twodoorgaz

Thank you very much Mav - I posted on this forum due to it having a better level of technical knowledge than other forums. Comments like yours give me the confidence I'm on the right track. I've been looking into the pistons myself and you have two factors to consider: shape (bowl, flat or domed) and its effect on the volume of the combustion chamber. The 200 and 300TDIs have bowled pistons - in the 200, the bowl is off centre and in the 300 it is more centred. The 2.5NAD and 19j engines shared the same con rod and the same crankshaft and had a similar type of piston but the pistons actually had different part numbers They are shown in the following pictures: It would be tempting to take the NAD or D-Turbo piston and use it in the 200DI - however... as the con rods are a different part number and the crank is a different part number it would mean either careful measurement to ensure the stroke remains the same as the 200TDi or alternatively swapping the crank, conrods and pistons... getting complex. Changing the TDi to a relatively flat NAD/19j piston, rather than the bowled pistons would reduce the volume of the combustion chamber which (if I'm understanding this correctly) would increase the compression ratio - something I don't want to do. I will ask the engine machinist's opinion on this, however I'm tempted to say that it would be best to keep the existing pistons - the existing deep bowl design would keep the same 19:1 compression ratio and would also "confines the diesel fuel spray for good, fast combustion" - at least that's what Google says! Does this make sense to other people? Thank you - I'm hoping I'm not building in some inherent weakness in the system by not running a turbo - thanks for the tip on the combustion principals, I have a very limited understanding of this. Yep - I'll be having the pump set along with the timing on the dyno - I'd like it to run quite cleanly so won't push the envelope for an extra few BHP. Forgot to say folks - there's a chap in Denmark who has had a used, but well serviced 200Di dyno'd at 76.6bhp - this is absolutely perfect for me - about the same as a 2.25 petrol, though presumably that will come with a little more torque than the 120lb-ft than the petrol delivers. I wish I could see the power/torque curve for this test! The torque figure I want is 130lb-ft. The most powerful engine used by Land Rover with the 'Series' drive train in a production vehicle was 134lb-ft this was produced by the high-compression 2.6 6-cylinder. Land Rover did actually use a more powerful version with the SIIA NADA 109 6-cylinder fitted with the Weslake cyl head - this produced 142lb-ft of torque. The NADA was not a huge success - with its huge weight and Rover (non-salisbury) back axle, it was 'allegedly' prone to breaking halfshafts. Indeed Land Rover went on, I understand, to offer a Powr-Lok limited slip diff for the back axle in 1967/8 - reports are mixed, some say this was to improve off-road ability due to the car-derived engine producing power too high in the rev-range, while others say that it was an attempt to strengthen the Rover rear axle (the latter seems dubious to me as surely a halfshaft would give in before a diff). Anyway... I digress. The point is that if the most torque that land rover put through the transmission without major issues was 134lb-ft, then who am I to argue? Also, this torque would have been delivered extremely smoothly from a 6-cyl engine - not the knotchy delivery of a 4-pot diesel - so I'll roll it back a bit to 130lb-ft. In a SWB Series this should be plenty - better than anything ever produced by the factory, probably closer in terms of torque to a 2.25 petrol with a stage 1 head. As such, given that a 200'Di' is already producing the power and (probably) the torque I am looking for, then if I was to fit the turbo and intercooler and then had the fuelling/boost altered to produce the 75-80bhp/130lb-ft I'm looking for, then I would guess that the dyno operator would end up turning the boost all the way off! In light of this and assuming that the 'Danish' figure is correct, then it doesn't seem beneficial to have a complex intercooler/turbo setup fitted to the vehicle - they would simply be a bit of a liability and would not help me in my goals. As this will be used for long overland travel, surely an ultra simple NA setup would suffice. (I hope this argument makes sense to other people and not just 'in my head' ha ha) Thank you sir, I was not aware of this. I had worked on the assumption that a 'bench dyno' was the Gold Standard in terms of engine testing. I may well do both (bear in mind that this project is a bit of an indulgence in engineering and not simply an exercise to produce an old Landy) providing that I don't get to scared to see my new engine revved to the required levels! Thank you - yes I think its important to imagine the performance compared to a thirsty but lovely 2.25 petrol rather than a TDi. T.D.I = Turbo Direct Injection in Land Rover parlance (everywhere else in the world I think you're right, the 'i' would be intercooled). So a non turbo is a "200 Direct Injection". Having said that the '200' represented the torque from the original project Genimi engine (195lb-ft rounded up to 200) - so maybe I should rename this engine to a "130Di" just to confuse everyone! As you quite rightly say - the non-turbo setup could be done very neatly and will afford plenty of space around the engine. Hi again Daan - totally agree, if I were to fit the turbo I would definately use the intercooler (I'm obsessed with reliability). However, as explained above, I don't think I'll need to use the turbo - I'll simply be using a standard Series radiator. Cooling will depend on which engine I choose: Defender 200TDI means that, with the right combination of pulleys, I can use a Series fixed fan on an adapted 200tdi or 2.5 NA water pump - it would look fantastic. But, it would mean I would have to cut an engine mount on my galv chassis Disco 200TDi will drop straight onto the existing mounts as the timing case is different and moves the injector out of the way... however as the water pump is off-centre and quite protruding (it can't be swapped for a 2.5 NA unit or anything else) the n I would have to use an electric fan. No probs with that, the 200TDi runs very cool and doesn't really need a fan - the electric one would be there for heavy towing/hot weather and may reduce fuel consumption/noise a touch. Disco engine's also cheaper. Yep - nailed it - no turbo = no intercooler, fitting a turbo = intercooler too. Really appreciate all the replies folks - there's a wonderful level of technical knowledge lurking in this forum!

Thanks matey - I'll be sure to report back with an update

Hi Daan, yes this is definately an option, and from an engineering standpoint a very, very good one. The people who will doing the dyno testing for me have explained that they could easily alter the settings to dial in any level of power I like. The argument in my head is whether is is worth the complication of neatly fitting a TDi radiator/oil heat exchanger and intercooler only to not really use them... But it is a valid argument none the less.

Thank you RustyNissanPrarie. Yes this engine seems to polarise Land Rover enthusiasts - who fall into two camps: 1) those who like myself who recognise that the vehicle was designed with adequate performance and had transmission, brakes and suspension to suit. This camp see the vehicle as a whole and independant of the owner - I need to know that whether the vehicle is driven by myself or by someone unfamiliar to it that the drivetrain is nicely matched. A 200Di (or any other engine with a similar output, size, ruggedness) would suit this and has the added benefit of delivering that power just a little bit further down the rev range, with the benefits of diesel power [simple ignition and resistance to water] and at a much higher level of efficiency thanks to the direct injection). 2) those, like many other enthusiasts who have an equally valid point of view. This camp see that when going to the bother of fitting a later TDI engine that it would be foolish not to take advantage of a wonderful level of performance and to whom the idea of putting in extra work to actually reduce that power is silly. They know that with a bit of mechanical sympathy and sensible driving that a 200TDi can be run for a long time. Both valid points - I'm firmly in camp 1. Quote: "Sometimes it's just nice to have a project isn't it." Thanks mate - yep a project is always nice. I'm going to try and push the thread back on topic... Cost isn't a factor, if you have a look at my post you will see I have already committed to sourcing and building a fully reconditioned engine for the project as it is currently a rolling chassis and came without an engine or wiring loom. After spending around 1000 hours restoring every other aspect of the vehicle, I want a freshly built engine too. I could source and build something easy, such as a 2.25 petrol, or for little additional effort and cost I could source and build the engine I have described which would be a little bit special, a bit of an engineering project and superior in every way. Either way I will be going to the trouble to find, buy, collect, strip, assess, machine, build and test the new engine so why not take a little extra time to plan and produce a vehicle which I can use every day without bankrupting myself. I'll be keeping this vehicle for the rest of my life, so a few hundred quid more at build stage is frankly not a factor. I like driving series Land Rovers - warts and all - I'm even comfortable with their performance. Though the fuel saving may seem small (22mpg vs 35mpg) - at 5000miles per anum this is a £500 saving, at 10000 miles per annum this jumps to £1000. I cover somewhere between the two. In series Land Rovers. By choice. And I plan on living for a long time. That gives quite a budget to cover a more efficient engine - as a rule of thumb £900 will allow me to buy and work with my engine machinist to fully rebuild a 2.25 or a 2.5NAD. To do the same with a 200TDi this will be closer to £1600. Cost difference is around £700 - if the difference were double or triple that it would still pay for itself in a couple of years. As I've explained I'm really, really not looking for a debate on the virtues of the engine or advice on whether such a conversion is worthwhile, merely any technical views on how to optimise the engine for natural aspiration on the engine I've already chosen. Based on the above posts I'm guessing that I'm correct in my initial understanding that all that would be necessary to fully convert from forced induction to NA would be to: replace manifolds and exhaust with a properly engineered replacement and set the timing and fuelling (accurately) to suit (I'd be going as far to do this on a bench dyno). Many thanks indeed for your input.

Hi Retroanaconda - yes, exactly. A 2.25 petrol has plenty of power for me - and will muster all the speed I need (though a 2.25d would not cut the mustard) and the drivetrain has been proven to this level of torque over the last 50 years. The 200 'di' set up will offer similar power and torque but with the benefit of a diesel torque curve and massively improved fuel economy (35 vs 22 mpg). I would have absolutely no concerns whatsoever that I had placed additional strain on the drivetrain and would feel comfortable keeping all other areas of the vehicle standard (applying the KISS principal here). Many, many people can not understand using a TDi without a turbo, their key (and valid) argument being "why go to all the effort of an engine conversion for virtually no power gain?" I can understand this point, however I am not doing an engine conversion - my car has no engine, nor a wiring loom or fuel lines. As such, I will be sourcing and rebuilding an engine from scratch and selecting all ancillaries - this makes me the ideal candidate to select the best possible engine setup for my needs (long-term owner covering high annual miles but wanting to keep the feel of a classic Landy whcih I know and love). I think that if I can make this setup meet the standards I would look for in terms of attention-to-detail, that it may well prove to be perfect. The argument of 200TDi vs 200Di has been covered ad nausem on various forums and websites - the Glencoyne website covers many of these arguments perfectly: http://www.glencoyne.co.uk/200difaq.htm. Rather than debating the virtues of one engine conversion over another I'm more looking for specific advice on any alterations during the build of the engine that would optimise its running with natural aspiration over forced induction. PS I really like your website sir - it has provided a fantastic source of information during my Land Rover projects. Many thanks.

Hi Mav. I am ready to build an engine for my rolling chassis. I'm really excited about this and have been devouring books on engine blueprinting and nagging my local engine machine shop for insight and advice. Going to this level of detail and given that I have yet to order my wiring loom or cooling parts means that I have relative free reign to build something a bit special. I also think it would make a great build-thread for the forum. I have, up to now, been looking at building a 2.5 NAD dressed to look like a 5MB 2.25 diesel. This is my foundation and I've beem getting some great advice on this over in the Series forum. However, the dream is to build a land-rover based diesel engine which would produce similar power to a 2.25 petrol (I categorically do not want any more than 130 lb-ft running through the drivetrain), be bomb-proof in terms of long term reliability (250k mile lifespan) and return frankly amazing fuel economy (circa 35mpg). I had always discounted this as a pipe-dream but it now looks like this dream is achievable - 200di engines tick these boxes but the conversions I've seen have been a bit hurried - the trick is making sure that I haven't overlooked anything and I get a bit obsessive about efficiency - not MPG, but rather ensuring that the engine is running as cleanly and easily as possible (power and fuel-economy are a by-product). Hence me trying to put together a 'formula' for this engine in the same way that Land Rover would have done it. Regardless of which engine I go for, I have already made arrangements for the engine to be mounted on a bench-dyno and set up to perfection. Massively OTT for a Land Rover, but this is as much an exercise in engineering as anything else.

Under project Gemini, Land Rover allegedly planned to build petrol, N/A diesel and turbocharged versions of the "200"-series direct injection engine. In the end (due to its vast superiority) only the turbo-diesel survived and became the 200TDi which we know and love. However, if they had put a N/A version into production, I'm curious as to what differences there would have been between this and the TDi? Clearly, like all LR engines there would need to be some degree of parts-sharing between the units. Really I'm looking to identify all those parts of the 200TDi which have been optimised for forced-induction so that, in building a new engine, one could (by carefully choosing different diesel engine components from the Land Rover parts bin) build a true naturally aspirated project Gemini engine. Obviously I'm aware that the "200Di" (a 200TDi with the turbo removed) has gained some degree of popularity in Series Land Rover circles, though this is very much an adapted turbo engine. If Land Rover were to have optimised this engine for natural aspiration on a large scale - what changes do you think they would have made? A new exhaust system and manifold would be needed, both to remove the turbo mount and also to optimise for the breathing characteristics of the different type of engine (a good exhaust manufacturer could make this based on the 2.5 NAD system, for short run production, a tubular manifold could be made, large scale would be cast steel). Inlet manifold... I'm not sure on this one. The discovery 200TDi engines, and all later 300TDis feature a beautiful aluminium (?) inlet manifold - clearly this is expensive to produce. Am I right in thinking that in the absence of a turbo, a standard four branch manifold would be more than sufficient - like the one on the Defender engine albeit without a turbo? The compression ratio could stay the same (it is 19:1 - other manufacturers have maintained the same compression ratio in similar engines between their N/A and forced-induction engines, the example I have is the ford transit 2.5 Di engine)....which means that the compression chamber could remain unchanged (no work to the head) and the piston shape and size (offset-bowl pistons) could remain the same - Though I'm not sure if changing the pistons for a different type would benefit the engine. Crank and con-rods are plenty strong and the throw need not alter so could remain unchanged. I can't think of any way that these would change between a N/A and turbocharged engine. It has been said that the blocks of 200TDis are similar to outgoing models, but they have different part numbers - again, I can't think of any way that these would change between a N/A and turbocharged engine. Timing? I would like to see a chain on a simplified engine, but not sure if NAD parts are interchangable with TDI.fuelling and timing would need to be properly set-up on a dyno. Fundamentally, to do the job 'properly' and build a properly-engineered 2.5 N/A 'direct injection' engine - I think it would be just a case of starting with a TDI, fully reconditioning it, producing an appropriate inlet and exhaust manifold and putting the unit on a bench dyno to set timing and fuelling correctly. Sorry for the brain-dump but this has kept me up all night. Anyone have anything they would add ti this setup?

Hi folks, I'm hoping for some pointers here. I will soon have to start preparing an engine for my chassis-up restoration of my SIII and I would like a 2.5NAD I also think this would make an enjoyable little project. This engine will be freshly built on my engine stand and any necessary machining work will be carried out by my local machine-shop. I like to source my engine parts from Turners. I'd like to prepare a 2.5 NAD that looks like a 2.25 5mb diesel and fits the same way using the same pedals, hoses, mounts, etc. Its important to me that this uses Land Rover parts wherever possible and also that it fits without cutting the chassis (I don't mind losing the battery tray if needs be though). It would also need a vacuum outlet to power my brake servo. I have absolutely no problem with breaking a few donor engines to get the right combination of parts - I've got plently of time and space to do this and already have access to two of the three engines. I'm aware that this has been done before (I understand that Mr Hancock has done a few to great effect) and was hoping that forum members would be kind enough to help me prepare a "recipe" for the right engine. So far, I've come up with this (predominantly thanks to the posts by Phil Hancock on various forums): 2.25 (10j) engine mounts onto standard chassis mountings Sherpa (or maybe FX4 taxi) cylinder block (14j/15j?) Ninety/One-Ten (12 or 13j?) (cylinder head, pistons, rods, crank) after this I get confused - I think that in order to keep the engine mounts original, I either need to:stick to the sherpa pump/belt and cover (which I don't want to do as I'll need the ability to wade and don't fancy the rarity of the parts) OR revert back to a timing chain by using:the chain and tensioner from 2.5 petrol (could someone confirm this?) the skew gear assembly, quill shaft, injector pipes, timing case, water pump, bottom pulley and injection pump from the 2.25 5MB diesel. ​I'm sure it will all make sense as I come to build it, but I'd like to gather the parts needed in advance. Many, many thanks for any help you may be able to offer.

Thanks guys - most reassuring. I have some new oil seals, nylocks and gaskets - o I could swap them. I'll have a weigh-up and a brew this weekend and decide if its worth it or not.

Hi folks. Hoping for some help here. I’ve rebuilt my axles on my 1972 SIII SWB with all new seals, gaskets, bearings, etc. They’re looking fab and I’m really quite proud of them. However… I’m worried that I have fitted the oil seals incorrectly in the end of the front axle casing (part number 217400). I've drawn a diagram of a cross-section of the end of the bare axle tube (without the swivels fitted). There is a recess for the oil seal and I tapped it in all the way to the back of the recess, against the lip inside the axle tube (the seal shown in red on the attached diagram). However, I think this is a mistake as I now think that it needs to sit flush with the end of the axle casing (as shown in red on the attached diagram). Please could someone tell me which is correct, green or red? If I’ve done it wrong then I’ll order new gaskets, nuts and a seal and correct it before I fill the axles with oil. Many thanks indeed.

Howdo folks, I appreciate that "how do I upgrade my brakes" has been done to death - but I just want to make sure that this combination sounds OK. I'm building a 1972 SWB SIII and this week's job is the brakes. I would like to end up with 11" front, 10" rear, servo-assisted dual circuit brakes. I've already have a large stock of late SWB and early LWB brakes (servos/pedal boxes/drums/backplates/etc) and will be making my own brake lines. This is the combination I am planning: Front 11" LWB/1980- SWB drums, backplates, wheel cylinders and sundry parts. Rear 10" 1980- SWB drums, backplates, wheel cylinders and sundry parts. My question is regarding the master-cylinder. The easiest thing is to use the late, rationalised master-cylinder used on late SWB and LWB SIIIs (p/n NRC6096). However, they are expensive, and are of a slightly different design to the earlier units which wouldn't look quite right in the engine bay (I'm a bit of a rivet counter and like period upgrades over later parts). Britpart are the only replacement supplier and I'd rather have a better manufacturer (Bearmach or OE). So, that leaves me a choice of 569671 (m/c for those pre-1980 SWBs fitted with the optional dual-circuit 10" system) or 90577520 (m/c for those pre-1980 LWBs fitted with optional dual circuit brakes). Both of which are available from Bearmach quite cheaply. My logic says that I should get 90577520 - the early LWB m/c as I would have the same twin cylinder front/single cylinder rear combination as a 109. Does this make sense - matching the master cylinder to the wheel cylinders? Ta.

Thanks Dave. Yes I have a new rubber gaitor ready to go on. The seal I'm talking about is a ring that fits inside the threaded collar on the sliding joint. I can grab some photos tomorrow if needs be.

Hi, I'm about to start reassembling the two propshafts for my 1972 SIII SWB after a fell strip, clean and repaint. The propshafts yoke has a threaded collar on the sliding joint, which I had to remove. Inside this collar was the remains of a seal presumably to hold the joint together and to keep the grease in. The front prop had a rubber/cork seal while the rear prop had a sprung metal seal - a bit like a piston ring oil scraper. Problem is that these aren't shown in my parts manual and I can't find a single reference to them online. Anybody know where I can get such a seal? I may have to measure up and just get a generic rubber oil seal to fill the gap. Thanks in advance.

Hi folks, I'm about to send my Lucas DM2 distributor to the Distributor Doctor for a rebuild and calibration. However - it begs the question as to whether I should have it built up as standard or with electronics. The car is a daily driver and will also be used for overlanding for 2-3 months at a time fairly regularly. She is in the process of a big budget refurb - engine, carbs, transmission, wiring, cooling, etc. all being carefully rebuilt. I like the idea of electronic ignition - fit and forget, perfect tuning all the time, engine running as efficiently as possible. However the reliability issues worry me. So... all things being equal, which is more reliable - coils or electronics? I'm happy to carry spares - and given the use I'm putting the car to I'm happy to spend a few £££ to cover a complete spare base-plate (if using points) or a complete spare electronic kit - so I don't want money to be a deciding factor. Distributor doctor recommended a Pertronix kit but also said I should carry a spare baseplate c/w points just in case - this implies to me that points are more reliable than electronics. Simply which is the most reliable? Many thanks.

Thanks I'll give reseting it a go. And I'll give RPI a shout.

Hoping you can help with this one. My Dad has a late P38a 4.6 Range Rover Vogue on a V-reg having owned it since nearly new. He bought it as his dream car and has poured a lot of care and money into it since with every bit of service, repair and maintenance done by a main dealer. The car is a bit of a gem and he wants to keep it forever but it needs some investment in the engine bay and electrics. There are, like all P38s, some occasional electrical gremlins – the latest being the passenger side front window which was opened the other day and then refused to shut. Nothing was jammed, nothing broke – it just wouldn’t shut and there is no noise from the door panel when pressing the switch to indicate that the motor is moving at all. Its as quiet as a mouse. The back window still works just fine. Is this, and future faults, worth investing in a Hawkeye from Bearmach – given that he wants to keep it ad-infinitum? Secondly, and this is the main one – it looses water. Loads of water. The engine has done 125k miles so we are well aware that a rebuild is overdue, I’ve heard anecdotally that a 4.6 is good to about 120k miles if cared for. The rebuild will go to ACR or RPI I would say unless anyone has any other suggestions. However we would like to at least identify the water leak first. The main dealer has had the dash out to check the heater/aircon/etc., they claim to have done one of those UV leak tests and have alse changed the v-gasket on top of the block. They charged a fortune for this every time, and each time claimed the fault was fixed – it isn’t. There is a lot of liquid around the header tank and we’re wondering if it could be that simple. So Question 1 – any ideas on the window? Question 2 – any suggestions on where to get a high quality rebuild and engine swap at a good price? Question 3 – is the header tank a common failure or is this just wishful thinking? I think we’re gonna try a home made test with a bike pump to see if its leaking under pressure. Thanks folks.

Much like waiting for a bus... While waiting to hear back from Matt Lee, 4 one ton rims came up at a good price so I bought them. Need a 5th tho if anyone knows of one.

Thanks for the replies guys and to Soren for reassuring me a bit. I think it'll be definately less of a burdon on the axle than the same tyre on a LR-approved FC rim as such I think it'll be a winner. I'll end up with standard, common 750 tyres - nice and narrow so no extra strain on diffs - but with that tiny bit of extra offset that will help fill the arches (asthetics) as well as improving turning-circle and cornering (albeit slightly). Just waiting to hear back from Matt Lee - I had a quote a few years ago (v.reasonable) just need to see if it is a similar price now

In summary (after all my waffle!)... I believe that fitting 750R16 tyres on FC rims onto a rover axle would place more stress/load on the hub and wheel bearings than fitting 750R16 tyres on my custom rims. If we take it that 750R16 tyres on FC rims on a SIII is within Land Rover tolerances then the same tyres on my custom rims MUST also be within those tolerances. Does this sound right?

Team Idris. That is a nice way of looking at the ideals of how the load is applied to the bearings and certainly supports my view. Muddy – it does make sense and again your thoughts seem to mirror mine – especially with a view to the “extra inch slapped on”. If we just consider the strain in relative terms (a spectrum ranging from a tiny SWB rim right up to a FC big-offset rim) then I think my custom rims will sit nicely within this ‘safe spectrum’. Effectively the rims I’ll be having made will be exactly the same as a FC rim except that the rim lip will be an inch closer to the hub. By that logic, if we assume that the FC rim with a 750R16 tyre places an acceptable load on the hub and bearings, then the custom rims would place less stress on the same parts as, while the inner face of the rim and wheel-centre will be in exactly the same relative position, the outer face of the rim and tyre would be closer to the hub (approx 1 inch). [Muddy, here we can say that the centreline of the tyre would be closer to the hub than it would be if the same tyre were fitted to the FC rim]. I’m sure that this is correct now, but being one of those people who needs input from others I’d welcome some confirmation of my pub-logic! The 110 load vs 90 pickup analogy is really useful, I would not want to rely on it (I would only fit the rims if they were strong enough for a fully loaded LWB) but as they will be fitted to a SWB SIII the reduced weight will offer additional peace of mind. Thanks folks!

Just before I have a proper read of your replies guys I thought I'd post the picture I meant to attach to the original post.

I've just noticed my lovely picture hasn't attached to the post - it really does say a thousand words! Its on my work PC so I'll attach it tomorrow!

Quick question here folks: Thought that LR4x4 would be a better place to post this querey given that it'll require a bit of scientific understanding rather than risking simply getting shouted-down on other forums. I'm having some rims set up by a specialist wheel manufacturer (almost certainly Matt Lee) for a custom/trick Landy project and need some feedback on my interpretation of some forces acting on the wheel bearings. The rims I'm having made are shown in the diagram attached, labelled as - "custom offset 5.5" LWB". For clarity I have shown the standard LWB rim and the Land Rover steel rim with the largest factory offset - the rarer FC wheel. Effectively these rims will be LWB with a bigger offset (the wheel disc will be welded to the rim outer in exactly the same position used on the FC wheel). We know that increased offset, either through extra offset wheels or through the use of wheel spacers increases the load/stress on wheel bearings... But, am I right in thinking that when I get my custom rims back and shod them with 750R16 tyres that the load/stresses I place on the wheel bearings will be greater than if I used a standard LWB steel rim but, at least to some extent, less than if I were to use a FC wheel with 750R16, 9.00x16 or 23585R16 tyres? I'm trying to reassure myself that the strain on the wheel bearing is within Land Rover tolerances for a Rover hub. I like to find a precedent before making a modification rather than simply relying on reports of "I've ran it like that for years and its been fine". As an added bonus it would appear that with the custom offset the face of the hub will be aligned with the centreline of the wheelrim (if that makes sense!), not sure if that is good for the axle but from a dynamic point of view it would seem preferable. Disclaimer: (just to avoid any sucking-through-teeth comments) he work will be done by a wheel specialist using the appropriate balancing/laser alignment/black magic and voodoo. I have considered using wheel spacers or 130/1-ton/FC/Rostyle/Wolf/Disco/aftermarket rims but they aren't appropriate for the custom requirements of the truck. And yes I'm aware of the costs involved (not bad actually). For further info on LR wheel offsets - this page is very useful: http://myweb.tiscali...tuff/wheels.htm Thank you!

The only alternative chassis (as apposed to complete spaceframes) I've ever come accross is the tubular chassis offered by P&P - see here . No write-up on it but from what I remember when it was covered in the press it was a straight swap for that on a Defender.

That's interesting, I'd forgotten about Bearmach - I've always had a great deal of faith in their parts, I'll give them a buzz tomorrow - see if they're still supplying chassis, have to admit I haven;'t seen one in a while.