110 rolling chassis

What are you planning on building? If its to remain a 110 then I'd do my utmost to get a new chassis, you cannot beat having a chassis that you know is straight and will last for years without having to fettle it.

make excellent chassis and they'll put mounts wherever you want them to. For identity as you say, just get your old one back and use it.

If its not to remain a 110 and budget is a major issue then IMHO you cannot beat Range Rover/Disco chassis (I know you said you don't want to replace crossmembers etc, but this is probably the cheapest way). Once the sills have gone then they are beyond economic repair for most owners and you will pick up one with a useable chassis for well under a grand, + point being you'll get a Tdi and complete drivetrain as well as identity. Add the cost of brand new outriggers and rear crossmember and you still come out way ahead of the 110 option if you discount your labour time.

I saw the 101 everyone was persuading you to buy on Saturday

Now owned by Crieff Hydro and looks really lovely in a navy colour, far nicer than the green and white.

Regards

William Macleod

On or around 20 Mar 2006 02:53:11 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@macleod-group.com" enlightened us thusly:

It's for the infamous minibus project: LR 110 chassis and drivetrain with a suitable (probably transit) minibus body fitted to same.

I've considered new chassis - at least one of the makers, for example, offers a new chassis fitted with recon axles, box and TDi - and at the price, it's a good deal. BUT, there's a problem - you might get away with that as a replacement to rebuild an existing motor, but I reckon I'd run into registration problems using that as a basis for a hybrid.

rebuilt/modified rules, IIRC, are such that if you retain the chassis, engine, box and axles you have more than enough "points" to retain the existing registration.

There's an interesting philosophical point about this: suppose I take an extant but unserviceable land rover, and replace the chassis, then later the engine, gearbox, axles, suspension and by this time the bulkhead is buggered so you replace that and the front wings for good measure, and in the end you can over say 2-3 years replace almost all the vehicle with a new one. At no point do you run foul of the law on the matter of rebuilding vehicles.

But, according to the law, as I read it, if you do it all at once, you can't retain the original registration.

That's not quite how it works out in practice though. Changing the engine for a new/recon one does not affect the number of points retained, bit if you do change it for a different type *and* you change the suspension/chassis you will have lost one point too many to keep the original ID - the net effect being you can change the engine

*or* change the chassis/suspension, but not both - in effect you can't build a completely new car and retain the old ID.

Richard

No question about it then - an early 3 door 200Tdi discovery. Rotten sills and doors crumbled to powder will mean that the owner will be desperate to get rid of it for sensible money (anywhere from 250 quid to a grand for vehicles that run with no MOT), you're going to be hacking the chassis anyway and if you are very carefull you might get to keep the disco registration as well. I wouldn't bother spending money reconning the axles or engine on a project like this or it will never get done! If they turn and are MOT ok then I'd leave them - getting the body + chassis sorted and on the road first is the way to go IMO. Get the chassis galved when you're done fettling it as well, you will want to keep this one a long time with the work you will put into it! You must have a local rag that you can advertise in for little or nothing, I'm sure someone will have a rotten disco lying in a yard close to you with your name on it.

Regards

William MacLeod

In message , Austin Shackles writes

I have an old (Freg) TD hicap coming in soon that I will probably break. Will have a look at chassis to see if it is good.

On or around Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:21:51 +0000, Marc Draper enlightened us thusly:

presumably 110? that's a definite possibility if the chassis is any good.

things I don't need: bulkhead, body-mounting-specific outriggers (although I may need the rear crossmember.

I'm in 2 minds about engine and box' could go with TDi manual or could go with V8 auto and run on LPG. Largely down to what's available at the time.

I may try to get the 110 I sold back - it was last seen up the road not running, and the bloke may sell it back to me cheap...

On or around 20 Mar 2006 11:13:23 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@macleod-group.com" enlightened us thusly:

only trouble with that theory is that the disco chassis is too short for any known van body. I do know someone who has a LDV 200 minibus (which I sold 'em a few years back) with a dud engine and not-brilliant body (but easily repairable - wants stuff like anew wing where it were dented, etc.; it's reasonably sound otherwise). The problem there is that the smaller LDVs are

114" wheelbase; I note that recent transits are 115". I'd not be too worried about extending a 110 chassis by 4" (or 5") - get a couple of channel sections bent up to fit closely over the 2 sides of the chassis and cut it in the middle of a straight section, have channel sections to overlap as much as possible and weld together. The 2 overlapping sections to join top and bottom like the LR chassis does anyway - weld the smaller one on the smaller side of the chassis first, going all around the ends and along the long sides, then weld the larger one on the other side making a seam top and bottom. getting the propshaft rebuilt 4" longer is no great hassle either.

However, putting 14" into a disco chassis might be more problematic - it's considerably more bridging, and might be scrutinised much more closely. Mind, LR put 20" into the middle to make a 130...

If it turns out that earlier transits are near enough tyhe right wheelbase then that makes the choice of body easy... I'll measure one one day.

As you say, LR have done it bigger themselves on plenty of occasions, and they didn't stop at 130. A 14" section is not going to here nor there. If you are worried about hacking the chassis, hack the shell - the one and only nicely done transit/RR I have seen I believe was done this way. There are a few ways of the chassis extension, if I were doing it I would make a cut in the straight bit as you say, plug weld angle _inside_ the chassis legs to help line up your front and back straight, plate over the angle iron takes you back to normal chassis looking after you grind down the welds, then put diamond shaped plates over the welds. Very strong, and relatively easy to keep everything true, (and it's cheap as one can easily get bits of plate + angle!) but if you can get appropriate channel easily then that sounds like that would work fine too.

Regards

William MacLeod

If it were a 90 it would be called a lowcap !!!!!

On or around 20 Mar 2006 14:31:19 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@macleod-group.com" enlightened us thusly:

The local steel bloke can fold up channel from (say) 3mm to any size I want. The way I see it, if I get channel made to fit snugly on the "small" side of the chassis tube, then it will hold the vertical alignment automatically - later alignment can be done by a sod-off G clamp each side of the joint to make sure the channel is tight to the side of the existing chassis rail. The first bit can be welded all over the place - at the ends, along the top and bottom and also inside where the original chassis stops. In fact, that would, if done with heavier gauge steel, be strong enough - but it'd leave scope for water to get into the chassis tubes, so a second, slightly larger channel on the other side is the way to go.

It's a pity, really, that having gone for a chassis made of pressed channel (rather than the old 4-plate one on the series) they didn't simply make a heavier pressing and have an open channel chassis the same as most of the commercials - much less likely to trap water and thus rot.

Actually, 3mm might be a touch too thick - I've an idea the original chassis is 14 gauge which is 2mm, near enough - mind, that might be a series one.

On or around Tue, 21 Mar 2006 01:09:21 +0000, Marc Draper enlightened us thusly:

hehe. I never worked out if they extended the chassis in some way for the high-cap. The body's certainly longer...

I saw a monster of a rangie the other day - about 150" wheelbase, 4-door range rover on the front (minus the boot part) and summat a bit like the size of a 110 pickup body on the back.

It's been a good week for odd-rangie-spotting, saw a metallic red 6-wheeler (car, not fire engine) on the road as well.

No the chassis is the shame length but the body overhangs the rear crossmemeber but about a foot.

There was one in the LR rags last month, somebody stitched a shortened hi-cap body onto the back of a 90 to make a lo-cap.

Alex

On or around Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:40:03 +0000, Austin Shackles enlightened us thusly:

The plan is gradually coming together. Transit body almost-perfect size... about 111" wheelbase...

Can someone with a 110 measure the track between the inside edges of the front tyres/wheels for me?

Transit underpinnings all look to unbolt nice and easily leaving a basically-flat chassis.

And I've worked out how to fund it, I hope.

Watch, as they say, this space. Hope to have it ready in time for Malvern...

Same as your Disco but dependant on wheel offset

The hicap I had coming in sold before it even came into the yard ...Sorry Austin

On or around Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:24:09 +0000, Marc Draper enlightened us thusly:

's OK - there are other fish in the sea. The Plan calls for buying the minibus bit first, and selling the current one.

IIRC wheel offset on the disco may be more than on the 110, making the wheels sit further in on the disco. Mind, I did have some 8-spokes with extra offset on the 110.

On or around Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:33:05 +0000, Austin Shackles enlightened us thusly:

Did have a thought about what might be a minor snag, and that's the turrets on the front suspension. However, I don't really see whey they can't be dispensed with and substitute dampers similar to the rear suspension, if necessary. That's one of the bits that will be difficult to check until the actual assembly stage.

Never actually worked out the why of the turrets. On the face of it, it doesn't seem to offer any convincing advantage compared with a simple damper from the axle to the chassis.