Snagger

As I understand it, if they are of very poor quality, then they are unfit for purpose and you are entitled to a refund, but nothing more. Britpart bearings and seals are utter carp. Good quality bearings don't cost much more if you buy them from a bearing specialist - it's buying them through garages and car suppliers that is expensive. If going R380, you'll need to use the short nosed version, which is pretty uncommon and commands a correspondingly high price. The standard long version might not fit without moving the transfer box aft and the engine well forward, with a lot of chassis, hand brake linkage and prop shaft alteration.

I think you're saying that as long as the 1st and 2nd gears and their synchro unit are A-C and the 3rd/4th synchro, the 3rd gear and the input pinion are all D, then all is well. It's not quite as simple as that - the lay shaft also varies betweem A-C and the D and later suffixes. Apart from a small step behind the first gear, I don't know what the lay shaft differences are. As far as main shaft oiperation is concerned, I can't see any problem mixing and matching (as long as the clusters are matched), but Phil may know mor about the lay shaft and its gear profiles than I do. Take a look inside the pinion and third gear and check that they have the stepped D suffix teeth - they should have recessed flats on the sides of each tooth about 1/4-1/2mm below the main thickness to allow the coffin shaped teeth to engage in a way that resists popping out of gear with torque loads applied. If the teeth are flat sided, you just need to replace the synchro with an A-C one.

Good spot - a D suffic synchro would have notched inner teeth much like inside the input pinion and 3rd gear.

It's a petrol version of injector cleaner, which cleans the bores, piston crowns, rings and valve seat. Essentially, it's a chenmical de-coke. I haven't tried using any petrol versions as we only have one petrol vehicle and it's running sweetly, but I have had good results on my diesels with Forte and STP products.

I agree that the lay shaft and reverse idler are fit only for smelting. The rest looks fine, though the 1st and 2nd synchro rings can't be assessed from the photos because they don't show the fine ridges. If the ridges are intact, like on the 3rd/4th synchro, then they're good to go. I also echo the advice about the detent springs - replace them all.

Nearly there on the front axle too, now: http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/front-axle-swap/

Grem, I think I still have a good pair of shafts for a 109 Salisbury axle, complete with flanges. I could bring them down to Luqa next time I go there for you to collect from the Globeground guys (I haven't asked, but I'm sure they'd be willing to bring them to ground side for you). PM me your details if you want them.

Gummed up rings or valves leading to compression leakage is a very likely candidate after laying up for so long. A little oil through the sprak plug holes may help as suggested, but a strong does of fuel additive de-coker could also be of benefit.

I think TD5 and TDCI 110s have a valve, and probably 300 Tdis too. I think it was only the 200 Tdi and earlier models that had a direct connection, and that was because they had rear drums. I'll have a look at some 110s when I n ext go out to make sure.

It's the balancing valve to reduce pressure to the rear callipers. On the Discovery and RRC, it was in the engine bay attached to the T-piece that split the rear brake line from the front left line, with the front right line run directly from the calliper (and the third mc port splitting to the front callipers only). The Defenders with rear discs have a smaller bias valve attached to the chassis under the bulkhead (there was no bias valve on rear drum equipped Defenders, I think). It's fitted at an angle - I thought for bleeding, but someone else told me it was inertially activated; the greater the deceleration, the more the valve differentiated the pressure. I can't see how that works on slippery surfaces, though - high pressures will still have lower retardation and you'd still need to reduce the rear calliper pressure to prevent the back locking up first. Anyway, since my brake system is all Discovery, I have fitted the Discovery bias valve. It might be a bigger bias than needed - I suspect that shorter wheel bases need the higher biases, and the Disco has 9" less than the 109, but since my vehicle is usually unladen, reducing the weight on the rear tyres and subsequently their grip, it should work well. Discoverys have heavier rears with all the trim and the heavier body structure, and of course they often tow horse or boat trailers. The Max GVW of a Disco I is just 50kg less than for a standard 109, but given their higher speed and frequent heavy towing applications, I reckon the Discovery brakes will be ideal for a109.

Ha-ha! http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/110-rear-axle-fitted/

Sorry for the hijack, but it is related. I get increasing white-ish/pale blue smoke at idle; the longer it idles, the more smoke I get. It seems pretty clean at higher power, though, and a short drive will clear the idling smoke unless it idles for several more minutes. It is burning oil, and has done ever since I built the engine up - it had a recon head when I bought it, but I had the block rebored myself and had the injectors and pump overhaulled professionally. I suspect the valve guides and seals, given that oil consumption is also worst when idling or when the engine has been on the over--run for long periods. What do you lot think>

Got the rear axle on! Everything except the brake piping and transfer of the QT diff guard (it needed a quick blow over with silver Hammerite as it is begining to get surface rust, but the midgies seem attactracted by wet paint , so it'll need another quick going over in the morning). And I even had time to go sailing for an hour this afternoon!

You shouldn't need to drill any holes, but I had dreadful trouble fitting the body on my Marsland chassis as the tub floor hoops were mis-jugged during production. Thankfully, the brackets were all spot-on. You might have the opposite issue to me...

That should work, but watch out for contact between the extended front prop shaft and the bell housing cross member.

I have been told that the Series transfer box is considerably stronger than the LT230. That combination should give you a very tough transmission with minimal alterations - you'd just need to move the engine 4" forwars to accomodate the LT77 and mating kit. That might mean using an electric fan in front of the rad, and perhaps moving the rad itself, but that'd be easier than moving the transfer box aft and making custom props (especially on an 88" - there's not much capacity for shortening the rear prop by 4" there). It should otherwise be straight forward. The fifth gear could be lower than an overdrive, though, even though the box is tougher, quieter and more oil-tight than the Series unit.

I'm planning to fit my 110 Salisbury rear axle tomorrow and the Discovery front axle on Sunday. Monday and Tuesday will hopefully see the brake pedal and master cylinder completed... Like I said, that's the plan!

But that's too easy! Seriously, though, I'm not keen on the chassis and cab modifications, and I like the feel of using the Series transmission - it is part of the old charm.

Well, that depends on grip and inertia - if you have plenty of inertia (as you would in 4th) and very poor grip, then the maths will overcome any level of optimism. In my case, I was on dry dirt or shale tracks with plenty of grip already in first low and crawling as the descent started, but the vehicle weight and hill steepness still made the car accelerate so the engine was racing, needing frequent and very cautious brake applications. I think the low ratios swap would be a very useful mod for a lot of people who trial or will be using steep tracks when heavy like me, regardless of engine type and diff ratio...

I got mine dead straight by sitting the rear tub onto the chassis (you can bolt its rear end to the cross member) and fitting the bulkhead without any spacer washers between its feet and the outriggers. Run a string line taughtly from the crease (above the side bulge and rear lights, below the top door hinge on the bulkhead and the rag top fixing cleats) at the back of the tub all the way to the bulkhead and raise the front end of the tub until the string line is neatly in that creasealong the full length of the tub and tighten the bolts at the front of the tub. Then set the bulkhead by attaching the sills and seeing what distance it naturally sits from the tub, ensuring you have enough space for the door and 5mm clearance front and rear to the outboard faces of the tub and door pillar (ie. not the seal lips), adding spacer washers at the pillar feet to suit. Set the bottom distance first, then get the door pillars parallel to the tub front edges, tightening the steering column support bolts to hold it there. the rest is straight forward.

It's all relative. I found first low too high on the steep track and off-road descents in the Alps with a fully laden 109 with a diesel engine. With a petrol engine, it'd have been far worse (less compression and so less engine braking). 3.54 diffs would have made life really difficult. In fact, it'd have been nice to have installed those SII SuffB low gears before that trip.It's the engine braking effort that concerns me about 3.54 diffs with a Tdi or V8, not the accelerative reduction. The overdrive doesn't cause any trouble because you simply deselect it when lower gears are required. If Roamerdrive ever builds the combined under/overdrive, then this sort of problem would be resolved - very tall high gearing available for cruising and lower than standard low range gears off road (if used with those early low gears and 3.54 diffs), and you could use high 4th under-drive for the steep road hills to be similar to standard 4th. It'd be an extremely flexible set-up. It's a shame it'd be very expensive, but have you seen the price of 3.9 crown wheels and pinions from KAM and the like - the over/underdrive might not be much more expensive than having a new pair of diffs set up with those special ratios, and would be a much better option.

That's why I fitted SII Suffix B low range gears to my transfer box in preparation for the axle swap - the SII Suffix B gears are about 17% lower than the later gears, which offsets the 35% diff increase to some extent. My ideal would be to use those and the overdrive in conjunction with 3.9 diffs, though.

Have you made sure you have clean, new fuel? Old fuel is useless as only the heavy molecular chains remain - the lighter, more volatile molecules evaporate off and after a few months petrol becomes difficult to use in engines. Have you cleaned the spark plugs? They might be coked up now with the poor running. HT leads also degrade with age, causing ignition issues (don't buy cheap replacements as these are invariably of such low quality that they're worse than old ones). Have you cleaned out the air cleaner with (the old) petrol and replaced its oil? It could be gunked up, stangling the intake... Setting the distributor that far off doesn't sound right. I seem to recall mine was set about 3/4 around its total available arc, so still had plenty of movement left. It could be that the timing chain has become stretched with use prior to laying up, or that the sprockets or cam shaft skew gear (which drives the distributor) have worn, allowing slop in the timing. I hate to say it, but I think you'll have to systematically work through the fuel, air and ignition systems just like I did, looking for leaks, blockages and defective parts as you go. Hopefully, you won't need to pull the head off, but it is possible that after 10 years of laying up, the bores have rusted, creating low compression and blow-by.

I think that stiffness is due more the aluminium thickness than the alloy grade itself, though that's just a suspicion. The Defender panels are certainly a great deal thinner, though.

I think the Birmabright was a surface treatment to the aluminium, giving it a goldish colour. The underlying metal is just plain aluminium.