Snagger

Such side slopes and narrow passes were frequent occurences in the Alps. The second half of the trip was video taped and shows some of the tracks and side slopes. Have a look at the videos on my blog ( www.nickslandrover.co.uk ). Remember that having side mounted spares will greatly hamper the already poor rearward visibility, which will make three-point tunrs and manouvering in confined spaces much more difficult. I really don't think side or roof mounted spares are good on an exped vehicle, and I really don't think you'd struggle with a 7.50 on the bonnet, especially if you have a fellow traveller who can act as a spotter on particularly technical passes.I think the MoD were granted an exemption on the construction and usees regs, but I doubt that a civilian LR would be legal with the wheel exposed like that. I know we're not allowed side mounted fuel cans in the UK, though they're often used in Africa, and regulations in other European countries, especially Italy and Switzerland, are much stricter than the UK (roof mounted fuel cans are prohibeted in both). If you're worried about the back door, then an alloy wheel may help, or a good quality swing away would be the answer - I'm sure they're made to better tolerances and have quiter bushings that the cheap sorts.

I have a bonnet mounted spare as well as one on the rear door. Both are the same 7" rims and 235/85s as on the axles. I found no trouble with the bonet spare in the Alps, and we did some pretty tricky tracks with plenty of pot holes and very tight hairpins require 7-point turns pointing out into oblivion. Having side mounted spares, though would have rendered some sections of the tracks unpassable - there simply wouldn't have been enough space to pass various obstructions. I'd be very wary of sticking that much weight so high up, and thought the two other Defender drivers must have been nuts, one with a spare 265 on the rack accompanied by fuel cans and a Hannibal tent and awning, and the other with two RTTs and an awning - some of the side slopes where rock slides covered the tacks were unnervingly steep, had little spare lateral space, with the roof rack overhanging sheer drops of several hundered feet and the steep valley bottom up to 6000 feet below. That high CoG combined with steep, uneven, unstable rocky sideslopes with only a foot or twos' passing width, or tight flat passes with only a couple of inches' clearance really dictate that you have the spare on the front and back in the mountains, not on the top or sides. Just my relatively novice opinion, based on a single expedition. I did trim the bonnet spare buffers down so that the bottom face of the tyre sist only a few mm above the bonnet, but the suggestion of sticking to a standard rim with a 7.50 tyre is a good one if you're worried about forward visibility (or weight), given the liklihood of using it and the minimal issues that would be caused by having a 235 on one side and 7.50 on the other. Since it's the tyre shoulder, not the rim that causes the visual obstruction, a full set of 5 or 6 Wolf rims with 7.50s would have no more obstruction than the standard rims, as long as you trim those bonnet buffers.

I have just been cleaning up the SII ambulance anti-roll bar to fit to my 109, and went to take measurements to fabricate some chassis mountings for the bar. The trouble is that the fuel tank is much deeper than I remembered, so the roll bar wouyld need to be mounted much, much lower than on the ambulance. Now, the vertical links could be cut down in length to suit the new vertical displacement between the axle and bar, and the drop mountings could be made with a trapezoidal shape to ensure their stability, but I may run into problems with the rear end of the spring fouling the anti-roll bar itself on high articulation. One possible alternative is to use helper air springs instead of an anti-roll bar. The sales staff at Matt Savage said they work reasonable well in that capacity, and they may help when heavily loaded, but I imagine they would make the ride very harsh if inflated enough to resist body roll. Has anyone ever tried them? I'd be keen to hear independent opinions, given the near £250 price tag of the springs (without a compressor).

My 109, despite coming with a rear door, door mounted spare and fog light from the factory, never had one of those protector buffers. I don't think it needs one, if the door's check/stay rod is working correctly (there should be a rubber block in the door track, which will allow the door to over-open if missing. Personally, I think those buffers are damned ugly, and I'd imagine they may be hard to find. Check the door stay rod is correctly fitted and then try opening the door to see if the spare wheel can hit the lamp. If not, then you have no need for the buffer.

Not quite. Most people go for big tyres or suspension lifts (the former sometimes requiring the latter) for ground clearance. On an 88", the approach, departure and breakover angles are already pretty good, but fit 7.50s and parabolics and they're sufficient for all but he most extreme off roading. Fitting extra lifts and bigger tyres is often counter productive because the turning circle is reduced (the front tyres foul the suspension, chassis or body) and the CoG is too high to negotiate side slopes or leaning obstacles that were inside the previous capability of the vehicle. I suspect that if the aim is to gain clearance under the diffs and the vehicle is a serious off roader, the best possible mod would be portal axles with springs under the axles and spring mounts higher in the chassis to avoid lifting the vehicle. This would only raise the diffs and axle tubes, so the CoG rise would be small, and by having the springs mounted higher on the chassis, the body roll would be much reduced both on side slopes and in cornering (if the mounts could be raised high enough with spring over conversion so that the mounts were actually above the CoG, the vehicle would lean into turns and would be incredible stable on side slopes).

Seconded!

I used the Series mounts with 19J rubbers, and have no vibration problems at all. It avoids all cutting and welding anhd assures correct engine and transmission alignment with the chassis and axles.

I doubt it. Most franchise sales staff and managers are not LR enthusiasts themselves, and only see the products as work horses, prestige cars or fashionable cars. They don't seem to understand enthusiasts at all, so would never concieve of forums or clubs.

I draw a lot of flack for saying it, but I will stand my ground. You can't mix long shackles with a standard chassis unless you alter the angle of the axle spring seats too (wedges, etc), or the prop UJ deflection angles will be uneven, causing vibration and damage to the prop, diff, half shafts and transfer box. Parabolics and 7.50 tyres will be more than sufficient on an 88, especially an air-portable. The low points will not be moved up, regardless of the suspension lift you give it, because the low spots are the diffs. the only way of improving their clearance is fitting portal axles, nd in that case I'd argue that fitting flatter springs to short shackles would be the best option.

If the leak is from the back side of the swivel, a new seal should sort it - it's the front of the swivels that get pitted and rusty from all the stone chips on faster roads. The easiers way to fix it is to disconnect the brake hose from the swivel, and disconnect any steering rods. With the vehicle jacked up and the wheel removed remove the whole swivel assembly, complete with half shaft, from the end of the axle tube (jack the worked end of the axle high enough that oil in the axle will run to the diff and other end, not dribble out on the floor). You can stand the swivel assembly in the removed wheel for working on. Clean the seal area and chrom ball up as best you can. Whip the seal retaining ring off, followed by the old seal. Stuff some cloth into the new opening before removing any rust from the swivel casing, then fit the new seal and the retaining ring. Fitting gaiters will protect good swivel balls from stone damage, so thet'll last a while before needing replacement. I found that leather (genuine) gaiters were fiddly to lace up, eventually rotted and had a tendency to foul the lockstops, reducing steering range. I subsequently used Bailcast concertina rubber gaiters with very good results. As Les said, there should eb no binding at any stage of the swivel's movement. It's probably worth taking the job a bit further and removing the top pin and bottom arm to separate the swivel, checking the condition of the top and bottom pins, the bottom cone bearing and top Railko bush. Of course, if the binding was noticed while the steering mechanism was connected to the swivel, the fault could lie in a worn rod end, damaged steering damper or faulty steering box. As for using 1-shot grease, I did so for about a decade before eventually doing the job properly and rebuilding my swivels. One had a worn halfshaft UJ, but that may have occurred a very long time ago with a dry swivel prior to the 1-shot use. the other side was mint, and there was no other damage. The UJ bearing cups aren't sealed, so the 1-shot get in pretty well. It'll stick to the UJ better when not in use than EP90. The swivel pins, bearings and bushes were in perfect order, despite having covered over 70,000 miles with 1-shot. Just make sure you apply plenty of LM grease to the Railko bush and pin before insertion - don't rely on splash lubrication as it doesn't seem to work, whether you use 1-shot or EP90.

Sounds like alie to avoid a warranty claim, to me.

I think that's a part of it, and also an attempt to reduce the vehicle weight - the WMIKs are very heavy when loaded up.

Thanks for the advice, everyone - it looks like I'll be needing another axle!

Thanks very much guys. Bog, on the 3.5t 110s, do you know if they just have HD springs and dampers, or are the brakes uprated too?

Hi folks. I'm planning to upgrade my 109 with coiler axles (for the better steering lock, to get rid of the steering kick-back in 4wd and to have disc brakes all round). I have sourced a good second hand Discovery I 200Tdi front axle, but have subsequently discovered that the brake pads (an thus callipers) are smaller than on a Tdi/TD5 110. I know that Discoverys are heavier vehicles than 110s, but obviously a commercial 110 has a big gross weight for cargo and heavy towing. On the other hand, Discoverys get used a lot as commercial vehicles and for towing big caravan and boat trailers, and generally travel faster than 110s too. So that I can try to gauge whether the braking capacity of the Discovery axle will be sufficient for my 109, could anyone please tell me the maximim gross weight for a Defender 110, since the 110 is so directly comparable to the 109?

Thanks very much. It think that's much lower than the 110, but I have had to ask on the Defender forum to check. I think it may have a 3.5t GVW.

Just in case anyone wants any ideas on how to fit forard facing seats in a 109 hard top, or an 88, then here's what I did: http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/archives/545

But don't be surprised if it doesn't fit. Neither of my SP exhausts fit correctly - the downpipes wre incorrect both times. The intermediate and rear sections were fine, though.

I fit Defender front seats as a second row (as well as the front) in my 109 hard top and used Exmoor Trim forward facing Trakkers for the third row. All six seats have three-point interia reel belts. It can all be done securely and neatly. Have alook on my blog: www.nickslandrover.co.uk/archives/545

Another way to think of the change in CoG and mass, given the quoted weight and the overall weight distribution, is that it is equivalent to having a small adult male passenger in the centre seat. Not very much interms of vehicle dynamics.

Hi folks. I'm planning to upgrade my 109 with coiler axles (for the better steering lock, to get rid of the steering kick-back in 4wd and to have disc brakes all round). I have sourced a good second hand Discovery I 200Tdi front axle, but have subsequently discovered that the brake pads (an thus callipers) are smaller than on a Tdi/TD5 110. I know that Discoverys are heavier vehicles than 110s, but obviously a commercial 110 has a big gross weight for cargo and heavy towing. On the other hand, Discoverys get used a lot as commercial vehicles and for towing big caravand and boat trailers, and generally travel faster than 110s too. So that I can try to gauge whether the braking capacity of the Discovery axle will be sufficient for my 109, could anyone please tell me the maximim gross weight for a 200Tdi deiscovery?

That could well be a problem, as could faulty shoes with incorrect camber - if the curvature is wrong, the pedal force gets lost in deforming the shoes insead of applying direct pressure. Some of the pattern shoes are well off the correct camber.

Sorry for the late reply. Initially I used double sided neoprene tape (the type for sticking number plates to vehicles), but this didn't work too well, so I ended up with a few small stainless steel self-tapping screws, similar to those that secure the main panels to the vehicle roof. It doesn't sound great, but actually looks fine.

Hopefully these will help. The surrounds are a real pain to fit - getting the hole in the roof lining right takes a lot of measuring and trial fitting.

I think option one is unlikely to happen, so you're looking at option two. Getting hold of the mechanical items shouldn't be too hard - you only need a LHD steering box, right side steering swivel arm and heater blower assembly, gear lever and hand brake lever assembly (lever, left side mounting and torque rod). I suspect the heater matrix could be modified without too much effort to have the pipes emanate from the other side, and you may even be able to modify the blower in a similar way. The steering rods and column can be swapped side-to-side, as can the pedals. The clutch and brake pedal boxes will just need a bit of new piping. The accelerator pedal and linkages should be easily adapted. The wiring harness may need a little extending, but that's just fiddly, not difficult. The bigger problem will be the fascia, instrument panel and heater controls, which need to be LHD spec. The upper fascia is no different, but the lower fascia needs to be swapped to have the steering column notch and foot well/demist flap control cable on the left side (you could try modifying yours, again), and the existing instrument panel would have the switches on the wrongs side, which could cause problems for the speedo cable. That said, if you keep the speedo on the right side of the panel, it might be OK - the cable needs to be in line as much as possible with the aperture in the bulkhead.