Snagger

Well, the original transfer box gear fits without any play, but not the coupling. There really isn't much wear on either part, and nor would you expect it at less than 40,000 miles on both transmission parts (the main shaft was replaced in the gear box rebuild that kicked off the car rebuild). Besides, I've always been a huge advocate of the Roverdrive - I think it's a very robust unit and it's a huge leap forward over the Fairey. The movement of the coupling on the shaft with the nut loose is tiny, and so it takes a long time to slacken a tightened nut, but it has on occasion done that. The thread lock, like I said, though, seems to deal with it just fine.

It could be a failing cylincer (more likely slave, but not necessarily), a bad flexible hose (perished inner lining), failing release fork or the release bearing carrier seizing on the pinion sleeve. And just because the clutch pressure plate is new, that can't be eliminated, especially if it was a pattern part.

The bottom of the pipe does't need to be terribly tight as the oil is dribbling (at a fair rate, though) down inside and is not under pressure other than the mild crank case pressure created by piston blow-by and the brake servo vacuum pump (which dumps air continuously into the crank case). A nip over finger tight is OK, but try to get it as reasonably tight as you can, You might need to move other things like the exhaust out of the way. At least you have more space that in a 109!

If you can somehow stretch to a brand new chassis, you'll get it built by Richards to the correct spec for the year and would be able to keep the ID, even with the bulkhead swap. Not only that, but you wouldn't have to do any welding or have any doubts about missed spots and future repairs. Keeping the bulkhead for a later repair is a good idea, and reintegration would be nice and could help with its value in the more distant future. Good luck, whatever you do.

Jump in if I'm wrong, but to my understanding, if the hub drive flange is a single piece domed metal affair, it's 10 spline, and if it's a two piece metal star and plastic cone job, then it's 24.

Too true. So many people think you can check a UJ with the prop fitted, but you can't.

The non-ABS brake systems all have two circuits, but there are tow versions. In the earlier version, the front callipers have two hoses, and the big circuit does half of each front calliper and the rear callipers, while the smaller circuit powers just the other half of each front calliper. Later systems went over to a simplified setup, like on the Defender, where the big circuit did all of the front calliper pistons and the smaller circuit the rear callipers. The contradiction to this is ABS equipped vehicles, which still have twin hose front callipers because each calliper has a piston pair connected to the valve block and the front callipers have a hydrostatic (direct mechanical pedal movement creating hydraulic pressure to the other half, independent of the ABS system - in other words, five circuits (individual ABS controlled to each calliper and then the hydro to both fronts). I suspect early thinking was to ensure that the front brakes always had stopping power by configuring the two circuits the way they did, but in practice the loss of one system tends to make the other pretty ineffective too, as the leaking half permits pedal movement without pressure build up by either MC piston to activate the fault-free circuit, leading to the adoption of the simpler system split front/rear.

Sounds like the main (short) light switch is wired up incorrectly - the rear lights should come on with the side lights, and the side lights should be on with the head lights too. There is a switch terminal that is only live when the side light position is selected, and I have seen Defenders with the sidelights connected to that terminal so they sidelights go out when the head lights are on - that's a fault. It might be that a repair to the wiring or a switch replacement was made with several wrong connections made on reassembly.

I found it a pig on my Defender 200 engine (in the 109). In the end, I pulled the turbo and fitted the pipe on the bench, fitting the lower end once the turbo was bolted back down.

You have a relatively rare vehicle there - one of the last SIIIs with the 90/110 rear light arrangement and a few other details like how the transmission tunnel bolts to the bulkhead. It'll be a shame to lose the identity of the vehicle by using a second hand chassis, though I can see the cost advantage of what you're doing. Still, the chassis doesn't look terrible from the photos - repairs to the dumb irons and new bulkhead outriggers aside, it looked pretty reasonable. Make sure you check for rot inside the void of the rear spring shackle hangers - the bottom face oft he chassis rots out inside that mud trap.

I really can't understand them complaining if the headlights are wired up as standard, you have standard wattage bulbs (55/60W) and they're aimed correctly. From what you say, it sounds like you can't use headlights at night, which can't be right. Are you sure the wiring isn't shorting out so that you have main beam as well as dipped when the stalk is selected to dip? That would be dazzling to other drivers, as would faulty mountings that allow the lenses to move and aim up to high while driving.

Have a look here to see the genuine LR system for feed and return line selection for twin tank diesel systems: http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/air-filterfuel-tap-linksbonnet-lining/ It uses the standard petrol feed valve, but has a linked return valve operated by the same lever movement as the feed valve. They're not cheap or that easy to source now, but they are out there. A cheaper alternative would be to use two second hand feed valves from broken ex-MoD vehicles, which give you the option to return unused fuel to the same tank or opposite tank from the feed, as required - useful for balancing uneven tanks, feeding from a leaking tank and returning to a good one, or for purging the vegoil by delaying the return line change over on a dual-fuel system. Don not be tempted to return to one tank only, as this could overfill and spill fuel onto the road, and don't cross-connect at the bottoms as firstly, it could cause a loss of all fuel if damaged, and secondly, would result in unwanted fuel transfer to the downslope tank when driving or parked on side slopes, which not only causes CoG problems but could cause fuel starvation when driving with the upslope tank selected. You could get around both those issues by having cross-feed valves, but that's just another expense and complication.

The after market HD flanges should wear slower than the standard ones because they have tighter tolerances (less movement in the first places) and should be harder. However, remember that the standard flanges are deliberately made soft in order to be sacrificial, wearing or failing before the other parts of the transmission, acting as a fusible link. The idea is that they are cheap, easy and quick to replace, unlike just about every other component. All these challenge vehicles with uprated shafts and flanges might suffer less failures, but when things do eventually fail, they'll be expensive. Older axles were lubricated through the stub axles to the splines, but that changes with the narrow hubs and thin flanges on the 300Tdi and later vehicles - a seal was added inside the stub axle, running against a seal land on the half shaft, to prevent oil reaching the flange splines and wheel bearings. While this may help prevent oil leaks through a weakly seated hub cone or through worn hub seals, it has obvious consequences for the splines and wheel bearings. I'm an advocate of retaining standard shafts and flanges with the oil seal removed (or cut) and the hub cone being fitted with a smear of RTV sealant.

As did I - it's not hard to set 100'lbs o a torque wrench and do the grub screws up a bit at a time to make sure they're balanced. I think a lot depends on how well the splines engage - any play causes the problem I had. Like I said, though, the strong thread lock seemed to stop it.

If it's any consolation, out 2009 Defender has a different key for the fuel cap, and I think that's normal as the key is a fair bit smaller in all dimensions, not just a different pattern, and my 109 has earlier Defender doors which have a different type key for the back door than the front, so I have three car keys on that ring (plus house keys), and another ring kept in the car with keys for the other locks!

Yep, same as Grem and I did, too. Sorry - the picture towards the bottom with the hub fitted doesn't show the inner nut, as it's hidden behind the lock washer, and the two pictures above showing the hub on the stub without the nuts fitted suggest too short a stub, but obviously they were taken with the hub not pushed all the way home. I have seen people make those sorts of mistakes before and the 300Tdi/TD5 short stub axles will fit the older axle with similar results if you did try to fit the bigger hub, though you might ot be able to get even one nut on. Glad to hear he's done it correctly.

Off topic, most people in work are being screwed over but vicious managers - my colleagues and I are having problems with being rostered to work on days off - but the annoyance caused by vindictive and bullying bosses must be easier than the financial worries you're facing. That said, I was less stressed when I was made redundant from my second big company than I was working at my first... Good luck anyway.

Sorry to hear that.

Yes, there were different splines from 90/110 to Def 200 and again to Def 300. I'm pretty confident that the 90/110 and 300 and later (approximate change overs; you know how LR like to mix and match as models change over) share the same splines as the RRC and Discovery, and the 200 matched the SII and SIII, though I stand to be corrected. So, a 200 Def column should take a Series wheel. But, as I said before, that'd put the wheel rim awfully close to the driver as its offset from the boss, unlike the flat Defender wheels.

That still doesn't explain the solid brake pistons in the cylinder - pushing one in should force another out, and if there is no movement when pushing against one, then it has corrodes solid.

Yep Bill, got it the right way around - the flat end faces third and the end with a "nose" faces the pinion; get it the wrong way around and you won't get third engaged because that nose will press against the main shaft snap-ring. I collected the bronze bush and it is longer than the old one, but closer reading of the manual states that the bush should have some end float. The thrust washer presses against the ends of the main shaft splines, not the bush, and there is no way of adjusting end float of the 1st gear. It makes sense, really - with the compression of tightening the main nut working through to the bush, the bush would want to spread outward and seize the gear wheel again, this time from the inside. So, the fault is not in the bush, just the thrust washer. The wear on its inner face is from it spinning against the splines; I would assume that when the main nut in the Roverdrive coupling slackened off (a recurring problem), it allowed the thrust washer to spin on the main shaft as it was no longer clamped firmly between the ends of the splines and the rear main bearing race. I might assemble it with a light blob of thread lock to bind it to the splines. The Roverdrive coupling is hollow and much longer than the Fairey part, so uses a thick collared hex nut on the main shaft inside of the coupling, with two grub screws passing through the sides of the coupling (clutch sleeve equivalent) to clamp the nut. The trouble is that the small amount of spline play allows the grub screws to drag the nut loose like a ratchet wrench, bit by bit on each torque reversal and spline movement. Using the really strong thread lock on the main nut and standard thread lock on the grub screws, will all threads thoroughly cleaned, helps. It should have been included in the manual.

Aircraft paint isn't that good - it peels and scratches easily. Of course, it's on aluminium, not steel, but it really isn't anything special and you'd be surprised at how bad it is up close. Marine paint over red oxide is the best covering you'll manage, with grit blasting first to remove any surface rust and mill scale.

Ah, so it's much like trying to retain the tax exemption on a vehicle built before 1973 over here.

I thought I had put a second post on this thread. Maybe I pressed the wrong button and deleted rather than posted it! Anyway, I pulled the unit back out ( ) and stripped it back out. The 1st gear bush looks good, but appears to have worn the steel thrust washer where it is in contact with the bush, allowing the bush to sit slightly into the washer and reducing the end float below acceptable limits, binding the gear wheel between the washer and the synchro hub. I have sourced a new bush from Rogers, but they tell me the thrust washer is no longer available, genuine or pattern. I ordered one from an online retailer that said on the phone that they have them in stock, and that it should be with me on Friday. Fingers crossed... If they are unavailable, I'll have to polish the old one back a bit (the area that contacts the gear wheel seems unblemished) and use the new bush with a bit more length to counter the washer's recess. Frustrating, but I should have checked it first time round rather than just concentrating on the broken third gear and replacing that gear's bush.

Stick a piece of rubber or foam between the diff case and that right hand pipe in the interim - the pipe could fret on the edge of the diff housing and cut the softer material of the pipe.