6cyl SWB?

[Gazzar]

Also the drag link has to be longer, the arm ends up 4 inches(ish) to the right of where the series relay arm was. No Biggie.

G.

[Snagger]

On 21/06/2018 at 2:41 PM, Bigj66 said:

Is it correct that an early defender steering column will still allow the use of the series steering wheel?

The 4-spoke and late 2-spoke like TD5 and TDCI have won't, but the columns used with the big 2-spoke from Tdis will.  But the column length is different, so the plastic cowl is too short.  You'd also end up too close to the wheel, as the Defender wheels are flat while the SIII wheel is dished to account for the shorter column.  Then there's the problem of fitting the SIII stalk switch to the Defender column...

If you want the SIII look, then the best bet is to modify the bottom end of the original column with a bush or bearing and splined end.  Otherwise, the Defender coulmn really needs the Defender wheel, switch gear and cowling.  I opted for the latter as my 109 is far from standard anyway.  I put lots of photos and descriptions on about 4 or 5 pages on my blog for the mod.  link in the signature below.

[Snagger]

3 hours ago, Gazzar said:

The route I had in mind when I was looking at this was to use the series steering box as a pillow bearing holder, cut it away, and splice a defender end on to a shaft in place of the worn.

Welding a defender end to a series shaft will cause wails and cries, but if you are working to UK rules I think you need to get it done by a coded welder, and assessed by an automotive engineer.

Once you've the defender end, the rest is okay, run the link shaft along the chassis rail to the box.

Holding the PAS  box to the chassis has a couple of options, either weld crush tubes to the chassis, risking IVA implications, or use the relay hole as the location for a bracket for the p38a box, which is a good option.

I'm going to use the Hystee system, I'm tight on modification points on my CSW plan, and has a galv chassis, so that system makes sense for me.

 

G.

Welding a different end on the shaft is no problem as the shaft is originally made of three sections welded together anyway.  As long as the welding is really good, and that means professionally done in a fabrication shop, not a driveway or garage, it should be fine.

Drilling and sleeving the chassis is also no problem, nor is fitting brackets.  The DVLA do get twitchy about cross members, but the main thing is chassis rail alteration and suspension type change - they're more flexible about the rest than their reputation suggests.

[Bigj66]

17 hours ago, Snagger said:

Welding a different end on the shaft is no problem as the shaft is originally made of three sections welded together anyway.  As long as the welding is really good, and that means professionally done in a fabrication shop, not a driveway or garage, it should be fine.

Drilling and sleeving the chassis is also no problem, nor is fitting brackets.  The DVLA do get twitchy about cross members, but the main thing is chassis rail alteration and suspension type change - they're more flexible about the rest than their reputation suggests.

I’ve seen some brackets where the chassis mounting plates have been welded on either side of the chassis rail and then four tubes welded between them to provide greater strength. I think I favour this approach rather than just the single plate idea. I definitely want to retain the Series wheel so doing what the chap in the YT clip did with his using the P38 parts looks like a safe and neat idea. I might need the relay space in the crossmember for a larger radiator so keeping that area free would be helpful although fitting the steering box into it sounds like a good option with a standard radiator.

 I did also look at the Heystee system originally but I’ve heard mixed reports about it compared to only positive reports about the P38 conversion.

[Snagger]

25 minutes ago, Bigj66 said:

I’ve seen some brackets where the chassis mounting plates have been welded on either side of the chassis rail and then four tubes welded between them to provide greater strength. I think I favour this approach rather than just the single plate idea. I definitely want to retain the Series wheel so doing what the chap in the YT clip did with his using the P38 parts looks like a safe and neat idea. I might need the relay space in the crossmember for a larger radiator so keeping that area free would be helpful although fitting the steering box into it sounds like a good option with a standard radiator.

 I did also look at the Heystee system originally but I’ve heard mixed reports about it compared to only positive reports about the P38 conversion.

You can't fit the PAS box inside the relay hole.  You'd have to lop the box's lower bolt lugs off, making secure fitting difficult, but then it'd also be too far inboard for clearance with the radiator and too far forwards to fit behind the rad panel.

The single plate bracket is how the box is attached to the P38 chassis, and as long as you have fillets bracing the upper and lower ends of the bracket across the top and bottom faces of the chassis rail, you will have plenty of strength.  There is no need to have a second plate inboard of the rail with cross-tubes; that is weaker than the single plate with fillets.

I had a good look at the Heystee kit and it seemed to have a few main benefits: it's bolt-on, so easy to fit (with no changes to the steering column, wheel, box or relay); it leaves the original system so doesn't lose two VIN points (useful if you have lost many of the other points with mods and need to retain enough for VIN and tax exemption); it's transferable to another vehicle should you change, and; it's fail safe, reverting to standard Series manual forces if the hydraulics fail.  However, the P38 unit has approximately the same steering ratio as the Series system, so a loss of hydraulics feels just the same as the original steering and is also perfectly safe (from what I felt in my RRC when its PAS failed, it was rather heavier).

Its cons are: price; vulnerability off road; it suffers a bit more lag in response to inputs than the conventional PAS units, and; it doesn't reduce the cumulative play and vagueness that even a brand new Series system has.

Both are valid choices.  

[Bigj66]

Thanks for all the help and suggestions so far, they are really helpful and appreciated.

As you can probably tell I’m spending quite a bit of time upfront with the research as I want to get as many parts ready as I can to reduce the length of time to do the work (although we’re still talking months of work)

Engine, box 🤞, diffs, axles, brakes - discs all round, suspension, wheels, tyres and steering are all planned now so the next item to think about is the fuelling. I know I need a high pressure pump for the efi and I can get an aftermarket one plumbed in easily enough but what about a swirl pot? Just fit an aftermarket one too? 

Did Landrover ever make a fuel tank for a V8 90 that I could fit instead of the Series one and which has everything built in? What’s the usual tried and tested route to follow?

And finally, for now at least, 😉 with having full time 4wd, will I still need to upgrade the rear axle halfshafts to the stronger type as I was going to do when I was fitting the 6 pot but having standard 2wd?

[lo-fi]

1 hour ago, Bigj66 said:

Engine, box 🤞, diffs, axles, brakes - discs all round, suspension, wheels, tyres and steering are all planned

The real question is: why don't you just buy a V8 defender or Range Rover? Depending what axles you're talking about, you're in IVA territory with all those mods. That's a LOT of work, IVA or not. And a pile of money. Once a project creeps up to this kind of scale, it's well worth taking a step back and thinking "what AM I doing here?" 

[Bigj66]

3.9 V8 auto (maybe), 3.54 diffs, original axles, discs for safety, existing parabolics, 6.5” LR rims, 235/85 tyres, P38 power steering conversion. Not near IVA territory with any of that.

Nothing different to what lots of other folk do to bring their Series up to cope with modern day driving conditions. I could buy a Defender or Range Rover quite easily and avoid all the work but it wouldn’t look like a Series Landrover would it or be much fun?

[lo-fi]

From the gov.uk website:

Keep the original registration number

Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.

Part	Points
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer)	5
Suspension (front and back) - original	2
Axles (both) - original	2
Transmission - original	2
Steering assembly - original	2
Engine - original	1

 

You've got nine points by my reckoning, so actually pretty close. I wasn't 100% sure when you said axles whether you meant total swap for disk braked, which would have left you needing an IVA. 

I'm not being negative, just trying to add that reality check that's an important and often overlooked part of a project.

[Bigj66]

14 minutes ago, lo-fi said:

From the gov.uk website:

Keep the original registration number

Your vehicle must have 8 or more points from the table below if you want to keep the original registration number. 5 of these points must come from having the original or new and unmodified chassis, monocoque bodyshell or frame.

Part	Points
Chassis, monocoque bodyshell (body and chassis as one unit) or frame - original or new and unmodified (direct from manufacturer)	5
Suspension (front and back) - original	2
Axles (both) - original	2
Transmission - original	2
Steering assembly - original	2
Engine - original	1

 

You've got nine points by my reckoning, so actually pretty close. I wasn't 100% sure when you said axles whether you meant total swap for disk braked, which would have left you needing an IVA. 

I'm not being negative, just trying to add that reality check that's an important and often overlooked part of a project.

I’m keeping the axles as leaf sprung except changing the front for a Stage 1 axle to get the CV joints if the auto box will work and I end up with permanent 4wd. If the box conversion won’t work then I will look at an alternative manual box and may even keep the standard Series one with a traditional conversion plate. Then I’d definitely need to upgrade the rear half-shafts but keep the standard front axle. 

Disc brakes will be the Heystee kit on the front (if it fits a Stage 1 axle, not sure on that yet) and their rear disc kit too.

What I end up with will depend on how the engine and auto box combo sit on the chassis and I won’t really know for sure until I have them stripped and on the workshop floor.

I’ve still got things like the brake pedal assembly (probably Defender), throttle pedal arrangement, and radiator (possibly Defender diesel or made to measure) to finalise again, based on what ends up sat in front of me.

[lo-fi]

3 minutes ago, Bigj66 said:

I’m keeping the axles as leaf sprung except changing the front for a Stage 1 axle to get the CV joints if the auto box will work and I end up with permanent 4wd. If the box conversion won’t work then I will look at an alternative manual box and may even keep the standard Series one with a traditional conversion plate. Then I’d definitely need to upgrade the rear half-shafts but keep the standard front axle. 

I'm afraid that loses both the points for axles, chap. It does, of course, depend on your strict interpretation of the rules, but you're on the worse end of shaky ground for sure. For reference, my 109 does just fine on standard rear everything on part time 4wd with a 3.9 up front. 

[Bigj66]

41 minutes ago, lo-fi said:

I'm afraid that loses both the points for axles, chap. It does, of course, depend on your strict interpretation of the rules, but you're on the worse end of shaky ground for sure. For reference, my 109 does just fine on standard rear everything on part time 4wd with a 3.9 up front. 

I’ll take my chances with the axles as I don’t think gearing, brake or half shaft upgrades affect originality. I don’t think DVLA will lose any sleep over a couple of CV joints either.

[lo-fi]

Like all these things, it's fine until there's a problem. There's no inquisition going round checking vehicles (unless you count the VOSA checkpoints that pop up infrequently) going to slap with with a fine. If you're happy to chance it, fair play.

[Bowie69]

Fine? You mean a crushed vehicle, right??

[lo-fi]

Hmm. I should clarify I'm not condoning this kind of behaviour in any way. In my opinion, this classifies as a "radically modified vehicle" and should be subject to IVA should it get built as proposed. 

My previous comment was supposed to be a lighthearted shrug as if to say "hey, I've said my piece. Your choice to listen". I certainly have no desire to get into an argument about it. We're all adults here and that's not what this forum is about. Reading it back, I'm not sure it comes I over that way, so for the purposes of future reading, it's worth being clear: As Bowie rightly points out, the penalty for driving such a vehicle without the proper inspection is it being taken and crushed.

J, I do suggest again you take a few steps back and don think thinking cap/throw a few thinking grenades. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by lo-fi
Clarification

[Gazzar]

You may be right, but most of the dvla guidance on modifications to classic vehicles, admittedly to do with mot exemptions, support upgrades and service replacements. So losing IVA status for changing a half shaft or brake system is unlikely to pass a high court review when it wouldn't disqualifyfor an MOT exemption.

[Bigj66]

I’m not sure how what I’m proposing to do with my vehicle differs from the hundreds of others that have had engines and boxes changed for instance TDi and V8s. R380/LT77 gearboxes, 3.54 diffs, disc brakes and power steering? As long as I retain sufficient points and the work that gets done is safe then I don’t see an issue.

 

[Gazzar]

It doesn't.  I think the point being made is that it might not be 100% within the IVA exemption if you look at it from the perspective of every component in a major unit MUST be as original.

I've not seen any evidence that this is the approach taken by the DVLA, so I wouldn't worry.  In fact the DVLA appear to have quite a flexible, modification friendly, approach, they certainly did in my kit car days.

I think that so long as you declare the modifications to your insurer, and ensure you have original axle casings, leaf springs and an original, or like for like new series chassis, you should be fine, as you are over the 8 points.

But you need to satisfy your self, taking the word of some bloke on the internet, either way, is no defence.  Write to the DVLA, see what they say.

G.

[Bigj66]

I’m not sure some call centre bod on the end of the phone in Swansea will be able to give a clear and concise answer other than the official line in the website if I’m honest. I’m guessing that in the real world it would come down to the judgement of an inspector as to whether both the letter and the spirt of the law was being complied with. I’ve some experience of this from a past occupation and have no doubt that the inspectorate will have some form of internal guidance that helps them make the correct interpretation of the rules. Similar to what MOT testers have at their disposal.

I note that there is no reference in the points list to brakes, just the axle whereas there is a specific reference to steering. It could be argued that with a brake upgrade, even to larger drums, the original ‘axles’ have been retained but the brake system, a separate component that is bolted to an axle, has been altered. If both the steering and brake systems are considered components of the ‘axle’  then it’s also interesting to note that one component (steering) is highlighted in the list as a specific modification but not the other. If axle included steering then why is steering highlighted separately?

In theory, applying the rules strictly, any axle modifications from the original specification including, polybush suspension, spring rates, drum brake/cylinder sizes, diff ratio changes, locking diffs and even wheels and tyres would result in the points for the axle being lost.

If this were the case then it would put the aftermarket parts industry out of business overnight so I believe that some flexibility and discretion has been built into the system otherwise there will be thousands of classic cars running about on Q plates.

As always, the devil is in the detail and having done a comprehensive search I can say with some confidence that there doesn’t seem to be any additional guidance other than what is on the DVLA website available to vehicle owners to ensure they comply with the requirements. Some classic car websites offer their own interpretation of the rules but that too is still very subjective.

I think it’s important to draw a distinction between the alterations allowed for in the MOT exemption and those related to vehicle registration but it’s another good example of how confusing it can become and, as has rightly been pointed out, what consequences that confusion can lead to for the owner, potentially losing their vehicle.

In my own case, even though I believe the proposed modifications allow me to retain the original registration if I apply them all, the question of the auto gearbox fitting into the SWB is still 50/50 and my gut feeling tells me this may not end up being possible without the significant bodywork modifications I wish to avoid. I’ve still some measurements to take to see what the impact is on the transmission tunnel and bulkhead though but if it turns out that I can’t use the auto box then the standard gearbox will be retained and the discussion of RAV is over.

[Snagger]

On 24/06/2018 at 1:30 AM, Bigj66 said:

3.9 V8 auto (maybe), 3.54 diffs, original axles, discs for safety, existing parabolics, 6.5” LR rims, 235/85 tyres, P38 power steering conversion. Not near IVA territory with any of that.

Nothing different to what lots of other folk do to bring their Series up to cope with modern day driving conditions. I could buy a Defender or Range Rover quite easily and avoid all the work but it wouldn’t look like a Series Landrover would it or be much fun?

Well, you are near IVA territory, just not quite into it!  You'll have the unmodified chassis (bracketry aside), suspension and axles, so 9 points versus the required 8 to maintain the VIN.  Change one more thing and poof goes the VIN and you will have to go IVA.  Same position as me, and I do fancy swapping my transmission from standard...

As for your research, that's very sensible.  At least you are aware of the rules and are determining priorities.  You also seem to be trying to identify clashes that occur when you modify.  These can be quite insidious, like the post-SIII diesel engines clashing with coiler axles because of the low engine mount fouling the front diff flange and UJ when braking.  So, keep researching!  The more you find in advance, the less headaches and compromises you'll have when you're building.

[Snagger]

5 hours ago, Bigj66 said:

I’m not sure some call centre bod on the end of the phone in Swansea will be able to give a clear and concise answer other than the official line in the website if I’m honest. I’m guessing that in the real world it would come down to the judgement of an inspector as to whether both the letter and the spirt of the law was being complied with. I’ve some experience of this from a past occupation and have no doubt that the inspectorate will have some form of internal guidance that helps them make the correct interpretation of the rules. Similar to what MOT testers have at their disposal.

I note that there is no reference in the points list to brakes, just the axle whereas there is a specific reference to steering. It could be argued that with a brake upgrade, even to larger drums, the original ‘axles’ have been retained but the brake system, a separate component that is bolted to an axle, has been altered. If both the steering and brake systems are considered components of the ‘axle’  then it’s also interesting to note that one component (steering) is highlighted in the list as a specific modification but not the other. If axle included steering then why is steering highlighted separately?

In theory, applying the rules strictly, any axle modifications from the original specification including, polybush suspension, spring rates, drum brake/cylinder sizes, diff ratio changes, locking diffs and even wheels and tyres would result in the points for the axle being lost.

If this were the case then it would put the aftermarket parts industry out of business overnight so I believe that some flexibility and discretion has been built into the system otherwise there will be thousands of classic cars running about on Q plates.

As always, the devil is in the detail and having done a comprehensive search I can say with some confidence that there doesn’t seem to be any additional guidance other than what is on the DVLA website available to vehicle owners to ensure they comply with the requirements. Some classic car websites offer their own interpretation of the rules but that too is still very subjective.

I think it’s important to draw a distinction between the alterations allowed for in the MOT exemption and those related to vehicle registration but it’s another good example of how confusing it can become and, as has rightly been pointed out, what consequences that confusion can lead to for the owner, potentially losing their vehicle.

In my own case, even though I believe the proposed modifications allow me to retain the original registration if I apply them all, the question of the auto gearbox fitting into the SWB is still 50/50 and my gut feeling tells me this may not end up being possible without the significant bodywork modifications I wish to avoid. I’ve still some measurements to take to see what the impact is on the transmission tunnel and bulkhead though but if it turns out that I can’t use the auto box then the standard gearbox will be retained and the discussion of RAV is over.

You won't get a detailed response from DVLA over it because: a) most of them don't understand it, they just process forms and phone calls, and b) even if they did understand it, they're not going to put their head in the noose to offer an opinion they can ignore.  That doesn't help us, but that's how it is.  But they do seem pragmatic, and the MoT exemption guidance, which is a regulation far tighter than VIN regulation, was quite explicit that upgrades for safety or efficiency are acceptable, and that replacement with other parts which were concurrent are also ok.  I don't think that the disc brakes, shaft and diff replacements will pose the slightest issue, and nor do I think that a Stage 1 axle is going to raise any objections or concerns, even if declared investigated.  Fitting colier axles (on coils or leafs), could however be an issue as they weren't concurrent and would be a clear breach of the points system.  So, I think you have a fairly accurate interpretation of the rules and what is intended by them.

[FridgeFreezer]

This is in danger of disappearing down the usual SVA/IVA/DVLA wormhole / bumhole internet argument where the only real answer is that you'd just have to take it for a VIC/IVA to find out if they cared or not.

Let's get back to the interesting stuff eh?

I reckon you *could* drop a PAS box through the relay hole if you cut the lugs off, you'd just have to fabricate a robust clamp/bracket for the bottom of the PAS box body that picked up on the original relay mounts. But then you've got a non-standard PAS box rather than off-the-shelf.

[Bigj66]

35 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:

This is in danger of disappearing down the usual SVA/IVA/DVLA wormhole / bumhole internet argument where the only real answer is that you'd just have to take it for a VIC/IVA to find out if they cared or not.

Let's get back to the interesting stuff eh?

I reckon you *could* drop a PAS box through the relay hole if you cut the lugs off, you'd just have to fabricate a robust clamp/bracket for the bottom of the PAS box body that picked up on the original relay mounts. But then you've got a non-standard PAS box rather than off-the-shelf.

Yeah, nobody wants to disappear  down an internet bum hole do they? 😬

I won’t go for the relay hole option as it will restrict the space available for a larger rad which will be more important with the V8.

[FridgeFreezer]

2 hours ago, Bigj66 said:

I won’t go for the relay hole option as it will restrict the space available for a larger rad which will be more important with the V8.

If you can make it so a stock defender V8 rad fits that would be ideal. My 109 runs a smaller than stock rad to miss the PAS box and never had any issues.

Just found a pic of my PAS layout:

[Bigj66]

47 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:

If you can make it so a stock defender V8 rad fits that would be ideal. My 109 runs a smaller than stock rad to miss the PAS box and never had any issues.

Just found a pic of my PAS layout:

Is that the RRC box?