Snagger

It won't be the glow plugs. It's the fuel side - the pipe work will be allowing air in when the engine is shut down, allowing fuel to drain back down to the tank and requiring the injection pump and injectors to be re-purged on each start. Check every union is undamaged (the olives can wear out from vibration or over-tightening) and are suitably tight. Inspect the injector pipes for small cracks and replace the leak-off pipe copper washers and look for pin holes in the plastic piping. Check the seals on the fuel filter, too.

Good to know I was right about the slaves and drums - I never actually measured them and was working on "appearance". The pedal box and servo were identical to my 109's, but the master cylinder was not - the 109 cylinder had a more rectangular reservoir, rather than round-ended, and the pipe connection threads were different (and also had slightly different positions relative to the servo), needing new pipes to be fabricated for the temporary repair.

My recommendation for SII 88 brakes would be to fit late SIII (1980+) 88 brakes. My wife's 1980 Lightweight had 11" SLS front brakes and I think it had 10" rear, with the dual line circuits and servo assistance. It worked beautifully. Make sure you match the master cylinder to the slaves - I later had to fit my 109's old master cylinder as a temporary repair when the LW's master blew a seal, and the pedal became much harder and braking effectiveness was markedly reduced. By doing that, you will be fitting a standard 88" brake system as designed and certified by LR, so should not face any problems from your insurers or the authorities (should you have an accident). I'd still run it by your insurers before you start and get a brake test and engineers report afterwards, just to cover your back side legally and as a double check or your work. I now have the complete disc brake system from a Discovery on my 109, and while maintenance is simple, braking is no better than with the original system.

You have two issues to look at regarding fitting the radius arms to Series axles: 1) Steering lock - if you fit the arms in the standard RRC/Defender positions, then the steering lock of the shorter Series axle will be vastly reduced (sounds like you have already worked that one out), and; 2) Articulation - if you sit the radius arm under the chassis rails to avoid the above, like LR did the leaf springs, then you will need to ensure the minimum interference between the chassis and radius arm. Having the sticks inverted means that the front end will hit the bump stops pretty quickly, limiting axle articulation. I have a suspicion that the front chassis legs of the Series vehicles are lower to the chassis than on the coilers, so " above will really be an issue. As for my previous post, I was thinking of the read stud and main arm alignment being kinked, but I was probably remembering images of cranked arms for suspension lifts.

3.54 diffs into a Series vehicle are simple, even the Salisbury is a fairly simple swap. I guess you don't need the hill climbing ability of lower gears! There are few stupid questions - it's wise to ask for advice, even if you think you already have the answer. There are plenty of stupid answers, though, so cross check everything!

The SIII box is a straight swap as long as you swap the bell housings and clutch mechanisms over so that the new SIII unit has the SII bell housing and clutch system. Alternatively, you can use the SIII clutch (you'll need a new pressure plate, friction plate, release bearing and fork, and the slave cylinder and piping). The SIII stuff is better in most respects if you go for the bigger HD clutch and buy quality components - it eliminates the torque rod and clevis pins which are prone to wear and other problems, and also gives a sealed bell housing that reduces mud/water ingress (eliminates it if the wading plug is fitted to the flywheel housing). The one weakness is in the pattern part clutch release bearings, but if you buy gen parts (Timken), or good quality alternatives (like NSK, SKF), you should have no trouble. It depends on budget. The SIII box is easier to use and has a much more robust lay shaft (the bearings are all identical to the SII), and the clutch plates are stronger and stay cleaner, but it'll cost more and comes at the expense of some of the vehicle's original character...

A lot of calssic car guys in the UK use Denso tape - it's been done since the 60s and apparently works well for road cars with leaf springs. It could be problematic for those which wade or go in deep mud, though, as it will holed water in and prevent cleaning and further lubrication.

Hi.

The dual line, servo assisted system from a SIII would be a relatively cheap and easy retro fit that would provide very good results. The twin leading shoe 11" front system from a 109 is very effective, but is a pain to bleed, as is the PDWA valve in the dual line system (which could be omitted and replaced by the level sensing cap from a Discovery or RRC. Disc brakes are better still because of their ease of bleeding (if the PDWA valve is removed, anyway), and their self cleaning and adjusting nature. They're no more powerful than well maintained drums, but they're much easier to live with because of the much reduced maintenance. It does get expensive to buy the kits, and fitting coiler LR parts is challenging.

I don't think you could invert the radius arms because of the angle between them and the stud at their back end, which goes through the chassis bushing, unless you attach the chassis bracket at an angle rather than vertical.

There are just a couple of photos of the car before I started taking it to pieces. Unfortunately, my blog was made to show my 109 rebuild, and the other Land Rovers we own were added to the blog peripherally. It's a very standard looking Classic in Epsom Green with grey trim, black bumpers and TWR alloys (as many of the last year had). The only ones I remember taking are here: http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/range-rover-tidy/ The chassis seems nearly mint (though I'm not sure what'll be revealed when I remove the gear box cross member) - it had been waxed from early on, and it's where the body shell was missed that the problems are: behind the mudshield strips in the wheel arches, the bottoms of the head light mounts and under the battery trays, the void between the rear cross member and boot floor and the space between the rear sills and rear wheel arch front extensions (mud shields to prevent spray onto the sills, but a great mud and water trap). Had it been waxed more carefully at the start, then I'd only be looking at a respray and minor outer panel work.

I had picked out a company after an internet search, but forgot the details. It won't be done fore some time - the inner shell will be the priority as there is no point having a load of perfect panels if I don't have a shell to hang them on! One of the LR mags had an article about it, oddly enough doing those very panels. Then again, it only works on steel, and no-one in the UK has tanks big enough anymore to do a complete RR inner shell. As for the engine change, I'm working under similar circumstances. The trouble is that I'm running out of space in the double garage - panels take up a lot of room, and though the wings and trim are going up in the rafters, the bonnet, doors, tail gate and roof can't. I have no idea where I'll store the seats...

I only get occasional use of the main computer to upload photos, and I use that time to update the blog, so unfortunately I have to direct you there: http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/category/range-rover-classic/

Bah, humbug! At least I can go past a fuel station without stopping!

Good tips! If anyone else has more, please speak up! I plan to remove the transmission to overhaul that too, so all the work in shoving it forwards won't be wasted if it comes to that. I had considered removing the engine mounts to lower it down a little, but the timing case on the 300Tdi is not far from the PAS box, and I don't know if I'll get much drop. As for removing the wheels to lower the body for craning the engine out over the rad panel, it's possible, as long as the axle doesn't end up blocking the front wheels and legs of the crane...

As I said, the design was probably altered after testing, with all production heads "sealed up" to ensure more even cooling. It's easy to alter the machining process in the head, but expensive to change the casting tooling of the block or punch tools for the gaskets, so those were left as per the original design, the head alteration being sufficient by itself. It's a guess, but seem logical.

I have removed everything from inside the boot space (save for the head lining), the side steps, sill covers, front bumper, grille, bonnet, scuttle panel, rear corners and rear wings, all lighting, lower tail gate ad the right front wing. The boot floor is actually not that bad - it's the edges that have gone where the spot welded flanges let water into the lap joint. The same is true of the rear body cross member, which seems sound but has blown the spot welded flange behind each wheel (it's still good inboard of the wheels). The rear wheel arches need a fair bit of patching around the rear inner wing joints, C pillar bases and sills. The right side sill is bad at the back end and is holed on its side under the B pillar flange. The bulkhead is pretty good, but needs a patch in front of the upper door hinge, where the inner wing box section is welded to it. The front right wheel arch needs new sheet metal welding in around its outboard edges where they meet the side, but it otherwise seems OK. The space under the windscreen that was hidden by the scuttle panel was rust free, which was a very pleasant surprise. The tailgate and bonnet have been completely stripped in preparation for acid bathing and e-coating, and I may get the original rear corners (that the lights screw into) done with them - I'm sure the body shop will have no trouble dealing with the exposed sections that went rusty along the seam, and the acid and e-coat will get rid of the rust and prevent it from ever coming back. I'm trying to keep the car as original as possible and there's no point in replacing them if they don't need it, and with new corners costing about £130 each, this seems as reasonable approach. If you want to see any photos, they're on the Range Rover section of my blog - I'll be periodically updating that as the restoration progresses. In the mean time, I need to remove the engine for rebuild. Does anyone know how to do it? Access to the bell housing bolts seems awfully restricted and the crane will have to lift the engine terribly high to clear the rad panel (which is spot welded in, unlike older RRCs which had bolt--in panels between the head light mounts. I am wondering about disconnecting the prop shafts and hand brake cable and undoing the transmission mounts to slide the whole lot forward to get at the upper bell housing bolts, and may have to drill the spot welds of the rad panel to remove that (I might replace the head light mountings anyway).

Their brake components have always had a questionable quality reputation, but this quality control has to be the finest example of why to go for respectable brands. What are their QC inspectors actually looking for if their hoses are solid?

To fit LR alloys on older 90s and 110s with the thick hubs and drive flanges, you can either use spacers (with the incumbent increase in wheel bearing, stub axle and steering component wear that they bring, and a marked increase in steering forces on non-PAS models), you can turn the inside of the wheel on a lathe to increase hub clearance, or you can use a thin spacer and, if desired, longer studs. Regarding the latter, my 109 has a 110 rear axle which I converted to discs using (amongst other parts) 110 front hubs. These don't allow the alloys to fit on - the inside of the wheel centre fouls on the bevelled edge of the hub between the drive flange bolt holes. A 1/4 spacer, made from the centre of a scrap brake drum, sorted that clearance out with minimal track increase (6mm vs normal spacers' 30mm). However, I was concerned about the amount of thread engagement on the studs. Wolf studs are 1/2" (12mm) longer, so I used these. That produced another obstacle - the alloy nuts ran out of internal thread 2-3 mm before pulling up on the wheels. Rather than cutting the studs down and damaging their hardening or heat treatment with the heat generated by grinding, I just used a tap to extend the threads inside the nuts and no more problem. I don't know if replacing the studs like that would be essential, but I'd rather have 6mm more engagement than 6mm less.

You can only fit after-market alloys with open centres which expose the hub - LR alloys won't fit over the Series hubs.

That's what I thought, though I thought some LSDs might be OK. That's why the RRC handles icy roads better than my wife's Defender; the Borg Warner unit keeps both axles driving without causing skidding in the turns. Snow chains are a pain because they need to be removed for most roads and make a mess in the boot. It's also a nuisance to keep removing and refitting them. Winter tyres are excellent, I know, but my tyres are winter rated anyway. BFG ATs are also snow rated. They're good in those conditions, but a little extra help can never be a bad thing. I'll look at fitting the DII system.

I have Hankook ATs on it at the moment, but only because they were relatively unused on the RRC CSK/LSE alloys I bought for the 109. I normally use BFG AT/KOs, which seem very good on the RR and on the 109 on snowy roads. It's just when trying to do things like climb a kerb to clear the road in the snow that can be a problem - the rear will climb up happily because of the ETC, but not the front, and I was hoping for a very quick and simple fix using an ECU from a vehicle being broken. It's not worth the cost of LSDs or other diff locks just for that.

Ha! This RR doesn't go off roading. What I'd like is better front grip on snowy or icy roads. It's good, but if it can be easily converted, it'd be worth it.

Does anyone know if it's possible to upgrade the late Classic's ABS system, which has ETC on the rear, to have ETC up front too? Is it an ECU issue? Does the Discovery II have all round ETC, and can it's system or relevant parts be transplanted?

I thought TD5s had thinner oil than that, though I've never run one so am far from sure, but local temperatures may demand something thicker. I'd check the specified oil and go for a synthetic oil of the correct grade, rather than a cheap mineral oil of thicker grade.