Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #319

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:22:09 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Saturday, April 7 2001 Volume 01 : Number 319

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:46:23 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: RE: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #313

http://www.mcmaster.com/

> Does anyone have the URL?
> 
> Peter Rosvall
> Wolfville, Nova Scotia

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:48:05 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: re: power

> How about a "Mr. Fusion" like the Doc has rigged up on the DeLorean at the
end
> of "Back To The Future," just dump in a little household trash and away
you
> go!
> Casey

Ahh, but that only powered the flux capacitor, still needed the internal
combustion engine to get up to 88 mph.
Pete

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

Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:37:32 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: crap crap crap

32/34dmtl kit showed up today.  Got it all put together.
Pulled the old 34ich and intake off and cleaned everything up for the new
mainifold.  The 2.5 is designed to bolt to the exhaust just like the 2.25,
bonus I figure.
Nope, POS has a larger bolt pattern.  Would have to remove large amounts of
aluminium to be able to bolt a flat plat to the top of the exhaust and still
be able to fit the intake, like about 3/8-1/2 inch.  Or I could drill new
holes in the intake.  EIther way, it's a bodge an a half.
So just went ahead and cleaned up the 2.25 intake, replaced all the gaskets
and put it back on.  I removed everyfitting from the intake and carb and
plugged em up.  No vacuum leaks anywhere.  Drove around the block, ran
great.  Had the mixture screw at 2 turns, idle at 2-1/2.  Shut down.  Got my
wallet to go get some fuel.  Started, but wouldn't keep an idel...step on
the gas and it dies.  Aaargh.  Screw the idle screw in about 5 full turns
and it almost stays running.  Stalls out at lights, but accelerates fine.
f-ing POS...hahahaha
Ahhwell, guess its time for a pierce and a 32/36dvg or the ACR intake with
the SU setup.  They recomend it with their head and cam, so might as well
order everything from one place.  Pretty strange to see a side draft in a
series though.
Pete

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 11:33:10 +0100
From: Andy Smith <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Re: The Land-Rover Bodied Bastard

In message <[email-masked]>,
Jean-Leon Morin <[email-masked]> writes
>Marin, I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way, didn't mean to do it.
>Your aggressive attacks on young people did get to me a bit, not because I
>feel singled out, but they reinforce the notion that I will have to prepare
>myself in order to deal with you when I enter the real workforce. I forgive
>you as you obviously have never come into contact with smart young people,
>and I feel sorry for you. It must be hell living when you think everything
>you do is to benefit a generation that is without value.

Just a thought and if somebody else has said I apologies now.

Did Marin hate himself when he was young ?, those years must of been
Tortuous for him..................

- ---
Andy Smith

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

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 08:08:35 -0300
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
Subject: Re: LRO: Webber Carb question.

Sure, why not? you use to warm your toes.
John and Muddy

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Coolant to prevent carb icing?
> 
> Chris hall

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 06:59:28 -0400 
From: Keith Elliott <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Webber Carb question.

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BF51.D0F1FD30
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi Bill...

   I just bought and sent one of these carbs back to Wise Owl. The 2 larger
outlets on the bottom are for coolent (so I was told by WO) to help with the
iceing problem. I sent mine back because it didn't fit the intake adapter
that I also bought from WO. You might want to check to see if it fits the
adapter that you have also. The holes in the base of mine were a little  too
close together.

TTYL
Keith 

- -----Original Message-----
From: William L Leacock
To: [email-masked]
Sent: 4/6/01 5:25 PM
Subject: LRO: Webber Carb question.

I have just recieved a Webber Carb, model 341CEV which is significantly
different to the Webber carb I purchased 8 or 9 years ago. It came with
no instructions.
Thge throttle butterfly is mounted in a separate casting which is fixed
to the base of the carb by a couple of screws.
In this separate base is the obviuos connection for the distibutor
vacuum
supply. There are two additional - approx. 1/4" dia - pipes fitted to
the
base casting. Anyone any idea what these are used for? If I blow into
one, the air exits the other one, if I block one off with a finger and
suck on the other I can feel the suction at my finger. It appears to me
that these pipes are of no use. Seems odd to fit a couple of pipes that
serve no function, unless the base is used on another carb variant that
has some use for them.

Regards from Western New York State

  Bill Leacock.

21 years old ( for the 34th time!)

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BF51.D0F1FD30
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Webber Carb question.</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi Bill...</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; I just bought and sent one of these =
carbs back to Wise Owl. The 2 larger outlets on the bottom are for =
coolent (so I was told by WO) to help with the iceing problem. I sent =
mine back because it didn't fit the intake adapter that I also bought =
from WO. You might want to check to see if it fits the adapter that you =
have also. The holes in the base of mine were a little&nbsp; too close =
together.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>TTYL</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Keith </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: William L Leacock</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: 4/6/01 5:25 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: LRO: Webber Carb question.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I have just recieved a Webber Carb, model 341CEV =
which is significantly</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>different to the Webber carb I purchased 8 or 9 =
years ago. It came with</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>no instructions.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Thge throttle butterfly is mounted in a separate =
casting which is fixed</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>to the base of the carb by a couple of =
screws.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>In this separate base is the obviuos connection for =
the distibutor</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>vacuum</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>supply. There are two additional - approx. 1/4&quot; =
dia - pipes fitted to</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>base casting. Anyone any idea what these are used =
for? If I blow into</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>one, the air exits the other one, if I block one off =
with a finger and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>suck on the other I can feel the suction at my =
finger. It appears to me</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>that these pipes are of no use. Seems odd to fit a =
couple of pipes that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>serve no function, unless the base is used on =
another carb variant that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>has some use for them.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regards from Western New York State</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp; Bill Leacock.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>21 years old ( for the 34th time!)</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BF51.D0F1FD30--

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:05:14 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: re: power

Nuclear engineer we had giving a talk to the Red Rose Land Rover Club a few
years ago said a nuclear plant to drive a Land Rover would only need to be
the size of a pea.
 It was the six feet thick lead shielding that he said might cause
problems...
Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Casey McMullen <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: LRO: re: power

> > Talking about engine swaps, wouldn't a little nuclear reactor that you
only
>
> > had to fill up once, and drive forever, be a dandy source of power for
the
> > old series.  Eliminate the problem of high fuel consumption and
pollution of
>
> > the Petrol engines.
>
> How about a "Mr. Fusion" like the Doc has rigged up on the DeLorean at the
end
> of "Back To The Future," just dump in a little household trash and away
you
> go!
>
> Casey
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1
>

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:54:39 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Parts availability vs. bulletproofing

you write: > I wonder if the Discos will still be produced with GM door
latches like
> they are now.<<<

Austin Montego/Maestro, surely?

Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:53:01 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Re: The Quest for Verisimilitude

sorry Al, forget the 90. It got parked up, we walked, like I said, only
twelve houses.

Can I make it clear here that I in no way condone drinking and driving, I
would never do it. Rosie just got herself in a pickle by accepting a couple
more 'Christmas Boxes' than she should, but she was clear headed enough to
know that she couldn't go and drive down into the village.

Mind you, we were equally funny staggering all over the place on shanks'.
Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Re: The Quest for Verisimilitude

>
> Y'know, Frank, the vision of you lot staggering about the countryside in a
> GPO 90 singing Christmas carols and delivering mail is going to make me
> giggle for the next week or so...
>
>                     ajr
>
>
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:39:25 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re:   Frank Elson,  The Quest for Tunesmiths

ISTR it was a pseudonym for John Lennon and Paul McCartney but I guess
someone else will put you straight.
 I had a brilliant url for a site that purports to tell you everything you
wanted to know about popular music but lost it during one of my crashes.
 Somewhere it's on a piece of paper...
Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Ogilvie <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: LRO: Re: Frank Elson, The Quest for Tunesmiths

> Frank Elson
>
> Since most of the music I like is as old as my rovers, have a question for
> you.  I was going through my old vinyl records of the Stones and kept
coming
> across Nanker Phelg as the writer of many of their early songs.  Was there
a
> guy named Nanker Phelg (did his parents hate him) or are these the last
> names of two people??  They wrote many of the Stones best songs but I've
> never heard anything about them, either then or now.  Can you enlighten
> me???
>
> Aloha
> Peter
>
>
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:36:39 -0500
From: "Brian Willoughby" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: 30 years into the future

You know, if Land-Rovers were such junk in the form in which they left the
factory, I wonder why so many have survived 30, 40 even 50 years in
unmolested, original form for all the engine conversion crowd to work their
magic upon them?  It will be interesting to see in 30 years which vehicles
are going stronger:  the 60, 70 and even 80 year old Land-Rovers with their
original drivetrains or all of these amateur conversions.

Coincidentally, someone questioned my knowledge of Land-Rover history since
I didn't mention any of the military or license-produced vehicles.  Since
these were factory-approved and entered series production, they simply do
not fall into the same category as the current crop of one-off engine
conversions being performed by individuals.  There's a difference between
the Royal Army having a fleet of Series Is fitted with Rolls-Royce engines
for evaluation as compared to an individual taking this upon himself.  Just
because I didn't mention these, does not mean I was unaware of them.  If
the engine swappers are so convinced that what they are doing is so right,
then why do they get so defensive and attempt to cling onto something that
the factory did or gave its blessing to 40 or more years ago for validity? 

Brian Willoughby

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 01 09:39:16 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 30 years into the future

>If
>the engine swappers are so convinced that what they are doing is so right,
>then why do they get so defensive and attempt to cling onto something that
>the factory did or gave its blessing to 40 or more years ago for validity? 

I can speak for myself.  I wanted to go to a more powerful engine several 
years before I did.  During those years I did not make the swap because I 
wanted to be accepted as part of the group.  I was afraid I would be 
ostracized and being accepted was something that was important to me.  So 
I stayed with a Land Rover engine.

I'm an atypical Land Rover owner in that I actually put miles on my 
series Land Rover. American LR parts houses are convinced that the vast 
majority of North American series LRs get used 5000 miles or less per 
year.  Looking at some of the series rigs that show up at local British 
car meets I can believe this claim, because they are not in dependable 
running condition and the same rigs show up year after year with the same 
problems.

An owner who just puts on a few miles a month but depends on a different 
car for REAL traveling, can be a dedicated to something non-practical.  
Because it is their fantasy toy car and they have their real car for 
commuting and real traveling.

For many years I have been putting a minimum or 25,000 miles per year on 
my Land Rover.

That is why I "snuck in" such things as dual power brakes from a series 
III, the later series optional heated windscreen, the series III two 
speed wiper system (I was actually driving long distances in bad weather 
and wanted to see), and a series III 109 rear axle assembly after I broke 
my sixth stock rear axle.

But through all my driving I have been in a very large number of 
potentially life threatening driving situations.  Going as fast as I can 
I was still not going as fast as relevant traffic.  Impatient drivers 
were passing on hills near the crest, on blind curves and in any number 
of dangerous situations.  In highways I was always having vehicles coming 
up from behind at much higher speeds.  Sometimes at over twice my best 
speed.  In 1997 I got run off the road by an 18 wheeler that tried to 
pass me and discovered an oncoming 18 wheeler he hadn't seen.

It was then I decided that an engine with more power was more important 
to me than being accepted by the American series Land Rover purists.  
Then of course in my own way I have set about trying to make an engine 
swap acceptable to the average American series Land Rover owner.

I get upset when people deny that my car is not Land Rover at all.  I 
have no problem with Land Rover/Ford or Land Rover hybrid.    But the 
body is Land Rover, the frame is Land Rover the suspension, brakes, and 
axle assemblies are Land Rover as well as the prop shafts and transfer 
case.  All of the volume II and part of volume I of the Factory workshop 
manual still applies.  SO yes I get upset if someone denies those parts 
as having any "Land Roverness" at all.

Even though I tend to travel alone, I guess deep down inside I still want 
to be accepted as part of the series Land Rover group.  So I guess that 
is why I for one tend to get defensive.

I feel the ONLY people who can legitimately criticize my Land Rover are 
those who put at least 20,000 miles per year on their own series Land 
Rover.  The people who have their fantasy toy  rigs that only go out for 
occasional short trips don't have a clue about what people who put real 
miles on their rigs go through.

TeriAnn Wakeman               If you send me direct mail, please
Santa Cruz, California        start the subject line with TW - 
[email-masked]           I will be sure to read the message

http://www.shadow-catcher.net      <- Photography for sale
http://www.overlander.net          <- Web directory for Land Rover 
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman   <- My personal web site

"In the world of type A & type B drivers consider me a type C gypsy  
traveler.  Destinations are optional and not necessarily desirable."

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:13:10 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: 30 years into the future

In a message dated 4/7/2001 12:45:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<< I feel the ONLY people who can legitimately criticize my Land Rover are 
 those who put at least 20,000 miles per year on their own series Land 
 Rover.   >>

Oh, I don't really agree.  I don't have any rigs that come close to 
approaching 20K a year--10-12K per year for most.  My Land Rover is my daily 
drive and when I need parts for it, a 79 J10 with slipping clutch is my back 
up.  I put 10K per year on my LR, 12K per year on my Chevy 3500 (all towing 
btw), 8K on my JGC and 3-4K on a 1983 GMC 6000 series Horse Van.  Puh-leeze 
don't try to tell me my LR is just my fantasy toy car.

On the flip side, I might imply you should consider less driving since I 
think you are at least 1 and probably 2 SD's from the US mean for miles 
traveled by privately owned vehicle per year.

Nate (and before you decide to start adding the mileages above, remember we 
own and operate a Horse Farm--commercial/agricultural and transporting horses 
is part of the business)

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 20:01:48 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: The Land-Rover Bodied Bastard (Long and Bitter)

Brian Willoughby wrote: >> I think that a vehicle properly restored to
original condition or maintained from new in its original state is a
considerably more difficult goal to accomplish than cutting one up and
modifying it. <<

true, but so what? Why 'restore' something to its flawed original when you
have the knowledge and competence to improve it?

>>I enjoy the challenge of tracking down rare parts that the engine swappers
don't give
> two cents about:  I even have a set of four long-out of production Lodge
> spark plugs for car show display purposes.  (I could explain what Lodge
> spark plugs are and look like; however, those who care already know and
> those who are concerned about Iron Dukes will never understand.)<<<

you own a set of useless, old fashioned spark plugs? wow, do you keep them
in a glass case?

>>>I didn't buy a Land-Rover expecting it
> to be a perfect vehicle and I accepted it for what it was.  People accept
most other vehicles for what they are:  why can't they do it with
Land-Rovers?<<<

because the technology exists to improve it. Do you light your home with gas
or electricity?

> I think it would do some of these engine swapping kids good to be forced
to
> read a history of the Rover Company Ltd.  Mind you, I mean something
> concerning Rover as a whole and not just Land-Rover.  I would like them to
> realize the company had a history prior to producing Land-Rovers,
beginning
> with bicycle manufacture during the late 1800s and proceeding to building
> some of the first jet engines during World War II.  Then after they've
> covered the pre-war history, they could research the mergers of all the
> automobile companies that formed British Leyland and finally proceed to
> BMW's buyout of Rover Group and then the selling and division of the
> remains to the subsequent purchase of the Land-Rover division by Ford.
> Perhaps if they'd do this they'd have a little more respect for their
> Land-Rovers and what they represent. <<<

you mean a commercial company, dedicated to making a few pounds (sorry,
dollars) for selling something?  Car making isn't fine art.

> I'm sure that in 1948 Maurice remarked, "You know, this vehicle is a heap
> of crap and, quite honestly, I'm ashamed of it.  My conscience is also
> bothering me:  these things are going to have a high selling price and
they
> are so flawed and irregular--simply trash.  Though that's okay.  We
> designed them so that the people who buy them will be able to make their
> own modifications and change them 'round. Nevertheless, it still seems a
> pity to ask such a high price for the things and then expect people to be
> forced to go out and have to purchase another engine to replace these
> 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."  Of course,
> Maurice Wilkes didn't say that and if the factory-stock Land-Rover had
been
> as bad as some people make them out to be, Rover wouldn't have ever sold a
> single unit.  For that matter, Rover, much less Land-Rover, would probably
> have never survived.<<

No, according to Tom 'Mr Land Rover' Barton, who was around at the time and
who I have actually spoken to (have you?) the thought was: 'We have to get a
vehicle out into the boonies to sell and bring a few pounds in. This old
Jeep I'm runing around on Anglesey seems OK, it is very good on the farm. If
we make a copy of it, we'll have to use aluminium for the body 'cos the
government won't give us any steel, and make the chassis up out of the few
off-cuts of steel we can get hold of, and use this old Rover car engine 'cos
we've got the tooling for it, we might sell a few to farmers, like me, and
get a few quid into the coffers while we sort out what to do with the cars.'
(not a perfect quote, but the gist of what he said)
The fact that a company called Land Rover might ever see the light of day
was totally incomprehensible in those days of 1947. They didn't even see the
thing lasting more than a couple of years.

> All this engine swapping nonsense shows a complete lack of understanding
of
> Rover's history and how the Land-Rover came about.<<<

see above, nobody even considered in their wildest dreams that they would
build a 'second' Land Rover themselves.

>>  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. <<

So, forget gas, rushes soaked in bear grease is good enough to light your
house then?

>> 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 agree, first time this message tho.

>>About seven years ago, being an admirer of all things Rover,<<<

you admire a commercially operated company dedicated to selling anything
that brings a pound (sorry again, a dollar) into the bank?  Not an artist,
or a composer, but a commercial company? Weird that.

>>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. <<<

Having owned 23 products of the Rover Car Company over the years I have to
admit that I never bought a one 'cos I 'admired' the company. I bought them
(including a P6 that is still running today) 'cos they were better than the
competitors. The 'Kid' you refer to was just a prat. I guess he'd have
screwed up any car he got his hands on.

> 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.<<<

Gifted amateurs, without stockholders to answer to, can often do a better
job than the professionals. No financial bottom line y'see. I've seen Land
Rovers, and other vehicles, made far better than the original that came out
of the factory with a stockholder breathing down the neck of the makers.

>>>for that matter, even the experts
> can develop things that are death-traps (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.) <<<

'Could' was a word you used here. A tricycle 'could' be downright dangerous
in the hands of an inexperienced driver. Your point is completely invalid.

>> 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. <<

See above, I have to seriously question your ability to comment on some of
the people currently contemplating re-engineering their Land-Rovers. How
many of them have you met?
 Over the years I have met 'amateur' engineers who, because of the unlimited
time they have and because the end-cost does not matter - only the result -
have totally out-engineered the professionals. Also, the vehicle you seem to
like in its original guise was not built with the aid of computers. They
didn't have any at Solihull in 1947.

>>>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. <<<

well, yes, today. Not, with the original Land Rover according to Tom Barton.
Except of course for the centre steer prototype. His words: 'When I drove it
on the roads for the first time I came back into the works and said, that
thing is bloody dangerous.'

>>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. <<<

and the 'modified' Darien Gap Range Rover, a handful of fire-engine mods,
the London-Sydney Rally 1800, the Paddy Hopkirk Monte Carlo Rally winning
Mini Cooper, the Triumph 2.5 pi Mexico Rally vehicle, and loads more. (Many
of which I have driven, with their permission, I've also driven HUE, wow!)
all radically modified from the showroom model and all part of the
Rover/British Leyland heritage.

>>> 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? <<<

I've not read many Land Rover books that don't have at least a chapter on
modifications/alterations, for sport and other uses.

>>> 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.<<<

On my many visits to the Land Rover factory I frequently see 'hybrid'
vehicles being evaluated. Hell, my own IVECO engined vehicle was given the
once over (and the seal of approval as in 'that fits very well') at the
factory. They are interested in anything anyone does to a Land Rover, they
just can't invite every altered Land Rover for a look-see and, anyway, they
aren't very interested in any Land Rover more than five years old. They only
sell new ones you see.

>>>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? <<<

cars, you may be interested in knowing this, don't belong in museums. They
belong on the road, going vroom vroom... ah, but you keep some old spark
plugs in a glass case don't you?

>>what these Land-Rover
> engine swappers are doing is creating collections of unrelated parts that
> have no value except to their owners<<<

so who should your car have a value to, other than yourself? A car thief?

Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 10:01:37 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Nanker Phelg

It appears the Phelg comes from an early hanger on with the last name of 
Phelg.  According to him, the Nanker part was a name they had for something 
like making  a face.  Apparently Phelg was a friend of Charlie Watts but not 
particularly liked by the rest of the band.  I guess Nanker Phelp was the 
Stones (Jagger's amd Richard's way to get even) choice as a name for their 
publishing company not the tunesmith who penned the song.  I'd have to dig 
back in my staff it looked Nanker Phelg was the writer, however.

Mahalo for getting back to me.

Aloha
Peter

>From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: LRO: re: power
>Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:05:14 +0100
>
>Nuclear engineer we had giving a talk to the Red Rose Land Rover Club a few
>years ago said a nuclear plant to drive a Land Rover would only need to be
>the size of a pea.
>  It was the six feet thick lead shielding that he said might cause
>problems...
>Best Cheers
>
>Frank
>     +--+--+--+
>      I !__|  [_]|_\___
>      I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
>      "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Casey McMullen <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:29 PM
>Subject: Re: LRO: re: power
>
>
> > > Talking about engine swaps, wouldn't a little nuclear reactor that you
>only
> >
> > > had to fill up once, and drive forever, be a dandy source of power for
>the
> > > old series.  Eliminate the problem of high fuel consumption and
>pollution of
> >
> > > the Petrol engines.
> >
> > How about a "Mr. Fusion" like the Doc has rigged up on the DeLorean at 
>the
>end
> > of "Back To The Future," just dump in a little household trash and away
>you
> > go!
> >
> > Casey
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Robert=20Ries?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Global Warming

A few days ago Mark wrote:
"The average
commercial airport runway is about 10,000 feet long,  imagine 
how short one is
as you drive past it. If that were upended vertically, it would 
reach higher
than where humans can comfortably live."

Whereum you live flatlander?  10,000ft is just letting the air
get to a breathble consistency....

Rob "Mountain Goat" Ries 

=====
Robert D. Ries
SSgt, USAF
Burwell, England
"With friends like these..."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Robert=20Ries?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Power

"However to all those who  try to assure us that nuclear is non 
poluting
have you so soon forgotten Chernobyl.
It simply saves its polution to be released in one catastrophy.
Then there is question of spent fuel which is just being hidden 
at the
present.
John and Muddy"        

For an interesting way on dealing with power plant spent fuel
material, read Larry Nivens book "All the Myriad Ways".  A more
realistic solution would be to put it all in glass bricks
(chemically stable), fence off a not to large section of desert
(5-8 square miles of Death Valley) and stack the bricks behind
barbed wire with signs every 50 feet "You will die if you pass
this fence".  Save the material until it cools off or we find a
better use for it (recycling, yes?)  Idiots who tresspass will
clean themselves from the gene pool.  Second option, drop the
bricks into geological subduction zones (deep ocean trenches
mostly) for the ultimate in recycling.  Problem is that
uranium/plutonium for fission reactors is also a finite resource
that will one day be used up like coal/oil.  Need to develop
renewable resources such as fusion (engineering problems, Marin
get on it!.  

=====
Robert D. Ries
SSgt, USAF
Burwell, England
"With friends like these..."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:59:11 -0400
From: William L Leacock <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: LR dating

I have followed the dating discussion without even bothering to look at
the pictures. To attempt to date a more than thirty year old Land Rover -
possibly 40 years old, by lamps, steps, door locks etc is ridiculous.
Particulalry in an area of the world that spares are hard to come by. 
All the items mentioned can easliy be moved from vehicle to vehicle.
  My 1959 88 has number plate lamp(chromed) , a 1964 engine, 1998
pistons, valves etc,  an alternator circa 1980, 1998 galvanized steel
plates welded to the chassis (could have been rolled in 1997!) , a 1968
truck cab, no steps, 1998 headlamps and ex miltary side lamps, no sills,
an anti burst door lock on the drivers side, How would you date it? 

Regards from Western New York State

  Bill Leacock.
PS is it still a Land Rover?

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

Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:43:53 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: LR dating

In a message dated 4/7/2001 5:33:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<< My 1959 88 has number plate lamp(chromed) , a 1964 engine, 1998
 pistons, valves etc,  an alternator circa 1980, 1998 galvanized steel
 plates welded to the chassis (could have been rolled in 1997!) , a 1968
 truck cab, no steps, 1998 headlamps and ex miltary side lamps, no sills,
 an anti burst door lock on the drivers side, How would you date it? 

I'd tell it I have a heated garage with fresh 90 wt and would it want to come 
over and see my etchings of the service manual.

Nate

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

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:22:50 -0400
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Exhaust manifold differences SIIa/SIII?

I'm replacing the cracked manifold on my IIa (okay, cracked is an 
understatement - the #4 runner fell off) and the replacement one I have is 
off an SIII. There's quite a difference - the original has a (jammed) 
butterfly valve in the exhaust manifold that's apparantly heat activated, 
while this bit is absent on the replacement. What exactly is this for 
(heating the carb?), should I be concerned for my Solex and why the change?

For those of you interested in the progress, my site is being updated every 
few days: http://keith.miata.net/landy . I think it's still a Land Rover :)

Keith Tanner
- ------------
Keith's page de home:
    http://keith.miata.net
- ------------

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

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:21:59 -0400
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Clutch Bleeding mystery resolved!

It's good to live in Ottawa. Ted Rose stopped by today to help troubleshoot 
my recalcitrant clutch system. After some goofing around with my vacuum 
pump, we pulled apart the clutch master cylinder while it was still 
installed in the truck. It turns out that I had neglected to bend the 
locking tab for the spring retainer down enough during my rebuild and the 
piston was roaming free in the bore. About three pumps later and voila!  A 
hard pedal. Ted vanished off again after spending an hour in the driveway, 
spreading Land Rover cheer as he went.

So - the moral of the story: even if you think the spring is always 
compressed and doesn't really need that locking tab, it isn't and it does :)

Things still aren't adjusted quite right, as the clutch seems to drag just 
enough to prevent me from selecting a gear when the truck is stopped - but 
that's something I can deal with by getting the right adjustment on the 
pushrod, I hope. It will sit happily in the driveway with the clutch in and 
a gear selected so it's obviously a very small amount of drag. Unless 
there's some "feature" I don't know about - it's a IIa with the later 
hydrostatic clutch.

Thank you Ted!

Keith Tanner
- ------------
Keith's page de home:
    http://keith.miata.net
- ------------

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #319
**********************************************