Snagger

The injectors and swirl chambers are the same on the 10J, 12J, 14J, 15J and 19J.

Have you considered buying a scrap axle with the pan filler and just swapping everything across? It will all just bolt together.

Good to know you've fixed it, and also a nice nugget of information in case I suffer the same thing! Well done!

If you're set on it looking like a 10J, then I'd go with your option of transferring the 10J ancilliaries to a 12J or fitting a 12J crank, pistons and rods to a 5mb 10J.

I think that was the book I had, Hok, though the cover may have been different.

I'd connect them back up to the vehicle - the master cylinder puts out much, much more than 90psi!

That should do the job nicely. It's an impressive job, Chris.

I'm just speculating, Bill - I'm no engineer and like I said, have never even tried it. I think that offset wheels or spacers would have a significant effect on the angles - the swivel point may be unaltered, but the path of the wheel and the radius around which it is turning is affected. I suspect that it would have a similar but lesser effect than wider axles, probably related to the ratio between overall track and the distance between swivel point and tyre centre. For example, a Defender axle is 6" longer than a Series axle - if you fit wheels with 3" greater offsets than standard to a Series axle, I'd imagine the ideal Ackerman increase would be half that of the difference between the Series and Defender angles. Gets complicated, doesn't it! Fair point about the tyres contacting the suspension before the swivel hits the stops - I have seen that before too. It shouldn't happen, and shows that the stops have not been adjusted correctly when swivels have been worked on or different tyres/wheels have been fitted. I can see it happening on 88s being fitted with bigger tyres. I would imagine with how the Ackerman angles are controlled on Land Rovers, that fitting offset wheels or spacers to allow greater lock would be accompanied by a greater Ackerman effect - the more you move the steering, the greater the angle difference becomes. And while fitting wider wheels should require a stronger baseline Ackerman setup, a short wheel base vehicle like an 88 or 90 should already have an over-done angle because of the standard arms and short wheel base, giving the best lock and also the best Ackerman angles. I think you're right about weight transfer having a lot to do with the practical results. I also think you're right that the exactness of it all is unimportant, otherwise the different wheel base models would have dedicated swivels/arms.

The diff in my 109 hadn't been messed with other than a new pinion seal, and I don't think our Lightweight diffs had been fiddled with either. It's a good point about the diff carrier perhaps being a 3.54 unit to accommodate the KAM gear and shim. If that is the case, and it has a filler plug on the carrier, than that will solve Jim's problem with oil levels on his 3.54 swap (other thread) - he could swap the 3.54 internals from one of the new diffs to this carrier, giving him the new diff ratio he wants and a filler plug.

That's an impressive mod, and even more impressive speed of installation. Are you going to be fitting a grille of any sort to protect the intercooler and hide its piping? If that's the exhaust under the sill (and mud!), it might be worth making some kind of guard so that no-one burns their leg getting out of the car, but it depends on how hot it gets - turbos sap a lot of the EGT, so their exhausts sometimes don't get that hot. Certainly worth doing something to keep some of the mud off, though, just to stop it rotting. Not the flaming you prompted, I hope!

I'm happy to accept your experience - as I said, I've never tried it. I'm curious as to why simply reversing the angle would decrease a turning circle. Regardless of the scrub, the inboard wheel is not pivoting as much as it would otherwise do, so the outboard wheel must be pivoting more to compensate. It's usually the inboard wheel that its a stop lock, so having the outboard wheel be the restricted one should increase lock considerably, so having the outboard wheel pivot to full swivel motion and the inboard wheel a little less must be giving more average movement than having the inboard wheel limited by the stops. This would mean that it's not exactly the angle reversal that is the cause for increased turning but the position of the stop locks and the side effect of angle reversal on them. I wonder if winding the locks all the way in so that the inboard swivel's seal is just covering the chrome ball with standard Ackerman angles would provide a better turning radius than the work you have already done. Ican see why feel is enhanced - the only time the steering and transmission forces will be balanced is when the steering is straight; it'd be the same effect as increasing the castor angles.

I'd agree with the above - it sounds like the ECU has suffered from the wet. Removing it and drying it out gently may work, but if that fails, try Remotekey.co.uk - I got your type of ECU for retrofit to my RRC from them, and they activated several options from a list at my choice that LR simply disabled. Good price and service.

At £15, a spare ECU is a fair investment, but simply swapping them over will not extinguish the light - the new ECU will have stored a fault through being disconnected, and so will need clearing too. Your first task is to use a diagnostic tool to clear the existing stored faults and then power up the vehicle - it might be a transient fault that occurred when something was disconnected to do other work, reading as a failure. If you want to try the new ECU if that test fails, then it could be a cheap result, but if a genuine fault exists, I'd expect it to be the steering column cassette. I'd imagine you could get one from a breaker for £5 - I don't think it's a commonly needed part, even though it is the most fragile part of the system. It'd be best if you can remove it yourself so that you know it's in the central position and hasn't been turned. It's pretty simple - take the steering wheel and column trim off, disconnect it from the loom in the fuse box and unclip it from the column stalk switch assembly.

If you have pulled the fuse, the system mat still be drawing power through the indicator circuit and then spreading it around both sides through a seized relay that has welded its contacts together. If the relay is out and it's still doing it, I'd be looking at the indicator switch and loom for shorts and misaligned contacts. If the lights were coming on on both sides through an indicator selection fault, it may have overloaded the relay (designed for only half the lights) and fused it closed, hence the solid rather than flashing lights.

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.