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: Keith Elliott <landy@ican.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:08:33 -0400
Subject: SI Questions

Hi all...

    Well I am a new Uncle!!! My sister just adopted a 1953 Series I and now I 
have some questions about it. What color should I paint the hardtop? (JUST 
KIDDING!!!!!!)  While taking a little test drive yesterday we noticed that it 
wanders quite bad, I'm thinking that it is the steering relay, does this sound 
correct? What can be done to rectify this, some adjustment, replace the whole 
thing? The second thing is that one time shortly after I had shut the engine 
off 
I smelled something funny so I popped the bonnet and the genny was smoking. 
After tracing the wires back to the volt reg. it was discovered that one of the 
relays on it had stuck closed. I was able to manually get this to happen again 
so it has me a little worried. Is this generally caused by dirty contacts (that 
can be cleaned up with some sand paper?) or could the volt reg. be magnetized 
after many years of use and something else has to be done to fix this problem?
Thanks for letting me bend everyones ears ;)

Keith
1961 Series II 88
Uncle to 1953 Series I 80

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

From: "Dr. Gary.A.Bauer" <bauerg@iafrica.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:03:45 +0200
Subject: Extended Shackles and height

I have recently had longer shackles fitted to an 88" Series III.   We have
fitted OME shocks to this vehicle as well giving it remarkably improved
wheel travel.   In the resting state, unladen, the body of the vehicle
stands about 25mm higher.   Off road work has improved dramatically (wheel
contact time, etc).   We have removed the checkstraps to allow full
extension of the OME shocks with the longer shackels.

One problem I have and we cannot seem to get to the bottom of it.   There
is a severe prop shaft vibration, especially on feathering (no load from
motor to axle) or when the vehicle runs in neutral.   The shaft has been
balanced, universals replaced and check twice by one firm, and then another
time by a second opinion firm.   The rear output shaft bearings have been
shimmed and tightened with practically no radial movement in this shaft
now.   Since tightening this, I can not only hear the vibration, but can
hear it.

The vehicle has been fitted with standard Rover axles, and I have been
assured by those who know, that the change in propshaft angle is not what's
causing the problem, and that the angle is fine.

Any ideas on this is it one of those problems one has to live with when
starting to modify a vehicle - I would never raise the springs to above
axle - have seen one Landy where this was done - it stayed like this for 2
or 3 outings off road, and was changed back

How do I stop the SHAKE??!!, and does anyone know where I can get the
parabolics from in South Africa?

Gary

Dr. Gary A. Bauer
Eye Clinic
Cape Animal Medical Centre
23 Strubens Road
Mowbray
Cape Town
7700 SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: +27 - (0)21 - 686 66 10
Fax: +27 - (0)21 - 686 66 03
email: bauerg@iafrica.com

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

From: Alan_Richer@motorcity2.lotus.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:31:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

Are you sure that this vibration is not coming from the propshaft you're NOT
messing with (the front one)?

Honestly, this type of vibration really does sound like a
misaligned/out-of-balance propshaft. One of the things I'd have a look at is to
ensure that the shaft has been reassembled in alignment (i.e.: both of the
U-joints in phase).

Lastly, I'd suspect that adding the extended shackles tilted the nose of the
diff up enough to mess with your coupling aligngment.  Other folks may think
it's OK, but persoanally i'd think about shimming the diff front downward to its
original alignment as a test. If this helps it, then the diff could be
remounted, with wedges holding it permanently at the proper angle.

                    ajr

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

From: Benjamin Smith <bens@psasolar.colltech.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:35:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height 

In message <bulk.1566.19980914042052@Land-Rover.Team.Net>you write:
  
> Lastly, I'd suspect that adding the extended shackles tilted the nose of the
> diff up enough to mess with your coupling aligngment.  Other folks may think
> it's OK, but persoanally i'd think about shimming the diff front downward to 
> its original alignment as a test. 

	I think you have this backwards Al.  By putting on extended shackels
you are lifting the body relative to the diff.  So the angle between propshaft 
and the diff is decresed.  If you shim the axle case so that the diff front 
(ie the part that connects to the propshaft) *rises* then you will restore 
the original alignment. 

Ben
--
Benjamin Smith                   "If I were running such a contest, I would
Collective Technologies          specifically eliminate any entries from Ben 
    (a pencom company)           involving driving the [Land] Rover anywhere. 
Land-  : '72 Series III 88"      He'd drive it up the Amazon Basin for a half
 -Rover: '94 Discovery 5-Spd     can of Jolt and a stale cookie." --K. Archie

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

From: Alan_Richer@motorcity2.lotus.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:56:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

Ben,

Either I'm having trouble visualizing this, or physics works differently on the
Left Coast...8*)

OK - front spring mount stays in the same place, right?

Extend the shackle at the back, means the spring swings downward at the rear,
with the front fixed in its plane of rotation, correct?

When this happens, the body of the axle is going to rotate, pointing the nose of
the diff upward (or so I see it).

What am I doing wrong here?

               aj"Other than dealing wirth Rovers, that is? 8*)"r

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

From: Jpslotus27@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:53:03 EDT
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

In a message dated 98-09-14 07:46:46 EDT, you write:

<< Either I'm having trouble visualizing this, or physics works differently on
the
 Left Coast...8*) >>

Looks like a question of semantics.  Ben calls the front of the diff the part
to which the drive shaft attaches,  Alan calls the front of the diff the part
that points toward the front.

I try to think things in relation to the car.  To explain to Ben:  The front
of the front diff points toward the rear, and the front of the rear points
toward the front.

I think

-E

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

From: "John Baker" <daddyo@loxinfo.co.th>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:07:26 +0700
Subject: Brake Question

Another question from a hopeless incompetant. I have a 1975 SIII 109 with
2.25 and a single line braking system with a remote AP Lockheed Servo. I
would appreciate it if anyone familiar with this system could tell me where
the line from the Master cylinder should go on the remote cylinder. There
is a fitting on the side of the remote cylinder and one at the end. Reason:
I rebuilt the servo but don't seem to get any boost out of it. I installed
new lines, but the old lines were pulled out so long ago I am not sure of
the correct layout. 
Also, despite many suggestions from everyone on brake bleeding methods, I
still have a spongy pedal. Have to double pump. All parts in the system are
new, brakes are tightened up to the max, I think I am going crazy....

Regards,

John M. Baker
Bangkok

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

From: "John Baker" <daddyo@loxinfo.co.th>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:15:24 +0700
Subject: Brakes Again

Another couple of brake questions from a hopeless incompetant. I have a
1975 SIII 109 with a single line brake system using a AP Lockheed remote
servo. I rebuilt the servo and all other parts in the sytem are new. I
don't get any boost out of the servo. I am wondering if I installed the
brake lines to the servo correctly. I would greatly appreciate it if
someone could tell me which line should go to the port at the end of the
remote servo, and which line should connect to the port at the end of the
servo. Usually this would be obvious from the lines, but they were scrapped
at some point and I made up new lines. Now I am wondering if I installed
them correctly. I have the line from the MC running into the side port on
the remote servo.

This may be related, but I also have not been able to get rid of a spongy
pedal, despite the suggestions of many list members. I have tried several
methods, but still have to double pump. I am hoping this might be related
to the above if I have set up incorrectly. 

I can move the car backwards and forwards now just fine, but I need to be
able to stop within a reasonable distance!

I read a quote somewhere on the net that the Series models were designed to
be fixed in the bush with a few tools, or something to that effect. Despite
lots of experience with others make of cars and cycles, I think that if I
broke down in the bush with my Series and a few tools, buzzards would soon
be chewing what meat was left on my bones after the hyenas departed!

Regards,

John M. Baker
Bangkok

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

From: "A.G.Dolsa" <dolsa@emporion.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:03:11 +0200
Subject: RE: Doors

Makes days someone asked by the collector of LR that sell in LRSupermarket
>.

I have bought one to LRSupermarkek  and today it have received.

I observe that this aluminized totally. I have installed it without
problems. My LR is a Santana.

For the duration I request that wait some years

              ===============   Alfons G. Dolsa
             //  ||--------||   Entomologist
            //   ||        ||   Museum of Butterflies of Catalonia
   __####__//____||________||#| http://www.emporion.net/museu
  [-------/ -----Land Rover-|#| 86" - 88"III - 88"III
  |_____  |      |   _____  |#| http://emporion.net/landrover.htm
  //---\\_|______|__//---\\ |_
[-<  o  >\_________/<  o  >\_]
   \___/             \___/

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

From: Ian Stuart <Ian.Stuart@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:15:01 +0100
Subject: Re: LRO group badges -Why not use the official group logo

TeriAnn Wakeman wrote:
> The LRO mail list has had an official logo since soon after the group's
> beginning. The group logo is shaped like a European rally plate, has a
> green 88 with a soft top facing a green with white top 109 against an AA
> yellow background.  There is a compass rose between and above the two
> Rovers.  Along the top arch was the group mail address
> "land-rover-owner@team.net"
I had a copy of this on the back of my 109 for a year and a half.

It's gone now - too may trials, too much mud and not enough care - lost on
a road somewhere.

Like Frank, if someone can point me at the "new" leaf'n'coil logo with the
Web address, I'll make anoth badge...
-- 

     ----** Ian Stuart (Computing Officer)
    Medicine & Veterinary medicine Support Team,
    University Computing Services, 
    Edinburgh University. 
    Phone: +44 131 650 3027

Personal Web pages: <http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~kiz/>

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

From: Ian Stuart <Ian.Stuart@ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:17:43 +0100
Subject: Re: 130 on an RTV

SPYDERS@aol.com wrote:
> Anyone ever see a 130 on an RTV course? *Shunt, shunt, & shunt again?*
The 130 apparently has a better turning circle than a 109!

What I'd love to trial is a 6x6...
(I would still be able to maintain my championship position too: last ;)

-- 

     ----** Ian Stuart (Computing Officer)
    Medicine & Veterinary medicine Support Team,
    University Computing Services, 
    Edinburgh University. 
    Phone: +44 131 650 3027

Personal Web pages: <http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~kiz/>

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

From: Benjamin Smith <bens@psasolar.colltech.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 07:31:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height 

In message <bulk.1976.19980914044614@Land-Rover.Team.Net>you write:

> Either I'm having trouble visualizing this, or physics works differently on 
> the Left Coast...8*)

	The problem is that there are mulitple things going on at the same
time.

> OK - front spring mount stays in the same place, right?

	Correct.

> Extend the shackle at the back, means the spring swings downward at the rear,
> with the front fixed in its plane of rotation, correct?
> When this happens, the body of the axle is going to rotate, pointing the nose
> of the diff upward (or so I see it).

	Nor quite.  True rotating on the front spring mount will rotate the
nose of the diff up, but the problem is that is doesn't do it enough. The
main problem that we are trying to solve is that the transmission is being
raised above the diff.  If you look at the problem from the point of view of
the road.  The spring and diff never move.  By extending the shackel you are
lifting the body relative to the diff.  Yes the rotation of the spring about
the front mount raised the nose a little, but this is small compared to the
raising of the tranny relative to the diff.  This raising decreases the angle
between the prop shaft and the diff (measured on the upper side).  So you need
to increase this angle towards being straight (raising the nose).

	Thinking about this made me head hurt. 

Ben
--
Benjamin Smith                   "If I were running such a contest, I would
Collective Technologies          specifically eliminate any entries from Ben 
    (a pencom company)           involving driving the [Land] Rover anywhere. 
Land-  : '72 Series III 88"      He'd drive it up the Amazon Basin for a half
 -Rover: '94 Discovery 5-Spd     can of Jolt and a stale cookie." --K. Archie

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:32:42 EDT
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

Al:  > Lastly, I'd suspect that adding the extended shackles tilted the nose
of the
> diff up enough to mess with your coupling aligngment.  Other folks may think
> it's OK, but persoanally i'd think about shimming the diff front downward to
> its original alignment as a test. 

Ben:	I think you have this backwards Al.  By putting on extended shackels
you are lifting the body relative to the diff.  So the angle between propshaft
and the diff is decresed.  If you shim the axle case so that the diff front 
(ie the part that connects to the propshaft) *rises* then you will restore 
the original alignment.

Al:  OK - front spring mount stays in the same place, right?
Extend the shackle at the back, means the spring swings downward at the rear,
with the front fixed in its plane of rotation, correct?
When this happens, the body of the axle is going to rotate, pointing the nose
of
the diff upward (or so I see it).>>

Actually, the spring remains in its original relationship with the ground (ok,
it changes ever so slightly); what is rising and rotating is the chassis and
everything above it, rotating around the front wheel's contact point with the
ground (assuming only rear shackles are extended). If we went with ajr-
physics, lift kits would never work, they would just keep rotating the axles
into the ground, as opposed to leaving the axles alone and raising the
chassis, etc. 

(But yes, in looking at the whole system, the nose of the diff would rise
incrementally, because of the front spring perch's distance from the bottom of
the front tire and the amount of distance the front of the spring rises is how
much the nose of the diff would rise. It all depends on where you visualize
the point of rotation to be and how you define your system. ie: is it just the
rear suspension and chassis mounts, hanging in space, or do you include more?)

So, I've got to go with Ben on this one, and say that if the "body to diff"
distance is increased, the nose of the diff has to be shimmed/rotated "up" to
decrease the angle (measured from horizontal being 0) between the input/pinion
flange's axis and the  propshaft itself.

We could cure this problem by using *longer springs*. The fronts would be
mounted at the same point the front-U-Joint-of the rear propshaft is at, and
that way the diff-to-propshaft alignment will be worked out no matter how much
you extend your shackles. (The springs would become trailing arms, in effect)

.02, ymmv... 

--pat.

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:36:18 EDT
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

In a message dated 9/14/98 8:32:05 AM, Ben wrote:

<<Thinking about this made me head hurt.>>

Cripes, mine too! It is only *Monday Morning*! What's to come, Al? 

I think I will go back to bed and ponder something less difficult like the
gravitational attraction of the diff to the transfer case...

--pat.

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:48:56 EDT
Subject: Re: 130 on an RTV

In a message dated 9/14/98 8:24:36 AM, you wrote:

<<The 130 apparently has a better turning circle than a 109!>>

I've heard that 109's wheel's turn in arc-seconds, not degrees ;-)

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

From: Alan_Richer@motorcity2.lotus.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:03:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

OK, I think I see what's up now.

It isn't the actual horizontal-to-horizontal relationship of the diff that we're
worried about, but more the plane that the driveshaft travels in.

OK, I won't argue with this concept but I thought that Hardy-Spicer type
driveshafts had to see essentially the same angle of deflection on each end to
work properly? (hence my concern about keeping the diff parallel to the
tailshaft of the transmission).

When you alter the diff nose (defined as where the propshaft attaches) upward,
do you alter the transmission to drop the end downward also? (creating a
straighter run for the propshaft)

Now I know why Mr. C sits on stock springs...this is too much work. 8*)

                         ajr

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

From: David Scheidt <david@infocom.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:10:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 Alan_Richer@motorcity2.lotus.com wrote:

:It isn't the actual horizontal-to-horizontal relationship of the diff that 
we're
:worried about, but more the plane that the driveshaft travels in.
:
:OK, I won't argue with this concept but I thought that Hardy-Spicer type
:driveshafts had to see essentially the same angle of deflection on each end to
:work properly? (hence my concern about keeping the diff parallel to the
:tailshaft of the transmission).

The key here is essentially the same angle.  There exists a small amount
of room to fiddle with, as the wobble is not a linear function of the
change in deflection.  There are some clever things that can be done to
change the correct angle, such as using an asymetric U-joint, or mounting
the joints out of phase (doesn't Land Rover do this on the front of the
disco?), but it isn't really worth it to do on a one off basis.  You can
have a propshaft with proper CV-joints built for not a whole lot of money.

David

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

From: Benjamin Smith <bens@psasolar.colltech.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:14:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height 

In message <bulk.2085.19980914045338@Land-Rover.Team.Net>you write:
> Looks like a question of semantics.  Ben calls the front of the diff the part
> to which the drive shaft attaches,  Alan calls the front of the diff the part
> that points toward the front.
> I try to think things in relation to the car.  To explain to Ben:  The front
> of the front diff points toward the rear, and the front of the rear points
> toward the front.

	That's exactly what I was meaning.  I was using a more clearer 
definition of the same thing since the front diff makes things confusing.
Al said that when you lift a Rover, the front of the diff rises and has to be 
lowered to correctly align the universals.   This is not so.

Ben

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

From: Benjamin Smith <bens@psasolar.colltech.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:18:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height 

Pat wrote:
> <<Thinking about this made me head hurt.>>
> Cripes, mine too! It is only *Monday Morning*! What's to come, Al? 
> I think I will go back to bed and ponder something less difficult like the
> gravitational attraction of the diff to the transfer case...

	F = G * M(diff) * M(transfer)
                    distance^2

	But then you have to take into account the mass of the engine.  ;-)

Ben
--
Benjamin Smith                   "If I were running such a contest, I would
Collective Technologies          specifically eliminate any entries from Ben 
    (a pencom company)           involving driving the [Land] Rover anywhere. 
Land-  : '72 Series III 88"      He'd drive it up the Amazon Basin for a half
 -Rover: '94 Discovery 5-Spd     can of Jolt and a stale cookie." --K. Archie

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

From: Benjamin Smith <bens@psasolar.colltech.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:22:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height 

In message <bulk.3747.19980914055224@Land-Rover.Team.Net>you write:

> When you alter the diff nose (defined as where the propshaft attaches) upward
> do you alter the transmission to drop the end downward also? (creating a
> straighter run for the propshaft)

	Usually people only play with the diff end because that's the only
easy end to play with.  Note that Dora hasn't had any of this done and she's
been running fine although the pinion seal is now beginning to fail after a
few thousand miles.

	The D90 people with 3 inch lifts tend to add either a 3rd universal
or a CV joint to the propshaft to fix alignment problems.  I would guess
that this is on the transferbox end.  	

Ben
--
Benjamin Smith                   "If I were running such a contest, I would
Collective Technologies          specifically eliminate any entries from Ben 
    (a pencom company)           involving driving the [Land] Rover anywhere. 
Land-  : '72 Series III 88"      He'd drive it up the Amazon Basin for a half
 -Rover: '94 Discovery 5-Spd     can of Jolt and a stale cookie." --K. Archie

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

From: peter.thoren@genetik.uu.se (Peter =?iso-8859-1?Q?Thor=E9n?= )
Date: 	Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:46:35 +0200
Subject: Re: Brakes Again

John,

I had problems with my brakes in my 1975 109 some months ago. I had to
double pump despite that all brake parts were new. William Leacock told me
that the leading and trailing shoe  in the rear breaks were not similar. At
a first glance they look identical but there are a difference in the
positioning of the lining. When I checked my rear brakes it showed that I
had two leading shoes on one side and two trailing shoes on the other side
which made it impossible to adjust the brakes. I have now switched these
brake shoes and now I have perfect brakes. Mayby this is basic knowledge
but it might be a possible source for your problems.

Peter

Peter Thoren
Department of Genetics, Uppsala University
Box 7003, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
Fax +46 18 67 27 05
Tel +46 18 67 12 69, 67 26 64
e-mail: peter.thoren@genetik.uu.se

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

From: "Neil Brownlee" <metal_thraser@email.msn.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:50:29 +0100
Subject: My first offroad foray!

Took the Rancor off to Whaddon yesterday, for her first muddy
outing....survived admirably all day, with a couple of pushes on the door
sills! But it was an excellent day all round, however just as we were
leaving, we spotted someone waving at us....

Dutifully, we went over to help, gave them a tug, and nothing happened....we
decided to try tugging them out backwards, so we turned around and made to
go down and around them..when, yes you guessed it, schlump (or any other
noise that indicates a 109" disappearing wing first into a bog!). We were
down at 60 degrees with a 30 degree tilt!!!

After a nice TDi skidded about trying to free us, another vehicle came and
joined in, the two of them tugged at once and....nothing, oh except clouds
of white smoke from my exhaust!!! Oh dear will have to check that out
later.......then, a nice Rover V8 coiler came to the rescue, and with the
pure brute force of the mighty engine pulled me free! And promptly got
himself stuck.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a day!

Damage : Bent and cracked sill, bent and cracked front wing.....any
suggestions on how to fix/mask cracks?

Can't wait 'till next time!!!!!!!!

Neil

SIII '78 2.25 Petrol LWB Canvas - BNH 449S Salisbury Diff. Zenith Carb -
'The Rancor'

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

From: David Scheidt <david@infocom.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:59:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: My first offroad foray!

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Neil Brownlee wrote:

:Damage : Bent and cracked sill, bent and cracked front wing.....any
:suggestions on how to fix/mask cracks?

Ignore 'em.

David

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 07:10:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Portland Show

><<A number of class changes may make the show better in the future, 
;>including:

<SNIP>

;> Introduce RL-59 as the Dormobile class, since we get as many 
;> Dormobiles as cars and Series I's.>>

There are a number of people working on making the Portland All British 
Field meet become the official site of a North American International 
Dormobile meet starting next year. 

For the last few years this meet has been the site of what is believed to 
be the largest annual gathering of Dormobiles in North America.  We hope 
to have our own class for the general people's choice voting, and to have 
a special Dormie owners ballet that would include things like Most 
original factory built Dormobile, Most improved Dormobile, etc.

It is our hope that Dormobile owners in the Eastern half of the continent 
will also get together to have an annual Eastern North American 
International Dormobile meet.

TeriAnn Wakeman                       The Green Rover, rebuilt and
Santa Cruz, California                and maintained using parts from
twakeman@cruzers.com                  British Pacific 800-554-4133
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman      

Walk in harmony with the earth and all her creatures and you will create 
beauty wherever you go.

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

From: Joost Kramer <jkramer@best.ms.philips.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:25:22 +0200
Subject: Re: Engine/Tranny Transplant question

> Before removing the engine, I'd like to remove the clutch, flywheel and
> flywheel housing.  Seems like this shouldn't be a problem, but anybody done
> this?  Seems like it would lessen the chances of bashing the clutch MC or the
> throttle linkage (RHD).

I've done this before. It is an easy way and more precise because of the less
weight. But prevent your engine from dropping, when you remove the flywheel
housing.

Joost

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 07:28:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

>I have recently had longer shackles fitted to an 88" Series III.  
;
<SNIP>

;>One problem I have and we cannot seem to get to the bottom of it.   
There
;>is a severe prop shaft vibration, especially on feathering (no load from
;>motor to axle) or when the vehicle runs in neutral.

<snip>

;> I have been assured by those who know, that the change in propshaft 
angle 
;>is not what's causing the problem, and that the angle is fine.

The drive shafts on an 88 are short and you have probably increased the 
angle quite a bit.  In spite of your experts, I would vote for than 
angles being too sharp for the 'U' joints on your particular car.

Try an experiment:

Go to your hardware store and pick up some metal wedges that are driven 
into wooden axe handles to keep the head from flying off.

  Loosen your 'U' bolts & insert a couple metal wedges between the spring 
and axle housing on the side of the 'U' joint to tilt the axle housing 
and lessen the 'U' joint angle.  Tighten things down & go for a drive.  
If the problem goes away you know it was the extreme angle.

You can then make up a better set of wedges & install them.  If the 
problem does not go away, at least then you know that the extreme angle 
is not the cause of this particular vibration.

Good luck tracking the problem.

TeriAnn Wakeman                       The Green Rover, rebuilt and
Santa Cruz, California                and maintained using parts from
twakeman@cruzers.com                  British Pacific 800-554-4133
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman      

Walk in harmony with the earth and all her creatures and you will create 
beauty wherever you go.

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

From: "Luis Manuel Gutierrez" <lgutierr@jccr.co.cr>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 09:15:29 -0500
Subject: Welding and Buying UK stuff

Thanks everybody for the tips on the places to check in the UK. I'll try to
get some prices now.

About the welding, for now I'm going to have all your suggestions in mind
when talking to the guy at the shop. We'll have to come up with something.
Experimentation is the way to go.

During the weekend I talked to 3 diferent LR expert mechanics. They all
suggested diferent methods for the welding of the half-shaft. Even a forth
mechanic, who I talked on the phone, told me that he knew my truck. His
recomendations: carry always with you a couple half-shafts, your truck will
be breaking them just for fun, too much torque. Oh dear!

One of the other mechanics told me that he had worked with an insurance
company who owned a LR fleet, (SIIIs). He said that they changed something
like 12-15 half-shafts a week. They wanted to stop the problem and ordered a
shop to make some custom harder-steel half-shafts for the fleet. He says
they worked great, never broke again. But then they began having broken
diffs on a daily basis.
I guess you would have to re-do all the transmission systems with better
quality materials for it to be trouble free. We'll have to live with
Solihull quality control.

My personal experience has been short, but I'm leaning quickly.

Lic. LUIS MANUEL GUTIERREZ CHACON
Jose Cartellone Construcciones Civiles S.A.
E-mail: lgutierr@jccr.co.cr
Tel: (506) 296 2743
Fax: (506) 296 2744

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

From: NADdMD@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:28:53 EDT
Subject: Flywheel  (pilot) bushing question

Hi all,

The bushing in the flywheel is somewhat loose.  I had the flywheel machined
and a bush put in about 1 1/2 years ago.  Is this a problem of the bushing not
being done right or the flywheel with excessive wear?

Nate

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 08:45:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

Here is one thing that no one has mentioned yet.

Land Rovers that have factory installed extended shackles at the rear of 
the leaf springs have a longer front spring mount boss that basically 
"extends" the front spring mount.

When you install extended shackles at the rear of a spring without 
welding on a longer front spring mounting bosses you are effectivly 
pointing the 'U' joint end of the diff more twords the ground and 
increasing the angle between the Diff and the drive shaft even more than 
a simple "lift" would.  And of course this is even more accute with the 
shorter distances involved in the 88.

In an ideal world, I would think that you would measure the angle between 
the drive shafts and their respective diffs before the lift then weld in 
longer front spring mounting bosses that would restore the same angle 
after the lift.  109 owners could just run out and measure the lengths of 
the front spring mounting bosses on Military 109s.

TeriAnn Wakeman               If you send me direct mail, please
Santa Cruz, California        start the subject line with TW - 
twakeman@cruzers.com           I will be sure to read the message

http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman   

"How can life grant us the boon of living..unless we dare"
Amelia Earhart 1898-1937

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 08:57:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height 

>> When you alter the diff nose (defined as where the propshaft attaches) 
upward
;>> do you alter the transmission to drop the end downward also? 
(creating a
;>> straighter run for the propshaft)

;>	Usually people only play with the diff end because that's the only
;>easy end to play with. 

Umm...  Now I KNOW it is Monday morning ;*)

The transfer case has an axle at each end.  If you change the angle of 
the transfer case/engine assembly to decrease the angle on one drive shat 
you increase the angle on the other drive shaft.

Good morning

;*)

TeriAnn Wakeman               If you send me direct mail, please
Santa Cruz, California        start the subject line with TW - 
twakeman@cruzers.com           I will be sure to read the message

http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman   

"How can life grant us the boon of living..unless we dare"
Amelia Earhart 1898-1937

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

From: Eric Zipkin <ericzip@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:01:36 -0400
Subject: LT95 Wanted

Looking for an LT95 transmission, preferrably in the eastern U.S. Contact
me via direct e-mail (ericzip@cloud9.net) or phone (914.234.0145).

Rgds,
Eric

Eric Zipkin
Bedford, NY  USA 

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

From: "Piet Fourie : pah@saao.ac.za" <pah@saao.ac.za>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:16:32 +0200 (SAT)
Subject: Re:Zenith Carb

Hi All

My wife's landy (2.25) has a Zenith carb-36IV. (hate it).  I am unable to
adjust the air/fuel mixture (it stays very rich).
I suspect the float level is wrong. Can anybody please tell me the
correct level for the float.

Many thanks

Piet
1955 S1
1980 RR
P.A.H. Fourie   ( pah@saao.ac.za )
South African Astronomical Observatory.
P.O. Box 25 Sutherland 6920 South Africa.
Tel 023 5711135. Fax 023 5711413

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:22:05 EDT
Subject: Re: Zenith

In a message dated 9/14/98 1:18:07 PM, you wrote:

<<Hi All

My wife's landy (2.25) has a Zenith carb-36IV. (hate it). >>

Yeah, and their televisions haven't been all that great lately, either. 

Maybe they ought to change their name to "nadir"...

--pat.

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

From: Michael Carradine <cs@landrover.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Drivelines /was: Extended Shackles and height 

At 08:57 AM 9/14/98 -0700, TeriAnn Wakeman twakeman@cruzers.com wrote:
:>> When you alter the diff nose (defined as where the propshaft
:>> attaches) upward [or] do you alter the transmission to drop the
:>> end downward also? (creating a straighter run for the propshaft)
:
:> Usually people only play with the diff end because that's the only
:> easy end to play with. 
:
:Umm...  Now I KNOW it is Monday morning ;*)
:
:The transfer case has an axle at each end.  If you change the angle
:of the transfer case/engine assembly to decrease the angle on one
:drive shat you increase the angle on the other drive shaft.
:
:Good morning

 Correct TA!  That's why "people only play with the diff end",
 that is, "the diff nose, defined as where the propshaft attaches,
 ... creating a straighter run for the propshaft".

 This is done by rotating the axle housing up about the axle center,
 pointing the 'nose' inline with the driveshaft.  The idea is to
 create a straight run at the driveshaft near the axles, reducing
 rotation, articulation, and wear of the u-joint.

 Mercedes does this very well with the basic design of the Unimog.
 In fact, they have eliminated the driveline u-joints near the axles.
 They have also rotated the motor so that rear output shaft is
 centered on the rear differential.  As TA points out, this would
 raise the front output shaft on a conventional Land Rover; however,
 on the Unimog the front output shaft is also lowered pointing the
 'nose' into the front differential.  This ingenious design uses
 only one u-joint per driveline and virtually eliminates driveline
 twist.  To accomplish this of course, the axles are fully floating
 with a coil spring suspension.

 Good morning,

-Michael

 www.unimog.com 

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

From: Alan_Richer@motorcity2.lotus.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:37:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Zenith

Piet mentions:
My wife's landy (2.25) has a Zenith carb-36IV. (hate it). >>

And Pat adds:
Yeah, and their televisions haven't been all that great lately, either.
Maybe they ought to change their name to "nadir"...

"Zenith - the Quality Comes Out before The Name Falls Off..."

      aj"Probably totally lost on the under-40 kiddies...."r

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

From: "Luis Manuel Gutierrez" <lgutierr@jccr.co.cr>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:51:59 -0500
Subject: RE: welding axle shafts

>Luis,
>This may not be true for Land Rover halfshafts, but others that I've had
>to deal with are hardened steel.  If you weld your broken shaft, you
>will be raising the temperature of the surrounding steel to the point
>where it is annealed.  I'd suspect that the shaft would soon break again
>near where the weld was made.  You could have the shaft welded with
>hardening welding rod, and then re-harden the shaft, and then draw the
	 [ truncated by list-digester (was 15 lines)]
>hardened shaft.  I suspect that somewhere between a dark bronze and
>blue, but it's been awhile since I've gone through the process.
Tom,

I spoke with a mechanical engineer friend of mine, and he told me that this
kind of shafts are not hardened steel. They have a slightly harder surface
and a soft core, in order for them to flex with torcional force. He
recomended to have the welded shaft post-heated to release stress (400-500
C) and then have it wrapped to cool-off naturally.

We will see if it breaks again (near that welding that is!)

Lic. LUIS MANUEL GUTIERREZ CHACON
Jose Cartellone Construcciones Civiles S.A.
E-mail: lgutierr@jccr.co.cr
Tel: (506) 296 2743
Fax: (506) 296 2744

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:11:22 EDT
Subject: Re:  Welding and Buying UK stuff

In a message dated 9/14/98 11:22:36 AM, you wrote:

<<During the weekend I talked to 3 diferent LR expert mechanics. They all
suggested diferent methods for the welding of the half-shaft. Even a forth
mechanic, who I talked on the phone, told me that he knew my truck. His
recomendations: carry always with you a couple half-shafts, your truck will
be breaking them just for fun, too much torque. Oh dear!>>

How big is the engine? This problem is probably magnified by all the torque
going to one axle all the time (Toyoyo x-fer case), and when you hit a patch
of slick mud or loose traction (in 2wd), one wheel spins madly before hooking
up some traction, by then it is too late. Too bad they didn't leave you with
the LR x-fer case, you'd be all set...

<<One of the other mechanics told me that he had worked with an insurance
company who owned a LR fleet, (SIIIs). He said that they changed something
like 12-15 half-shafts a week. They wanted to stop the problem and ordered a
shop to make some custom harder-steel half-shafts for the fleet. He says
they worked great, never broke again. But then they began having broken
diffs on a daily basis.>>

Whoa, sounds like vehicle abuse or serious driver error. Maybe they learned to
drive from watching Chevy Truck commertials on TV, where they fly off hills
and pedal-to-the-metal over any obstacle.

You shouldn't have such bad luck, especially if you don't use wide-open
throttle in the lower gears... 

--pat.

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

From: Joseph Broach <jbroach@selway.umt.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:40:20 -0600
Subject: More propshaft q's for your monday!

After installing my parabolics, I had a hideous vibration right at the
accel/decel point. I determined that it was probably due to the increased
prop angle by loading up the back. This cured it completely. A friend of
mine who owns a j**p/land(not rover) shop said the best thing to do would
be to lengthen the driveshaft. Does this make sense to you? I had trouble
understanding the concept, but then again, I'm no physicist!

-joseph and sidney '67 88 SW
Missoula, MT

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

From: "Christopher H. Dow" <dow@thelen.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:32:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Extended Shackles and height

Last Summer, I put military shackles on my 88.  I don't have any noises
or other problems under normal operation.  However, I have twice  (while
off-road in extreme articulation situations) heard the front prop shaft
squeeking against the cross member.  If a Rover were in this situation
more often, I could imagine how that might have more of an effect on the
drive shaft.  

BTW, with new springs, miliary shackles, & 16x7.5 XCLs, my 88 is taller
at the wing top than my 110 with some other Michelin 16x7.5 tires (80K
miles on the stock coil springs).  It's about the same height as TMS's
D90 with stock springs, 265/75 BFT All-terrains, and 11K miles on the
stock coil springs.

RE springovers (one of the sparks for this thread?):  If you spring-over
you're Series Land Rover, then it will be an even taller mushroom
(narrower at the bottom than the top).  This would creep me out, and
make me want to put bigger (wider and taller) tires on it to
compensate.  However, if you compensate with big tires, then there's an
even greater potential for torque on the axles when trudging up steep
hills.  If you're very good about checking your axles for wear and
always carry spares (I now carry a rear axle set in my normal spares
collection), then it's probably no problem, but if you don't add axle
checking to the routine checklist, you're liable to end up on a trail
with busted axles somewhere, IMO.  I'd rather not increase my routine
check list if I can avoid it.

C

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

From: "A.G.Dolsa" <dolsa@emporion.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:49:36 +0200
Subject: RE: Zenith Carb

First:
Unscrew the two screws that hold   the  carburetor
Second
Draw the carburetor. Put to her a blue loop and give it to an enemy
Third
Buy an Weber 34 and install this carburetor
Fourth
To squeeze screws
Fifth
Don't worry, be happy 

              ===============   Alfons G. Dolsa
             //  ||--------||   Entomologist
            //   ||        ||   Museum of Butterflies of Catalonia
   __####__//____||________||#| http://www.emporion.net/museu
  [-------/ -----Land Rover-|#| 86" - 88"III - 88"III
  |_____  |      |   _____  |#| http://emporion.net/landrover.htm
  //---\\_|______|__//---\\ |_ 
[-<  o  >\_________/<  o  >\_] 
   \___/             \___/      

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

From: "Luis Manuel Gutierrez" <lgutierr@jccr.co.cr>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:06:17 -0500
Subject: RE: Welding and Buying UK stuff

>How big is the engine? This problem is probably magnified by all the torque
>going to one axle all the time (Toyoyo x-fer case), and when you hit a
patch
>of slick mud or loose traction (in 2wd), one wheel spins madly before
hooking
>up some traction, by then it is too late. Too bad they didn't leave you
with
>the LR x-fer case, you'd be all set...
>going to one axle all the time (Toyoyo x-fer case), and when you hit a

It's not that big, its a 3 liter diesel B2 engine, but it is supposed to
have a lot more torque than the original 2.5
The problem, as you say, becomes bigger because I'm using 2WD, when the
truck is made originally to be permanent 4WD.
What is the diference between "any-car" High 4WD and the permanent 4WD of a
90 or a 110? Can anyone shed some light here?

>Whoa, sounds like vehicle abuse or serious driver error. Maybe they learned
to
>drive from watching Chevy Truck commertials on TV, where they fly off hills
>and pedal-to-the-metal over any obstacle.

Indeed extreme abuse, but I guess excellent as testing ground.

>You shouldn't have such bad luck, especially if you don't use wide-open
>throttle in the lower gears...
>--pat.

That is precisely what I have leaned this past week. I have to get used to
"slo-mo".

I learned something else: The speedo in the truck is WAY lost in its
readings. Yesterday I went out with a friend in his Toyota LC, with exactly
the same engine as mine. The engine was almost idle when we were travelling
around 60kph (and we reached there effortless). In my truck I needed some
effort to reach 60kph, but then I noted that I was going much faster than
everybody else. Now I know they were completely diferent 60kph's.
There must be some missmatch between the gearbox and the speedo gearing.

Even though I have had the truck for only 9 days, 4 of which it has been
parked, and it has tons of things to correct or repair, I feel "this is the
begining of a beautifull friendship"

:-)

Lic. LUIS MANUEL GUTIERREZ CHACON
Jose Cartellone Construcciones Civiles S.A.
E-mail: lgutierr@jccr.co.cr
Tel: (506) 296 2743
Fax: (506) 296 2744

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 12:33:18 -0700
Subject: Re: More propshaft q's for your monday!

I'll bite
>.
>After installing my parabolics, I had a hideous vibration right at the
>accel/decel point. I determined that it was probably due to the increased
;>prop angle by loading up the back. This cured it completely. A friend of
;>mine who owns a j**p/land(not rover) shop said the best thing to do 
would
;>be to lengthen the drive shaft. Does this make sense to you?

Maybe, but for different reasons.  The drive shaft is a two part assembly 
with a slip joint allowing the shaft to get longer or shorter depending 
if the suspension was extended or compressed.  If you raise the body from 
the axles then you increase the distance between the flanges that the 
drive shaft bolts to.  An increased distance between flange mounting 
points decreases the slip joint travel left to compensate for extended 
suspension travel.

What you might want to do is find a stock 88 and measure the length of 
the installed drive shaft from flange to flange, then do the same with 
your car.  If your shaft is significantly longer, you might consider 
having it lengthened.  You do not want the outer stop for the drive 
shaft's slip joint to become the limiting point of downward suspension 
travel.  It might make your suspension handle funny at full extension 
until your drive shaft broke.

What constitutes a significant difference in drive shaft length?  I don't 
know.  I suspect it is shorter with a suspension that has more travel and 
longer on a stiff suspension with less travel.

It's amazing all the stuff you need to start thinking about when you 
consider raising a LR and increasing the suspension travel.

I assume that when you went to parabolics that you switched  shocks to 
ones with a longer extension?

TeriAnn Wakeman                       The Green Rover, rebuilt and
Santa Cruz, California                and maintained using parts from
twakeman@cruzers.com                  British Pacific 800-554-4133
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman      

Walk in harmony with the earth and all her creatures and you will create 
beauty wherever you go.

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 12:49:23 -0700
Subject: More on extended shackles

There is another factor that must be dwelt with when extended shackles 
are installed on a LR for the first time.

Shock absorbers.

Standard stock shock absorbers are too short to handle the extra two 
inches of shackle length.  The extended length of the shocks become the 
limit of articulation in your suspension... for as long as the shocks 
last.  109 owners can just install a set of shocks for a military or 1 
ton 109 when they install extended shackles.  I guess 88 owners will need 
to do some shock length/extension research.

TeriAnn Wakeman                       The Green Rover, rebuilt and
Santa Cruz, California                and maintained using parts from
twakeman@cruzers.com                  British Pacific 800-554-4133
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman      

Walk in harmony with the earth and all her creatures and you will create 
beauty wherever you go.

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

From: "Christopher H. Dow" <dow@thelen.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:01:41 -0700
Subject: Re: More on extended shackles

TeriAnn Wakeman wrote:
> There is another factor that must be dwelt with when extended shackles
> are installed on a LR for the first time.

> Shock absorbers.
 
> Standard stock shock absorbers are too short to handle the extra two
> inches of shackle length.  The extended length of the shocks become the
> limit of articulation in your suspension... for as long as the shocks
> last.  

TeriAnn speaks truth here.  On the Rubicon, I found my wheel travel was 
greatly limited by the Woodheads I have on the IIA.  I'm thinking OME or
Ranchos for next summer.

> I guess 88 owners will need to do some shock length/extension research.

I'll let the list know what I come up with.

C

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

From: "A. P. \"Sandy\" Grice" <rover@pinn.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:12:40 -0400
Subject: Capstan winch parts

>Paul Lonsdale <Lonsdale@compuserve.com> wrote:

> Are these parts no longer available from Superwinch, who took over 
>from Fairey?

Don't know about the UK, but over here, they are scarcer than hen's teeth....
  
> They were very helpful with info etc on the Fairey CG winch fitted to 
>my ex-H.M. Coastguard SIII.

You must've be connected (quite by chance) to someone who actually knew
what they were talking about.  When I called Superwinch a while back, the
bloke   never *heard* of Fairey, let alone any capstan winches....  Cheers

  *----jeep may be famous, LAND-ROVER is Legendary----*
  |                                                   |
  |             A. P. ("Sandy") Grice                 |
  |    Rover Owners' Association of Virginia, Ltd.    |
  |     Association of North American Rover Clubs     |
  |    1633 Melrose Pkwy., Norfolk, VA 23508-1730     |
  |(O)757-622-7054, (H)757-423-4898, FAX 757-622-7056 |
  *----1972 Series III------1996 Discovery SE-7(m)----*

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 13:13:07 -0700
Subject: Parabolic spring updates?????

It seems that a few people on the list have installed parabolics and have 
had a chance to play with them.

Would ya'll mind providing us with your thoughts about these springs, any 
gotchas or whatevers????

I have heard roamers that some people have purchased springs and returned 
them because of fit problems.  

I think Bill mentioned that he was not able to climb some grades that he 
could previously with his stock springs but thought the problem may lie 
with the stock shocks limiting spring travel.  Bill do you have an 
update???

So guys, How are your parabolic springs working out??

TeriAnn Wakeman                       The Green Rover, rebuilt and
Santa Cruz, California                and maintained using parts from
twakeman@cruzers.com                  British Pacific 800-554-4133
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman      

Walk in harmony with the earth and all her creatures and you will create 
beauty wherever you go.

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

From: Jason Carroll <carrollj@up.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 13:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: More on extended shackles

The previous owner of my 1969 88", agreed that the shocks were one of the
biggest limitations with series vehicle wheel travel. He switched to some
specific Black Diamond shocks, and we haven't looked back. To fit larger
tires, he skipped lifting the truck because of drive-train and
center-of-gravity problems. His solution was to trim the wheelwells and
scoop the interior. We now run 35" x 12.5" x 15" with no problems.

--Jason

On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, Christopher H. Dow wrote:

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

From: Jpslotus27@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:24:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Welding and Buying UK stuff

In a message dated 98-09-14 14:13:26 EDT, you write:

<< Whoa, sounds like vehicle abuse or serious driver error. Maybe they learned
to
 drive from watching Chevy Truck commertials on TV, where they fly off hills
 and pedal-to-the-metal over any obstacle. >>

The Second Rule of Italian Driving:  If your foot is not on the floor (under
breaking or acceleration) you are not driving hard enough.

Enzo  (Ps- The First Rule of Italian Driving: What is behind you, it does not
matter)

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

From: "Adams, Bill" <badams@usia.gov>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:47:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Parabolic spring updates?????

Since the weather here in the East has been, how shall we say, rather 
warm and dry, i haven't been out in the Rover all that much since GP. I 
had difficulty with one humongous grade because I was running tires that 
hadn't been aired down and was trying to climb what amounted to 
slickrock. I would get halfway up and the truck would begin to bounce on 
the rear wheels.
Why ask why, just go buy the daggone springs! And use the stock shackles, 
and paint them green.

Bill Adams
3D Artist/Animator
'66 Land Rover S2A 109 Diesel Station Wagon,
'81 Honda Goldwing 1100 Standard:
"Practicing the ancient oriental art of ren-ching"

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 14:17:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Parabolic spring updates?????

<snip>.
>Why ask why, just go buy the daggone springs!
;
The springs are a bit expensive.  I want to check with the early adaptors 
(i.e. Guinea pigs)  to find out if the darn things work any better than 
the stock springs before I go through the trouble & expense of trying 
them myself.

TeriAnn Wakeman                       The Green Rover, rebuilt and
Santa Cruz, California                and maintained using parts from
twakeman@cruzers.com                  British Pacific 800-554-4133
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman      

Walk in harmony with the earth and all her creatures and you will create 
beauty wherever you go.

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:16:37 EDT
Subject: Re:  RE: Welding and Buying UK stuff

In a message dated 9/14/98 3:13:43 PM, Luis wrote:

<<In my truck I needed some
effort to reach 60kph, but then I noted that I was going much faster than
everybody else. Now I know they were completely diferent 60kph's.
There must be some missmatch between the gearbox and the speedo gearing.>>

No, not really. His Toyota is calibrated for Asian Kilometers and your 90 is
calibrated for British Kilometes, that's all. You soon get used to it.

--pat.

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

From: MRogers315@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:17:45 EDT
Subject: Frustrating Fuel Gauge

The fuel gauge in the hybrid has been driving me crazy lately. It all started
a few months ago when it started registering low whilst the engine is running
yet gives a correct reading at tickover or whithout the engine running. Ah ha!
I thought this must be a faulty instrament voltage stabaliser, so I replaced
it with a new one that had been lying around at home for months. The problem
persisted so thinking that the replacement was also faulty I bought another
new one and fitted that. Still the fuel gauge reads low with the engine
running, so have I had two faulty units in a row or is there another cause
that I have overlooked. HELP!

Mike Rogers
Lightweight/Range Rover hybrid
+ Rolling RR chassis (awaiting the right body)

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

From: MRogers315@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:17:57 EDT
Subject: Frustrating Fuel Gauge

The fuel gauge in the hybrid has been driving me crazy lately. It all started
a few months ago when it started registering low whilst the engine is running
yet gives a correct reading at tickover or whithout the engine running. Ah ha!
I thought this must be a faulty instrament voltage stabaliser, so I replaced
it with a new one that had been lying around at home for months. The problem
persisted so thinking that the replacement was also faulty I bought another
new one and fitted that. Still the fuel gauge reads low with the engine
running, so have I had two faulty units in a row or is there another cause
that I have overlooked. HELP!

Mike Rogers
Lightweight/Range Rover hybrid
+ Rolling RR chassis (awaiting the right body)

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:48:12 EDT
Subject: Re:  RE: Welding and Buying UK stuff

In a message dated 9/14/98 3:13:43 PM, you wrote:

<<What is the diference between "any-car" High 4WD and the permanent 4WD of a
90 or a 110? Can anyone shed some light here?>>

All depends what your "any-car" is.

Put it this way, in all of the Land Rover 90s & 110s, (except for the first
1/2 year of 110s which had selectable 2wd/4wd) there is an "open differential"
in the transfer case. This diff, along with the open diffs in the axles,
permits the vehicle to be driven in permanent 4wd on all surfaces including
cement, asphalt, etc...  The center differential is "lockable" to lock the
rotation of the front & rear propshafts together for driving on surfaces of
*less or little* traction like grass, snow & mud. 

So they have a permanent 4wd system that allows the 90 or 110 to be driven on
a grippy surface, with the open diffs allowing each wheel to rotate at the
speed it wants to; and on slippery surfaces, the center diff can be locked to
make sure both axles get some power. It is confusing but it works. 

You can't turn as well with the center diff locked, and in some cases it won't
unlock until you have turned straight (direction, not orientation) again. So,
sometimes in tight situations, you will see the driver locking and unlocking
the diff to turn, climb hills, turn again, etc.

On most "other" 4x4's, the transfer case's "center differential" is always
locked (is it still a diff, then?), which means you should only engage 4x4
when the surface is slippery enough for the wheels to slip a little, that
slippage will compensate for the two axles being locked together. With this
system, you have to select 2wd (Hi or Lo) for driving around on Tarmac,
Concrete, Asphalt, etc., because if you selected 4wd, your car would do funny
things when you tried to turn, and your tires would scuff and scrub along the
ground. You are only recommended to put it in 4wd (Hi or Lo) when you are
driving over a slippery surface (Grass, mud, snow, ice, or Teflon)

Some 4x4 systems have limited-slip differentials in the center. (My Audi
Quattro has a Torsen Limited Slip in the center, and this allows the front and
rear propshafts to rotate at slightly different speeds, but limits how much
that difference is. It also has a 100% locking rear diff. Hmmm, and my land
rover doesn't) I think some American trucks are going to this, but I'm not
sure.

All the Toyotas we had on the farm were of the 2wd/4wd with no center diff.
They were probably the simplest set up Toyota made (Hi-Lux Pick up and Crew
Cab), I suspect your transfer box is the same as those we had. The latest
Toyota we got is a 1997 Land Cruiser with a Direct Injection Turbo Diesel
(non-intercooled), and it isn't permanent 4wd. Even with the hubs locked, you
have to select 4wd. Hi range is selected by locking the hubs and pushing a
button on the dash, and lo range is by a shift lever. I'm not really sure what
Toyota is up to with their systems these days.

--pat.
93  LR  110 (4wd, slow)
94   Audi S2 (4wd, rapid)

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

From: caloccia@senie.com
Date: 14 Sep 1998 21:52:13 -0000
Subject: Digester's appetite satiated...

Yes, the digester was eating messages it shouldn't have, usually after
messages with attachments... now that has been fixed, and all the digests
going back to something like 14 August have been re-created, with the 
contents restored...

    Cheers,
          Bill Caloccia			wpc@Caloccia.Net
	 http://www.Caloccia.Net/wpc/
				  R
       http://www.Land-Rover.Team.Net/
   R  1  3  2wd  H OD		  D
   +--|--|   o   | |           L  3	Land Rovers First
      2  4  4wd  L N           |  2	    because
   '63 SII  RHD 88"            H  1	Land Rovers Last
      793-PTA            '90 RR County

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:01:09 EDT
Subject: Re:  Digester's appetite satiated...

All that off topic stuff must have caused heart(cpu)burn...

buuuurrrrp!  ahhhhhh...

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

From: "Richard Clarke"<Richard.Clarke@nre.vic.gov.au>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:59:43 +1000
Subject: Australian Army extended shackles

the genuine Australian Army Series LandRovers have extended shackles (about
1 inch) but also have an extended front mount for the spring too - extended
by about the same amount - so the angle of the diff. flange doesn't change
Many people fit the extended shackles to civilian Landys but don't have the
extended chasis (frame)

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

From: James Wolf <J.Wolf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:01:53
Subject: Penlan farm

Vince, here are directions for the Rally.
  

  Penlan farm is less than two miles west of US Rt. 15 on county route 671;
the turn-off is about seven miles south of the James River Bridge.
Buckinghan County is the geographic center of the state of VA. The nearest
town is Fork Union, about twelve miles to the northeast, or Dilwyn, ten
miles to the south. Once you are on US Rt.15 you will see the little signs
in Rover colors.

For some reason I was not sent an information packet so that we could put
ALL the information on the club web site. In fact I was sent nothing at all
8^(. Hope to see you there.

If you need more or better directions call Sandy Grice 757-423-4898 or
e-mail rover@pinn.net

Jim Wolf

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

From: James Wolf <J.Wolf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:05:50
Subject: silicon, tube slumping 1ea. black

>ill Adams <badams@usia.gov> wrote:
>>This 'slumping' silicone can be found on the shelf right next to the
>>t-case PTOs and capstan winch drive shafts at your local Unobtanium
>>store.
>Slumping silicone is easy to find.  I have some in my garage.  It is
>silicone windscreen sealant.  It is quite low viscosity.  Somewhat heavier
>than 140W oil.

Right on Ron 8^). 

Jim Wolf

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

From: jimfoo@uswest.net
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:28:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

Faye and Peter Ogilvie wrote:
>         Can see absolutely no benefit to a spring over unless you'd like your
> rover to look like a j**p that some high school drop out has gotten hold
> of.

                 Please sell your rover to someone who appreciates its
functionality, as
> is, if you have to have a 'poser' truck.  Jeeps are plentiful and need all
> that bull shit to be useful in the real stuff.

	People who take their Rovers on DIFFICULT trails just might more ground
clearance. The benefit would be lower cost ground clearance which I
could have used earlier this week when I got high centered on my
crossmembers. If I would have had more clearance perhaps I could have
discovered where the trail went to. You can keep your Rover as is and
drive the highway, but I want to take my Rover to it's and my limits,
and have fun doing it. If I had money I would buy parabolics and a
winch, but I don't. Shackles on the other hand are a possibility.
Cutting and welding the spring pads would not be a problem as I had to
do it on my Camaro when I put a Ford 9" in it. I am jist trying to find
the cheapest reliable way to get ground clearance.

Jim Hall
Elephant Chaser 1966 88"

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

From: Zaxcoinc@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:39:34 EDT
Subject: Re: Frustrating Fuel Gauge

Faulty ground?

Zack Arbios

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

From: Zaxcoinc@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:48:53 EDT
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

For added ground clearance, I occasionally use a shovel.
Added ground clearance without large amounts of sensible engineering will cost
you long walks when you least need or expect it, as well as disposing of
disposable income, which is what it's for I guess.

Taking the vehicle to it's limits is the same, whether or not it has been
raised, lowered or chopped and channeled. 

Zack Arbios

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

From: john cranfield <john.cranfield@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:53:33 -0300
Subject: Re: Welding and Buying UK stuff

Luis Manuel Gutierrez wrote:
> >How big is the engine? This problem is probably magnified by all the torque
> >going to one axle all the time (Toyoyo x-fer case), and when you hit a
> patch
> >of slick mud or loose traction (in 2wd), one wheel spins madly before
> hooking
> >up some traction, by then it is too late. Too bad they didn't leave you
> with
	 [ truncated by list-digester (was 38 lines)]
> There must be some missmatch between the gearbox and the speedo gearing.
> Even though I have had the truck for only 9 days, 4 of which it has been
 I am afraid you have just bought yourself a heap of trouble. The axles
in the 90 are designed to share the torque all the time due to the full
time 4wheel drive. They will still probably be OK with the larger Diesel
if the full time 4wheel drive is replaced. With most part time 4wheel
drive systems you cannot drive in 4high on hard surfaces or transmission
windup will result and that will break more than 1/2 shafts. If you are
going to drive your poor missused 90 as it is you will have to be
careful when letting out the clutch. Really your best bet for long term
satisfaction will be to replace the rover 4wheel drive system even if
you retain the diesel.
     John and Muddy

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

From: john cranfield <john.cranfield@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:04:56 -0300
Subject: Re: lift

jimfoo@uswest.net wrote:
> What are the pros and cons of a spring over conversion, and what must
> be done? I imagine break flex lines must be lengthened or moved. Will
> steering components need to be replaced? If anyone has done this

 Jim,  I would seriously advise against it. The major problem is drive
shaft angle causing U joint interferance. I was on the trail last
weekend with an 88 that had this done and quite frankly it was awful.
 The best solition is a set of arched springs but of course this isn't
cheap. As with most things the cheap way isn't really satisfactory.
Bear in mind that the spacing between the springs on a LandRover is
narrow and when lifted things get unstable.
    John and Muddy

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:17:05 EDT
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

In a message dated 9/14/98 7:35:09 PM, you wrote:

<<The benefit would be lower cost ground clearance which I
could have used earlier this week when I got high centered on my
crossmembers. If I would have had more clearance perhaps I could have
discovered where the trail went to. You can keep your Rover as is and
drive the highway, but I want to take my Rover to it's and my limits,
and have fun doing it. >>

Got high centered? I guess you just found your rover's limits on that section
;-)

Are your tires as tall as you can put under there? I think if you swapped the
springs around it would be dangerous, and if you used extended shackles, you'd
only gain an inch and a bit; if you put taller tires under there, the
driveline geometry stays the same, you get extra clearance under the diff too;
only the gearing changes, but it changes in your favor, since you are looking
for the Rover's limit on the trail (not on the highway, as you mentioned)...

I would look into 7.50 R16 tires and then think of what kind of springs you
will go with...

.02

--pat.

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

From: jimfoo@uswest.net
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:43:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

:SPYDERS@aol.com wrote:
:> 
:
:> Got high centered? I guess you just found your rover's limits on that
section ;-)
:> 
:> Are your tires as tall as you can put under there? I think if you
swapped the
:> springs around it would be dangerous, and if you used extended
shackles, you'd
:> only gain an inch and a bit; if you put taller tires under there, the
:> driveling geometry stays the same, you get extra clearance under the
diff too;
:> only the gearing changes, but it changes in your favor, since you are
looking
:> for the Rover's limit on the trail (not on the highway, as you
mentioned)...
:> 
:> I would look into 7.50 R16 tires and then think of what kind of
springs you
:> will go with...
:> 

	Yes I found it's limits, but since someone else made it up, I want to
also. A Rover should be able to go where ever any other 4wd can go. I
actually hadn't measured the actual lift a spring over would give, which
turns out to be 7".  Yes I agree that it is a bit much. Two or three
inches max is what I want, so I may make some shackles and try that, and
if I like it I will also extend the front mounts as other people have
pointed out. I have 7.50 R16's, well actually 235 85 16's which are the
same. The tire size however favors the highway and not the trail because
for the same 360 degrees or axle rotation you have a larger tire
circumference meaning more distance traveled. Thanks to everybody for
all the tips/constructive criticism.
This is what the list is for, to learn from others mistakes before we
make them also.

Jim Hall
Elephant Chaser 1966 88"

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

From: TeriAnn Wakeman <twakeman@cruzers.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 98 17:55:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

<SNIP>
>	People who take their Rovers on DIFFICULT trails just might 
> need more ground clearance.
<SNIP>

;> but I want to take my Rover to it's and my limits,
;>and have fun doing it.

<SNIP>

;> I am just trying to find the cheapest reliable way to
;> get ground clearance.

Jim, 

Like everything else increased ground clearance is a design tradeoff. The 
Land Rover, with it's aluminum body, has a very low centre of gravity.  
If your DIFFICULT trails do not put your car at angles that approach your 
car's roll over point, lifting the car and putting on taller wheels makes 
a lot of sense.  

If you do find your DIFFICULT trails placing your car near the roll over 
point, you may be better off exploring other more costly methods of 
getting your car through the trails such as underbody protection and a 
winch.  Of course now if you don't have $$$ for a winch convoy with a 
friend that has one.  

If your driving places your car close to the roll over point just make 
sure you get REAL gains for each inch of roll over protection that you 
give up and consider an effective roll bar to be the price of a body lift.

That said, I think the 2 inch lift from extended shackles is generally a 
pretty minimal tradeoff considering how low the Land Rover's centre of 
gravity is.

To the best of my knowledge, extended shackles were only factory 
installed on 109s.  The factory installation included longer front spring 
mounts to maintain the correct angle on the 'U' joints and longer shock 
absorbers to fit the increased distance between the top and lower shock 
mounts.

I do not think the factory ever produced an 88 model with the extended 
shackles.  I suspect that their engineers determined that the shorter 
body caused the drive shaft angles to be too acute for long term 
reliability.  So I suspect the tradeoff here will be slightly increased 
clearance for slightly increased center of roll and decreased life span 
of 'U' joints and possibly other components.

I suggest that you measure the drive shaft angles on an 88 with stock 
shackles then weld on a longer front spring mount that duplicates the 
drive shaft angle as close as possible. This should minimize the amount 
of reliability that you will be giving up with the lift.

Here is a thought for shocks.  Measure the distance between the top and 
bottom shock mounts on a stock 88 then measure the distance on your car 
with the extended shackles.  I suspect the proper shock would have the 
same amount of extension, but the body would be longer by the difference 
in measured lengths.  Mind you this is just a guess.

A number of people seem to be adding 109 extended shackles to 88s so I 
guess it is just a matter of putting up with the added problems and 
decreased reliability or doing some engineering to minimize their impact.

Best of luck on your engineering efforts and please keep us informed of 
how they work.

TeriAnn Wakeman                       The Green Rover, rebuilt and
Santa Cruz, California                and maintained using parts from
twakeman@cruzers.com                  British Pacific 800-554-4133
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman      

Walk in harmony with the earth and all her creatures and you will create 
beauty wherever you go.

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:00:11 EDT
Subject: Re:  Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

In a message dated 9/14/98 8:50:40 PM, you wrote:

<<I have 7.50 R16's, well actually 235 85 16's which are the
same. The tire size however favors the highway and not the trail because
for the same 360 degrees or axle rotation you have a larger tire
circumference meaning more distance traveled.>>

Hmmm. I always believed it to be the opposite.

Larger (taller) tire = 
more diff clearance
less effort to go over obstacle
when up against an obstacle there's less of an angle to climb (picture a 14"
high ledge in front of a 33 inch tire, now put the ledge in front of a 205R16)

Smaller (shorter) tire=
less diff clearance
axle needs to rise more to go over an obstacle (tire soaks up less of it)
thereby using up travel, etc., etc.

The circumference can be dealt with by a ring & pinion swap, and you get the
larger tire's benefits (without altering driveline angles)

If taller tires aren't a benefit, someone better call Greg and tell him SG is
on the wrong track...

Somewhere on the web is a great page illustrating this. I'll see if I can find
it again.

--pat.

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

From: jimfoo@uswest.net
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:00:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

SPYDERS@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/14/98 8:50:40 PM, you wrote:
> <<I have 7.50 R16's, well actually 235 85 16's which are the
> same. The tire size however favors the highway and not the trail because
> for the same 360 degrees or axle rotation you have a larger tire
> circumference meaning more distance traveled.>>
> Hmmm. I always believed it to be the opposite.

	 [ truncated by list-digester (was 14 lines)]
> less effort to go over obstacle
> when up against an obstacle there's less of an angle to climb 
 I will agree with that. I thought you were only talking about the
gearing standpoint.

Jim Hall

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

From: "Christopher H. Dow" <dow@thelen.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 18:21:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

Jim, 

How new are your springs?  Mine were so tired that when I put on new
springs and the military 109 shackels, I was lifted about 4.25 inches. 
That was not a cheap job, though--worked out to around $700.  I've also
found that my 16x7.5s (both sets Michelin) are a tad taller than my
235/85s (Goodyear Wrangler A/T).  If you want to see what it looks like,
then check out http://www.thelen.org/lrsprings.html (other stuff at
http://www.thelen.org/LandRover.html).

Good luck.  

C

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

From: TBache9248@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:25:06 EDT
Subject: older LRO's

Hi List,
I was housecleaning, and like most save all my L-R lit/mags.  I have the
following as duplicates-perhaps someone would like them to fill in your MIA's.
The issues avail. are:
Jan '98
Dec'97
Nov 97
Jul '97
Jun '97
May'97
Apr'97
Feb'97
Nov'96
Oct'96
3-Aug'96
Jun'96
Summer'96
Check your stacks.  I will be posting a list of wanted issues soon so I can
round out my collection.  I will send out in return for $1.00 US.  Hate to
just heave them out.
Thanks,

Tom Bache
Avondale, PA

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

From: TBache9248@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:35:21 EDT
Subject: Series 1 club

Hi List,
If anyone in the USA wishes to join the Series I Club, I have the forms to
mail out to you.  I can handle the currency exchange for you and make sure you
get signed up.   They also take VISA now, but it is somewhat more helpful to
send the money in.  We only have about ten members in the US to date and I
know there are more than that out there.  They now have color covers, and
always a wealth of adverts and helpful articles.  Occasionally special parts
are made up/recast and are available only to members.  E-mail me as I am on
the digest mode, and usually behind in my reading.
Thanks,

Tom Bache
USA Area Rep for Series One Club
1952 S1 80"
1957 86"

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

From: "Wise Owl Innovation Incorporated" <wiseowl@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:19:48 -0700
Subject: Re: WANTED: Diesel Series Engine

PETER  One of our customers in Alberta has a complete good running 2 1/4r
diesel for sale complete with starter and all other bits for C$1200.00 give
me a call at 1 888 880 2600 for moe info.

Ray Wood
Check out the Wise Owl Website

	   ^  ^
	 (OvO)
          V(      )V
------------+ +---------
ww.bcoffroad.com/wiseowl

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

From: "Wise Owl Innovation Incorporated" <wiseowl@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:24:14 -0700
Subject: Re: Series 1 club

Tom would any of your members be interested in a 1956 107 fiekd anmbulance
with a Carmichael type body discovered here in B.C.
Ray Wood  Wise Owl.
> From: TBache9248@aol.com
> To: lro@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Series 1 club
> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 6:35 PM
> Hi List,
> If anyone in the USA wishes to join the Series I Club, I have the forms

to
> mail out to you.  I can handle the currency exchange for you and make
sure you
> get signed up.   They also take VISA now, but it is somewhat more helpful
to
> send the money in.  We only have about ten members in the US to date and
I
> know there are more than that out there.  They now have color covers, and
> always a wealth of adverts and helpful articles.  Occasionally special
parts
> are made up/recast and are available only to members.  E-mail me as I am
on

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

From: SPYDERS@aol.com
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:36:46 EDT
Subject: Re:  older LRO's

In a message dated 9/14/98 10:15:17 PM, you wrote:

<<Hi List,
I was housecleaning, and like most save all my L-R lit/mags.  I have the
following as duplicates-perhaps someone would like them to fill in your MIA's.
The issues avail. are:>>

Oh. Magazines.

And I thought you just needed Frank Elson's e-mail address. Now, why'd i even
think that? ;-)

--pat "younger than any SIIa" parsons

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

From: eheite@dmv.com (Ned Heite)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 22:50:17 -0500
Subject: What is a fair price?

The subject vehicle is a IIA 88" with hardtop, 3 aftermarket seat cushions,
1 original in front. Good bench seats in back. Rovers North under-seat box
in the middle, but we still have the original middle seat cushions. Bunged
up front wings, but they still hold up the lights. Drivetrain original and
all functional. New springs and shocks, extra set of shocks. Frame has been
welded and a new crossmember installed at the rear. New wiring harness,
with soldered-in trailer connections. Tachometer and ammeter added. New
last year a Zenith-like aftermarket carb from British Bulldog. Half-length
roof rack. Small but adequate Superwinch winch. New radiator. Good offroad
tires. Warn hubs in front. New track rod ends. New nylon tow rope custom
made for me. New recovery horns on the front bumper. High-lift jack mounted
inside the car. Reinforced front bumper. Spares on bonnet and rear, with
covers. Extra parts, spare tire mounts, many goodies, all shop and parts
manuals, books, magazines, etc. Land Rover logo earrings. Head gasket and
pan gasket have been replaced within the past few years. Starter is new.
Water pump just a few years old. Needs a respray. Purrs like a kitten. Runs
like a tiger. Tagged and licensed in Delaware. I hope to be at Penlan in
case you want to see this up close.

Right now, I am trying to establish an asking price. The table in the
latest LROI suggests Baby is worth £1700, which I would not accept. Some
unpleasant reverses in my personal fortunes are forcing me to consider
departing the Land Rover scene, so it would be helpful to know what I might
expect.

    _____
___(_____)           By the time you get it all together
|Baby the\           sometimes you can't remember why
|1969 Land\_===__    you wanted it together
   ___Rover   ___|o  in the first place.
|_/ . \______/ .  ||
 __\_/________\_/________________________________________________
Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html

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

From: Faye and Peter Ogilvie <ogilvi@hgea.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:13:17
Subject: Re: Don't ruin your rover with J**p tricks.

	The larger the tire, the greater the speed for the same rpm.  Mercedes
with their awesome German Engineering used different sized wheels/tires
on the driven wheels of their Formula cars of 1935-1939 vintage rather
than change the differential gearing.  Larger tires/wheels to get more
kph per rpm and higher speeds on the high speed tracks and smaller
tires/wheels for the greater rpm per kph and more acceleration on low
speed tracks.  The problem may be in the definition of terms.  The higher
the differential gearing like a 4.70. the lower the overall gearing or
more rpm per mph.

	As far as parabolics messing up the drive line, it hasn't been a problem
with mine.  The parabolics have fewer leaves and, thus, shorter spring
stack height.  They effectively lift the vehicle by the difference in the
stack height of the parabolic and stock springs.  This allows the stock
shocks to function with them as the shocks are seeing the same distance
as a stock Sprung truck even though the truck is riding higher.  The
problem is that the stock shocks suck after 100,000 or so miles and don't
work very well and don't allow the parabolics to reach their full
articulation potential.  OME and other shocks have more travel than the
stock woodheads and should be fitted to take advantage of the full
articulation potential of the parabolics.  The stock axle straps see the
increased ground clearance, however, and limit the travel of the axles.
A set of lifted length (longer) check straps should give you additional
articulation.  My straps were in bad shape and broke soon after I
installed the parabolics.  Its been doing fine without the check straps
but I haven't been doing any <underline>extreme</underline> off road
stuff.  It has been off road and in 4wd everyday, as it has been the
entire 14 years that I've owned it, however.  One thing I noticed when
making the change that the rear u-joint at the transmission at full
extension of the axle with no straps, had almost no clearance between the
u-joint yoke and the flange.  Boisterous use of the truck with a lift or
parabolics and no check straps will result in metal to metal contact of
the u-joints.

	As far as the nose of the differential, that's the part with the drive
flange.  Shackles will drop the nose of the front diff. and raise the
nose of the rear diff..  That will increase the drive shaft angle in the
front and decrease it in the rear.  I may be mistaken, but I thought
there was some mention of the Australian rovers having wedges installed
on the front differential to reduce the angle caused by the spring lifts
on the front axle.  A commensurate lengthening of the front spring mounts
would bring the nose of the differential back to level but not the more
favorable nose up attitude as found at the rear.

	If you look at http://members.xoom.com/remlr/swb/ you will see that both
109's and 88's in the Oz military have been lifted.  The lift looks to be
about the optimum for ground clearance/rollover resistance.  As far as
the front drive shafts.  The distances are the same for both the 88 and
the 109.  It is only the rear drive shafts that are different lengths. 

	For more ground clearance, the 9.5/33/15's are approximately 0.7" taller
than the 235/85/16's or the 7.50/16's.  It will gear the truck higher
gearing but not significantly more than the 235/85/16's.  I'm constantly
climbing some damn steep obstructions and haven't run out of oomph with
the stock gears/2.2l petrol and 235/85/16's.  I've been traction limited
but never torque limited.  That's not the case on the road in 2wd high
range where I have to use 3rd gear to get up some of the paved roads
around here and first gear on my driveway. 

	As far as old springs sagging.  You can count on it.  A new set of
springs or re-arched old springs would probably restore the ground
clearance intended for the old ladies.  One figure I'd like to know is
the designed axle to frame distances for both the front and rear axles.
That dimension is the only way to check the actual sag over the years.
ANYBODY OUT THERE HAVE THE DESIGNED AXLE TO FRAME DISTANCE?

	As far as making up lengthened spring shackles on your own.  Be advised
that the shackles are threaded on the nut side and appear to be of a
hardened steel beyond straight mild steel.  Don't know if they're
engineered specifically for the purpose.  The ones off my junker had all
the holes elongated, however, and they didn't have all that many miles on
them.

	Last week I asked about the preferred way to install the shackles but
received no response.  I'll try again.  Do you snug the shackle bolts up
tight so the shackles twist the rubber in the bushings as the shackles
move or do you leave them a little loose so the shackles pivot on the
bolts.  I expect it makes a difference as my junkers shackles indicate.

	You are going over some pretty gnarly stuff if you are getting high
centered in an 88 with 235/85/16's.  I had constant problems with the H
series M&S 15" that came on the car when I bought it.  My cross members
look like a torture test for metal fatigue.  Countless times I bulldozed
lava with the cross member.  Switching to 7.50/16's pretty much ended
that problem.  I haven't measured the ground clearance but it looks
pretty comparable to a lifted jeep or one with humongous tires.  One
thing I do know is that it ain't too awfully hard to get the greasy side
exposed to sunlight on a cross slope with the 16 wheels, BTDT.  A 2" lift
from stock would be as much as I would trust unless I was only doing
straight up and down challenges.  The old girl doesn't give much warning
when it exceeds its side stability.

Aloha Peter

1970 88

1965 88

1965 109

>	Yes I found it's limits, but since someone else made it up, I want to

>also. A Rover should be able to go where ever any other 4wd can go. I

>actually hadn't measured the actual lift a spring over would give,
which

>turns out to be 7".  Yes I agree that it is a bit much. Two or three

>inches max is what I want, so I may make some shackles and try that,
and

>if I like it I will also extend the front mounts as other people have

>pointed out. I have 7.50 R16's, well actually 235 85 16's which are
the

>same. The tire size however favors the highway and not the trail
because

>for the same 360 degrees or axle rotation you have a larger tire

>circumference meaning more distance traveled. Thanks to everybody for

>all the tips/constructive criticism.

>This is what the list is for, to learn from others mistakes before we

>make them also.

>make them also.

>Jim Hall

>Elephant Chaser 1966 88"

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

From: CIrvin1258@aol.com
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 01:28:41 EDT
Subject: Re: What is a fair price?

Ned,

Since you're in the USA, you can't go by what LROI says. Reason being, that
they're basing their prices on the fact that these trucks have ALWAYS been
available in the UK/Europe (i.e. production never stopped, as opposed to the
USA market, where trucks are slightly rarer).

Granted, Series Land Rovers are rare in this country, but not THAT rare. Try
basing a price on what you see in Hemmings, what BP/RN/etc. has on their
bulletin boards, rather than what they go for in the UK.

Charles

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

From: Duncan Phillips <dunk@ivanhoe.soc.staffs.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 08:49:06 +0100
Subject: Re:Zenith Carb

At 07:16 PM 9/14/98 +0200, you wrote:
>My wife's landy (2.25) has a Zenith carb-36IV. (hate it).  I am unable to
>adjust the air/fuel mixture (it stays very rich).
>I suspect the float level is wrong. Can anybody please tell me the
>correct level for the float.

You're probably suffering from 'Zenith Warping Syndrome': basically the two
halves of the carb body warp (usually towards the rear of the carb)
creating a gap whereby fuel seeps straight down the carb throat, creating a
very rich mixture at idle (you'll find it's OK at normal running).

To cure the problem get a FLAT surface (a plate of glass seems favourite),
lay a sheet of 200 grit wet & dry paper on it and methodically grind the
two mating faces of the carb body until they are completely flat.

As an optional addition you can block an unused, redundant port on the
carb. See British Pacific'c web site:

http://britpac.frazmtn.com/icaweb/britpac.nsf/78782d359c1ff8708825643500835c
2b/9aa172643cf5de598825645a007154c3?OpenDocument

They recommend against grinding the faces, but on searching the list
archive I found that the majority of people endorsed it. So that's what I
did and it worked a treat.

PS:- Sorry that the list's response was a bit naff, but this subject has
recurred so often that it's a bit 'done to death'. Hope you are successful!!

*******************************
Duncan Phillips
1980 SWB SIII 'Evie'
http://Gawain.soc.staffs.ac.uk/~cmtdmp/play/lrover/
*******************************
Big Bad n' Blue

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

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 79 lines 3614 [forwarded 292 whitespace 0]
 Output: lines 2644 [content 2294  forwarded 249 (cut  43) whitespace 0]

Digest Messages Copyright 1990-1999 by the original poster or/and Empire Rover Owners Society, All rights reserved. Photos & text Copyright 1990-1999 Bill Caloccia, All rights reserved. Empire/LRO List of charges for Empire/LRO Policies against the distribution of unsolicited commercial e-mail (aka SPAM). Empire/LRO fees for the distribution of unsolicited commercial e-mail (aka SPAM). Frequently Asked Questions
<--Back	HOME	TOP	Forward -->	height=31 width=88 alt="Made with Macintosh" border=0>