Series 3 109 as 'Overlander'

[Tex Gore]

Aye up,

So I now own a Series 3 109" Safari. The reason for this, other than combining beer and eBay again, is the shortcomings of my 88" S3 on a trip down to Spain recently. Once there, she performed brilliantly, taking us all over the Pyrenees up lanes of all kinds, but the ride down there wasn't much fun, mainly owing to a major lack of room and a keen dislike of hills (it later transpired that I'd almost eaten yet another Facet fuel pump, but didn't know that at the time, but even with a new one she'd still much rather be going down rather than up). Also, the fuel cost with a 17H engine isn't great - all the outlay of a V8 but none of the fun.

So I bought the 109" for a few reasons. It was (very) cheap, it presents a good project (full rebuild), it solves the space issue, and it opens up possibilities around making a vehicle that suits my needs exactly, which are long road trips with some not-hugely-severe offroading and laning once there. Think very steep, potholed gravel tracks and long dusty stuff, rather than trying to get across the Sahara, a Kirton mud-run or along the North-west passage.

My original plan was to swap the chassis as it's motheaten, either with a Designa, or a 110 unit. My 88" is on a Designa with coils, and it works very well. It would be a no-brainer if not for the cost. So now I'm considering restoring the existing chassis and having it galvanised - to save the cost of axles, a-frames, springs and all the rest. The axles and springs (GB Parabolics) on the car at the moment seem fine, and the chassis can be patched up easily. The biggest concerns I have with keeping the original configuration (I am not a purist in the slightest) are:

1. Drum brakes

2. UJs rather than CV Joints

3. Leaf springs

Some research leads me to believe that the leafs aren't so much of a problem. Set up properly, they should be fine for what I want to do. The drums, given that the car is going to be equipped with lots of stuff (fridge, cooker, roof tent, etc. etc.) are, however I could do a Rocky Mountain disc conversion. Expensive, but less-so than finding and reconditioning a 110 chassis and axles. Am I right to be concerned about UJs? LR changed them for a reason, so I assume CVs are better in some way, but I have no idea why?

Anything else I should be considering? Incidentally I will drop a 200TDi into it, retaining the running gear as is. I do intend to keep the turbo, so let's not get into that here! I can't really draw a comparison with my other Series 3, as that's on coils, with a 17H engine...so not especially 'series' any more....

Cheers as ever,

TG

[FridgeFreezer]

UJ's are not a problem, CV's give a smooth drive with permanent 4x4 (that's the reason) whereas UJ's give a judder on cornering.

Drums can be good if you're not mud plugging, the later 6cyl/V8 brakes can stick your face to the windscreen if in good fettle & adjusted properly etc. with the later servo to help out.

Leaf springs are also OK if they're in good nick - decent parabolics & decent shocks, it won't be quite like a coiler but no reason to be uncomfortable.

Mine's been overlanded to Russia & back a few times on leafs & heavily laden with no issues.

[Tex Gore]

the later 6cyl/V8 brakes can stick your face to the windscreen if in good fettle & adjusted properly etc. with the later servo to help out.

Thanks for that. Wrt the above, is this is straightforward conversion?

Cheers

[FridgeFreezer]

I *believe* the parts should all be bolt-on, it's a long time since I've had drums though. The parts book should list all the bits under the 6Cyl / Stage 1 V8 / 1-ton pickup.

[RobotMan]

Yes the brakes are bolt on. Change back plate drum cylinders and plumbing.

Keep it nice and original if you can it will be worth more and easier to insure.

Take a look at the Heystee Brake system. It uses defender discs, calipers and of course pads so source parts becomes much easier. Not cheap but if you where considering the Rocky Mountain, well take a look.

200 is a good match to a 109 and easy to source spares for. Take a look at some 109 conversions on here. Consider gearbox upgrade. Some people live with the series box behind a 200 for years but pulling a loaded 109 overland I would consider other options.

[Diff]

Standard Land Rover will be fine if in good condition and regularly maintained. UJs are very strong. 200tdi will stress the transmission more than a standard engine. A good transmission should survive if treated with respect, though its overall life expectancy may be shortened. For serious overlanding with a 200tdi, I would definately consider a more modern gearbox.

I have used a series 2a 109 safari for a UK to Cape town trip in the past, as well as a series 3 109 safari on several other trans Sahara trips. Very heavily laden with 4 adults and felt the drum brakes were ok.

Had to replace a few leaves of the springs once or twice on the 2a, but to be fair they took a pounding as there was no where near as much tarmac as there is now.

Regards, Diff.

[ToyRoverlander]

I bought my 109 with the idea of doing overland trips with it. I believed it was best to keep it as standard as possible, you know, for spare parts and such.. and 'Land Rover designed it so it must be good' .....Luckily I woke up from that nostalgic romantic dream...

I just did a great trip to the south of France, been through the Alps, up to 3000mtr high and I would absolutely HATE to have to do it in a standard 109" with NO power, NO brakes and horrible seating.

I keep hearing people defending the drum brakes saying that they send you flying through the windscreen when properly serviced. Sure, that could be true but the amount of fiddling and maintenance they need is just ridiculous. I've got huge ventilated disc brakes front and rear (LandCruiser 80Series) and I'm very happy with them. I know they work, no matter what. I've been doing 3point turns on the edge of huge drops, a moment you really want good brakes you can trust I can tell you!

My sprung over suspension is 3leaf rear parabolics, 2 (plus helper) rear springs up front with Bilstein 5125 shocks. It's a bit stiff but that's because the springs are nearly flat. A mate of mine joined me (his car has the same setup) and his 109 has 4leaf rears and 2 leaf rears up front. His care was like a boat. Very, very supple suspension.. way softer than a coiler. Made his girlfriend sick though on faster twisty roads.... His is very comfy, but there's a fair bit of bodyroll.

Road holding on mine is great, not much bodyroll and still comfortable on rougher roads.

Engine wise it's got a 92hp/216nm 3.4 diesel. Underpowered for in the mountains, OK on the flat. Time for a turbo, with +-140hp/370nm on tap it will be much more lively and capable on the steep long climbs. A standard Series engine would be hugely underpowered.... a TDI would be waaay better..

I did tons of work on this car and I like the way it is. Would I do it if I just wanted a 4wd to go touring in? No way. If I were you I would look for a 110 instead of spending lots of time and money on an old underpowered leafer with crappy brakes. Unlike that's what you like to do, like me.....

Have fun!

[Snagger]

Rob, why don't you come down at some point and have a good look at what I have done and what I have been (for a long time) preparing. You know a little about my 109, but a day looking over it and taking measurements and photos could be helpful.

I have the 200Tdi - essential for long trips as you have found, not just for the steep roads but also for making good progress on motorways. A good condition, well maintained SIII transmission will be fine behind it as long as you use the clutch properly and keep an eye on the oil. You know I did a big trip heavily laden, and my transmission gives me no trouble at all. An overdrive would be beneficial, though, for the motorway sections.

Leaf springs are absolutely fine - HD parabolics with appropriate dampers give a good ride and don't sag as much under load as coils, so helper springs aren't needed. Some sort of anti-roll system could be helpful if you plan to fit a roof rack - I suffered terrible roll in the Alps and ended up fitting the rear anti-roll bar from a 109 ambulance, which works a treat.

I had no trouble with drum brakes on the trip either - while all the other vehicles were modern and had vented discs, they all had hot brakes at the bottom of the long mountain descents (from braking for each hairpin), but my drums were stone cold each time because I kept my speed down and used engine braking for fear of brake fade (I obviously had more concern than I needed to), but only took five minutes longer over a one-hour descent, so that says a lot... I can easily lock my brakes up, even fully laden on dry tarmac, with standard SIII 109 twin leading shoe, dual-line brakes, and don't find they need much tinkering. However, on trips in very dirty conditions, contamination will become an issue, and stripping, cleaning and adjusting would soon become tedious. The self-cleaning and self-adjusting nature of discs would really be beneficial, and the less said about bleeding 109 TLS slave cylinders the better.

My main issue was steering - all those hairpin bends in the mountains needed a lot of three (or more) point turns, and that becomes heavy work with manual steering. I can lighten my standard steering considerably by fitting standard offset wheels, but that would lose me the (about) 85mm of extra track my 8-spokes give, losing some lateral stability on side slopes. I could also refit a standard steering wheel, but I like the extra arm and leg room the smaller Metro wheel gives. I also found tight cornering in 4wd gave quite unpleasant (though perfectly controllable) kick through the steering wheel. Hence the plan to fit coiler axles, modified to fit to leaf springs, so that I have CV joints and a tighter steering lock that should reduce the number of three-point turns required while also further increasing wheel track over the current track, but with standard rims - lighter steering with more lock and no kick. The disc brakes are just a big bonus, but not an initial aim. I don't want power steering because I don't think I'll need it with the new axles and wheels, because it'd need chassis alterations, it's a relatively big and expensive job and because it's just more complication on a vehicle where keeping things simple and standard has logistical and repair benefits.

I also plan to use their 3.54 diffs because the 109 runs out of gears before it runs out of torque - it can manage 80mph screaming with the OD engaged on an otherwise standard transmission, but is not comfortable above 60 and the fuel economy takes a big hit (I get 27mpg with the rack and back full) - 3.54s will give better fuel economy (I'm hoping for more than a 10% improvement), with faster and quieter cruising. However, you will need an overdrive to use as a splitter (especially 3rd, where 4th with 3.54 may be too high on long, steep hills) and you will need to fit SII Suffix B low range gears to the transfer box (easy and not terribly expensive, featured in my blog) to offset some of the raised gearing of the diffs when off road (you need to keep the low range down for controlled hill descents, regardless of engine torque available).

You have my number, so give me a shout if you want to come and have a look at the 109's transmission, engine, suspension, storage systems or the prepared ex-coiler axles.

[FridgeFreezer]

If you're having that much gearing hassle why not drop a 5-speed box & LT230 in, far stronger & quieter and by some amazing coincidence the gearing is bang on for 3.54 diffs

PAS is quite nice, the first Russia trip was on 9.00x16 Petlas with no PAS and that built the arm muscles somewhat!

If you fit a V8 you can go that much faster up the hills and lose no time at all

[Tex Gore]

Thanks all - some good advice there, and too much to think about to warrant a detailed reply right now, but:

• Building the thing is half the fun. If funds permit, I will make any modification that will give me a benefit. Fun obviously has a different meaning for people like us.
  
• Nick - I'll definitely take you up on that. I'll give you a call.
  
• I already have a Series on coils with front discs and standard wheels, with defender axles. I don't find I need power steering for that, but I want a wider track on the 109 for stability and Mrs Gore really struggles with the steering on it so the 109 will need power steering. I know this adds complexity, but I have a fair bit of work to do on the chassis anyway before I get it galvanised, so I'll take the opportunity to make the modifications.
  
• I get the point about the LT77 box, but if I'm going to do that and the chassis mods that come with it, as well as go with defender axles and all the rest I might as well go with plan A which was to use a defender chassis. As such I am going with the Series box, care, and altered ratios.
  
• Doubtless after I complete the first big trip I'll have a list of improvements, but that's half the adventure......right?
  

Thanks again

TG

[Snagger]

If you're having that much gearing hassle why not drop a 5-speed box & LT230 in, far stronger & quieter and by some amazing coincidence the gearing is bang on for 3.54 diffs

PAS is quite nice, the first Russia trip was on 9.00x16 Petlas with no PAS and that built the arm muscles somewhat!

If you fit a V8 you can go that much faster up the hills and lose no time at all

Well, if I was doing another project using the original chassis, I probably would use the LT77/230 combination, but since I had a galv new chassis, I didn't want to do too much chopping about. I also wanted to keep enough points for the 1972 VIN - less of an issue on non-tax exempt vehicles, but exemption makes a big saving over a lifetime.

The standard steering is OK at any speed above a crawl - it's only parking and three point turns that are heavy, and getting rid of offset rims, spacers or anything else that moves the tyre axis out of the swivel pin axis will cure that, so PAS shouldn't be necessary (I don't deny it'd be nicer, but I don't find it necessary, and again want to retain the VIN points).

As for V8s, nice noise but a terrible thirst. Tdis are cheaper in the long run, don't need foot well reductions and don't mind a bit of water in the engine bay. It has a little less go than the V8, but plenty enough for a 109.

[Snagger]

Thanks all - some good advice there, and too much to think about to warrant a detailed reply right now, but:

• Building the thing is half the fun. If funds permit, I will make any modification that will give me a benefit. Fun obviously has a different meaning for people like us.
  
• Nick - I'll definitely take you up on that. I'll give you a call.
  
• I already have a Series on coils with front discs and standard wheels, with defender axles. I don't find I need power steering for that, but I want a wider track on the 109 for stability and Mrs Gore really struggles with the steering on it so the 109 will need power steering. I know this adds complexity, but I have a fair bit of work to do on the chassis anyway before I get it galvanised, so I'll take the opportunity to make the modifications.
  
• I get the point about the LT77 box, but if I'm going to do that and the chassis mods that come with it, as well as go with defender axles and all the rest I might as well go with plan A which was to use a defender chassis. As such I am going with the Series box, care, and altered ratios.
  
• Doubtless after I complete the first big trip I'll have a list of improvements, but that's half the adventure......right?
  

Thanks again

TG

Absolutely - I built my 109 as a compromise between a family vehicle, commuter and expedition vehicle, and still have changes in the pipe-line.

If Mrs P is already finding the steering too heavy, then PAS will be a must-do: the use of standard rims on Defender axles keeps the loads similar, if slightly heavier, than stock SII/SIII. I have much heavier steering, so will feel comparative luxury when I can go back to standard rims. In fact, I find Helena's Lightweight's steering incredibly light, and while the vehicle weighs less and has narrower tyres than the 109, the steering system is identical. Series steering is not anywhere near as precise as a coiler's PAS - I have the RRC to compare it to - but my 109 doesn't have any slop in the system and doesn't wander at all; it just suffers a bit more road camber induced pull than the RRC and needs about 50% more continuous corrective force on the wheel to stay straight. I can live with that without any concern.

[mike4444244]

At the risk of being shouted at... would it not be cheaper and far easier in the long run to sell the 109 and buy a 110? they are going for not much cash, probably the same as a 109 + rocky mountain toys...

If you want to basically 'defenderise' a 109 for fun / because you can / why not... etc then I'll shut up lol

Mike

[tacr2man]

The only thing a series 109 is deficient in is speed , before range rover all 4wd were leaf sprung with drum brakes , and thats what transported expeditions all over the world in far more arduous conditions than exist in most places today . If you go faster you need more powerful brakes , and as mentioned in mike 444 previous post you end up converting a series to a defender more or less so why not start with a defender? i went over alps in a heavy series 109 diesel more than 40yrs ago without any problems , its down to how you drive the vehicle. at the same time a friend went overland to Oz with a more or less standard 109 2.25 petrol HT , had one puncture ! The more you modify the more knock on effects you have to deal with , thats why vehicle manufacturers take so long to develop a vehicle . JMHO

[FridgeFreezer]

In many places all 4wds are still leaf-sprung - although only in America do they still fit leaf-springs to sports cars

[Snagger]

To answer Mike, and to agree with TACR2man and Fridge, a 109 is capable of almost everything a 110 can do. It's also simpler, tougher and cheaper to repair. I also prefer the driving character of the Series vehicles - I find the Defender a bit Transit-like in its handling. A bit more performance from an engine transplant is all that most 109 owners want, though tighter turning would be a big help.

Like I said, that's why I'm swapping my axles - tighter lock and the wider axles will allow me lighter (standard feel) steering while gaining slightly more track than I am currently afforded by my completely standard steering and axles with 7" 8-spokes. The plan is to get handling and feel more like a stock 109 but with a better turning radius. I'm not particularly fussed about disc brakes; SIII 109 brakes are easily powerful enough to lock all the wheels with good tyres on dry tarmac, so are more than up to their job. Self cleaning, self adjusting and easy bleeding are attractive characteristics of discs, though. I do like tinkering as well, though!

[Betsy]

Maybe I can offer some useful experience. I know you said you did not want to cross the Sahara, but I took my 109 series 2a soft top to Morocco a few years ago. Its a standard 2.25 petrol, so I agree with everything you said about hills and fuel consumption - it will be slow and it will be costly. I met a fella who had 200tdi'd his 2a last year, and he said it was like a second coming! loads of power, the ability to climb hills, and reasonable fuel consumption. The only downsides were it vibrated a lot a tickover, and was a lot noisier to drive than the petrol.

As for the brakes, I had no problems whatsoever, despite the car being very heavily loaded. We went up and over the Rif, and Atlas mountain ranges, and the brakes were much more effective at stopping it coming down than the engine was at getting it up! So long as it has the larger twin leading shoe setup (all 109's do) then it will be fine providing they are adjusted correctly and not full of oil.

I have snapped a couple of parabolics, so if I have to change them ever again, I will put standard spring back on. Once you have weight in the car, they do move a bit.

[Snagger]

I have heard of parabolics snapping, but snapped leafs in conventional springs are far more common. Good quality springs should not break or deform, though - there are a lot of parabolic spring manufacturers about now, and they are not all equal. Even then, some of the good manufacturers have problems; RM had to change the source of their steel because the US stuff dropped too much in quality (I think they use Japanese steel now), and Heystee, which is the Rolls Royce of parabolics, had a faulty batch which they had to return to their supplier (a very well detailed issue on their website, showing the defects, many of which were minuscule, and showing Heystee's attention to detail and quality). So, even the best source can occasionally go wrong, but don't rule out parabolics just because of one bad experience with a brand you haven't named.

[FridgeFreezer]

the larger twin leading shoe setup (all 109's do)

109's have better brakes than 88's but they're not all the same, the V8 / 6Cyl / 1-Ton HCPU ones use wider shoes as well and are the best you can do without going to discs.

[Snagger]

But remember - bigger is not always better. Fit excessive brakes and all that will happen is that you'll lock the wheels and lose control. The brakes need to be proportional to the vehicle's mass and the tyres' grip. Fitting Stage I or 2.6l brakes to an 88" would be unwise.

That is one advantage of discs - while they shouldn't make any difference to the stopping distance of a given vehicle with well maintained standard brakes in ideal conditions (as the amount of braking is limited by the amount of grip the tyres have), they will make controlling the maximum braking effort easier as they are less prone to locking up than drums - drums need very little pedal movement to go from only moderate-heavy braking to locked, only achieving maximum braking briefly, while discs will allow easier control of the braking effort and more sustained maximum braking. It doesn't made a great deal of difference on dry tarmac, but on wet roads it can make a huge difference.

[FridgeFreezer]

Snagger - sorry but I really don't agree that fitting big drums to an 88 would result in the terrifying levels of uncontrollable braking you think it would. We ran an 88 on Volvo axles which use basically the same drum/shoe/cylinder as the 6cyl 109 and without a lot of tweaking it was significantly worse than standard LR brakes. The cylinders & shoes are the same Lucas Girling parts, the drums only differing in wheel stud PCD.

[oscar03]

Snagger - sorry but I really don't agree that fitting big drums to an 88 would result in the terrifying levels of uncontrollable braking you think it would.

i agree. lets not forget that late 88"s ran 11" TLS up front, and normal 10" drums at the back as standard from the factory. they are fine; they would have to be as they were sold like that!

[tacr2man]

If you take it to the ultimate the "wide" 11" TLS drums as fitted to 1 ton 6cyl etc , you do have to watch it in the wet esp with MT type tyres , in the dry they hang you in your belts! , and thats with no power assistance .

[FridgeFreezer]

I always find that once you have half decent brakes the limit is usually the available traction - after all, MT's aren't exactly F1 slicks.

[Snagger]

I always find that once you have half decent brakes the limit is usually the available traction - after all, MT's aren't exactly F1 slicks.

That was my point, Fridge - the big brakes from 1-ton or bigger engined 109s would not only not be necessary on an 88, but if they greatly exceed the grip available from knobbly mud tyres on a light 88 on wet roads, they could easily be a liability compared to the more difficult to lock standard 88 brakes.

I'm not sure about other 88s, but my wife's Lightweight has dual line servo assisted brakes with 11" front drums, but the front circuit uses the double acting cylinder as found on 109 rear brakes, not TLS. It seems to give very appropriate braking for the XtraGrip tyres used by the MoD as standard on the vehicles.