N.O.S.

Big end bolt torque - I put 40 - 59, should be 40 - 50!!! (hit 9 instead of 0 by mistake :blush:). Suspect your rings might have just lost their spring? - expect a new set will cure this :-) Pistons must have clearance (a lot more when cold) so will slide down - only the rings provide any resistance.

Oh - and they can only be used for recovery? :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

This was an example from an East Anglian USAAF base. Ill try desperately not to replicate this standard later this week (stencils arrived Saturday), but won't be too upset if it all goes Pete Tong :cheesy:

OK, looking at cyl head from cab - RH side (push rod side) has 7 bolts, number them (from front) 15,11,7,3,4,8,12 LH side has 8 bolts, number them (from front) 14,10,6,2,1,5,9,13 Big end cap bolts 40-50 foot lbs (not 59 as I typed in error....) Head bolts 60-70 foot lbs

Oh, you won't be needing them for a few hours yet! :cool2: And where's Your manual? :readbook::nono:PM sent.

Relax, chill out and look at http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?25150-Could-this-be-the-most-poorly-applied-Stencil&p=268981#post268981 :-D

There must be a worse one than this - get looking!! :cool2:

:rofl: OMG and we've just ordered T shirts unseen from M5Clive........:wow:

Perhaps with Jack's organisational skills we could club together and buy a small country? There might be one or two coming up for sale in the not-too-distant future :whistle:

One L please Clive (that's big kid size :-D)

Great pictures Gordon, and as for this one - well :rotfl::rotfl: Where on earth did you lot find that?

So, which two members are you going to take into the boardroom, Rosie?

:thumbsup: :banana:(banana frituur)

You mean you you can get happier than this?

:banana: Well said!

No! The latest V11 renewals I received (March 2011) have been revised and now do not even mention V112G - you just need to 'X' the box (self declaration). But I suggest you download one and fill it out just in case you get asked for one, as it is easier than arguing the case. It depends very much on who deals with your application at a post office, but I think you'll find their screen does not prompt them to ask for one any more (because I asked the helpful lady last time!).

I have to say Rick that is not my experience - far from it. I would think it is more accurate to say that development has become more archaeology regulated than archaeology being developer led. I'm sure we could however agree that without development there would be no archaeology, since development pays the costs. So many potentially interesting sites, where no development is ever envisaged, will never be investigated. And that's where I'm guessing your community led approach is maybe looking to fill the gaps? I maintain that site-specific funding is dreadfully inefficient in that developers can get caught with huge and sometimes terminal costs for what might turn out to be archaeology of little significance. I would also suggest that the system causes money to be spent on less-than-ideal investigations simply because the opportunity only exists to obtain funding from developers for those sites being developed. There are of course exceptions. No, the system we have is not the best solution. I maintain that archaeology is more of a pure science, and should not be compromised by limitations of develoment funding - equally I do not believe that development should be unduly restricted by an overiding desire to preserve all archaeological remains just for the sake of it. I would advocate instead that all development should attract an affordable archaeological levy, which can then be pooled (perhaps on a regional basis?) and utilised by local archaeologists to investigate the most important sites - perhaps some of those sites where development may never take place. Shame we don't live in an ideal world....

Oh you've really gone and done it now, Emma :sweat: Jack, shouldn't we get TonyB back on medication before this goes to his head? :cheesy:

Only that if you try to remove the main sump pan (having removed the lower section and then the oil pick-up unit) with the truck just sat there, you could end up getting very frustrated like I did last week. Before you try wrangling with the pan, simply put a jack under the middle of the front bumper and raise the truck away from the front axle by about 4". In addition you may well need to loosen the front engine mounts and lift the engine up in the frame by an inch or so too. I had taken the rad out so we did it anyway - anyone got away without doing that? Also take the little front tin cover off the bellhousing as the rear of the pan catches that too - only by 1/8", but it saves flying into yet another tantrum and throwing ones tools about :blush: One benefit of the job is that by the time it's all boxed up again your hair will have been nicely conditioned by all the engine oil dripping onto your head :-)

That would be a useful test, but I suspect the sump might have to come off for the knocking What the heck, something to do on Saturday at Hardwick

Narrows it down a bit - of the doubtless countless photos of FWD totty, you had to go and pick the wrong one :-D

Psst! Planning on dropping the sump? Is it a deep (2 piece) sump? :banghead::cellphone: :cool2:

Well, if you can get past some of the perhaps not-best-chosen humour in the speech, then what a breath of fresh air this is. Whatever side of the fence you happen to fall you should applaud this chap for having the courage to take the stand that he has. I'm afraid the kick-back manifesting itself here is the inevitable result of the way planning legislation swung far too far towards prioritising archaeology in development matters. OK I'm not sure about the legality of dropping the Section 106 requirements dealing with archaeology at District level, but remember that in any case the larger footprint development planning applications - e.g. minerals extraction - are dealt with at County level, with the District Council acting a consultee. Certainly in some cases it became a power struggle between sometimes greedy devlopers and Local Authority archaeologists who had become a bit light-headed with their newly found powers - with the Local Authorities at times happy to give the archaeologists a push to centre stage whenever they found it difficult to find 'legitimate' reasons to refuse applications which didn't suit the politics of local government. The legislated enforcement of direct funding by developers of all archaeological work only served to pour petrol onto the flames, and inevitably came to be regarded at times as a potentially blank cheque source of funding. I can assure you in all sincerity that in some cases it had become quite ridiculous, and if only I could tell you about the latest ongoing farce in my neck of the woods you would in all probability agree. No, we got it wrong first time round with archaeological planning legislation. If only we had struck the right balance when this legislation was introduced circa 1993 then we would not be faced with the inevitable swing back the other way which seems to have now started - will we learn anything from it I wonder? :readpaper:

:thumbsup: Well done! Just look at that wonderful, almost ART DECO, curved front axle! The wagon looks great in grey too.

Best wishes from me, and best wishes from you know who :cool2: