Snagger

Still missing 21" of wheel base, with the directional stability that gives when towing, about 10" of rear overhang, the weight of those lengths of chassis and body, the weight of the seats and body structure. That's a lot more influence than an MoD bumper. And I suspect the 2.6 engine is heavier than a Tdi, too. As for the power steering, which you have now mentioned twice as somehow affecting braking ability, I don't see its relevance at all. It's a good mod, but makes no difference to retardation.

I'd replace the thrust bearings and would check the carrier main bearings while it's apart to see if they need replacement, but they're expensive, so keep the spares for later if the existing bearings are OK. I wouldn't trust the Britpart gears. The original gears shouldn't have worn much, and significant wear should be quite evident when you remove them.

I use an Ezibleed and it leave plenty of air in the clutch slave if I don't park the car nose-up; if the car is nose down, air is trapped at the piston, well away from the bleed nipple, and it absolutely will not clear regardless of duration, speed, pressure or flow of bleeding, either by foot or by pressure. However, that trapped air will prevent complete disengagement of the clutch, not complete engagement, so is not the cause of your slipping clutch.

That's misleading. The brakes on the 6 cylinder are not the reason it has the highest capacity. As I said before, the bigger brakes will just increase propensity to skid unless they tyres have more grip. An 88" has lower tow capacity because of its lower weight, which affects towing stability and maximum braking effort. To use bigger brakes for more retardation, you also need to increase tyre grip. Towing a trailer isn't going to do that; it increases the mass to be stopped without increasing grip through weight on the tyres.

You're quite right - the environment is a highly charged issue that has most people reacting emotionally rather than intelligently, and there is a vast amount of money being made by manipulating people into buying this or that product or service based on very flakey if not down right fraudulent information.

Given your location, the cost of fuel and the complexities and costs in changing engine type, I'd strongly advise rebuilding the V8. As much as I like Tdis, I know a V8 is a better drive; it's only the fuel costs in the UK that made Tdi conversions prudent, but with all the extra charges for diesels now and in the pipeline, it's not worth going that route anymore.

Easy, as they all said, as long as the rod ends aren't rusted solid into the track rod. As Sid said, the SII and III spec is 1.2-2.4mm toe IN. Defender, RRC and Discovery 1 is the same amount toe OUT (I think it's due to the permanent vs part time 4wd, the wheel thrust or drag bring the wheels into parallel while driving). It's important to get that the right way around, and most tyre shops will treat is as a Defender and screw it up.

The MoD cans have recessed welded seams. They shouldn't have any problem fitting the locker other than the width problem - they certainly shouldn't need to be set crooked. There shouldn't be too much free space, though, as otherwise they bump about and could split when full and heavy.

I'd suspect the master cylinder rather than the mechanical parts in the bell housing. TRW are the new Lucas brand, but their quality is not great.

No problem! I can see that you get my point by the way the conversation went - big brakes soaking up the heat on the track... well, that's not where SIIIs spend much time! Like I said, discs do make maintenance considerably easier and do give finer control, which Wes also mentioned. But they don't really warrant spending thousands on in the hope they will make much improvement to stopping distances over a well maintained drum system for the likes of us. It's shocking when you see what some people pay for the kits.

The brakes will still have more grip on the drums than the tyres on the road. You can only change that by adding load to the vehicle, not by towing. You need down force on the tyres to increase their grip to increase the braking capability. By increasing drum and shoe area and hydraulic pressure via a servo, you are just increasing the car's propensity to skid.

I have those lockers on my vehicle and had to stamp on the cans while empty to flatten them a bit to fit two per side. If you want to carry MoD plastic water cans, they're even fatter and require once side of the adjacent fuel can to be stamped in concave to fit the locker. That's why the new lockers on TUM (Wolf 110) and the after market lockers have bevelled doors.

A Tdi driven hard is a big ask of the SIII gear box and Rover rear diff (even more of a SII or SI box, and I know you have the Salisbury already, eliminating that problem). The last thing you'd want to do is tune the engine for more torque unless you intend to replace the gear box too. Even with standard Tdi tuning, you have to feed the throttle and clutch in progressively if you want the gear box to survive. Spin up the turbo and drop the clutch and you'll strip the teeth or shear a shaft.

It depends on the stainless grade - it's not all the same. They are far more brittle than mild steel, though, so I'd recommend the standard 8.8 or 10.8.

cj, I think that will give the most flexibility with gearing; the 1.4 takes both the GKN and Roamerdrive units, as well as underdrives, which is better than having a 1.2 transfer box when on hills or laden and also gives a taller final ratio engaged than the 1.2. The snag is the price of an overdrive, but they can be worth it depending on how you use the vehicle.

All correct.

Disc brakes won't give stronger braking - you're already limited by tyre grip with the standard 10" drums, let alone uprated 11x3" drum brakes. The servo makes the legwork a big deal easier, but fitting massive brakes to a smallish vehicle makes stopping harder, not easier, because you're more likely to skid. Disc brakes make servicing easier and maybe shed heat a little faster, though I doubt there is an enormous difference in that. I think they're easier to control under heavy braking, getting closer to maximum without locking, but that might just be me or an idiosyncracy in the systems I fitted, but bigger brakes and discs won't shorten your braking distance.

That is a good deal and the vehicle on a new chassis will be worth five or six times that, more if everything is restored as it gets transferred.

I got one of Marsland's last 109 chassis in 2004. It was apalling, and after the list of defects I sent them, I suspect they may have been prompted to scrap the jig. The front dumb iron spring holes were uneven, the space inside the dumbirons too narrow for the spring bushes, the rear suspension shackle outriggers were out of position, the engine mounts and gear box cross member were about 1.5" too far aft, the removable gear box cross member was bolted in place when the chassis was galvanised, welding it in situ, and the tub floor supports were all over the shop, raising the front of the tub 1.75" on the right and 2.25" on the left side. So be glad you can no longer waste your money on their rubbish.

But all LT230s have the same low range, regardless of Defender (and earlier), Discovery or older RRC?

Am I right in my understanding that all the LT230s and the BW have the same or similar low range ratio? If so, you could get a better range of ratios from a Defender with a 1.2 box and 4.1 diffs; LR probably compromised the Defender with a 1.4 LT230 because it was cheaper than having two sets of diff ratios in production (even though they already had to run a separate line for the Salisbury axles).

That'd be plenty - just enough to understand the concept. My 109 is obsolete, so should be unattractive to the Defender thieves, and has been too messed about with for the classic or spares market, but tidy security enhancements are always of interest. PM me if you don't want the orange paint manufacturers to see the concept (though I think the always wait until you have fully developed the concept before ripping you off).

I think pillory in the town square at weekends would do the job nicely for crimes like theft, vandalism and such. Violent crime should be a life custodial sentence though, except where there are exceptional mitigating circumstances (for example, I knew a man who did three years for GBH, but the guy he'd attacked was his daughter's rapist, who'd got off his own conviction on a technicality).

Would you post up a picture of that idea with the bar, please, Simon? I trust your ideas, but I'm not quite following the description.

I don't use the 109 for serious off roading - it's set up as an exped vehicle. It has a Def/Disco hybrid 200Tdi, a bit like yours, with 110 rear axle and Discovery front axle on 4.71 diffs after the 3.54 diffs proved incompatible with the SIII transmission (it was horrible to drive and eventually stripped teeth from third gear). 4.1s might work nicely as it is a little under geared, but I have no idea if they're still too much for the SIII box. I have bought a ZF22 and Borg Warner to replace the SIII transmission for noise and robustness, plus permanent 4wd, but if I fit those, I'll need an IVA and will lose the tax exempt VIN, so I have to think carefully about it. That would do well with the 4.1s too, but then again, most noise comes from the transmission and having the torque converter lock up at lower speed would save a lot of fuel and transmission heat, so the 4.71s are almost certainly going to stay. I'm sure an Eaton or Ashcroft ATB would fit 4.71 with a spacer ring between flange and ring gear - the 4.71 pinion head is smaller, after all. Better to have a thicker solid ring gear, though. It's going the other way, fitting taller gearing to the 4.71 diff centres that is a big problem.