> worthless lumps we're installing. Alas, I'm certain that 20 year old kids
> in the year 2001 will understand that we so poorly engineered these things
> that they have to be rebuilt by their owners to be any good
First of all, how much class you have at making an attack on such a personal
level. Do you feel better now? I don't particularly feel I should even
respond to your post, but I will as it makes a blatantly obvious attack to
me. Unless you were thinking of another 20 yr old who has done an engine
change. Bravo, what a coup. I'm sorry to say I am sinking to your level in
the following.
I'm so glad you feel this way. It makes me want to keep on going and swap
out those rover axles for the Dana's (Not salisburys. Danas), and run my 8
bolt wheels, when I see a spark plug collecting purist like yourself being
up in arms about cutting up a IIA. It makes me realise that by cutting up a
Land-Rover, I am distancing myself from you gang of wackos that think a beat
up III is a prime example of automotive engineering, and should be restored
to as-new condition.
After all, once I'm done, I'll be able to say that even with a simple body
left, I'll still have more rover in my ford than you have in that restored
beauty of yours.
I'm happy to say that I will soon have another pair of land rovers, both
IIA's, on in extremely good original shape, in my posession, bringing the
total up to 4. It makes me feel good that I know these will not end up as
jewellery in some old guy's garage, rotting there, because he gets a kick of
having boys look at it at car shows. I'm glad they will end up being used
like they were used for the past 30 years, as daily drivers, as snowplows.
My new IIA will be stock however, as I like original things as well, but I
can assure you I will do everything in my power as to assure it does not end
up in the hands of a collector like yourself. By trying to preserve utmost
correctness, you are stripping your land rover of the very spirit that makes
it a L-R.
J-L
>
> All this engine swapping nonsense shows a complete lack of understanding
of
> Rover's history and how the Land-Rover came about. I guess that's what
> happens when people buy them because they "look cool". The cool looks
wear
> thin after a short while and they can't and don't satisfy these peoples'
> need for a modern car and, thus, they start in on engine conversions.
It's
> too bad that perspective buyers can't rent a Series Land-Rover for a
couple
> of weeks to find out if they really do want one. (Before any of you get
> any ideas, I thought of this renting scheme first!) I have an idea that
> most would shy away from them and be asking for a refund, probably before
> the lease contract had more than a few days used up. (Personally, if I
had
> such a Land-Rover leasing business, I'd only rent them out during December
> and January and make certain that the only heater allowed to be installed
> in my fleet would be the infamous Smiths shin-burners. I'd also only rent
> Is, IIs and IIAs with no overdrives and the earlier transmissions with
> unsynchronized first and second gears. That ought to cure the "man those
> things look cool" crowd in no time.)
>
> About seven years ago, being an admirer of all things Rover, I nearly
> bought a '66 Rover 2000SC from a college student: it had been bought
> merely based on the fact that it "was funky". The idiot hadn't a clue
> about how to care for the car and used DOT 3 to top off the fluid
> reservoir. Naturally, the rubber in the brake system quickly
> self-destructed and to alleviate the problem, a bottle of "Heavy Duty DOT
> 3" was purchased (I found the bottle in the boot.) Of course, the car
> wouldn't stop and since the kid was too dumb and proud to ask a question
or
> try to analyze what had gone wrong, the car was for sale as someone else's
> problem to solve. The deal fell through and I later found out that a
> salvage yard was called to haul the car away. I was told the kid got paid
> $25 for the "funky car." The moral is that if the kid had bother to learn
> something about the car, it might still be on the road rather than having
> been crushed. What a shame, it was a really nice, original P6.
>
> Hot rods hold no appeal for me. I was en route to Asheville, NC about a
> year ago and decided to stay over in Pigeon Forge, TN and drive through
the
> Smokies to get to Asheville. Unbeknownst to me, there was a hot rod meet
> going on and the things were everywhere--like flies on fresh... Anyhow,
> being a car nut, I felt that I had to take a few minutes to at least look
> at the ones in the hotel parking lot before I left. There they were:
> Fords with Chevy engines, Chryslers with Ford engines and Chevys with Ford
> powerplants, etc. The interiors were completely modified and basically
the
> cars were unidentifiable save for the body shells they were built up from.
> Some were for sale and I couldn't believe the asking prices. Needless to
> say, there were few buyers and I walked away wondering how a price could
be
> set on these contraptions. What's a 1940s Chevy bodyshell with a
> late-model Ford engine and a Pontiac rear end worth? Who knows. One thing
> I was surprised to learn was that there are companies out there that
> essentially sell their customers all the parts needed to "build up"
certain
> cars that are popular hot rod targets. Build a hot rod by the numbers, or
> something like that. At least this ensures that some level of proper
> engineering goes into the end result. In the midst of all these hot rods
> was a lost looking and completely stock Triumph TR6. I spent more time
> examining it than all the hundreds of Yank Tank hot rods combined.
>
> The thing that bothers me about these homemade hybrids is that they are
not
> being designed by automotive engineers. For that matter, they're not even
> being approached in a very scientific manner at all. Engineering or
> re-engineering a car is not for amateurs; for that matter, even the
experts
> can develop things that are deathtraps (the grossly overpowered Sunbeam
> Tiger and A.C. Cobra are prime examples of a legitimate [i.e.
> factory-built] hybrids that could be downright dangerous in the hands of
an
> inexperienced driver.) I have to seriously question the abilities of some
> of the people currently contemplating re-engineering their Land-Rovers.
Do
> these people have the capabilities to perform testing with computer models
> of how all their modifications will work out? I doubt it. They certainly
> can't build a series prototypes to help envision what the finished
> product's dynamics will be like. Most car companies build test mule after
> mule in an attempt to get everything right. With these amateur engine
> swaps, it's simply a matter of do it and hope for the best. And what
> happens when they fail to create the ultimate Land-Rover-bodied bastard?
> It will be difficult to find a buyer for the thing who wants to drive it
> (especially if the truth is revealed about what a mess the vehicle is)
and,
> sadly, prices for scrap iron and aluminum have plummeted in recent years.
>
> Someone mentioned that these "hybrids" are an essential part of
> Land-Rover's history--that the make's history has been recorded and
written
> with these creations as an integral part thereof. I would argue that they
> are not even a footnote. Does the Motor Heritage Trust go out seeking
> hacked up Land-Rovers with Iron Dukes in them? Hardly. What is in their
> collection? Vehicles like HUE 166--which was bought back from a farmer
who
> had owned and used it for years and hadn't "re-engined" it. Does anyone
> ever discussed these vehicles after the fact? I've never heard anyone
> concerning themselves about John Q. Public's Volkswagen-diesel powered
> Land-Rover bodied bastard after John Q. does his conversion--no one cares
> after a few months or years. If these things are so important in the
> greater scheme of Land-Rover history, why aren't they detailed and
> discussed in depth in books dealing with Land-Rover history? Could it be
> because they aren't part of the history that the manufacturer was
> responsible for? Obviously, the manufacturer (as well as many others)
does
> not recognize the Land-Rover-bodied bastards as being Land-Rovers and why
> should they? They aren't anything more than a Land-Rover bodyshell in the
> end.
>
> Speaking of hot rods, there's an interesting one locally--it's based on a
> Citroen 15CV. Yes, it's fascinating that someone put a Chevy engine and
> rear end in it, though what a shame to chop up what is a quite scarce car
> on this side of the Atlantic. In this transition, it's lost all of its
> original French charm that made it uniquely Citroen; now it's just a
> collection of parts. Hell, it's even lost its famous "traction avant" in
> this futile attempt to create a better Big 15. Is there a single auto
> museum that would want this thing in their collection? I doubt the Henry
> Ford Museum or Harrah's have been in contact. Basically, that's the
> problem with cutting up and mutilating a Land-Rover: what these
Land-Rover
> engine swappers are doing is creating collections of unrelated parts that
> have no value except to their owners and no provenance. These conversions
> have no future because they have no regard for the past.
>
> Brian Willoughby
> 1960 Land-Rover Series II 88" S.W.--"The Lady Eleanor"
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 05 2001 - 23:02:30 EDT