deep

When I decided to fabricate a solid front bumper for my Series IIA "toy", I really didn't know what level to match it to. Nothing really matched anything else. Mind you, this one has had replacement (possibly home-made) front legs and very wobbly guards. In the end, I decided if I jacked the car so it looked level and I made the bumper level to the floor, it would be good enough. It is. I suppose! I like it that way - I can always shift the blame away from my appalling workshop skills and blame the factory...

If I recall correctly, the Mpi was produced to fit a tax break in England, which explains the company car thing. I think it was good for some 130hp, though at quite a few revs! Possibly not considered cool but that wouldn't stop it being perfectly usable.

There was a South African Defender with a 2.8 BMW six cylinder petrol engine. I always thought that would be nice. Probably no simpler than a TD5 though.

No, not at all. There's a better than even chance I'll chase that up one day. Meanwhile, I am still dealing with a 110 project that I thought was a simple strip-to-replace-bulkhead (new bulkhead already fitted, how hard can that be to finish?) but is actually an incomplete collection of not-quite fitting parts, with plenty missing, oh dear. The price of the little things hurts beyond budget so any traction aids remain in the grossly decadent luxury item pile. For now! I love how off-topic we have got without losing the original question. Very classy!

Actually, that's not too bad but it just ends up costing the same as buying a TrueTrac here!

Wow, that is cheap! I'd imagine postage to NZ would change that though. (I really wish I had access to some UK priced parts right now - my 110 project is killing me but when I try to order from there, the shipping is insane.)

True-Tracs (24 spline) are the only remotely affordable LSDs that will fit that I have seen advertised here in New Zealand. They are actually so cheap, relatively speaking, that I wouldn't imagine it would be any cheaper to bodge something else in and you are getting something new with a decent enough reputation. Have you actually priced them?

I've been mulling on this for a few days. I think the problem is that, once the ratio of width to height gets too skinny, the tyre sidewall would need to be very stiff to prevent serious handling problems (even off-road. Think of steep side-slopes!). Stiff side-walls bring their own problems off-road. However, such tyres have been made. I've even owned them. The only problem, is they came on 20 inch rims! Yup, old trucks had 6.50, 7.00 or 7.50 tyres on 20 inch rims. Big diameter, skinny rubber. My old British Bedford even had those in a tractor tread. All you have to do is find some of those and adapt the rims to suit. While that is a long shot, I'd say the odds are considerably better than getting impractical 16 inchers made by anyone...

Depending on how many loops are left on the drum. A 12,000lb winch is only a 12,000lb winch on the last loop. Tongue in cheek - you'd be mad to max an old 8mm wire rope out on any decent winch, I'd say.

I guess it depends on how you use it. With most of the cable/wire/rope out, so it's down to the last layer, and a very stuck truck, I would think there is a strong chance 8mm would break. If you're close to the recovery point so only pulling on the third or fourth wrap of cable, you'd probably be okay. I'd be saving for something stronger... The attached photo shows how pull force changes with each layer of cable on a random winch. Just the physics of how far the line is from the rotation centre.

This is so useful! Thank you.

Very likely true. I just bought a 110 from my favourite era and am putting it together with some thought to longevity, wondering how many decades I can get out of it? Not that we know what tomorrow may bring, etc. etc.! I do feel that JLR will almost be forced to using high tech in the new design, so they are not trying to compete on "value for money". I think that is totally reasonable and they could do something functionally amazing if they don't compromise. I just wish they could do it without the current trend for eastern styling, which will date quickly and already looks pretty naff. Look at how the Series II Land Rover styling never dated. That's so rare and quite a fabulous thing for a factory to achieve. Form following function was the key, not compromising function by being trendy. Actually, I have been thinking that, a few years ago, I used to suffer lust for new Land Rovers. Apart from (maybe) the Discovery 4, I just don't get that any longer. And I don't relish maintaining a Discovery 4.

Some time back, I was on holiday in my 109 and was looking for a place to camp for the night. As I got out of my car to have a better look at a likely spot, an irate local materialised in front of me. He proceeded to rant very aggressively, in a way that suggested he was off his medication. In order not to be left out, I also became irate but decided to leave before someone punched someone. In full-on dramatic fashion, I slammed my door open, which somehow collected the bridge of my nose with the sharp top corner. Blood was spraying everywhere but I didn't even blink, just drove off into the sunset. Shut him up though! I think he was scared he was going to be next... Oh and yes, thinning hair has meant endless bloody contact with Land Rovers and other objects. Heavy sigh.

I'll second the observation with BFG Mud Terrains (KM). I bought a set five or six years ago, which had already done 50,000 miles. They're still going strong, so much so that when I sold the Stage One V8 they were fitted to (just yesterday!) I kept the wheels and tyres for my "new" 110! The thing is, they don't just last (with no cracks or other issues) but they actually grip well in a wide range of conditions, on and off road. I understand they went to KM2s for noise reasons and I am not that sure the KM2s last as long. We should know in another five years or so! That all said, new remoulds are possibly cheaper than old but good BFGs, which are like rocking horse poo to find now.

You wouldn't want to run the pump with no fluid. It's spinning fast and needs lubrication. At the very least, you'd have to disconnect the drive belt. Is that even possible on your vehicle? With nothing pumping, the steering box could possibly be okay for a little while, if there is fluid in the system (it will barely leak with no pump!). I ran an old Wolseley 6/110 for many months like that with no damage done but can't vouch for the Defender box. I'd think of it more as a get-home solution but others may shed more light.

Thanks people. I didn't ask for them but, as I just picked up a diesel 110 with its wiring loom in a cardboard box, these will be very handy!

If you check out DeRanged's camper van thread, you'll see he has been side-tracked by something perhaps more ambitious...

Actually, if you don't use the vehicle much, stainless pistons would be a good idea. A lot of brake problems stem from pistons sitting in one place for a long time. A tiny bit of moisture in the brake fluid and you get a sticky piston or light rust pitting. In regular use, the pistons move in and out you don't get that problem.

Replacing the Defender must be an OPPORTUNITY for Land Rover. All the money that gushes in these days has it's roots in a (somewhat out of date) legend that became the Defender. With the great strides they have made in terms of a whole new approach to what gets a vehicle over rough ground, they are well placed to make something that combines the clever tech with some genuine toughness. Add more efficient production techniques into the equation, they could not only make a profit but reinforce the image that underpins the whole Land Rover marque. I'm very excited by the possibilities! However.... if they make something that looks like just another 4WD from the East, or puts style over function, or is crippled by small tyres (or tiny wheel studs!), or even just reinforces the "not-totally-reliable" part of the legend, that would be opportunity lost. The photos posted are something many of us could live with but I'm sure LR will do better than that. I think...

I have done this in "reverse", i.e. put a v-belt cover onto a serpentine motor and it all lined up perfectly. There was no issue with crank length. However, I am not so sure about the 4.6 because that has a completely different ignition system. The reason I had to do the cover swap, though, is because the serpentine front end on the Discovery motor I was using sat the fan too low in my Stage One (which is fairly similar to a 90 at this point in the chassis) and it just didn't work. I'd check that was not an issue before I got too carried away, if I was you!

All the skeptics and cynics should remember that a record was set when the Tdi Ranger Rover first came out. Land's End to John O'Groats (or was it the other way around? I've lost the article) averaging 52 m.p.g.. 38 in a more streamlined car with a potentially more efficient motor doesn't sound at all unrealistic. And, while no one is directly calling anyone a liar here, the implication has been very strong. Fuel economy is something that varies hugely, depending on so many different things. Whether CJ has done his/her maths right or not, the figure is plausible, even while the work reported to get there may not be enough to fully account for it. I'm more interested in a report back after six months - does the new car really get the same economy as the old one in the long term and, if so, what can other diesel drivers do to improve their economy? Flip, 24-27 is barely better than the 18-22 I've got out of V8 petrol Range Rovers over the years!

I had an Austin Metro "Mayfair" which regularly got 62 m.p.g. on a run. Out of a petrol engine! I still wonder how they managed that! A Mini 1000 I had earlier used to get around 45 m.p.g. on the same runs...

Just modern sealing all round, that's all. The replacement Defender (if they actually make one instead of another Freelander clone....) will have at least the same rating, likely much more. I waded a 1987 Range Rover pretty seriously and it was far more up to it than a standard Defender. Transmission seals/breathers, insulated/corrosion-resistant electrics, proper door seals and effective grommets on the body shell. That was all hard to do in 1948, when the Defender's family line started!

I'm always curious when someone reports decent fuel economy and others are very disbelieving. A modern turbo diesel like a TD5 should be very efficient. There are still laws of physics. To get the most of that efficiency requires taking the lead out of your shoes and driving with some understanding, along with conditions which allow a minimum of speed changes. It's not rocket science (rockets are hard to drive economically...). I'm reminded of when I was crossing Australia via the desert routes in a 1982 3.5 Range Rover. At the constant, quite low speed I was doing, I consistently got 20 m.p.g.. A few people struggled to believe that. These people generally drove big diesel Land Cruisers and only got around 17 m.p.g.. Yet I met a few folk in TDi Discoverys who reported getting 35 m.p.g.. It strikes me that the difference was less to do with the inherent efficiency of the vehicles (though that clearly exists) than the whole attitude of the driver. The people in the big 'Cruisers were laden to the gills with masses of gear and drove like they had to cross the desert that day. The Discovery drivers, like myself, carried what they needed and no more and drove much more cautiously. Anyway, I am pleased the poor economy problem in this case has been sorted. Particularly as I am seriously hoping to get a TD5 in the next few months!

Well, there are "mag" wheels and alloy wheels. Magnesium was used in racing many years ago because it produced a light alloy but those "mag" rims were also fragile, being prone to cracking over time. The name stuck, so in many places alloy wheels (now mostly aluminium alloys) are still called "mags". Bound to be some real mags around still, I guess, though they would be very pricey. I have two Zundapp mopeds from the early '60s, which have magnesium alloy frames. They are very light and have not spontaneously ignited yet! The issue with oxidising aluminium panels on Land Rovers started when management made the brain-dead decision to stop using galvanised cappings and paint them instead (a few years AFTER they started making the coil-sprung models but I can't exactly remember. Early 1990s I think). I'm sure that is more relevant than the actual quality of aluminium used, though I will stand correction. The rust-prone steel, denied of zinc, transfers it's electrons to the aluminium, which is a fair bit more reactive, chemically speaking. Usually, aluminium quickly coats itself with a very stable oxide, simply by being in contact with the atmosphere, which is why it doesn't usually corrode like steel does. The direct contact with steel (via rivets, in the absence of zinc), bypasses that surface protection, to a certain extent. This is basic high-school chemistry, which I did some decades ago, but I believe that is the problem. Even Series Land Rovers had occassional problems in areas where there is no galvanising, such as door components.