Land Rover Owner Message Digest Contents


[ First Message Last | Table of Contents | <- Digest -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

The Land Rover Owner Daily Digest

Send Submissions

msgSender linesSubject
1 azw@aber.ac.uk (Andy Woo21Re: 88 vs 109
2 Russell Burns [burns@cis18Re: Defender = Investment?
3 jhong@haiku.com (John Ho9Big Bat Fastard Stickers...
4 maloney@wings.attmail.co7488 vs 109
5 Mark V Grieshaber [mvgri32Re: LR 88 wheel refinishing options
6 CXKS46A@prodigy.com (MR 32Fuel cut-off solenoid
7 rsrose@cco.caltech.edu (23Re: Pinion Nut
8 "BENJAMIN G. NEWMAN" [7110seals
9 Brad Krohn [Brad_Krohn@c12Re: Bug eyed Rovers
10 S|ren Vels Christensen [22Re: Re: sorry, I'm posting again - now a tech question
11 Russell Burns [burns@cis19discovery
12 Craig Murray [craigp@ocs64Re: 88 vs 109
13 "Russell G. Dushin" [dus25Re: seals
14 "Russell G. Dushin" [dus20Re: discovery
15 root@ocs.cpsg.com.au 21Re: discovery
16 Derek Tearne [derek@nezs142[not specified]
17 Joseph Broach [PC7170@UT21 Westward Bound and Rover Hunting!
18 David John Place [umplac12Re: Sides and top...
19 dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on24[not specified]
20 dixon@fourfold.ocunix.on25[not specified]
21 "Keith Coman" [BAKC@gira55 Re: seals


------------------------------ [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 940721 -> Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

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.