Snagger

The 12J is not as quiet as a petrol engine, but if maintained it's pretty comfortable accoustically. The one you drove may have been a knackered old dog - there are plenty of LRs about that have all sorts of terrible issues, like wooly steering, poor brakes and a cacophony of noises that the owners insist are normal but are just due to shoddy maintenance. I ran a 12J that I rebuilt in my 109 for ten years before replacing it with a 200Tdi (that I also rebuilt). The 12J was harder to drive as it needed momentum to be conserved and pulling out of junctions or overtaking were complicated by the lack of torque, but the noise and vibration levels were much, much lower than with the Tdi, especially when running the 12J on vegoil (with a fuel pre-heater). There was no difference in reliability - both started instantly, even in sub zero conditions (except the Tdi when I had a recent fuel lift pump failure). For what it's worth, my 109 has a full Wright Off Road interior kit (including the read tub floor and wheel arches), Noise Killer lined sides and roof, Defender doors (which absorb more noise than Series doors), a full set of Noise Killer under-bonnet padding, more NK blanket covering the entirity of the bulkhead, inner wings and undersides of the bell housing and transmission tunnels, a 300Td's rocker housing accoustic cover and I have a Roverdrive (quieter than the Fairey). Despite the engine and transmission having less than 30,000 miles on them and all that noise proofing, the Tdi still makes the cab unpleasantly noisy at 60mph and unbearable above 65. I'll have to see how much quiter it becomes once I have 3.54 diffs, but a Tdi is not the silver bullet that many claim - it does have the single drawback of being a harsh engine. A 300Tdi is much more refined, though its head is less robust and it's more difficult to fit. I still recommend the 200Tdi as a retrofit, but I don't want to see people disappointed with false expectations.

The rose jointed one will transmit a lot of vivration to the chassis. That's why LR used rubber bushes instead on their tie rod. They were fitted to all Lightweights because all Lightweights were made for military customers. Other military Series LRs were also fitted witht he same rod. It was only an optional extra, not standard, on civilian vehicles. It prevents the engine moving fore and aft to keep the thicker fan of FFR vehicles away from the rad. It also reduces wear and tear on the main engine mounts and greatly increases hand brake effectiveness - have a look at the engine and transmission movement on a vehicle without the tie as someone else applies and releases the hand brake - they can move up to 1.5" fore and aft, which loses a lot of the effective motoin of the hand brake linkage. Fit one of these rods and you'll never wonder about fitting an X-brake again.

As Grem says, Woodhead were one of the OEM suppliers and are pretty good quality and certainly good value. I'd just get a set of those for a 109 1-Ton, since you';re still using multi-leaf springs. Gas dampers, even Pro-Comp, will be dearer and a waster of money.

That's the one. I see you used the Defender pedal box too - did you swap the pedal at all? I plan to retain the SIII pedal box so that the pedal height isn't increased and also so that the clutch and brake pedals still match (I obsess over things like that ). Did you modify the pedal box to account for the different foot well angle (and thus pedal position), or did you just fit it directly?

Well, I already have a Defender bonnet, but the wing top and steering column look like they will be within the servo circumference. This is the later, big flat servo.

Why would you want one of those bonnets? They're uglier and can't take a spare wheel...

In that case, the only difference between the cylinders would be the reservoir they're fitted with - the Defender cylinder is fitted horizontally, so has a rectangular reservoir, while the Discovery/RRC cylinder is mounted on an incline and has a wedge shaped resevoir. I bought a complete TD5 Defender brake pedal and master cylinder assembly, and will be using the master cylinder from that mated to the Discovery servo and SIII pedal box (the Defender servo's diameter is too big, I think, but I'll test fit it first).

They won't fit - the flanges are different, the shafts won't fit and the later swivels have their track rod arms at the back, so the track rod needs to run through the spaces occuped by the leaf springs and diff nose. You either need to fit a brake kit to standard Series swivels, get the kit with the modified swivels (heystee, I think), or go the whole hog and fit later axles like I have been preparing (losing the axles' points).

I have done mine much the same way as as Grem, but with a Discovery I system - the master cylinders are the same except the Discovery unit has an extra port for the front brake lines which are entirely separate, rather then T-eed at the chassis. I have Discovery, RRC or 90 front discs at the front, and the same at the rear which are standard 110/130 rear discs. Discovery/RRC/90 rear discs wouldn't fit the calipers without milling a lot off the callipers and their brackets, while the bigger discs' deeper profile allow the Discovery callipers to fit with a shim between the bracket and axle flange. The brake bias is not significantly affected by disc size in this case - it's the size of the pads and the pressure exerted on them that matters. In LRs, the front callipers have four pistons and the rear just two. The pressure difference is further increased by a pressure reducer in the rear lines. So, running slightly mismatched rear discs and callipers has no detrimental effect other than that a wear ridge will devellop as the pads outer limit is a little less then the diameter of the discs, unlike at the front where they are matched. By keeping a full vehicle set (in my case Discovery, in Grem's case Defender), the balancing should be absolutely fine. My front axle is a Discovery axle anyway, so everything has remained standard on that (except the leaf spring mountings and rebuilding the callipers with stainless pistons). Before anyone mentions it, the Max GVW for a Discovery I is only 50kg less than for a 109, but since the Discovery is so much faster and tows more, the system should be more than capable of dealing with a fully laden 109 and certainly better than the original drum system. Like Grem, I went for a 100% LR system for compatibility and for ease of sourcing spares.

Necessary, no, but occasionally beneficial. I'd love a Webasto, but can't afford one.

There is an L-shaped bracket bolted to the diff nose. From the side of this should be a rubber engine mount (200Tdi Defender mount) with a hollow circular steel or iron mass. This is a vibration damper for the diff (only fitted to RRC and Discovery, not Defender). The steel cable loops around the external fixings of the rubber mount, preventing complete loss of the mass if the rubber separates from the steel plates of the mounting (it would be a dangerous item to detach on the motorway). You should either replace the cable with new under the wide retaining washers or remove the whole damper assembly from the axle.

I bought a second hand old sytle (integrated) Kenlowe Hot Start for my 109. It works well enough, especially for £20, and made starting and using the car easy and comforatble in that really cold snap, but takes over half an hour to reach full engine running heat by itself (ie. needle in normal stable temp position). As said, it's useless away from home, too. Mine seized a couple of times, require dismantling to spin the rotor by hand. Running it for a few seconds each month would prevent this. Mine seems to resist seizure now that it is mounted on a steel plate attached to the aircon compressor mountings on the timing case - the vibration must be keeping it free.

Zeus also sell stainless pistons - I have fitted two sets and they're very well made.

If you convert to Series doors, go for SIII anti-burst types. All SIII doors use check rods that have A-post brackets which share bolt holes with the Defender check rod track bracket, making them preferable to SII doors. Early doors didn't have anti-burst locks, so doors could pop open with bumps or twists. You'd need the doors halves, the check straps, locks and striker catches.pins for the B-pillars. They rot even faster than Defender doors, so you'd probably be looking at new items. I think you'd be better off with second hand Defender doors - they're much safer, seal better and have way better visibility and ventilation.

Ah - so you had that same problem with the bearing packing washers too. I bevelled the inside edges on one side of each washer to get around that problem, but I ended up using the 110's thicker washers in the end, rather than those thin SIII type. I'll be transferring the same type of QT diff guard from my fitted SIII axle to the 110 axle when I swap them over, and plan to do the same with the QT front diff guard (the Series/LHD type with the welded lugs either side of the pan, rather than the RHD Def type that reaches up around the top of the casing) - they're very good guards. So, my rrar axle will be just like yours except in length and diff ratio. That calliper paint is a bit bling, isn't it?

I don't see it either - the torque put through the rear axle in 2wd with a Tdi is less than put though similar Rover diffs on highly tuned TD5 Defenders, Discoverys or Overfinch RRCs. I know the 3.54 crown wheel is stronger than the 4.71's, but I don't think the difference is enough to be significant in this case. My use in the first paragraph of "might" was very much in the hypothetical technical sense, ie. from a design engineering viewpoint with all the life-time longevity and probability safety factors built in.

The gear box would not qualify as a direct replacement. To be honest, I think you'd lose the identity if you replace the whole transmission and were open with the DVLA and VOSA - the chassis would need too many changes for the LT77 if fitted with an LT230, though mated to a Series transfer box (using the Ashcroft mating kit) would avoid that if you moved the engine forward 4" to allow for the extra length, and would thus avoid the unaltered chassis issue (you could alter the engine's mounting brackets, or failing that, I doubt VOSA would get too exited about altered chassis brackets). Be careful about clearance between the front pulley aand the front cross member though - moving that cross member would interfere with the steering anyway, but could count as significant chassis alteration.PAS conversions can be done without too much chassis alteration, such as by using P38 or LHD Adwest (RRC/Defender/Discovery I) boxes mounted outboard, if this can be done clearing the swivel housing and tyre on spring compression. Alternatively, Heystee sells a ram kit which bolts on to an unmodified chassis, with only a replacement drag link allowing the retention of the steering system's identity points. It's pretty dear, though. The disc brakes wouldn't affect the VIN points if they are a conversion for the existing axles, but if you fit later axles from a coil sprung model, you'll obviously lose those points. I'm set to lose those axle points on my 109 when I do the axle swap, and have previously lost the eninge's point on the conversion, but since the rebuild scores points for the new chassis (origninal LR spec), the rebuilt transmission, steering and suspension, I will still score 11 points where only eight are required. You can further replace your transmission or go PAS, dropping to nine points, unless you use the Heystee PAS kit, in which you can do both. Well, that's my interpretation, anyway...

A 200 Tdi might be too much for a vehicle driven in 2wd with a Rover rear axle in the long run (I don't know), but as others have suggested, mechanical sympathy goes a long way to making thins last. When I was looking at converting my 109, most people said the gear box would break. It has been pushed hard since the Tdi was fitted, but the gear box has been fine. It's gentle pedal inputs that make the difference, not the ultimate torque applied; we all know of people who regularly break gear boxes, diffs or half shafts with 10J diesels and poor technique. The timing belt issue is a red herring. I know it's one of your big worries, Tony, but really, it's unfounded. The belts need replacing every 72000 miles, and as long as that is done, then failure is extremely rare. You have an obsession with timing chains, and while they are also robust, they stretch and can also snap. Neither system is bullet-proof, but both seem to have similar reliability. Belts are much easier and cheaper to change, though... If a Tdi is deemed too much for a Rover axle, and it doesn't seem to be problematic for most 88" owners who have done it, then maybe a 200Di (stripped Tdi) would be an alternative: simple, frugal, reliable and of similar performance to a 2.25 petrol?

How's this for an alternative? Fit an electric fuel lift pump (easy and cheap enough to source from any scrappie) and replace the mechanical lift pump and mounting plate with a 300Tdi brake vacuum pump; the only issue is whether the cam shaft's lobe is of suitable profile, but I should think it'd work well if the other options don't work out.

My temperature gauge does not behave like that on my 109, and it has been fitted with 82o thermostats in a 2.25p and a 12J diesel, and now an 86o thermostat in a Tdi - the needle sits bang in the middle of the normal arc, and has done so with all three engines except when that have got too hot. My Lightweight's gauge indicates about one third of the way up the arc with its 74o thermostat. You have a fault or a sender/gauge mismatch.

He said a 2.5 nad (12J), which is quite good in a SIII unless you do a lot of towing or hills. A Tdi is a lot more work to fit, and while its performance makes the vehicle easier to drive, it's also considerably noisier than the indirect-injection older diesels.

Shows more why not to let teenagers borrow a car that needs more careful driving techniques...

I have converted a drum braked 110 Salisbury axle to discs for my 109 (using Discovery brakes as I got the whole brakes system froma Discovery along with a front axle, so the calliper and home-brew calliper spacer work shouldn't affect you). I retained the original stub axles, half shafts and drive flanges, using wide bearing 90/110 front hubs. The discs are 90 and RRC/Discovery plain front and Defender 110 rear discs (same part for all applications), as used on my modified (Discovery) front axle. You can have a look at what I did at the following links: http://www.nicksland...ar-axle-part-3/ http://www.nicksland...ar-axle-part-4/ http://www.nicksland...mpleted-part-5/ The issue of mudshields polarises opinion. They are meant to prevent splashing of road spray onto the discs, but more importantly, they stop and grease or oil from leaking swivels, engines and transmissions from contaminating the brakes. On the down side, they can trap mud and stones, abrading the pads and scoring the discs. Brake cooling should also be greater with the shields removed. I think the benefits of inclusion versus omission vary depending on the use of the vehicle and how well maintained it is - a vehicle used for lots of mud plugging or roack crawling is probably going to benefit from their removal, especially if it isn't plagued by leaks, while a leaky vehicle mainly used on road or lanes is going to be better with them fitted...

Pro-Comps are relatively cheap, for gas dampers, but are of questionable quality. Their main problem is the corrosion of the piston shaft, abrading the seal and causing leaks. If you leave the consertina boot off so that the moisture (usually condensation rather than water from off roading) can dry off, then they tend to be pretty good for Series vehicles. However, gas dampers like these tend to be over-stiff for conventional multi-leaf springs, which are largely self-damping with their inter-leaf friction, and are best used with parabolic or coil springs which have no such friction. As you are retaining multi-leaf springs, I'd recommend OEM dampers for an MoD (WD) 109 to make sure they have the correct length and range for your taller suspension arrangement. If you really want gas dampers, I'd suggest Pro-Comp ES1000s, which are much softer than the standard 3000s normally sold with parabolic kits. I have 9000s on my 109 and they're definitely too hard, despite the weight of my 109; it's better to have heavy springs and medium dampers than medium springs and heavy dampers for heavy vehicles, especially on road, as the dampers stop the springs flexing quickly enough to take up bumps at moderate to high road speeds. For a heavy vehicle only used at low speeds, heavy damping is less problematic. I will be fitting a third leaf to my front parabolics when I do the axle swap to help with the vehicle's weight and to reduce body roll when cornering, but plan to replace the ES9000s with ES3000s when they next need replacement so that the springs can make their small flexes more easily for a gentler ride.

I have found DIeselBob Tuning to be very good for injector and pump work at a fair price. A bit late for you, but it might help others...