[ First Message Last | Table of Contents | <- Digest -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
msg | Sender | lines | Subject |
1 | azw@aber.ac.uk (Andy Woo | 21 | Re: 88 vs 109 |
2 | Russell Burns [burns@cis | 18 | Re: Defender = Investment? |
3 | jhong@haiku.com (John Ho | 9 | Big Bat Fastard Stickers... |
4 | maloney@wings.attmail.co | 74 | 88 vs 109 |
5 | Mark V Grieshaber [mvgri | 32 | Re: LR 88 wheel refinishing options |
6 | CXKS46A@prodigy.com (MR | 32 | Fuel cut-off solenoid |
7 | rsrose@cco.caltech.edu ( | 23 | Re: Pinion Nut |
8 | "BENJAMIN G. NEWMAN" [71 | 10 | seals |
9 | Brad Krohn [Brad_Krohn@c | 12 | Re: Bug eyed Rovers |
10 | S|ren Vels Christensen [ | 22 | Re: Re: sorry, I'm posting again - now a tech question |
11 | Russell Burns [burns@cis | 19 | discovery |
12 | Craig Murray [craigp@ocs | 64 | Re: 88 vs 109 |
13 | "Russell G. Dushin" [dus | 25 | Re: seals |
14 | "Russell G. Dushin" [dus | 20 | Re: discovery |
15 | root@ocs.cpsg.com.au | 21 | Re: discovery |
16 | Derek Tearne [derek@nezs | 142 | [not specified] |
17 | Joseph Broach [PC7170@UT | 21 | Westward Bound and Rover Hunting! |
18 | David John Place [umplac | 12 | Re: Sides and top... |
19 | dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on | 24 | [not specified] |
20 | dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on | 25 | [not specified] |
21 | "Keith Coman" [BAKC@gira | 55 | Re: seals |
From: azw@aber.ac.uk (Andy Woodward) Subject: Re: 88 vs 109 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 11:36:18 UNDEFINED >I can take it camping and it basically functions as an RV. I've got a bed >and cabinets that go in the back. I don't go off-highway all that much, >though. It's also great for hauling stuff around. >I think the 88"'s are better off-road, though, because they're shorter. So >if you're primary use is as an off-highway vehicle, that may be the way to >go. (Check with the experts here, though.) 109s ahave teice the laodspace and are easier to sleep in, and generally more use as a stand-alone vehicle. But teh 88 is more nimble offroad; and makes a far better towing platform - which is why all the farmers go for em. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Just another roadkill on the Information Superhighway +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------[ <- Message 2 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: Russell Burns <burns@cisco.com> Subject: Re: Defender = Investment? Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 6:13:41 MDT In Mich. they went for 40K, sitting right next to the Defender 110 as a Range Rover for 37K. I just couldn't convince my wife that a Defender was worth more that a Ranger Rover.(or my self for that matter. My biggest objections with the Defender was lack of left elbow room for the driver. Even my wife who is 5' noticed it. Russ > Okay, so they're selling the Defender 110 for $45K, and they bought it as > an investment... How much did they originally sell for, that they could [ truncated by lro-digester (was 13 lines)] > Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates > San Francisco, California ------------------------------[ <- Message 3 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 09:18:36 -0400 From: jhong@haiku.com (John Hong) Subject: Big Bat Fastard Stickers... are goooooooooooooone! All the other stickers are still available. John Hong (jhong@haiku.com 617-625-9469 voice 623-5253 fax) ------------------------------[ <- Message 4 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: maloney@wings.attmail.com (maloney) Date: 21 Jul 94 02:45:25 GMT Subject: 88 vs 109 Hi, To the originator of the 88 vs 109 question: I didn't see your original message and am referring to what I read from Roger's reply. I also have both an 88 and 109 Wagon. I love them both but drive the 88 more often. I'll give you the pros and cons of both as I see them. 88 Pros: Easy to maneuver in traffic, tight spots. Zippier too. Better and more fun around town. Accelerates up hills. ***Can take the top off in the summer***. This is what I like best. Cruising the back roads or up to Vermont with the top off. You smile from ear to ear. The smaller size and lower weight makes it better off road. 88 specific parts are more available. The 15" wheels are easier to horse around and tires are more available and less expensive. 88 Cons: Short wheelbase makes for a buckier (is that a word?) ride on bumpy roads. Not a whole lot of room inside. Less legroom. 109 Pros: Lots of room. Much nicer ride. Better legroom. More comfortable on long trips. Better range (SW with rear 18 gal fuel tank). 109 Cons: Has the maneuverability of a Greyhound bus. Accelerates more slowly. Heavy. Not as good gas mileage. Requires more shifting on the highway to get up hills (2.25). Can't take the top off (w/o a crane). 109 specific parts are less available and more expensive (e.g. exhaust, springs etc.). The 16" wheels can give you a hernia taking them off and the choice of rubber is not as varied and considerably more expensive. Series IIA vs III As for the dash, I like the early IIA better. Easier to service and better air flow from the vents. Don't let that stop you from a Series III though. The clutch is much softer (this may not seem like much but after a few hours of driving in non-highway situations my left knee feels like it's going to give out - This could partially be due to an old injury) and no double clutching necessary. Bill Maloney IIA 88 & 109 Wagon maloney@wings.attmail.com Roger responded: none I have one of each (sIII 88" and sII 109"), and I like the 109" much better. The series II is more utilitarian and seems easier to work with. The series III has the guages by the steering wheel, but having them in the center is not hard to get used to. I definitely like the twist knobs for the vents over the levers in the series III, but I could live without the funky sII wiper motors. 88 vs 109 depends on what you're gonna do with it. I like the 109" because I can take it camping and it basically functions as an RV. I've got a bed and cabinets that go in the back. I don't go off-highway all that much, though. It's also great for hauling stuff around. I think the 88"'s are better off-road, though, because they're shorter. So if you're primary use is as an off-highway vehicle, that may be the way to go. (Check with the experts here, though.) none ------------------------------[ <- Message 5 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: Mark V Grieshaber <mvgrie@shute.monsanto.com> Subject: Re: LR 88 wheel refinishing options Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 9:52:01 CDT ccray@lulu.cc.missouri.edu said: > ... > One down, 4 more to go. Need some feedback on [ truncated by lro-digester (was 9 lines)] > cons are. For those who feel authenticity is > important, would this violate that code? I have a question about galvanizing something like rims (I do *NOT* know the answer to this question, which is why I am asking). I presume that the rims are cold formed, and so I would expect a certain amount of their strength is from work hardening during the forming process. Isn't galvanizing a dip into molten zinc? Would there be any strength loss due to the (perhaps partial) annealing during the molten zinc bath? This *might* be an issue with wheels, where stresses can be concentrated (both from tire pressures on the rim, and impact pressures offroad). I wouldn't think it an issue with frames, because they are not *cold* formed, therefore shouldn't derive any of their strength from work hardening. Nor would it be an issue with small bits like brackets, etc, due to the much lower stresses involved. Ray, maybe you could ask your local galvanizer about it? Is this a non-issue? Mark mvgrie@shute.monsanto.com ------------------------------[ <- Message 6 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 11:01:24 EDT From: CXKS46A@prodigy.com (MR ALEXANDER P GRICE) Subject: Fuel cut-off solenoid In one of the replies to John Hong's mysterious, sudden power loss, someone mentioned the electric fuel cutoff solenoid. It was fitted to the '72-74 North American export Rovers (maybe others) with the Zenith 36IVE carb. If you still have this device fitted...*remove* it ASAP and throw it away. It is the cause of more problems that it could possibily be worth. First of all, it is a relatively heavy device for its size, tapped into the weak "pot" metal of the carb base. After a while, it will work free, possibily ruining the carb in the process. If not, it will fall onto the manifold, where the heat will eventually melt the wire, creating a dead short back to the instrument panel. Can you say "incandesce?" Mine did just that a 15 years ago, taking the ignition wire and some others in the loom with it in the process. Particularly fun when it happens on the Interstate at rush hour when the cabin fills with smoke as the engine suddenly dies. I replaced mine with the broken-off stub of a pecnil coated with Permatex #1. (Ran fine for years, though a bolt may look better for purists.) The replacement Zenith 36IV doesn't have this bothersome device. *----"Jeep may be famous, LAND-ROVER is Legendary"-----* | | | Sandy Grice, Rover Owners' Association of Virginia | | E-Mail: CXKS46A@prodigy.com FAX: 804-622-7056 | | Voice: 804-622-7054 (Days) 804-423-4898 (Evenings) | | 1633 Melrose Pkwy., Norfolk, VA, 23508-1730 USA | *------------------------------------------------------* ------------------------------[ <- Message 7 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: rsrose@cco.caltech.edu (Randolph Rose) Subject: Re: Pinion Nut Date: 20 Jul 1994 16:09:07 GMT In article <199407200202.WAA12873@transfer.stratus.com>, Russell G. Dushin <dushinrg@pr.cyanamid.com> wrote: SNIP>> >persuader" but to no avail. Have not tried heat yet (thanks Dave4EPEN) >but may shortly. A tool to hold the yoke, if it does in fact exist, >would be most helpful. But, bear in mind that nothing is corroded Suggest you make one. Take bar stock, about 1" wide, 3/16 or 1/4 thick, drill, tap, thread in two 3/8 bolts at one end, close to the edge so that they locate in the drive flange yolk. You'll probable have to notch the bar between the two bolts so that you can get a socket on the 1" nut. Now you can hold the flange and hopefully turn the nut! (Bar stock should be about 18" or longer.) Randy ------------------------------[ <- Message 8 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: 20 Jul 94 12:07:31 EDT From: "BENJAMIN G. NEWMAN" <71773.3457@compuserve.com> Subject: seals PLEASE HELP....I need a rear main seal housing assembly for a 1955-59 sedan/surban 6 cyl. Rover engine that is in my 1966 109 LR wagon. I have tried everywhere without luck. I can not drive my baby till i get this seal. Any suggestions PLEASE. Benjamin g. Newman ------------------------------[ <- Message 9 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 09:28:23 PST From: Brad Krohn <Brad_Krohn@ccm2.hf.intel.com> Subject: Re: Bug eyed Rovers My bug-eye doesn't have the second set in the grille, nor any indication of wiring for such headlights. Someone told me the bug-eyes were only from the early part of the model year -- that the recesses came in the second half of '69 model year. Brad_Krohn@hf.ccm.intel.com Hillsboro, Oregon ------------------------------[ <- Message 10 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 18:46:05 +0100 (MET) From: S|ren Vels Christensen <velssvch@inet.uni-c.dk> Subject: Re: Re: sorry, I'm posting again - now a tech question If a Land Rover goes: putt BANG BANG putt BANG BANG BANG it is sick. I it goes: putt putt putt COUGH putt putt putt COUGH putt (etc...) all is well. If it goes: putt putt putt putt putt putt putt and there is no noise from gearbox, diffs and loose rivets something is DEFINETELY wrong, -and the car should be thoroughly checked by a skilled mechanic. Soren Vels velssvch@inet.uni-c.dk '76 109" ------------------------------[ <- Message 11 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: Russell Burns <burns@cisco.com> Subject: discovery Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 10:32:39 MDT I was wondering if you took a Disco thru deep water if the airbags would deploy as a flotation device. I am trying to decide on a disco, or a defender 90 for my next commuter vehicle. Does any one know if there is a hard top the 90. I just can't convince myself that I could drive 100 miles a day in a soft top. Russ Anti-lock brakes, I though all rovers had Anti-lock breaks. one channel ...only one wheel locks up two channel .... one two wheels lock up ...... ------------------------------[ <- Message 12 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: Craig Murray <craigp@ocs.cpsg.com.au> Subject: Re: 88 vs 109 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 8:36:26 EST [Stuff Deleted] > This is what I like best. Cruising the back roads or up to Vermont with the > top off. You smile from ear to ear. The smaller size and lower weight makes > it better off road. 88 specific parts are more available. The 15" wheels are > easier to horse around and tires are more available and less expensive. none 15" wheels are not standard fitment on any Land Rover, except the Game which was only available in Australia and came standard with wide wheels! So if you say that 15: wheels are cheaper, then you can put them on a 109 aswell. > 88 Cons: > Short wheelbase makes for a buckier (is that a word?) ride on bumpy roads. > Not a whole lot of room inside. Less legroom. > easier to horse around and tires are more available and less expensive. none I believe the word you were looking for is pitch, but as for less leg room, from the seat box forward, 88's and 109's are almost identical, (Less parts to make) so the leg room is identical, except for series III long wheel bases, had an adjustable drivers seat, but I have always believed that my 86" has more leg room, and more spacious foot wells than my sisters 88". 88's also have less wheel travel than a 109 as the rear prop shaft is shorter. > 109 Pros: > Lots of room. Much nicer ride. Better legroom. More comfortable on long [ truncated by lro-digester (was 13 lines)] > wheels can give you a hernia taking them off and the choice of rubber is not > as varied and considerably more expensive. 109's have less braking power, unless fitted with a power booster, which I believe was only fitted to 6 cylinder models. And again about the tyres, 16" wheels are not that heavy, you just have to get used to them. > Series IIA vs III > As for the dash, I like the early IIA better. Easier to service and better [ truncated by lro-digester (was 9 lines)] > give out - This could partially be due to an old injury) and no double > clutching necessary. If you are lucky enough, you might find a late IIA with a full syncro box, as the syncro box was actually put in some of the very late IIA's and not a new feature of the series III, it was just a gimick that the sales people said was a new feature of the Series III (The Land Rover that promised to be soo much more!!!) ============================================================================== Craig Murray 1955 Series 1 86" LROC of Victoria Australia 2.25 diesel (Soon!) email: craigp@ocs.cpsg.com.au > Bill Maloney > IIA 88 & 109 Wagon [ truncated by lro-digester (was 25 lines)] > you're primary use is as an off-highway vehicle, that may be the way to go. > (Check with the experts here, though.) ------------------------------[ <- Message 13 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: "Russell G. Dushin" <dushinrg@pr.cyanamid.com> Subject: Re: seals Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 19:07:25 EDT > PLEASE HELP....I need a rear main seal housing assembly for a 1955-59 > sedan/surban 6 cyl. Rover engine that is in my 1966 109 LR wagon. I have tried [ truncated by lro-digester (was 7 lines)] > suggestions PLEASE. > Benjamin g. Newman By any chance, will the upgraded "four piece" rear main from a SIIa 2.25L engine work for you?? The older seals were "two piece" units (a bottom and a top half, with supposedly softer material 'round about the center.. I say supposedly because when I recently replaced Nigel's rear main- yet another tangent in the clutch judder story-the old one was hard as well, metal). I was told at the time that the old rear main seals were NLA, but I was not SOL, 'cause the new four piece units (two half-retainers, a split seal, and a spring) bolted right up. Sorry, but I think I tossed the old two piece seal (so I can no longer measure it up), but maybe someone out here in netland has a motor sans flywheel that they can measure the seal's dimensions from for you. rd/nigel ------------------------------[ <- Message 14 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: "Russell G. Dushin" <dushinrg@pr.cyanamid.com> Subject: Re: discovery Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 19:12:23 EDT > vehicle. Does any one know if there is a hard top the 90. > I just can't convince myself that I could drive 100 miles a day > in a soft top. > Russ none Just the other day I saw a picture of a 90 with a cab top on it. I have NOT been able to relocate this picture, but I know I was NOT dreaming 'cause I pinched myself when I saw it. If the cab top is available can a full-on hardtop be far behind?? Anyone else see this somewhere? rd/nigel ------------------------------[ <- Message 15 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: root@ocs.cpsg.com.au Subject: Re: discovery Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 9:29:00 EST > > vehicle. Does any one know if there is a hard top the 90. > > I just can't convince myself that I could drive 100 miles a day [ truncated by lro-digester (was 17 lines)] > top is available can a full-on hardtop be far behind?? > Anyone else see this somewhere? > rd/nigel In England you can get all the hard tops that you could get with the series II and III, but I don't know what you are complaining about, here in Australia we cannot even get the 90!!!! ============================================================================== Craig Murray 1955 Series 1 86" LROC of Victoria Australia 2.25 diesel (Soon!) email: craigp@ocs.cpsg.com.au ------------------------------[ <- Message 16 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Subject: Re: This Oil Burning Thing (fwd) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 10:36:45 NZT From: Derek Tearne <derek@nezsdc.fujitsu.co.nz> Hugh Grierson forwarded this question to me as I have some experience in this area. Although, sadly, I have no longer got a Landrover. > > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 20:48:26 -0700 > > From: Roger Sinasohn <sinasohn@crl.com> [ truncated by lro-digester (was 15 lines)] > > was considering. > > Diesel, as I understand it, is pretty common across Europe... How common > > is it in Africa? Especially in the less populated areas? Not only is Diesel common in Africa it is the recommended fuel for several reasons. Fuel economy, the single most expensive running cost of the trip is fuel. You must also ensure that you can carry enough fuel for approximately 600 miles (potentially the distance between fuel stops in Zaire). Obviously diesel means less fuel and therefore fewer jerry cans and (more importantly) less additional weight to carry. If you _do_ run out of diesel you will always be able to buy some surplus from a passing truck. With petrol (gasoline) you are unlikely to have that luxury as the few vehicles using it won't be carrying much surplus. Diesel engines are also less particular about fuel quality. In Zaire petrol (gasoline) was almost impossible to obtain. There was however plenty of diesel. The Chevy straight is conversion would be a very poor choice for African travel as it would be essentially impossible to obtain spare parts. The TdI would not be quite so bad although I would strongly suggest carrying spare injectors. Landrover UK are pretty good at letting you know which parts you are unlikely to be able to get. The older (and slower) Landrover diesel at least uses pretty standard equipment. The following is a brief description of vehicle choice and preparation for the trans African travel. I did mail some of this a couple of years ago (when I still had the Landrover :-( ). I realise that I'm preaching to the converted here, you've already chosen the correct marque anyway! ======================================================================= Africa Overland - Vehicle Choice and Preparation A little about the vehicle we used, why we chose it and preparation for overland travel. Vehicle Choice: The Landrover 110 seemed to be just about the most suitable vehicle for Overland Travel for a small party (in our case two). It is permanent 4WD (easy to use!), coil sprung (comfortable) has a payload of 1200kg (largest of any vehicle in its class?), it is known throughout Africa so parts should be available and Landrover have had nearly 50 years experience building exclusively 4WD vehicles so they should know what they're doing. Of course the fact that I spent my youth living nearly opposite the factory and had therefore always wanted one had nothing to do with my decision making! Why Diesel?: Well it is more economical than petrol (a major consideration when travelling > 20000 Miles). Generally more reliable than a Petrol engine (none of those pesky spark plugs, coils, leads, distributors to shake loose, smash, or get full of dust). Diesel is more readily available than petrol and usually cheaper (Except in South Africa where it was the same price). All we had to do to the engine was change the oil as required (v. important with any vehicle under these conditions) and clean the injectors once (in Kenya) which resulted in improved fuel consumption. Fuel consumption was something around 11 Litres /100 Km. Diesels are less susceptible to dirty fuel or local 'performance' additives (e.g. water, kerosene etc). The only drawback is the lower power/ speed although most of the trip top speed was not important and low end torque was. So not such a big drawback. We decided against a Turbo diesel as it is rather a complicated piece of equipment to take out into the wilds. Especially a second hand ones. Turbos seem very susceptible to bad handling (wrong oil etc.) and you just can't tell how its been used. We met some people in a brand new Tdi Turbo Diesel Landrover and they had no problems with it and it was economical, powerful etc. But they looked after it and drove smoothly and carefully. At one campsite in Malawi the couple in the latest TdI (The first one in Africa) were parked next to a 33 year old LWB! We had a County Model (i.e. top of the range, comfy seats, tinted windows, Levelled suspension etc. This was mostly luck but worked out well as on a trip like this comfort can be quite important. Also the county models often have an easy life in the U.K. being owned by rich people who *need* a big 4WD to go across the occasional field or look the part at Horsey events etc. So for very little extra we got a relatively low mileage vehicle which had only rarely been off road before. Preparation: this consisted of removing the rear seats, fitting a roof tent, split charge circuit and auxiliary battery, raised air intake (stops fine dust from clogging the air filter and prevents water intake when wading - a good idea) guards over the lights, bull bars (already on vehicle). The second battery was connected to five Hella sockets (3 internal (1 fridge only) and two external for water filter pump, tyre pump, internal/external neon lights, nicad battery charger etc. Auxiliary 45L Fuel tank. Other equipment: Cooking equipment, multi fuel spirit stove(Optimus), High lift Jack, Manual winch(Tirfor), Tyre levers, Tools, Jerry cans (5*20L Nato Plastic - water 4*20L Metal - fuel), Saw, Shovel etc. Don't be fooled into buying an electric winch. They look macho and safari prepared, but a good one will cost nearly 1000 Pounds - as much as our *entire* equipment bill (including manual winch). You may never need to use the winch (we used it for recovering ourselves only once) and if you're recovering someone else make them put some effort into pulling themselves out - serves them right getting stuck like that. If you're feeling really poor you can use a high lift jack as a winch. Problems: Broken windscreen (replaced in Nigeria for about 75 Pounds - would have been more expensive in U.K.! but don't break your windscreen after Nigeria as parts become *very* expensive). Worn suspension bushes - replaced in Uganda, replaced steering damper in Uganda. Brake problems (overhauled rear wheel cylinders, relined rear drums, overhauled master cylinder, replaced front pads) one cracked injector nozzle and replaced rear shocks. Pinion oil seal leaking on rear diff neads repairing. Apart from a few scratches and a couple of dents the vehicle looks (and feels) as good as new. Parts were available but quite expensive. Most African countries charge enourmous import duty on foreign goods so take as many spares as you think you will need. Especially things like hydraulic overhaul kits, rubber bushes etc. Driving: The Landrover 110 is easy to drive, especially as ours has power steering, although it is a little larger than I was used too. To prepare myself for the conditions ahead (I had not previously driven a 4WD or of road ) I took a 'vehicle familiarisation course' at Landrover in Solihull U.K. This was certainly a good investment, they get you to drive over *impossible* obstacles with ease and really give you an idea of what the vehicle is capable of. So when we encountered *worse* obstacles in real life we had the confidence to get in there and go for it. ======================================================================== Hope this has been of use. --- Derek ------------------------------[ <- Message 17 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 22:54:15 LCL From: Joseph Broach <PC7170@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU> Subject: Westward Bound and Rover Hunting! Hi, I will be heading west from Knoxville,TN on a trip west from August 6-20. I would love to see any and all Landies, so if anyone has one they would like to show off or knows someone who would, I'd love to see it! I am also looking to buy a SII or SIIa 109 SW soon so any 4sale along my route below would be very interesting. Also, I understand there will be a rally somewhere around these dates, could someone fill me in? Thanks!! Knoxville,TN >>> Denver,CO via Missouri & Kansas Denver, CO >>> Moab, Utah Moab, Utah >>> Flaggstaff,AZ via Canyonlands and Zion NP Flaggstaff,AZ >>> Durango,CO Durango, CO >>> San Antonio,TX via Santa Fe,NM -Joseph Broach ------------------------------[ <- Message 18 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 23:45:35 -0500 (CDT) From: David John Place <umplace@CC.UManitoba.CA> Subject: Re: Sides and top... Re what do you put between the top and the sides. Up in Canada where the temps get to -40, we have found that the foam tape with one sticky side is just great. It comes in 1" wide strips about 10 feet long. It has an added advantage of having a plastic surface on one side which doesn't gather dust when the top is off and it doesn't absorb the rain. It is very cheap. It is probably sold as insulation up here so maybe it is harder to get in the southern states. Dave VE4PN ------------------------------[ <- Message 19 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Subject: LR 88 wheel refinishing options From: dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on.ca (dixon kenner) Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 23:57:59 -0500 ccray@lulu.cc.missouri.edu writes: > -- galvanize 'em. Did any LR ever have galvanized > rims. Someone on the net mentioned earlier that > he had done it -- let me know what the pros and > cons are. For those who feel authenticity is > important, would this violate that code? The only con I can think of is that the galvinisation process could warp the rims. However, I have yet to see a straight set of rims in the first place up here... Rgds, Dixon -- dixon kenner, dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on.ca FourFold Symmetry, Nepean, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------[ <- Message 20 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
Subject: Re: 88 vs 109 From: dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on.ca (dixon kenner) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 94 00:01:18 -0500 Roger Sinasohn <sinasohn@crl.com> writes: > I think the 88"'s are better off-road, though, because they're shorter. So > if you're primary use is as an off-highway vehicle, that may be the way to > go. (Check with the experts here, though.) > Either way, they're great. none All depends what you are going through. My 109 does a fantastic job in the bush up here. Better than the 88's. However, try and turn one of these suckers and you are in for problems. I blew away eight tail light lenses last year... Rgds, Dixon -- dixon kenner, dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on.ca FourFold Symmetry, Nepean, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------[ <- Message 21 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
From: "Keith Coman" <BAKC@giraffe.ru.ac.za> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:10:55 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: seals > PLEASE HELP....I need a rear main seal housing assembly for a 1955-59 > sedan/surban 6 cyl. Rover engine that is in my 1966 109 LR wagon. I have tried > everywhere without luck. I can not drive my baby till i get this seal. Any > suggestions PLEASE. > Benjamin g. Newman Aaaah, the dreaded Rover sedan rear main oil seal!! I'm assuming this is the 2-piece heavy grade rubber jobby with the top half that bolts onto the engine block and the lower half that bolts onto a crankshaft cap? The bad news is that Rover's never really "fixed" the oil leak problem that stems from the selection of this design back in the 1940's, they tinkered around with this oil seal for over 20 years -- with all the complexities of different part numbers etc. Have you actually got the seal out in front of you? There are 2 main derivatives: 1. "Early" this was that described above -- a two piece rubber item with the actual oil seal faces being integral. If this is the case than I hope someone in the group in England can point you to a source. 2. "Late" the 2 piece idea converted so that these items acted as retaining caps for a split O-ring oil seal that actually operated on the crankshaft. If this is the case, there's some good news. You should be able to find a oil seal of the correct diameter and dimensions off the shelf. Don't worry if the only ones you can find are "solid" (ie. non-split) -- take a very, very fine hacksaw and cut the seal's internal steel reinforcing (take the spring off 1st!) -- then with a razor blade slice thru actual seal part: you've now got a split seal (Buy a few in case you make a cock-up or two!). Now following the manual, gently work the seal over the crankshaft taking care not to twist or distort the inner steel shell -- don't worry it'll go eventually. Make sure the "cut" is located facing "up". The 2 retaining caps can now be reinstalled - - again following the directions in the manual -- basically they're designed to minimise oil leaks stemming from what was really a crappy design. (A further dodge is to make up an extra 2-piece set of oil baffles out of light gauge steel\shim-stock and bolt them on in front of the seal to again reduce the quantities of oil getting into the area -- but that's another story.) In worst case, what you can do with the early seals is to cut out the "seal" portion in the centre so that a split-seal can be inserted -- ie. do what Rovers did --> Convert the original 2-piece seal into a pair of seal retainers only. In fact this may be the quickest, most inexpensive and more enduring solution. Good luck (Remember: "Farmers and Landie drivers can always make a plan!!") Keith Coman * Dept of Management, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------[ <- Message 22 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]
END OF LAND ROVER OWNER DIGEST
Photos & text Copyright 1990-2011 Bill Caloccia, All rights reserved.
Digest Messages Copyright 1990-2011 by the original poster or/and Bill Caloccia, All rights reserved.