Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #404

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:11:09 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Tuesday, June 12 2001 Volume 01 : Number 404

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:51:33 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Replacing footwells

The last time I wanted some welding done, it was sheet metal, the quote was 
by the inch.  I'm sure if there was fabricating and material involved, there 
would have been more factors in the pricing.

Aloha
Peter

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:08:11 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

trust me, i wont be going 90, even 75, in a series truck without some serious 
modifications to components other than the engine and gearing.  such as 3 
point racing harnesses (good idea anyway, btw), disk brakes, and at least a 
roll bar if not roll cage.  the seats should and will also be mounted to the 
frame mounted cage.  a better (ie less vague) steering setup would also be a 
great idea.

adam

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:23:23 +0100
From: "Neil Brownlee" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Guinness

> then again, a lister took umbrage when I called you lot colonials once...
> :-)>

Hmmm....scary, as, believe it or not Frank, I AM actually a colonial!!!!!

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

Neil

1978 Land Rover Series III 109" Ex-MOD - 'Harriet'
1997 Land Rover Discovery V8i ES - 'Piglet' - XD9000i, Terrain Master Winch
Bumper & Hi-Lift carrier, Bearmach steering/sump guard, Mantec Side
Protection Sills, Scorpion Racing +2" suspension lift, De-Carbon Shocks,
Southdown Fuel Tank Guard, 235/85 General Grabber MT's, WH Wheelcarriers
Diff Guards
1998 Land Rover Freelander - 'Misty'

http://www.landroverdiscoveryv8i.freeservers.com

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:40:13 -0400
From: Michael Hatton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Replacing footwells

How about this.....
If I rivet the footwells in and then braze the overlaps for a more
permanent seal. I am only replacing the bottom half of the toe boards and the side
kick panels. Most of these are substantially OK, so I can get a good
overlap. Welding quote was CA$ 675! The few times I have got stuff welded
they have done an atrocious stuff, and the people I can trust are way too
busy.

Michael Hatton

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:

> 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:53:35 +0100
From: Elwyn York <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 3 point hitch

At 06/06/01 Wednesday 20:26, you wrote:
>Hello the list,
>
>A spiffy little item came with the IIa 109 Pickup I just purchased.
>
>It's a Stratton Model 56 Hydro Implement Lift 3 point hitch.
>Apparently it bolts right up.
>
>Does anyone have literature or info on this beast?
>
>Andy Litkowiak

Is this similar to a tractors rear end?

Elwyn York   ICQ: 17087824
S3 Lightweight. West Midlands
http://ltwt.gq.nu/

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:05:13 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Replacing footwells

Use 101 adhesive sealant, (think dow is the mfg.) or a polysulfide caulk 
like LifeCaulk on the overlap between the new and old section.  Don't use 
sillycone or typical house caulks as they don't stick well, get a marine 
sealant/adhesive caulk.  That stuff is as close to permanent as you can get, 
remains plyable and sticks tenaciously so will seal out water intrusion and 
stop corrosion in this area.  Rivets spaced fairly closely together will 
give very high strength.  You don't need anything else.  Brazing over the 
above fix, will probably burn out the sealant and create problems.  
Incidentally, there are pop rivets and there are pop rivets.  Get blind ones 
that are high strength like steel ones and dip them in sealant before 
putting them in place and setting them.

Don't make your job more than it has to be.

Did I read that right, your quote was $675 to have the footwells welded??  
Seems a trifle pricey.

Aloha
Peter O

>From: Michael Hatton <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: LRO: Replacing footwells
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:40:13 -0400
>
>How about this.....
>If I rivet the footwells in and then braze the overlaps for a more
>permanent seal. I am only replacing the bottom half of the toe boards and 
>the side
>kick panels. Most of these are substantially OK, so I can get a good
>overlap. Welding quote was CA$ 675! The few times I have got stuff welded
>they have done an atrocious stuff, and the people I can trust are way too
>busy.
>
>Michael Hatton
>
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:11:54 -0400
From: "d.h.lowe" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Replacing footwells

Can you wait a while Michael, until CFB Bowmanville is operating ???  :-)
Dave

Michael Hatton wrote:

> How about this.....
> If I rivet the footwells in and then braze the overlaps for a more
> permanent seal. I am only replacing the bottom half of the toe boards and the side
> kick panels. Most of these are substantially OK, so I can get a good
> overlap. Welding quote was CA$ 675! The few times I have got stuff welded
> they have done an atrocious stuff, and the people I can trust are way too
> busy.
>
> Michael Hatton
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:
>
> > 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:14:17 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

They must be wrong somewhere as he has 33" tires and an ashcroft "od".
I can easily do 70 with a toro and 235-85's, which are smaller.

Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> 
> Cruise and happily are not synonomous with 70mph in a series.  If my figures
> are correct, your turning 4,147rpm at 70mph. 
- -- 
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 20:11:09 -0400
From: "Richard D. Fenwick" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: fule filter ser III

I have been following this list for  some time now. I still have my
cartrige type fule filter . The other day I changed the filter,but noe
it leaks. There are 3 rubber gaskets , only one is supplied . I need the
other  2. Can anybody help with the gaskets? Or suggestions. Next
problem . The ex MOD motor has a solex carburettor and it is leaking gas
. It seems to be comming from the linkage side. The green book showes a
Zenith 361v , just gussing , but  are they the same ,just a name change.
What do I look for when I take the top off?  THanks for all your answers
and helpful suggestions in the past.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:17:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Guiness & Cutwing 109s

- --part1_e3.16029c34.2856b998_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ivan wrote:  <<And I'd rather drink water than drink Coors.>>

How would you know the difference?

The pictures of cutwing 109" Australian Army Land Rovers are still in my 
archives.  
Gotta find the negatives first.  Then I can print, scan.and send them.

 Paul Donohue
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver

- --part1_e3.16029c34.2856b998_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Ivan wrote: &nbsp;&lt;&lt;And I'd rather drink water than drink Coors.&gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>How would you know the difference?
<BR>
<BR>The pictures of cutwing 109" Australian Army Land Rovers are still in my 
<BR>archives. &nbsp;
<BR>Gotta find the negatives first. &nbsp;Then I can print, scan.and send them.
<BR>
<BR> Paul Donohue
<BR>1965 Land Rover 109
<BR>Denver</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_e3.16029c34.2856b998_boundary--

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 03:17:33 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Guiness & Cutwing 109s

> The pictures of cutwing 109" Australian Army Land Rovers are still in my
> archives.
> Gotta find the negatives first.  Then I can print, scan.and send them.

Maybe I missed something, is someone looking for a specific set of photos?
Or of any OZ 109?
If the later, check out www.aloharovers.com
Have a bunch on there in different places, but concentrate on the Hawaiian
Adventures section.
Pete

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:47:01 -0400
From: "David Cockey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Power required to overcome aerodynamic drag is proportional to the speed
cubed. So to going 60 mph requires 1.73 times the power of going 50 mph.
Aerodynamic drag is proportional to the speed squared, and power is force
times speed. Hence the speed cubed relationship.

Regards,
David Cockey

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 21:50:01 -0400
From: "David Cockey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

A serious question. It sounds like you want a vehicle which looks like a
series LR, but with modern mechanicals. Have you considered a hybrid, i.e. a
series LR body or look a like body on a newer chassis? Older Discos are
starting to get reasonable, or use an American donor vehicle. Or do you want
a project

David Cockey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

> trust me, i wont be going 90, even 75, in a series truck without some
serious
> modifications to components other than the engine and gearing.  such as 3
> point racing harnesses (good idea anyway, btw), disk brakes, and at least
a
> roll bar if not roll cage.  the seats should and will also be mounted to
the
> frame mounted cage.  a better (ie less vague) steering setup would also be
a
> great idea.
> adam

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:07:54 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Guiness & Cutwing 109s

Hi All--

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Ivan wrote:  <<And I'd rather drink water than drink Coors.>>
> 
> How would you know the difference?
> 

<g>  There's water, and then there's water with contaminants.

> The pictures of cutwing 109" Australian Army Land Rovers are still in
> my
> archives.
> Gotta find the negatives first.  Then I can print, scan.and send them.
> 

We're waiting!

Metta,
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 20:49:07 -0400
From: William L Leacock <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: speed

>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.

It was 'nt standard. 85 mph equates to 5000 rpm, way high for a diesel
Land Rover, even in lower gears.  How was the 85 mph measured?

Twenty plus years ago I had an 88 diesel that would do just over 90 mph,
on the flat, on the governor, in overdrive top, with high ratio diffs and
oversize tyres. 0-90 in about 5 mins and the same to stop. The oversize
tyres became great flywheels with which the 10 inch brakes could not
cope. The engine had very impressive torque.

 While on the subject, I doubt very much that a GM 2.5 4 cylinder engine
would have the power to propel an aerodynamic brick Land Rover at 90 mph
at 3000 rpm without some very seriuos modifications. 

Regards from Western New York State

  Bill Leacock.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:24:11 -0400
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Adam, don't let the others bug you. They always seem to pick on the little
guy, don't they ;-)

I think your idea is pretty good. I have had lots of luck mating a big ol
ford truck tranny with a 6.?? low bull gear, to a LR T case. My problem
resides with the motor. The 2.5 is not known for longevity, I have seen so
many of those grenade at low mileage in S-10's, etc. They are a pretty
crappy motor. If you can deal with that, go and get a spare, when it blows,
change it. That's easy enough, but for a bulletproof motor,  I would
strongly recommend looking into the old chevy inline 6 cylinder (250 cube?)
4.1 L that was available in late 70's chevy pickups. This engine will put
out as much torque as a fully modded 3.0L mercuiser, and will amaze you with
the gobs of torque available. PLUS, it is extremely cheap to buy, and parts
are a joke.

I just got back form a little adventure, snowing my girlfriend how to rock
crawl, part of her Land-Rover education. Last year I had to take four tries
at a particular wash area, as I would have to gun it to make it up with the
4 cyl rover engine. This time, with the big 300 six and 80-1 crawl ratio
approx, I walked through it. Then, I let my GF try it, three tries later,
she was through. Seriously, the gears and the torque made the difference. I
basically almost never use my low range as the bull low is about as low as
2nd low in a series rover, with double the torque ;-)

J-L

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 5:51 PM
Subject: LRO: Engine/Trans Swap

> I have come up with the ideal engine/trans swap for my series IIA.  GM 2.5
inline 4 (or mercruiser 3.0), and an SM420 truck transmission mated to the
stock LR trans case.  1st gear on the SM420 is 7.05:1, and 4th is 1:1.  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.  This will also give a 85:1 crawl ratio, right in the ideal range
for rock crawling.  My question is, has anybody done such a swap?  I know
Timm has a SM420 (or SM465) in his 109, but anybody else?  BTW, If you have
a problem with me modifying my truck to better suit the purpose I need it
for, please keep it to yourself.  Lets not start the whole Hybrid war again.
If you dont have anything nice to say, keep it to yourself : )
> Thanks,
> Adam

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:14:41 -0400
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

  i was going to use a 350
turbo on 
a 2.5 or 3.0.

adam

At the British Car Club of Western New York, Euro Car day saw two
interesting engine projects. 

1 Austin Healey Sprite with 1275 A series engine plus Garrett Turbo.

2 The ultimate Jaguar (?) Mk II saloon. Cut and shut into 2 door convertible
with a ZZ502 Chevy crate motor 500 plus HP, 3 mpg around town, 5 on highway.

I'm just dreaming about the 7.2 litre powerstroke turbo diesel conversion
for the 88. Never mind the short prop shaft. I'll just do away with the
gearbox cross member and bolt the transmission straight onto the axle.
It worked for Piaggio on the Vespa!!!!

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:17:27 -0400
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

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.

On a point of order. 90 mph is only 25 mph faster than 65

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:38:29 -0400
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

Adam, a turbo is a wonderful thing, but...

The 2.5 or 3.0 already has a high compression ratio, and the bottom end of
the motor could not cope with the extra power output of a turbo. You'd have
to completely modify that engine to get it to work.

Think about it - a turbo does not put out power in series friendly ranges.
It has to spool up to produce power, and to spool up, it needs a lot of
exhaust - hence, RPMS. Since the gearing is so low in a series rig, you
won't be in the sweet spot (actual boost) for very long, then you'll have to
manhandle that SM420 into the next gear.

Yes, if you had RR diffs or an ashcroft, you could theoretically gain a lot
from a turboed 4 cylinder, as you could get some good power out of it @
about 3000 rpms. But, this still leaves you with a small 4 cyl with a light
crank, and a lot less torque than you want off-road. When is the last time
anyone held a constant 3000 rpms while crawling over a boulder?

J-L

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:41:01 -0700
From: "Paul Quin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Guiness & Cutwing 109s

Wasn't it a Monty Python Joke:

"Drinking American beer is like making love in a canoe..."

"F**king close to water!"

Paul in Victoria...

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:20:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Guiness & Cutwing 109s

On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Paul Quin wrote:

:Wasn't it a Monty Python Joke:
:
:"Drinking American beer is like making love in a canoe..."
:
:"F**king close to water!"
:

This attitude is woefully out of date.  While mass-produced american beers
are mostly shit, there's no shortage of truely first rate stuff, either.
I'm sure you can't get any of the best of them outside the state they're
made in, though.  The craft brewing art in the US has made a real comeback
in the last decade or two.  The best of it outshines all of the imported
stuff.

David, takes beer and whisky (with or without an E) seriously, dammit

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 22:27:34 -0600
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

J-L,
    I don't know why someone else would want the 2.5 (Iron Duke), but I know
why I would choose it.  Simplicity.  The motor is small and fits in the
engine bay terrifically.  Weight, it's hard to compete with a small lump
like that.  Minimal modifications... to anything.  Sure, it won't compete in
torque with the 250 or 300 inch monsters, but it isn't intended to.  The
Duke can reliably put out 120-125 Hp using production parts.  Personally I
would love to have an engine like that at the moment.  I like the idea of
keeping the weight down.  The reason is simple to illustrate if you know
what a Suzuki Samurai is.  I could be wrong but I believe the 2.5 is lighter
than the 2.25.  Parts are extremely cheap too.  The bores are the same as
the 350 as well as some other parts which vastly increases one's options.
    The other opinion (yours) would likely be to simply fit the 250 or 300
as you did.  Great!  I would love that as well, but it involves much more
work which I don't have time or money for.  My fear is the destruction of
other parts of the truck under the torque these engines put out.  A few
others on the list that might remember my incremental plan to modify my LR
may also remember my thoughts on overcoming this problem.  But again, meant
more time and money.  Maybe someday, maybe never.  :-)
    I say 'Good on Ya' J-L.  Same goes for those planning on using the 2.5.
Have fun.

Kirk

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 23:01:19 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Guiness & Cutwing 109s

Hi All--

David Scheidt wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Paul Quin wrote:
> 
> :Wasn't it a Monty Python Joke:
> :
> :"Drinking American beer is like making love in a canoe..."
> :
> :"F**king close to water!"
> :
> 
> This attitude is woefully out of date.  While mass-produced american beers
> are mostly shit, there's no shortage of truely first rate stuff, either.
> I'm sure you can't get any of the best of them outside the state they're
> made in, though.  The craft brewing art in the US has made a real comeback
> in the last decade or two.  The best of it outshines all of the imported
> stuff.
> 

This is all true, but Coors ain't it.

> David, takes beer and whisky (with or without an E) seriously, dammit
> 

<is-that-e-whisky?>-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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:50:55 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Frame bushings

I doubt that the rubber has a torque tube effect on the suspension.  The
resistance of the rubber to twisting just isn't enough to really affect the

motion of the shackles.

I must disagre here - and something you do during installation proves it.

Y'know how you always take a truck out for a run to settle it on its
springs before you tighten the mounts to their nominal
70-foot-pounds...this settles thing so that the springs arent held with the
rubber torqued - as it will fail in that mode.

More the point, jack up a truck across the rear, then loosen the shackle
bolts - you will see the spring position change. There's a fair bit of
resistance to movement there.

                         ajr

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:55:17 -0500
From: "Garrick Olsen" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Clutch 

I've tried the extra bleeding and the max lengthening of the slave piston 
bolt.  I still need three pumps of the clutch to get the new clutch plate 
disengaged from the flywheel!!!

There was one suggestion about lengthening the piston by swaping with a 6" 
5/16 bolt with the head cut off.  That sounds like a rebuild of the slave.

What other tricks could I try?

How about a long nut threaded into the cut end of the piston bolt and then 
another bolt threaded through the other end into the arm?  That would give 
length...  Which is what I think I need.

Overall, why is this not working now.   I replaced the clutch disk.  Is the 
new disk just so much thicker since it is not worn that the clutching 
mechanism needs a longer stroke?

Yes, the slave is still mounted BELOW the bracket.  I suppose it might be 
possible to stack large dia washers around the slave under the bracket to ge 
the piston closer to the arm...  but that sounds unstable.

What should I try?

- -Rik
1960 Ser II (ie single chanel everything) SWB SW.

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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:19:54 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Clutch

Dumb question - when you had the transmission out to rebuild the clutch
assembly did you inspect the pins connecting the mechanism to the throwout
bits? It really sounds to me like you might have a substantial amount of
wear in the linkage there - the pins ofttimes wear and wear the holes oval
at the same time.

It doesn't take a lot of wear there to really screw up the throw of the
clutch.

As far as adding to the shaft, replacing the shaft and the like - if it's
not massively worn it shouldn't need it, and the additions and tinkering
are just masking the real problem.

                    ajr

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 06:57:20 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Clutch

My friend is having this same problem. Perfectly good clutch before new
driven plate, no clutch afterwards. I think they must be thicker, making
the center sit further back. We are still working on getting it solved.
His has no play in the pins.

Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus wrote:
> 
> Dumb question - when you had the transmission out to rebuild the clutch
> assembly did you inspect the pins connecting the mechanism to the throwout
> bits? It really sounds to me like you might have a substantial amount of
> wear in the linkage there - the pins ofttimes wear and wear the holes oval
> at the same time.
> 
> It doesn't take a lot of wear there to really screw up the throw of the
> clutch.
> 
> As far as adding to the shaft, replacing the shaft and the like - if it's
> not massively worn it shouldn't need it, and the additions and tinkering
> are just masking the real problem.
> 
>                     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, 12 Jun 2001 09:10:48 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Clutch

>His has no play in the pins.

It was worth asking - seen this a few times.

Second dumb question - which way is it the clutch plates go from the
fingered type to the flat metal ring in the center to the fingers with no
ring? Possible we have a case here of an odd pressure plate?

Again, I'm just speculating - but I know thwere's one combination of these
parts that does what this describes (lots of throw...).

               ajr

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 01 06:39:05 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

>trust me, i wont be going 90, even 75, in a series truck without some 
>serious 
>modifications to components other than the engine and gearing.  such as 3 
>point racing harnesses

Is there such as thing??  I thought racing harness started at 4 points 
and usually were five point to keep you from submarining on front impact.

> disk brakes,

Somehow disc brakes seem to be a difficult and expensive conversion in 
the States.

> and at least a 
>roll bar if not roll cage.  the seats should and will also be mounted to the 
>frame mounted cage.

You may have a problems with this.  You sit over the outside frame rail 
so a roll cage that is around the side of the interior/exterior is well 
outside the frame.  And on left hand drive LRs there is just no space for 
a front left interior cage leg.  I think LR had a good idea by making the 
cage external.  The hard part is anchoring it.

> a better (ie less vague) steering setup would also be a 
>great idea.

The stock one is not all that bad if properly adjusted and in good nick.  
Of course the tie rod ends need to be tight, the bushings in proper 
adjustments and the wheels balanced.

If everything is withing proper spec the LR steering is not bad. But it 
does get better with Scout II power steering.

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: Tue, 12 Jun 01 06:40:26 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[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 sounds about right for 100% stock series gearing but if I remember, 
he mentioned swapping out the 4.7 diffs for 4.1 and adding an Ashcroft 
high ratio Xfer case kit.

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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:30:02 -0600
From: "William J. Rice" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Clutch

Good call Alan--I too was wondering if he replaced the pressure plate.  I
ended up getting a "sans diaphragm" pressure plate to replace my "avec
diaphragm" plate so I just put the old one back in.  They are DEFINITELY
different dimensions and the "sans" model would certainly cause some
throwout issues which would give symptoms like he's describing.  

And he might have play in his pins--I don't think he's who Jim was
referring to.

bill

On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:10:48 -0400 "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus"
<[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> >His has no play in the pins.
> 
> It was worth asking - seen this a few times.
> 
> Second dumb question - which way is it the clutch plates go from 
> the
> fingered type to the flat metal ring in the center to the fingers 
> with no
> ring? Possible we have a case here of an odd pressure plate?
> 
> Again, I'm just speculating - but I know thwere's one combination of 
> these
> parts that does what this describes (lots of throw...).
> 
>                ajr
> 
> 

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 01 07:32:48 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

> When is the last time
>anyone held a constant 3000 rpms while crawling over a boulder?

Oh a couple months ago just to get up a steep ramping bolder.  First gear 
low range 3000 RPM put me at about 4 MPH with gobs of power & torque.  My 
first gear low range final drive ratio is 70.4 and I have 32 inch dia 
tyres.  1000 RPM puts me at about 1.5 MPH with way more torque than the 
LR 2.25 produces at peak torque.

One thing about having power + a very low ratio is I just about have to 
drive low range first with the hand throttle.  Any bump puts enough 
movment in my foot to cause the Rover to jump forward.  It takes very 
little throttle change to make very quick changes in velocity.

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: Tue, 12 Jun 01 08:21:51 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Engine/Trans Swap

>J-L,
>    I don't know why someone else would want the 2.5 (Iron Duke), but I know
>why I would choose it.  Simplicity. 

I agree completely with Kirk here.  The old cast iron GM four & 
Mericruiser engines are simple, rugged, about half again more powerful 
without mods than the 2.25L engine, lighter in weight and gets better 
fuel economy in proper tune.  Most versions can fit without any body 
modifications. And you can get by with using the stock gearbox and 
drivetrain.

It is the simplest conversion out there and probably the cheapest in 
general.  

I think it is a natural for an 88.  I didn't go that way because I drive 
an expedition equipped 109 RV and 120-125 HP just wasn't enough to go 
highway speed up long steep grades.

The in line six is a natural for a 109. given the extra weight.  They 
have lots of torque.  A GM inline six requires very little effort into a 
109 originally set up for a six.  It takes 75-80% of the work of fitting 
a V8 to put an inline six into a 109 with a four cylinder bay.

> The other opinion (yours) would likely be to simply fit the 250 or 300
>as you did.  Great!  I would love that as well, but it involves much more
>work which I don't have time or money for.

Converting a four cylinder bay to an inline six or V8 is not for the 
faint of heart nor the thin of pocket book.

>  My fear is the destruction of
>other parts of the truck under the torque these engines put out.

Once you get past the power of a stock 250 ci inline six you need to 
upgrade the gearbox and the rear diff.  The diff's a piece of cake but 
the gearbox has it's own set of adaption issues.

It would basically take a modified flowed 9:1 LR head, larger dia exhaust 
system, special cam and Weber two venturi carb & intake manifold to maybe 
equal the stock output of the old Iron Duke engine.  Cost wise the Iron 
Duke may be cheaper.

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 21:18:52 -0700
From: John Wang <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Missing Front Drive Shaft

Being a range rover neophyte I bought a 88 range rover over the weekend
only to find that the car is missing it's front drive shaft.  I called a
local range rover salvage yard and was given a quote of $150 for the drive
shaft.   I know, I know, shouldn't be so trusting of other people. . but he
seems like a nice guy. . lol. . oh well, a lesson in life.   Anyway, why
would people take out the front drive shaft?  Other than the drive shaft
could there be other potential problems?

Thanks,

John

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:10:57 -0400
From: "Tackley, John" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Series Front Disc Brake conversion

As promised, here's the link to pics of my recent installation of the TI
Console Front Disc Brake Kit on my IIA...

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=195874&a=13244495

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #404
**********************************************