Snagger

As Bill said, to have accurate Ackerman angles you'd have to have special arms or swivel housings for each wheel base of vehicle type (ie, Series vehicles would have different arms for 88 or 109, and coilers would have different housings for 92.7, 100,110 and 127"). The original spread sheet calculations at the beginning of the thread appear to overlook wheel track, which is just as important as wheel base. This would explain why some axle conversions seem to work better in this regard than others - while the vehicle's wheel base has remained largely standard, the track has been greatly changed. I've never tried it, but I can't see reversed Ackerman angles being a good thing. You're forcing the front tyres to scrub, which will lose the traction that the diff lock was fitted to retain. You're also reducing the sideways force of the front wheels that are trying to steer around a corner or out of a rut, so tight corners or changes of direction on slippery surfaces will be compromised. From an engineering and logic stance, I'd suspect that those running reverse angles and finding improved performance are actually benefiting from whatever other mods precipitated the reversed angle in the first place, and that restoring the angles while retaining the other mods would further enhance the vehicle handling and performance. If that's not the case, I'd be quite interested to learn how reversed Ackerman angles help, as they seem at face value to be a bad thing.

There's a short somewhere. Disconnect every wire from the fuse output and then reconnect them one at a time to find the faulty circuit. Once you have done that, you need to systematically work through that circuit - I'd start by disconnecting the other end of that feed wire and connecting it to the fuse; if it blows, you know the fault is in that wire, if it doesn't, add the next component in the circuit (but disconnected at its other end), so you gradually work through that circuit proving each component as you go until the fuse blows - as soon as the fuse blows, you have found your bad component.

Rule of thumb is that if you're having to pull the pistons out, they need replacing anyway, but if you use grips or a vice without rubber jaw pads, you'll have to replace the pistons as the old ones will be damaged in the withdrawl. I have Zeus stainless pistons in all callipers on my RRC and 109 (disc conversion) and they're great - well worth the money to get a kit from them, though you might want to consider getting genuine seal kit as Zeus supply pattern kits with their pistons. I used their kit and have had no problems other than fitting the outer seal retainers - they aren't as well made as the genuine retainers and tend to pick up and bend on fitting. They're the hardest part of the job by far.

Tongue in cheek, right?

There isn't a great deal of difference between the units operationally. I have read many times that the D and later units are stronger, but I don't see why - they use the same bearings and bushes and seem to have very little differences in the gears and synchros, just detail differences that make them incompatible with each other. Obviously, the changes were made for a reason, and the 3rd/4th engagement teeth will be better at preventing a box from jumping out of gear, but the only clear major enhancement is the reverse idler and shaft. Ironically, my Suffix E (factory rebuild) is an A unit with D main and lay shaft components, but the A case can't take the later reverse parts, so it still has the weaker idler bushing rather than bearings.

I leave the calliper in place with the pads removed, then pump the pedal hard to push the pitons out part way. Wiggle the calliper a bit once disconnected and unbolted to ease the pistons a tad, then remove the calliper, split it and use the vice or mole grips to get the pistons the rest of the way out. Make sure the seats for the seals are spotlessly clean and file the edges of the retaining rings to make insertion easier. I found it easiest to fit the pistons before the outer seal and retaining ring, so the piston centralises them.

The lay shaft, input pinion, layshaft drive gear, third gear, 3rd/4th synchro are all different. I think the reverse idler gear and its shaft are also different and I suspect they might not compatible with the casing (that's certainly true of suffix A). It's a lot to change unless the existing parts are all scrap.

The SRS ECU is under the cubby box itself, and can be identified by having yellow convoluted wrapping for its harness (yellow is unique to the STS system wiring). I had problems with my steering wheel cassette, which i think may have broken a wire. I don't think ECU failures are common unless the vehicle has got very wet inside, and that wouldn't fit with the wiring resistance diagnosis. A cassette failure does fit that, though. The good news is that 300Tdi Discoverys and RRCs and also Discovery 2 and P38s share the same part, so getting a second hand part should be simple. BUT, make sure the steering on the donor is centralised before removing the steering wheel and cassette, and tape the cassette up on removal to make sure you don't accidentally turn it before fitting on your car, as doing so will damage it. You'll need a diagnostic system to clear the faults - once a fault is recorded, it remains logged and the warning lights stay on until the ECU is cleared - even a momentary fault will do this as it's a safety critical system and all faults are treated as needing mandatory investigation.

The flasher relay would be my prime suspect.

Thanks! That looks like a good way of getting access to everything, Dengie. Were you able to lift the shell with just two people, or is it heavier than that? I don't think I'll get it galvanised - I have too many concerns about warping, like happened with my 109's bulkhead. I'll have the repaired shell and chassis blasted professionally and rex-oxide primed; I have used the same chap for years, and all the bits he did for the 109 like side steps, bull bar and a host of brackets have all stayed mint, even despite the road spray, stones and road salt. He must be using some good stuff and I won't have to worry about drilling vent holes. I'll inject the cavities with Dinitrol after painting. I'm just doing some small jobs on the other vehicles first - I want to fit heated mirrors, snorkel, light guards and a dash glove box to my wife's new 90, and re-route the wiring to my 109's mirrors first as a prototyping run before I do hers. I have also just fitted the Masai rear windows to the 109 this afternoon (horrible job!). Unfortunately we have just suffered a set back - some thwack has dented the 90's front wing (I think it was done with a shopping trolley handle), damaging the front and side panels, and it's going to cost £200 to put right. That is another month's delay on the RR! I have seen tailgate hinge position issues on one vehicle where the rear cross member was replaced, so I'll watch out for that one. I am considering using the GRP rear corners for the body (MM4x4) and maybe the ABS plastic front wings to prevent corrosion problems. The ABS wings won't suffer dents, either. It's a move away from originality, but given recent events, I think it might be worth it.

I can't remember the name of the book, and I gave it to a mechanic friend once I had gleaned what little information was relevant to me (anti-roll bar issues). all I remember is that it is an American book, so mostly concentrates on US vehicles, but it covered most suspension types, even though no LRs were featured. There was certainly one comment about using standard forward projecting radius arms and a trailing A-frame, but it was already pointed out that spring compression would cause massive forces to rotate the axle, and with standard arms resisting that, I suspect that something would break (A-frame ball joint or the radius arm bolts or the axle bracket they fix to). I had understood the next idea was to use trailing arms in conjunction with a trailing A-frame, but may have misunderstood. The inverted A-frame has the most technical merit of the proposed solutions, provided that it clears the engine and chassis, but it will produce ground clearance issues and is likely to catch on rocks and stumps. Still, it seems far easier to buy or fabricate one of the off-the-shelf kits, and a kit should at least have been tested to make sure it all works and handles well and safely.

Thanks for that. It looks like the main fuse box, so it must be pretty easy to get to. Now I just need to find a way of running a wire from there to each door!

I removed the side trim and after checking all the bolts, found one without a nut. It was the vertical bolt through the L-bracket which secures the midpoint of the hard top side panel to the tub capping. All the other bolts were tight on that side, but the corresponding bolt on the other side was also very loose, and several of the left side roof bolts needed a small nip to tighten them up. The two loose nuts were refitted with thread lock - they sit either side of a rubber bush and probably came loose as a result of that.

The standard LR front suspension system causes the weight of the vehicle to act in a thrust manner on the radius arms, pushing back along them into the chassis. The nose dip is reduced, and the tyres are forced down into greater contact with the road. A trailing system would allow much more suspension flex under heavy braking, much of the force being stored in the springs rather than forcing the tyres against the road. It'd be more like how a Series vehicle, whos front axle is essentially trailing on the leaf springs, on soft parabolics behaves, and they do lock up front brakes and under steer much, much more than a Defender, RRC or Discovery - I know because we have a 109 (which now has LR discs all round), a 90, an RRC and have just sold a Lightweight! I also used to own a very comprehensive book about 4x4 suspension design and modification that I studied thoroughly before converting 110 axles to fit my 109.

The half shaft will be in the way of a dip stick. Filling with a measured quantity and keeping a close eye out for leaks is the best you can do without fitting a new filler plug hole.

You really don't want to be using any SVO in these temperatures unless you have a heated twin tank system - the SVO will be causing ring and head gumming when cold and has probably made a mess of the injectors. Try a strong dose of fuel treatment when next fill up, but use the tank up first so that you have clean diesel.

Hi again. I plan to add Mudstuff mirror heating pads to out 2009 90. I plan to run them from the heated rear screen relay, like LR did on my RRC, to avoid adding new switchgear to the dash. Can anyone tell me where the relay is (and if it's in the dash, how to get to it), please?

Yep, I'll have to do that to make sure it isn't from somewhere important. That'll be after we get a dent in the wing replaced - it looks like a school kid has hit the corner of the front wing on Monday with the end of a hockey stick sticking out of their sports bag and put a dent straddling the joint between the outer and front panels of the wing just above and outboard of the head light surround. Once the dent has been removed, we'll be fitting light guards to try to give it as much protection as we can.

Don't worry, Mike - I'll have to pull it apart anyway to refit the nut. I'll use some thread lock because I build cars better than Land Rover!

I have had similar problems. It was the water pump until fully warmed up, which I replaced, but the ew pump started squealing after 6 months and does it hot as well as cold.

I'd be a bit concerned about fitting a trailing system for the front axle, as per the A3 - the vehicle will dive when braking and this configuration will reduce front tyre grip under braking, increasing braking distances and giving more pronounced understeer.

The plastic trim studs all appear to be in place, but this may have come from a bolt securing a trim mounting bracket. The bolts securing the seat belt anchor are surprisingly small, and I'm pretty sure from my 109 rebuild that they're M6. There are two through the top of the anchor bracket into the gutter and one through the bottom of the bracket into the B-pillar. However, I can't remember if the bracket (the diagonal brace type) has captive nuts. Otherwise, I would have hoped LR used nyloc nuts on something that important.

I used them for my 200 turbo. Apart from not dressing a groove in the seat around the top oil feed port, allowing oil to weep past the copper washer, it all seems good. The service was very quick and the price competitive. They called up to give me a detailed report just after stripping the unit to let me know what needed replacing.

A nut with integrated washer dropped out of the bottom of the interior side trim panel of our 2009 D90 Station Wagon today, roughly in line with the front end of the side window in the hard top. It is a plain nut with attached washer, 10mm across the hex flats. It is finished in a matt zinc grey (not as dark as the photo looks). I am concerned that it may be from the driver's seat seal belt shoulder anchor, where it attaches to the gutter or B pillar. Can anyone tell me with reasonable confidence where the nut comes from before I start pulling the trim out?

Ah, so it was just the ends of the nuts that were rounded, not the backs.