Snagger

I'm working all weekend again, Mike - I might have come along otherwise. The difficulty in sourcing a revolving tow ball hitch is what makes me curious as to why they don't use NATO hitches, given that the latter will allow 360 degree linear rotation and 90 degree articulation in all axis, and without putting any pressure on the release mechanism or creating any friction or significant wear in the hitch. I presume it mush be a legal rather than practical issue. I can see the limits of a standard hitch easily being exceeded crossing a moderate ridge or gulley, while a NATO hitch would barely notice it...

This is great work, Mike. I fancy doing longer trips in the distant future and was contemplating making up an exped trailer with top mounted tent similar to those in your links, using my Sankey as a base, but this is much more impressive! It will limit the vehicle off road while towing, but of course will lighten the vehicle when base cam is set up, and it looks like a very comfortable way of living out. One question: all the off road trailers and caravans seem to use standard hitches, while NATO hitches would seem at face value a much tougher, more secure and articulate solution. There must be a reason for using the standard hitch - care to share?

I sympathise with you and understand your dilemma, but sender units are notoriously unreliable when not sourced as a genuine part, and if the 200Tdi sender is giving the same indications as the new sender, then I think it's highly likely the new sender is inaccurate or even mis-labelled. Similar discussions in other threads have suggested that most senders marketed by non-franchised LR specialists as ideal for Tdi retrofits don't work. Before you spend a lot of time and effort chasing a list of faults that probably don't exist, try a Genuine Parts petrol engine sender for the year of your vehicle. It shouldn't cost the Earth, and will be much cheaper than replacing thermostats, gauges, radiators, water pumps and so on...

You stated the sender was sourced from the net, and it has already been pointed out that non-genuine senders tend to be faulty...

I am no expert on vehicle dynamics, and while I agree that power distributions and suspension design have great effects, I don't think your friend is entirely right. I suspect that the RRC, Discovery and Defender models are all permanent 4wd to reduce the strain on the none-too-strong LR standard axles, splitting the torque over the pair instead of loading one. This would also be supported by the early 90/110 having part time 4wd and having optional FWH - their suspension was coils all round, and I suspect that LR only gave this option because these early proto-Defenders had low enough torque from their 2.25 engines that they wouldn't blow the rear transmissions in 2wd. Handling would be improved by 4wd, especially on wet or icy roads, but I don't think 2wd on coils would have been a serious issue. Just a though on your plan of having the front radius arms horizontal - in addition to needing very low mountings, they will also lose the anti-dive characteristics of inclined radius arms. If you compare how much a LR coiler dives under braking to a leafer, it's a pretty big difference. This anti-dive is achieved by having the radius arms drop down at an angle parallel to the angle drawn from the CoG to the front tyre contact areas. This anti-dive characteristic is not only more comfortable, but presses the tyres harder into the road surface, imcreasing braking efficiency and safety. You'd be losing a lot but levelling the radius arms.

Actually, they are the same except for the drilling of the filler holes, and the inner housings (chromed chalices) are identical. The castor is set by the bolt hole positions on the main axle case flanges. The brake back plates are handed, though, and snail cam orientation is important for the reasons already given.

The Defender and Discovery senders are incompatible with SII or SIII gauges. Why not follow the advice given and fit the correct sender for the gauge you have?

Your problem is mixing a 4-disc brake master cylinder with drum brake slaves - disc brake master cylinders produce higher pressure but lower volume than Series masters, and are incompatible. You need the correct SIII pedal box, servo and master, and be warned that there are two different masters for dual line servo assisted brakes, one for SWB and one for LWB. As mentioned, that unsupported Tee is poor - it could result in vibration induced fatigue cracking of the pipes or unions, resulting in brake failure. You would have been better off using a blanking fitting (as used on brake callipers to blank of cross-drillings) in one of the MC ports and a single brake line to the other. I don't wish to sound unpleasant, but when it comes to braking, steering and suspension work, people should not be touching them unless they really understand what they're getting involved in. Replacing like for like is one thing, but when the inexperienced and untrained start swapping non-specification second hand parts over to save costs, they are risking their lives and the lives of other road users to save money, and that is a very dangerous attitude.

The problem with electric power steering assistance to the steering column is that it puts huge strain on the standard steering box and relay (as mentioned earlier, those relays can twist or shear relatively easily if overloaded), whereas the hydraulic options (whether a full PAS replacement from another vehicle or the strap-on ram kit) provides assistance after the relay or replaces it completely, so such shears are impossible. If you want to fit discs, a wider axle and CV joints, why not fit coiler axles? I have done it to my 109, retaining leaf springs. The front axle saddles have to be a bit taller to allow the track rod to clear the springs, but by using 1-ton shackles and re-orienting the spring angle, ot by using a 1-ton chassis like me, the loss of ride height can be regained. The one issue I seemed to have after fitting coiler axles was the tendency of the front prop UJ yolks to hit the rhs engine mount under heavy braking. This is because of the combination of the higher diff pinion position (inclined, rather than horizontal like SII/SIII axles) and the lower engine bracket for the Defender TD/Tdi engines. By fabricating a higher arched engine mount, the clearance issue has been resolved and the axle wrap control ideas I was investigating have proven unnecessary. It's all documented on the axle section of my blog.

It's very low quality hose and splits all the time. I don't think it tolerates the heat very well, and doesn't seem to like diesel either, despite being specifically made for it. As the others said, get a roll of hose from Halfords - there's no need to replace the banjos or other parts of the spill sstem, and you don't even need to undo the bolts; just pull the old hoses off the banjos and slip the new hose on - it's simple push-fit with no barbs.

I vaguely recall the post, Bill. It was similar to what I had in mind using a P38 box, which not only fits outboard of the chassis but whose bolt holes are conveniently spaced to fit above and below the chassis rail, needing just some reinforcing plates and anti-crush tubes to clamp to the chassis with no chassis alteration. The P38 box is also more robust and reliable than the 4-bolt Adwest type used on the Defender/Discovery/RRC, and has lighter feel, and may even be cheaper froma scrappy because they are less in demand, being more reliable.

There is another way, which is to fit the electric steering from a modern car to the steering column of the SII/SIII, but that could have certification implications because of the cutting and welding of the inner column (even though the worm gear at the bottom is welded on). To be honest, neither the electric or ram systems take my fancy - they leave the comparatively vague and low geared original system in place, while the Defender/P38 system gives much tighter feel and higher gearing as well as reduced effort.

I think that it's a real case of apples and oranges. They're very different systems with very different characteristics, and as such are used in different applications. IS is certainly more comfortable and compliant at speed, with much better stability. Live beam is better where ground clearance is an issue. The thing is, you won't be doing high speed, needing the stability of IS, if ground clearance is an issue, and so LB will do the job in those circumstances amply. Likewise, most vehicles that drive at high speed won't need the ground clearance of LB, so again, they don't need a compromise system, like the buggy in the photos or Dakar racers - they don't rock crawl or cross ditches and bomb holes. LR have been ingenious in their use of cross-linked IS on the new models, which gives the best of both words - the only compromises are complexity and cost (the former being a major consideration for use in remote locations). If you can come up with a system that gives the advantages of IS and LB without the complexity of cross linking, I think you'll soon be a rich man!

Absolutely brilliant!

I guess not - I didn't consider the rotation of the wheel position on the hub, lining the wheel nut lobes up with the drive flange bolts...

No, they won't. The 200 Defender 110 axles are identical to the earlier 110.

The hydraulic ram system is available as a kit from Heystee (formerly TI Console). It uses the existing Series steering system and has this ram act in addition, connected to one dumb iron and to the drag link. Steering inputs move the drag link, which operates a proportioning valve on the ram so that the ram follows the drag link. In essence, the ram is always trying to close its valve, and do will follow the drag link in each direction. I have been told that there is a little lag in the system, but have never seen it in the flesh let alone tried it. Benefits of the system are that it is bolt-on, so should be easy for certification/insurance, and if it fails, the original components of the system will revert to unassisted steering little heavier than before installation. Make sure you're sitting down when you read its price. As Fridge says, the cheapest and most common conversion is to fit Defender steering. The column is a straight swap and the drag link geometry should be little different (the length may need adjustment). It's main issue is that you need to reinforce the chassis to mount the PAS box. Most people move the front cross member forwards as the Defender/Discover/RRC steering box is normally mounted on the inboard face of the chassis, in a position similar to the existing steering relay. You could use a P38 steering box which sits outboard, or indeed a LHD Defender box on a RHD vehicle (and vice versa) to mount the box outboard, but you'd still need some reinforcement for the mountings. A certifier should be convinced by the fact that this uses standard LR components, so as long as the PAS box mounting is done suitably, then there should be no concerns over strength or suitability.

I would never advocate using poor quality tyres. SOme remoulds are reputed to be pretty good - a lot of people seem happy with Insa Turbo remoulds, who copy BFG patterns. I have so far only used new premium brand tyres, but even they can have their problems. So far, though, I have always been very pleased with BFG ATs.

Have you considered remoulds? Not ideal, I know, because they wear faster, which makes them about as cost effective as the good brands whose patterns they emulate but whose compounds they don't. I just think you might be better off with a full set of them than one new pair of high quality tyres and and one pair of worn out MTs for the winter.

I think it's an assembly tool, not a permanent fastening, and is for the rear cross member bolts. I didn't use it - I couldn't see what use it had. It might alternatively be for use on the far left or right cross member tab when fitting a roof rack ladder or swing-away wheel carrier.

Aragorn is absolutely right, and to be fair, the tyre company's advice is good, even though they should have said you would be prudent, well advised, safer and so on, rather than that you must replace them all. It's technically OK to mix different tyres front to rear and if driven accordingly, should be alright. How about taking the plunge and either selling the MTs or using them as spares? As a spare, their being different would pose no problem as long as you kept the speed down if you had to use them, just like drivers of euroboxes are supposed to do with space savers...

For tyres of similar type but differing age/condition, the older tyres should always go on the front, regardless of drive type, to reduce over-steer. For differing tyre types, always put those with the best road holding on the rear, again for the same reasons. So, make absolutely sure that the new ATs go on the back and the old MTs on the front. It'll give less braking than the other way around (due to to the weight transfer away from the ATs to the MTs), but will give much safer handling when cornering. That said, it's safest to have all tyres matched, and you should try to change the other MTs as soon as you can (they're much better on wet or wintry roads anyway).

There should be a bleed screw on the top of the filter housing so that you can leave the unions tight. With the bleed open, just spin the engine over on the starter until fuel emerges. You can finish off with the hand priming if you wish to get all the fine bubbles out.

On the Defender, the winter pack comprises heated seats and windscreen. The options on your list seem likely for the Discovery - my RRC has heated washers and wing mirrors, both which appear the same type as on Discovery 1 and 2, and I later added a heated screen that is the same as used on 300Tdi D1s and D2s. The seat heating was a Vogue SE and a Discovery ES fit. An extra battery seems unlikely, though not impossible. If you use a Webasto heater, you'd be wise to have a second battery.

Just fitted a pair for this winter, and am fitting a pair of Defenderdemisters to the dash top for the side windows (since the windscreen won't need as much airflow). The screens seem good - the elements are really fine and nearly invisible, with just a slim foil strip along the top and bottom as a give-away. The demisters are ugly as sin, but if they work, it'll be worthwhile.