BogMonster

I thought you could get gen LR ones, presumably they would match the other instruments?

The STC number is the Land Rover part number for a touch-up, it will be a pencil (aerosol paint is the same number but ending in VA). That is the part number you need to quote if you went into a dealer to buy a touch up pencil or aerosol, but the LRCxxx number is the actual paint code. It also comes under that type of part number because you can order the touch ups from the parts suppliers. A further bit of completely useless information is that the part numbers quoted in older parts books will just have an A or T suffix rather than VA or VT. The difference between those is that the older ones didn't have a lacquer bottle attached, but the newer paints are all lacquered and the touch-ups were changed to include a bottle or can of lacquer as well (even for the older solid paint colours that never were lacquered ex-factory - work that one out ) I have a lot of the LRC codes around so at some stage I will put up a post to go in the tech archive with as many as possible as I can list - it would be useful to have I think.

The code stamped on the vehicle, if you have a vehicle where they bother to stamp it, will be the LRC code, usually without the LRC prefix though. So my Discovery will have 961 on the VIN plate as the colour is Epsom Green LRC961, the 90 probably doesn't have any code as usually LR don't bother on Defenders! I order paint for work and we always use the LRC code, never had any problems with that.

Not sure where LAL came from, the Land Rover colour code for "Bonatti Grey metallic" is LRC659. I don't recall when it was introduced but I can think of a vehicle here that is about 3 years old that is that colour, my 90 is that colour and I know there are newer ones around that colour as well so AFAIK it is still current. Take a baseball bat and ask the nice man at Halfrauds again

Hello and welcome I use a Bikini with my Milemarker from Alfred Murray I don't think it is strong enough for something with the grunt of a Milemarker so a different mounting arrangement is on the cards. Not sure about the Superwinch bikini mount It might be OK for a temporary solution though, and they are MUCH cheaper than a proper winch bumper - mine was £99

Nige NTC8572 is a Disco rear, and yes I think they are supposed to be progressive/dual rate though I don't know how you "rate" those!

I think it is an air vent So when foreigners start shooting at the driver and he s**ts himself you can open the vent to let the smell out

The Superwinch one pictured on DB's site has side plates as well but basically the same idea otherwise as the MM design, which is as you say Nige just an L shaped bit of plate (well it also has a return folded on the back so a U shaped bit really, but it's a very small U... )

That would be the bit at the bottom that says "1983 Gas Converted Defender 110 V8" Nige Welcome

If it is like the Milemarker bikini which I think it is, I don't think you should chop the lower ones off. It would probably be OK on a straight pull but any up/down component will flex or bend the mount up and down and possibly crack the winch casting! The MM bikini flexes a bit as it is under high load and needs to be stronger not weaker (it is 6mm plate for the main part and 10mm for the arms down to the lashing eye bolts). The bolts through the existing bumper are not contributing anything to the argument IMHO if it is just a std LR bumper as the metal is far too thin to give it much strength. A flatbed mount on a truck is a different thing because it is always pulling straight back if winching a car onto the bed etc. the loads which damage winch mounts are likely to be the extreme angle high/low or side to side ones.

I don't really know what the protocol is but as people nick stuff and re-post it all the time I don't suppose it matters, if the original source complains it will have to be removed though. From what I could tell the items weren't hot-linked to somebody else's site which would be the main cause for complaint.

Er.... Why would anybody do that then? [innocent whistle]

It definitely didn't wobble like that before I raised the front end so it has to be something to do with that. Don't think there is a problem with anything seized - the vehicle is only 18 months old so there had better not be! It's due for a service anyway so it can be checked then. It has the new type Td5 front prop on it (with the big UJ's) though I doubt that makes any difference one way or the other.

Will, I guess you ain't as fussy as me I don't know why it is causing a problem, the steering feels fine, just that damned wobble Pulling fairly hard across soft ground in 3rd low this morning the gearlever was wobbling about 3/4 inch side to side with the prop vibration (it wasn't doing that pre-lift) raise the speed & get it into 4th and the gearlever shake disappears but you can still "feel" it through the vehicle - if your seat of the pants is as tetchy as mine! I think the gearlever wobble is just a harmonic resonance with the frequency of the vibration hitting the resonant frequency of the engine/transmission on its rubber mounts. High speed on road is not really the problem (though I am sure I can still feel something) it is just high torque/low speed situations that are the problem. 1st high and 3rd low with ~ 2000rpm and a lot of throttle, i.e. towing on road or, as I was this morning, bombing through some boggy camp Had to take to the camp because some bugger dug up the road: Stopped for a look, a chat and some photos and then the detour was about 20 min to get around the head of the creek across some "interestingly soft in places" ground which was fun 4th low difflock, plant it and hang on, tread lightly my ar&& I don't know exactly what the ride height on mine is compared to a completely std 90 front end, but its about 60mm higher than it was before I changed the springs over, I don't have a std 90 on 265s to measure unfortunately. But the front on mine now sits higher than the back. It's a frggn nuisance as the setup is otherwise ideal for what I need, just needs a bit of extra height at the back to make it sit level and it would have been fine

Can anybody comment on how much suspension lift you can get away with WITHOUT having any wobbly prop problems? My 90-rear-springs-on-the-front-plus-rubber-isolator-rings mod has lifted the front bumper height about 60mm above what it was to start with (which was a bit below std due to the winch) and having been away for a run today, it has got to go as the UJ vibration is really noticeable when pulling hard in low range on soft ground and it can't be doing anything any good. So one option is to refit the original springs with something like 1" spacers underneath, and retain the isolator rings, this will provide about 1.3" above what it was originally. But - how much lift can you get away with and guarantee no vibration?? I will be mighty if the 2nd attempt has the same result! Advice please .... who has done a lift without any vibration problems and how much did you get away with? Bearing in mind at all times please that I am a fussy bugger and the slightest wobble at the top of the gear lever will have all the toys exiting the pram again Ta Stephen

Later vehicles made in the last decade or so mostly have a stupidly complicated system which is all to do with "evaporative loss control" i.e. removing hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere. My 90 has a slight negative pressure in there, so does the Disco, but I think they must keep it to a small pressure differential to remove chances of tank damage, while not letting any nasty things out to damage all the little ozones In the good old days of course nobody worried about such rubbish like how much fuel vapour escapes from your tank into the atmosphere, and a good old fashioned vent was plenty good enough

Take a plastic drinks bottle, warm it up so the air inside is nice and warm (sit it on a radiator for a bit), and then put the cap on. Put it in a sink full of cold water. It will be "a little smaller" once the air inside has cooled down - the same thing will happen to an unvented fuel tank, and even more so if there is a 4.5 litre Eales sucking hard on one end as well I have seen a RR with a blocked vent pipe and the fuel tank only held about 30 litres after it had collapsed!

I also know somebody who ran 33x12.50R15 on 7" rims (305 wide) on a Toyota and had no problems, though they looked a bit odd and I really wouldn't recommend it! At the other extreme I know somebody else who put 11.50s on 10" wide rims and they looked even more odd...

www.mods.dk Lots of useful stuff on there not sure if any of it relates to CB kit (I don't know any CB models that people use offhand) but there's something for just about all of my 2m VHF collection (7 radios at the last count )

Found this link in some old emails and it cheered up an otherwise ***** day so I thought I would share it New Highway Code

285s are about the same as 11.50s, 12.50s are fine on 8 inch rims so I should think 285s will be OK on 7s, though 8s might be better

In other words LR are intending to counter criticisms that the Td5 is too F***ing complicated by introducing an engine that is even more F****ing complicated... Fine on a Western European motorway, don't think I will be buying one for here thanks. And the "lots of power out of a little engine" argument only works on paper ... look at the Td4 which in theory matches a 300Tdi for power/torque. Put one in a 130 and try towing with it and I should imagine it would be a different story, since I recall my Td4 Freelander being irritating in all conditions at low revs. No good for an off road vehicle IMHO

Probably could be either but I would expect 265s to be fitted to 7in rims normally, unless somebody was going for the "fat boy" look

PMSL! Richard you could have warned us that was coming - I was only halfway through my first cup of coffee this morning and I thought the end of the world was nigh

But it looks like a VW Beetle!