Snagger

That's what I'm trying to get at. The lower half of this 109 looks "well used", which is a look many like (and more collectors are looking for original paint and patina rather than concourse resprays), but the hard top looks beyond that and really needs sorting out. I'd be tempted to get some paint made up to match the clean areas on the sides of the hard top and strip it back for respraying, and to get paint matched for the bulkhead while leaving the rest of the grey paint well alone.

My 109 is "L" reg and tax exempt - chances are this one will be too. You have some bulkhead rust around the same spots mine did - the bottom of the door pillars and around the windscreen hinges. Proper repairs need to be made as these areas are structural. Once that is done, then you can think about cosmetics. Personally, I'm not keen on the dishevelled look. A bit of natural ageing is fine, but vehicles which have worked hard usually look very tatty and deserve a respray and tidy up, though not every ding and dent needs to be removed. Certainly your driver's door top and the hard top need sorting out as they look fairly poor at the moment. A paint shop should be able to match the paint to look faded, if that is what you'd prefer, rather than having the full depth of the original colour when new. That way, you get an age representative look which isn't embarrassing or upsetting to the neighbours (many people fail to consider the latter when they keep ratty looking vehicles outside their house or along the street, but it does cause upset and lowers house prices, so scruffy vehicles should not be kept where visible).

Using Defender or RRC axles would be the way to go, if you do it - fitting wider wheels and spacers to the existing axles will make the steering incredibly heavy and will also put tangential loads on the hubs, causing bearing and stub axle wear.

It's worth changing as the Rover half shafts are likely to snap quite frequently in 2wd unless you have a very gentle driving style. Still, replacing half shafts is easier than removing and rebuilding gear boxes, so is a good place to have the weakest link. A Salisbury axle is nearly indestructible for most drivers, as long as it is oiled, but fitting needs a custom prop and alteration to the spring seats on the axle. Another route would be to have the existing axle's diff pegged to prevent the crown wheel teeth being stripped and fitting stronger half shafts. KAM Diffs and Ashcrofts do both. You could look for a second hand pair of 10-splines locking diffs on here, which would be strong enough not to worry about the teeth and would likely be from a 90, giving you a 35% gearing increase to match the Tdi's greater performance, saving a considerable amount of fuel, but if they do come from a Defender, youwould still need stronger after-market rear shafts (the front axle's shafts would be fine as in 4wd, the torque is shared by both axles). A diff upgrade is best accompanied by replacing the Series transfer box low gears with SII Suffix B gears to retain a similar overall low-range gearing, as replacing the diffs alone gives excessively high crawling speeds and hill descents. That's all getting a little costly, though.

There are generally two types of dampers marketed for LRs - old fashioned oil filled dampers and after market high-performance gas dampers. The gas is pressurised to increase the boiling temperature of the oil inside the cylinders (to prevent the oil boiling). A side effect of this pressurisation is that the dampers self-extend. Your damper is functioning normally, but if you are sure it is the damper and not another issue that is causing the pull (castor angle, dragging brakes, tyre issues or just plain simple road camber, which does affect LRs significantly), replace it with a standard oil filled damper - I would not fit a gas damper to the steering because of this effect and also because it simply isn't needed, a standard damper being perfectly able to deal with the task.

For those interested in the workings of the turbo and waste gate: The turbo waste gate and the fuel boost diaphragm are two separate systems that are sensitive to the same boost pressure. The fuel boost diaphragm alters the amount of fuel injected to match the increased air delivery from high turbo boost, like adjusting the mixture automatically. The waste gate limits the maximum boost of the turbo to prevent the turbo spinning to destruction or over boosting the engine and cracking the head, pistons or bores by over-pressurising them. The waste gate works by sensing the pressure of the induction air exiting the compressor section of the turbo charger (or the inlet manifold pressure). It is a diaphragm in a small metal drum that has compressor pressure on one side and a spring on the other. When the turbo's output pressure reaches its maximum, the air pressure on the diaphragm overcomes the spring on the other side, and the actuator pushes a rod to open the waste gate. This allows exhaust gas from the exhaust manifold to bypass the turbine section of the turbo charger, regulating the amount of energy the turbine delivers to the compressor. On LR engines, the peak torque is needed at pretty low rpm, so the waste gate starts to open relatively early compared to street cars. The size of the unit is also chosen to bee small enough to be effective at low rpm while not restrictive at the max rpm (fairly low at 4250 for Tdis). The position of the waste gate is controlled only by the compressor output pressure on Tdis, though TD5s and other ECU controlled engines have electronic inputs. However, the waste gate will generally try to maintain maximum rated output compressor pressure. It is not engine rpm or throttle governed, though those controls will affect the waste gate position - in essence, any time the exhaust gas temperature goes up from the engine having a large demand placed on it, the turbine will spin up and the compressor will deliver more pressure. As soon as the max pressure is reached, it will be maintained by the waste gate modulating to allow enough exhaust gas to bypass the turbine. Any drop in compressor output allows the spring to overcome the the air pressure, moving the waste gate towards closed and diverting more exhaust gas through the turbine to keep it spinning fast enough to provide the maximum set pressure. In practice, floor the pedal and the EGT shoots up from the increased fuel burn; the turbo will spin up and command the fuel pump to thrown in even more fuel, further increasing EGT and turbine speed, and thus compressor pressure. When the max pressure is reached, the waste gate will open to stabilise turbine rpm and the boost pressure. Take your foot off the pedal and the fuel injection is reduced; EGT drops and the turbine rpm follows, dropping the boost pressure. As the boost pressure reduces, the waste gate will close to ckeep the turbo providing as much boost as it can. One of the tuning mods that is done is to increase boost pressure by shortening the rod between the waste gate actuator and the waste gate operating arm so that the diaphragm has to travel further against the spring (higher pressure) before it starts to move the operating arm and thus open the gate. This means that more exhaust gas is routed via the turbine instead ob bypassing it, increasing the energy delivered to the compressor and increasing air charge. It's a reset of the target pressure for the turbo charger. Swapping the actuator and rod from one turbo unit to another could lead to slight variations in compressor performance to to the slight differences in the distance between the aft face of the compressor housing (where the actuator bolts on) and the waste gate shaft due to manufacturing tolerances, but I think these variations would be well within LR's operating tolerances. The big thing is to make sure you have a rod and actuator that haven't been tampered with to increase boost - look for the yellow paint on the locking nuts.

I think you'd have to side it along the right side chassis rail to keep it clear of the engine, but you should be able to connect it to the front cross member and bell housing cross member. The link would ideally be central, but I don't think the engine will allow it. It's worth mocking up, though, just in case it does fit centrally. It shouldn't matter having the anti-wrap system offset as the amount of force requires to twist the axle case would be enormous. Apart from a brake line which can be re-routed and maybe the oil filter, I think you should have a pretty clear run along the inboard face of the right chassis rail.

Plastic Badger is entirely right - axle wrap will be a problem, and you have already identified steering and prop shaft issues. You also need to consider how bad your side slope ability will become and how slow you will have to corner on road to avoid turning over. It's a pointless mod in an 88" (and rarely worthwhile in a 109) as it's the diffs that limit ground clearance, not the chassis. You need bigger tyres and taller springs for the tyres to clear the wheel arches. 7.50s would be fine on standard suspension, but 9.00s will require either 1-ton style spring mounts and shackles (like you proposed) or you could just fit good quality parabolic springs which give a lift as well as better handling and ride (try to fit the 1-ton bump stop extenders to keep the 9.00s away from your wheel arch tops if you find they foul). If you really want good ground clearance, then portal axles is the way to go. They lift the diffs as well as the chassis, but SOA is just a street posing option which greatly reduces your stability and handling without any significant increase in off road ability.

How about a DII rear axle Watts link mounted longitudinally with the aft end about 1" lower than the front to cater for the axle's aft movement on leaf spring compression?

I haven't suffered any problems from objects inside the vehicle knocking the light unit - it's very slim and is tucked well out of the way. One positive thing about having that internally mounted light, rather than the externally fitted alternatives (that's very neat, by the way, Mickey) is that there is just enough reflection off the inside of the door glass that I can see the brake lights are working - having suffered a lot of faulty Brtipart brake light switches a couple of years ago (one lasted a few weeks, the next didn't work at all, the next couldn't be correctly adjusted to come on at the right point and then extinguish on release, and the fourth broke after two days), it's a handy confidence test in the system (even though the more expensive genuine switch was a doddle to set up and has been 100% reliable).

It seems the nay-sayers didn't bother to read my post. The reason you can't put alloys on the drum braked axle is becaise of the depth of the hub protrusion holding the wheel off the mating face. A 4mm+ spacer with Wolf studs will deal with that. 30mm spacers will only reduce the turning circle if you also adjust the stop locks on the swivels - the spacers will not reduce the turning circle directly (in fact, they will marginally increase it), but because the tyre is moved away from the radius arm, the steering can be permitted to travel more than standard. Hover, wheel bearings, stub axles, swivel pins and steering rod ends will wear faster with the spacers fitted because of the tangental loading on the wheel and the increase in steering loads. It shouldn't pose much of a problem unless you have manual (rather than PAS) steering, in which case the heavier steering can be a nuisance in low speed manoeuvring.

I have the same problem on a Salisbury axle I'm modifying to fit to my 109 and the Range Rover CSK/LSE/ 90SV wheels I bought on here. I'm using a pair of scrap drums turned down on a lathe to make 1/4" spacers along with Wolf wheel studs. I will have the protruding plastic cone like you, but if I can't live with it, I may get some of Ashcroft's HD drive flanges and paint the cover cap with chrome effect paint to mimic wheel nuts. The other solution is the 30mm spacers for alloy rims (they have raised edges to locate the centre of the wheel, unlike the plain spacers for steel rims).

Have a look here for a cheap and highly effective solution: http://www.nickslandrover.co.uk/archives/1112

I used a Mud centre console to very good effect, smartly and securely housing a stereo, CB radio, seven auxiliary switches, two gauges, two cigarette lighter sockets and a warning light.

You may be able to use it to roll the vehicle by hand or winch, but not to drive under its own power - the Defender axle has no brackets compatible with the series suspension, so you'd probably just have to attach it with ratchet straps. I'd be careful to add direct support between its chassis and the trailer bed, too, as you don't want to risk the Series falling off if the axle slips on the springs. Perhaps 6 straps to hold the axle directly against the bump stops, with one each side around axle and chassis rail and the other four used in pairs fore and aft at each end to prevent the axle moving longitudinally?

be careful - the wheels do not fit without a little alteration if you have a drum braked Salisbury axle and a front axle with similar hubs - the wheel feels like it fits, but you will see a 3-4mm gap between the wheel and hub mating faces caused by the bevel inside the wheel being closer to the mating face than the bevel on the hubs (near the drive flange gasket). Your options are careful grinding of the hubs, or of the wheels or 4mm spacers with longer (Wolf) studs.

I suspect it's more to do with the overall thickness of steel near the axle and the tapered nature of the leaf stacks.Two-leaf parabolics do seem to have trouble with V8s and Tdis. I have 4-leaf rear springs on the back and have no wrap problems from the Tdi. I am building up a pair of coiler axles to fit to the parabolics, but I don't see them causing much trouble with the disc brakes - if 109 standard brakes are powerful enough to lock the wheels already, then how much more torque can discs put on the axle? The concern is that the front axle will need to sit higher for the diff and track rod to clear the springs, which will produce more torque. However, I already plan to install a third leaf to each front spring to regain the ride height lost from the taller saddles, and that will help a good deal to resist the braking torque.

Hi all. Does anyone know what alternatives there are to the thick drive flanges (with long plastic cone) and the original shafts so that I can fit alloy wheels without the black cone sticking out through the wheels' centre holes, please? It seems to defeat the purpose of having smart wheels if the centre caps are missing, and I don't really want to fit spacers as they will greatly increase the effort involved in the manual steering system. From what I understand, 300Tdi shafts and flanges won't fit the axle (though I'd be glad to hear they do), so I might have to consider after-market options or modifications.

I was going to suggest the 82oC one for just those reasons. The 74 is mainly for the MoD fleets, and primarily for FFRs that spend a lot of time idling. they use the lower setting so that the flow keeps the temperature from peaking.

Thanks Daan - I already have that in hand. It's the SII Suffix B gears you need, which are 2.81:1 instead of the 2.35:1used on Suffix C boxes and on, and all SIII boxes (except V8 and 1-ton). I have the new output shaft gear from Dunsfold and intermediate gear cluster from PA Blanchard, both genuine, for an outlay of about £100, to go into my existing refurbished transfer box. I'm pretty sure that once the speedo housing is off, I can replace both gears in situ.

Hmmmm...donuts.... Fair point on all of that, but the shafts are hugely thick and the gears are pretty substantial. I think you'd have to be doing something fairly stupid to break a Series transfer box, especially as there are so many much weaker points elsewhere. the LT230 is obviously the better unit because of its centre diff, but i don't really need that as my 109 is for daily commuting, family and domestic chores and holidays, rather than heavy off roading.

You're right, Macker. That's a Discovery engine.

I was worried about the combined engine and transmission length requiring the front cross member to be moved forwards or cross member behind the transfer box to move aft. I don't want them to be so squeezed between cross members that you have to lift both and slide both against their respective nearest cross members to separate them for removal of one or for clutch replacement. Regarding the strength of the transfer boxes, I was going on what I had been told by a LR engineer and also some LR Experience instructors. I see a lot more posts about broken LT230s than broken Series transfer boxes, and have never met anyone who has heard of a broken Series transfer box. I just wish the gear box had the same reputation, though mine seems to be running fine (I cured all but the tiniest weep by applying sealant to the top cover and selector detent rubbers, and by sealing the rear bearing carrier in the casing to prevent migration, and made the refilling and level checking a few seconds' job with the MoD top fill and a Rocky Mountain dipstick). With coiler axles, I really can't see the point in changing an LT230 to part-time 4wd. In fact, I'd rather convert a Series transfer box to full time 4wd, if it was a straight forward job, using the viscous unit from a late RRC/P38. I mainly want to keep the SIII transmission because I don't want to customise everything. I like SIIIs, and mine has little enough of that character left already, even though it's only bodywork and the engine that have been modified so far.

It's definitely a Salisbury gear set, I just don't know if they made different size diffs like Dana do. It could be that the SD1/MG carrier is smaller than the LR, or that the axle case's diff nose is a different length, affecting the pinion.I asked the same question on the Defender forum and got pointed towards KAM 3.8 gear seats made for LR Rover and Salisbury diffs. It's an expensive alternative to this, but at least the parts are easy to find and a guaranteed fit. As I said on there, their price mean I'll have to fit the axles with the existing 3.54s first and try them out. If using 3rd+overdrive on 3.54s gives a comparable overall gearing to plain 4th on 4.71s, then I should be able to use that selection on those motorway hills where I currently can't use 4th+OD (where, with the 3.54s, I would unable to keep 4th gear engaged). It all depends on the drivability on hills, as I really just want to use the OD as a cruising gear. Thanks for your help, everyone. I think the 3.9 idea was a nice theory, but impractical in practice as there are just too many unknowns to be worth the effort and expense. If the 3.54s turn out to be bad for driving, I think I'll have to save up for the 3.8 KAM parts.

I did manage to get a Defender LT77 and a 1.4 LT230, both MoD recon, for £100 with that installation in mind, but I didn't want to modify the chassis to move the mountings or the front cross member or chop about the floor and tunnel, which would prevent me from using my Wright Off Road matting. While the LT77 is certainly stronger than a Series gear box, the LT230 isn't as strong as the Series transfer box. The quiet and leak-free nature of the LT77 certainly had its appeal, as did losing the extra lever for the OD, but I quite like the old fashioned nature of the SIII transmission, so I'd rather keep it - otherwise, with the mods I've already made, I might as well just have sold the 109 and bought a 110.