pat_pending

What he said.....WHY????

My opinion, no.

Whilst i applaud CRAG and their efforts it hardly makes a dent in the overall scheme of things. Sorry but you wont find me shoveling ****e I've paid the council to do. If they've run out of funds, tough, the roads bad, deal with it. I still think the whole maintenance thing is a red herring. When I started greenlaning on a motorbike, nearly all the lanes round here were overgrown, waterlogged and you could barely walk through the mud in winter. NO ONE COMPLAINED. Then as 4x4s started to become popular the lanes got opened up, walkers and horse riders who'd previously put up with it or avoided the lanes now started to moan. Most of those lanes are now well drained, well surfaced....and closed. Go figure. Routes I've driven in Wales for years and never seen another vehicle let alone a walker are now closed, Why? Treebloke, you said "I know people who belong to all groups of the above, they are like you and me, honestly." No they're not, not like me anyway. I'm not such a selfish, small minded bigot that i have to complain and campaign against people doing things legally that i may dislike, but could easily ignore or avoid. Just go out and drive, they'll all be gone soon.

True, my mistake.

I'm not sure your electric pump idea would react quickly enough on a steering application. To overcome this sort of problem on other hydraulic systems, an accumulator is used, basically a rechargeable reservoir of pressurised fluid ready to be released when needed, in much the same way as you'd be switching on your electric pump, done by hydraulic circuit though. It will all start getting a bit "pipey" but will work well. To keep things simple could you not retain the BMW pump with its higher flow but modify it to reduce the pressure?

Yes i know what you're saying but we still need rules to ensure vehicle safety and to prevent illegal vehicles. It's how the rules are defined and applied that's the problem. Straightforward repairs and replacements are easily coped with by the MOT system, modifications are not. That should be where the SVA comes in, the trouble is it was never really designed to cope with the type of mods that we generally do. What's needed is a VIC/Enhanced MOT, to deal with the situation in a more streamlined, easily understandable and affordable way. VOSA are not 4x4 experts, as qualified as they may be, they deal with general vehicle identity and safety issues. Now if VOSA really wanted to get their head around this and understand the issues, Who would they speak to? That is the problem, we do not have any kind of representative body, despite the amount of both amateur and professional builders and the huge modified parts industry. The kit car and classic car world seem to be able to lobby, why can't we? Probably because we can't even agree who's "show" will be the best.

I would think NMNs dries quite hard and would not retain the degree of flexibility required in an automotive application. It's also not that heat tolerant and a Land Rover body can get very hot in the sun. Sikaflex/Tiger seal is the way to go.

First let me say I've been greenlaning for over 25 years. I've been a ROW rep for the AWDC and LARA. I was involved with GLASS from the start and have been a member on and off ever since. I've submitted DMMOs and attended PIs and council meetings, written more letters than i care to remember. So i think that qualifies me to comment. What a disorganised, amateurish bunch the 4x4 world consists of. Not aimed at individuals, but our collective approach to legislation and other matters that concern us all as 4x4 owners and users. Christ, its one petty squabble after another between groups who should all have the same aim, the antis really don't have to work that hard, we just let them walk all over us. There are some incredibly knowledgeable and dedicated people that have worked hard for years to keep unsurfaced roads open, and in my opinion it's made absolutely no difference whatsoever. Nothing has been achieved. Repairing routes you already pay the council to fix. Staying off churned up lanes. Sitting on access (joke) committees. All worthless. I don't even think the people who use the lanes for mud plugging or the "tour operators" have made things any worse than they would have been anyway,(idiots though they are). All motorised traffic will be banned from unsurfaced roads within a few years. I like to think we could have done something to prevent it, too late now. I can't be arsed anymore. I still go greenlaning, same as i always did, legally, with respect, avoiding lanes in poor condition. If I meet an irate user or farmer, in the past I'd have spent the time talking, being polite and calm, trying to put forward our point of view, now I'm just as likely to tell them to Feck off.

Again, it's like for like. So you can replace say a drum braked 90 rear axle with a disc braked Disco or RRC axle as the axles are to all intents the same, the brake system carries no points. you can change coil springs or dampers as much as you like so long as all the mounting points remain the same. Up or down size a v8 petrol or 4 pot petrol or diesel, fine. swap a v8 for a tdi, lose engine points. Swap a Disco body for a RRC and you'll lose the body points, stick a Land Rover body on and its SVA, as you will have to modify the chassis significantly to fit it. The vehicle identity stays with the CHASSIS, original or brand new replacement, UNTIL you lose enough points OR modify it, then it's Q plate. To put it in simple terms, if it's a straight forward nut and bolt job you should be fine. Anything that involves cutting or welding the chassis puts you in SVA and Q territory.....technically! In reality I doubt you'd have problem with welding the odd bracket or even shifting an engine mount. You couldn't get away with changing all the body mounts, changing the wheelbase or cutting big lumps off.

It's done on a like for like basis. So in the example you used there have been no radical changes, It's still a v8 petrol engine, a 5 speed manual g/box and coil sprung beam axles, all made by the same manufacturer as the vehicle, it wont matter if the parts are new or second hand. The axle internals are immaterial and don't count. The chassis holds the vehicles identity therefore you can replace it with a brand new one but not a second hand one as that will already hold an ID for the vehicle it came from.

Let's get a few things straight about the MOT. There is far too much opinion, rubbish and hearsay written. So here's my opinion as an MOT tester. Since MOT computerisation all (RFRs, reasons for rejection), failure items are written into the MOT system, to fail a vehicle you have to click on the relevant reason. So, It CAN'T be failed unless it's there and it fails to meet the criteria. It's an examination of the testable items only, it CAN'T be failed on a non testable item. Whilst certain things are down to the judgement/experience of the tester most are pretty clear cut. Lights either work or they don't, tyre depths are measured, emissions are measured, we have no influence over what the machine reads (it also prints out the results, customer gets a copy, we keep a copy for three months, VOSA can inspect these at any time). Brake test readings are entered into the computer and that works out the result, again we have no influence. Can't fail on split wiper blade unless it's so bad it fails to clear the screen, can't fail on corrosion outside the prescribed areas unless it's so bad it affects the steering or brakes. There's plenty more, the testers manual is on line, read it. Remember you the customer are allowed by law to observe the test being carried out and if you feel anything has been unfairly failed, or passed, you can appeal, the vehicle will then be examined by VOSA. ONLY a qualified tester can carry out the test, although you have to have an assistant to operate controls, rock the steering etc, no one else can test and then have the tester "sign off" (as someone else wrote earlier). All test stations are regularly examined by VOSA, they sit outside with a lap top, they know when you're logged on as testing and when you log off. They know exactly what you've passed/failed, they then walk in and demand the vehicle back in and re examine it. This happens with no warning at any time. If you're found to have passed a vehicle that should have failed, or vice versa you Will be disciplined and you could be struck off and or fined. Testers are questioned on their knowledge, fail to get enough answers right and you're required to attend a refresher course (as are all testers every 5 years). VOSA are very strict, dodgy MOTs are so risky it just would not be worth doing. All the data from test stations are checked, abnormally high pass or failure rates are liable to get you "visited" by VOSA. I'm not saying that "mistakes" sometimes deliberate don't happen, things get missed or that testers opinions on SOME things don't vary, but on balance.... Should you trust an MOT As an inspection of the testable items on that day?....YES.

Here's an idea that might work. If Land Rover dealers are anything like us (Suzuki dealers) they can match a vin to a reg' no' via their warranty records. So if you have a vin on the chassis then you could get the original reg' from a dealer. Once you have a reg' you can HPI it. That will tell you if the original vehicle is stolen/written off, without involving Plod, DVLA, VOSA. Then you will be in a better position to decide how to proceed. If it is stolen or the vin is missing from the chassis, then your conscience not your wallet should dictate what to do next. Plod should be able to trace back through previous owners to assertain the "history". I don't think breaking it up or doing nothing is an option until the proper status is known.

Most problems with circlips stem from people fitting them the wrong way round. The holes for the pliers are tapered, and the tips on the pliers taper the opposite way. If you fit the circlip with the larger opening outward then once fitted the tips will have a hell of a job to grip, no matter what make you use.

I think everyone's being a bit quick to assume it's all stolen parts. If the original builder legally obtained all the parts and they were all like for like with the vehicle the chassis came from, then the vehicle "could" still claim its chassis's original reg. Wont know until you try. If however it is a ringer then by quietly disposing of it you leave the thief that built it free to do it again.

If the vehicle is to all intents a "standard 90" ie made up of "90" parts, then providing the chassis no' is still intact on the chassis, the chassis is not stolen or the vehicle it's from is not a cat A or B write off, then you could apply to DVLA for the original V5/reg no'. Would need a covering letter explaining the situation and provide a reciept for the vehicle as bought. I'd expect a VIC at least. If no original vehicle identity can be established then it's SVA time. Oh and you need to inform DVLA that the vehicle that the current reg SHOULD relate to has been scrapped.

Apparently he called Brown a "One eyed scottish idiot" To the best of my knowledge Brown has one eye and is indeed Scottish, so can anyone explain how this factual description can cause offence ? The only part that is open to debate is whether or not he's an idiot. So far i've not heard anyone claiming to be an idiot come forward and say they're offended. And don't get me started on Golliwogs.. Some people should get a life.

Ok, so let's look at the facts. The original clutch was already 36k miles old when you got the vehicle. You then did a further 8.5k problem free miles on it. Total 44.5k miles. At the time they replaced it there were no signs, from a drivers point of view, of imminent failure. So to suggest that your poor driving caused the new clutch to fail, to the point of destruction, in 4300 miles goes against the evidence of previous use. It would be very easy for the dealer to submit a parts warranty claim on the new clutch in view of this. I wonder why they didn't, have you asked ? When you say the dealer doesn't want to know, have you spoken/written to the dealer principal as opposed to the aftersales manager ? Also indicating you will be prepared to take legal action to have the issue sorted. If you are sure you are getting the brush off from the highest level, and you have that in writing, then you should speak to LUK themselves. They should be prepared to inspect the clutch. As i said, don't bother with Land Rover, your contract was with the dealer.

Get everything down in writing, Repair dates, mileages, What failed etc, who you spoke to, what they said. Stick to the facts, don't mention any other issues you may have with the vehicle or anything else. Send it to the Dealer principal, by recorded delivery. If they still refuse to help, take the matter up with LUK direct. I wouldn't bother with Land Rover, Their customer service is appalling and will probably just refer you back to the dealer. I'd think you'd have to be a pretty bad driver to do that to a clutch in 4300 miles. How many miles had you covered on the old clutch before the G/box repair. Was the clutch replaced because you had told them it had been slipping, or did they just replace it as a matter of course as the box was out ?

I run 235/85s and a 1.4 T/box. I know v8 spec boxes aren't ideally suited to a tdi, but as the internal gearing is the same it shouldn't make that much difference, it's all in the shift points. You could try fitting a tdi spec governor. T/box will have to come off to do it, but the main box can stay in.

While i can't fault the idea in the OPs thinking, adding a torque converter to a L/R manual transmission is a complete non starter. A torque converter is not a self contained unit, it works as part of the auto box and requires a pumped, regulated pressure oil feed and stator support that's contained within the front of the box. Even if you could engineer that onto a manual box it would require so much work. Adapting an existing plant/agricultural transmission would be difficult because for starters they're huge and heavy, also they're designed/geared to work with engines that have half the rpm range of a L/R engine and are installed in vehicles that have top speed of about 20mph. Hydrostatic transmissions would work well on an off roader. But a pure hydrostat is inefficient and again has limits as to top speed. A hydrostat addition to a manual is possible, in fact it's an option on some Unimogs, but you'd need a vehicle of that size to mount it all. There is nothing wrong with innovative thinking in engineering, but before you start looking for a solution you have to have a problem that requires "solving". Pointless over complicated "solutions" to non existent "problems" are the realm of computer software writers My 2p worth anyway.

I'm using a V8 zf auto behind a 200tdi in a 110 csw and i get 27/30 mpg. That's worked out on a brimmed to brimmed tank, not estimated. The box was modded to suit the tdi though. 20mpg sounds bad, what T/box ratio and tyre size are you running ? I love my auto, on and off road, but TBH i think it comes down to personal preferences. It wont matter which transmission is "better" in any given situation you'll always feel happier with the transmission type you prefer. An auto conversion is a lot of work to find out you don't like it. An auto certainly takes the edge off a tdi at low road speed, although you can tweak the pump/boost to improve matters. Off road, it works perfectly.

I have a similar box, just the centre section without the two end cabinets. It's a limited edition in blue, stickered up for the rizla Suzuki British Superbike team, came with a pit trolley/toolbox. Cost £2500 plus my old Snap on set up about 3 years ago. If he thinks he'll get ten grand for that he's having a laugh. Quality on MAC boxes are **** compared to Snap On, i just couldn't justify the cost for the size of box i needed.

I badly injured my left leg some years ago in a motorbike accident. The Land Rover was just painful to use, so i fitted an MGB remote brake servo to the clutch. The most awkward part was siteing the unit, plumbing is dead easy. The advantage to using MGB parts is that the unit is readily available new or 2nd hand, as are parts or seals. The downside is i seem to remember mine was a bit spendy to buy new.

Yes, basically it disconnects the torsion bar from the system. There is also a flow restricter that needs opening up to get the best reaction from the pump. Most definitely NOT something to be doing to a road going vehicle. You wont see the bar on any parts diagram as it's contained within the worm/valve assembly for which no parts, other than the seals are available.

Yes, i am talking from technical experience. This was a known fault (weakening of the torsion bar) in the mid/late eighties, but not that common. I cant remember if both Adwest and Gemmer boxes where affected, in this case it's a Gemmer. I only ever saw one actually break. As for overpressure in the system, I'd say unlikely as if the relief valve was stuck shut you would have other symptoms, oil leaks, slipping belt and a tendency to stall the engine at full lock when idling. Also if you understand how the system works you'll see there is only limited pressure applied to the ram at lower steering wheel input effort, (higher road speed =less resistance to turn from the road wheels). If you hold the steering on full lock you'll hear the "hiss" as the relief valve lifts, if it's working. As i said, I make the assumption that the OP had, or would be able to check all the basics, joints, bearings, bushes etc, and in the absence of anything obvious was seeking other possibilities. Even the complete removal of the steering damper wont make much difference to steering effort much less make it "stupendously light".