Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #378

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:12:52 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Wednesday, May 16 2001 Volume 01 : Number 378

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:11:45 -0600
From: "Ross Maylor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Zenith fix

Thanks guys for the advice on the Zenith. 

Ross Maylor

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:12:50 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Painting question

I'm about to start the prep work for painting a 109 and need some info.  One 
of the new replacement body panels came with a translucent yellow coating on 
it.  Should this be removed first (if so, what is recommended), or is it one 
of the aluminum prep coatings I've read about at the paint supply place?

BTW, the painting articles by Alan Richer and David Walker have been a big 
help on setting up the project, thanks.

Bob Sharp
Tucson, AZ
The slumbering herd on the Rover Ranch:
52 Series I 80"
53 Series I 80"
60 Series II 88"
63 Series IIa 88"
71 Series IIa 109"
96 Discovery Series I 

"Why is it that every project you complete on a Land Rover results in 
knowledge and skills you hope you never need to use again?"

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:01:01 +0100
From: "Richard Valler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: differential play.

My thoughts exactly!!
All Landrovers do it, Just wish other people would realise that when your 
sitting in traffic on a slope. Mind you they learn to keep there distance 
after the first time!!

Richard, 1963 Series IIA

>From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: LRO:  differential play.
>Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:51:53 -0300
>
>What's to fix?
>John and Muddy
>
>Hope Peter wrote:
> >
> > I engage the parking brake and my Rover rolls a couple of inches.  You 
>guys
> > told me that this was play in the rear differential.  I have the same 
>amount
> > of play in the front end also.
> > So is this repairable?  What is the most likely casue?
> > Pinion and ring wear?
> > Pinion bearings?
> > Mahalo
> > Pete

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:19:22 -0700
From: George Simmons <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Helicopter controls

No Land Rover content.
As a former helicopter pilot who went through training in the
early 60's I remember being told that the reason the
pilot-in-command(PIC) sat in the right seat rather than the left
was due to the early design of the controls. A helicopter has
basically 2 control sticks one in the right hand-the cyclic-and
one in the left-the collective. The cyclic moves you frontwards
and backwards and side to side.  the collective(called so because
it controls the collective pitch on the main rotor blades)
governs the up and down motion. Granted this is very simplified
because helicopter control is seldom a single motion of one
control but rather a combination of many.  On the end of the
collective where the pilot gripped the stick was a twistgrip
throttle that controlled the engine RPM.  In the reciprocating
engine powered helicopters there was a need to manually control
the engine RPM as power was needed.  Turbine powered helicopters
do this automatically, but the recips required the pilot to
maintain a certain RPM to keep the rotor turning to fly.  This
meant that as power requirements changed the throttle had to be
twisted. As the collective was raised to get more lift and/or
airspeed the throttle had to be increased to keep the engine RPM
in the green(safe RPM range).  The early helicopters -before my
time- had only one collective and that was located in the center
of the cockpit with the two pilots on either side. This meant
that the person in the left seat had to fly with the wrong hands
on the controls, if you will, and control was difficult at best. 
Also for training purposes the student sat in the right seat and
the instructor had to fly "backwards" with hands on the wrong
controls.

George in Auburn

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:20:28 -0800
From: "Bruce D. Fowler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: whats a broken koenig worth

- -----Original Message-----
From: Hope Peter

:Simon,
:drive shaft is made up from a bunch of common spicer parts and a 1" shaft.
:The drive flange can be fabricated.  Bruce Fowler hooked me up with a
:machinest to make mine, great product and price.  As to the damage, I don't
:know.  Someone had posted the name of a company in GA that had access to
:parts, but when I contacted them, they said they couldn't help me (was
:looking for bearings and seals)

Maybe the part numbers listed below will help you.

# 40 chain - hole to hole 33.5 inches.

Speedi sleeve - CRI 99087

Input shaft bearings x 2: (NICE) 1640 DCTN

Shift fork oil seal CR (Chicago Rawhide) # 6315

Input shaft oil seal CR (Chicago Rawhide) # 8702

:I love my winch, but I have a noticable drag on the engine when the drive
:shaft is installed.

Should be -0- drag on the engine......
Bet you have a knackered input bearing.

Bruce F.
PS. Don't use a steel keyway between the propshaft and input shaft.

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:13:01 -0400
From: William L Leacock <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Tubes

Marin writes : what new tires to put on my SIII, putting a non-radial
("normal") tube into
a radial tire will potentially cause BIG problems.  Mainly, the "normal"
tube will eventually unseat the radial tire from the rim, and Bad Things
will then happen to you as you motor down the freeway.  

Tubes for radial tyres  are made from different, more flexible  materials
than the cross ply tyre tubes. If you use radial tyres, buy Michelin
tubes, they are designed for radial tyres.
 The problem with using cross ply tubes in a radial tyre occurs  because
the side walls in a radial flex more than a cross ply, the friction
between the side walls and the the stiff cross ply tube wears away the
cross ply tube leading to premature failure, thus creating a hole through
which the air escapes, permitting the tyre to unseat in some
circumstances
 Using radial tubes in cross ply tyres is not a problem.

Regards from Western New York State

  Bill Leacock.

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:02:06 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO:  differential play.

There can also be an appreciable ammount of play if the splines on
the half shafts and/or drive flanges are worn.

Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus wrote:
> 
> You and everybody else.....<grin>
> 
> Don't worry about it. You want clunks drive a Range Rover.....the Series
> noise will pale in comparison.
> 
> Seriously, the play that is in there is simply the clearances in the
> differentials - this has to be there to prevent the tooth pressures from
> being a problem.
> 
> Don't worry about it.
> 
>                     ajr

- -- 
Jim Hall
1966 88" Elephant Chaser
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo
"You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling 
with Jim." Mitch Stockdale

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:18:56 -0700
From: Jeremy Bartlett <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: RE: Re: 2 Land Rover related questions

>In the UK, I believe, the driver sits on the LEFT side of the cab, and
oncoming trains
>pass each other on the RIGHT.

Minor trivia:  Steam driver's position in the UK could vary from company
to company and even at times within company.  Can't remember off hand
what the details are though.

Jeremy

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:57:46 -0700
From: "Rich & Lori Williams" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: 109 Chassis

Can someone tell me if there is any difference between the chassis of a 109
station wagon and that of a 109 pick-up?

Thanks,

Rich

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:43:18 -0600
From: "William J. Rice" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: double take

Ha!  I got this from my old MB list and at first thought it was an lro. 
I was thinking, "who is this clown?" til I read the vehicle type.

Help!
Each time it rains water seeps thru the windshield and a small puddle
collects at theinside of the windshield so much so the wood veneer is
flaking off. Anyone will a  similar problem and a solution perhaps?
Thanks
Francis
72 280SE 4.5

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:05:18 -0600
From: "William J. Rice" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 109 Chassis

There are definitely diffo's but I'm kind of hazy on them myself.  I do
know that the rear tank mount for an SW is missing on the 109 reg.
chassis and that the 109SW chassis is missing the forward tank mounting
stuff.

Beyond that, it may just be a matter of repositioning the forward several
tub supports on the reg. to make them SW floor supports, and welding new
tabs to the forward rear spring out riggers to mount the front of the SW
tub to.

bill

On Tue, 15 May 2001 19:57:46 -0700 "Rich & Lori Williams"
<[email-masked]> writes:
> Can someone tell me if there is any difference between the chassis of 
> a 109
> station wagon and that of a 109 pick-up?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rich
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 23:46:09 -0400
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: A clutch replacement tip

Thanks for the idea of the guide pins for the tranny. They made my life a 
lot easier.

After struggling with the big, heavy, asymmetrical transmission once 
(that's gotta be more than 100 lbs - it's hard to bench press), we came up 
with an easier way. Using 1" webbing - usually used to tie stuff on the 
roof of the car and with a very high strength - I made a couple of slings 
for the transmission by looping them around the frame and under the tranny 
both at the bellhousing and at the back. This made sure that the tranny 
simply slid straight back and was held level. Getting it back on the guide 
pins was a doddle.

The arms on the pressure plate were a bit messed up. Now it's obvious why 
it didn't release fully...

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:50:42 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Distributors pollution vs. non-pollution control

I don't think they put on a different distributor until after 1970, at 
least.  My '70 88 had the old style distributor.  It only had 45,000 miles 
on it when I bought it, so doubt the distributor had been changed.  It also 
had no other pollution devices other than a PCV valve.  Seem to remember 
looking at another low mileage '70 that had the same set up as mine.  
Someone may have snuck in there and changed something, but doubt it.  1968 
was a significant year for passenger auto's but seem to remember that 
pollution devices weren't mandated on trucks until later.  Possibly the 
introduction of the series III in '72.  Of course, California may have had 
different, more stringent pollution standards earlier, so all bets are off 
for trucks originally imported into the people's republic.

Aloha
Peter

>From: "Richard L. Ziegler" <[email-masked]>
>Hope Peter notes that he knows of some late IIa and III L/Rs that do not
>have retard type distributors on them.  Yup!  Even my '74 series III has 
>the
>advance type distributor on it.  Of course it was not imported that way 
>(and
>neither were the ones he mentions) as I wound up replacing the original
>retard type distributor with the advance type for the previous owner of 
>what
>is now my '74 L/R.  You have to remember that the first things that
>deteriorated on the L/Rs were the pollution control bits and pieces and
>British Leyland did not resupply them so we would convert the engines to be
>like the older ones by taking off the pollution control equipment as the
>items wore out.  The advance type distributor fits in the same place as the
>retard type distributor so once you had to replace the Zenith pollution
>control carb with one that was not pollution control you might as well
>change the distributor to the advance type and set the timing specs to 
>those
>of the L/Rs that were running around in the rest of the world (the same
>specs that were used on earlier NADA L/Rs).
>In '68 for NADA (North American Dollar Area) the only thing that was put on
>to achieve pollution control was a PCV valve.
>In '69 they changed the carb to the Zenith pollution control type with the
>requisite retard distributor and they also added a front exhaust pipe that
>incorporated an exhaust gas recirculation device that plugged into the base
>area of the carb (these bits being the very first items to deteriorate and
>BL had no exact replacements for them).   In addition they sealed the gas
>tank system and added the charcoal filter for gasoline fumes, which were
>then piped to the air intake horn.  This system was then used on the Series
>III L/Rs which we first saw in the USA in the 2nd half of 1972.  Needless 
>to
>say, when British Leyland stopped importing L/Rs to NADA in 1974 they also
>quit importing parts for them.
>Note to TeriAnn: It is not the body seals that are being replaced it is the
>rubber pieces that are between the chassis and the rear box that act as
>cushions there.
>Rich Ziegler, Series L/R mechanic & owner since '63
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:05:32 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Which side? (was 2 Land Rover questions)

Sailing vessels passing port to port or left side to left side has to do 
with ancient methods of steering ships.  Originally ships did not have stern 
mounted rudders but a steering oar that was hung off the starboard (steering 
board or right) side by tradition.  So as not to cause catastrophic steering 
damage if two ships should collide while passing bow to bow, they kept to 
the right to protect the steering oar.

Since the steering oar was on the starboard (right) side, they would, of 
course, tie up at a pier on the opposite side of the steering oar or left 
side so as not to bang up the steering.  Apparently the convention of 
calling the left side, Port, did not catch on widely, right away, however.  
The more common name for the left side was Larboard and persisted into the 
17th century or even later.  I heard that they switched to the less common 
term, port, because of confusion generated by the terms starboard and 
larboard.  After a few broadsides, in the heat of battle the sailors 
couldn't differentiate between 'lar' and 'star', often with disastrous 
results.

Aloha
Peter

>From: Rick Grant <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: LRO: Which side? (was 2 Land Rover questions)
>Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:43:35 -0600
>
>At 19:22 14/05/01 -0700, C. Marin Faure, wrote
>>Here's another puzzle, though.  In the US and Canada, railroad engine
>>drivers sit on the right side of their cabs, and oncoming trains pass (on 
>>a
>>double track mainline) to the left of each other.
>
>And another one to add to the list.  Why do helicopter pilots
>(pilot-in-command) sit on the right with their co-joes to the left while
>aircraft PIC's sit on the left?  And isn't there something about boat
>drivers on the right as well?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                             Rick Grant
>
>  				  1959 Series II   "88"
>				  VORIZO
>
>
>
>Rick Grant Communications
>Media and Crisis Management
>Calgary Ottawa
>www.rickgrant.com
>

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:23:46 -0400
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Which side? (was 2 Land Rover questions)

I was told that speedboat drivers sit on the right to counterbalance the 
torque from the prop. Seemed to make sense to me at the time.

Keith

At 00:05 16-05-01, you wrote:
>Sailing vessels passing port to port or left side to left side has to do 
>with ancient methods of steering ships.  Originally ships did not have 
>stern mounted rudders but a steering oar that was hung off the starboard 
>(steering board or right) side by tradition.  So as not to cause 
>catastrophic steering damage if two ships should collide while passing bow 
>to bow, they kept to the right to protect the steering oar.
>
>Since the steering oar was on the starboard (right) side, they would, of 
>course, tie up at a pier on the opposite side of the steering oar or left 
>side so as not to bang up the steering.  Apparently the convention of 
>calling the left side, Port, did not catch on widely, right away, however.
>The more common name for the left side was Larboard and persisted into the 
>17th century or even later.  I heard that they switched to the less common 
>term, port, because of confusion generated by the terms starboard and 
>larboard.  After a few broadsides, in the heat of battle the sailors 
>couldn't differentiate between 'lar' and 'star', often with disastrous results.
>
>Aloha
>Peter
>
>
>>From: Rick Grant <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>To: [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: LRO: Which side? (was 2 Land Rover questions)
>>Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:43:35 -0600
>>
>>At 19:22 14/05/01 -0700, C. Marin Faure, wrote
>>>Here's another puzzle, though.  In the US and Canada, railroad engine
>>>drivers sit on the right side of their cabs, and oncoming trains pass (on a
>>>double track mainline) to the left of each other.
>>
>>And another one to add to the list.  Why do helicopter pilots
>>(pilot-in-command) sit on the right with their co-joes to the left while
>>aircraft PIC's sit on the left?  And isn't there something about boat
>>drivers on the right as well?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                                             Rick Grant
>>
>>                                   1959 Series II   "88"
>>                                   VORIZO
>>
>>
>>
>>Rick Grant Communications
>>Media and Crisis Management
>>Calgary Ottawa
>>www.rickgrant.com
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 06:42:04 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Re: whats a broken koenig worth

Bruce, thanks for the parts numbers.
Uhm, I don't understand the PS.  I guess you mean the steel key that goes on
the input shaft?  If I don't use this, then what prevents the thing from
slipping?  Get a brass/bronze one made up.
Pete

> Bruce F.
> PS. Don't use a steel keyway between the propshaft and input shaft.
>
>

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:56:25 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: corrosion issues/shipfitters disease/sil

Everyone should place insulating material between the tub mounting tabs and 
the tub.  My well oxidized parts truck had neat square pieces oxidized to 
oblivion from the tub where the cross member tabs touched.  My new/old 109 
tub had significant corrosion where the front frame mounting tabs touched 
the aluminum.  Even had a little corrosion on the tub, under the mounting 
tabs, on my absolutely rust free 109.  Don't know why this area is so prone 
to progressive corrosion.  It could be that the tub racks minutely in use 
and constantly scrubs off the insulating oxidation exposing fresh metal to 
corrode.  Its also a good trap for water.  Another place I've noticed 
corrosion is the fender mounting bolts on the top of the fender at the 
bulkhead.  Probably because its level and any moisture rolling off the 
bulkhead and/or hood ends up there.

Stainless will work okay if you insulate the head or washer from the 
aluminum.  If you live in salt water or the north central and north east, I 
wouldn't use anything but galvanized and insulate that.  A dissimilar 
fastener touching the aluminum will corrode around the shaft thus insulating 
itself from the aluminum and ending further corrosion.  Its mainly when you 
have constant addition of electrolyte like salt water or salt roads that 
cause problems.  That's because the electrical bond gets continually renewed 
and corrosion is continued and/or accelerated by the salt.

FWIW  The farther apart metals are on the galvanic scale, the more galvanic 
corrosion will occur.  From memory, Zinc (galvanizing) is right next to 
Aluminum.  Corrosion between galvanized fasteners and the
Birmabright should be minimal.  Find a source of galvanized flat washers and 
put them under the heads of all your nuts and bolts and corrosion problems 
should be minimized as much as possible.

Marin's going to have apoplexy about my saying stainless fasteners are fine 
on a rover.  All I can say is the Westsail 32 that we built is going strong 
after living in tropcal oceans all its life and sailing halfway round the 
world.  When I put any fasteners or dissimilar metal on the mast or other 
aluminum pieces, I used either lock tight or aluminum never seize compound.  
The subsequent owners have done the same.  Fasteners that have been in place 
since the beginning, are easily removed with an impact driver with virtually 
no sign of corrosion.  Most of these fasteners are threaded directly into 
the aluminum, by the way.  Aluminum used on boats is undoubtedly more 
corrosion resistant than aircraft aluminum but this boat has been constantly 
subjected to the most hostile of environments.  High heat, high salt, and 
years at a stretch without fresh water wash downs.  Using dissimilar metals 
below the water line is an entirely different story.  You can get away with 
Monel, stainless and/or bronze, but aluminum never, on a fiberglass boat.  
If your hull is aluminum or steel, stainless is the only dissimilar metal 
that should be used below the water line and then only where it can't be 
avoided like the propellor shaft.

So, use never seize or LocTight at every opportunity, put insulating 
materials under washers and bolt heads, and use galvanized fasteners, if 
possible.  Take the above precautions in every other location but the rust 
belt, and stainless should be fine.

Aloha
Peter Ogilvie
Kona Coffee Rover
1970 88 soft top, 'huli' Mine since '84 but recovering
     from exposure of the dark side.
1966 109 pickup 'slime'  In my garage since '90, finally running.
1965 88 parts car, slowly sinking into the lava.
196? 88 hard top, possibly 'phoenix' if it rises, it will
     certainly be from ashes or at least a pile of rust

>From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: LRO: Re: corrosion issues/shipfitters disease/sil
>Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:47:37 -0700
>
>Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:51:00 -0700
>From: SJH <[email-masked]>
>Subject: LRO: corrosion issues/shipfitters disease/sil
>
> >I recently pulled and refurbished the intermediate floor in my 109SW and
>found some semi-serious corrosion at the extreme outboard ends of the
>rearmost support flange for this floor panel.  The floor panel is held in
>place by large screws which screw into steel clips attached to the
>support flange.  The area around the hole where the clip is located on
>the flange is heavily corroded/nonexistent.
>
>Have been on vacation, so only read your post today.  You may have already
>come up with solutions but:
>
>You could try welding or screwing in patches to cover the missing or weak
>parts of the support flange, which you could then redrill for the steel
>clips.
>
> >I want to stay away from steel fasteners
>in this location which I guess is susceptible to corrosion because of
>mud/moisture from the rear wheel, or the lack of grease/oil thrown in the
>area (no similar extent corrosion on the front intermediate floor support
>flange).
>
>I wouldn't worry too much about using steel fasteners.  I've owned my SIII
>for twenty-eight years, and I've not had any serious rust problems with the
>fasteners the factory used, despite their being the cheapest grade crap
>that the company could buy at the time.  It's STAINLESS steel fasteners I'd
>advise you to stay away from.  Coating the steel fasteners you put in with
>LPS-3 (not -1 or -2) will help ward off rust, and there are other products
>you can use for this purpose, too.  I use LPS-3  once a year on the
>fasteners and springs on our boat trailer, and it's been pretty much
>rust-free for over 15 years despite regular dippings in salt water.
>
> >I'd also like to hear from folks on using plastic discs under
>washers in contact with aluminum, as well as plastic between the tub and
>the frame mounting tabs?
>
>Big waste of time unless you can figure out how to insulate the fastener
>itself from the metal it's holding together.  As I explained in another
>post, any conductive connection between two pieces of dissimilar metals
>carries the potential for electrolysis and its associated corrosion.  So
>you not only have to insulate the parts themselves from each other, but the
>barrel, head, and threads of all the fasteners as well.
>
>The crummy steel used in Series Land Rovers, the cheap fasteners, the tinny
>washers, and the aluminum alloy skin are not all that far apart on the
>Galvanic chart.  So the potential for electrolysis on the "stock"
>components of a Series is not all that great.  Where you could get into
>trouble is if you start using stainless steel on the vehicle, particularly
>for fasteners that are going to be in conductive contact with the aluminum
>alloy skin.  Your biggest problem will be rust, depending on how you use
>your vehicle and the environment where you live.  Priming and painting
>installed fasteners and/or coating them with LPS-3 or some other adhesive
>protectant is your best defense against rust.  Makng sure there are drain
>holes in the bottoms of door structures and so forth helps, too.
>
>As I recall, you live in Oregon.  I don't believe they use salt on the
>roads down there, and unless you drive a lot on the beaches, I don't think
>a humid, salt-air environment is going to be a factor for you.  So giving
>the new steel fasteners you install in your floor a good painting and/or
>coating of LPS-3, etc. should protect your repair for many, many years.
>
>And if you do what I do, and put off replacing a leaking front crank seal
>for decades, the oil blown back under the vehicle at speed will prevent
>rust from forming on ANYTHING, even if you live in a hot, humid, salty
>environment out in the middle of the Pacific.
>
>
>________________________
>C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>    Seattle, WA
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:31:33 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: A clutch replacement tip

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

Hey Keith, are ya going to paint the Rover to match Baby?  Stripe and all?
Would look cool.
Pete

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:09:31 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 109 Chassis

"William J. Rice" wrote:
 
> I do know that the rear tank mount for an SW is missing on the 109 reg.
> chassis and that the 109SW chassis is missing the forward tank mounting
> stuff.

Depends. I've had 109 PUPs with rear tanks (from the factory), as well
as 109 SWs with factory supplied underseat tanks. The front tank hanger
is a bolt-on anyway.
 
> Beyond that, it may just be a matter of repositioning the forward several
> tub supports on the reg. to make them SW floor supports, and welding new
> tabs to the forward rear spring out riggers to mount the front of the SW
> tub to.

That's the difference.
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:52:14 +0900
From: Keith Addison <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Starter Motor

Hello Nick, David, Bill, Jim and all

Many thanks for your replies. 

I took Nick Eckert's advice and took the dead starter to a local shop,
good people, hoping to get it rebuilt. They tested it and found the
armature's broken. So that's that. :-( 

Not only that, what I found when I removed it was that the main bush
was badly worn, lots of slack, which may have caused the problem -
vibration? What had happened was that the pos. terminal had vibrated
loose, turned, worn through its flimsy plastic insulation and shorted.
I repaired the insulation, but the unit was still dead.

I checked with the suppliers and found it was a reconditioned unit we'd
bought, a non-Lucas rebuild. Still, I'm not going to let Lucas off the
hook, I think their motors are really badly designed and made. The
original just wore itself out, everything was shot by the time it died.

So no, it's the thing itself, not the ring gear or the ground strap
(both fine). 

Tanabe-san at the local shop found a locally rebuilt Lucas for me, but
it's way too expensive - 65,000 yen (US$517, 369 Br. pounds), ouch!

I can get a Lucas rebuild for 129 Br. pounds, or a non-Lucas rebuild
for 57 pounds, but really I think I want out of this Lucas scene
thankyou!

So, Bill of Great Basin Rovers, I'll be contacting you off-list.

Thanks again all

Best wishes

Keith Addison 

Tokyo

To: <<[email-masked]>

Subject: RE: Starter Motor

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:31:42 -0700

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

Importance: Normal

Keith,

	You would probably be better served to get your existing one re-built
by a

competent shop.  The quality will be better than most anything you can
buy

off the shelve and will be less expensive.

Cheers,

Nick

1972 SIII Grommit

1961 SII 2.5TD Hybrid Coiler

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:35:03 EDT

From: [email-masked]

Subject: Re: LRO: starter motor

Keith

    Mean Green sells a gear reduction starter for the Series Rover. I
sell 

them for $299. Way better than a Lucas.

Bill

Great Basin Rovers

http://www.greatbasinrovers.com/

Great Basin Rovers - navbar

Salt Lake City, Utah

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

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:48:25 -0500 (CDT)

From: David Scheidt <<[email-masked]>

Subject: Re: LRO: starter motor

On Mon, 14 May 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

:Keith

:    Mean Green sells a gear reduction starter for the Series Rover. I
sell

:them for $299. Way better than a Lucas.

the mean green may be much better than the Lucas, but there's
something

going on if keith's starters aren't lasting very long.  My first guess
would

be an improper gound.  There should be a ground strap attached to the

starter.  I think the stock strap goes to the block.  I run mine to
the

battery.

- - -- 

[email-masked]

Bipedalism is only a fad.

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:17:51 -0600

From: "Jim Hall" <<[email-masked]>

Subject: Re: LRO: starter motor

How are the teeth on the ring gear???

David Scheidt wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> :Keith

> :    Mean Green sells a gear reduction starter for the Series Rover.
I sell

> :them for $299. Way better than a Lucas.

> the mean green may be much better than the Lucas, but there's
something

> going on if keith's starters aren't lasting very long.  My first
guess would

> be an improper gound.  There should be a ground strap attached to
the

> starter.  I think the stock strap goes to the block.  I run mine to
the

> battery.

> --

> [email-masked]

> Bipedalism is only a fad.

- - -- 

Jim Hall

1966 88" Elephant Chaser

http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo

"You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling 

with Jim." Mitch Stockdale 

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:49:17 +0100
From: Mick Forster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 109 Chassis

Rich & Lori Williams wrote:
> 
> Can someone tell me if there is any difference between the chassis of a 109
> station wagon and that of a 109 pick-up?

I know there are some differences but not sure what. Others will no
doubt give some pointers, but I rebuilt my 109SW onto a new chassis 3
years ago and have some photos that may help.

These can be seen at
http://gawain.soc.staffs.ac.uk/~mick/LWBrst/LWBrst0002.html

I hope they may be of some use.

Mick Forster
Series III LWB Safari 2.25 petrol/LPG 1973
Series IIa SWB 2.25 petrol 1962
Series IIa SWB electric one day!!
http://gawain.soc.staffs.ac.uk/~mick/landpics.html
http://gawain.soc.staffs.ac.uk/~mick/gascon/gas.html

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:56:46 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Painting question

Dave, that translucent coating is zinc chromate or whatever the
eco-friendly version of it is - leave that where it is and paint over it...

          ajr

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:06:42 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 109 Chassis

Yes - there are some different outriggers....

                    ajr

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:49:49 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Painting question

I don't know about the translucent yellow coating (eeew!) but I do know that any bare birmabright areas (sanded down or new panels) must be primed with an aluminum etch primer prior to painting.  Otherwise the new paint will flake off in a matter of weeks.

Good luck and e-mail me off line if you want the whole story on my recent painting project.

>>> [email-masked] 05/15/01 06:12PM >>>
I'm about to start the prep work for painting a 109 and need some info.  One 
of the new replacement body panels came with a translucent yellow coating on 
it.  Should this be removed first (if so, what is recommended), or is it one 
of the aluminum prep coatings I've read about at the paint supply place?

BTW, the painting articles by Alan Richer and David Walker have been a big 
help on setting up the project, thanks.

Bob Sharp
Tucson, AZ
The slumbering herd on the Rover Ranch:
52 Series I 80"
53 Series I 80"
60 Series II 88"
63 Series IIa 88"
71 Series IIa 109"
96 Discovery Series I 

"Why is it that every project you complete on a Land Rover results in 
knowledge and skills you hope you never need to use again?"

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:54:35 +0100
From: "John Leah" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Rattly V8

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_01C0DE07.5BC94BB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi folks,

I've been saving my Green Shield Stamps and now have enough to buy a LPG
kit:-)
But my V8 has just developed a top-end rattle:-(

I'm guessing it's cam/tappet related (they all do that at 70k miles, sir).
So, what may be the consequences of ignoring it for a while, doing the LPG
conversion and with the reduced fuel costs save up for a cam set? Or is the
engine in danger of going bang?

Ho hum!

John
1986 V8 110 CSW

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DE07.5BC94BB0
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 =
5.5.2654.59">
<TITLE>Rattly V8</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi folks,</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I've been saving my Green Shield Stamps and now have =
enough to buy a LPG kit:-)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>But my V8 has just developed a top-end =
rattle:-(</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm guessing it's cam/tappet related (they all do =
that at 70k miles, sir). So, what may be the consequences of ignoring =
it for a while, doing the LPG conversion and with the reduced fuel =
costs save up for a cam set? Or is the engine in danger of going =
bang?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ho hum!</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>John</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>1986 V8 110 CSW</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0DE07.5BC94BB0--

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:04:14 -0400
From: "KURT W. KRAUSS" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Stalling/Rough idling SIII and . . .

Just got my '73 SIII back from my mechanic (I know- I know - I should do
the work myself) and he replaced the valve seals and front pipe where it
meets the new exhaust manifold, reset the timing and replaced the spark
plugs.  It no longer smokes on start up and idles beautifully.  It also
has ceased popping like a 2 stroke Saab when going down hills in gear.
You could feel the exhaust leak between where the manifold and old front
pipe met, apparently causing this "popping" condition and idle problem.
Next question.  It seems to be leaning to the right side.  I remember
reading somewhere that sagging springs can be caused by not enough use.
It only has 17,500 original miles.  Any suggestions?  If I replace the
springs, do I have to do all 4?
Kurt Krauss
73 NAS SIII 88

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

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: DaveB <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 109 Chassis

- --- Rich & Lori Williams <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Can someone tell me if there is any difference between the chassis of
> a 109
> station wagon and that of a 109 pick-up?

having built a p/u on a SW chassis, I can say with some certainty that
it depends on the year and model of the truck.

SIII p/u's usually have the rear fill. You can have a front tank in a
SW but you can't have the exterior fill. 

There are some variations on the second to rear x-member, apparently
some of the P/U types need to modified to fit a rear tank. 
SW chassis have two extra mounting tabs, one on each front of rear
spring outrigger. 

SW chasis probably will not have the front of front fuel tank
outrigger(s)

SW chassis have 4 mounting tabs that are about 4 inches fwd of where
they need to be to mount the front of the p/u rear bed. 

P/U chasiss have 5 or 6 rear body floor support brackets all at the
same height. on a SW the front two are lower. one should change them
over if doing a conversion. however it is not as simple as raising or
lowering them, as they are in the wrong place front to back as well. 
I did not do this since I kind of wanted to make it easy to turn it
back into a SW. I think the body rigidity suffers for it. lots of
creaking on popping (much more than usual, sounds like the doors
hitting the roof sides over bumps)

SW chassis have a vertical thing on the outside of the frame rail right
near the front of the rear spring. I think this supports part of the
rear bed. probably not there on a PU chassis. 

the exhaust is generally routed different on a SW as well. through the
frame on most pu's, (although this may apply more to later versions)
and under the frame on most SW's. 

that's all I can think of at the moment. 

=====
They can kill you, but the legalities of eating you are quite a bit dicier.

David Foster Wallace

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #378
**********************************************