Jump to content

Daan

Moderators
  • Posts

    4,950
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Posts posted by Daan

  1. 21 hours ago, Mossberg said:

    16352730188638503791588614502154.thumb.jpg.a1bcfc98e9a7355e7085ba5447964b13.jpg

    This type I tend to use. as an aside, is it just me but is anyone else having to spend ages in the garage trying to find a pair of gloves and only seem to find LH ones? I found 8 on the last count but not a single RH.

    Daan

  2. I was under the impression that current MOT regulations are already like that. So if you remove a catalyst you fail the MOT basically, among with more stringent regs like reading out the ECU to see if all is as it should.

    It is not unreasonable I think, as manufacturers go to great lengths to get a car legit for Euro 6 for example, only for a chip tuner to mess it all up again. It runs better like this, yes but the particle emission is no longer compliant with Euro 6 and does nasty things to peoples lungs. So in effect your car is no longer legal and may be in the wrong tax class because of higher CO2 levels.

    I suppose the VW emission scandal has made politicians wiser to this problem as well.

    Of course, as with all these things, it is only illegal once proven guilty, which may be where the good intensions stop. As for non registered vehicles, nice to mention it, but does anyone police it?

  3. 11 minutes ago, B reg 90 said:

    I think the 'spangle' increases over time based on my D3 chassis I had galvenzied. Over 10 months since galvanizing it has gone from the shiny finish below too the finish in the second picture with more 'spangle'. 

     

    Adrian

    IMG_0120.JPG

    IMG_2565[1].JPG

    Looks really good Adrian. This really needs a build thread!

     

    Daan

    • Like 2
  4. 43 minutes ago, Stellaghost said:

    Well I reckon I've come to a decision.....

    Going to build up with a spare set of pro comps..

    Then lash out on a set of Fox remote reservoir shocks

    I trust this meets with your approval lol regards Stephen

    Well, at this rate, your car is going to be all my fault. Every part of it! :SVAgoaway:

    • Haha 1
  5. 2 hours ago, Troll Hunter said:

    This started out as an E10 petrol thread.  What happened???   For the last n pages it's been only about fuel shortages!

    Should we have a "Bitch Forum"?

    Mike

    No need, we can bitch and moan at every/any subject.

    • Like 1
  6. 1 hour ago, landroversforever said:

    Unless the reg number was sold on, I last saw it for sale on facebook painted olive drab. Did he sell it to Ed Cobley? I remember him having one with that plate on it. 

    Now owned by a chap called Freddie Rothwell with Kanarie paint job:

    image.png.2f5f87137618910a48ea36d30a15a280.png

     

    Also, Nick Field own this one, with TDV6. it used to have a 4.6 rover v8 and was used in the RFC, I think in 2001:

    large.5b4505e408e8a_IMG_22411.JPG.2910e86f83373b7259c03c70a99f27ee.JPG

  7. On 9/26/2021 at 2:44 PM, simonr said:

    I agree.  OME Dampers are a great replacement for OE.  The valving has enough bandwidth (that probably isn't the right term applied to dampers) to work well with a wide variety of vehicle masses and spring rates.

    Fox on the other hand (at least, the ones I've had) are quite narrow band - so you have to be prepared to play with the valving to achieve critical damping and don't have enough bandwidth to cope with the difference between empty & fully laiden.  When you have set them up right - they're blistering.  However, for most people, it's not worth the time / hassle of rebuilding the shocks several times to get it spot on.  So, in conclusion, unless I became a lot less busy, I'd fit OME!

    Edit: Having clicked on Daan's link, these are not the same kind of Fox dampers I'd used.  Mine had spherical joints on the ends - and they don't seem to sell anything like them any more!

    The fox factory mount dampers are indeed a different product from the universal race dampers you are referring to.

    They are direct fit, plug and play shock absorbers. They can still be rebuild and revalved, should you wish so, but they are meant as a quick and cheap way of getting fox shocks on your truck:

    https://www.ridefox.com/product.php?m=truck&t=shocks&partnumber=985-26-123&make=Land Rover&model=Defender+&year=2013&position=Rear

    Here is a video which shows you the specifics (you need to look past the commercial waffle, as usual):

    I like the concept though.

    Daan

  8. To be fair, you could also replace the bottom rubbers for softer ones, like the procomp ones. I don't think there is anything wrong with the design of the shock as such, but the bushes are polyurethane, and rock solid when done up, which caused them to bend. I think any other shock would have done the same with those bushes. The angle they go through on max articulation is quite large.

  9. They were +2", which makes them 10" I think.

    I used these at the front:

    https://www.prolinx.biz/Catalogue/Shock-Absorbers/Truck-SUV/Land-Rover-Shocks/Fox-20-Land-Rover-DefenderRange-Rover-Front-PSeries-RRes-2-FOXLANDROVERDEFENDERFRNTPS2RR

    And these at the back:

    https://www.prolinx.biz/Catalogue/Shock-Absorbers/Truck-SUV/Land-Rover-Shocks/985-24-080-Landrover-PS-Front-2-Lift

    It was like that as that was all that prolinx had in stock, and I needed them in time for Croatia.

    I since came to realize the IFP at £155 is insane value. I would have them all around and replace the bottom rubbers for spericals. Best bang for buck by a very long way IMO.

    Daan

    • Thanks 1
  10. 3 hours ago, miketomcat said:

    What I ment was I've learned how to tow trailers therefore there's no reason others can't. Equally there's plenty that have learnt but shouldn't be allowed.

    I guess my overall point is a friend had to tow his caravan with a car rather than his disco 2 because of the 3.5 ton rule and that's definitely not safer. Therefore ditching a daft rule is better than nothing but realistically it should be replaced with either amalgamating into the test or an outright ban on towing without a test (though sensibility that would have to start from new licenses).

    Mike

     

    3 hours ago, miketomcat said:

    I see what you are saying and I agree that the current rule is daft but you could also say "I've never worn a seat belt and I'm still here". Doesn't mean it is sensible and safe. 

    Both of these points are true; for me, I have been towing several times, but not enough to warrant going for a trailer test. But it meant I was usually illegal.

    Thing is, I would have had grandfather rights, had I done my test in the UK. But I had a dutch license, and I tried to wiggle it in such a way that the year in which I got my license, would give me grandfather rights in the UK. Not so, as no grandfather rights in Holland, means no grandfather rights in the UK. So I am happy with this move. But it is not good for everyone.

    large.1928001745_landroverregremoved.jpg.3d157a18c6596530ac2de1fd613fa7e2.jpg

    My last (borderline legal, but safe) towing adventure.

    Daan

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy