twodoorgaz

Thanks Gazzar. They're really close to me so can swing by with a few samples and can have a chat.

Thanks everyone. That's really helpful. So - I found the OEM who made the Seriestrek front UJ halfshafts (Dutchman axles in the US). They still have the drawings and can make them, but they're a lot of money at about $1400 - there is a big demand for uprated UJ-type front halfshafts in the US for some of the smaller Dana axles, like the 40 - though these tend to be open knuckle types. A set of these would be by far the easiest route forward, though while I'm willing to spend that sort of money on a permanent fix - I'm less inclined to commit to spending that sort of money on what is fundamentally a consumable item that couldn't be quickly replaced in the event of a failure (not without swapping back to a 10 spline diff and refitting factory halfshafts). Unless there's a UK engineering company with experience of yoke-type shafts. Daan - a custom 24 spline innered, otherwise standard-spec halfshaft has been on my mind over the past few days. I've been considering having just a pair of inner sections made and fitting standard UJs and standard 24-spline outers. That way it creates a natural weak(er) point in the easily replaceable outer shafts/UJs but protects the vulnerable diff end by upgrading to 300M or similar and 24 splines. I hadn't considered recycling a couple of spare long ends - as you say the issue is the lack of material in to recreate the long end. I don't know if the shaft and Yoke are cast/turned from one piece or if the Yoke is made separately and somehow fitted/friction welded onto the shaft. If that's the case then perhaps someone like GB could separate a factory yoke and reattach it to an upgraded 24-spline inner shaft. That would do me nicely. I hadn't heard that the DDE kit forces you to use aftermarket wheels - is that just their Disc brake kit (bear in mind I'd be using my Heystee hubs) or the CV kit? For reference, the DDE kit I was referring to is here: https://www.designdevelopmenteng.co.uk/shop/Series-Land-Rover-CV-Front-Axle-Conversion-Kit-p389433970 Re: the Heystee kit - just to be clear I've already bought this and it is the type designed for the earlier bearing arrangement (1 large, 1 small) which as said above I understand relates solely to the hub they supply. I can't get hold of Heystee to order a metric/later hub that would let me make use of the DDE CV kit. Interestingly, this post on Guns'n'rovers covers much of the same issues I have and it was resolved by buying a DDE kit, less the custom stub axle, and Greg Forbyn provided an early spec stub axle that was tailored to an AEU2522 CV. I don't know how he does this, I assume its a turning operation on a factory hub. I called Greg and he's happy to supply a pair of stub axles that should work with the DDE CV kit along with my early-style hubs. I do actually prefer the earlier style of hubs - they are more readily available in the long term and the replaceable seal lands make them serviceable. The 1982- hubs do give me some obselesence concerns. My options seem to be: 1) pay the money and buy the SeriesTrek/Dutchman shafts. However this commits me to a difficult to source consumable part that might be needed in 20 years. 2) if the factory front halfshaft yokes can be seperated/machined off and reattached onto a new set of custom uprated inner shafts then this could be a really sustainable solution that would be adequate for this project (just trying to get something a little stronger than factory). 3) Convert to CVs - taking advice from the above: 3a) I don't want to/feel capable of completely designing this myself. Though I will read through any posts from gazzar/Jon/etc to better research this. 3b) I can't justify the £3k for the full DDE CV kit, plus I'd be nervous on having so many custom parts 3c)...so my leading option currently is to speak with DDE and find out how many of the parts are custom and how many could be replaced with standard/pattern parts following a milling/turning operation. Their kit looks amazing, but I realise that a lot of the parts are heavy duty custom made - whereas for my application even standard/pattern parts would be sufficient. I have a lathe and access to a mill so as long as I have a starting point I'll be away. But no sense in reinventing the wheel for basic shims and pins and the custom inner shafts etc.

Ps, Gazzar - could you share contact details for GB Engineering? I’ve googled it and there’s loads but none that look right. my ideal scenario would be for a pair of SeriesTrek front halfshafts but Jim hasn’t made them in 10 years. They seem to be based around a Dana 30 yoke and UJ and there’s loads of firms in the US that do uprated shafts for them. So with the right measurements and bearing/seal positions they should be able to knock up a set. CV conversion is possible but very involved DIY and very expensive off the shelf. Plus given I have 4x2/4x4 it’s a bit unnecessary for me.

Thanks all - I’ll have a good read and a weigh up. Snagger - with the 50:50 split I was assuming in 4x4 low with equal drive hitting both front and rear. The torque multiplication would then surely be the same as that faced by a rear axle in the same circumstances. I hadn’t appreciated that even with the transfer box effectively ‘locked’ that with spinning rears the front axle could see more than half the torque… bugger. re: my reference to LWB front shafts, there’s not much in it but I was convinced the majority of LWB vehicles had 24 splines at the hub and 10 splines at the diff with SWB vehicles having 10 spline in each end. Until as you say the early ‘80s rationalisation when SWB vehicles gained the 24 spline hubs along with 11” front brakes. But looking at my SIIA parts catalogue, it’s the same part number - so you must be right. regardless, I have a set of 24 spline ouers so I may as well use them. the chap who used to make uprated fronts was SeriesTrek in the US but he’s long since stopped trading. He used common US Precision Brand 371 UJs in some sort of yoke on custom shafts, but I was never able to figure out the yoke source with a view to approaching a U.K. manufacturer. I’d buy a set tomorrow if I could get a source. http://www.expeditionlandrover.info/frontAxleRebuild.htm Gazzar, I’ve read your post. Currently I thing CVS and custom shafts are the only way to upgrade. I’ve looked at the kits from Design and Development too - my issue in that regard is I’ve already bought the early type of Heystee swivel housings (1x big bearing 1x small) and the D&D kit only suits the later hub style. I wouldn’t want to make my own kit.

Brilliant - thanks both. I've been gathering bits for years to assemble a really solid V8 SWB, every now and then I pop in and check on something else. The last things to get are the rear shafts and ATB from Ashcrofts which I'm about to order now they're back in stock. The engine is about to go for machining so I can dial-in as much power as I like but am trying to set sensible limits on torque - I'm aiming for "would Land Rover hand done it on a regular production vehicle" rather than "it'll be OK if driven sensibly". I only need a little and a standard 3.5 V8 is usually plenty for me in a SWB Series but I want a very balanced, torque-appropriate drivetrain behind it. I have a 9.5" clutch (300TDI had the same size and 195lb-ft) A suffix L stumpy 050A ratio R380 with a Milner adaptor ring and custom input shaft (allegedly good for 380NM, but known to be fitted to a 4.0V8 with 250lb ft) Standard SIII transfer box with Ashcroft kit (allegedly fine behind even big American V8s so plenty for any RV8) Shortened rear prop and extended solid 3.9 RR front prop (fine for everything) (to buy) Ashcroft 4-pin 4.7 ATB (no idea, but can handle a lot more than I want to put through it) (to buy) Ashcroft uprated 24/24 rear halfshafts (again, no idea but can handle a lot more than I want to put through them) Standard front 4.7 diff (fine for 124lbft in a standard series in the rear when in 2WD, so logically should be OK for double that torque in the front axle, given torque will be broadly halved) Standard 24/10 LWB front shafts - I really wasn't sure about these hence the question. Heystee front swivels and 8" servo allowing me to fit a full Defender 200TDi brake system. A similar setup was used on the 180 BHP NAS110 V8s (disc/drum) as well as on pre-defender 90 V8s. Going off the above comments, I'm leaning towards making a set of (dangerous) assumptions: 1) if the front shaft doesn't tend to break at the UJs then given they're broadly the same thickness as a rear, then I'd assume a similar torque capacity in the fronts as the rear. If anything, they're shorter and would flex less. 2) The rear shafts take all 124lbft in a production SWB 2.25petrol when in 2WD 3) if the fronts are no weaker than the rear then this means they'll take a vehicle producing 248lbft when split 50:50 between the two as they'd only ever 'see' 124lbft.. The goal was to identify the weak point in the drivetrain, which I think I have with the clutch (proven in production to 195lbft). Which is great as that's more than enough for me and I'll send the 3.5 block away knowing that even with EFI it'll barely crack 195-205lb/ft and that every drivetrain component should (in theory) be well within their design limits and if I want to push it a little then I can just fit an uprated clutch to bring the capacity of the new system up closer to 240lb/ft - leaving a nice 20% buffer for those inevitable oops moments.

Hi everyone. just something I’ve been thinking about today. Has anyone in the forum ever broke a front halfshaft on a Series II/III Land Rover? While I haven’t (plenty of rears but never a front), I’m sure others have. if you have broken one - can you remember if it went at the diff splines, the hub splines or in the UJ? I'm curious to know whether the UJ portion of the front shafts is the weak point or if it (anecdotally) is actually less weak then the splines ends. I fully appreciate that the only time the fronts are under load is when 4WD is engaged - at which point the front axle will only really be seeing half the torque from the engine.

Lovely, just what I wanted to know. thank you very much.

Could anyone tell me the diameter of a Defender/Discovery TD5 factory clutch plate and a Puma Defender clutch plate? I can't seem to find a specific number on Google (I've seen 267mm, 270mm and 298mm all listed for a TD5 and a number listed for a Puma). I know that 4-cylinder land rovers inc TDi have traditionally been 9.5" and that the V8 models were 10.5", but I don't know the TD5 or Puma sizes (appreciating they may be metric). Thank you.

I promise I'm not going to try and start a 200 vs 300 TDi engine thread. That was done to death 10 years ago (just had a good chuckle reading through some older posts on the subject). But I would welcome some additional information on the 300TDI 'being quieter/more refined' line that is often repeated. For background, I've had a lot of Land Rovers - most recently a Puma 90 and prior to that a pair of 300TDi discoveries in parallel to a lot of Series IIAs/IIIs - so I fully understand that 'refinement' in LR circles is a relative term. On Friday I'm going to look at a RRC that I plan to buy - its an import and is almost rust free (genuinely) and is a factory 200TDi - I'd be buying the vehicle for its condition, the engine is a secondary concern as I could change it to anything during the restoration process if I chose. I don't think I will as the 200TDi has always been on my ownership bucket list and the RRC is a base spec, so no luxuries/electronics to 'spoil' with the absence of V8 noise - think of it as a more comfortable Defender. It is being bought to take back to a bare shell for a long-term restoration, so I have ample opportunity to subtly add soundproofing and dynamat etc. So, my query is: to what extent did the the 'refinement' comments of the day relate to the nature of the engine itself and how much was relating to the additional soundproofing added to the facelifted vehicles? Its probably best to think of Discoveries and Range Rovers here rather than Defenders. In my mind the 200 was considered noisier due to: (from older LR4x4 posts) 300TDi dual stage injection being quieter in retrospect than 200TDi single stage (from my head) The 300TDi had an acoustic hood which may have had a minor effect (which I also believe is a direct fit onto a RRC 200TDi, if anyone could confirm this I'd be grateful) (a guess, but...) Was the 300-era/1994-1999 discovery produced with better soundproofing on the under bonnet/bulkhead/transmission tunnel? Is there more to it than that? If I could bridge the gap a smidge between 200TDi's agricultural nature and the 300TDi's 'smoothness and refinement' I'd be chuffed. PS: not looking to swap to a V8 at this stage. Thank you.

Ha ha - I'm not actually local to Manchester. Merely a stray who ended up living here. On planning, the plot thickens. We spoke to an architect and planning consultant yesterday to go through a number of plans for the new property (incorporating the workshop but there's a load of other things). He is familiar with this particular borough's planning regs and he hadn't heard of a 30m2 max either. Obviously I'm fully aware that there is a 30m2 threshold for building regs, but in the chat above we were talking about a 30m2 max for permitted development too. After reading the post above from Steve B, I had searched for different terms and quickly found a link to an overview of PD on the Build It magazine website. That was where I saw the confirmation of the 30m2 maximum rule (https://www.self-build.co.uk/permitted-development-basics/ scroll down to "Maximum coverage of garages and outbuildings 30 sq m if garden covers more than 100 sq m or 20 sq m if the garden is less than 100 sq m". However, while this article references new rules... I hadn't read it properly as it was published in 2018. But other than Steve B's comment and that Build It reference I can find no other mention of a square meterage limit anywhere. Reading the government guidance it says that extensions (under PD) and outbuildings must not exceed 50% of the curtilage of the original house. I'm miles away from that, we cold build a low barn and be OK, in theory. However given the costs involved I am going to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development to get confirmation in advance. I haven't discounted a second hand lift, but they aren't too expensive new and given the amount I'll be spending on the garage I might as well order new - that way the slab can be made to a known suppliers specs.

Thanks all. As mentioned the size restriction is more driven by the visibility of the thing in the garden rather than trying to avoid planning. Its just so happens that with a clever roof design I wouldn't need planning at all. ...or so I thought. I had read everything I could find on permitted development and it wasn't until I read Steve B's comment above that I used different search terms on Google which brought up a previously unseen page - it looks like a recent change has come in that would restrict the floor area down to 30m2 before planning is needed. So joy - off to planning, in which case I'll eek out every dimension I can.

Flat isn’t an option unfortunately. If positioned >2m from the boundary (which this is) then or permitted development lets you go to 4m height with a dual pitched roof and only 3m with any other design (flat, pent, etc). In any case, the eave height is set at 2.5m max. Going through planning really isn’t a problem - it’d cost me about £650 extra and would certainly be approved. But I’d be doing it for the sake of 300mm of extra height (due to any higher blocking my partner’s views from another aspect) - which isn’t needed as I can comfortably fit any of the lift options at full height in the middle bay of the existing design. Plus it would certainly add 8-weeks to the process - which means keeping my vehicles and tools in storage for another 2 months (+£500). mezanines, etc are all out - so it’s just the lift decision to make.

Some great advice there - thanks all. there’s one point I hadn’t mentioned - I can’t lift the roof. For a number of reasons, the ridge height can’t really go above 4.2m (visibility, blocking views etc.) In the model above this building the ridge is actually only 3.9m which means that even though it’s massive it still falls under permitted development, so no planning permission needed - though is subject to building regs. I could increase the height by 300mm all round but that’s not a lot of gain compared to the hassle (and delay) of going through planning.

Steve/Arjan. You've had me thinking over the weekend about the 2-post lift. I'm still leaning towards 2 post, but am considering all the options. Its true, a 4 post won't suit my needs - but I'm starting to reconsider a scissor lift by way of a half way house. As its a new topic, I have started a new post and if you have any further insights I'd love to hear from you on the new thread which can be found here:

Firstly - let me apologise. Some months ago the forum was incredibly helpful in helping me choose a lift for a house I was buying with a 7.5x7.5m garage with a low roof. Sadly that house purchase fell through - that was the fourth time a vendor had changed their mind at the last second and decided to stay. So there is a big overlap between this question and the last, but it is a different application - so I do appreciate your patience. The silver lining of the sale's collapse is that we quickly found an alternative and we’re now just a couple of weeks away from completing on a new place, with a massive rural plot and I get to build my dream garage from scratch. Just finalised the simplistic 3D concept drawing and it's going off to the steel building manufacturers next week for their design team to work on it and get the whole thing to work around the lift (proper industrial, insulated building - not just a tin garage kit). The quote will be lined up and ready to go so that I can have the groundworks done immediately after moving in (the temporary storage bill is too high to take my time. The internal (steel) truss height is set so that I can lift a 110 (sans roofrack) up to full height (1900mm below the chassis rails) and still have clearance below the trusses and insulation. I am planning on using a 2 post lift. I understand the horror stories surrounding 2-post lifts - sometimes user error, sometimes an inadequate slab and recognise that a 4-post is safer and easier to use for regular servicing jobs. However, the majority of the work I do is in restorations - primarily Land Rovers of course, but also some classic British (and soon American) vehicles too including saloons and hatchbacks. The ability to lift bodies off chassis is enormously appealing, as is full sill access. I have looked at 4-post lifts, but I would need a jacking beam (which puts me into quite an expensive bracket) and the ones of that scale (as opposed to 'parking lifts' would take up a lot of space. There is a tight spot in the workshop between the corner of the lift and the home-office. I've recently reconsidered scissor lifts. As I am having the slab laid from scratch (I'm currently planning a 6.6" reinforced slab with concrete of >3000PSI strength), it does dawn on me that an in-floor lift could be suitable - this would significantly increase my working area in the workshop. In floor 2 and 4-post lifts are incredibly expensive (>£20k) but in floor scissor lifts are much more reasonable (£3k). I recognise that while these are great for vehicles with jackal sills, that on a LR they'd need some hefty rubber blocks to support the chassis rails - but that's fairly doable: a pair of 4"x4" posts with a thick rubber side could slide in easily. Scissor lifts do solve a number of the issues I had with 4-posts (free wheels and suspension without a jacking beam and no space restrictions if in-floor) but still couldn't let me lift a body off a chassis - I don't think. This is an area where if there is a trick to it, I'd be interested to hear - for example a set of blocks on the lift or a welded steel frame uprights slid under the vehicle that could lift the body high enough to clear the wheels and then locked off on tresels or something like that. As the entire structure is being designed around my hobby, it does open up some seriously interesting concepts. For example, having a pair of recessed sections in the slab and even a buried pipework tube to take the hydraulics means that I could have a seriously swish in-floor lift for little additional outlay - something like this: https://twinbusch.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=15. I could, I suppose, have the steel building manufacturer overspecify the I-beam roof trusses to support a simple lightweight crane rail system above the lift too - enough so that if I could lift it even only a few inches with blocks on a scissor lift that I could insert lifting beams and lift the body further with the crane system. There are a number of vehicles from which it would be good to remove bodies and cabs - of these, a 110 would likely be the heaviest and I'd guess the body would be just a few hundred KG so eminently liftable from the roof with a set of four electric hoists wired off the same switch. I've never had a dream garage before and want to make sure I make the right decision so would really welcome any advice. I really am torn. The most important thing to me is space - after that it is the practicality of it supporting restorations - I am highly unlikely ever to need to quickly swap vehicles around and I'm not a commercial business so if it takes a few mins to set up the lift that's no problem either.

thanks very much everyone - that was just what I needed. We've redrawn the initial sketch with the centreline of the lift running through just to the rear of the middle of the front doors. There's still plenty of space around it for different loadings, etc but wanted a reasonably representative model for a 'normal' loading position. Miketomcat - good shout. The lift is centralised in the workshop and the 110 can be loaded in forward or reverse. Steve B - I went backward and forwards on this, but the flexibility of being able to lift bodies off chassis (not just land rovers) makes a 2-post a winner. plus it takes up less space. I've worked on both and prefer a 2-post for the sort of work I do.

Hi folks. after a number of failed attempts, we’re finally completing on a new property with space for a big workshop. We’re fitting a full height 2-post lift and the biggest thing we’ll be lifting is a Defender 110. we’re designing the roofline and ridge height around the requirements of the lift, with the underside of the chassis rail set at 1900mm from the floor. we’ve measured up and have modelled both the 110 and the lift but the X-Factor that the architect’s draftsman needs is the Centre of Gravity of the 110 in relation to the position of the lift uprights. that might not be the right terminology. What I mean is: where in relation to the length of the 110 (both SW and truck cabs) will the columns of the lift be when everything is balanced up? in his original CAD drawing he had the lift posts sitting in the exact centre of the 110’s length. But when I’ve seen pictures of them on lifts, I’ve noticed that the posts are commonly positioned close to the front bulkhead door pillar line (in other words the overhand at the back of the vehicle when lifted is much longer than the overhang at the front). Hope that makes sense, if anyone could give a guide then we can update the building model and set the eave and ridge height. Thank you.

its approx 7.6m wide by 7.5m deep: a lovely size.

brilliant bit of info to learn there - thank you!

Fridge - thank you, that's really helpful. If I do go down the MS route I'll be sure to sick with Nige's kit. It was probably my bad writing giving the impression of confusion between MegaJolt and MegaSquirt - I'll confess the difference between the two systems was one of the few areas that I had understood. @elbekko - I'm sure to be wrong, but my understanding is that while the GEMS RV8 has a lovely flywheel mounted wheel and sensor that this was a different format from the common 36+1 toothed crank pulley wheels and that aftermarket ECUs couldn't read it making it necessary to tear it out and fit a trigger wheel on the crank pulley instead. If I'm wrong then that would be lovely as it would hide the wheel beautifully at the back of the engine. Edit: I stand corrected. It looks like the manual discovery trigger wheel is indeed 36+1 and can be used with MS. See here: http://www.super7thheaven.co.uk/rover-v8-trigger-wheel-megasquirt/. OK so this is pushing me back towards MS as that's a real boon for me in keeping the engine bay as simple as possible.

if anyone else is reading this and is just as new to this concept as I am then this article gives a lot of info: https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/adding-holleys-universal-coil-near-plug-ignition-system-big-block-mopar/

Wow - thank you. The LS coil aspect is new to me and that opens up a whole new world - I had always been nervous about the future availability of 1990s ford tech parts but if a modern plug on coil can be fitted to another engine then that's a game changer. Have just been through the ExtraEFi site. So (on an already injected Rover V8) : factory throttle body with injector + factory sensors + factory fuel pump + LS coil (one per cylinder) + short lead to run to factory spark plugs + trigger wheel + aftermarket ECU = fuel and spark controlled? Apologies, but if I was still to shy away from MS and throw money across the pond to Holley then you would assume that their Sniper system would have outputs to run the LS Coils too? The reason I'm so keen on the sniper is that I'm also planning to fit it to my otherwise stock 2.25p SIIA. I know that their Autolite 1100 throttle body is a near perfect fit in place of the Zenith carburettor (and looks fantastic) which solves a big problem that the Rover V8 doesn't have - given the latter already has plenty of factory injector/inlet/plenum options, however on that vehicle I always wanted to fit distributorless ignition too - I wonder if the LS coils can work there too. So, even more has changed in the last few years! Really interesting. Edit: Also just learned that the terminology for these magical coils seems to be "CNP" (Coil Near Plug) which is reassuring as I was picturing a spark plug with a coil attached directly to it and was imagining how much that would cost to replace (and how difficult it would be to fit to an alternative engine).

just to follow up. At the minute the only solution I'm aware of that gives me what I really want (fuel and spark with an idiot-proof install) is the full Sniper kit: (list pinched from an American range Rover forum) Sniper 2300 Sniper EFI HyperSpark ingition coil Sniper EFI HyperSpark ingition box Sniper EFI HyperSpark distributor Buick 215-350 Set of ignition leads (MSD) Fuel pump (I would recommend Bosch), filters and hoses The Sniper parts would cost me £1600 delivered (regular travel over there) due to the historically bad exchange rate. However, that would force me to use the interim timing cover and I really would prefer to run off coil packs instead of any sort of distributor.

Hi everyone. So from the start of planning my V8 build to actually picking up a spanner the world of EFI seems to have changed. At the time, MJ was one of the few DIY friendly options that could control both spark and fuel. Or a combination of Megajolt to run ford EIDS coupled with Hotwire for injection. Fast forward a few years and MJ seems to have crept up in price with lots of (granted, very nice) pre-built systems, the cost of complete aftermarket systems has come down, the cost of land rover ownership and the appetite/justification for investing more in parts has grown and the accessibility of aftermarket systems (thinking Holley Sniper here) has developed. The Sniper system in particular has developed momentum, with even the Series2Club forums containing plenty of members that have fitted the setup to 2.25 engines, spurred on by its use by NorthAmericaOverland on their series builds. So - at the risk of covering old ground, in 2022 what systems are recommended for the old Rover V8? For me, I'd be looking for an out of the box solution - I've had to admit that I don't have the skill or patience to experiment with a hybrid solution. I specifically want to run a distributorless system (the engine I'm building is based around a GEMS 4.0 serp front cover with no dizzy hole as I don't want to use a longer timing cover/waterpump so even the interim 3.9 timing cover with the dizzy hole and serp belt is longer than I'd like) and I'd like to run a simple throttle body (either one of the LR variants or a USA style intake manifold with a pancake filter). Its going in a classic so vintage looks are a big bonus. The Sniper system, with a connected Hyperspark distributor is available out of the box for a Rover V8 (listed as being for a Buick 215). That seems about as user friendly as you can get, can be delivered with an inlet manifold and I'm OK with the cost. That it automatically learns and has a user-friendly/idiot proof removable display unit is a massive plus... except it does need a distributor. Is there a system that I haven't mentioned (like Link or Fury or something like that) that can control both spark and fuel when used with the Ford EIDS coil pack. Or would I have to use a combination of MJ+Hotwire / MJ+Sniper or simple MS for everything. I don't know why but I'm just not comfortable running parallel systems, I'd rather an all-in-one - but probably not MS. I'm even open to keeping the carbs and just running MJ in isolation (I know, I know - I've been schooled previously on the downsides to carbs when I first broached this subject a couple of years ago.) Really appreciate any guidance - thank you.

Hi all - thank you very much. Some great thoughts there. So, the scissor lift is out. As is the pit. @Escape - that's a really good idea re: the full sized 2-post lift but with a limit switch, I hadn't considered that and a full size lift is basically the same price as a mid height lift as there's much more choice in the market. Re: headroom I just don't know at the moment, I didn't measure it when we went to look round the house but we have arranged to go back for a post-offer measure-up so I'll check. Its a decent height, I would guess around 2.5-3m but I'll need to make sure - more than enough to fit a full sized 2-post lift... I just couldn't lift the vehicle to the full height hence your suggestion of a limit switch. @LandRoversforever - thats another great idea. Currently it has traditional trusses, with long horizontals spanning across the tops of the wall plates. But given that the roof is only made from simple corrugated steel then the cost of changing the truses to a vaulted type and refitting the sheets would be minimal. It still wouldn't be enough for a full lift but may get me an extra foot or two. Thank you for the nightmares re the anchor bolts coming loose and the 90 falling 🤣. That might be enough to put me off the removable MaxJax posts altogether. While the slab is thick (it was built by a farmer to agricultural standards), I had already planned on having a section under each column cut out and back filled with cement to a much deeper level when the pit is filled. A final thought that has come to me is in the design of the front face of the garage. Currently it has two large up and over doors on each side with a large wall between them - pushing vehicle access to the edges. I'd already budgeted for new roller shutters. If I was to have some blockwork done and a new steel, I could swap the two seperate doors for a single double sized roller shutter and push this to one side, say the right. This means I could have one vehicle parked in the middle of the garage (under the ridge), one on the far right side against the wall and the left most bay would become the workshop area and with the door blocked up I'd gain valuable wall space for tooling and benches. quick sketch (not to scale)