegate failing to close fully. Engine would fire up and run 'numb' for the first 30 seconds or so, until some heat expanded the wastegate-housing and allowed the wastegate to close properly. A bit of time vigorously 'exercising' the wastegate-operating arm, and a blow-out with compressed air solved it.

I'm in the same position: my TD5 90 is showing its age [I was underneath today, despite historic application of copious Waxoyl there's signs of crumbly-chassis-syndrome in places]. Concerns for me about a '2019 Defender' - I'd want a Petrol engine and a manual-transmission, but still keeping all the modern air-suspension/terrain-response/ABS/ATC electronic goodies. What's more important for me is that it's still classed as a 'commercial' vehicle so I can escape the "costs-more-than-£40K-so-you-have-to-pay-a-swingeing-initial-purchase-tax-and-inflated-VED-for-the-next-4-years" luxury-car tax, and that it also comes into the £250-a-year commercial VED classification rather than something-over-£500-a-year which large-engined cars have to pay. Make it fit those criteria and I'd seriously consider one. Cash-in-offshore-account is waiting; come on JLR - tempt me!

A lot of washing-up-liquid contains salt as a 'thickener' - now we all know our Land Rovers rust quickly enough without adding extra salt! Someone I know who had to refit the windscreen in his 1950s alloy-bodied Bristol was advised to use, er, "intimate lubricant" because it is both highly slippery and does not harm rubber.

I spent some time leakproofing my Defender> two places to check are - At the bottom of the windscreen-frame there is a U-shaped channel, designed to catch water running down the screen and stop it coming in through the vents. This runs through the screen-mounting blocks, but the gap the water has to flow through between the U-channel and the mounting-blocks is tiny. Easily fills up with moss/mud/bird-poo then the water accumulates in the channel and spills-out over the vent-flaps. Poke something thin [I use the tail-end of a cable-tie] into the gap to clear it and let the U-channel drain freely. In the top front corners of the roof/door aperture, where the roof and the screen-frame come together, and where the roof-gutter dumps its water, the factory would have fitted a blob of mastic. This hardens with age and shrinks, leaving a gap through which gutter-channeled water can get into the top of the screen-frame then run down on the inside of the door-seal to emerge somewhere at random (or get cappiliaried into the edge of the seal-mounting frame on the bulkhead to cause rot). I dug out the old mastic (not that hardto do) and replaced it, then filled the channel in the door-seals with Waxoyl before refitting them, so the metal edge of the door-aperture is protected. Finally, my alpine lights were leaking and following the advice from a nautical-friend's father, I got hold of some "Captain Tolley's Creeping Crack Seal" - http://www.captaintolley.com/ which I dribbled into the glass/seal and seal/body gaps. No more water in the roof-channels above the doors!

As well as the thread you need to consider the grade; seatbelt bolts need to be at least 8.8 and 10.8 for preference rather than something you pick up from B&Q. Any motorsport-place will stock these [my local one being Merlin Motorsport at Castle Combe].

Make it fast, foolproof, with good ergonomics, decent aircon, nice interior trim and quiet enough that you can converse with your front/rear passengers or someone you're talking-to on a hands-free phone without shouting while you're cruising at 90MPH. I honestly don't care about "easy to repair in the bush" - that's truly a fail-thinking mindset. JLR should be much more concerned with "minimal scheduled-service-costs/won't need to be repaired in the 50,000 miles/4 years of the lease". After that it's not their problem. Admit it: Most of the people on this forum will not be buying one of these new. But JLR's business is making money and for that they need to be selling/leasing new cars. What the second/third-owner wants is not really what JLR needs to be addressing. Truth is, these days most car-companies are really a finance-business that happens to loan money to people-who-want-to-drive-the-latest-car-model. $5K up front, then £500-a-month at 14.5% APR for 3 years. I'm not complaining about this; having retired at 54 it's part of my investment-income stream!

Nice!!! I wonder if anyone's ever considered a 'twin plate' clutch for a torquey LR? We used them on things like Sierra Cosworth rally-cars. 2 separate driven-plates fitted to the gearbox input-shaft but free to slide along the splines independently, with an intermediate plate [splined to the pressure-plate] in between the two, so you get double the friction-area. We never killed one, though we were producing enough torque to guarantee Mr. Tremec's gearbox-factory some regular work.

Check that the hydraulics are not retaining pressure. Pump the clutch a few times, then with no load on the pedal quickly open the bleed-valve. If it squirts fluid (rather than just dribbling) you've got something [m/cyl pushrod set wrongly, seal issues in m/cyl?] that is preventing the hydraulics fully depressurising and is keeping the clutch from being fully released.

In a way, I rather like it. Now if only they offer a manual-transmission, *PETROL*-engined version with 3 doors, kinda like the old Discovery Commercial. I think we all have to accept that the old Defender was frighteningly-expensive to build (did JLR actually make a profit on them?) and hopelessly outdated in terms of NVH, driver/passenger-convenience and the like. For the last decade or three car-buyers/leasers have come to expect heated seats, air-conditioning that actually works, a body that doesn't creak/leak/rattle, and the ability to do 80MPH without needing to shout at your passenger to make yourself heard. Compare the original 1959 BMC Mini with the modern BMW-built version. . . I see the 'offroad/agricultural/forestry' market-sector replacement for the Defender as being the likes of the Ford Ranger (The Isuzu D-Max was a good option until they dropped the 3-litre engine). Big downside of the 'pickup'-type trucks (apart from their primitive suspension) is that they lack enclosed, interior space. Putting a box on the back of a double-cab's not the same as having a full-length heated/ventilated/secured space. I know fleet-operators who stopped buying so many 4x4-equipped vehicles a while back because of fuel-costs and because for 99% of the time 4x4 wasn't needed: if they get stuck they phone the yard and get someone to come out to give them a tow. So fleets which once had quite a few LWB Defenders and such switched to SWB Merc Sprinters, Vivaros and Transits, with a JCB Fastrac for the tough stuff. JLR are in the business of making money, and selling new cars is how they do this. Remember that the majority of vehicles these days are leased, not bought: when you're handing it back after two or three years and getting a new one you really don't fret about things like 'will it rust out after ten years' or 'does it need £1000 spent on a cambelt change at 50,000 miles' because those are someone else's problem. Things move on. While I like my 90 it's horribly obsolete (it was obsolete when I bought it in 2001) - I wish JLR luck in selling cars they can make money out of.

I average between 20 and 23MPG from my stock 90TD5 in day-to-day driving (a mix of free-running A-roads and 80MPH-down-the-outside-lane-with-the-BMWs fun on motorways) - I tend to drive it more like a sports-car than a lorry, and overtake much more than I get overtaken. The TD5 loves to rev! Hitch the big fully-loaded 3500Kg Bateson to it and on A-roads-with-roundabouts it's more like 17MPG.... but I'm getting paid well for this kind of use so fuel-consumption's not really a worry.

Always lubricate the face of the rubber seal with a finger-dab of oil before you fit the filter to the engine: if you fit it 'dry' it will prematurely grab on the face of the engine flange/filter-boss face and so give a false impression of torque-tightness - and then after a few days you'll be wondering where the oil-spots on the rear window are coming from. Nobody likes a 'dry' mating! [I always recommend after an oil-change taking a minute to check the filter tightness after a couple of hundred miles, at the same time you check the dipstick oil-level and top-up if necessary to accomodate any 'soak-in' of oil to the filter].

I look forward to seeing your revelations! Following this recent experience, I must say that I'd sooner stick my head up a dead badger's bum than fit Blue Box stuff anyplace where it goes-up-and-down or round-and-round or in-and-out, or anything has to flow through it. [Their mirror-glasses seem to work OK though: but it would need a real spectacular effort to screw-up a simple reflective surface...]

As to the "why" I guess it's a classic case of "because they can get away with it". Historically, "Brands" emerged as a way of reassuring consumers that they were purchasing stuff with an underlying quality/value ethos. Sell carp with your brand on it and over time your brand gets devalued, so you can no longer expect to get a premium price for stuff with your brand on it. "Blue Box" stuff, well, if it goes-in-and-out or round-and-round or has-stuff-flowing-through-it - I'll confidently de-recommend it! [Another example: a while back Duracell batteries - when they were owned by Mallory - were truly the dog's danglies. Three decades later the brand has been sold on through various companies and now they're leaky as a five-dollar-whore and have ruined several of my Maglite torches].

Mine did this.... I think I belted one of the switches with my knee. My answer was to get a suitably-sized exhaust clamp to fit round the column tube. Then drill a couple of holes in the metal plate that holds the indicator/wiper/lights-switch, so the ends of the clamp's U-bolt can pass through. A couple of shims between the switch's metal plate and the 'saddle' of the exhaust U-clamp let you get the alignment right. The finished result is a lot more robust than the original! [Hint: after fitting and tightneing-up, Dremel off the protruding excess threads of the U-bolt or you won't be able to refit the plastic shrouds].

Whatever you're buying, look at overall condition. Any 15-year-old car can be a total heap if it's been neglected. I run a 2001 90TD5, owned from new so I know all its history. Now at 155K miles. It's had a set of copper injector-washers, the cylinder-head injector-loom's been replaced, and the in-tank fuel-pump too. But - unlike a TDi it's not needed regular cambelt/tensioner service work because it has a chain. So I reckon what I've spent on TD5-specific repairs I've saved on cambelt-replacement costs. Personally, having driven 200/300TDIs and TD5s (and Pumas) I prefer the TD5 - it revs a lot more-freely and eagerly than any of the others (65 in 3rd, great for fast-twisty-road work) and the DMF takes away a lot of the nasty Diesel-rattle at idle/low speed and is easier on the gearbox too.. Can't see why anyone would want a clockwork injection-system when they have the option to get proper 21st-century electronics to do the job. The TD5 at least lets you read out error-codes *before* you start spending money on replacement parts. The idea of downgrading a TD5 to a 300TDi just seems strange to me: maintainability/parts-availability's going to be worse [though it has to be admitted that genuine TD5 parts-availability from official LR dealers isn't good either these days!]. Buy a good TD5, look after it, and it'll last.

A "couple of shot-glasses" of oil means it's Mildly miffed-away much of what there was. Time to replacace *both* the shock-absorbers on that axle. I'm a fan of Bilstein gasfilled shocks - they made one hell of an improvement to the high-speed-towing stability of my TD5 90. Quality costs, for sure, but it also lasts: the Bilsteins are still good after 100,000Km lots of which involved 80MPH towing with a 3.5 ton Bateson flatbed on the back.

There's a better way - you can download (free) a bit of software called a "Virtual audio cable" which basically does the whole "audio output from one piece of software piped into the input of another piece of software" without the need for any wires at all! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Audio_Cable

Whatever you do, make sure your tool-roll/chest/box is properly secure. 3 decades back, one of my guys managed to barrel-roll a 110 down a Welsh hillside when he tried to get to a transmitter-site despite a couple of feet of ice-accretion, frozen rain and snow. He survived [no thanks to Bronglais hospital who didn't diagnose his upper-arm fracture], but I dread to think what would have happened if his tools, a trolley-jack, a Tirfor and several transit-cases of "MOULD" radios hadn't been properly secured. Nothing good has ever been reported from being caught in a spin-cycle with a few hundred kilograms of random stuff.

Sailmakers etc. are likely to charge a premium price - they know their market, yacht-owners don't tend to be poor. Better to find somewhere more used to dealing with trucks/trailers/commercial vehicles: I'm thinking that the plastic-coated stuff used on 'curtainsider' artic trailers might be the sort of thing you're after.

I've always dunked well-crudded oily-stuff in a 55-gallon oil-drum full of 28-second heating-oil and left it to stew for a few days. Immersion soaks into the 'difficult' crevices with time, then when you hoick it out a week or so later a blast with a jet-wash lifts off most of the nasties. Be careful of using caustic solutions on anything containing aluminium, aluminium-alloy, white-metal, brass or sintered-bronze: a friend 'pickled' the barrel and head of his 1950s two-stroke motorbike engine in a rather aggressive Sodium Hydroxide bath to try and remove the accumulated oil/carbon from the ports. Alas it dissolved 100 Thou off the bore and digested-away about half of the thickness of the cooling fins on the barrel.

No, on a TD5 the water-pump lives in a housing behind the PAS pump and is driven from an extension on the rear of of the PAS-pump: the only thing it has in common with the viscous fan is that they share a drive-belt.

I'm definitely not a fan of forward-control vehicles: frontal impact-protection for the driver is minimal [Crumple-zones? What crumple-zones?] and the pitching effect due to sitting in front of/above the front wheels rather than within the wheelbase can be profoundly nausea-inducing on some surfaces (this could easily be tuned-out if intelligent air-suspension was used). Pedestrian-safety would look to be a major issue too (this is always a problem with flat-fronts: pedestrians tend to splat-and-go-under the things rather than being lifted/deflected clear of the wheels as is the intent for most 'low front' safety-design these last few decades) It'd be really interesting seeing how they'd get that design through SVA/IVA. It looks about as aerodynamic as a grand piano, too - so expect significantly-worse fuel-consumption than an old Disco would achieve unmodified. The only place where cab-over-engine vehicles still seem to rule the roost is in those jurisdictions where there is a construction&use restriction or tax-constraint on overall vehicle-length. See http://extras.springer.com/2009/978-3-642-44355-8/papers/0041/00410469.pdf

The Chevy LT lumps are so old-fashioned though - they still use pushrods and 2-valve-per-cylinder heads.... how unsophisticated! [I never really got on with traditional-style US engines - they pull OK at the bottom end but just when you think things are about to get interesting performance-wise they run out of breathing/revs]. The Toyota/Lexus "UR" engine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_UR_engine - is also used in Land-Cruisers; I wonder how easy it would be to transplant the entire engine/autobox/transfer-box into a LR? That would at least mean you'd still have the engine and transmission management-systems talking to each other in the way the designers intended. Truth is, the Lexus lump is gorgeous: a friend has a Lexus LS and the acceleration is rather startling - you just floor the throttle and you're doing 100 before you know it, the revcounter needle swinging between 5500 and 6900 but with no real perception of it changing gear at all. All in wonderful silence too!

Nissan also do a rather nice 3.5 litre 24V V6 [used in the 350Z and the Mureno] which would be the sort of engine I'd want to use in any petrol conversion. The 350Z version is a 'twin plenum' (two entirely separate air-filters/intake-pipes/throttle-bodies/MAF-sensors) so it flows really well.

Lowering the compression-ratio is a mug's game - it will only result in lower overall thermal-efficiency/poorer-combustion/higher-emissions for the majority of the time - when the turbo's not blowing hard. Better to stick with a base compression-ratio that's good-to-go with modern fuels (let's say 9.5:1) and then use knock-sensors to calm things down if the turbo's blowing hard and you get instantaneous pinking. [You ideally need one knock-sensor per cylinder, and the processor-power to knock-back the timing for each cylinder the next-time-round spark after it's knocked] To be honest, I'd see if you can find a 2-litre Discovery "MPi" and steal its engine/electronics - they were strangely unloved but actually had a higher top-speed than the similar-era V8 Discos! 135BHP at 6000RPM might not suit everybody, but if you knew how to drive one properly [like modern cars there's a rev-limiter there to tell you when you should go for the next gear...] they could be rather fun.