Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #403

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:49:48 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Monday, June 11 2001 Volume 01 : Number 403

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:15:24 -0400
From: "Alex Maiolo" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guinness (was Acetone and Rain-X)

> Ginger Wine is great...
 > Ever mix it with whiskey for a genuine 'Scot's Mac' ?

No, what are the proportions? Any other godd Stone's drinks?

> (ok, anyone notice my deliberate mistake?)

It looks like you had an extra "e" floating around that you had to use...

> Not sure where Stones' bitter comes from... well, probably a toilet
> somewhere...

Perhaps it's what's left over after a run of Budweiser is complete.

Alex Maiolo
Chapel Hill NC

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:08:39 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Replacing footwells

Haven't any first hand experience but a number of people have riveted in the 
replacement footwells.  Use some kind of permanent marine sealant where the 
parts overlap, drill and pop.  Riveting will be nearly as strong as welding. 
  If you don't know how to weld and don't have the equipment, you won't have 
to develop a talent you may not have an aptititude for or spend the money on 
a welder.  You could hire the welding but believe welders charge by the inch 
and footwells have a lot of inches to weld.  So, unless you weld yourself or 
have a friend who works for beer, riveting has its strong points.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
>  Anyone have any tips on brazing in replacement footwells, I am
>hoping to start on this next week, so that I can continue with the
>frameover.
>Yup - brazing is right out on structural steel (which anything attached to 
>the bulkhead is) Find a weldor and save yourself a lot of grief.
>
>Brazes, because they are not metal fusion, will crack and fail. Not a good 
>idea....also against the law in inspection depending on the state.
>
>I've seen brazed repairs after a while - one 88 I bought had brazed-on
>outriggers - which had cracked along 3 sides and were peeling off the frame 
>underneath. The brazing had failed...not the metal substrate. That frame 
>got scrapped in a big hurry....
>
>If you do all the prep and fitting getting the stuff welded should be cheap 
>enough...
>                     ajr

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:24:40 -0400
From: "James G.Wolf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Guinness (was Acetone and Rain-X) 

>goodness I hope not. I doubt it very much tho' as I agree with you Stones
>Ginger Wine is great. It's a Winter drink here, goes very nice in the
>hipflask on a cold day walking or fishing...(not driving, obviously)
> Ever mix it with whiskey for a genuine 'Scot's Mac' ?
>
>(ok, anyone notice my deliberate mistake?)

Frank, my vote is that "e" in whisky   8^).

Jim (single malt) Wolf

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:05:45 -0700
From: "Mark Freeman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: British Beer, The Right Temparature

With all of this talk of the proper temperature of British beer I am remined
of one of my Father's W.W.II war stories. He was with the US Army Air Corp.,
stationed near Diss from early '43 though '45. He said that after a week of
abnormally cold winter weather in '44 he arrived at his favorite pub early
in the evening to find the barman and several patrons struggling to move the
kegs of beer from the outside rear courtyard where it was normally stored,
to the rear of the pub.  When my father asked what the commotion was about
he was told that they "didn't want the beer to get too cold".  His memory
was of beer served at about 55 degrees F and if became much colder than that
the people thought it was too cold.

Land Rover content:  My son and I visited Diss in 1999 after attending
Billing and did a memorial pub-crawl in my Father's honor. We also visited a
terrific museum dedicated to the US Army Air Corp fliers. It is located just
east of Diss and is one the  few remaining W.W.II era  bomber bases. It
consists of the control tower and a few support buildings. The museum is run
by by local volunteers in honor of the US airmen who served in  England.

Best Regards,

Mark Freeman
Sedalia, Missouri
Series Land Rovers beyond what reasonable people would tolerate

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:16:10 -0600
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Guinness

Frank,
    No umbrage here!  I am just happy to be corrected without chastising.
:-)  I did incorrectly write English... even though I incorrectly meant
British.  By sheer virtue of odds I have to be right about something soon.
;-)

Kirk

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:34:22 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #402

Frank Elson writes:

> BTW Mark, 24 hour opening hours are on the way. Sob, no more 'last orders' 
sob...

Sounds like a dirty, commie, pinko, fascist, bedwetter plot. 

Paul Donohue
Former Bartender
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:46:30 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Re: Guinness (was Acetone and Rain-X)

Frank Writes writes:

>  It's all in the misunderstanding. We always thought we drank cold beer 
'till
>  you lot started coming over here and told us it was warm..

It is our revenge for sending us Lucas Electrics.

>   We have a saying, there is no such thing as bad beer, just that some beers
>  are better than others 

My personal worst was 33 (Ba Mui Ba) made in Saigon 30 years ago.  It was so 
bad it even made Coors (fish piss) taste good by comparison.  Salvation came 
at the hands of our Australian allies.  Bless them!  

Obligatory LR content:  Not only did the diggers have good beer, they drove 
cutwing 109 Land Rovers.  Thanks mates.

Paul Donohue
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:40:59 -0600
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Adam,
    I was looking into this swap, but ended up scrapping it.  Though, it
should be noted that it wasn't because of viability.  Other 'things' came up
(read 'of the opposite gender').  I am curious about your desire to use the
Muncie 420.  I had trouble locating one at all.  They were built a LONG time
ago.  Around here at least the SM-465 is much easier to locate but still
isn't a piece of cake.  Sure, you get a slightly lower 1st, but I am told
the 420 is simply far less 'friendly'.  Louder and more clunky etc.
    I am a little more curious about your calculations though.  95 MPH @
3000 RPM?  Unless I am messing the numbers up this is what I get with this
set-up:

SM-420
Ashcroft High Range LR case (0.871 High)
4.10 Diffs
33" tires

=3436 RPM @ 95 MPH  (152 KPH)

If there is something wrong with my calculations let me know.  I was making
a lot of decisions based on them.  I have an Excel spreadsheet laid out that
I would email you if you like with a number of transmission/transfer case
options.

Kirk

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:57:42 -0600
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Adam,
    I forgot to add I don't believe the 2.5, or 3.0 Merc for that matter,
would pull a LR at 95 MPH / 3000 RPM.  That's not to say that the motor
couldn't be MADE to do it, but it would be very expensive.

Kirk

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:07:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Guiness

Frank Elson wrote:

> when I worked in the States I caused a small commotion one evening in a bar 
in Georgia when I said: 'Ah, but you
Yanks...'   then again, a lister took umbrage when I called you lot colonials 
once>>

In almost any place in the world a Yankee is an American.
In America, a Yankee is a New Englander.
In New England, a Yankee is someone from New Hampshire.
In New Hampshire, a Yankee is someone who does not yet have indoor plumbing.

Paul Donohue
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:35:32 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Guinness (was Acetone and Rain-X)

Hi All--

[email-masked] wrote:
>
> My personal worst was 33 (Ba Mui Ba) made in Saigon 30 years ago.  It was so
> bad it even made Coors (fish piss) taste good by comparison.  Salvation came
> at the hands of our Australian allies.  Bless them!
> 

So, do they still make that stuff?  I have to say, though, that drinking
Bau Mui Ba was a lot better than drinking Aqua Velva.  And I'd rather
drink water than drink Coors.

> Obligatory LR content:  Not only did the diggers have good beer, they drove
> cutwing 109 Land Rovers.  Thanks mates.
> 

Pictures?  Those I'd like to see.

<desperation-makes-for-strange-drinks>-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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:50:03 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE; Galvy cappings

"James G.Wolf" wrote:
 
> I paint them with Hammerite paint, they have a nice silver color (colour),

Galv in a can... eeeew!

Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:50:35 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Help, importing Landy stuff to the US

John Cranfield wrote:
 
> Were the folks at Fakawi familiar with the old "lost tribe" joke when
> they selected their name?

Yep :-{>}
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:36:05 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that you 
geared it so high (low numerically).  Probably would take 400hp to push the 
brick at that speed.  3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably be a lot better as the 
engine would be well into its hp and torque curve so would actually be able 
to hold that speed going up a hill.  It may even develop enough hp to 
actually get it up to 80mph.  Though why anyone would want to drive a Series 
over 65 is beyond me.  If the 3436rpm @ 95mph is correct, you'd only be 
turning 2351rpm @ 65mph.  Only a few hundred rpm above the base of the 
torque curve and well below the hp peak.  You'd probably have the 
performance of a stock 2 1/4 because the engine would never get up on the 
torque/hp curve.  If the first figures are right, performance would suck 
even more.  I think its a little presumptious to gear a Series to have the 
same cruise rpm of a 250mph racer.

Don't want to rain on your parade, but your figures just didn't seem to be 
based on reality.

Aloha
Peter O

>From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap
>Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:40:59 -0600
>
>Adam,
>     I was looking into this swap, but ended up scrapping it.  Though, it
>should be noted that it wasn't because of viability.  Other 'things' came 
>up
>(read 'of the opposite gender').  I am curious about your desire to use the
>Muncie 420.  I had trouble locating one at all.  They were built a LONG 
>time
>ago.  Around here at least the SM-465 is much easier to locate but still
>isn't a piece of cake.  Sure, you get a slightly lower 1st, but I am told
>the 420 is simply far less 'friendly'.  Louder and more clunky etc.
>     I am a little more curious about your calculations though.  95 MPH @
>3000 RPM?  Unless I am messing the numbers up this is what I get with this
>set-up:
>
>SM-420
>Ashcroft High Range LR case (0.871 High)
>4.10 Diffs
>33" tires
>
>=3436 RPM @ 95 MPH  (152 KPH)
>
>If there is something wrong with my calculations let me know.  I was making
>a lot of decisions based on them.  I have an Excel spreadsheet laid out 
>that
>I would email you if you like with a number of transmission/transfer case
>options.
>
>Kirk
>
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:03:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:

:Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that you
:geared it so high (low numerically).  Probably would take 400hp to push the
:brick at that speed.  3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably be a lot better as the

I've riden in an 88 at that speed -- speed measured by a handheld GPS, not a
speedometer.  It had a 2.25 in it, even.  It was a rather hopped up engine,
sure, and there was a long, not too steep downhill and probably a tailwind.
I assure you that when you think "10 inch brakes, 2" shoes, boiling brake
fluid..." you encourage the driver to slow down.  I don't want to know what
RPMs the engine has to turn to pull that speed. (overdrive, 31" tires, since
I'm sure someone's going to tell me...)

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:16:39 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

David, you sure you weren't indulging in illicit herbs at the time.  95mph 
in a Series!!!!  That's probably terminal velocity if you dumped it out of 
an airplane  With a 2 1/4 providing propulsion, it had to be way more than a 
slight downhill and the tail wind must have been from one of those 
alphabetically named low pressure systems that enlivens summers in the Gulf 
of Mexico.  If memory serves me right, my MGB which supposedly had 20 more 
hp, a 1,000#s less weight, and better aerodynamics, struggled mightily to 
best 100mph indicated.  That was running right at red line of 6,000rpm and I 
think that the MGB had 4.11 diffs (don't quote me on that, however) so would 
have been turning less RPM per mph than the series with 4.7s.

Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical but it seems to defy physical laws.  
Wind resistance increases exponentially and the Series truck is about as 
stream lined as a brick out house.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:03:46 -0500 (CDT)
>
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:
>
>:Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that you
>:geared it so high (low numerically).  Probably would take 400hp to push 
>the
>:brick at that speed.  3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably be a lot better as 
>the
>
>I've riden in an 88 at that speed -- speed measured by a handheld GPS, not 
>a
>speedometer.  It had a 2.25 in it, even.  It was a rather hopped up engine,
>sure, and there was a long, not too steep downhill and probably a tailwind.
>I assure you that when you think "10 inch brakes, 2" shoes, boiling brake
>fluid..." you encourage the driver to slow down.  I don't want to know what
>RPMs the engine has to turn to pull that speed. (overdrive, 31" tires, 
>since
>I'm sure someone's going to tell me...)
>
>--
>[email-masked]
>Bipedalism is only a fad.
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 05:26:55 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Replacing footwells

believe welders charge by the inch
and footwells have a lot of inches to weld.

Peter, where'd you hear that one? Love it....

Dad was a weldor among many other things and never heard of a job being
spec'ed out that way. Typically the ones I've dealt with on specialty jobs
(do my own MIG and stick) typically quote me an hourly rate and estimated
time run.

               ajr

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:36:50 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

On Monday 11 June 2001 08:03, you wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> :Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that
> : you geared it so high (low numerically).  Probably would take 400hp
> : to push the brick at that speed.  3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably
> : be a lot better as the
>
> I've riden in an 88 at that speed -- speed measured by a handheld
> GPS, not a speedometer.  It had a 2.25 in it, even.  It was a rather
> hopped up engine, sure, and there was a long, not too steep downhill
> and probably a tailwind. 

I've a friend who's tweeked his 2.25:
Oversized pistons;
Skimmed head;
Polished inlet & exhaust ports;
Automotive inlet manifold;
SU carb;
Fewer baffles in the silencer;
Larger bore tail pipe;
Balanced engine.

His engine picks up again at 4,000 rpm, and red-lines at about 7,000. 
The vehicle will happily cruise at 70mph on 235/85r16 tyres, with a 
standard SII gearbox & standard diffs...

So, I can well believe that a vehicle, with a tweeked engine, a 
non-standard gearbox, non-standard diffs & oversized tyres could exceed 
100mph - given that they were heading downhill, so gravity was helping 
:)

- -- 
           --==**==--
Ian Stuart - EDINA, DataLibrary, University computing services.
- ---------------------------------
A man depriving some village, somewhere, of a first-class idiot
- ---------------------------------
http://lucas.ucs.ed.ac.uk/

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:13:02 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

I believe that I was told that Timm's 88 could do somewhere around 90 
MPH, and that's with 150 HP.

Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> 
> Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that you
> geared it so high (low numerically).  Probably would take 400hp to push the
> brick at that speed.  3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably be a lot better as the
> engine would be well into its hp and torque curve so would actually be able
> to hold that speed going up a hill.  It may even develop enough hp to
> actually get it up to 80mph.  Though why anyone would want to drive a Series
> over 65 is beyond me.  If the 3436rpm @ 95mph is correct, you'd only be
> turning 2351rpm @ 65mph.  Only a few hundred rpm above the base of the
> torque curve and well below the hp peak.  You'd probably have the
> performance of a stock 2 1/4 because the engine would never get up on the
> torque/hp curve.  If the first figures are right, performance would suck
> even more.  I think its a little presumptious to gear a Series to have the
> same cruise rpm of a 250mph racer.
> 
> Don't want to rain on your parade, but your figures just didn't seem to be
> based on reality.
> 
> Aloha
> Peter O
> 
> >From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
> >Reply-To: [email-masked]
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap
> >Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 21:40:59 -0600
> >
> >Adam,
> >     I was looking into this swap, but ended up scrapping it.  Though, it
> >should be noted that it wasn't because of viability.  Other 'things' came
> >up
> >(read 'of the opposite gender').  I am curious about your desire to use the
> >Muncie 420.  I had trouble locating one at all.  They were built a LONG
> >time
> >ago.  Around here at least the SM-465 is much easier to locate but still
> >isn't a piece of cake.  Sure, you get a slightly lower 1st, but I am told
> >the 420 is simply far less 'friendly'.  Louder and more clunky etc.
> >     I am a little more curious about your calculations though.  95 MPH @
> >3000 RPM?  Unless I am messing the numbers up this is what I get with this
> >set-up:
> >
> >SM-420
> >Ashcroft High Range LR case (0.871 High)
> >4.10 Diffs
> >33" tires
> >
> >=3436 RPM @ 95 MPH  (152 KPH)
> >
> >If there is something wrong with my calculations let me know.  I was making
> >a lot of decisions based on them.  I have an Excel spreadsheet laid out
> >that
> >I would email you if you like with a number of transmission/transfer case
> >options.
> >
> >Kirk
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- -- 
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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:14:46 -0600
From: "Tim Czajka" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Adam wrote:
>This transmission with an Ashcroft converted transfer case
>or overdrive, and 4.10:1 gears in the axles would give approximately 95 mph 
>at 3000 rpm, with 33" tires.
>
You would actually be looking at close to 3500 rpm at 95
mph.  At a more modest 70 mph you would be looking at
about 2600 rpm.  This could work as long as the terrain
were not too hilly.  Depends on what kind of power that
4cyl was putting out.  Keeping the 4.7 diff gears would
put you at around 3000 rpm at 70 mph.  That could work
also.  It depends on where you want that rpm sweet spot
for cruising.

I assume you arrive at your 85 to 1 lowest crawl ratio by
using the Series II low 2.88 tcase gear?  Otherwise you
are looking at a 68 to 1 lowest crawl ratio with the
standard Series IIA tcase gears.

If you want to easily play around with various gear
combos go to my web page URL below.  It will produce rpm
spreadsheet tables for any combos and already has the
SM420 and SM465 transmissions hard coded.  For the
transfer case choose a Series model and remember to
change the high ratio to .87 - that approximates the
Ashcroft high ratio gearing.

www16.brinkster.com/indio2/rpmtablecalc.html

Tim Czajka
1972 Series III 88
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:08:12 +0200
From: Luca Ingianni <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Low/no sulfur diesel fuel

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am Thursday 31 May 2001 15:34 schrieb Andy Woodward:

> We've had these problems over here where we've had Ultra Low
> Sulphur Deisel for a while. According to the guy in the local deisel
> service place, its more common than folk realise. But the fix is
> apparently simple, according to the UK-lro list, who have discussed
> this over teh last couple of years. Just add a cup of cheap engine
> oil to each fill up. This then lubricates teh pump. Probably puts the
> emissions back wher they were before, or worse, but who cares if
> the damned stuff is wearing out your DPS pump?????? DPS
> pumps cost a LOT of money.

The recent discussion got me wondering and I decided to ask petrol 
companies. Aral has replied so far. They say they have an additive in 
their diesel that would compensate for the removal of sulphur (and grow 
flowers in my exhaust pipe and bring out the garbage and do the dishes for 
me and whatnot. What did I expect from a representative of a petrol 
company?).
This is Aral Germany, who knows what they do in other countries.

have fun,
	Luca

- - -- 
There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a
suitable application of high explosives.

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAjsk3t8ACgkQ7uxRR5vRvyvnYgCgh1R9bu22fDtBFWMs+DsGn7oZ
A2wAnjbO6IDjUcwjR/9oCV2FQ5KDW//f
=N8Zn
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:08:07 -0700
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Fast Freewheel

It is true, I too have been 70+ Mph in a diesel Safari LWB.  It was down hill
and steep. It took it out of gear because I thought the engine was going to
explode. It freewheeled up to 75 before I chickened out. Putting it back into
4th at 65 required a right foot on the floor. The radiator then did explode
about 5 miles further up the road and I had to have it towed.
Mark Pilkington

Peter Ogilvie wrote:

> David, you sure you weren't indulging in illicit herbs at the time.  95mph
> in a Series!!!!  That's probably terminal velocity if you dumped it out of
> an airplane  With a 2 1/4 providing propulsion, it had to be way more than a
> slight downhill and the tail wind must have been from one of those
> alphabetically named low pressure systems that enlivens summers in the Gulf
> of Mexico.  If memory serves me right, my MGB which supposedly had 20 more
> hp, a 1,000#s less weight, and better aerodynamics, struggled mightily to
> best 100mph indicated.  That was running right at red line of 6,000rpm and I
> think that the MGB had 4.11 diffs (don't quote me on that, however) so would
> have been turning less RPM per mph than the series with 4.7s.
>
> Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical but it seems to defy physical laws.
> Wind resistance increases exponentially and the Series truck is about as
> stream lined as a brick out house.
>
> Aloha
> Peter O.
>
> >From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
> >Reply-To: [email-masked]
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap
> >Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 02:03:46 -0500 (CDT)
> >
> >On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> >
> >:Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that you
> >:geared it so high (low numerically).  Probably would take 400hp to push
> >the
> >:brick at that speed.  3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably be a lot better as
> >the
> >
> >I've riden in an 88 at that speed -- speed measured by a handheld GPS, not
> >a
> >speedometer.  It had a 2.25 in it, even.  It was a rather hopped up engine,
> >sure, and there was a long, not too steep downhill and probably a tailwind.
> >I assure you that when you think "10 inch brakes, 2" shoes, boiling brake
> >fluid..." you encourage the driver to slow down.  I don't want to know what
> >RPMs the engine has to turn to pull that speed. (overdrive, 31" tires,
> >since
> >I'm sure someone's going to tell me...)
> >
> >--
> >[email-masked]
> >Bipedalism is only a fad.
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:18:21 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

>Adam wrote:
> >This transmission with an Ashcroft converted transfer case
> >or overdrive, and 4.10:1 gears in the axles would give approximately 95
mph
> >at 3000 rpm, with 33" tires.
> >
Tim responded:
> I assume you arrive at your 85 to 1 lowest crawl ratio by
> using the Series II low 2.88 tcase gear?  Otherwise you
> are looking at a 68 to 1 lowest crawl ratio with the
> standard Series IIA tcase gears.
>
To which I ask:

I was wondering about this myself.  According to ashcroft, if you go with
their high range transfer case, you can't fit the older lower range gears in
it.  If you use their underdrive transfer case, you cant use the overdrive.
So how did we work around this?
Pete

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:19:59 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Fast Freewheel

I have seen a LWB 3door IIa that would pull 85mph all day long, but it had
an engine out of a Rangie :-)
Pete

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:33:30 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Fast Freewheel

Charles Irvin's 109 Diesel (Gillian) would do something ridiculous like 85, 
wouldn't it? I remember poor Charles even had witness' on the list but 
people still wouldn't belive him.

Niall Forbes
66 IIa 88SW - The Red Zit
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
The Nova Scotian Rover - http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/forbes/intro.htm

"See the happy moron,
He doesn't give a damn.
I wish I were a moron.
My God! Perhaps I am!"
- --author unknown

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:58:37 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

thanks, I got my calcualtions mixed up, the one I listed was for the NV4500 
5th gear ratio, not the 420's 4th. 

adam

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:00:53 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

thats why i was going to turbocharge it.  cheap, i know a guy near me that is 
selling two new, in box turbos for a chevy 350 at $900 each.  not bad really, 
considering it would give you an additional 150hp.

adam

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 01 12:05:13 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

>If you want to easily play around with various gear
>combos go to my web page URL below. 
>
>www16.brinkster.com/indio2/rpmtablecalc.html
>
>Tim Czajka

Tim, what a great tool you have built! I now have a print out and have 
made a tach to MPH cheat sheet to put in my LR.

I'm assuming that you have not entered the LR gearbox ratios yet (The all 
say it is a three speed with ratio of 1 in all gears.

As a sugestion you might want to add the Ashcroft high ratio and the LR 
coiler transfer cases to your list.

Great tool! 

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 01 12:19:18 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

>I was wondering about this myself.  According to ashcroft, if you go with
>their high range transfer case, you can't fit the older lower range gears in
>it.  If you use their underdrive transfer case, you cant use the overdrive.
>So how did we work around this?

The Ashfroft kit provides you with a new complete transfer case gear set 
and you end up with IIA low ratio.  The best way to get a lower overall 
ratio is to use a gearbox with a granny first.  Mine gives me a first 
gear low range of 70.4:1 using stock series diffs.  With the same set up 
high range fourth is 4.12:1 final drive.  Or 65 MPH at 2814 RPM with my 
32 inch dia tyres.  The NV4500 will not give you as low a first gear but 
it does have that nice fifth gear overdrive.  Only problem is that is is 
a long gearbox and would make for a real short rear prop shaft in an 88.  
You really should have a 109 if you use that gearbox.

TeriAnn Wakeman               Marigold Ltd.
Santa Cruz, California        Web design, site updating, testing
[email-masked]      search engine optimization, graphics
                              and more

http://www.overlander.net/Marigold/index.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 01 12:23:48 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

>thats why i was going to turbocharge it.  cheap, i know a guy near me that 
>is 
>selling two new, in box turbos for a chevy 350 at $900 each.  not bad 
>really, 
>considering it would give you an additional 150hp.

A turbocharged 350 in a series rig?  Zowie.

With a little 302 set up to run on regular petrol and get best fuel 
milage I can climb anything my tyres can find grip on, and cruise 65 MPH  
on those long steep uphill grades on the highway.

Whatcha gonna do with all those extra ponnies????

TeriAnn Wakeman               Marigold Ltd.
Santa Cruz, California        Web design, site updating, testing
[email-masked]      search engine optimization, graphics
                              and more

http://www.overlander.net/Marigold/index.html

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:23:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Fast Freewheel

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, N Forbes wrote:

:Charles Irvin's 109 Diesel (Gillian) would do something ridiculous like 85,
:wouldn't it? I remember poor Charles even had witness' on the list but
:people still wouldn't belive him.
:

Lots of people have reported having fast rovers.  No one, except people
who've driven one, ever believes them.  I think some of it is fear of
flogging the thing.  My 109, bone stock, would hit 75 when I had an
overdrive.  It took a long time to go from 65 to 75, sure, but I think it
would have gone to 80.

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:27:05 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

i wasnt going to turbo a 350 and put it in, i was going to use a 350 turbo on 
a 2.5 or 3.0.

adam

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:49:23 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Cruise and happily are not synonomous with 70mph in a series.  If my figures 
are correct, your turning 4,147rpm at 70mph.  That's an rpm that will wear 
out the top half of the engine quite rapidly.  Because of the slop, weight, 
gravity, and friction, push rod engines aren't high speed engines.  Yes they 
can be made to spin up in the 7,000rpm range but internal dynamics greatly 
increase wear at higher rpm.  If you don't mind rebuilding the engine 
regularly, you are going to dump the truck on an unsuspecting soul, or you 
simply don't put many highway miles on the truck, yes you can go 70mph per 
hour with stock gearing. Will the engine do it happily with stock gearing, 
no way!!

By the way, you can almost do it with a stock engine but it takes all the 
71hp to force the rover through the wind.  Wind resistance increases 
exponentially.  It doesn't just take a little but a lof of hp to increase 
mph.  An aerodynamic car may cruise at 70mph with only 40 hp or so but will 
take considerably more, like double, to go 90mph.  These figures are not 
scientific, by the way, just to illustrate that something can be done but it 
takes a lot more than just putting your foot farther in the carburetor.  The 
example of Timm going 90+ in his 140hp series illustrates my point.  A stock 
series with 71hp will go 65.  It takes double that hp to go just 30mph 
faster.

High speed engines can and are built.  Formula 1 engines regularly run into 
the high teens and street motorcycle engines are redlined in the low teens.  
Apparently they will happily run near 10,000 rpm for very long periods.  To 
get this rpm/longevity they have super lightweight valve systems with direct 
actuation of the valves by the cam.  Short blocks are severely oversquare 
and reciprocating masses are very light weight to reduce the effects of 
accelerations and mass.  They also don't produce any significant torque or 
hp below the redline of a series engine.  Otherwise, they are absolutely 
unsuited to the type of use that a Series truck is supposed to be used for.

High center of gravity vehicles, pushrod engines, long travel suspensions, 
etc. just aren't meant for high speed perambulation.  Driving an SUV at high 
speeds is asking for it, just ask Ford.  Look at all the electrickery on a 
Disco II to get decent road handling and still keep the legendary off road 
capabilities of a Rover.  Yes they will do very high speeds in a straight 
line, but blow a tire, have to maneuver quickly, or horror of horrors in a 
Series, stop quickly, and you will be facing an interesting situation, to 
put it mildly.  Even though our trucks equal or excede the technology of 
typical English sports car of the period, they were designed to stay below 
65mph and cruise well below that.  If you want to do long commutes at the 
speed limit on the interstate, change the gearing either by changing the 
diffs, an ashcroft transfer case or an overdrive.  To hold that higher speed 
over a reasonable range of conditions at the lower rpm, you will probably 
have to tweak the engine, by the way.

My tweaked engined 109 wants to cruise above 60mph because its got the hp to 
push the brick faster.  Since the gearing is stock, I resist the temptation 
as faster speeds still mean higher rpm despite the fact that I still have 
plenty of throttle left.  If I regularly ran the truck at freeway speeds, 
I'd slap an overdrive on in a second.  Since I do most of my driving under 
55, will live with it.  For those of you in the real world, be kind to your 
trucks, don't assume that just because it will do 75mph, my 109 will, that 
it should be driven consistently at that speed without changing the gearing. 
  For those of you wanting to go 90 mph in a Series, you are stupid!!!  You 
are risking your lives and worst of all, endangering others.  Yes you may 
get away with it  indefinitely but if it turns around and bites you, you 
will be in a world of hurt.  Hopefully, you will be the only one to suffer 
when it does.

Modifications that make the truck better able to maintain a reasonable 
speed, add efficiency, allow the trucks to motivate up steep grades or crawl 
over bigger obstacles are all good for the marque.  Using the side benefits 
of those tweaks irresponsibly, has consequences that you don't want to face.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:36:50 +0100
>
>On Monday 11 June 2001 08:03, you wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> > :Given the aerodynamics of a Series, I think you'd rue the day that
> > : you geared it so high (low numerically).  Probably would take 400hp
> > : to push the brick at that speed.  3,000rpm @ 70mph would probably
> > : be a lot better as the
> >
> > I've riden in an 88 at that speed -- speed measured by a handheld
> > GPS, not a speedometer.  It had a 2.25 in it, even.  It was a rather
> > hopped up engine, sure, and there was a long, not too steep downhill
> > and probably a tailwind.
>
>I've a friend who's tweeked his 2.25:
>Oversized pistons;
>Skimmed head;
>Polished inlet & exhaust ports;
>Automotive inlet manifold;
>SU carb;
>Fewer baffles in the silencer;
>Larger bore tail pipe;
>Balanced engine.
>
>His engine picks up again at 4,000 rpm, and red-lines at about 7,000.
>The vehicle will happily cruise at 70mph on 235/85r16 tyres, with a
>standard SII gearbox & standard diffs...
>
>So, I can well believe that a vehicle, with a tweeked engine, a
>non-standard gearbox, non-standard diffs & oversized tyres could exceed
>100mph - given that they were heading downhill, so gravity was helping
>:)
>
>--
>            --==**==--
>Ian Stuart - EDINA, DataLibrary, University computing services.
>---------------------------------
>A man depriving some village, somewhere, of a first-class idiot
>---------------------------------
>http://lucas.ucs.ed.ac.uk/

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

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #403
**********************************************