deep

You could get some silver solder (something like easy-flow) and run it along the suspect area. Done with sufficient heat and a proper flux, it seeks out all the little pin prick holes and sticks much better than paint...

Thanks chaps, never thought of that. It's quite likely to be suspect!

I've enjoyed playing around with a cheap Series 2a over the last year or so but it has to go to help pay for a costly 110 rebuild. I have found a buyer but he wanted me to fix the clutch. Fair enough, except I am now stumped! Can anyone help? The issue is that the clutch depresses smoothly (if a little heavily but I believe that is due to the way the non-standard Holden motor was fitted) but, when you release it, the pedal returns immediately (courtesy of its own spring) but the clutch takes up over several seconds. It means manoeuvring or taking off requires patience and gear changes require planning. There is no slipping, no bad noise or any other issue. Just the very slow uptake. I have stripped and honed both master and slave cylinders as sticky pistons are not unusual for a Land Rover that is sometimes submerged but that made no difference. I am convinced that the problem is in the master cylinder. This is because, with the floor out and spanner at the ready, it is possible to push the clutch in, then loosen the bleeder while the lever returns. As soon as I do that, the clutch lever from the bell housing instantly returns, while fluid sprays out of the bleeder. Clearly there is some sort of hydraulic damping going on but I am quite baffled. The master cylinder does have an odd valve assembly in it, though I can't see how it could be fitted wrongly and it seems free to move. I don't really want to fork out for new bits until I know for sure I need them and what the problem is. Any help would be hugely appreciated! Strangely, I have got so used to it being like this, as did the previous owner, that I feel a bit indignant the buyer can't just learn to live with it...

Absolutely!

That looks like a serious undertaking. Very tidy. I am intrigued by your front differential. What's going on there?

Work supplies me with a Mitsubishi Pajero I.O. I removed the sway bar (actually improved the on-road handling, much to my surprise) and took off lots of vulnerable plastic bits and an asking-for-trouble alloy bull bar. We fitted new front shocks which allowed clearance for 215/85x16 tyres, really as tall as you'd get on an unmodified Discovery, being equivalent to a 7.00x16. The tyres are fairly aggressive. It has independent front suspension and a fancy multi-link rear solid axle, with locking centre diff and, allegedly, an LSD in the back. Pros are that it is small and nimble with a good power to weight ratio, though the power comes with revs and the auto helps there. In some situations it has bags of grips and floats well. It certainly gets into tight places better than my 110 or 88. Having said that, mostly it doesn't do anywhere near as well as the 110. Suspension travel is one limitation and the rear diff can't make up for that. The other big problem is ground clearance. If I put a tape under it, it has around the same clearance as I have under my Salisbury diff on the 110 (running 33" tyres) or the Rover diffs on the 88 (running 7.50x16 tyres). However, with any suspension travel, that clearance reduces dramatically. Plus, it's that low everywhere, not just under one low point. Ramp-over is miles worse than the 110 and it gets caught frequently. That gets very costly because engine mount rubbers are eye-wateringly expensive. Just saying. Beyond that, the bits of plastic I can't remove regularly get caught and pop their plastic attachment points. Really, I have to say it's a fake, despite appearing to be a genuine off-road capable car. My sister had a series of full-size Pajeros, the first of which had three locking diffs and quite large tyres. It seemed a good bit better but still had limited suspension travel and vulnerable corners. I used to work for a government department. We mostly ran Toyota Hi Luxes, though in early years we had a V8 110 and later we had a Nissan Navara. Those Hi Luxes were absolute rubbish in any off-road situation. Front heavy, limited wheel travel (even the early ones which had live axles on both ends) and towbars which ploughed everything. They were also very expensive to fix when they broke. The Navara was better in every way but it was clear they weren't really designed for any sort of tough off-roading. Having said all that, I've seen plenty of Jap off-roaders going very well. Virtually all have lift kits, big tyres and a few hundred pounds of steel protecting every corner and most have some sort of traction control. Which is really the modern face of off-roading - virtually any vehicle can be made to work well and few are excellent without modification.

Electronics could be a good thing but there are so many conflicting pressures on manufacturers now that they really don't make engine transfers realistic in many cases. I suppose it's theoretically possible to build a new computer that the electronics run through - that's actually what the manufacturers do in the first place. We use little single board computers at work for a variety of tasks and they'd easily be up to it. However, I wonder what the motivation would be for the people with the understanding to actually produce them, as the market is really tiny? It's possible that the electronic revolution will settle down and stabilise a bit. If it does, there could be off-the-shelf electronic components that you choose and marry up to make the engine you want and you really should end up with something seriously reliable and efficient. As it stands, though, you may find the motor you want is connected to the gearbox, brakes, doors, whatever. My no-longer-young work car is a XXXXXXXXXX 4WD and even the factory service agents can't make it go without the transponder in the key! It's not cheap and they, apparently, made ten of them, a few of which may still be stored somewhere in Japan in case I lose the one and only key I have... I often think about what engine I'd swap in (one of my Land Rovers actually has a six cylinder Holden in it) but much of the Land Rover charm for me is with the older, more basic type of engine and I'm not keen to lose that. Even a TD5 stretches it for me!

I took a Range Rover through that park about eleven years ago. Fabulous spot! Did you mean that front diff is a "TrueTrac" or a Truelock as you said? I'm intrigued. A friend has that set up (TrueTrac front, Detroit Locker back) on his "90" (actually a cut-down 110). It certainly gets bags of traction but every now and then the combo seems to fight him and sends the truck bucking around, spinning in whatever direction it wants. This is generally on a rutted hill or trying to cross a log. I often wondered if it was more his driving or the effect of one or both of those diffs. Do you ever find that sort of thing happening? I ask because there is a dream world, in which I could afford some sort of traction control for my 110...

When I first put a motor in my old Stage One (bought cheap with no motor, so I bought an even cheaper motor off Trade Me), I was surprised to find the clutch pedal had lots of travel with no action. Turned out the old bellhousing didn't have a thrust bearing fitted and it hadn't crossed my mind when I chucked the motor in. Remarkably simple fix, though, done single-handed between breakfast and lunch with the help of a bucket on the front of the tractor. That's why I like "real" Land Rovers!

I've often thought a system like this (or with hydraulic motors on each wheel) could have a place in an off-roader. An electric Land Rover, used in a confined setting (farm, forest, etc.) in which the overall mileage isn't high and you return to the same place each night, could be a very good idea. However, you'd REALLY want to trust your water-proofing!

Fair enough. I've had an early Falcon 250 and a Series 3 petrol motor out of the vehicle and my impression of the Falcon was one of sheer mass but time can distort memories. I do remember the Falcon motor (which replaced a 200, which replaced a 160 in my old XP) being mighty torquey but thirsty and prone to running hot. I loved it though. I actually wish you could still use motors like that in new Land Rovers!

My Series 2 has a Holden 202. It feels exactly like a Land Rover 2¼ but with 50% more poke. It's lighter and more economical, to boot. Really lovely motor, until you put it on a steep hill and the carburettor shows it's serious limitations (apparently it's possible to have a similar problem with the oil pick up). Not sure about the big Valiant/Falcon motors. Much heavier for a little more torque. Not so flash. All these motors bring challenges to the gearing too. I recall a lot of Rover 90s were killed to get the diffs out for converted Land Rovers. Sometimes, only the back diff was changed. Cringe!

Bang on. How often do we see people driving turbo diesels (or, here in NZ, little Oriental 4 pots) dipping the clutch to try to get the revs back up? Frequently. About as often as we see them come off the boil and just stall. The 2¼/2.5, early V8s and especially the sixes just don't die. They're all brilliant for their intended use, though I'll concede those sixes carry a hefty weight penalty!

I realise that but it's still a complex beasty underneath. I did see the NZ version with seats out one day and it had an amazing amount of room inside. I'll concede that much.

I have heard about this often but never tried it. I was told two batteries would be enough for some jobs. However, all that aside, it brought to mind a welding kit I got from work years ago which I fitted to a Series 3 diesel. It consisted of a very decent alternator and a box which it fed. You could plug your welding cables into that box and had some control of output using the hand throttle (the 2¼ diesel being governed, that worked well). It also provided a 110 volt DC power supply, which could either then go through an AC converter or be used straight with things like a kettle. I let that vehicle go too cheap with lots of goodies on it. I'm learning slowly not to do that!

It would seem we disagree on what "practical" really means! (Mind you, if I was stinking rich I'd consider wafting around in a Discovery 4. Nice cars, I guess.)

There is a sad truth in here. The Land Rover that became a Defender worked well in another era but the motor industry has changed hugely. Land Rover could build a better Defender, one which is even more practical, more efficient, more capable in rough conditions, less prone to breaking and leaking and just as good looking. They COULD make something amazing because they are the people most able to do so. They can't do this with old technology simply because the cost of hand-building is too high but they can do this with a clean sheet design. That's something the enthusiast could embrace! However..... market forces suggest they will, instead, build something which is stuffed full of electronics with a very road-orientated engine and butt-ugly headlights etc. etc. It will be more about image than remote-location or home workshop practicality. It will wrap the occupants in cotton wool so it will be less practical as cotton wool takes space. It will do amazing off-road things on test tracks but would I want to use one in the Red Centre or remote Siberia? Sigh.

I'd rather live somewhere where the safety standards were lower. It's got ridiculous. I certainly don't advocate polluting engines either but there is a quantity/quality thing here. If we drove far fewer vehicles we'd have a far smaller problem. It's not a handful of Defenders causing the problem but an out of control mass of commuters and and an indulgent market shipping all sorts of stuff all over the place, rather than keeping local. Making Defenders closer to the market is a good thing.

A truly lovely car. One of mine was a P5 coupé, with the 3 litre six. I actually preferred it to the P5B but that might be because the P5B I had was not a coupé and was a bit naughty. Are we nicely off-topic yet? Well, I did get my coupé by swapping a Series II Land Rover for it...

I've had a handful of P5 Rovers and a P4 in the past (and a few other Rovers). Those inlet over exhaust sixes really are wonderful engines, which ooze quality. I love the way they pull from crazy low revs without a murmur.

From Task's post above: "also worth considering the larger 4.5 V8 engine from the Majestic Major saloon, although these are even rarer."

Let's not go there! I had to buy a whole motor to get a decent "standard" pump as the original was a Santana-type belt-driven one I couldn't find diaphragms for. Having spent a lot of time welding up the old one, making diaphragms myself, which lasted five minutes (and boy, do they spray oil when they let go!), and then trolling the internet for ages looking for the best solution, I'm quite happy to leave things as they are now. The pump is fine, it's the booster itself which is broken. (I'm awaiting a call from a friend tonight who may have a spare.)

Ta. Oddly, the plastic still looks very new and shiny. However, it did sit in Dubai for a while in intense heat so you might have a good point! Today's initial search for a replacement wasn't promising though. Apparently there is a big demand for second hand ones and a few suppliers here don't have new ones. Hmm. Better luck tomorrow?

Never mind. I pulled it off the car today and had a better look. It rattled when I shook it. When I pulled the check valve off, a big hunk of broken plastic fell out. That explains what the problem was but I may be scratching my poor head for a few years trying to work out how something actually can break in there!

I didn't realise you were in NZ. Me too. I sold my Daimler to a friend about twenty years ago and it's still parked in his shed, somewhere north of Palmerston North, "awaiting restoration". I'm long out of it but you could talk to Beacham Cars in Hawkes Bay. They refurbish Mk2 Jags but may occasionally come across Daimlers. I'd imagine anyone with a spare engine would want to hang onto it but you never know.