Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #326

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:17:51 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Tuesday, April 10 2001 Volume 01 : Number 326

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:04:53 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: The Boss...

Bravo - you've found an in to the senior ranks...8*)

Whatever you do make sure he gets it from a dealership and gets it serviced
there otherwise you'll own him for the rest of your life...8*). Of course,
if that meant he hired you as his private mechanic for 100K+ a year that
has possibilities too...

                         ajr

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:14:23 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: anti-luce

> Or you can just use the old dust boots off your discarded wheel
> cylinders...which also make GREAT anti-rattle bumbers when installed on
the
> anti-luce latches of your tailgate

Just wondering...what rattling?  Mine latch up tighter-n-snot.  I have to
push forward against the tailgate to lock and unlock as a matterofact.  My
tailgate has rubber bumpers where it goes against the tub that supply this
pressure.  Where these not stock?  Damn, guess I have a NLR now also ;-)
Pete

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:22:29 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Re: Series Fuel tanks

> Yes Mark, you will need to remove the
> breakable/bendable/costly-to-replace components from the tank prior to
> shaking a heavy chain about in it.  Chain works best.  Expect a
> thorough workout of your upper body.

I was thinking of attaching my empty fuel (with a bit of gravel) to my
problem child - a 2 year old Spring Spaniel named Oliver.  I figure a few
hours with him running about the dog park dragging my series fuel tank
ought'a take care of any internal build up.  With his love for water I am
sure that he will kindly rinse the thing out in the slough too.  No, he
won't sink - trust me - you have to know this dog to understand!

This should accomplish two things:
1) bang the tank around enough to knock any rust or gunk off of the inside.
2) exhaust my dog enough so that I can get at least one night's sleep -
pleeeeeeeeze

Rich (Sleepless in Seattle)
'60 SII 109 SW

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:26:58 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Fuel in the tank

Okay, hold your laughter - I know this is a dumb question but since I have
never had to do this before I thought I would ask first.

What's the best way to remove the remaining fuel in the tank?

Is it best to empty it using the drain in the bottom of the tank or siphon
it out from above?  Anyone have any experience with those "jiggle hoses"?

There are about 8 gallons in there approximately and I was thinking of
transfering it into some gerry cans.

And no wise-cracks ".....a lit match will quickly burn off any unwanted
fuel....."

Thanks,

Rich

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:35:16 -0400
From: "Tackley, John" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Birthday Wish (Non-Land Rover)

Rick mentioned:

"Given that there are several hundred it not thousands of the birds still 
working daily worldwide I don't think you have to worry too much."

...and most of them have to be in the Carribean...in February, when I flew
in San Juan, PR, I counted at least a dozen DC-3s on the tarmac, with 2 or 3
more either in TO or Landing.  They are constantly overhead @ the SJ
airport.  It seems every little island is serviced by DC-3s and they are the
mainstay of every little Carribiean airline's fleet.  
Has to be due to ease of maintenance and ease of piloting...not to mention
that they are overbuilt like a LR.

JT/ric

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:36:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Paint codes (no lr content)

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Paul Oxley wrote:

:Hi All,
:
:Sorry for the non-lr stuff, but my neighbour (who owns two Landies, so
:maybe that'll suffice) has some old Duco paint codes, and is looking for
:a modern alternative. 

The obvious method is to find a decent paint shop, and ask them.
I've had good luck with that.  The various paint companies publish a
reference that cross-lists the comptetion's codes to their own.  I
presume Duco is a defunct brand? -- if that's the case, you'll need to
find a shop that's been around for a while, as they may still have a
list old enough. 

Oh.  A couple minutes of searching turns up that DUCO is a DuPont lacquer
process, developed in the mid-twenties.  I'd think any DuPont dealer could
get the info, though they might have to ask DuPont.  A bit more searching
turns out that might not be true.  DUCO is nitro-cellulose lacquer, and not
all of DuPont's nitro-cullulose colors have matching acrylic lacquer colors.
If your neighbor's colors date from the 60's or later, he should be okay.
If they're for a popular color earlier than that, they should be okay.   If
they've got something that's the original color, that hasn't faded horribly
or yellowed, it can be matched.  PPG (Ditzler) can provide an offset color
code in acrylic for all of their nitro-cellulose lacquers, but some of them
are not really a good match.  

David
- -- 
[email-masked]
Bipedalism is only a fad.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:45:43 -0700
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Fuel in the tank

Just undo the big slotted bolts under the tanks and let it pour out.  The best
tool for this is the outside curve of a spanner/wrench. This is of course
assuming that you are talking about a Series Landrover fuel tank.
Then...........use the match to get the dregs!!

DISCLAIMER.  Any and all explosions caused and deformation of Land Rovers or
their accessories, fuel tanks, seats or owners as a direct result of the use
of a match to "purge" the system has nothing to do with me.etc etc etc etc.

Rich Williams II wrote:

> Okay, hold your laughter - I know this is a dumb question but since I have
> never had to do this before I thought I would ask first.
>
> What's the best way to remove the remaining fuel in the tank?
>
> Is it best to empty it using the drain in the bottom of the tank or siphon
> it out from above?  Anyone have any experience with those "jiggle hoses"?
>
> There are about 8 gallons in there approximately and I was thinking of
> transfering it into some gerry cans.
>
> And no wise-cracks ".....a lit match will quickly burn off any unwanted
> fuel....."
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rich

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:40:00 -0700
From: SJH <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: RE: Re: Series Fuel tanks

Rich Williams wrote:

	2) exhaust my dog enough so that I can get at least one night's sleep -
pleeeeeeeeze

Rich (Sleepless in Seattle)
'60 SII 109

And Marin thought kids were bad!  Each of our three kids slept through   
the night by age two!

Why not simply take the tank to a rad. shop and have it boiled?

Simon

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:50:47 
From: "Chris Oles" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: cubs game **no LR content...again**

John & Muddy:  The game was between 2 teams in Major League Baseball.  
Nearly as exciting as watching paint dry and grass grow but a great time if 
one is in to drinking beer, socializing with friends and enjoying the 
"friendly confines" of Wrigley Field.

Ivan/John:  I do live in Chicago, about 6 blocks south of Wrigley in a very 
eclectic neighborhood called Lakeview.  I'm sure the Cubs were supposed to 
lose but they actually pulled it out 2-1.  I'm still amazed that all of 
these years of losing seasons and they still sell-out nearly every game.

Still no leads on the tape...

Chris
70 SIIa 88

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:18:25 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Anyone tape the Cubs/Expos game last Thursday?  ***no LR
content***

Hi All--

John Cranfield wrote:
>
>What sort of a game was that then?
>John and Muddy
>
>Chris Oles wrote:
> >
> > Played hookie from work last Thursday and went to the game.

Hmmm, I'm not sure either, but whatever kind it was I think the Cubs
were supposed to lose.

<a-dying-cub-fan's-last-request>-ly y'rs,
Ivan;-)

PS:  Hey, Chris, you live in Chicago????
- - ----------------------------------------------
Ivan Van Laningham
Symantec
http://www.pauahtun.org
http://www.foretec.com/python/workshops/1998-11/proceedings.html
Army Signal Corps:  Cu Chi, Class of '70
Author:  Teach Yourself Python in 24 Hours

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:59:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Fuel in the tank   

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Rich Williams II wrote:

:Okay, hold your laughter - I know this is a dumb question but since I have
:never had to do this before I thought I would ask first.
:
:What's the best way to remove the remaining fuel in the tank?
:
:Is it best to empty it using the drain in the bottom of the tank or siphon
:it out from above?  Anyone have any experience with those "jiggle hoses"?

I'd siphon what I could (not by mouth, oh no.  I'd never do that!), and then
drain the rest by yanking the drain plug.  

- -- 
[email-masked]
Bipedalism is only a fad.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:09:20 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Re: Series Fuel tanks

> Why not simply take the tank to a rad. shop and have it boiled?

fine - but what about my dog?

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:14:18 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: DC 3's

Over built is an understatement in relation to the DC3.  One got flew into a 
thunderstorm (before radar) and hit a down draft so severe it literally 
ripped some of the seats out of the floor.  Plane went on to a normal 
landing and was back in service after a little 'maintenance'.

Some people are rebuilding the 3 with turbine engines.  Haven't seen a whole 
much of them.  Would expect them to soldier on into the next century with 
such a modification.  They were such a quantum leap in aircraft technology 
that its hard to duplicate, even today.  Expect availability at a low price, 
however, is a big factor in keeping them in the air.

Had the experience of flying in a DC3 that had been all gussied up to look 
like a modern commercial plane.  It was used for regularly scheduled flights 
from Miami to Key West back in the 70's.  Definitely faster and quieter than 
a Ford Tri Motor.

The float plane DC3 must have some humongous floats.  DC3s weigh a bit more 
than a Cessna 180.

Talking about flying in archaeological artifacts.  Used to fly as a 
passenger in a C54 from Oahu to Kauai back in the early '70s.  Was poking 
around in the airplane and found a plaque that the airplane had been used in 
the Berlin airlift.  Further investigation found that the airplane was built 
before I was borne in '44.  Assume that plane has long since gone to the 
bone yard.  That squadron also had a C-47 that I flew in once.  Was afraid 
to ask how old that one was.

>From: "Tackley, John" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: LRO: Birthday Wish (Non-Land Rover)
>Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:35:16 -0400
>
>Rick mentioned:
>
>"Given that there are several hundred it not thousands of the birds still
>working daily worldwide I don't think you have to worry too much."
>
>...and most of them have to be in the Carribean...in February, when I flew
>in San Juan, PR, I counted at least a dozen DC-3s on the tarmac, with 2 or 
>3
>more either in TO or Landing.  They are constantly overhead @ the SJ
>airport.  It seems every little island is serviced by DC-3s and they are 
>the
>mainstay of every little Carribiean airline's fleet.
>Has to be due to ease of maintenance and ease of piloting...not to mention
>that they are overbuilt like a LR.
>
>JT/ric

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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:38:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Re: Series Fuel tanks

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Rich Williams II wrote:

:> Why not simply take the tank to a rad. shop and have it boiled?
:
:fine - but what about my dog?

Dog is good boiled, too.
- -- 
[email-masked]
Bipedalism is only a fad.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:47:59 -0600
From: "Coates, Clinton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Pertronix

Hi Alan,

OK, now I am wishing that I had put the pertronix in my rig way back when
instead of the Crane.  Sigh.  So, how long does it take to install. Two
minutes?  Five?

<snip...)...That's one of the
>biggest things I like on the Pertronix vs. the Crane.

Not to mention that little matter of cost...

Clinton

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:56:56 -0600
From: "Coates, Clinton" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Galvanizing Bulkheads and Shipfitters...

Hi John, don't even get me started on galvanizing!  My time budget cannot
afford that right now!

I know this question has been flogged to death, but how does one get a
bulkhead galvanized without having it distort?  I vaguely remeber someone
saying to search for an outfit that would pre heat/soak the item before
dipping?  Or do you just wrench it into place and bolt 'er in.

And, I know that paint thread was just up and I ignored it completely.  I
gathered the upshot was that you have to remove the outer protective layer
of whatever before painting.

I had another look last night, and it seems that I can probably get away
with keeping the bulk of the wiring in place, just bundle it out of the way,
detach the brakes and clutch, unbolt the firewall and deal with the rust and
put it back in place.  I have plans, however, to ensure minimize future
water pooling between the top of the footwell/splash guard, and to keep
gravel from spitting up and removing the paint on the lower footwell.

And, was looking at chainsaw bar oil and amongst its ingredients are "tack
additive" and "anti corrosion additive" so I think that may be my cheap
bugger solution for spraying into the box sections afterwards.

As far as spraying goes, has anyone had success using a garden sprayer, or
is it just better to bite the bullet and get a compressed air wand style?
Eastwood has those for about 35 bucks last time I looked....

>check out:
>http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=195874&a=12427531&p=45615497

I see you ported your Kodiak heater hole...

Clinton

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:05:31 -0700
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Marin Faure

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:14:52 -0500
From: "cde3" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Marin Faure

>If you are bored (as I am) or offended by Marin Faure's e-mails, do what I
do.  Have all of them directly deposited into their own folder which goes
directly into the recycle bin.

Sounds like a good solution.  I'm sorry if I've offended anyone on the 
list as that wasn't my intention.  But the subject of what's a Land Rover 
and what isn't escalated to the point where it became more an exercise 
in semantics than a useful discussion, and I'm certainly largely to blame 
for that.  The stuff on youth was an entertaining (but not to everyone, 
I guess) sideline, but that, too, got out of hand, for which I, again, 
was largely responsible. So I'm sorry for getting people wrapped around 
the axle on what didn't seem to me to be very big deals.

When I started participating in this list a few years ago, it seemed to 
be largely made up of people who were interested in keeping their Series 
Land Rovers running more or less in original form.  As this is what I am 
interested in, too, and is what I've been doing for almost three decades 
now, I found the list a useful exchange of information.  The list has changed 
dramatically over the last year or so, to the point where it now seems to be made up 
mostly of people who are interested in modifying their Land Rovers to suit their 
purposes.  That's okay, of course.  But with a dwindling interest in the marque 
as built, I suppose it's natural for someone who is interested in the vehicles as 
they were designed to express some frustration.  Judging by the reaction of the 
"new" list membership, I guess I went too far in expressing that frustration.  So 
I'm sorry for upsetting so many of you.

Those of us in the US who bought Land Rovers back in the "old days" of the 
'60s and '70s got used to being almost totally self-reliant outside of finding a 
parts source.  There was no internet, no mailing list, and pretty much no 
communication between people who had Land Rovers unless you happened 
to live near someone who had one.  For help, you called the few people who 
were selling parts back then or a Land Rover representative.  Of course the 
Land Rover reps were gone after 1974.  Those of us who ran Land Rovers 
back then (and there were a fair amount of folks who did; I'm certainly not some 
sort of rare breed in that respect) learned a lot about the vehicles in the course of 
keeping them going day after day.  That's useful information to someone with a 
stock Land Rover, but that knowledge is of dwindling value today, at least in the 
US.

I understand the Toyota FJ40 folks are undergoing the same shift, from 
driving and maintaining the vehicles as built to heavily modifying them to 
suit the owners' needs or desires.  I'm sorry to see the same thing happening 
to Land Rovers, but I guess it's inevitable as parts become harder to get and 
people try to make a forty-year old design cope with today's traffic conditions.  
I can certainly understand the frustration of trying to drive a stock Land Rover 
in traffic today, as I am in that boat myself.

I will continue to maintain my Series as-built, and if I see a question on the list 
that I think I can help answer, I'll do so.  I'm not reversing my opinion on what's 
a Land Rover and what's a hybrid, but it's certainly not productive to argue a 
point that has no meaning or importance anymore for most Land Rover owners.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:10:28 -0400
From: "Tackley, John" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: RE: DC 3's

Peter said:

"Talking about flying in archaeological artifacts.  Used to fly as a 
passenger in a C54 from Oahu to Kauai back in the early '70s.  Was poking 
around in the airplane and found a plaque that the airplane had been used in

the Berlin airlift.  Further investigation found that the airplane was built

before I was borne in '44.  Assume that plane has long since gone to the 
bone yard.  That squadron also had a C-47 that I flew in once.  Was afraid 
to ask how old that one was."

OK, here's my only flying 'story'...many many years ago, in a past life
before reincarnation into the present one...sorry...I worked in Long
Beach...one of my accounts was the LA Cty Sherriff's Office on Catalina
Island...you remember the song..."26 miles across the sea"yadayada...so, OK,
when I had to visit to repair this or that machine, I would purchase a
ticket on the only commercial airline servicing the village of Avalon (the
only settlement on the island)which was called...damn, what was it
called....oh yeah....Catalina Airlines.  Took off from Long Beach
Municipal...I thought the plane was old and it had those big skis on
them...what do you cal them Marin?...oh yeah...floats.  Well the seats were
quaint, made of some natural material after all...rattan...some dried
weed?...all 6 or 8 of 'em...anyway, they were light in weight...the pilot
flung back the cloth curtain to the cockpit and asked if we were all
ready..."yup"...we taxi out and take off...then he reaches down beside his
seat and grabs what looked like a short LR handcrank...WTF???...he sticks it
into a hole in the floor and nonchalantly cranked up the landing
gear!!!...OK, so now I had to ask him..."What is this plane???"...I
shouted...he shouts back...

"1937 Grumman Seaplane...tough as nails," he says...

we fly awhile, he circles the island...makes his approach...hits the
water...which completly covers my window...I remember thinking..."This can't
be good..."...but we son bob to the surface, the pilot uses that crank again
to drop the wheels and he taxis up a concrete ramp next to a little
shack..."We're here, folks"...and that's my story...it was so cool...but the
coolest was when they had an 'emergency' call/repair...then they would send
the Sherriff's Bell Helo to pick me up...yeah that was the life!

JT/ric

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:16:53 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Pertronix

> OK, now I am wishing that I had put the pertronix in my rig way back when
> instead of the Crane.  Sigh.  So, how long does it take to install. Two
> minutes?  Five?

Pertronix - allow about 5 minutes - that should leave you enough time to
look for the screwdriver that you just had in your hand but now can't find
because you forgot that it's in your back pocket.  Speaking from personal
experience of course.

Rich

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:19:56 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Galvanizing Bulkheads and Shipfitters...

Now, if you want to do this to your hellish heathen UN Land Rover you might
want to try a trick I saw a guy do once.

The splash guards were rubber rather than metal and had been made from ine
belting. These were held in place with galvanized fasteners, with spacers
between the rubber and the footwell to allow for drainage.

Seemed a really nice idea to me - were I to do it however I'd likely use
truck anti-sail flap material (1/2" thick neoprene).

                         ajr

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:21:13 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Pertronix

OK, now I am wishing that I had put the pertronix in my rig way back when
instead of the Crane.  Sigh.  So, how long does it take to install. Two
minutes?  Five?

Twenty minutes if you're in a hurry - a half-hour if you let the engine
warm up well to time it properly...

                              ajr

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:24:09 -0400
From: "Tackley, John" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Galvanizing Bulkheads and Shipfitters...

...you say I have a Kodiak heater hole???....that's gotta be cool...how much
does that increase the value of my truck???

Clinton says:
"I know this question has been flogged to death, but how does one get a
bulkhead galvanized without having it distort?  I vaguely remeber someone
saying to search for an outfit that would pre heat/soak the item before
dipping?  Or do you just wrench it into place and bolt 'er in."

Distort from the heat???, hell that's nothing compared to when the idiot
crane operator drops in my bulkhead, then drops a 90' long high voltage
steel pole right on top of it...can you spell "dents and twists"...but to
answer your question, yes, a twisted bulkhead can be wrenched and bolted
into place.

"And, I know that paint thread was just up and I ignored it completely.  I
gathered the upshot was that you have to remove the outer protective layer
of whatever before painting."

Paint, why would I want to paint a perfectly good gavanized
bulkhead???...are your truck's cappings painted...aren't they galvanized?
How would anybody know I was so smart as to choose to galvanize my bulkhead,
if I were to paint over it???  Paint indeed!!!

"I had another look last night, and it seems that I can probably get away
with keeping the bulk of the wiring in place, just bundle it out of the way,
detach the brakes and clutch, unbolt the firewall and deal with the rust and
put it back in place.  I have plans, however, to ensure minimize future
water pooling between the top of the footwell/splash guard, and to keep
gravel from spitting up and removing the paint on the lower footwell.
And, was looking at chainsaw bar oil and amongst its ingredients are "tack
additive" and "anti corrosion additive" so I think that may be my cheap
bugger solution for spraying into the box sections afterwards."  

Industrious bugger, aren't you???...why not just cut some drain holes to let
the water out...and stay on the pavement!

;-)>

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:32:20 -0700
From: "Clayton Kirkwood" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Re: Marin Faure

Marin--

I definitely agree with you that the list has been listing one
direction. Personally, I like your memos well enough and I appreciate
your comments. I certainly don't read everything anymore, most of the
titles don't seem to be worthwhile. There are plenty of folks still
interested in maintaining not mangling. Hey, and piss on 'em if their
pants are a little tight.

C

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Faure, Marin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:06 PM
> To: 'Land Rover Mail Group'
> Subject: LRO: Re: Marin Faure
>
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:14:52 -0500
> From: "cde3" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: LRO: RE: Marin Faure
>
> >If you are bored (as I am) or offended by Marin Faure's
> e-mails, do what I
> do.  Have all of them directly deposited into their own
> folder which goes
> directly into the recycle bin.
>
> Sounds like a good solution.  I'm sorry if I've offended
> anyone on the
> list as that wasn't my intention.  But the subject of what's
> a Land Rover
> and what isn't escalated to the point where it became more an
> exercise
> in semantics than a useful discussion, and I'm certainly
> largely to blame
> for that.  The stuff on youth was an entertaining (but not to
> everyone,
> I guess) sideline, but that, too, got out of hand, for which
> I, again,
> was largely responsible. So I'm sorry for getting people
> wrapped around
> the axle on what didn't seem to me to be very big deals.
>
> When I started participating in this list a few years ago, it
> seemed to
> be largely made up of people who were interested in keeping
> their Series
> Land Rovers running more or less in original form.  As this
> is what I am
> interested in, too, and is what I've been doing for almost
> three decades
> now, I found the list a useful exchange of information.  The
> list has changed
> dramatically over the last year or so, to the point where it
> now seems to be made up
> mostly of people who are interested in modifying their Land
> Rovers to suit their
> purposes.  That's okay, of course.  But with a dwindling
> interest in the marque
> as built, I suppose it's natural for someone who is
> interested in the vehicles as
> they were designed to express some frustration.  Judging by
> the reaction of the
> "new" list membership, I guess I went too far in expressing
> that frustration.  So
> I'm sorry for upsetting so many of you.
>
> Those of us in the US who bought Land Rovers back in the "old
> days" of the
> '60s and '70s got used to being almost totally self-reliant
> outside of finding a
> parts source.  There was no internet, no mailing list, and
> pretty much no
> communication between people who had Land Rovers unless you happened
> to live near someone who had one.  For help, you called the
> few people who
> were selling parts back then or a Land Rover representative.
> Of course the
> Land Rover reps were gone after 1974.  Those of us who ran
> Land Rovers
> back then (and there were a fair amount of folks who did; I'm
> certainly not some
> sort of rare breed in that respect) learned a lot about the
> vehicles in the course of
> keeping them going day after day.  That's useful information
> to someone with a
> stock Land Rover, but that knowledge is of dwindling value
> today, at least in the
> US.
>
> I understand the Toyota FJ40 folks are undergoing the same
> shift, from
> driving and maintaining the vehicles as built to heavily
> modifying them to
> suit the owners' needs or desires.  I'm sorry to see the same
> thing happening
> to Land Rovers, but I guess it's inevitable as parts become
> harder to get and
> people try to make a forty-year old design cope with today's
> traffic conditions.
> I can certainly understand the frustration of trying to drive
> a stock Land Rover
> in traffic today, as I am in that boat myself.
>
> I will continue to maintain my Series as-built, and if I see
> a question on the list
> that I think I can help answer, I'll do so.  I'm not
> reversing my opinion on what's
> a Land Rover and what's a hybrid, but it's certainly not
> productive to argue a
> point that has no meaning or importance anymore for most Land
> Rover owners.
> ___________________________
> C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>   Seattle
>
>

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:40:50 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Re: Series Fuel tanks

>> not simply take the tank to a rad. shop and have it boiled?
>
> fine - but what about my dog?
>
Rich, I think he meant that getting the dog boiled will cure any barking
problems

Yes I am kidding, sheesh you PETA folks should change yer name to PITA.
Pete'bringing all the Rovers to Seattle'

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:52:57 -0700
From: "Hoult, Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Re: Marin Faure

Group hug time.

Bryan
62 88
71 109

- -----Original Message-----
From: Faure, Marin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:06 PM
To: 'Land Rover Mail Group'
Subject: LRO: Re: Marin Faure

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:14:52 -0500
From: "cde3" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Marin Faure

>If you are bored (as I am) or offended by Marin Faure's e-mails, do what I
do.  Have all of them directly deposited into their own folder which goes
directly into the recycle bin.

Sounds like a good solution.  I'm sorry if I've offended anyone on the 
list as that wasn't my intention.  But the subject of what's a Land Rover 
and what isn't escalated to the point where it became more an exercise 
in semantics than a useful discussion, and I'm certainly largely to blame 
for that.  The stuff on youth was an entertaining (but not to everyone, 
I guess) sideline, but that, too, got out of hand, for which I, again, 
was largely responsible. So I'm sorry for getting people wrapped around 
the axle on what didn't seem to me to be very big deals.

When I started participating in this list a few years ago, it seemed to 
be largely made up of people who were interested in keeping their Series 
Land Rovers running more or less in original form.  As this is what I am 
interested in, too, and is what I've been doing for almost three decades 
now, I found the list a useful exchange of information.  The list has
changed 
dramatically over the last year or so, to the point where it now seems to be
made up 
mostly of people who are interested in modifying their Land Rovers to suit
their 
purposes.  That's okay, of course.  But with a dwindling interest in the
marque 
as built, I suppose it's natural for someone who is interested in the
vehicles as 
they were designed to express some frustration.  Judging by the reaction of
the 
"new" list membership, I guess I went too far in expressing that
frustration.  So 
I'm sorry for upsetting so many of you.

Those of us in the US who bought Land Rovers back in the "old days" of the 
'60s and '70s got used to being almost totally self-reliant outside of
finding a 
parts source.  There was no internet, no mailing list, and pretty much no 
communication between people who had Land Rovers unless you happened 
to live near someone who had one.  For help, you called the few people who 
were selling parts back then or a Land Rover representative.  Of course the 
Land Rover reps were gone after 1974.  Those of us who ran Land Rovers 
back then (and there were a fair amount of folks who did; I'm certainly not
some 
sort of rare breed in that respect) learned a lot about the vehicles in the
course of 
keeping them going day after day.  That's useful information to someone with
a 
stock Land Rover, but that knowledge is of dwindling value today, at least
in the 
US.

I understand the Toyota FJ40 folks are undergoing the same shift, from 
driving and maintaining the vehicles as built to heavily modifying them to 
suit the owners' needs or desires.  I'm sorry to see the same thing
happening 
to Land Rovers, but I guess it's inevitable as parts become harder to get
and 
people try to make a forty-year old design cope with today's traffic
conditions.  
I can certainly understand the frustration of trying to drive a stock Land
Rover 
in traffic today, as I am in that boat myself.

I will continue to maintain my Series as-built, and if I see a question on
the list 
that I think I can help answer, I'll do so.  I'm not reversing my opinion on
what's 
a Land Rover and what's a hybrid, but it's certainly not productive to argue
a 
point that has no meaning or importance anymore for most Land Rover owners.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:53:55 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Galvanizing Bulkheads and Shipfitters...

> I know this question has been flogged to death, but how does one get a
> bulkhead galvanized without having it distort?  I vaguely remeber someone
> saying to search for an outfit that would pre heat/soak the item before
> dipping?  Or do you just wrench it into place and bolt 'er in.
>

Why not get a piece of thick walled U channel with the innder dimension
large enough to fit the bolkhead out rigger fittings.  If the U is not
available then make your own from 2"x2"x1/2" angle.  You could also use an I
beam I guess.  Drill holes in appropriate spot, drop in the bulkhead.  This
would prevent any distortion of the legs.
Plenty of people have done the galvy bulkhead without problem (Timm Cooper
and ...damm mind just went blank.) Someone just posted a link for the SU
sidedraft on a Series Rover.  They had a galvy BH also.
Pete

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:09:36 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: RE: Re: Marin Faure

> Bryan
> 62 88
> 71 109 <<<< covering both the front yard and the back yard   ;-P

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faure, Marin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:06 PM
> To: 'Land Rover Mail Group'
> Subject: LRO: Re: Marin Faure
>
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:14:52 -0500
> From: "cde3" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: LRO: RE: Marin Faure
>
> >If you are bored (as I am) or offended by Marin Faure's e-mails, do what
I
> do.  Have all of them directly deposited into their own folder which goes
> directly into the recycle bin.
>
> Sounds like a good solution.  I'm sorry if I've offended anyone on the
> list as that wasn't my intention.  But the subject of what's a Land Rover
> and what isn't escalated to the point where it became more an exercise
> in semantics than a useful discussion, and I'm certainly largely to blame
> for that.  The stuff on youth was an entertaining (but not to everyone,
> I guess) sideline, but that, too, got out of hand, for which I, again,
> was largely responsible. So I'm sorry for getting people wrapped around
> the axle on what didn't seem to me to be very big deals.
>
> When I started participating in this list a few years ago, it seemed to
> be largely made up of people who were interested in keeping their Series
> Land Rovers running more or less in original form.  As this is what I am
> interested in, too, and is what I've been doing for almost three decades
> now, I found the list a useful exchange of information.  The list has
> changed
> dramatically over the last year or so, to the point where it now seems to
be
> made up
> mostly of people who are interested in modifying their Land Rovers to suit
> their
> purposes.  That's okay, of course.  But with a dwindling interest in the
> marque
> as built, I suppose it's natural for someone who is interested in the
> vehicles as
> they were designed to express some frustration.  Judging by the reaction
of
> the
> "new" list membership, I guess I went too far in expressing that
> frustration.  So
> I'm sorry for upsetting so many of you.
>
> Those of us in the US who bought Land Rovers back in the "old days" of the
> '60s and '70s got used to being almost totally self-reliant outside of
> finding a
> parts source.  There was no internet, no mailing list, and pretty much no
> communication between people who had Land Rovers unless you happened
> to live near someone who had one.  For help, you called the few people who
> were selling parts back then or a Land Rover representative.  Of course
the
> Land Rover reps were gone after 1974.  Those of us who ran Land Rovers
> back then (and there were a fair amount of folks who did; I'm certainly
not
> some
> sort of rare breed in that respect) learned a lot about the vehicles in
the
> course of
> keeping them going day after day.  That's useful information to someone
with
> a
> stock Land Rover, but that knowledge is of dwindling value today, at least
> in the
> US.
>
> I understand the Toyota FJ40 folks are undergoing the same shift, from
> driving and maintaining the vehicles as built to heavily modifying them to
> suit the owners' needs or desires.  I'm sorry to see the same thing
> happening
> to Land Rovers, but I guess it's inevitable as parts become harder to get
> and
> people try to make a forty-year old design cope with today's traffic
> conditions.
> I can certainly understand the frustration of trying to drive a stock Land
> Rover
> in traffic today, as I am in that boat myself.
>
> I will continue to maintain my Series as-built, and if I see a question on
> the list
> that I think I can help answer, I'll do so.  I'm not reversing my opinion
on
> what's
> a Land Rover and what's a hybrid, but it's certainly not productive to
argue
> a
> point that has no meaning or importance anymore for most Land Rover
owners.
> ___________________________
> C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>   Seattle
>

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:17:07 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Re: Series Fuel tanks

Hi All--

Hope Peter wrote:
> 
> Yes I am kidding, sheesh you PETA folks should change yer name to PITA.
> Pete'bringing all the Rovers to Seattle'

As a card-carrying member of PETA, I can respond to this patently
inflammatory missive;-)

A while back when PETA wanted to register the domain www.peta.com and
set up their website, they found that the domain was unavailable. 
Visitors to www.peta.com found themselves perusing a web page entitled,
"People Eating Tasty Animals."

<pass-the-tofu-pups-please>-ly y'rs,
Ivan;-)
- ----------------------------------------------
Ivan Van Laningham
Symantec
http://www.pauahtun.org/
http://www.foretec.com/python/workshops/1998-11/proceedings.html
Army Signal Corps:  Cu Chi, Class of '70
Author:  Teach Yourself Python in 24 Hours

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #326
**********************************************