Tom A

That would be 70/311/EEC as last amended by 1999/7/EC. EC motor vehicle regulations are aligned with UN Regs (UN regs used to be known as UN ECE regs. The ECE stands for Economic Commission for Europe). The only caution I'd give is that these are the regulations that the major motor manufacturers must comply with. Whether the average fettler can go to an IVA armed with a copy of this reg and demonstrate full compliance is another matter entirely.....

Wikipedia seems to have the answer for the Citroen SM (it did retain a mechanical link) and I think I have the answer to the wider legal question. There's nothing in C&U about the need for a mechanical link but there used to be a requirement in UN Reg 79 (and the equivalent EC regulation) which governs all passenger and goods vehicles in the EU. However, with the progress in electric steering systems and driver aids, this has been relaxed. The intro to Reg 79 has a pretty good explanation: "The intention of the Regulation is to establish uniform provisions for the layout and performance of steering systems fitted to vehicles used on the road. Traditionally the major requirement has been that the main steering system contains a positive mechanical link between the steering control, normally the steering wheel, and the road wheels in order to determine the path of the vehicle. The mechanical link, if amply dimensioned, has been regarded as not being liable to failure. Advancing technology, coupled with the wish to improve occupant safety by elimination of the mechanical steering column, and the production advantages associated with easier transfer of the steering control between left and right hand drive vehicles, has led to a review of the traditional approach and the Regulation is now amended to take account of the new technologies. Accordingly it will now be possible to have steering systems in which there is not any positive mechanical connection between the steering control and the road wheels." Link to reg 79 if you want full details - http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs61-80.html I'm not sure if IVA / your local MOT tester is fully up to date with this yet!

If you don't need cordless then I just acquired one of these: http://www.amazon.co...duct/B0039BQRUO to persuade a stubborn crank pulley bolt to come off. Worked very well but it is quite a big and heavy beast. No idea how durable it will prove to be but the build quality seems reasonable.

No car molesting going on, just a weird old house with a garage right next to the office/dining room/general dumping area! Added a few more pics (and removed that bit of white rag), not sure if they're much more helpful....

Nige, Just put a few pictures on my Flikr page for you - basically unmolested 90 50th Anniversary so 4.0 GEMS engine. Bit tricky getting any decent shots of the coil packs, let me know what angles you're looking for as the car's only 5 feet from my PC. Tom

Top weekend - thanks SLRC. A few of my pics: Tom

A few of my pics here: PM me if you'd like any of them at hi-res

Nige, oil is for lubrication; water is for cooling - its specific heat capacity wins every time. If you've got a correctly designed cooling system, the only thing an oil cooler really does is create additional opportunities to rapidly lose engine oil and destroy an engine! You might need to consider one for the poor transmission that's got to handle this engine though.....

At the risk of starting an almighty thread hijack, the more flow does not equal more cooling myth is erm, a myth*. To have it explained more clearly than I probably could, take a look at this page. Nige, there's some other worthwhile stuff on cooling system design (albeit for a LS3) that might be of interest too..... *well ok, ignoring aeration and cavitation and not worrying about pumping losses

Here are mine Warning. Unedited - contains sheep and nose picking.

Actually a Duro does have portal boxes but you're right, you can bend the dead axle beam up and gain extra ground clearance easily. Duro rear axles appear to be controlled by Watts linkages and trailing arms, not sure about the front. I reckon something like this should be slightly easier to fab than a independent suspension setup, particularly if you use something like a Jag XJ diff complete with inboard discs (basically a Dana 44/Salisbury centre section, look here: http://dazed.home.bresnan.net/JaguarIRS4.html )

Interesting topic, I'm also very interested in opinions on scrub radius, ackermann, camber and toe change etc. on off-road racers - not an area that seems to have much written on it except "use what works on a road car but don't sweat the details so much" - mainly because I used to prat about in Pinzgauers that clearly don't have ideal geometry but always seemed to work pretty neatly. Anyway, as Will states, you can't beat indi as speeds increase but something I've always wanted to see done, and might be perfect for the KOH/XTC style competitions is the Mowag Duro approach - De Dion axles and a roll-stabiliser that still lets the axles articulate (a rather clever thing looking a bit like a longitudinally mounted anti-roll bar). Unfortunately I've never been able to get a decent look at the dirty bits of one but I do have the attached pics which at least show how the De Dion part works - you won't get a lighter axle that retains the advantages of a beam...

The next common size up is 255/85R16 (just over 33inches) or a 285/75R16 (just under 33inches). The 255 section width is only available from a few manufacturers - luckily for you BFG Mud Terrains are one of them. However a lot of people will go straight from a 235/85 to a 34 or 35 inch tyre, as this is what most other people are running around on, particularly for competitive off-roading and otherwise you just get hung up in all of their ruts. You'll need a ~2inch lift and probably want to consider lower (numerically higher) diff ratios once you start getting above 32inch diameter tyres; as the opening thread stated all T-cases have the same low ratio gears so you're starting to get a bit overgeared for hill descents otherwise.

Well, I've now read through regulation 25 "Tyre loads and speed ratings" several times - it's a fairly long and complex section but I can't see any mention of speed rating for replacement tyres. It's mostly involved with load/speed capacity of goods vehicles, load ratings and marking of tyres and derogations/exemptions for all sorts of specialist vehicles (electrically propelled, agricultural, municipal etc.) If I'm reading it right (and I'm a remedial reader of law at best, so there's a good chance I'm not) then it probably would come down to interpretation in court - I suspect the critical phrase is in reg 27 para 1 "...a wheeled motor vehicle...shall not be used on the road, if - (a) the tyre is unsuitable having regard to the use to which the motor vehicle...is being put or to the types of tyres fitted to its other wheels;" The Rover SD1 case mentioned would then be crucial, since it would determine whether the courts side with the argument that replacement tyres should meet the same specification as originally type approved or whether a lower specification is acceptable "having regard to the use to which the vehicle is being put". From the anecdotal evidence in this thread it would appear the former is the case. This is not the same for load ratings by the way. Here reg 25 is clear: para 5 "..the tyre, as respects strength, shall be designed and manufactured adequately to support the maximum permitted axle weight for the axle" so you definitely can't use a similar logic to fit under-rated load-index tyres just because you're not using the full load capacity of a vehicle. Usual disclaimer: I reserve the right to be utterly wrong about everything written above!

Sparg: you'll have to check the speed rating of your particular tyres, they vary quite a lot. Attached (hopefully) is a table that decodes the speed rating that's on the sidewall of your tyre. Go and look for something like "116 Q" embossed on the sidewall somewhere near the tyre size designation. The 116 is the load rating (1250kg in this case) and the Q is the speed rating of the tyre (160kph or 99mph in old money) The law is that the speed rating of the tyres fitted must be greater than the declared maximum design speed of the vehicle they're attached to. I've no idea what that is in the case of a Defender but I suspect it's why there's a limiter on the new Transit engined versions, so if someone knows what speed that is please post.... I'd be extremely surprised if any copper could make a charge of incorrect tyre speed rating stick if you'd uprated the engine - the maximum design speed is declared by the original manufacturer during type approval and there's no regulation that changes that value for modified vehicles AFAIK. No idea about hybrids and heavily modified vehicles unless it's assessed during the SVA/IVA process? Hmm, probably need some sort of legal disclaimer here - erm, everything I've written above is the result of a troop of monkeys randomly hitting keyboards and should not be taken as evidence of intelligence, let alone legal guidance.

Can't say I've read either the SVA or the IVS documents but the day job means I have to have a passing knowledge of automotive regulations. To shed some light on hydraulic steering systems: Tractors are defined as agricultural vehicles in the "Road Vehicle (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003" - A classic bit of UK legislation that lets me drive big green things down the Queen's highway. This implements the speed restrictions specified in EU directives governing agricultural equipment which are limited to 20mph unless they're really wide in which case it's 12mph. Read the legislation here if you're having trouble sleeping! Most motor vehicles steering systems are governed by EU directive 70/311/EEC as amended, look here if you really want to punish yourself. It's this directive that mandates a mechanical link in the steering system (although the motor industry is beginning to mutter about using redundant electronic links for steering and braking systems). Tractors have their own directive 75/321/EEC which I haven't looked at or have a link for but it apparently allows hydraulic steering systems subject to a 40kph speed restriction and of course the restrictions on use (both intended AND actual, so no loopholes for crazy modded Land Rovers). If anyone's still reading this, seriously, its Christmas, pick up the phone and talk to someone who still loves you, please...

We tested Cooper STT against BFG MT KMs back-to-back on a couple of Pinz 6x6s a while back with a panel of drivers. Everyone agreed the Coopers were more informative and provided greater grip on road than the BFGs. Off road there was no overall conclusion except they were very close in performance on the sand/clay/gravel where we evaluated them. Didn't run them long enough to comment on wear rate and road noise is a bit academic in a Pinz! Fairly cut resistant on the Welsh slate we played in though. Q speed rating = 160kph so 99mph Never tried the Hankooks, the interest in the Coopers was because of their load rating and range of sizes.

Answering the original questions...for nostalgia and general showing off. This was my work vehicle for the last 4 years - 1 careless owner, genuine reason for getting rid of it, now looking to upgrade to medium tracked armour... Base vehicle - Pinzgauer 718TK, for when just 4 portals aren't enough. Portal make - Pinzgauer Home built/ or built for you - Mostly built for me, taken it apart a few times though. When will it be on the road - Never again unfortunately (it's in bits on its way to a secret location) Tyre size - 285/75 R16 BFG MTs

I don't see how that could possibly be true...

And if you lot get bored you can come over the road and watch the Steyr vehicles at Broxhead! http://www.awdc.co.uk/data/awdc.nsf/94ade8...33;OpenDocument Tom

I'm in the process of conducting an unscheduled front hub bearing change as the previous bearing decided to cease functioning at approximately 65mph on the A3! I've managed to get the locknut and thrust washer off using standard workshop techniques: but the bearing itself is proving slightly more stubborn: As you can see, some of the actual roller bearings have got the message and departed the axle somehow but the cage is glued to the stub axle rather firmly. Does anyone have any techniques for removing the offending item? If I use a puller on the hub is it okay to anchor off the half shaft? Help and guidance, or indeed just random comments about how I should have noticed the slight rumbling a little sooner, are all most welcome. Tom

Okay, I have a probable lead on the Mercedes box as being from a Vito van, which would explain why it doesn't show up on the car listings. Pictures of the two ZF gearboxes: 1068 010091 1068 010071 Think one may be Land Rover spec and the other from a BMW? No, I won't be trying to fit them in my 90, there's far too much electricity lurking in these new gearboxes - I'll leave it to someone with more knowledge of vehicle electrics to try, speaking of which, these boxes will be for sale if anyone's interested. I plan on fitting one of the super-duper spec 4HP22s we have lying around when I can get my hands on one! P.S No, I don't know why the landlord thought carpeting the garage was a good idea

I used to use two jubilees per side on the back of the 90 but just used to bend the steel strip securing the base of the spring - obviously there's some variation in strength of clips! Use D44 cones now and am beginning to get used to the horrible noise when the springs reseat...

I happen to have acquired (through totally legitimate means, I hasten to add) two brand new ZF 6HP26s and a Mercedes W5A580. I am fairly confident that one of the ZFs is a Land Rover type box but I can't tell which and google has failed me - is anyone here suitably familiar with the ZF model numbers as to tell me which of the following it is? Model number: 1068 010071 or 1068 010091 For extra special bonus points and the coveted "gearbox geek" award, does anyone know which Mercedes models the 722.654 model is used in? Any help would be much appreciated, Tom

I've been offered some vented discs & calipers to fit to my 90; the vehicle is used for some heavy towing so I am tempted. However, I am concerned about use off road - is there a problem with the vented disc filling up with mud/clay? My thoughts being that if this is a problem a vented disc is probably worse than a solid one; mud not being a well known conductor of heat! Your opinions and experience would be appreciated, Tom