Snagger

Any damage from tuning will be to the pistons, head, crank shaft and possibly to the turbo if EGT gets too high. This would require a lot of full throttle work. The injection pump is unlikely to be harmed, though.

Drumstick, the 33% was not pulled out of the air - it is the difference in performance between the 12J and 19J by your own figures. I already made the point that you can't transfer the same percentage to the DI/TDI scenario because of the other variables, but it'll be closer than the flat 20bhp you came up with.

You can't assume that because the turbo on the 19J adds 22bhp that the near identical turbo on a Tdi will do the same. I suspect it's more of a power ratio, ie. that adding the turbo adds roughly 33% bhp, and so removing it would see a 25% decrease from the standard Tdi figures. That is rather flawed, though, because there are plenty of other variables like the difference between direct and indirect injection - I suspect the Di makes a big difference to performance, and there is much less energy wasted internally on compression due to the lower cr of the Tdi.

What capability are they measuring? Adaptability? The ability to tow? The ability to lug heavy loads off road? The ability to operate in remote areas with minimal back up? Or the ability to drive around town and look interesting? Capability and the measure of it is highly subjective.

I understand that, Red - you can see the step on the standard pin near its base that allows the small pin to slide a bit laterally, while the aftermarket pin has a taper all the way to the outside diameter of the pin. However, if the engine is smoking off boost, then the timing is off - a small amount of extra fuel should just result in an rpm increase. It's only when huge amounts of extra fuel are injected that you should get smoke. Even if the timing is right, then tweaking the base line fuelling screw to compensate for turning the standard boost pin would suffice, stopping the off boost smoke but still giving increased on-boost fuel, enough to smoke heavily, so maximum torque with less waste than these replacement pins produce. It is amazing how many people, though, will buy a slow lugger and try to cheaply turn it into something completely inappropriate without understanding they will turn their engine to slag in six months.

I've done the door corner in the back trick, though not quite hard enough to draw blood. It's surprising just how much that hurts. I have mostly suffered small cuts on the hands and wrists like Mikey's. Wire brush wheels on grinders can be interesting, though - I have had detached wires hanging out of my lower lip having stuck in like a big splinter.

I think the standard pin is stainless - mine were blemishless when I replaced the diaphragm on one and had to free the small in that engages on this big pin on the other. What happens is that the big boost pin is pushed down towards the pump centre as the turbo pressure increases. A small horizontal pin in the pump that is pressed against the conical section of the big pin moves in and out in response to the movement of the main pin, riding the slope of the cone. This small pin modifies the response of the injection pump in addition to throttle position and rpm. The steeper the slope of the cone, the more fuel the pump can inject at high boost. The factory settings are quite mild, but by rotating the pin, which is machined with the cone off-centre, you change the slope profile to a greater or lesser value. These after market pins have one set slope angle, and it is steeper than the steepest slop position on the standard pin, but if the engine is throwing out thick black smoke on full throttle and boost, it means it is already unable to burn the full amount of fuel injected, so increasing the fuelling further is just wasting fuel for no performance benefit. I really can't see the point of these pins - they just mean that the vehicle is probably unroadworthy for producing excessive smoke and will fail soon because of the excessive heat and strain on the parts.

That's nice - they pre-corrode the pins for you so they'll rust in place and seize to protect the engine from long term effects of over-fuelling...

Disassemble it for cleaning, or it could disassemble itself catastrophically at speed. You can't take short cuts on a thing like this, and it's a result of previous failure to replace the oil after wading. You can't fix one lack of maintenance with another!

I used Zeus - they're excellent. They supplied Britpart seals, which actually looked OK, but I used Gen Part seals as a precaution.

I have the Quecha 2 man and 3 man "2 Seconds Air" tents and they're great, and later got the 4 man Quecha 4.2 seconds base tent, which is very good too, with two 2-man pods and a central room. Light and quick, and surprisingly dry in heavy rain and storms.

Chassis can have sharp edges inside the rails, especially galvanised chassis which can have solidified sags, lumps and drips of zinc for wires to fret on. Disconnect the wiring loom inside the rear left of the car and tie a length of robust sting to the ends of the loom, and with the front and rear chassis grommets, pull the whole loom forwards and out of the front chassis hole, dragging the string with it. Once the string appears, untie it and leave it trailing from both holes - you'll use that later to pull the repaired loom back through later.

try a forum search or google search. It's a very common conversion.

1-Ton shackles by themselves are a bad idea - they incline the spring and rotate the axle, screwing up the prop and steering geometry unless you also use 1-Ton spring hangers (dumbirons for the front and outriggers for the 109 rear springs - you'd have to fabricate extended mounts for 88" rear spring hangers). Parabolics typically lift the chassis 2-3", but cheap ones sag within months, so buy quality springs. I'm inclined to agree that anything over 9.00 tyres is going to have bad results on the transmission.

I stand to be corrected, but the R380 is the same in both except for the extended selector housing and short lever on the RR/Disco version and the "stumpy" version with short bell housing and input pinion is a special for retrofit in Defenders fit with LT77s. The engine will be the same unless it came from a RR/Disco with cruise control, in which case the injection pump will have an electronic rather than mechanical throttle mechanism.

If the fluid line is one continuous rigid pipe, you have a botched vehicle - there should be a flexible hose to allow for engine vibration and movement on the mounts. A solid pipe will suffer from fatigue and will crack. That might be the cause and location of the apparent leak. Best get some proper pipe work for it.

It was as if the pads had been greased - huge amounts of pedal pressure produced minimal braking effect and braking distances were huge. Just as well I was only taking it on a low speed test to the MoT station for an inspection on the work done. I don't know if the bolt pattern for the Rover and Salisbury stubs is the same - the stubs themselves certainly aren't.

I initially used the 109's master cylinder, but while it passed a brake test at the MoT station, braking was awful. In fact, I d consider it dangerous. It was completely transformed with the Discovery servo and Defender MC. The 109 servo and MC were transferred to the Lightweight when its MC started leaking. Both were dual line with the same servos, but the MCs were slightly different for the 10" vs 11" brakes. The threads ont he ports and the shape of the reservoir made it quite obvious they were different cylinders. With the 109 servo and cylinder (a stud sheared off the Lightweight's servo when I tried to remove the MC), the pedal became very heavy. Whether a fault occured in the 109 servo during transfer or whether it was down to incompatibility between the 109 MC and the 10" rear and 11" SLS slaves I don't know, but the braking was made much more difficult. I really do think it is folly not to use the matched MC on a brake system. Regarding the rear brakes, a disc conversion is not difficult on a Salisbury axle, and I suspect a Rover axle would be similarly simple to alter. It's the front that gives the difficulty because of the swivel housings. Gremlin's conversion was an excellent example of low cost ingenuity.

The rubber cap is just a dust cap - it' doesn't seal anything. However, the claim by the previous owner that they recently installed it and that fact that the cap is missing points to bad parts or bad fitting.

Blutack? Post a picture of the problem and I'll have a think...

It sounds like a slow leak to me, from one of the cylinders (some brands have reputations for leaking from new) or a perished flexible hose between the engine and pedal box. When bleeding, try to have the car nose elevated so that air in the slave will go to the bleed nipple rather than hide against the piston. Failed forks are an LT77/R380 issue on Defenders, Discoverys and Range Rovers. You'll never break a SIII fork. It is a hydraulic issue, which is good because you don't need to remove the engine or transmission to fix it.

Not all of this applicable as I used colier axles, making the front swivels different from what you're working with, and went to discs all round: I have a complete Discovery 1 brake system except for the TD5 Defender master cylinder and the same front discs on the rear axle due to the depth offset from rotor to calliper (drum braked axle converted to disc, which would work as an exact copy onto a 109 rear axle as it has the same hubs and stub axles as the 110 version). The Discovery master cylinder appeared externally identical to the Defender version used except for the shape of the reservoir, being made to sit on an incline while the Defender unit is horizontal. I made an assumption that the pressures generated are similar given the matching external dimensions. I used the bias valve in the rear brake line even though the rear callipers and pads are so much smaller than the front for two reasons - first, that it would be simpler to disarm insurers and inspectors by transferring a complete Discovery system without alteration, and second, that the max gross weight of a 109 and D1 is only 10kg different and a 109 probably has a lighter rear end (especially since I rarely tow), so would be more likely to lock up in slippery conditions. In practice, the braking is very effective and roller tests on completion of the work and at subsequent MoTs have given excellent results. The braking is front biased, and that is evidenced by the difference in brake dust, but that is normal on most vehicles. How much the bias valve is needed I suspect varies with wheel base as much as with weight. 90s, RRCs and D1s have them, but not 110s, even though the 110 has much bigger front brakes and a lighter (at east when empty) back end than the 100" models. I don't know enough to start guessing, but with such a similar MGVW and with the callipers and pads being D1 spec, the safest option seemed to be to retain the valve. I may be losing some braking performance, but not much, and I'd rather that than risk spinning out. For a system using rear drums, then you need the older master cylinder. The SIII mcs produce large volumes and low pressures. The late models use high pressure and low volume. The disc/drum combination will need high pressure to the front but lower pressure to the rear. I think you need a 90/110 or 200 Tdi master to get the best results.

That all sounds fine. The shaft float is taken care of when you tighten the nut after fitting the drive flange.

I don't disagree with you that the programme would have been better played straight, Shack - I just thought it a little harsh to criticise an actor who was just playing a role he'd been given (perhaps he played it a bit too well ). I agree that a second series would be better with just the guys who actually do the work.

That "presenta fella" is Philip Glennister, a very good actor who has been in a lot of TV programmes including Hornblower, Mad Dogs and, my favourite, Ashes to Ashes - everyone loves DCI Hunt! The problem was the production of the show - I'm pretty sure he was given a role of wanting to modify every car with stripes and spot lights and it would be Ant's "role" to talk him down; no reality TV programme can be aired without a sense of contrived conflict now, it seems...