Snagger

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.

Pulling is normally a sign of contamination, either from a leaking hub seal or from leaky brake cylinders. Temperature affects the friction/lubrication created by the contamination, so the pull will be intermittent with brake temperature, not just pedal force. I found once that a leaky cylinder and its resulting dirty contamination of the drums and shoes caused that side to be more effective than the clean side under light braking and cold temperatures, only becoming the more logical weaker side once hot or braking hard. I suspect there are other variables in there too, like drum and shoe condition, shoe material, fluid/oil specification and so on. It's only likely to be an adjustment issue if the brakes always pull squarely on a second pump at all temperatures and pressures - while the hydraulic pressure should distribute evenly to move all shoes into equal contact regardless of maladjustment, in practice the fluid flow rate is just a little restricted to a slack shoe and so the pressure on that side will take a brief moment to equalise with the opposite wheel.

I'm not that up to speed on suspension mods, despite reading an American book all about it. The thing is, while a lot of after-market suspension kit well designed and built, a lot is clearly inappropriate and ill-conceived - the book showed leaf springs so arched they were semi-circular, which would make them almost totally rigid in compression but wobbly laterally, heavily sloping panhard rods that would induce heavy bump steer and cranked drag links that would not just cause bump steer but also be prone to flexing at the bends. Also featured in the book were the ladder/shackle systems you guys are advocating, so I understand their concept, if not their exact operation. Now, these may work a treat, but I have this concern - fitted with the shackle vertical or, presumably, parallel to the spring shackles, they will permit the fore/aft travel of the axle caused by leaf spring compression while eliminating axle wrap from wheel torque reaction. That much is clear. But, while the longitudinal motion of the axle would be accommodated by said shackle, I can't see how vertical axle movement would be; it appears to me that axle movement towards the chassis would cause the shackle and ladder to apply strong wrap loads on the axle. So, while gentle cross-axling would not cause wrap as long as the ladder was mounted centrally, any bumps that compress both springs simultaneously would wrap the axle. The only way to avoid that would be to incline the shackle on a wide obtuse angle with the rod or ladder, but that would make its wrap control weak... If anyone knows of any diagrams or videos which explain how these systems work, so that my concerns can be allayed, then please post them up. It looks like a big enough job that I want to get it right first time, and getting it wrong could have big consequences. For what it's worth, my springs are TIC, like Fridge's, and I doubt anyone could level an accusation of fragility at them.

That's what I was thinking - it prevents axle wrap from torque reactions, but induces wrap with axle articulation, making the exercise pointless and putting stresses on a cross member not designed with those loadings in mind. The "Soren bar", as per his 88", is a much better solution. I'll try to fabricate the parallel bars first, though.

The heater issues sound normal, but it's worth checking the rubber drain plug i the heater intake duct is clear of debris, otherwise the duct and heater matrix fill with rain water and will be blowing humidified air over the screen. The door locks sound to be worn out or maladjusted - I have no problems at all with mine. Defender wipers aren't great, but they're slightly better than SIII wipers! You might have been having wiring problems or a faulty park switch, and the splines on the wiper arms and bosses can wear, causing them to be slack or fall off, but it sounds like you have already dealt with that. The truth is that many LRs are old and tired and most are not maintained well. This gives them a bad reputation and many common faults tend to be regarded as normal when they are merely all too common. It's the same with brakes and steering - while hardly precise or sporty, they should be firm and effective, but both have reputations for sloppiness and ineffectiveness because so many vehicles have not been well maintained.

That compliance issue is why I want to use something with bushes at the back. I have a pair of old front spring plates, so could attach them to the top of the bump stops and use their damper mountings and a pair of 109 Ambulance rear anti-roll bar links for the control arms, with standard damper bushes. With these arms running roughly parallel to the front halves of the springs, they shouldn't need to allow too much compliance and the damper bushes should easily suffice. As for the fact that this would still permit a small amount of wrap, well so do the bushes in coilers' radius arms up front and the trailing arms and front of the A-frame at their rear. A small amount of wrap isn't an issue - this is no comp-safari racer or rock crawler; I just want to prevent damage to the suspension and steering.

What controls the Ackerman angle is the difference in length between the track rod and the swivel pin separation, and how far behind or in front of the axle line the rod is. In essence, it depends on the angle between the effective steering arms. For track rods in front of the axle, having the arms "toe in" will increase Ackerman and for trailing track rods, having them widen as you move away from the axle will do the same. If the arms are parallel, then you should get a neutral Ackerman angle. Presumably, the front arms on coiler axles, meant for the drag link, are 90 degrees to the stub axle axis, which would make sense to get even responses for left and right inputs, otherwise the steering would be more sensitive in one direction than the other unless the PAS box drop arm was set at a similar angle, so you get parallel effective arms and a neutral Ackerman angle.. That effective arm angle is not the angle between the swivel housing and centreline of the arm - the arm can be attached anywhere on the swivel and work. It is the angle between a line drawn from the track rod end eye to the swivel pin axis at its mid height, horizontally level with the centre line of the stub axle after considering swivel camber angle and setting the axle up for castor angle. Messing about with camber (can't with Def/RR axles) or castor angle (can be altered) will affect the effective arm angle, and this Ackerman.

The LRM magazine, Britpart sponsored and conducted build showed the same problem with their new springs. Not a great advert for their products. They did the same thing once the fault was spotted. Shame they didn't repaint the spring eds before refitting - the scorched and blistered paint didn't look that neat against a galvanised chassis and newly painted panels!

I've had a quick peek around the front just now. There is no way that a link to the front cross member would work satisfactorily, shackled or not; it's just too short a gap and would result in a different set of wrap forces, rather than controlling the existing forces. What does look potentially feasible is a pair of rods connected by transverse bolts and bushings (I'm thinking of coiler trailing arms) to the axle, just outboard of the U-bolts, and rose (Heim) joints at the front end, bolted to the outside of the dumb irons through the upper spring bolt holes, the bolt of which will just clear the spring eyes inside the dumb irons. This will give rigid thrust arms to sold chassis mountings with free rotational movement for cross-axle motion and free pitch movement at each end of both rods for spring compression, but fixed length roughly parallel to the springs for anti-wrap control. It won't impinge on the spring bushes, will maintain the same axle axis at all suspension ranges and while being outboard of the springs, won't impinge on steering lock because they will be forward of the axle, where wheel/tyre steering motion is less at full lock (as it is the turn's outboard, lesser pivoting wheel that moves towards the front of the spring). I should even be able to buy off-the shelf brackets from YRM... I need to take a close look at the possibility of fouling the drag link on the near side, but that looks unlikley.

With the amount of spring distortion I must be getting to suffer the prop impacts that are occurring, the springs must be pronouncedly "S" shaped under heavy braking. There is no way that the Soren bar is going to worsen things and no way that the spring will distort more due to longitudinal compression over its arced length. The ladder bar may be more effective though, and won't place extra loads on the rear spring bolts or bushes (though the Soren bar may alleviate bush loadings because of the reduced rotation of the spring eye from preventing the S-bending). I'll have a closer look at the feasibility of a forward bar connecting to the front (steering relay) cross member once I have sorted the gear box and engine mounting.

That sounds similar in principle to what Fridge did on his rear axle. I am still hoping he'll contribute to this thread! No solution is perfect, but I still think the "Soren bar" is the most practical and elegant in this scenario. I'll try that first and see if the bushes take it. !N

I previously fitted 2.8:1 low gears in place ofhe standard 2.35:1, so low range is not so badly affected. I did look at 4.1 diff costs, but it's expensive. I'd prefer that ratio, though, as 4.71 is badly undergeared while 3.54 is overgeared to about the same amount. 4.1 would be ideal for road use in high range, and would also result in the standard overall low ratio with the gear sets I retrofit.

I've previously had the synchro spring failure - that's what prompted the gear box to be rebuilt 40k ago. And I have been using 3.54 diffs for about six months. It had occurred to me that they may be putting extra strain on the gear box, especially since steep hills in town have to be done in third gear.

I think something went through the gears to break the teeth off - there's a big impression of something at the root of each broken tooth.

Thanks guys. Food for thought. I like Soren's solution as it doesn't put strain on the chassis cross member, which wasn't designed for those forces, and avoids any contact with the sump or pulleys. I use Polybushes in my springs, so they should take the forces without much complaint and will be easy to swap if they don;t cope. I think I'll go that way first and see how things go - I can always change later. I'm not keen on the Willy's set up - my springs have too much camber anyway, but it puts a hell of a strain on those U bolts.

That's another benefit of an overdrive - 2nd, 2nd +OD, 4th...

Makes sense, or they'd probably have used the old system for the RR too.

If it's any consolation, mine broke its third gear yesterday - lots of heavy chattering in third and slight occasional chattering in neutral, confirmed but two whole gear teeth in the drained oil today. I have a Tdi too. Might just be too much torque in the long run - the box has probably done the thick end of 100,000 miles, with rebuild 40,000 ago and about 25-30k behind the Tdi.

That was very much the LR way at the time. Look at the late SIIAs and early SIIIs and you'll see technically incorrect door hinges, lighting, speedos, switch gear and so on. They would only switch over to the new parts once the old stock was depleted, and that was for all markets. The factory recon transmission I bought around 1996/7 has a Suffix A casing and thus reverse idler shaft and gear, even though the rest of the innards were Suffix D. They have always just used whatever was left over, not specifically palming them off on the old colonies. As for the wheel bearings, the idea was to rationalise the three different bearings in use - identical inner and outer bearings on the RR but two different sizes on the Land Rover, to one common spec across all vehicles for the obvious logistical and financial benefits. That RR spec bearing went onto the 1980 and later Land rovers, including the Stage I V8, and the Discovery nearly a decade later, and is still used on current Defenders. It was a factory stream lining exercise rather than a technical benefit.