Land Rover Owner Message Digest Contents

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

The Land Rover Owner Daily Digest

Send Submissions Land-Rover-Owner@Land-Rover.Team.Net

From: "Dave McKain" <MCKAIN@cemr.wvu.edu>
Date:          Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:40:57 EDT
Subject:       Done?

Dear All,
I've just finished rebuilding my SII SWB with the exception of new 
tires which will occur today. I purchased the vehicle in November and 
started work in January so it was a fast but thorough rebuild. Work 
included;
New rear x-member
Fresh paint
Turned brake drums
New brake lines
Rebuilt brake and clutch masters
Repair of blown front hub/stub axle
Replaced SII manifold with SIIA
Refreshed (rebuilt) springs & bushings
New defroster hoses
Partial  rewire
And many more ......
Seeing that I'm done with this LR I guess that I should go pick up 
that SI 86" and start on that or, sell it and rebuild a IIA. For all 
of those who spend years on rebuilds I must remind you of two things
1) No wife
2) Out of college
Those two facts generously contribute to a speedy LR rebuild.
Also, I had to be ready for the Blue Ridge Land Rover Club's upcoming 
May Day meet in Parkersburg.
Back in the land of the running Land Rovers!

Later,

David McKain
1959 SII SWB
1972 SIII SWB (parting)
1970 SIIA SWB (parting)
1969 SIIA SWB (rebuilding)
1963 SIIA SWB (parting)
mckain@cemr.wvu.edu

Morgantown, WV
USA                     

------------------------------

From: Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus <Alan_Richer/CAM/Lotus.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
Date: 18 Apr 96  9:20:26 EDT
Subject: Photo of a military tailgate for the mounts?

Well, I succumbed to the US Cav tool set, and now I need to figure out the 
mountings.

Th actual brackets and such I can easily fabricate from the pictures in the RN 
catalogue, but the placement and strapping is a bit vague. Anybody got a photo 
of a military tailgate with the stuff mounted on it?

    Thanks, Alan R./Churchill

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:28:38 -0700
From: Russ Burns <burns@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: moab travelers or 6 days on the road ...

Sounds like a great time. Keep that waterbag full....

Russ
>matt tanner's moab excursion is coming up (may 1 - may 4).  i had
>a couple of malts last nite and got all excited cause i still
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 19 lines)]
>- 69 SIIa 88 (parts)                   - 87 RR      (wife's)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Burns
cisco/Ford
313-317-0451

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:23:04 -0400
From: Nathan Dunsmore <dunsmo19@us.net>
Subject: Re: helpful tips...

Bobeck, David R. wrote:
> RRRRRR...
> Well, I got to see yet another piece of my Rover up close and personal. Some
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 36 lines)]
> Remember to carry around a wheel chock of some sort as you now no longer have
> the priviledge of using the handbrake.

> Dave B.
> SIII 88, no (hand)brakes...

I just recently fixed my handbrake (I agree, a major battle).  The hardest parts of the 
process were trying to get the brakedrum back on, and adjusting the linkage so it would 
pull on in a reasonable distance of handle travel.

I found that backing the adjuster almost all the way out, swearing like I have rarely 
sweared before (except when I tried to get the steering box in without pressure on the 
column) and a lot of trial and error finally got it back together.  I however was aided 
in a way Dave was not.  I was putting the handbrake on the new chassis and could cut the 
old bracket off the the old chassis in order to free up the linkage.  I don't know if I 
would have been able to get it off the old bracket any other way.

Needless to say, I will not be passing that way again.  

Nate "Chocks sound pretty good to me too" Dunsmore
Rocking Horse Farm
Boring MD 21020
dunsmo19@us.net

------------------------------

From: ChrisF6724@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:15:34 -0400
Subject: getting the lro-digest?

I went on vacation for awhile, so I unsubscribed to the digest.  When I got
back, I resubscribed and started recieving the digest for a couple of days.
 Suddenly, I haven't gotten the digest in the last three days and haven't
been able to connect with Majordomo...  Any suggestions?  I'm sending "index
lro-digest" and "help" in the body to Majordomo@Land-Rover.Team.Net  is this
address correct?  I haven't recieved any responces or returned mail...

Thanks,
Chris Fisher '73 88 Series III

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 08:56:16 EST
From: "Bobeck, David R." <dbobeck@inetmail.ushmm.org>
Subject: helpful tips...

RRRRRR...

Well, I got to see yet another piece of my Rover up close and personal. Some 
tips on repairing the handbrake.

HOW TO REPAIR THE LAND-ROVER HANDBRAKE:

1. Do not repair the handbrake.

2. If your gearbox sounds like its going to blow up when you are in nuetral, 
assume it's the handbrake.

3. Call Rovers North and describe the sound your gearbox makes. They are experts
on sounds and will diagnose your problem for you. This will save you time in the
future, by allowing you to dismantle the whole brake assembly instead of just 
removing the drum and checking things out.

4. Try to undo as many rusty pieces as possible without cutting. This will make 
the job take longer and you will get really dirty, which is the real goal of 
backyard repairs, right?

5. Under no circumstances should you stop by the liquor store before you start 
this job. We wouldn't you to be distracted by having good, room temperature ale 
laying about.

6. If you decide to grind through all the stubborn pieces, please place a 
barrier between the sparks and the petrol tank. A good example of something to 
use for this would be your factory service manual. It fits nicely in the space 
and has lots of extra pages you can burn off before you get to the parts you 
actually need. Besides they're pretty inexpensive, right? (ha ha)

7. If all of the linkages are fused together as one piece, then you can assume 
that the problem is not with the linkage. Take off the brake drum, trying to 
strip as many nuts as possible. Who needs all those silly Whitworth nuts anyway?

8. When you finally get the drum off, retrieve the broken spring that was 
causing the shoes to rub. You will need to replace this someday. 

9. Remove the rest of the linkage and the actuator rod, shoes, etc, etc, from 
the handbrake assembly. Rpelace the drum and put back all the stripped nuts. 
Remember to carry around a wheel chock of some sort as you now no longer have 
the priviledge of using the handbrake.

10. Pour 1 can of radiator stop leak into the radiator. Top off the radiator 
coolant level. This should take about 1/2 US gallon, even if you haven't driven 
the vehicle since you last filled it (!). Drive around for a few minutes to make
the stop leak work. The handbrake is now repaired.

still having fun,

Dave B.
SIII 88, no (hand)brakes...

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:02:23 -0700
From: uf974@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Clinton D. Coates)
Subject: Wiper motors and 'Mogs

Thanks for the advice on the 
wiper motor. After my panicked message
I went back upstairs, looked at the thing
for a while longer and then poked away the
cruddy gasketing (i was trying to save it) where
the motor joins to the windshield...and there 
are 2 bolts there just wainting to come out :|

Now that it is cleaned and relubed, it still 
doesn't work. Oh well, the manual intermittent
wiper system still does though.

I will try to get more info on the 'MOG.

Clinton 

--
 __x___x_  /    Clinton D. Coates  uf974@freenet.victoria.bc.ca    
|__|__|__\/__   
|     |   |_ |  *Emerson* 61 lwb pickup.....mostly runs
  (_)"""""(_)"  *If it doesn't leak, its not a Land Rover*

------------------------------

From: scott.d.berry@bangate1.tek.com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 8:16:57 PDT
Subject: Looking for used Discovery

I just joined this list and am looking for a used Discovery.  If anyone out 
there has one for sale or knows of one for sale please let me know.  I will be 
using the car in Connecticut so something on the east coast would be preferable, 
but I am willing to travel if the price is right.

Thank You,

Scott 

------------------------------

From: Willyz@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:12:15 -0400
Subject: ???

get lro digest 960416
get lro digest 960417
get lro digest 960418

------------------------------

From: debrown@srp.gov
Date: 18 Apr 96 09:30:37 MST
Subject: Testing the load leveler on a RR

FROM:  David Brown                           Internet: debrown@srp.gov
       Computer Graphics Specialist ~ S.R.P. ~ AM/FM - Graphic Records
       PAB219 (602)236-3544 -  Pager:6486 External (602)275-2508 #6486

Warmest greetings all!!!

Does anyone know how to test the load leveler on a '87 Range Rover? It
has a little oil seepage from the unit, but not oil soaked or anything.

When I got the RR about 6 months ago, it sagged very much in the rear
due to worn out springs, and even while driving, it never rode level in
the back. I have since replace the springs, and it now rides at normal
height, but I was thinking that the load leveler unit might be bad,
since it didn't raise the sagging springs. Is that too much to ask for
the load leveler unit?

How do I know if it's good or bad?

Thanks,

P.S. I STILL can't seem to get subscribed to the RRO list... if it really
does exist??? Can someone help?

#=======#         _________         "What lies behind us and what lies
|__|__|__\___    //__/__|__\___    before us are tiny matters compared
| _|  |   |_ |}  \__/-\_|__/-\_|}  to what lies within us."
"(_)""""""(_)"      (_)    (_)                     Ralph Waldo Emerson

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org>
Subject: Re: Testing the load leveler on a RR

David -- this is one of the eternal mysteries of nature. The shop manual 
says to load up the loadspzce with 1,000 lbs of stuff (!) , measure the 
bumpstop clearances, then drive over undulating terrain for a while and 
measure it again. The clearance should increase by about an inch.

It also says the cause of sagging rears is hardly ever the Boge unit -- 
you should renew the springs first, as you have.

Personally, I always wonder whether mine is working right too, as I don't 
notice much "pumping up" action happening -- but I think the effect is 
fairly minor in real life. I've never tried the 1,000 lb test.

Some seepage from the unit is normal, but how much I don't know.

Hope this is some help

Cheers

John Brabyn
89RR

On 18 Apr 1996 debrown@srp.gov wrote:

> FROM:  David Brown                           Internet: debrown@srp.gov
>        Computer Graphics Specialist ~ S.R.P. ~ AM/FM - Graphic Records
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 29 lines)]
> |__|__|__\___    //__/__|__\___    before us are tiny matters compared
> | _|  |   |_ |}  \__/-\_|__/-\_|}  to what lies within us."

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:53:14 -0700
From: Russ Burns <burns@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Testing the load leveler on a RR

I have noticed that while pulling my trailer, I will pull into a
restaurant for lunch, and when I am ready to leave, the trailer is lower
and it scrapes when pulling out.
So I guess the load leveler works....
Russ

At 10:18 AM 4/18/96 -0700, John Brabyn wrote:
>David -- this is one of the eternal mysteries of nature. The shop manual 

	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 34 lines)]
>	 [ truncated by lro-lite (was 29 lines)]
>> |__|__|__\___    //__/__|__\___    before us are tiny matters compared
>> | _|  |   |_ |}  \__/-\_|__/-\_|}  to what lies within us."
Russ Burns
cisco/Ford
313-317-0451

------------------------------

From: Lodelane@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:08:21 -0400
Subject: unsubscribe

unscribe land-rover-owner

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org>
Subject: Re: More on load levellers

Another function of the load leveller is to act as an air spring for the
center of the axle, thus allowing softer road springs to be used. The soft
springs allow the retention of maximum ground contact force and traction
whenever a wheel has to droop below its normal position. 

Cheers

John Brabyn
89RR

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Roberts <psu00712@odin.cc.pdx.edu>
Subject: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

Dear LRO's,

	I will put this question to the list and hope for passionate and 
(un)objective answers, please!  Brag and gloat but just don't embellesh!
	I am still a neophyte and a wanna-be but I want to know what the 
off-road capabilities differences are between an 88 and a 109 IIA 2.25L 
SW?  I 
am partial to the LWB because I have a large family of kids (5) and room is 
paramount to me.  I like the idea of the 88 because of the shorter 
wheelbase not getting caught up departure angle and various gearbox 
crossmember eating rocks.  Is there a signifigant difference in 
performance off-road between the two?  Does the weight difference between 
the two edge engine performance considerably toward the 88?  Do series LR 
have an overly anemic (I understand anemic is normal) performance at 
altitude?  In other words, will a high country Rocky Mtns. and high 
Cascades off-road, off-camber, 20% uphill grade continuously over 7,000 
ft be feasable?  
	I thought I remembered reading on the list about a person who 
rebuilds IIA gearboxes to full synchro.  Who is he again?
	Is a gear swap feasible for a IIA T-case to have 1.?? high range 
and to swap in the 1 ton 2.87 (or is it even lower?) low range gears?
	Is there a power steering conversion available or would that 
really be a waste?  (I like the mile marker hydraulic winches thet use 
the power steering pump to run it!)  Maybe I should stick with the the 
thought of the PTO Koenig.
	Does anyone have the address for the mendo-recce list?
	Last one...Is a mild suspension lift possible?  Aftermarket or 
re-arched OEM springs?
	Thanks for any input to help me choose the Rover best for my needs!
Send me stories, I would love to hear (see) them!

Thanks,

Michael Roberts
Portland, Oregon

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:44:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dixon Kenner <dkenner@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca>
Subject: crash tests...

   Thursday April 18 1:45 PM EDT 
   
Sport Utility Vehicles Test Poorly for Safety

   WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Hot-selling sports utility vehicles fared poorly
   in crash tests, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway
   Safety.
   
   None of the six vehicles tested earned the institute's top rating of
   ``good,'' it said late Wednesday.
   
   The Toyota 4Runner performed somewhat better than the others in the 40
   mph crash test, the institute said. But head injury protection was
   marginal, so it was given an ``acceptable'' rating, along with the
   Land Rover Discovery.
   
   The Jeep Grand Cherokee earned a ``marginal'' rating, but the Isuzu
   Rodeo, which is also sold as the Honda Passport, and the Chevrolet
   Blazer, which is also branded as GMC Jimmy and Oldsmobile Bravada,
   were rated ``poor.''
   
   Brian O'Neill, the institute's president, said ``many people
   mistakenly believe utility vehicles are very safe because they are
   stiff and strong. But in fact if a vehicle front end is too stiff, it
   can mean the crash forces transmitted to the occupants are higher than
   they should be.''
   
   The manufacturers disputed the findings.
   
   ``These tests are misleading to the public because they don't relate
   to the real world,'' International Association of Automobile
   Manufacturers spokesman George Parker said. ``For injury, for damage
   and for fatalities, these vehicles have a better record than other
   vehicles on the road.''
   

------------------------------

From: ericz@cloud9.net
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:46:12 -0700
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Michael Roberts <psu00712@odin.cc.pdx.edu> wrote:

Brag and gloat but just don't embellesh!

You've come to the wrong place, then.  :)

I am still a neophyte and a wanna-be but I want to know what the 
>off-road capabilities differences are between an 88 and a 109 IIA 2.25L 
>SW?  

Seriously though, the 109 SW is the only Series LR that has enought room and 
accesibility for yourself and five kids.  The problems that arise have to do 
with size and weight.  The 109 is correspondingly larger...hence it has a larger 
tunring radius and a smaller departure angle.  Actually, the departure angle on 
the 88 is the best, then the 109" regular and then the 109" SW.  In addition, 
the weight difference on the SW is pretty substantial.  There are quite a few 
more bits that make up a SW and of course they add weight. In terms of all-out 
off-road performance, the 88 takes the cake every day and twice on Sunday.  In 
terms of livability and ride on rough roads, I'm more partial to the LWB.  You 
get less of the pitching over each bump and the extra space in a LWB is always 
welcome.
The 2.25l will still move your 109" SW over just about anything...you just 
shouldn't be in a hurry to get there.....come to think about it, driving a LR 
you shouldn't be in a hurry at all!!!!

>	Is there a power steering conversion available or would that 
>really be a waste?  (I like the mile marker hydraulic winches thet use 
>the power steering pump to run it!)  Maybe I should stick with the the 
>thought of the PTO Koenig.

Don't bother.  The standard steering on a LR is not that bad and the 
cost/complexity of power steering is just not worth it.  if you really want a 
hydraulic winch, it shouldn't be a big deal to adapt a hydraulic pump onto the 
2.25l engine and power a winch that way (like a snow plow pump).  Remember, 
however, the usual caveats about hydraulic or PTO winches apply....you have to 
have a running engine for them to work.  A belt driven hydraulic winch has the 
advantage of being easy to take out of the loop in case of failure, just remove 
the belt.  A PTO winch requires at least the removal of a driveshaft (and it not 
too easy to get in there when you're mired up to the galvinized trim!

>	Last one...Is a mild suspension lift possible?  Aftermarket or 
>re-arched OEM springs?

Yes, it is possible....although not really adviseable.  An 88" with 16" wheels 
is a pretty good off-road performer...any lift and you run into problems with 
your U-joints.  I have heard of military shackles being used on some 109"s to 
raise ride height an inch or so...anyone else have experience?  If you want a 
super-stomper-mudder-yeeee-hawwin'-treading-anything-but-lightly type lift, 
though, don't drive a Land Rover....for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, good luck with your purchase and welcome to the world of Land Rover 
Owners...

Regards,
Eric

------------------------------

From: "Tom Rowe" <trowe@AE.AGECON.WISC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:36:03 GMT -0600
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

 ericz@cloud9.net writes:

snip
>  Actually, the departure angle on 
> the 88 is the best, then the 109" regular and then the 109" SW.  In addition, 
> the weight difference on the SW is pretty substantial.  There are quite a few 
snip

Eric,
Would you mind explaining this? Since the Regular and SW 109 use 
essentially the same frame, I don't see the difference. Aside from 
maybe the the SW sitting a bit lower because of the extra weight. But 
with five kids in the back, I don't think he'd notice. Also, with the 
passengers he'd want the full hard top I'd think, which would weigh 
about the same as the SW.

Tom Rowe
UW-Madison Center for Dairy Research    
Madison,WI, USA
608-265-6194, Fax:608-262-1578        
trowe@ae.agecon.wisc.edu                

 Four wheel drive allows you to get
 stuck in places even more inaccessible.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 17:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dixon Kenner <dkenner@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Tom Rowe wrote:

> essentially the same frame, I don't see the difference. Aside from 
> maybe the the SW sitting a bit lower because of the extra weight. 
>.
	They sit the same to my knowledge & experience.  the 109 sw
	weights about 450 pounds more than the basic 109, which in turn
	is 20 pounds more than an 88" sw, which in turn is about 230
	pounds more than your basic 88 softtop.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:56:15 +0200
From: lopezba@atnet.at
Subject: Avon tyres/tires

Dear specialists,
idly leaving through my SI Parts Catalogue the other day, I came to the 
place where it said that the original 7.00-16 tyres were either Dunlop RK3 
or Avon TM. I sat up straight as I remembered that two of the tyres on my 
1958 SI were Avon tyres - a brand I had never heard of, I am sorry to say, 
but had assumed to be cheap no-names that the PO got at one point or 
another. So today I checked, and here's what it says on my tyres/tires:

AVON
TRACTION TM MILEAGE

90 degrees clockwise:

Regd. Design No 865220
E24687

90 degrees clockwise:

7.00-16 C
6 Ply Rating

90 degrees clockwise:

(a picture of parts of Stonehenge)
Made in England

I assume that E24687 indicates the year of manufacture. Does anyone know? Is 
it possible that these are the 38 year old originals? They still have a lot 
of profile (more than my rear tyres, which are Semperit and ready to be 
replaced).
Curious
Peter Hirsch
SI 107in S/W
Vienna, Austria (officially 1,000 years old this November 1)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:17:32 -0700
From: "John Y. Liu" <johnliu@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

At 12:01 PM 4/18/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Dear LRO's,
>	I will put this question to the list and hope for passionate and 
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 18 lines)]
>Cascades off-road, off-camber, 20% uphill grade continuously over 7,000 
>ft be feasable?

I can't speak in detail for 88's, since I drive a 109.  But uphill driving
on a 20% grade at over 7,000 ft. altitude loaded with 5 kids and gear would
be a severe load for any vehicle.  In a 109 you will likely require second
gear and you *might* sustain 30 mph.  Throw in "off-road" conditions and you
could go *much* slower, depending on how rugged the terrain is, but that
would be the case even for no grade at sea level.  I'm not sure what
"off-camber" would have to do with it.  I do not believe an 88 would be
*greatly* better, under the conditions you descrbe.

If you want to carry 5 kids and a spouse, you are limited to a 109 SW.  The
88 is just not an option, despite its clearance advantages. 

>	I thought I remembered reading on the list about a person who 
>rebuilds IIA gearboxes to full synchro.  Who is he again?

I don't know but you could just use a Series III box.  I think you'll find
that the lack of synchros for 1st and 2nd in the IIA box will be the least
of your concerns.  The money is much better spent installing an overdrive
and a power brake conversion, in my opinion.

>	Is a gear swap feasible for a IIA T-case to have 1.?? high range 
>and to swap in the 1 ton 2.87 (or is it even lower?) low range gears?

The standard low range is very low.  I think you'd be well served trying it
out before spending hard-earned cash on a gear swap.  If you did a gear swap
I'd think it would be more straightforward doing so in the diffs than in the
transfer box.  At that point you might want to consider if a locking diff
(e.g. an ARB) would give you more benefit.

>	Is there a power steering conversion available or would that 
>really be a waste?  (I like the mile marker hydraulic winches thet use 
>the power steering pump to run it!)  Maybe I should stick with the the 
>thought of the PTO Koenig.

I think power steering would be a waste.  The steering is pretty light once
the truck is moving, and not really much of a problem even at a stop.

>	Does anyone have the address for the mendo-recce list?
>	Last one...Is a mild suspension lift possible?  Aftermarket or 
>re-arched OEM springs?

Yes.  You can install 1-ton shackles for a roughly 3/4" lift.  I have also
heard that simply replacing old worn springs with new OEM ones will lift
most trucks a 1/2" or so.  You might try calling British Pacific, 818 841
8945, as Lawrence has the 1-ton shackles on his 88.  It runs 33" tires but
then again also has lots of the bodywork cut away for clearance.

------------------------------

From: Chris_Browne@US014-BOSTON-MINET.CCMAIL.CompuServe.COM
Date: 18 Apr 96 17:34:03 EDT
Subject: Re: crash tests...

     
        Dixon reported that
     
   WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Hot-selling sports utility vehicles fared poorly 
   in crash tests, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway 
   Safety.
     
   The Toyota 4Runner performed somewhat better than the others in the 
   40 mph crash test,
   
   40 mph???????? 
   
   Seems to be open season on SUV owners these days, guess they are 
   bored with Minivans!. 
   Wonder how a geo metro driver would fair at 40mph crash into a 
   concrete wall
   regard
   chris browne
   95 disco
    

------------------------------

From: ericz@cloud9.net
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:02:50 -0700
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, "Tom Rowe" <trowe@AE.AGECON.WISC.EDU> wrote:

> ericz@cloud9.net writes:

>>  Actually, the departure angle on 
>> the 88 is the best, then the 109" regular and then the 109" SW.  In addition, 
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 13 lines)]
>with five kids in the back, I don't think he'd notice. Also, with the 
>passengers he'd want the full hard top I'd think, which would weigh 
>about the same as the SW.
Not at all....according to my book here; the Station Wagon overall length is 
180.3 inches while the regular is 174.8 inches.  Assuming that I'm not 
forgetting some station-wagon specific appendage....the difference would be made 
up in the rear overhang.  Although the change in departure angle is not 
enormous...it is significant.  

Although similar, the Series Station Wagon chassis is different than the Regular 
Chassis....not the same as with the 110.  BTW, the numbers I'm using have to do 
with the 109" V8 only because that's the book I have in front of me....I'm going 
to assume (albiet dangerous) that the outside dimensions are the same.

As far as the weight is concerned, the Station Wagon "kerb weight" is 3988.12 
pounds, the regular truck cab is 3529 pounds for a difference of 459.12 .  I can 
get under my full hardtop and lift it quite easily so I'm going to assume (once 
again dangerous) that it doesn't weigh more than 150 pounds, making an 
approximate difference in weight of about 300 pounds, or 7%.  Although the crap 
I carry around in the back of my truck probably makes up the difference, the 
full hard-top is still lighter (and structurally stiffer, but let's not get into 
that discussion).

My apologies for not clarifying my conclusions.....thanks for keeping me honest, 
 though, Tom :) .

Regards,
Eric

109" Hardtop (no, I'm not partial to my body style ;) )

------------------------------

From: Simon Barclay <sbar@jna.com.au>
Subject: RE: Avon tires/tires
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 08:09:00 EDT

Hi Peter

Avon are still around.  They make high performance tires that used to be 
fitted to Rolls Royce, Bentley and Aston Martin (not sure if they still).  I 
don't believe they make four wheel drive tires any more.  Maybe they are 38 
years old!!!!

Simon Barclay
Sydney Australia

'90 5 sp RR
'51 Series 1 (Louie)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:20:47 -0400
From: michelbe@login.net (Michel)
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

According to a few original brochures that I have, The 109" regular is 4 mm
longer than the Station Wagon version. (4,445 m vs 4,441 m). These are
brochures for the early Ser III, when they were imported in Canada. So the
Station Wagon could actually have a better departure angle.

The difference between the different numbers and data could be originating
from the fact that a certain number of 109 SW were equipped with a spare
wheel on the rear door. Just a thought. 

>Not at all....according to my book here; the Station Wagon overall length is 
>180.3 inches while the regular is 174.8 inches.  Assuming that I'm not 
>forgetting some station-wagon specific appendage....the difference would be

made 
>up in the rear overhang.  Although the change in departure angle is not 
>enormous...it is significant.  

Salut!

Michel Bertrand
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
             ______________________ 
 >>>>>>>>>>>|__________|| ()|______| 1963 IIA 109 PU (top is off) (Rudolph)
            |          ||---|  /\ |  and friends (109 SW + 88 sw) (not shown) 
            |__________||---|_ \/_| 
 >>>>>>>>>>>|__________||___|______|
                                             

------------------------------

From: JEPurnell@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:19:50 -0400
Subject: Movie Rovers

I saw "City on Fire" last night, an english-dubbed action adventure shoot'm
up from Hong Kong, which the reviewer said "its the the film Tarrantino
plagiarized to make Reservoir Dogs..." anyway, lots of Land Rovers in there,
police cars, ambulances.  Looks like both series types and defender series
too.  They shot the windscreen out of one, and killed the cop inside, blood
all over the hoseable interior...cut...retake number 3... and even smashed
into one with another car.

Land Rovers, lots of 'em.

John, D90

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:26:07 -0400
From: michelbe@login.net (Michel)
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

According to a few original brochures that I have, The 109" regular is 4 mm
longer than the Station Wagon version. (4,445 m vs 4,441 m). These are
brochures for the early Ser III, when they were imported in Canada. So the
Station Wagon could actually have a better departure angle.

The difference between the different numbers and data could be originating
from the fact that a certain number of 109 SW were equipped with a spare
wheel on the rear door. Just a thought. 

If the 109 SW is longer than the 109 regular, can somebody give me an
explanation on how it is possible to fit a SW hardtop to a regular 109? Just
asking. 

>Not at all....according to my book here; the Station Wagon overall length is 
>180.3 inches while the regular is 174.8 inches.  Assuming that I'm not 
>forgetting some station-wagon specific appendage....the difference would be

made 
>up in the rear overhang.  Although the change in departure angle is not 
>enormous...it is significant.  

Salut!

Michel Bertrand
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
             ______________________ 
 >>>>>>>>>>>|__________|| ()|______| 1963 IIA 109 PU (top is off) (Rudolph)
            |          ||---|  /\ |  and friends (109 SW + 88 sw) (not shown) 
            |__________||---|_ \/_| 
 >>>>>>>>>>>|__________||___|______|
                                             

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:23:29 -0400
From: michelbe@login.net (Michel)
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

If the 109 SW is longer than the 109 regular, can somebody give me an
explanation on how it is possible to fit a SW hardtop to a regular 109?

Just asking.
Michel Bertrand
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
             ______________________ 
 >>>>>>>>>>>|__________|| ()|______| 1963 IIA 109 PU (top is off) (Rudolph)
            |          ||---|  /\ |  and friends (109 SW + 88 sw) (not shown) 
            |__________||---|_ \/_| 
 >>>>>>>>>>>|__________||___|______|
                                             

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:36:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Duncan Brown <DB@CHO004.CHO.GE.COM>
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

> 	I thought I remembered reading on the list about a person who 
> rebuilds IIA gearboxes to full synchro.  Who is he again?

    I have one of those!  I *believe* Rovers North can get them like
    that from whoever supplies their rebuilt units.  In my case they
    built it right there from a rebuilt III unit, but that might have
    been because of what they had in stock.  The basic strategy is to
    start taking pieces off of the III unit until you are back to the
    part that's the same between the two...and then build it back up
    with IIA parts.  If I remember correctly and completely, that's:

    -- Input shaft
    -- Entire clutch release assembly and release bearing housing
    -- Layshaft gear that input shaft meshes with
    -- Bellhousing

    It really is nice to have synchro on those two lowest gears!  I feel
    like such a wimp.  I've heard some say that the III box is less
    durable.  So far (10 months) it's held up, but the box I replaced
    had lasted all 35 years of the trucks life to that point, so I guess
    I have a ways to go before I can really make a comparison!  I do
    miss the dipstick though... (I had a Series II PRE-suffix-A box).

    Duncan

------------------------------

From: "C. Paul Patsis" <cpaulp@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Missing Mail
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 18:38:15 -0700

Can anybody out there tell me what's going on with the Digest. I've been =
a subscriber since almost the beginning and never had a problem. =
Recently, however, it seems as though I only get the digest about every =
other day. Anyone else having the same problem? Any suggestions on what =
to do?

Thanks

Paul Patsis
'95 D-90

Duct tape is like the force. It has a dark side, a light side and it =
holds the universe together.

------------------------------

From: WAHORN@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:48:23 -0400
Subject: Re: The Land Rover Owner Daily Digest

why have I not recieved lro digest for april 16,17 & 18 ?

------------------------------

From: WAHORN@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:53:06 -0400
Subject: where's the digest?

So where has the LRO digest disappeared to?

Ashley Horn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:05:40 -0500
From: Jeff & Laura Kessler <lmkessler@srnet.com>
Subject: Re: Testing the load leveler on a RR

At 09:30 AM 4/18/96 MST, you wrote:
>FROM:  David Brown                           Internet: debrown@srp.gov
>       Computer Graphics Specialist ~ S.R.P. ~ AM/FM - Graphic Records
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 31 lines)]
>|__|__|__\___    //__/__|__\___    before us are tiny matters compared
>| _|  |   |_ |}  \__/-\_|__/-\_|}  to what lies within us."
David,

Here is a message I sent to Kevin Kelly on this a few weeks ago.  Maybe I
should of routed a copy to the list back then.

It seems most of us are having some trouble with one or both of the lists or
digests lately.

Here is that message:

Jeff

>At 10:42 AM 4/5/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>In a message dated 96-04-04 22:25:05 EST, you write:
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 13 lines)]
>>Kevin Kelly
>I assumed that if the rear would not "pump" itself up after a few miles on
the road with a heavy load, the Boge leveling unit was bad.  Checking my
manual says to load about 990 pounds in the rear and check after a few miles
and the distance to the axle bump stops should be at least 20 mm greater
which does not sound like much.
>The manual say unladen, the distance should be at least 67 mm.  If not
>>In a message dated 96-04-04 22:25:05 EST, you write:
check the springs and if after checking or replacing bad springs the
distance is less then 67 mm the Boge unit may need replacing.
>This implys that the Boge unit is used to help support the weight of the RR
>>In a message dated 96-04-04 22:25:05 EST, you write:
instead of acting to just maintain a level ride.  This makes sense.  The
Boge unit allows "weaker' springs to be used creating a smoother ride in the
rough.
>I have not measured the distance on my RR but it looks level.  I had the
>>In a message dated 96-04-04 22:25:05 EST, you write:
springs replaced because it leaned to one side about 2 inches as measured at
the wheel well.  I fitted stock shocks.  I also fitted Bilstien shocks which
add a little lift.
>Jeff
>>In a message dated 96-04-04 22:25:05 EST, you write:
>>>Also the older Range Rovers would sit lower due to the failure of the Boge

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:26:31 -0700
From: twakeman@scruznet.com (TeriAnn Wakeman)
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

At 12:01 PM 4/18/96 -0700, Michael Roberts wrote:
> I want to know what the
>off-road capabilities differences are between an 88 and a 109 IIA 2.25L
>SW?

I drive a 109 regular.  Its my experience that a 109 can go 98% of the
places an 88 can go.  The 88 had the advantage of a much tighter turning
radius.  They will go around corners that a 109 has to go back and fourth
on and can take some windy spots where there just isn't space to go back
and fourth.  I would say condition of the car, tyres and driver ability are
a lot more determining than wheelbase on a series car.

I've noticed that 88s are generally filled with gear to allow 2 people to
go on a weekend off road trip.  I can pack enough stuff to stay out for a
week on the side benches and first 2 feet of the bed on my 2 door 109.
Moving things about a little I have been able to sleep inside a 109 fully
packed for a weeks outing without curling up.

The bad new is that a 109 5 door has the same space behind the rear seats
as an 88 (close enough anyway).  You would have room to pack your family,
but not a whole lot for baggage without a roof rack.  Also, unless your
driving a Dormobile, 5 door Caravan or somesuch you need to sleep outside
with all seats installed.  A company in the UK, Carannex, makes a tent that
fits onto the back of a Land Rover.  They advertise that it sets up
quickly, is sturdy, and has space to set up cots.

> I thought I remembered reading on the list about a person who
>rebuilds IIA gearboxes to full synchro.  Who is he again?

Scotty is building them  (510)686-2255

> Is there a power steering conversion available or would that
>really be a waste?

I've seen a couple of cars with it.  Bob&Sue have an 88 with power steering
if memory serves.  I think I have seen an add for a conversion in LRO
Internatioonal.

>  Does anyone have the address for the mendo-recce list?

mendo_recce@ridgecrest.ca.us     It is not served by a majordomo.  You need
to contact Ben and request to be added to the list.
bens@archimedes.vislab.navy.mil

>  Last one...Is a mild suspension lift possible?  Aftermarket or
>re-arched OEM springs?

I've seen one raised Land Rover.  I believe the springs were munted on top
of the axle housings.  Raising your center of gravity is the best way I
know of for laying your car on its side.  My advive is unless you are using
the car in the flatlands, or for river crossings don't raise it beyond
putting bigger tyres on it.  Keep weight as low as possible in the car and
inside the frame if possible.  Load roofracks with light bulky stuff & put
heavy stff inside on the floor.

TeriAnn

twakeman@scruznet.com   <- NOTE NEW ADDRESS

Celebrating my tenth year on Usenet/Internet

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 20:25:49 -0700
From: Roger Sinasohn <sinasohn@crl.com>
Subject: Re: re: tropical roof vents

> Forward vs. rearward facing vents...

I missed the beginning of this but...

> I have a factory fitted tropical roof (sunsheld, vents, alpine windows, 
[snip]
> (both 88 SWs) you can see that there is *no way* rain water could reach 
> the vents in any quantity.  

My vents open at the front, and I learned the hard way that water can 
indeed reach the vents if left open while driving in the rain.  I was 
driving at freeway speeds for a couple of hours, and arrived to find wet 
spots in the center of the sleeping bags as well as the usual sports at 
the edge.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uncle Roger                       "There is pleasure pure in being mad
sinasohn@crl.com                             that none but madmen know."
Roger Louis Sinasohn & Associates
San Francisco, California                  http://www.crl.com/~sinasohn/

------------------------------

From: ericz@cloud9.net
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:18:54 -0700
Subject: Re: capabilities 'twix 88" and 109"

Must be the rear tire....the roof question seems to shoot my theory out the 
window.....

Say "think before you type" a hundred times, Eric........

Regards,
Eric

------------------------------

From: ericz@cloud9.net
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 21:18:26 -0700
Subject: Re: crash tests...

On 18 Apr 96, Chris_Browne@US014-BOSTON-MINET.CCMAIL.CompuServe.COM wrote:

>   Wonder how a geo metro driver would fair at 40mph crash into a 
>   concrete wall

Anectodal but....two fatal auto accidents in my fire district within the past 
six months....one geo metro and the other a geo prism.

Read into it what you want.

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:04:46 -0700
From: gpool@pacific.net (Granville B. Pool)
Subject: Official Ibex Owners Pages

This message was sent to me by Peter Bradley <pbrad@dial.pipex.com> 

I thought I'd forward it the the LRO list and the Left-Coast (mendo_recce)
list, though I did not post it to the RRO list where the ready-made coilers
like to hang out these days...

>Granny
>I have just uploaded the Ibex Owners Pages
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 10 lines)]
>http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/pbrad/ibex.htm 
>should get you straight there.

If you don't know what a Foers Ibex is, well, go have a look and find out.
Enjoy!

Granny 
Redwood Valley, CA

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:52:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mark Perry <rxq281@freenet.mb.ca>
Subject: U-joint

I have misplaced the TRW p/n I had for the 2 15/16"  U-joints for Ser.IIA 
propshafts and don't see them in the FAQs I have here. Does someone know 
the TRW p/n? I have Precision 369 and Spocer 5-4X on FAQ. Any others?
 
Thanks 

Mark Perry   Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
1966 Ser.IIA 88 Petrol Hardtop 
An adventure every time you drive it...

------------------------------

  END OF LAND ROVER OWNER DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 39 lines 1773 [forwarded 278 whitespace 480]
 Output: lines 1344 [content 857  forwarded 111 (cut  167) whitespace 405]


    Back
	
    Forward
	


	
    
          
	



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.