Snagger

That pretty much confirms what I had understood, then - I knew that the 4-spoke steering wheels were incompatible with Series columns, so if the late Defender wheels will fit 90/110 columns, then it must be the 200Tdi steering wheels (parts-bin proviso withstanding) that match the Series' splines.

But remember - bigger is not always better. Fit excessive brakes and all that will happen is that you'll lock the wheels and lose control. The brakes need to be proportional to the vehicle's mass and the tyres' grip. Fitting Stage I or 2.6l brakes to an 88" would be unwise. That is one advantage of discs - while they shouldn't make any difference to the stopping distance of a given vehicle with well maintained standard brakes in ideal conditions (as the amount of braking is limited by the amount of grip the tyres have), they will make controlling the maximum braking effort easier as they are less prone to locking up than drums - drums need very little pedal movement to go from only moderate-heavy braking to locked, only achieving maximum braking briefly, while discs will allow easier control of the braking effort and more sustained maximum braking. It doesn't made a great deal of difference on dry tarmac, but on wet roads it can make a huge difference.

First, make sure the thermostat is working and that it's the hotter 82oC spec, not the standard MoD 74oC. Next, try to cure as many draughts as possible - door seals may need replacing and doors often need adjustment. Pattern replacement door tops tend to be vertical rather than canted inwards in line with the wind screen and body sides, creating 1/2" gaps at the top. Seal up any gaps that can't be adjusted out with DIY draught-excluder tape. Make sure the heater control valve is working - they are often seized or clogged, and SIII's Bowden cables are occasionally loose in the valve operating arm. Also make sure the pipe work from the head and the heater matrix are in good order - the steel pipes rust internally and the matrix becomes externally clogged with dust and mud while the inside blocks up with scale and detritus from the coolant system. Cleaning it out thoroughly with caustic soda (and then thoroughly flushing with fresh water) helps a great deal, and make sure the engine coolant has a 50% mix with anti-freeze to prevent rust and scale build up in the future. The steel pipes can be lagged with domestic foam pipe insulation to prevent heat loss under the bonnet. In SIIIs, make sure the heater ducting is all good - the corrugated duct from blower motor to matrix housing is usually in a poor state, allowing a lot of air loss under the bonnet, and the main trunking (which forms the lower fascia) is often full of debris and leaks from screw holes and impact damage. SIIs and Lightweights don't have ducting issues for the heater generally, but the demister vent piping can split. Dunsfold LR has plenty in stock for a vey cheap price (I just replaced the split hoses on my LW). While the heating capacity of these Smiths heaters is less than the SIII heater, they do recirculate the same cabin air rather than continually heat external cold air, so should eventually warm the cab up. Recirculating the same air does mean that moisture from occupants' breath does build up and fog windows more than heaters which use an external source, so having a slight opening in a window from time to time is required. just to vent the vapour. I haven't had a detailed look, but I think it'd be fairly simple to fit a SIII or Defender heater (stripped down) into a cubby box. Failing that, you should be able to fit one under the tub floor and und ducting through a cubby box or the seat base. MoD winterised 90s and 110s had simple convection heaters along the tub floor sides, fixed tot he wheel arches; these are just lengths of pipe with fixed fins and protective front panels which work just the same as domestic radiators - these run from the engine coolant using a T-piece in each of the normal heater hoses and a separate control valve in that circuit. As far as pre-heating goes, electrical units like the Kenlowe Hotstart work reasonable well, taking about 30 minutes to warm the coolant and engine enough that you have instant demisting and tepid air on a sub-zero morning, but only where you have access to an electrical hook-up. Their advantages over Eberspachers and Werbastos are simply price, size and ease of fitting. The Eberspachers and Webastos are far more effective and flexible, being usable anywhere, even on the move, though. Just be warned that those fuel fired heaters do use vehicle electrical power, so if being used to pre-heat the vehicle for sequential short journeys, you will need to recharge the battery frequently or fit a dual-battery system.

It doesn't matter what body-type or trim of Defender you use as a source, it's the age of the vehicle that matters. SW, pick-up or Hi-Cap, it doesn't make the slightest difference. If the information I previously had about it being the 200Tdi steering wheels that are compatible, then you're looking at vehicles from 1989 to 1993/4. However, since PAS conversions will also use the steering column, it doesn't matter what age donor you use as you can take the matching wheel too; while Defender columns will bolt into a Series vehicle easily enough, the length and thus the steering wheel position is different, and you wouldn't want a Series wheel on a Defender column unless you alter the column position significantly - the Series' wheel has an offset that puts the rim closer to the driver than the boss, while the Defender is pretty flat. That means a SII/SIII wheel on a Def column will be very close to the driver's chest.

Some do and some don't - I think it's the 200Tdi Defender wheel which shares the same splines as the Series, with 300Tdi, TD5 and TDCI steering wheels having smaller, non-tapered splines. Even then, LR's notorious habit of raiding parts bins and mixing specs as major changes are imminent (so there are several hundred vehicles which end up non-standard) means that even this knowledge is no guarantee - the latest 200Tdi Defenders may have 300 steering systems, as happened with axles.

I have heard of parabolics snapping, but snapped leafs in conventional springs are far more common. Good quality springs should not break or deform, though - there are a lot of parabolic spring manufacturers about now, and they are not all equal. Even then, some of the good manufacturers have problems; RM had to change the source of their steel because the US stuff dropped too much in quality (I think they use Japanese steel now), and Heystee, which is the Rolls Royce of parabolics, had a faulty batch which they had to return to their supplier (a very well detailed issue on their website, showing the defects, many of which were minuscule, and showing Heystee's attention to detail and quality). So, even the best source can occasionally go wrong, but don't rule out parabolics just because of one bad experience with a brand you haven't named.

Hi folks. I have to reset my steering box and drop arm adjustment as I think the longitudinal link may be about 1/4" too long and the steering box may be off centre with the steering relay and swivels in the straight-ahead position. The Haynes book of lies talks about alignment marks on the steering box rocker shaft and the drop arm "on later models". My rocker arm has a line cut in the end of the shaft, which I suppose must be its alignment mark, but I can't see any marks on the drop arm. Can anyone please tell me where to look or, better still, post a photo of the drop arm mark, or tell me how the alignment was set up on earlier units without the marks?

I fitted a pair of FWH on my 109 years ago, and agree whole heartedly with Jon White - they made no difference at all to acceleration, speed, economy, steering feel, noise or vibration. The only effect they had was to make unplanned 4wd engagement messy and to spring a leak from their o-rings after about a year. They promply went in the bin, and I'd never have them again. There is one tangible benefit for frequent off-roaders: they allow the vehicle to be driven home with a broken front diff or half shaft by disengaging both FWH and driving in 2wd. That's their sole tangible benefit, but their inherent weaknesses make front axle drive failure more likely anyway.

I agree with all of the above - Series steering will only be slightly heavier with coiler axles due to the swivel housing steering arms being slightly shorter on the later axles, but the difference is not marked. Series steering is much maligned for vagueness, heaviness and slop, but that's just a sign of very poor maintenance; well maintained steering is light, has no play or wander, and while it can't be labelled as precise, it's feel and control are very reasonable and well within the capabilities of most petite women and elderly drivers. If you start putting big tyres of heavily offset wheels on, then you do get much heavier steering and much worse feel and wander, but the same is true of any vehicle. I have to contend a little with that on my 109, while the Lightweight is a breeze to drive and shows how unnecessary PAS is on vehicles with standard axles and wheels. Castor angle will make a difference, but the symptoms seem to be inconsistent with that - too much castor gives heavy steering but high directional stability, while insufficient castor gives light and twitchy steering with a lot of wander. Heavy and wandering steering point to a wheel/tyre size issue as Fridge alluded to, along with a tracking adjustment problem. Even a slight maladjustment of tracking can cause a lot of wander, and it's not unlikely that the coiler axles have been left with a toe out setting while Series vehicles should be set with toe in (1.2-2.4mm at the wheel rim). The idea behind that is that the small amounts of play and flex in the swivels and track rod gives parallel wheels, the toes pulling together with the driven front axle on a permanent 4wd coiler or dragged toes apart with the free-wheeling Series front axle (normally in 2wd on tarmac). If the vehicle also has permanent 4wd (LT230 or similar), then the tracking should be toe out - it's the transmission that dictates toe in or out, not the axle source.

A Roverdrive gives a 28% gearing increase, while the 1.22 LT230 is geared roughly 15% taller than the standard 1.4 ratio unit. Of course, the beauty of an overdrive is that it is selectable, so if you find it overgeared on shallow climbs with those tyres, you can de-select it and just use it for flat or shallow descents. As mentioned, it will also work well as a gear splitter, giving you a higher 4th gear when 5th is just a little too tall (and the same for other gears too). The Roverdrive is a very robust unit; just make sure you keep the transfer oil level correct and replace the oil on schedule and it'll serve you well.

The comments about quality of UJ, frequency of greasing and the effects of raised suspension are all correct, but there is one more issue that is equally important: driving style. If you drive with a heavy right foot ands a "binary" clutch (on/off, rather than progressive and gentle), then you can expect to destroy UJs in quick order. You will also go through drive flanges, half shafts and CV joints... Anyway, there is an unfortunate truth in that many (not all) owners of lifted vehicles get the underside very muddy through frequent off roading (the whole point of the lift), push the transmission hard in low range (lots of torque), have an aggressive driving style (shock loadings) and do little preventative maintenance (ignoring mud soaked UJs rather than washing and greasing them). It's a bit of a case of "all the gear and no idea"; they're a lot like the Fast Show characters, even to the point of always wearing DPM trousers (the white/grey version are a particular tell-tale). Frequent greasing on a lifted vehicle is critical, as is more gentle pedal use. The UJs should always be hosed off and re-greased after off roading, and castor correction is essential on front axles, whether through replacement radius arms or corrective bushes, to bring the UJ deflection angles closer to the original settings, reducing the torque tangental forces on them. It's the difference between each deflection angle that is important, not the individual angle - a deflected UJ creates an RMP oscillation and the second UJ needs to be deflected by the right amount to "decode" that oscillation back into a steady RPM, but lifts screw up those angles by increasing the transfer box end deflection angle and straightening the diff end UJ, so the prop shaft gets a rotational hammering action which harms the entire transmission but takes an especially hard toll on UJs - my 109 went through a pair of UJs on its rear prop every 500 miles when I fitted 1-ton spring shackles, which gives roughly a 1" lift and slightly rotates the axle case and diff in much the same way as an uncorrected coiler lift.

Have the blind holes tapped so that all the bell housing holes have studs, but don't machine the flywheel housing. Instead, fit the removed flywheel housing to the Series bell housing and mark the positions of those four ladder-frame bolt holes on the bell housing flange. Use cap-head bolts (cylindrical heads with allen key indentations), and drill the marked positions on the bell housing to the diameter of the bolt heads. That way, all the bolt and stud holes are used for maximum strength, the four bottom bolts will act like dowels for the bell housing and those bolts will be removable with the gear box and engine still fitted, so that you can remove the engine bottom ladder for access to the crank shaft main bearings and the con-rod big ends.

To answer Mike, and to agree with TACR2man and Fridge, a 109 is capable of almost everything a 110 can do. It's also simpler, tougher and cheaper to repair. I also prefer the driving character of the Series vehicles - I find the Defender a bit Transit-like in its handling. A bit more performance from an engine transplant is all that most 109 owners want, though tighter turning would be a big help. Like I said, that's why I'm swapping my axles - tighter lock and the wider axles will allow me lighter (standard feel) steering while gaining slightly more track than I am currently afforded by my completely standard steering and axles with 7" 8-spokes. The plan is to get handling and feel more like a stock 109 but with a better turning radius. I'm not particularly fussed about disc brakes; SIII 109 brakes are easily powerful enough to lock all the wheels with good tyres on dry tarmac, so are more than up to their job. Self cleaning, self adjusting and easy bleeding are attractive characteristics of discs, though. I do like tinkering as well, though!

Absolutely - I built my 109 as a compromise between a family vehicle, commuter and expedition vehicle, and still have changes in the pipe-line.If Mrs P is already finding the steering too heavy, then PAS will be a must-do: the use of standard rims on Defender axles keeps the loads similar, if slightly heavier, than stock SII/SIII. I have much heavier steering, so will feel comparative luxury when I can go back to standard rims. In fact, I find Helena's Lightweight's steering incredibly light, and while the vehicle weighs less and has narrower tyres than the 109, the steering system is identical. Series steering is not anywhere near as precise as a coiler's PAS - I have the RRC to compare it to - but my 109 doesn't have any slop in the system and doesn't wander at all; it just suffers a bit more road camber induced pull than the RRC and needs about 50% more continuous corrective force on the wheel to stay straight. I can live with that without any concern.

Well, if I was doing another project using the original chassis, I probably would use the LT77/230 combination, but since I had a galv new chassis, I didn't want to do too much chopping about. I also wanted to keep enough points for the 1972 VIN - less of an issue on non-tax exempt vehicles, but exemption makes a big saving over a lifetime.The standard steering is OK at any speed above a crawl - it's only parking and three point turns that are heavy, and getting rid of offset rims, spacers or anything else that moves the tyre axis out of the swivel pin axis will cure that, so PAS shouldn't be necessary (I don't deny it'd be nicer, but I don't find it necessary, and again want to retain the VIN points). As for V8s, nice noise but a terrible thirst. Tdis are cheaper in the long run, don't need foot well reductions and don't mind a bit of water in the engine bay. It has a little less go than the V8, but plenty enough for a 109.

Rob, why don't you come down at some point and have a good look at what I have done and what I have been (for a long time) preparing. You know a little about my 109, but a day looking over it and taking measurements and photos could be helpful. I have the 200Tdi - essential for long trips as you have found, not just for the steep roads but also for making good progress on motorways. A good condition, well maintained SIII transmission will be fine behind it as long as you use the clutch properly and keep an eye on the oil. You know I did a big trip heavily laden, and my transmission gives me no trouble at all. An overdrive would be beneficial, though, for the motorway sections. Leaf springs are absolutely fine - HD parabolics with appropriate dampers give a good ride and don't sag as much under load as coils, so helper springs aren't needed. Some sort of anti-roll system could be helpful if you plan to fit a roof rack - I suffered terrible roll in the Alps and ended up fitting the rear anti-roll bar from a 109 ambulance, which works a treat. I had no trouble with drum brakes on the trip either - while all the other vehicles were modern and had vented discs, they all had hot brakes at the bottom of the long mountain descents (from braking for each hairpin), but my drums were stone cold each time because I kept my speed down and used engine braking for fear of brake fade (I obviously had more concern than I needed to), but only took five minutes longer over a one-hour descent, so that says a lot... I can easily lock my brakes up, even fully laden on dry tarmac, with standard SIII 109 twin leading shoe, dual-line brakes, and don't find they need much tinkering. However, on trips in very dirty conditions, contamination will become an issue, and stripping, cleaning and adjusting would soon become tedious. The self-cleaning and self-adjusting nature of discs would really be beneficial, and the less said about bleeding 109 TLS slave cylinders the better. My main issue was steering - all those hairpin bends in the mountains needed a lot of three (or more) point turns, and that becomes heavy work with manual steering. I can lighten my standard steering considerably by fitting standard offset wheels, but that would lose me the (about) 85mm of extra track my 8-spokes give, losing some lateral stability on side slopes. I could also refit a standard steering wheel, but I like the extra arm and leg room the smaller Metro wheel gives. I also found tight cornering in 4wd gave quite unpleasant (though perfectly controllable) kick through the steering wheel. Hence the plan to fit coiler axles, modified to fit to leaf springs, so that I have CV joints and a tighter steering lock that should reduce the number of three-point turns required while also further increasing wheel track over the current track, but with standard rims - lighter steering with more lock and no kick. The disc brakes are just a big bonus, but not an initial aim. I don't want power steering because I don't think I'll need it with the new axles and wheels, because it'd need chassis alterations, it's a relatively big and expensive job and because it's just more complication on a vehicle where keeping things simple and standard has logistical and repair benefits. I also plan to use their 3.54 diffs because the 109 runs out of gears before it runs out of torque - it can manage 80mph screaming with the OD engaged on an otherwise standard transmission, but is not comfortable above 60 and the fuel economy takes a big hit (I get 27mpg with the rack and back full) - 3.54s will give better fuel economy (I'm hoping for more than a 10% improvement), with faster and quieter cruising. However, you will need an overdrive to use as a splitter (especially 3rd, where 4th with 3.54 may be too high on long, steep hills) and you will need to fit SII Suffix B low range gears to the transfer box (easy and not terribly expensive, featured in my blog) to offset some of the raised gearing of the diffs when off road (you need to keep the low range down for controlled hill descents, regardless of engine torque available). You have my number, so give me a shout if you want to come and have a look at the 109's transmission, engine, suspension, storage systems or the prepared ex-coiler axles.

The timing tool aperture on the12J/ 19J flywheel housing is in the 2o'clock position (upper right side), next to the rectangular cast but blanked timing index pointer aperture. It is filled with a brass plug (15mm head, IIRC). The 200Tdi flywheel has two timing slots (at least, mine does), so I would expect that one of these slots lines up with the upper timing position while the other lines up with the 6o'clock Discovery Tdi housing. My new chassis' engine and transmission mounts were fitted in the wrong place by the manufacturer, about 1.5" too far aft. I find it very difficult to use the timing tool because the hole is directly above the cross member with limited clearance, though the wading plug fits with just a little bit of hassle. I don't know if others with correctly positioned mounts would suffer the same problem, but in my case, using a 12/19J flywheel housing would have saved a lot of this trouble - timing would be easy using the upper hole and the wading plug would be easily accessible as it's in the front of the earlier casing, not in the bottom circumference. As for the stud pattern, I think you have to move one stud to a blind-drilled hole after tapping that hole out, but that's all.

The main shaft nut is only accessible by completely removing the overdrive. A loose nut does cause gear selection problems, particularly second gear, and longitudinal movement of the main shaft (thus a lot of back-lash and clunking). However, having pieces of thrust washer ir shim appear from the drain plug is a bad sign and you need to rebuild your box as a matter of urgency before more damage is caused. Buy genuine parts only for gears, shafts and so on. Bearings can be bought from your local bearings specialist, but buy decent quality ones like SKF, Timken and so on. Do not buy any pattern parts whatsoever - the minimal savings are not justified as their production quality is far to poor for this sort of application. Dunsfold LR are extremely helpful with supplying gen parts for jobs like this at very good prices and quick delivery. Make sure you remove the rear bearing carrier from the casing and refit it with bearing seating compound (a little like thread lock, but a slightly different composition) - most rebuilt boxes (including my LR factory recon unit) don't have this essential compound applied, even though it's in the workshop manuals, and that is why the gear box usually loses oil into the transfer box. It also allows the carrier to spin in the casing, causing casing wear and carrier radial/thrust movement and swarf in the oil.

Me too, and the plate would have to be very thick to have as much thread engagement as a nut (the same thickness as the nut, obviously). Also not so good if you have to cut the bolts off in the future if they become seized - at least with the tubular arrangement the cut bolt can then be withdrawn.

I can't see why any of those can't be designed into the Defender's existing lines - another new dash and steering wheel, a toughened set of pillars, bolt-on crush cans on the front of shortened dumb irons would all be relatively straight forward.

The Derfender is expensive to build because so much of it is assembled by hand rather than robots. Well, the answer would seem to be obvious now that TATA owns LR and has created a factory for JLR in Pune - expand the CKD system and replace the Puma with newer engines when necessary while returning to simpler transmissions and ditching as much of the electronics as possible. I don't like the idea of the Defender not being assembled in the UK, but several countries assemble them from CKD kits and that is part of LR's history all the way back to the early 50s. If it's the only way to keep Defender going, then it's better than killing the icon and the Golden Goose. Apart from being iconic and having a large mass of enthusiasts, many emergency services, armed forces, utility and commercial users want Defender to continue unmolested so that they will be able to transfer their specialised kit from an old vehicle to a new one without alteration, replacement or recertification - the chassis, mountings and body shell need to stay much the same for that to be possible. The Defender and its predecessors have proven over the last half century that the design was right first time - no other vehicle has shown the same combination of robustness, adaptability, simplicity and iconic status. That's why so little has changed since the SII rolled out in 1958. I often think LR have completely lost their way. They now seem to want to be a prestige manufacturer only, not a commercial or utility vehicle manufacturer. They want to build a new vehicle for every possible segment of the domestic 4x4 market and are now entering the 2wd market but are turning their back on the huge commercial, emergency and military fleets. It appears they don't want to sully the image of their prestige Range Rover and Land Rover Discovery/Freelander brand with the concept of the working man. They have become the most extreme snobs. It beggars belief that a vehicle still in such demand with so little development cost needed is under threat.

It'll be absolutely fine - the tub side and rear panels are spot welded and the capping adds little strength; it's more of a finishing strip to hide the joint, keep the rain out (yeah!) and give a little extra stiffness to protect the panels from buckling from minor knocks. You've done the sensible thing of removing the spare wheel from the door while the cappings are off, so should have no trouble. Just make sure the lights are all correctly fitted and working to avoid any police entanglements.

Try this: http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/archives/619 Fairey was bought out by Superwinch (in the 80's, I think), but continues to make the units. My Superwinch unit had no markings. Rovers Down South bought the rights from Superwinch after it was discontinued and made them in small volumes, though they have apparently again been discontinued. Their units have RDS on the same face as the Fairey markings and are otherwise identical.

There is a multitude of missing accessories and parts. This is just regular 110SW with a respray and stickers, and any enthusiast with even a passing interest in the CT or G4 would spot it as a fake a mile off. To me, that makes it worth less than it would have been refinished in its original colour and trim and is not worth any consideration as an example of a CT vehicle.

I should have mentioned that later SIIIs used metric unions (1980 and on, I think), but I'd suspect your FC has Imperial or BSP unions. Take the old one to your supplier to compare the threads.