Snagger

Good plan. Use the blue semi-permanent locktite, not the red permanent one, so that you can remove the key in the future should you need to.

Thanks, Bill. The car is pretty heavy, but is rarely used as an exped vehicle and more for my commute. That means it's usually empty and the front tanks (I have the standard rear tank and twin underseat front tanks) are rarely used. Even the 20l water can in the locker is kept empty unless on a trip. The rack, winch, underbody protection and empty tanks all add up, though, and throw in the bonnet spare, a load of sound proofing and a thicker than standard tub floor and I reckon it comes to a few hundred kgs extra over a standard 109 hard top. The trips I like aren't really into dangerously remote areas - so far I have only done the Alps trip and some camping holidays around the UK and France, and I don't fancy desert driving, but I am concerned about the strain on the transmission - the gear box is probably the weakest link, whereas I'd prefer it to be the hub drive flanges. I've been looking at the prices of 4.1 diffs, which would be the best for driving, but it still puts more strain on the gear box than the original 4.71s. I got about 10% fuel saving with the 3.54s (not to be ignored at current prices), and it's much more comfortable to drive at 60-70mph, but is overgeared as much as 4.71 was undergeared. The thing is, 4.1s will cost about £750 for the gear sets alone, and if it still results in broken boxes, it'll be an expensive mistake. On the other hand, I have a mint condition 4.71 Salisbury axle centre sitting on my garage floor, kept for its innards, and getting a good second hand front 4.71 costs no more than a round in a pub. I want the comfort and estimated 15% fuel saving of the 4.1s, but the reliability of the 4.7s... Never simple, is it! I do wonder, though, if the cause of the gear breaking had another factor - for a while before it broke, the gear lever was moving fore and aft on pressing or lifting the accelerator, suggesting the third gear wheel had excess end float, while none of the other gears did this. I read (on here somewhere, not a book, US or otherwise ) that excess end float can result in stripped teeth, and I have also heard from many sources that it's usually second which tends to strip on Series units. With the unit stripped, I found a tiny amount of float - something in the order of .25mm, as a guess. What do you think? It does all make fitting a short nosed LT77 or R380 and LT230, (probably a Discovery version) more tempting, both to sort the gear box weakness and the overall gearing out. But that then involves chassis chopping and a lot of work around the cab floor and seat base, and makes the vehicle less of a SIII and more a leaf sprung Defender. The long term plan is to restore my RRC and use that daily, with the 109 become a trips vehicle, in which case 4.71s make even more sense.

They are tight, or at least should be, but not astonishingly so - it's more a matter of gaining access to press with a small tool it in than needing room for a huge pressing tool. If the key is not an interference fit, then it'll fret and wear the key and the slot, wrecking the shaft - it has to be that tight to guarantee it won't damage the shaft, but has to be looser on the pulley otherwise you'd never get the pulley off, and so it's the exposed part of the key which wears because of that looseness.

Defender servos can suffer fatigue cracks near the master cylinder mountings, so take a close look around those studs - you might need to take the master cylinder off the servo to do it properly, though you shouldn't need to disconnect the plumbing. A cracked servo could split all the way, which would cause the master cylinder to break loose completely, resulting in total brake failure, so check it carefully.

How long until someone suggests filing the key down? (DON'T!)

I wasn't trying to thumb my nose at anyone's solutions - there would be little point is asking for others' input if that was the plan, and it certainly wouldn't help get a response next time I need advice. I didn't understand the fitting of the ladder bar system properly, and that book was partly responsible having shown them fitted horizontally, hence why I thought they'd cause wrap from articulation while stopping it from torque reaction. Like I said, there was a lot of carp being pedalled in that book, like leaf springs with over 18" camber, shackles nearly 12" long and spacer blocks under the springs up to 6" with SOA conversions - a lot was of it was real red-neck stuff and I'm disinclined to do most of what I saw in there and prefer to learn from you lot. But, at the same time, I want to retain the standard LR attributes where I can, minimising the alterations from standard. I'm not en engineer, but I have had plenty of technical training and can easily visualise where stresses act and how they affect components, which is why I have been less keen on some solutions than others; while most people will get away with certain things, they have a way of biting me in the arse - it always seems to be me that gets the problems, even when doing exactly the same mod a hundred others have done before without issue! Maybe I perceive the tone of some posts incorrectly, but I think Soren took some stick too for his 88, but while his bar may not be pretty, I still think it was a smart solution - he found it works well, and hasn't caused any problems despite his concern that it might wear the rear bushes. I thought it unfortunate that his idea was so readily dismissed. I did get some very useful information, including photos, by PM, and I can only guess at the reason it was sent that way.

The point I was making about the book was apparently unclear - I was making the point that not everything in print is accurate and that not everything on sale works. Sorry that point wasn't clear. I was also trying to point out that I did try to carefully look into how to do my axle swap, looking closely at what others who had already done it, both on here and other forums, in the club I'm a member of, and by reading a couple of books about it, including said inaccurate US book. Part of my problem was not realising how much the diffs move on leaf springs through axle wrap and overlooking the fact that I had already fitted a Defender engine, which means that rhs mount is much lower than normal for a SIII. This was not an issue for others as those I had seen didn't have that combination, so didn't come up in my research. I don't object to what other people have done, but I do object to Dan jumping down my throat for no reason, regardless of his experience. A reversed Ackerman is clearly be little problem for what you use your vehicle for - off road, on relatively straight roads or at speed, I'd agree that it probably makes little difference, but with the roads in this little island being so twisty, the the towns having so many tight corners, and using the 109 to commute, parking in tight car parks, the Ackerman angle becomes a little more important; a large part of the reasons for swapping axles in the first place was to improve the turning circle, and it frequently gets used at full lock. While the angles aren't adjustable, they are at least a close approximation, which not only reduced loads on the wheel bearings and swivel pins, but also reduces loads on my arms! I'm probably one of the few people who has such a widely modified and heavy 109 and still retained the original steering...

The spring plates are slightly lower than before, but still higher than they would be with standard leaf springs - parabolics are much thinner in the middle. As for notching the axle, I really didn't fancy weakening it like that. Given that my 109 is mostly used as a family runabout and camping vehicle with the ability to do expedition work, but is not set up for rock climbing or deep mud pay and play site use, losing about 1/2 clearance under the springs compared to before makes little difference - the diffs are still by far the lowest points. As for the Ackerman issue, it's basic physics. On a mostly road going vehicle, it's a benefit to have it, otherwise it wouldn't be incorporated in the design of cars. I don't need to experience neutral Ackerman to know it's not a good idea, just like I don't need to experience jumping off a cliff to know that's a bad idea too. You still haven't explained your attitude.

The Ackerman angle is pretty significant on RR axles at full lock, and given almost all of my driving is on road, I'm not willing to have it reversed. As for the argument that because the Series axle had it track rod in front, that the coiler axle can be set up the same way, that's not right - the angle between the axle and steering arms has to be set up correctly; if I remember rightly, they have to be convergent in front of and divergent behind the axle, so swapping the swivels from side to side won't work, and nor will using a lhd swivel on the rhs. As for your comments, dirtydiesel, my ground clearance has not been lost - the third leaf has given it a very small rise of about 1/2" despite the taller saddles. I also had no choice about the saddle height as the diff sits further outboard on coiler axles, with the neck over the spring - this means the saddle has to be taller. The diff housing is actually touching the top of the spring with the saddle formed around it; the saddle height is the absolute minimum for the axle case to fit, regardless of steering systems. The contact problem is more because of the overlooked lower engine mounting, not directly because of the axle mounting solution. You don't know the vehicle and haven't read my posts properly, so, why the attitude?

They advise the use of synthetic 75w90 because they don't get EP90 out there. And it's not all EP90s that can damage the bronze-phosphor parts - it's just some of the GL5 specs, so you should still use EP90 GL4 where available.

Believe me Bill, I looked at just about every permutation before settling on leaving the axle axis alone and using taller saddles and retaining the vehicle height by fitting a third leaf to the springs to bolster their camber. There are other solutions, but this was the best fit for my parabolics and 1-ton chassis and shackles. I spent two whole years mulling it over, fiddling with this, researching that...

Thanks for the tip, Bill. I'll be fitting the two-piece bush - over enough time, the flexing will wear the broken ends and that could cause more trouble. I think the smooth joint between the ends of the two-piece bush will wear less and last longer, especially since they'll also allow oil in better.

I'd prefer to stop it, but it sounds like it'll be preferable rather than essential, and so is less urgent, and if it gets a bit difficult, then less of a worry if I have to drop it. My first job is to rebuild the gear box - I got it stripped down today, and thankfully it's just the third gear wheel on the main shaft and the big bush on which it sits that are damaged, with all the other components being unmarked, and I already had a gen parts new third gear wheel in my spares box, so once I get the new bush, I'll put all that back together. I can't sort the engine mount out, which will be the next job, until the transmission is refitted and setting the engine alignment correctly. Hopefully, barring any other disasters, I'll be able to do something about the wrap after that. I did look at the possibility of a cranked track rod and level diff, Bill, a bit like on the 101, but it wasn't possible - the diff is too close to the rhs spring, so the section of rod dropped to clear the diff on right lock would severely foul the spring on left lock. I spent two years fiddling and assessing how best to fit a RR/Def?Disco front axle before doing it, and I think I got a pretty damned good solution, but overlooked this engine mount, which is only a problem because of the previous engine conversion using the low down 12J-200Tdi mount. It probably wouldn't have been a problem with a SIII or Discovery mount. Thanks for all your input, everyone.

FAO Somethingwitty - that sounds peculiar and worrisome. I did the conversion on a 110 Salisbury axle, and Gremlin did it on a 109 Salisbury axle. In both cases, the outboard bearing needed spacer washers for the nuts to get the correct pre-load, and these on the 109 axle needed to be thicker than original. I tried using 109 spacer washers on my 109 axle and had to bevel the inner edges to get them to fit over the ends of the smooth section of stub axle, as did Grem, quite the opposite of your problem. I later found the original 110 spacer washers with the integrated rubber seals, and that made life easier. I suspect your bearing races might not be fitted correctly in the hubs. You haven't got two outer races on the outboard side of the hubs, have you? It would result in roughly the bearing spacing you describe...

You can't set the diff level, Bill - the track rod will be passing through the diff nose area. The position of the track rod causes a lot of problems when fitting later axles to leaf suspension, and I'm not willing to use a forward track rod because I really don't believe screwing up the Ackerman angles is a good idea. I got it all to work, except for this unexpected prop contact. From what you say, the wrap that I get under heavy braking is normal, regardless of which type of axle is fitted to this suspension, so won't have any worse implications for the service life of my springs or steering components, suggesting that I may have been right in my speculation that an anti-wrap system is not actually necessary, though it would be beneficial. As for slotted bolt holes in flanges - they would certainly weaken the flange, but if I was to re-orientate the swivels, I'd weld the holes up and re-drill in the new positions.

If you get a decent thickness of paint over a well prepared surface, then brush strokes or roller patterns can be polished out, unless you use metallic, but who would do that?

The DIY waxoil sold in Halfords and the like is good for cavities but useless on the chassis' exterior - it's too soft. DIY applicators are rubbish, too. It's wroth stumping up the extra money and getting it done properly by a specialist - they have the high pressure steam lances needed to get the carp and loose rust off, the lifts to get the car up to do that properly, and the professional grade waxes that will last underneath the vehicle on salty British roads. You also don't have to contend with all the mess yourself. As for the quality of Dinitrol, it's what Boeing use, and it comes in many different grades for use in specific areas and conditions, unlike the single grade Waxoil.

Better to get the prop the right length than fit spacers - the full length prop will have less UJ movement, making them last longer and reducing vibration, but the spacers will add significant tangental forces to the pinion and bearings, increasing their wear rate and chances of failure.

The only problem is making sure the hoses are secured in a way that they don't get snagged off road - the rigidity of steel or copper pipe makes securing them and keeping them neatly tucked into protected routes easier. There is little advantage in hoses to the rear callipers, though - with the outermost pipe mountings undone, there is enough flexibility to remove a calliper for hub work without disconnecting the pipes. I'd just go for copper-nickel piping.

I second Aragorn's comments. I converted an axle to discs, as did Gremlin, using second hand parts (apart from the discs and pads, and reconditioning old callipers with new pistons and seals). You can use a pair of old front 90/110 hubs that have similar bearing spacing as the existing hubs so that you retain the current stub axles and shafts, though you may need to bevel the inside edge of a spacer washer between the outboard bearing's inner race and the first hub nut as the bearings do sit very slightly closer and the washer will pick up on the bevel of the stub axle where the threads end. You may have to play about shaving or shimming the calliper bracket where it bolts to the axle flange, depending on what discs and callipers you use. I used Defender rear discs with Discovery/90 rear callipers, so had to shim the bracket to align the calliper with the disc. Grem did the same. I think Defender callipers require the step of the bracket to be shaved because of the different thickness of the 200 and 300 Tdi hubs and stub axle lengths putting the disc in a slightly different position.

Series III door conversion: Retain the original hinges and mirrors. You will need the door tops and bottoms, check rod and bracket (this is secured to the A-pillar using three bolts into captive nuts, two of which are already fitted on Defender bulkheads and used for mounting the check-rod rail along the top of the foot well - you'll need to drill and fit a rivnut to the third, top bolt hole using the SIII bracket as a guide). The check rod has a rubber buffer stop and a triangular steel plate to prevent it falling out of the door track when the door is closed. The door top is secured tot he bottom by two large studs, so requires the nuts and washers for these studs. The lock is very similar to the rear door lock and uses similar captive nut and captive stud strip fixings, so get those, and you'll need the correct striker pin for the B-post (you may have to drill new bolt holes). If you can find the rarer SII door bottoms, they are the same as SIII in every way but the check rod - they have a rod that slides on a bulkhead track like the Defender and is just secured tot he front of the door frame by a clevis pin - this might be compatible, with some creativity, with the Defender check rod system. The later 110 alloy door tops, as used on MoD Defenders and Wolfs, are much better than the SII and SIII type, so go for those - they're more robust and have better ventilation and alignment.

What brand shoes do you have? Mintex have a good reputation and I wouldn't be surprised if they are the OEM.

Like I said in the first post, Bill, this whole problem has come about by fitting a coiler axle on leafs - it's the raised diff nose that's the problem, striking the engine mount. I don't know if the old drum braked axle had the same amount of wrap - it wasn't something I'd ever looked into, but given that I was able to easily lock those brakes on a dry surface, the maximum level of braking and therefore torque reaction on the axle may have been comparable. In that case, I might even be "overthinking" the whole issue by fitting any anti-wrap system at all - the springs have lasted a hell of a long time and mileage with no ill-effect so far, so perhaps just sorting the engine mount will be enough by itself? Even if the disc brakes do create more torque than the drums could, by adding the third leaf and 50% spring rate at the same time as fitting the axle, then there should be little trouble. I just get uncomfortable envisaging stresses and component deformation!

Ah, that makes sense now! I thought the ladder was horizontal, with the shackle roughly vertical but that inclination would allow the vertical movement of the axle while retaining the essential 90 degree angle with the shackle. Still, that's going to be difficult to fit at that angle without running from the front lower face of the axle case, through the drag link area - mounting it higher would mean running it awfully close to the engine crank pulley. It's an odd dichotomy of leaf springs - simple in principle and installation, but a git to modify to eliminate its few weaknesses.

I had Britpart wiper boxes, which I replaced later with genuine, and to be fair, they appear to be identical.. That Bitpart batch may have been from the OEM. Their wiper cable, on the other hand, was much springier, allowing oversweep on a wet screen and blade damage. The new genuine cable has vastly reduced that.