Snagger

Brake line fracturing is not an issue if they are correctly routed and supported.

You don't have a snorkel, do you? That tends to make a booming noise with valve related oscillations.

Copper-nickel, to be precise. It's only slightly dearer than plain copper, so I have no idea why people go for pure copper...

They may be electrically different, have bodywork or seating alterations or other items that don't affect the mechanical or performance characteristics, but insurers still see them as non-standard because they can only cover what you get in a franchised dealer's show room. That does not mean that previous comments about the vehicles being unfit for the MoD or for LR's own rallies were correct. The comment that they should have been better assembled was entirely fair, the comment that they are incapable vehicles without extensive modification was utterly wrong, and many, many modified vehicles are less capable than they were when original.

Nige, I'm curious - is it just the inward fold that fouls the tyre, or the aperture in the wing itself? If it's just the fold, would folding the skin back on itself through 180 degrees instead of just 90 fix it?

It seems that it's not the ultimate pressure being applied to the pads that is the problem, not the friction developed between pads and disks, but the speed at which the pressure can be applied. I'd be looking closely at the brake lines and hoses. I have Goodridge braided hoses on my 109, and they are truly excellent (the only problem being they should not be clamped when disconnecting a calliper). I think you need to replace your hoses, and would recommend the upgrade.

Sounds all the more like air being sucked into the fuel system. Such leaks are hard to find as they are so small they don't let fuel out. Just be methodical - check each metal union for wear on olives and for tightness, check fuel lines for splits, chafing or loose fit over barbed fittings. Check the fuel filter's o-rings are in good order and that there is only one o-ring in each position (I had once accidentally installed the new o-ring in the top casing without removing the old one, with similar results).

There will always be some breathing as some gasses will get past the piston rings and valve stemns. The question is how much are you getting - that is entirely subjective; what one man says is small another may call high. Did you look at the bores and piston crowns while the head was off? You may have a scored bore, cracked piston or worn rings. The head is not likely to be the cause.

Fine if the pistons are the only damaged parts, and so cost effective, but if the head is also cracked, as is common, then it is more cost effective long term to fit a 200 - not just because the 19J will crack itself again, but also because of the better fuel economy. It's certainly more work though, given that pistons and heads can be replaced in situ in a day.

Then you need a new cap and float switch assembly. Second hand should do.

If you have already bypassed the solenoid, ruling it out, and have replaced the earths (ensuring the connection points on engine and chassis are clean), then the fault has to be either the battery or the starter motor. Try another battery or a jump start, and that'll confirm which it is.

Sort of - you have three left hand thread, and three right hand, but they are otherwise the same. HOWEVER, there were changes over the years in the threads - early ones had Imperial thread with a solid section at the top end where the outer clamp sits on the tube, they were superseded by a type with the same thread that extends all the way to the ball joint itself, and later by metric threads (full length). They are not cross-compatible, even on the Imperial type (you cannot fit the full threaded Imperial type to the shouldered tubes as the clamp will not act correctly, even though that combination will physically fit), so you need to find out what type are on your vehicle. Don't assume they are all the same, either, as a different replacement rod and ends may have been fitted in the past.

Assuming the oil pump is the same, then you'd just nee the crank shaft, con rods and pistons (I'd guess the pistons are different in their gudgeon pin position).

I know, Mike. Does that change anything I wrote? They were given accessories that can't be installed on the main line. That doesn't make them wildly different. Those vehicles are still mechanically standard.

I thought they stopped reinforcing the axles around the time of the introduction of the SIII. Putting a 109 with parabolics onto 1-ton/WD suspension mounts and shackles does make it tall, enough that with the rear chassis supported directly and the rear springs unladen, the rear prop fouls its hole in the cross member. Maybe that's why they used the standard mounting positions and shackles.

I'm not convinced about the rear lights. Certainly the last 88s had it, but they finished a couple of years after the 109. Given the repair or alteration on the tub evidenced by the rivets on the left side, I'm wondering if the rear panels were also replaced. It makes little difference, but just seems odd.

Rubbish. MoD 90s and 110s were standard except for the lighting controls and where fitted for radios until the Wolf. That also uses standard parts on a beefed up chassis. The Camel Trophy vehicles were standard 110s with a roll cage, roof rack and winch, that was it - no special transmission, chassis or engine. The G4s didn't even get the roll cage, just a fancy paint job and the accessories, but were, too, mechanically and structurally standard. Some military and commercial vehicles were specially modified, but do you think Nissan or Toyota make an FFR, crop spraying, tracked or WMIK model as standard?

The rear tub raises questions - the rivets along the left side initially suggest a new side, but the joint with the bulkhead has no rivets, so what's going on? And then the rear panels and lights, Defender style? The last of the 88"s had that arrangement, but not 109s. It could have been added later as a storage unit, but the battery tray between the seats suggests a 24-12V conversion.

I've said it before. The justifications of emissions and safety being the cause for the Defender's demise are plain lies. The Transit is still in production with no problems with that engine, and there are plenty of other vehicles with worse emissions, and the Jeep and Dacia Duster can meet the safety standards. Evene if there was a safety angle, how hard would it be to make a plastic bumper of similar profile, stronger A and B pillars and add airbags? It is all down to LR wanting to move production abroad where hand building will be cheaper. They can then later claim a pr coup by saying they listened to the customers and resurrected an iconic vehicle. If they can build 65 new Series Is, with their old engines and lack of safety equipment, then they can continue Defender. Tata are lying. Just wait - they are axing it to make way for a more profitable model and reusing the existing workforce on that, rather than expanding further in the UK to create the UK model. The new jobs will be outside of the UK, and likely outside of the EU, depriving Britons of a chance of work in the expansion, while waving the Union Flag and pretending to be a British icon, still getting praise and thanks for the "resurrection" instead of being seen and money grubbing.

It's a moot point whether the 200 or 300 is better. 200 is more robust, but the 300 is smoother and quieter. Both have the same performance and economy, except for a small reduction on the Defender version of the 200. Defender 200 would be the easiest fir for you, matching up on the mountings, clutch and bell housing. The rad and intercooler from the donor would drop straight in, thought depending on what the donor was, you may have to be creative with plumbing (except a Def 200, which will also drop straight in, even mating directly to the exhaust)). A few small changes would needed to mate the old fuel lines to the lift pump (I think the union differs) and likewise the return line, but that's simple. You would need to replace the Lucas CAV fuel filter assembly with the Bosch type, along with the associated lines. The principle difference in robustness is the head - the 300 head is thinner and more prone to damage, but it is still available new, unlike the 200 head. The 300 is far more common, and thus cheaper, and the Def version of the 200 is much harder to find because they have always been in demand for this type of retrofit, so are disproportionately expensive.

I would guess at a pinhole leak in the fuel system allowing drain back to the tank, so runs too lean until the system is purged. The blow back could be because there is enough fuel vapour going through the engine unburnt to condense in the exhaust until the engine fires, which detonates the fuel in the exhaust. A very small leak will allow air in when the system is depressurised, but not allow fuel out under pressure. This is the main cause when Tdis are hard to start, usually in the injector spill return system.

The older ZF from the RRC and Discovery I mates to the Borg Warner, as does the R380 (as in mine). Since an LT77 or R380 will fit any LT230, the suggestion would be that the later ZF in the DII, since it is mated to an LT230, should bolt straight up to the BW or LT230 in the RRC...

Actually, while it clogs the filter, this set up would have saved many 19Js by preventing oil ingestion while the later setup would have allowed more oil based runaways. 19Js have a propensity for cracking heads and pistons. It was an overstressed design. If yours is breathing heavily, as the oill in the filter suggests, then the head needs to be removed to inspect the head and pistons. You may be lucky to have an affordable repair, but it'd eventually go again, which is why a Tdi retrofit is better in the long term.

http://www.paddockspares.com/parts-and-accessories/land-rover-series-2-and-3/accessories.html

Won't the ZF fit the existing transfer box? In that case, no issues with transmission mounts or hand brake...