Snagger

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...

But no way over 1t per corner.

They won't be cornering the market for long - I hope it's not a wind up, but there is a press release floating around facebook that JLR is now starting a Heritage parts supply, akin to the Jaguar one,to support Series 1-3, Defender and RRC using original tooling and production methods, including trim and panels. Maybe that's their new plan for Defender; CKD for the enthusiast as a kit car! Anyway, if someone wants to start making RRC rubber parts, all of the window seals, especially those around the four door rear quarter windows, would be welcome! Edit: I evidently failed to read Task's post!

They're the ones you want.

Later hinges are riveted to the bulkhead. The look like countersunk rivets. I suspect that if you drill the heads out, you will be able to refit the hinges with countersunk bolts later, using captive nuts welded on a plate and inserted (and tacked in position) before you weld in the repair sections.

Brownchurch. It'll be cheaper than the aluminium racks, has side guards that will prevent sheets sliding off and looks period; the ali racks only suit Defenders.

But in fairness, they are referring to "the Land Rover" as a whole, and Defender was a name given only late in what was essentially a single model, periodically revised (sometimes heavily) in production since 1948. OK, technically the Defender name was applied in 1989 to distinguish it from the Discovery, but it is fundamentally the same as the 90 and 110, which are in turn really just evolutions of the Series vehicles, not outright new models. I think LR probably refer to the older vehicles as Defender too, when dealing with press and other non-technical parties.

I'm no expert, but I can't see why an ECU is required for VNT. Surely the vanes would default to fine, coarsening as as boost pressure rises to remain within max boost, with the waste gate opening as the vanes run out of control movement?

The crank pulley has grooves for two belts. The second (thinner) belt would be for aircon, running around a tensioner/idler on an arm attached tot eh timing case in place of the circular steel cover plate in front of the fuel pump. Not many Defenders have that.

Since you have to start from scratch, you'll need the filter housing, brackets and hoses. Second hand would be fine, but be careful of damaged or fatigued hoses. I doubt the previous owner removed the plastic trunking from the wing side intake - it is a two piece affair (plus grille) that comprises an intake box with corner connection, and a plastic duct with a 90 degree bend that connects to the box (horizontal, pointing towards the back of the engine behind the inner wheel arch, if still present - make sure you wash it out if it was left open).

Same as mine. I was hoping to find a gear wheel for inside the motor with a smaller throw (they have different numbers representing the arc they move the arms through, the smaller degree numbers having a spigot closer to the wheel centre). The thing is, I have replaced everything in my system except the motor and gear box, which has very little wear, so it is the correct original spec, and the new cable, spindles and arms are all genuine. Go figure...

Etch prime and spray the rear cross member satin black. Spray or brush paint everything else with Schutz to cover it up and better protect the steel. It's worth having the inside waxed (Dinitrol is best) - a new chassis plus fitting is a big investment, so it's best to spend that little more to make it last indefinitely.

Around the change from 200-300 Tdi (94-ish). Definitely not just MoD; they all had the same hinges/brackets. You need a muzzle for your source!

MoD didn't have Tdis until the Wolf (300Tdi), and didn't have those doors until they got the "white fleet" much later than J-plate. The headlight surrounds could have been added, but the position of your light switch is civvy spec. So, no, not ex MoD.