Jamie_grieve

All the literature and downloads I see are for 3200Kg, where does it say 3500kg? Remember this is all CGI / virtual, I don't know if there's a prototype? I'm sure with modern engineering things can be made differently and cheaper than things of old but don't forget that many years of real world experience has shown us things that work. Aside from the H1 I can't think of another utility vehicle with rear A arms that has proved itself commercially? The relative size of wishbones, ball joints, bushes, crownwheels and angles of CV joints are important and haven't changed in the short time since this was designed. It's all very well designing something to the 'n'th degree on a computer but if the basic parameters aren't right then it won't work. How is a (nearly) two ton payload going to affect the ground clearance without having a harsh unladen ride when empty and at the same time allowing decent wheel travel? The huge difference in weight between the loaded and unloaded vehicle and the short suspension travel is a compromise that isn't new. I'd like to see more info on that. Some things don't bother me like the deletion of a transfer gearbox. On a normal 4x4 low box only really offers two additional ratios with third low being similar to first high. The provision of a PTO for hydraulics or a winch would be nice to see. A 68Ah battery doesn't leave much to run accessories but you can see how things have been thought about. Beam axles offer a simple durable package with well documented advantages and disadvantages. Thinking outside the box is a good thing if you're a musician or an artist maybe but selling utility vehicles to conservatively minded practical people might take a bit more convincing. I still think the whole thing is a bit light regardless of the dimensions. Litres / 100Km's is the normal way of describing fuel consumption outside of the UK and America. 8.3l/100km is about 34mpg, 6.5 is 43mpg and 9.5 is about 30mpg. This concept is definitely on the right track though.

Great picture of the Perentie, first time I've seen it. If they went to the trouble of putting a rocker in, I can't for the life of me understand why they didn't use a conventional system like the that of the Volvo in Fridges picture which is the same as nearly every other 6x6 on the planet. It would have been cheaper, lighter, more durable, able to carry the weight with more wheel travel and better load sharing on more severe terrain. It would have had more clearance....the list goes on...They must have had a good reason for it? It does look like it would be really easy to modify to a conventional arrangement.

I really like the look of it too. Looks like something out of a Land Rover design studio right down to the oval badge, lights, grille and roof profile. I think they missed a trick with the length and angle of the A arms and it only has a 3200kg towing capacity although with a kerb weight of 1307kg it's a bit light for heavy towing anyway. Everything looks nice and light, I think it would be fairer to compare it to a Suzuki than a Defender despite the looks. The 4x4 system is more like a light car.The torque limitations of the gearboxes are marginal at best and why even offer two different clutches? If everything about it was scaled up 1.5 times to make it a bit heavier with a 6 cylinder engine it might replace Land Cruisers in places. The modular parts would be great for large fleet users. I could imagine using large fleets of these with NGO's if the price was right and spares were available and a version with dumbed down engines and electrical systems were available. Some portal hubs on there and flatten and lengthen the A arms and it could be the basis of a mini hummer suitable for up armouring. If I was an upcoming dictator, planning to dominate parts of Africa or even just intent on a bit of social upheaval I would look at these instead of a Land Cruiser. It would look right at home with a .50 cal or a recoiless rifle on the back.

He's modifying a double cab 110. I'd guess the deeper chassis and different outriggers as well as keeping the same registration would be advantageous. Cutting and shutting a chassis is a fairly straight forward job on a double cab compared to trying to do something that looks right to a Discovery for the sake of one welding job. TD Man, will it have a ute style body or will you do something with a long wheelbase tub? The LT 95 option is a good option where you are as there are loads over there but how easy it would be to get something together with two outputs I'm not sure? By using a P38 axle for the third axle which has the diff on the other side you could keep all Rover parts if it made getting a cert easier? Centre bearing on the middle axle wouldn't be difficult to come up with and would be all the modifications required other than adding suspension mounting points. The P38 uses a panhard rod that might be easier to package? The Praga and many other trucks use this system and it gives a longer drive shaft between the axles than a driven through diff or avoiding the (potential) weight, height problems and drive shaft angles of a diff mounted through drive. Maybe inventing a separate splitter box from an upside down transfer case using the centre diff from the front output shaft as the input, the rear output going to the second axle and the PTO going to the third axle to give you an interaxle difflock controlled from the cab and saving the use of free wheeling hubs on the rear? I just mention the interaxle difflock in case you require 'road friendly' suspension and drive trains that don't scrub tyres for certification. To be fair, neither my Volvo or Praga have inter axle diffs and they seem to get on fine without.

I'd agree with fridge here, get a Volvo C304 if you need a six by six chassis with portal axles. It'll save a lot of time and trauma and would hold it's value better than developing another vehicle so similar. I'd agree with Bill about a 6x6 not being as ultimately capable as a well developed 4x4 but I'd also add that compared to a 4x4 using a production chassis with standard type suspension then a 6x6 will outperform cross country in most circumstances except speed. As Bill says, for a 6x6 to really perform it's important to have proper load sharing throughout the whole range of suspension travel. I'd suggest using oversized pipes between the bags to improve reaction time and to avoid one bag being at a higher pressure than the other on bump. That said, even with standard pipework they would be a lot better than coils in the same circumstance. You could still use the existing land rover suspension but not have a walking beam but just employ a leaf spring in the conventional fashion. This would probably be the simplest and best performing method even above that of the air bags for serious cross country work but not as good for rough gravel tracks and pot holes. One problem with walking beams other than their huge weight is also that the front wheel becomes unloaded climbing and they bounce and the opposite on braking. A good modern comparison would be a Moxy / Komatsu dumper with a walking beam versus a Volvo with a balance beam and A frames and panhards. The Volvo outperforms at speed and climbing, the Moxy will crawl through a bit of bad ground better. I had a wee look for the 'Scammel constructor' Land Rover, it was amazing. Anyone got a link? It would be worth looking at.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Bill on this one. I've run both 40 series 'Cruisers and Land Rovers as daily drivers, in fact, I should say that other than them I only once owned a car, a Fiesta for six weeks trying to be sensible before hating it and running a lightweight instead. I also manage large fleets (100 units +) of vehicles for international NGO's for a living and the majority of vehicles are either Defender or Land Cruiser, often armoured. Both have faults, both break. Cruisers bend and crack axle housings, bodies crack, engines and pumps wear, diffs wear and break, transfer box bearings die and the sliding spline in the front prop lasts about a week before it starts flapping around. No chassis problems, ever, not even once, maybe the odd crack in a rear crossmember right at the pintle hook but nothing else. Hilux chassis crack around the steering box. No main gearbox problems other than oil leaks or water ingress. No electrical failures. (200 series electrics are a disaster and I would never order any more as long as I live.) NO switch, wiper, indicator, heater silly dramas ever. Defender: Cracks in the chassis start at as little as 4000Km's on the newer ones, axles and hubs OK on older ones, bearings last the same as Cruisers and are strong. The newer narrower stubs with that stupid spacer and use once nut are destroyed in seconds. Engines are generally good (300tdi, the rest don't work overseas) but have stupid bad manufacturing defects like porous blocks and heads sometimes. The water pump is a stupid design that cracks at the inside of the 'P' and leaks the coolant out or the stupid plastic bleed plugs break and you loose coolant that way but either way by the time it's done 50,000Km's it'll have had the head gasket changed. Any heat will warp the heads but the thick gasket will sort all but the worst cases. The rocker shafts would also break with alarming regularity. Clutches don't last as long as Cruiser ones and often they fail catastrophically leaving the vehicle stranded. Surprisingly the LR gearboxes last really well compared to UK use. Roads overseas are often really really bad so the speeds are lower but gear changes would be more often I'd say. Prop UJ's wear more but the sliding splines on the LR last much better. CV's and half shafts last better than you'd think. They usually wear out before they break. LR electrical problems, window problems, door handles, ..... the list just goes on .... it gets to the point that they become old before their time but you can keep them going with relatively unskilled maintenance. If I'm buying new vehicles to transport people and have free reign then it is without exception the Toyota 76 or 78 series, shame they stopped the 105. Land Rover just don't offer anything that even comes close. If I'm buying a new pickup I buy Ford Rangers, the Hilux surprisingly doesn't come close now with the new ones. Why oh why then am I still pissing around with old Land Rovers then? Because I like them and because they still represent something that's missing. You can name the man that started them off, most can even tell the name of the factory where they are made, how many Toyota enthusiasts can do that? More importantly, you can fix them because the same thing that makes them carp is the same thing that makes them good. The bloke that designed the bit you're fixing just now probably didn't know any more about it than you do and that gives it a kind of simplicity lacking in other vehicles. After all these years I still never learned a Toyota wiring harness but ask me what a blue and white wire on a Land Rover does!! The very fact you can bolt a 1948 diff into a 2014 housing is still pretty cool even if not any use.

I was going to say something similar too but my reply was getting wordy as it was. The only thing I'd add to that (purely for further explaining what you are already saying) is that a vehicle with narrower spaced springs would give more articulation for the same amount of spring travel. You could do this to the point of being ridiculous by mounting the springs inboard of the chassis rails. I looked at this when I built mine but the diff gets in the way.

I totally agree with what you say here but I think you misunderstood me. I meant the UJ's would not be a problem if he just fitted the LT230 transfer case and 5 speed. It's been done many times in series vehicles with no ill effects and without finding rare and expensive stage one front axles. I'm guessing as a realistic way to move forward with the project that engine and transmission would be first. The fact he's going to put the disco axles on I should have seen and makes it a moot point. I'd agree with you that axle tramp is hard on driveline components but I wouldn't consider it a huge issue unless climbing loose tracks with an open centre diff or running a lot more horsepower than Land Rover's are normally endowed with. Any land Rover showing signs of front axle tramp needs their dampers or bushes replaced. The damper sits well behind the front axle mounted to the spring bottom plate and as the axle rotates the damper is brought into play reducing the tramping. I still agree the front suspension especially is awful but chassis welding is out the question here. I'm not at all sure I agree with the spring shackle reversal in all circumstances. I'd accept your argument when climbing a steep hill but would also suggest that the springs are unloaded anyway if it's that steep and the front wheels contribute almost nothing to the climb. Where the shackle reversal fals flat for me is when approaching a steep obstacle like a stone or even a high grip thing like a sandstone block the vehicle with the front shackle will not climb as well as the one with the rear shackle. Try it yourself with a leaf sprung thing, drive into a wall or a square block with the shackle first and the tyre will just spin and rub on the surface but with the shackle at the rear it'll climb. It's the difference between pushing a wheelbarrow through a hole or into a kerb or pulling it over which works every time. A spring over axle conversion here would make the 'wheelbarrow effect' even worse with front shackles. A leaf sprung Land Cruiser reverses up a steep hill as well as it climbs them. I've had a couple of BJ40's and an FJ40 and put their superior climbing down to longer springs and better engines. My second argument against the reversed shackles is the spring is way more likely to break when the wheel hits something and is in compression when winching instead of in tension. The drag link is pushing more against the shackles which if extended or designed for maximum travel are more likely to lead to poorer steering response. Severe braking also puts the spring on a rear shackle setup into tension and pulls things into line and is stable, front mounted shackles are unstable under heavy braking with soft springs designed for articulation. Any play or defective bush will show up as death wobble in a front shackle before a rear shackle. Starting with flat springs means that you are relying on the spring in compression to push down the wheel on the other side simply using the flat spring as a fulcrum. Equally you are relying on light or single top leaves to allow the spring on the other side to be pushed down thus ending up with a heavy wheel and a light wheel. Leaf springs obviously can't dislocate like coils. Much better IMO is to have a large free camber but low spring rate that when on level ground the spring is compressed up to about half of it's travel or more. In the same situation as the flat springs the wheels will be in the same place but the light spring is still pushing down carrying some weight and the compressed spring is stuffed more taking less weight. This will result in more equal corner weights than with flat springs. I only run 6 thin leaves in the front of mine with the PTO winch, lots of metal and the 6.2. The springs aren't completely flat but nearly. The eyes line up with the centre of the axle at ride height. On a SOA setup I agree you have to run flat springs or raise the suspension mounting points which isn't easy on the front. On the rear, no reason not to run cambered springs and the outriggers flipped upside down and the shackle on top. Toyroverlander, I really like your vehicle and how you've set it up. Good axle choice too without getting silly. I see you have moved your spring mount forward for a longer spring, unfortunately that's out the question here because he can't touch the chassis at all. What I said about the leaf springs still holds true whether SOA or not. Your leaf spring in the picture has remained straight and not allowed the wheel to stuff up into the arch and is limiting bump travel and might actually break if it's allowed to move too far without a bump stop. The other wheel on droop is hanging there on the first leaf lifting it up without the 2nd and 3rd leaves contributing to grip. Interesting you have chosen to mount the sliding part of the prop at the diff end where I would have thought it gets rattled up and down more and more likely to pump water into itself. You obviously know what you're doing from the rest of the vehicle so am curious what I didn't think of there?

LOL, That dog's face says it all!!

^^^^^^ Well put, good summary. At least the OP had the decency to reply on the other forums.

My observations so far are that the biggest reason that SOA is not so attractive is that contrary to one post the largest amount of wheel travel is gained by having springs of a large free camber. My springs are about 120lb/in with a free camber of 10" on the front and 12" on the back and when sitting on level ground the spring eyes are more or less level with the axle centre line. For a SOA conversion you would want the spring to be flat on level ground or slightly bent backwards. Flat springs have no advantage at all other than optimum sideways stability. you will loose wheel travel with a flat spring. Wheel travel is more important IMO than breakover as you can normally find a line through. It's not hard to get decent breakover from a 109. Whatever geometry that allows the largest change in spring length or shackle movement is what will result in the greatest wheel travel. Parabolics are great on a road motor but given how ridiculously short the front springs are on a Land Rover then you really need to bend them a lot to get any movement then they break. I find I get more travel from thin leaves than parabolics. As soon as they get some rust between the leaves they stop working as well. I used to run my spring bush bolts just loose enough to move in the bush all greased up or the bushes would tear after a few cross axles or jumps. I moved onto Polybushes which was a great mod. I'd suggest that a 109 built with larger wheels on stronger axles with optimised standard suspension to give the belly height you want would be better than the SOA. The leafs don't hang any lower than the radius arms on a coiler and give a handy ramp to drag or push it over obstacles. Spring wrap is a part of leaf springs and despite it looking scary takes the shock load out of the drive train. As long as the prop doesn't bind it's not as big a drama as folks make out. I keep a very stiff but short bottom leaf on mine to counter it at extremes. I'd say that 88" didn't climb the hill due to having his tyres at 500psi!! Is it not normal in Denmark to lower tyre pressures when driving off road like that? It makes a huge difference not only in footprint and grip but also in how the suspension reacts to the terrain. If I was you, I'd lose the series transmission and stick in a coil sprung one. Shame the discovery bellhousing is so long, try and find a short one out an early 90 / 110. Don't worry about CV joints in the front axle like the purists would have you believe, they work fine with UJ's despite the fact they ought to make vibrations going round corners. If you do go ahead with the SOA on economic grounds then I'd say to just cut out that crossmember as already said and put one in where you can. The crossmember behind with the hole in it was different on the stage one and went over the prop allowing for easier suspension mods. There is a huge space between the front and middle crossmembers on them which was why I had to change mine as you could see the chassis flex if you were being silly. The 'bolt on' crossmember from one of your Discoveries would be easy to reinstall wherever you want. Put crush tubes in if you bolt it or plates top and bottom if you weld it to tie into the other side of the chassis. Don't have the crossmember just hanging off the inner chassis skin. The upside down U bolts earlier posted were a good idea and common practice. You could straighten out and strengthen the front dumb irons to lift the front of the spring up if you did a shackle reversal although modifying the chassis might be a no no? The best allround solution would be to stick the series body on the Discovery chassis!!!

Check out Autodesk fusion 360, you might be impressed. If you do get a smartphone be aware that the battery life is dreadful compared to a real phone. For iphone users, check this out: http://www.payetteforward.com/why-does-my-iphone-battery-die-so-fast-heres-the-real-fix/

Yes, used traction control all the time, try using it in an opencast or the desert and see how long your brakes last. In fact, try driving up a sand dune in Dubai with your vehicle putting the brakes on and the land Cruiser next to you putting his lockers in. It's a great no cost fitment to any modern vehicle with ABS but it's in no way a substitute for locking diffs. It requires slippage to work, towing something on wet grass is all it takes to break the surface and sink that with lockers doesn't happen. With traction control you always have equal torque in the half shafts and unequal torque at the tyres in proportion to an algorithm. With difflocks you get as much grip as you're going to get. I agree with you the modern vehicles are great but far too heavy on too small a wheel for serious off roading in soft conditions which is the majority on the UK.

Lol, you're dead right there. Same applies in the UK. I think this is what must be changing to put them off the road. My argument would be I'm happy to take the risk of no padded dash, airbag, ABS and traction control to own and operate a vehicle I can repair myself and have some chance of longevity. I see no reason why a Defender type vehicle can't be built to modern crashworthyness standards with a solid occupant cell designed to resist crushing. The smart car into the concrete wall at 70mph shows how good modern construction can be. A Lotus Elise type chassis construction would work well in an off roader. Other than the chassis construction, getting rid of diffs designed for a 1600 cc car in the forties would be good too and a drive train strong enough for diff locks because traction control doesn't work in the real world.

The hand stand thing could be designed out and loaded isn't a problem. They do the same going up hill too. I'd say crash legislation would be the big one. It's hard to make a vehicle safe with 1mm of steel or aluminium between you and impending doom. Making and selling them or finding a class where the legislation doesn't apply would require input and interest I doubt anyone in Land Rover would have.

I use one of these, not as good as a gopro but a third of the price and motion sensitive so it only records when somethings happening. We use it to see what (who's) coming into the garden at night. http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/swann-outbackcam-n53kg

The text on the first post has been copied and pasted as it's in a different font, How many different sites has it been posted to? AaronLean are you a real person with a real interest or a spambot wasting our time? We could spend hours on here telling you some of the really bad examples of specific pieces of Land Rover engineering if that would be of more benefit? The designs are getting more urban but so is the world. All modern Land Rovers are for the Urban market. Why would that change now? I doubt very much Land Rover would be capable of producing a robust and SIMPLE vehicle now due to emissions and crash legislation's and as they are not interested in the commercial sector I cant see much hope for something durable with a 20 year (at least) lifespan. You can't buy a Land Rover to operate in developing countries or remote areas since the end of the ROW spec in 2007. The Land Rover brand will stay alive I'm sure in North America and Europe with good marketing but in Africa, every country South of the Equator and East of Prague, West of Anchorage the average person will probably not even know the name in ten years. I expect they will be badged as Tata in India. By doing what Ford did with the Mazda B2500 and Nissan Patrol / Terrano to get into the 4x4 sector outwith America maybe Land Rover could contract another manufacturer to make an industrial type vehicle to compete with the 70 series Toyota with a Land Rover badge to maintain the credibility of the more prestigious models.

Both Solidworks and Autocad alow you to read and edit if you have a subscription or you can use some of the iPhone apps for simple FEA design if you can get used to the small screen. I have a topology optimisation app that if you have a few loads and dimensions you let it sort out the design but you do get FEA as well where you can analyse basic shapes and send it to a cloud for analysis so the phone isn't trying to do it. you get all different readers that can read and display FEA models in all different formats. Ansys is well enough catered for there. To be fair I doubt you'd want to get too carried away with FEA on a phone.

To add to the list, MotionX GPS, lets you download maps before you go and is an amazing GPS that works anywhere. iPhone also uses Glonass satellites too which work great in the Middle East and beyond. Uses open source maps, Google maps and a bunch of others. Easy to send tracks or locations by e-mail or text or whatever. Shazam, amazing app that when you let the phone listen to music it tells you what it is. I also have a bunch of really good tuners and audio spectrum analysers that have made my oscilloscope redundant for making wind instruments. Decibel meter is handy Signal generator is handy, make any frequency up to 20KHz Barcode scanners for comparing prices in shops of the thing you're looking atSpeedometers as already mentioned are great for calibrating things after different gears or tyres or whatever. As said, convertors for anything to any unit you never heard of not forgetting currency convertors. Banking apps are handy and safe even if it's just a balance check. Fuel consumption, mpg, litres/100k's etc Loads of engineering apps depending on your trade, from steel, universal beam calcs to three phase calcs, steam tables, you name it, it's out there Translation apps from one language to another Loads of info apps from resistor colour codes to identifying land mines, the choice is amazing local transport like buses or train apps at your finger tips. Red spotted hanky sounds dumb but a great train app. ebooks so you can read whatever whenever including tech manuals and PDF files Open and read excel spread sheets on the move Bolt calcs and torque tables are handy Postcode apps that either tell you where you are or where you're going. Handy for giving directions to your location for folks with satnav Print apps to print from your phone and talk to printers your laptop doesn't have a driver for Taking photos and being able to do anything you want with them Satellite weather Good BBC apps Digital radio, loads of radio apps Enter reminders easily for MOT's tax reminders and that sort of stuff. Meetings and all that stuff if you're organised enough. On the buy / sell apps I also have Gumtree and the Irish Donedeal and the auto trader and Van trader. You can search nearesr first to where you are My most used apps by far are MotionX, Tunein radio and Skype. Probably Facebook too now, sad but true. The lists just go on.......

Now you mention it, it is exactly a huge Suzuki chassis!! On the last page looking at your front suspension you have vertical links on the front axle. Do they go to a chassis mounted anti roll bar like the old British Ambulances? I don't think you want your vapour build high steer arm higher than the top of the swivel to allow for chassis clearance when the axle is on full bump. The upside down coiler swivel idea has some merit if you used a link suspension system that cleared the track rod but would also reduce bump travel as it would be close to the chassis. Simply bolting on the Santana swivels to coiler axles might give the best all round result as long as the Panhard rod is happy with everything which I think it would be. I do like your idea for noticing how it goes together but looking at your swivel there, you could maybe use a couple of old a frames with the ball joints at the swivel pin locations and make an independent front suspension and a small car steering rack or centre mounted relay to go with your high steer on a lightweight buggy rather than a heavy off roader. This setup would have almost no bump steer with the rod ends located in line with the king pins

I think it'll be the PS 10 you'd be interested in, not sure. The series V has the same chassis as a Land Rover? but the same axles as a PS 10? The PS 10 has a very different and much stronger chassis. Wider than a series which is why the axles don't bolt straight on to a series Landy and isn't so good for articulation but of much heavier construction. The engine mounts for example are 8mm plate. The rails are 3mm and good steel. It's a lot heavier to shift around and do anything with and properly undersealed too. All the body mounts are in the vertical plane like most normal things so you could give a PS10 a nasty American bodylift. All the hardware associated with it is much heavier too like the U bolts and spring plates. Sorry being off topic for the high steer but many folks may not be as familiar with the Santana stuff so hope it's of interest. Check out the bent steering arms to clear the springs. Note the very substantial tow bar not relying on the rear crossmember for strength Chassis centre section is a nice lump of box section with a front bit and back bit nicely welded on. Similar but different to a series chassis. It doesn't look as obvious in the photo but the Santana parts really are much heavier and stronger and are made from better steel. The U bolts are springy not soft like the Land Rover ones.

Bill, what you say is true but in Europe we simply don't have access to older and cheaper Toyotas. There is a strong export market from here to Pakistan, Africa and middle East countries and that really pushes the prices up. For sure rust isn't a problem in Australia for the most part but where I live the roads are salted 6 months of the year and everything rusts. A good Toyota 80 series with over 200,000 miles in the UK (not sure about Belgium?) would be easily three times the price of the same Discovery or Range Rover. 200,000 miles in Europe is very different to 200,000 miles in big countries like Australia where a 12 hour drive is normal. Support for older Toyotas is also almost non existent as all the spares companies here get the same carp from Ali Baba (Middle East blue box equivalent) and since many are imports the dealer network won't help you either. I'm not saying it can't be done but owning an older Patrol or 'Cruiser in Europe takes a lot of work and knowledge to make happen unless you are fortunate enough to own a later model one with dealer support. The type of driving and lubricants makes a huge difference too, we did routine rebuilds on 1HZ engines at 120,000Km's where the bores were too worn for oversize pistons. We had the blocks bored and sleeved. In three years we did 16 engines. Land Rovers in Australia will also get far higher mileages than here. The Aisin version of the Bosch pump is softer as the distributer heads and plungers were replaced regularly and treated as consumables but I don't think I ever once changed a Bosch one on a Land Rover due to wear. Transfer box bearings and front diffs were the largest source of mechanical failure other than fuel related on the 70 series which admittedly has a smaller diff than the 60 series. Hilux suspension in rough terrain was just always getting destroyed, steering arms, joints, bushes, the bronze bush on the front half shafts were a regular cause of problem....the list goes on. To compare the two brands in two different places isn't really fair. Driving 1,000K's in 12hrs on a typical good Australian road is probably a lot easier on a vehicle than trying to drive round the M25 at 5 o'clock.

I also be inclined to agree with you but not sure on the specifics.I would add that the later heavy duty ROW spec vehicles had the double skinned chassis as well and had the 3500Kg GVW. Even if there are some without it I wouldn't fancy using a standard Landy chassis at 3.5 tons as even our heavy duty ones used to crack and fall apart when used to carry weight for any length of time. Factor in UK salt and corrosion and I'd definitely get a HD one if you need to carry the weight. Ours had single springs fitted to the station wagons and double ones on the pickups.

No, the opposite, as said previously it's probably stuck closed. If closed cool water can't return to the engine and hot water will be stuck at the top hose unable to thermally cycle either. The small vent in the closed thermostat would not allow sufficient water to pass to make any difference at all. An open thermostat / no thermostat would allow the water to circulate quickly never allowing the engine to reach operating temperature and possibly running rich and misbehaving. I copied this from RAVE if it's not too late to be of any use: Thermostat housing A ’four way’ thermostat housing, located at the bottom of the fan cowling behind the radiator, is used to link the main components within the engine cooling system. The four connections locate the radiator bottom hose, top hose, by-pass hose and coolant pump feed hose. The plastic housing contains a wax element thermostat. The thermostat and housing are a sealed unit and cannot be replaced individually. The thermostat is used to maintain the coolant at the optimum temperature for efficient combustion and to aid engine warm-up. The thermostat is closed at temperatures below approximately 80 °C (176 °F). When the coolant temperature reaches between 80 to 84 °C (176 to 183 °F) the thermostat starts to open and is fully open at approximately 96 °C (204 °F). In this condition the full flow of coolant is directed through the radiator.

Well spotted, I just measured the Santana throat outside diameter at 64mm the same as LR coil sprung ones. I don't have a picture of inside the swivel ball to see the throat there but from memory it's similar in appearance to the early coil ones and uses the same kind of CV joint as the early one tens and has a ten spline half shaft. You can see the bronze bush exactly as you suggested they would. The stub has the wider bearing separation too like the early coilers for added reliability. The steering components are much heavier on the PS 10 than the series (or coil sprung) LR's as the bottom photo shows. For your high steer you could just bolt your Santana swivels onto your (early six bolt) coiler axle if high steering a coiler or alternatively swap the king pis top to bottom if you wanted to high steer a leafer with a spring over axle conversion possibly using the PS10's bent steering arms for added clearance.