Engine/gearbox cross angle??

[navigation2000]

Can somebody please explain why Land Rover (series 3) made the engine mounting points, drivers side/passenger side, at different heights?

I mean, the rear cross member(gearbox) itself sits square, but the small brackets you bolt the gearbox rubber mounts to, are also slanted differently, and appear to match the height difference imposed by the engine mount points. This sees the passenger side engine mount located several millimetres below the one on the drivers side.

Is this something to do with the Land Rover petrol engine's(original) design?

Or is it gearbox related?

My Holden 202 sits on a decided lean in the engine bay, and I don't know why it should.....

Also, I bought a new set of engine and gearbox mounts(rubber), and the kit I received has 2x large diameter mounts, and 2x somewhat smaller diameter mounts. The dilemma now is in which mounts go where?

I was naturally thinking the 2x large go under the engine, and the 2 x smalls go under the box, but now when I look at this slanted engine bizzo, I'm not sure. On a slanted engine, I'd say the 2 x big ones go on the low side, and the 2 x smalls go on the drivers side, but even that doesn't really make me feel too confident....

If there is no valid reason to slant the gearbox, can I simply engineer the mounts to make the engine/gearbox sit straight?

[Blknight.aus]

the 4 pots sit vertically the reason for the difference in heights is clearance for the top of the diff when at full compression.

while the chassis mounts are at different heights you'll find that the engine-mount adaptors are different shapes to compensate for it. the gearbox mounts are different shapes to allow for the different locations on the box for the adaptor mounts.

[JDNSW]

I have never noted a difference, and certainly the standard engine and gearbox sit exactly upright on all Series Landrovers. I would expect any difference in height to reflect the fact that the engine is offset to the left rather than a lean, but attachment points on both engine and gearbox are likely to be at different heights to avoid various fittings.

John

[B.S.F.]

It seems like you're describing series 1 engine and gearbox mounting rubbers.. ( 2 piece) wich cannot be fitted to later models unless you've got the correct mounting brackets with the big holes. Small rubber on top.

[navigation2000]

Thanks for the responses, much appreciated.

I've attached an image of my engine, so you can see the slant I'm talking about.

Yes, the gearbox cross-member sits level, and the little brackets which the rubber mounts bolt up to, are angled differently and are also of different heights. I can also see that the gearbox to mount plates are of different angles and heights too.

When I look at the chassis area where the engine mounts attach, I see that the passenger side mounting point is lower.

I'm now starting to think that whoever made the Holden to Land Rover engine mount adaptors, may not have gotten their measurements right, or may have overlooked something.

Ok then, so if the gearbox doesn't need to be slanted, I can just go ahead and remake the engine mount adaptors to situate the engine in a straight up and down fashion, as per how I think it should be.

Hmm, I noticed when removing the gearbox mount rubbers, that one had been pulled out of shape a little, and the other had been greatly pulled out of shape, almost to the point of it tearing in half.

The engine mount rubbers appear to be ok, not pulled out of shape.

Wondering if the passenger side engine mount adaptor, if made wrong (too low), effecting the lean of the engine, is where the problems all lie??

If I simply straighten the angle, it shouldn't affect anything. Extractors will still be clear of the footwell, chassis etc....hmm.

Best we look at this a bit closer.

Always wondered why the carby and intake manifold sat so close to the heater matrix and passenger side footwell....hmm

[navigation2000]

Went over the measurements again and it appears that the passenger side engine mount adaptor has either sagged, or was made wrong.

Was hoping to be able to just re-drill the old adaptors to suit the new forward engine position, just in case I ever want to slide it backwards again, but it's looking too hard to do with these mount adaptors.

Just going to have to make up new ones.

Will do all that once the Nissan Box is finally attached and sitting in its correct position.

It's going to be a tight fit by the looks of it, with the water pump pully being too close to the radiator to allow the running of a mechanical fan.

[4x4_bugsy]

The large ones go on the engine and the small ones to the gearbox end. My holden conversion sits not only on an angle but slightly off centre too. I figured it was to do with getting the whole thing sitting at a happy medium to make it clear the various bits like the holden fuel pump which is in a pretty tight spot near the RH mounting bracket.
I guess it also could be down to the person who made the engine mounts on the truck you have. I have never seen 2 sets of identical set of mounts on a holden converted rover.
Its like they were all knocked up on the spot when the vehicles were converted, out of whatever material was laying under the bench, with no thought to standardising them.
I found that my passenger side bracket had broken bolts in and had sagged down so the alternator was resting on the chassis...

[navigation2000]

The large ones go on the engine and the small ones to the gearbox end. My holden conversion sits not only on an angle but slightly off centre too. I figured it was to do with getting the whole thing sitting at a happy medium to make it clear the various bits like the holden fuel pump which is in a pretty tight spot near the RH mounting bracket.
I guess it also could be down to the person who made the engine mounts on the truck you have. I have never seen 2 sets of identical set of mounts on a holden converted rover.
Its like they were all knocked up on the spot when the vehicles were converted, out of whatever material was laying under the bench, with no thought to standardising them.
I found that my passenger side bracket had broken bolts in and had sagged down so the alternator was resting on the chassis...

Thanks for the info.

Yep, what you're saying is pretty much how we're finding things to be here too.

Closer inspection of the passenger side mount adaptor revealed a long crack in the gusset seam weld, and the rubber mount had sheared as well, though you'd never have known just from looking at it.

We've looked at the current engine position several times over the last few days, just in case we somehow overlooked something, and we're not seeing any negative aspects involved, so we'll now proceed to mount the engine in this new low and level position.

The new position just "looks" right from every aspect, with the engine sitting level and straight and crazy as it sounds, everything else just falls right into place when it's mounted in this fashion, the gearbox lines up on the cross-member, the gear sticks come through the holes in the trans cover precisely, etc, etc, just like it was meant to be.

The way the engine was mounted before, nothing at all lined up. We simply can't figure out why it was mounted that way, and nothing logical seems to support it, but we still had to keep looking back at it, just in case it was for a reason.

It's also difficult to analyse the reasoning behind the old mounting method when whoever did it, took steps to address the missmatching gearstick holes etc, by hand fabricating little metal tabs to secure the boot rubbers in the offset position.

Oh well, things are going ahead as they now are, so it's going to be interesting to see how it turns out. The vehicle might even handle better too.

Thanks for the rubber mount info, I'll do it the way you suggest. It's only logical to do it that way.:thumbsup:

My confusion regarding the rubber mounts was in that if the engine had to be sitting all askew, up in the air at the front, and leaned over sideways, it may well have required the big and small rubbers in different positions.

Thanks again.

[JayBoRover]

Now you've got me thinking. I have never noticed whether my engine is slanted or not, but I have noticed that the gearshift lever boot does not fit correctly as the lever comes through the tunnel hole slightly off-centre. Now I'm going to have to have a look at whether it might be a case similar to yours. (Although my conversion has retained the Series gearbox).
Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.:)

[JDNSW]

I think the answer may lie in "there are some good conversions, some bad and some awful".

John

[navigation2000]

Now you've got me thinking. I have never noticed whether my engine is slanted or not, but I have noticed that the gearshift lever boot does not fit correctly as the lever comes through the tunnel hole slightly off-centre. Now I'm going to have to have a look at whether it might be a case similar to yours. (Although my conversion has retained the Series gearbox).
Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.:)


That's what had me stumped initially, I was also using the original Land Rover box, and the gear shifter was coming through the trans cover toward the passenger side rear of the hole, it was hitting/rubbing on the hole sometimes, judging by the bit of a wear mark. I just accepted it as being par for the course, given the Holden 202 conversion.

Now that we've delved into it, the only thing we see as being a possible reason for the upward slant, is so the mechanical fan can be better positioned behind the radiator. That said, there was plenty of room between the fan blades and the top of the radiator, but barely 10mm at the bottom. The very high at the front engine position saw to that.

I should add, the severity of the high front to low rear engine angle, wasn't all that noticeable, apart from the obvious slant of the fan, when all the engine bay accessories were in place, but after they were stripped out, exposing the engine block more fully, the slant was then far more obvious, and pretty much screamed for our attention.

I notice in the earlier image I posted, where you can see the harmonic balancer sitting plainly higher than the front chassis cross-member, well that wasn't noticeable when the radiator and thermo fan and grill was in place, you just couldn't see it as being so obvious, but now that the engine has been lowered, you can see the harmonic balancer residing where the hole is in the chassis cross-member. I wasn't sure you were supposed to see the harmonic balancer through that hole, I always thought that hole was for a PTO driven shaft.

That balancer/chassis hole thing was something I never really gave any thought to, seeing as I've never actually had cause to check out a standard Land Rover engine, nor pay attention to where/how one sat within the engine bay.

If you want to check out the angles easily, just place a small spirit level on top of the rocker cover.

[navigation2000]

I think the answer may lie in "there are some good conversions, some bad and some awful".

John

You may be right there John, so best we try to get it right this time around.;)

[navigation2000]

Well,.....it seems there is a valid reason for the engine to be slanted (high at the front, low at the rear) after all, though it appears not many people are aware of it.

For those here who have a Holden red 6 engine in their Land Rover Series 3, I'll try to add some important info on it later tonight.

[clubagreenie]

Interesting, I've done 4 conversions and they've all been on cast alloy mounts. Are everyone elses welded up jobs? We just used the existing round engine/gearbox mounts.

[navigation2000]

Interesting, I've done 4 conversions and they've all been on cast alloy mounts. Are everyone elses welded up jobs? We just used the existing round engine/gearbox mounts.

Hmmm, I've only ever seen welded up/fabricated examples in use, or on offer.

The only set of what appeared to be cast alloy engine mount adaptors I've ever seen, are the second hand ones recently for sale on Ebay, out of Lightening Ridge. When I saw them, I was highly curious as to their origin, given the problems I'm currently having with my 109.

I couldn't know for sure if they were out of a short wheel base or a long wheel base, and I'm not sure if the seller even knew, thus I didn't bid on them.

The adaptors should be different as per the different wheel bases and suspension heights, or so the magic formulas seem to suggest.

[mick88]

Well,.....it seems there is a valid reason for the engine to be slanted (high at the front, low at the rear) after all, though it appears not many people are aware of it.

For those here who have a Holden red 6 engine in their Land Rover Series 3, I'll try to add some important info on it later tonight.

I am interested to hear this information!

Cheers, Mick :)

[navigation2000]

I am interested to hear this information!

Cheers, Mick :)

Hi Mick,

Ok, not everything within that document I mentioned, is relevant to what I'm doing, but it does appear to be very well written and is highly informative.

One small part did attract my full attention, as it mirrored what we'd gone ahead and done to my 109 (as yet untested)

I've applied myself this afternoon and evening, doing a heap of research and drafted all the relative drawings etc, and it looks like we were on the right track when we opted to lower the engine, back down to level.

From what I can make out, the diff pinion flange angles, (in relation to the ground) in turn dictate the transfer box angle. These angles should all match.

If the engine mount adaptors lift the engine up at the front, the transfer box obviously lifts up with it, and in doing so, alters both driveshaft running angles. This will see a steep angle on the front shaft, and hardly any angle on the rear one. All of that will significantly increase the workload/stresses on the respective universal joints, pinions, drive shafts etc.

It appears that this type of arrangement can often cause serious vibration issues, as well as handling problems and a significant risk of wear/breakages to several drivetrain components.

I have to look into it a bit more in the coming days, and take a few more measurements etc, before I can know for certain, but I'm not going to back away from what we've done to my 109 here, in fact I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how it goes...

My front diff pinion flange sits 385mm off the ground (centre of shaft), and is at 90 degrees (right angle from ground). The rear diff flange is 355mm off the ground and is also at 90 degrees.

This 30 mm pinion height difference is relative to the Rover front diff and Salisbury rear diff, and as such it will have to be factored into the engine/transfer angle equation, but I'm guessing the engine/transfer won't need to be tilted much to cover that small difference.

Anyway, if the above is the case, then the running angles (incline/decline) of the driveshafts will be approximately 10 degrees each, that's with a 1978 Series 3 109, ex army.

A civilian suspension would be done the same way, and the only difference would be in the drive shaft angles, they'd run at even less than 10 degrees, which is better again.

My front drive shaft is approx 670 mm long, and the rear is approx 950 mm long, and from what my drawings are showing, if they're both running at 10 degree angles, then it should be nice and balanced.

You know the crossmember behind the transfer box, where the rear shaft goes through that hole, well my rear shaft was always sitting quite close to the bottom of that hole, and you could see where it had kissed the crossmember on occassion, thus by lowering the front of the engine from the sky high position, back to level, that rear shaft runs in the middle of that hole now.

My gear sticks are all perfectly positioned too.

Anyhow, no matter how much I seem to dig, I just can't find any valid reason to run the Holden engine with the front of it sticking up in the air like a honeymoon *****.

I noticed another plus for running it level too, the rear lifter gallery of the red 202, has only 2 oil return holes, whereas the front one has 3. Not a big argument for the cause, but definitely another point in favour.

[navigation2000]

After spending the better part of the day looking further into it, the information found still points to us having the engine sitting level, as the best option.

I keep seeing info which suggests that if the diff flange angles are at 90 degrees (parallel to the ground), then the transfer box flanges angles must run parallel to those.

The only extra tip I found, is in making sure the rear diff flange is sitting about 1 degree lower, so that would be at approximately 89 degrees, to allow for diff flex (upward) under load/power.

I'm not going to alter the diff flange angles, they should already be ok, as per the army specs, so I'm thinking I'll just add or subtract a pinch from the engine/transfer angle, via the engine mount adaptors, to meet those requirements.

I'll still be pondering it a bit more yet....

[navigation2000]

I am interested to hear this information!

Cheers, Mick :)

Mick,

The info that led me to say it looked as though there's a valid reason for the engine to be slanted high at the front, now appears to have been quite wrong.

That info was gleaned from a certain US based site, and that particular contributor/author, I now find has been roundly criticised on several other sites for his supposedly expert views.

His opinions are not even related to 4x4, as it turns out, but rather to the 2x4 hotrod scene, and even there he's finding the going tough.

[JDNSW]

Your reasoning for having the transfer case shaft and hence crankshaft parallel to the pinion shafts is quite correct, although I don't think I would be too worried about the 1 degree - if you think about it, the angular relationship will change as the vehicle is loaded, since most of the load is on the rear axle, so that unloaded the transfer case shaft will be down at the front, and fully loaded perhaps a little down at the back.

But the other thing to look at, as a possible reason for the front up tilt of the Holden engine, is the clearance from the front diff to sump or front pulley with maximum spring deflection. Although if this is a problem, I would consider a spacer under the spring stops might be a better solution.

John

[navigation2000]

Your reasoning for having the transfer case shaft and hence crankshaft parallel to the pinion shafts is quite correct, although I don't think I would be too worried about the 1 degree - if you think about it, the angular relationship will change as the vehicle is loaded, since most of the load is on the rear axle, so that unloaded the transfer case shaft will be down at the front, and fully loaded perhaps a little down at the back.

But the other thing to look at, as a possible reason for the front up tilt of the Holden engine, is the clearance from the front diff to sump or front pulley with maximum spring deflection. Although if this is a problem, I would consider a spacer under the spring stops might be a better solution.

John

Thanks John,

I'm very relieved to hear you confirm we're on the right track.:BigThumb:

Decent info on this stuff seems to be a bit hard to find, unless you're prepared have a fair sort of a dig for it.

We looked at the axle to sump clearance right at the start, and it'll never be a problem, that said, the original Land Rover engine would have probably sat about where the 202 is sitting now I reckon.

It seems that when we sat the eng/trans in as straight and level as we did, with just a very minute backward slope, everything else just fell into place and lined up perfectly, like it was just "meant to be" that way.

But then something kept bugging me about that mile high slant the engine was sitting at previously, and it's kind of had me worried, like maybe I was overlooking something.

Tonight we quickly checked the front diff flange angle with a degree gauge, and it's sitting at 89.5 degrees (right angle to the ground), which is precisely the angle the most recent literature I've found (only found it tonight) has made mention of.

The plan is to now check the rear diff in the same fashion, and if my suspicions are correct, that will also be found to be sitting at 89.5 degrees.

If both the diffs are already set at those angles, then again everything falls into place, as it means we just have to set the transfer box flanges at 90 degrees, and we should be in business.

The 89.5 degree angles on the diffs is to account for the under load axle wrap, according to the literature.

Once at cruise speed, the axle wrap will take up the .5 degree, and the diffs will then be running at the correct 90 degrees, if what I'm reading is correct, and I must say, it all sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I'm starting to think that whoever did the engine conversion, may have gotten confused and pointed the transfer box flange directly at the rear diff flange, making a single bend in the driveshaft at the diff flange, as opposed to having 2 bends of equal pitch.

Nothing else seems to make sense, but having said that, I never had any vibration to speak of, even at the highest of speeds, so yeah, that part still has me confused.

Anyway, we'd already decided to just keep going the way we're going, and just see how it all pans out.

Thanks again John, I appreciate your advice.

[navigation2000]

Ok, the engine has now been installed for the final time.

The figures and angles have all fallen right into place, thus I'm quite relieved.:p

The following figures are pretty accurate, but right at this point in time, they're just coming off the top of my head, so I'll have to return here with the exact figures at a later point, but I'll give these ones now, just to show what this modification has done for my Holden red 202 powered Series 3 ex army 109.

Front diff flange is set as per standard (Rover), @ 385mm from the ground(army spec?), and has a preset angle of 89.5 degrees.

Rear diff flange is set as per standard (Salisbury) @ 355mm from the ground (army spec?) and has a preset angle of 89 degrees.

Transfer box flanges are:

Front @ 510mm from the ground @ 90 degrees.

Rear @ 505mm from the ground @ 90 degrees.

This combination sees both the drive-shafts running at 10 degrees each.

To reach this result, the front of the Holden 202 was lowered by approximately 6.5 inches from where it was sitting previously.

I'll have to re-check the figures again after the vehicle is weighted down, just to ensure they're all still where we set them, and at that time, I shall return to this thread and present a final series of more exact figures.

The only thing which needs to be modified on the actual engine when doing this modification, is the carburetor operating angle.

My 34 ADM Weber carby is now leaning forward @ 5 degrees, and so to fix this, I now have to have one of the adaptor plates machined to suit that angle, which will in turn bring the carby back to it's proper operating angle(level).

*1st image shows the way the engine was positioned previously.

*2nd image shows the new engine position.

Look for where the harmonic balancer or water pump pulley sits in each image, in order to get an idea of just how much lower the engine is now sitting.

[JDNSW]

Looking at the pictures I can see another possible reason for the angle - did the original installation use the Holden fan? Your second picture shows that this would be pretty low relative to the radiator - I presume you plan to use an electric fan?

John

[clubagreenie]

Looking into the hole in the second pics that's pretty much spot on from what remember, just up and right. That cross members been cut way too low though. Never had to cut into the hole to get the radiator in.

[djam1]

Watch the 34ADM Webber in heat in the falcon they were fine, I had one in a Nissan G60 and found that when things got really hot it wouldnt run properly.
The problem seemed unsolvable but it faulted when on the dyno as I was standing next to it.
A plume of Petrol you would not believe shot about a metre in the air.
After a lot of research it was found that it was to do the the bowl venting.
Put simply vent the bowl and you wont have any issues.

[navigation2000]

Looking at the pictures I can see another possible reason for the angle - did the original installation use the Holden fan? Your second picture shows that this would be pretty low relative to the radiator - I presume you plan to use an electric fan?

John

Hi John,

Yes, it was running a standard 4 blade Holden fan previously.

It appeared someone had bent the blades back a bit in order for it to clear the radiator at the bottom. It was obviously well clear at the top.

It also had a big thermo mounted ahead of the radiator, which may have been added as a backup.

I have used the thermo in the past, so I know it's ok, and I will now be using it as my primary.

Not ideal, but you do what you have to do.

My preference is a clutch fan, but there just wasn't enough room to fit one before, and now, forget it, nothing will fit now.

I even went about sourcing a heavy duty 8 blade steel fan a couple of years ago but it also wouldn't fit. I have a few different spacers of varying thickness on hand, but all proved to be useless.

I hung onto that 8 blade fan as I was hoping to use it at some point, but alas, it just wasn't meant to be.

The clearances are quite tight up the front, and the situation is now such that the water pump pulley bolt heads are spinning about 10-15mm or so off the radiator.

We'll be making up a suitably robust damper rod to ensure the engine never pitches forward more then a couple of millimetres.

[navigation2000]

Looking into the hole in the second pics that's pretty much spot on from what remember, just up and right. That cross members been cut way too low though. Never had to cut into the hole to get the radiator in.

Hi clubgreenie,

Not sure what size radiator you were running, but mine is a 4x core, and it takes up pretty much all the space between the steering relay and the left chassis rail.

Even after taking a smidge out of the steering relay gusset (and re-strengthened that of course), there's only just enough room to jam it in with force.

We're now looking to slice the sides of the radiator down, just so I can add some thin rubber underneath and ahead of the lower tank, to help reduce the risk of a metal to metal wear problem later on.

The cross-member isn't cut too low for this radiator mate, that's exactly how far the radiator sat down below the cross-member before, and it's all the way to the top as well.

I checked it all fairly carefully, and there was just no other way to do it. It was either do this, or get a new radiator custom made.

Couldn't push the radiator any further forward, as the thermo fan to grill clearance is super tight too.

We've gone to all this trouble in order to retain the standard appearance of the vehicle.

[navigation2000]

Watch the 34ADM Webber in heat in the falcon they were fine, I had one in a Nissan G60 and found that when things got really hot it wouldnt run properly.
The problem seemed unsolvable but it faulted when on the dyno as I was standing next to it.
A plume of Petrol you would not believe shot about a metre in the air.
After a lot of research it was found that it was to do the the bowl venting.
Put simply vent the bowl and you wont have any issues.

Hi djam1,

This 34 ADM has been on the vehicle for a couple of years now, and it's never missed a beat.

It's not a tired oldie that's been sourced from a wrecking yard, it's been fully blueprinted to my own specifications.

I also run a modified Redline Roadmaster manifold, which has a water tank welded on beneath the plenum floor.

I've tried a few different combinations with the plenum chamber volume so far, and it seems to like 1x phenolic spacer directly atop the manifold, followed by 1x spacer with PCV inlet, and then 1x plain spacer atop that (which is now being machined to act as a 5 degree "wedge").

Those spacers are all opened up too, no venturi extension, it just doesn't need it. It's simply doing what a tunnel ram does now.

There's also a single shooter water/methanol injector atop the primary venturi as well. The mechanical secondary is all fuel. Oh yeah, I have a bunch of different jets too, and I can't remember which ones are in there at the moment, but suffice to say, they were fairly decent sizes. All that will have to be re-done now, to suit the different engine specs.

Actually, that just reminded me, I need to scratch around and find my jets. Hope I haven't lost them.:(

I use a Bosch HEI with a Crane Cams HI6 CDI and PS91 coil, and ICE IGN leads as my standard ignition, combined with Brisk Premium LGS spark plugs, or when I'm running my custom ignition, I still use that other ignition, but it only acts as the trigger then, and when doing that, I run custom made plugs. Those are designed and built by myself and a friend.

Not sure how well versed you are with engines etc, but if you simply switch to HEI, and run those Brisk plugs, your combustion chamber temperatures will decrease by about 100-150 degrees. I'm serious. I've measured it.

That sort of efficiency increase will in turn make your engine run cooler.

Just the way it is.

I've never had a heat problem with this carby, or this engine for that matter, even on the worst of the scorchers in Melbourne City itself, in bumper to bumper traffic, it just purrs.

Who tuned yours?

I do all my own tuning, and while I used to mess around with it fairly often, I just couldn't be bothered these days. It's quick enough as it is.

**Attached image shows the spacers in the wrong order, as I was simply test fitting it to the engine to check on some clearances.

[clubagreenie]

We never had issues running the same carb for years. Went to it when we found boxes of them new at a local parts shop and bought the box for $100- (a dozen I think).

The rad we used was std just had the top inlet moved to the centre.

[navigation2000]

We never had issues running the same carb for years. Went to it when we found boxes of them new at a local parts shop and bought the box for $100- (a dozen I think).

The rad we used was std just had the top inlet moved to the centre.

Wow, that was a very good score with the dozen ADM's. Bet you're still grinning over that one.

My radiator is an unknown variety, may be custom made, not sure.

It's a 4x core, bottom hose is beside the steering relay and the top one is over on the passenger side. The inlet/outlet may have been moved, not sure, but will look more closely when the time comes (soon now), when it get's worked over prior to its re-installation.

Got a fair bit more done today, rebuilt the dash and did most of the wiring.

Still have a bit more wiring to do yet, as well as the myriad other stuff.

I'm totally exhausted, just doing far too many hours on this rebuild, but I just can't refit anything before going right over it.

[navigation2000]

The heat goes on...

Each day brings completion a few steps closer.

Awaiting delivery of parts can be annoying at times, but it really doesn't seem to be holding up progress at all, given that plenty of work continues to be done in other areas.

I've now decided to go for it and fit an electric water pump with digital temperature controller.

There are a number of reasons as to why I've opted to go that way.

One reason is that I've never felt entirely confident with the analogue thermo fan controllers, and another is that I may yet be deleting the engines water pump and thermostat housing, so I'd like an alternative solution at hand should those needs arise.

*(To be perfectly honest, it's the HP/Torque that I'm chasing.):burnrubber:

Another reason is that I've been counseled(stooged) into reconsidering my plan to delete the vehicles heater entirely, and it was pointed out that since I'd already acquired an auxiliary heater with the view to fitting that into the cargo area some time ago, and had then gone to some lengths to collect it, thus I shouldn't just change the plan now, and not simply because I wish to use the heater's air vent as a cold air intake for my engine......hmmm....ok.:cool:

In fairness to the original heater, while it wasn't doing much more than take up room that I was kind of keen to use for other things, more positive things, more efficient things, fun things..., thus after having completely removed it, I was able to see a large number of reasons for why it wasn't pulling its weight. It simply couldn't perform due to lack of maintenance.

I can fix it back up, it's only basic, and I reckon I might even be able to get it fairly cracking this time around.

An electric water pump should see a more than ample flow of hot water, and I'm advised that it should be more than efficient enough for me to also proceed with the installation of the auxiliary heater in the cargo area too, and while that idea may have been shelved a few weeks back, I'm actually quite looking forward to seeing how well it all works now.

I'll just keep plugging away at the re-assembly as best I can, and add those 2x heaters into the build as I go, plumbing and wiring for them while I'm doing the other stuff.

[JDNSW]

A bit irrelevant considering you are now planning to have a heater, but are you aware that the ADRs this vehicle is probably required to meet include demisters if not heater? Became a requirement in early S3 production.

John

[navigation2000]

A bit irrelevant considering you are now planning to have a heater, but are you aware that the ADRs this vehicle is probably required to meet include demisters if not heater? Became a requirement in early S3 production.

John

Hi John,

While I'm aware that this vehicle is obliged to follow certain ADR laws, as per those displayed on the compliance plate attached to the radiator support panel, I'm not entirely sure the heater/demister ADR code is present on that plate, but to be honest, I haven't really checked that far into it.

I do note that this vehicle, being a 1978 model, is supposed to carry the 27a code, which was introduced into law in the 4th month of 1976, if memory serves me correctly, however, this vehicle appears to have been exempted from the 27a law, as evidenced by the lack of this code on on the ADR plate, and while I can't be 100% sure for the reasoning behind this, I feel it may be due to it having been a military vehicle.

Also, one of the first people I bumped into after having taking possession of it, was an ex army driver trainer, and he told me his main role throughout his 20 year tenure, was in training personnel to use this particular model Land Rover.

One of his first comments to me was with regard to the heater, as a matter of fact, which he advised was not standard for this particular vehicle, He went on to say that if they ever had to go anywhere, they just rugged up and went.

He added that civilians often fitted these vehicles with heaters after the units were sold off upon completion of their military service, and so I just took his word for it.

I've been run off my feet lately, so haven't had a chance to get online much, but I will try to find out what the heater/demister code is, if and when I get the time.

Perhaps another AULRO member might know this information, and can fill in the gaps for us.

It's a mute point now anyway, for I've simply been TOLD to include the heater, and as it turns out, the authority who issued that order, seems to have far more influence than any government body.:p

My steering gear has finally arrived!

So has the cold rain though...:(

[navigation2000]

John,

I braved the elements and snuck out tonight to have a peek at that compliance plate, and it does have the ADR 15 code.

I guess that old fellow I was listening to, was mistaken.

Haven't been near the vehicle for the last 2 days, just too cold and wet at the moment.

[navigation2000]

All the clearances appear to be finalised, and have all landed where we expected them to, which is nice.;)

[navigation2000]

The heater overhaul appears to be coming along nicely.

Still need to seal around the heater core and then rewire it, prior to the final assembly of the case.

Will then look at finishing the heater fan/blower modifications.