Snagger

In that case, I'd go for the 300 missing the manifolds and use the existing parts, with a new chassis bracket on the right and a fabricated mount on the left for the unmodified exhaust to clear the 200 type mounting rubber and chassis bracket. You might need to do something about the rad shroud - I suspect the fan position will be slightly different.

The down pipe is very different, but since people here often use 300 manifolds and turbos to fit Discovery 200s in Series LRs, the Defender200 manifolds and turbo must also fit the 300. The trouble will be the left engine mount, which is where the vertical part of the down pipe runs. It might be possible to fit 200 mountings tot he block (so that you don't need to alter the chassis either), but that would probably take some fabrication. I have seen commercially sold conversion mounts that get around the same issue with the oil filter on the rhs. I think you're better off getting the existing engine reworked with a crank grind, rebore and oversize shells and pistons.

That's a shame. I liked QT.

As long as you don't get solvent or fuel on them, they should be much more dent resistant than aluminium. And you'll never worry about corrosion.

If you start increasing boost pressures or fuelling, then you are going to significantly reduce reliability. Discovery TD5s warp their manifolds and rip the studs out of the head far more than stock Defender engines, but once you start playing about with chipping or remapping, then there is always a price to be paid. Even VNTs running at the same maximum boost cause increased wear - by increasing low down torque while the oil pump rpm is low, the crank bearings take much more abuse. If you want reliability, then go for a standard engine and good quality fuel, coolant and oil.

I would be wary of scrapping those petrol engines these days. If you have the space, stick it in the back of your garage. I have a bad feeling that the EU have big and nasty plans for diesel engines in the next few years that could see a lot of us scrabbling to refit petrols.

They knacker your night vision, too, so it takes a short while to get it back after switching the lights off. Not a big deal, but the smaller, cheaper 6-LED units are better.

It might take a little while, but I'd be surprised if seam sealer was immune to sulphuric acid. Best if the bulk can be scraped off first to allow easy penetration between the steel plates to get any sealer that has managed to get between them, but in my experience, seam sealer usually sits over the lapped joints, not inside them.

Galvanising doesn't need to cover every spot - it acts electrolytically, so a bare patch of steel will dull but shouldn't rust as the zinc will oxidise instead. That is how ships hulls last so long - they have large billets of zinc bolted inside, which are replaced as they gradually dissolve sacrificially. So, areas like the ends of the bulkhead feet bolt tubes will be well protected with a dollop of grease.

I have some 16 LED units in my 109, and if anything, they're too bright. The 6 LED units in the 90 were ideal.

The acid dip should sort that out. If the galvaniser isn't acid dipping everything brought to them by every customer, then find another one - they don't know what they're doing! The acid dip isn't just to remove rust from the outside , bit also paint, grease and rust from the inside. If they're not dipping, then not only is the inside of anything the dip untreated, the bonding weak and the rust still present, continuing at a slower rate, but additionally the zinc will be heavily contaminated by all the dirty items dipped in it, which will not only give a bad zinc finish but could play havoc with priming and painting.

I bought a bulkhead that had been galvanised already. There were ripples in the flat sections - not a problem above the gear box tunnel as it gets covered by trim, but it is an issue on the front sections above the wings. It took copious filling to get a presentable surface for painting. It was no surprise to need to drill out the hinges for the vent flap pins, but what did catch me out was that the bonnet hinges uncurled with the heat and had to be bent back again with a slotted bar (not easy if you spot it after fitting the wings). I wouldn't do it again - I have it blasted, sprayed with red oxide and painted, and then have vast amounts of hot cavity wax sprayed inside with the bulkhead hung at orientations to help the wax cover every surface and penetrate every seam and joint.

I think screwing about with the springs and dampers is the wrong path. Stiffer springs, including adding air springs is suggested as a last resort for on road use (deflated off road) is still going to increase harshness, not just roll resistance - speed bumps and pot holes will be horrible. I found the ride quite harsh on my wife's standard 2009 D90XS, much harsher than my 109 on 3 leaf front and 4 leaf rear HD parabolics. An antiroll bar will the better solution. Any other method just substitutes one discomfort for another.

That's it - galv can look nice and clean for a short while, but it soon weathers and dulls, and eventually starts picking up stains and looks dreadful. My jackable sills are a little stained and will eventually be painted (for now, the sides are covered with reflective tape which looks black until a light is shone on it). My roof rack's ladder and the rear bumperettes pick up soot stains from the exhaust and it's hard to remove. It's fine for some applications, but not for bodywork. I hate the look of galv on rear cross members, too. It wasn't pretty on the body capping, but it served a purpose and looks best on Series vehicles purely because of originality's sake. Painted cappings look better on Defenders. Much more so bulkheads and 110SW B-pillars.

So he wants to wait until after something has disappeared? Sounds like an idiot.

E-coating should give very good results, and without distortion, filling of the vent flap hinges or unfurling of the bonnet hinges.

They're very good, though the bedrooms are a bit tight with an inflatable airbed.

I had vaguely similar plans for my Sankey, but I sold it when I emigrated. It has a lot of benefits if you are carrying a lot of kit.

Pedantic I know, but that equates to 60% more safely available energy, not 30% (80AHr is 60% greater than 50AHr).

I have a Brownchurch rack on my 109, half of which is boarded (plan to do the rest at some point). A Quecha 2-man "2-seconds Air" (the Air bit refers to side flaps that open for ventilation) fits between the rack's side rails with only a slight squeeze on the tent sides. It's not warm for deep winter camping and it doesn't fold up with the bedding inside, but at £40, and moments to erect and fold away, it's a cheap alternative.

Another option would be helper air springs that can be inflated for stiff suspension on road and deflated for soft suspension off road.

Can you not mount the ARB in another location to clear the fuel tank? I did that on my 109; 109 Ambulance bars go through the space used by the rear tank, so I just reorientated everything to fit, mounting it in front of the axle instead of behind. You may be able to do the same.

Mo, if you look at the X Eng anti roll bar as I said, you would see that you get the best of both worlds with a stiff ARB on road, disconnected in seconds for no impedance off road.

OK, OF, that close up does show cracks. New flywheel needed... Living up tot he farmer reputation there!

If you are happy with the suspension feel in all other respects and are just trying to reduce roll, then dampers are not the answer - they will make the ride harsher and articulation off road will require slower speed to accommodate the slower damping rate, which could have consequences for maintaining momentum. Stiff dampers will only reduce roll for momentary turns, like overtaking. Sustained turns will still produce the roll. The solution is antiroll bars, and if you venture off road much, the X Eng disconnecting bar is probably best.