Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #433

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:02:34 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *  Monday, July 2 2001  Volume 01 : Number 433

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 01 07:32:48 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: New Guy or All about Joe

>Let me re-phrase that.
>
>Do land rovers use the hubs designed and patented by Warn, or a diffrent 
>type?

YES to both halves of your "or"

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, 2 Jul 2001 10:54:07 -0400
From: "krm@home" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Diesel timing question

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C102E5.515B7880
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi;
I have 2.25 diesel from a 1963 109
The timing marks on my flywheel are
EP
14
13
TDC

Manual says to use 16 for older pumps and 15 for newer pumps.
So where doe this flywheel fit in?

Also I can't rotate the distributer pump far enough to line up the =
timing mark (A) to where it should be. Tried with the flywheel at 13, 14 =
and where 15 and 16 would be.

What component is worn most likly?

thatns

Keith R. Mohlenhoff

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C102E5.515B7880
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Hi;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2>I have 2.25 =
diesel from a=20
1963 109</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>The timing marks on my flywheel =
are</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>EP</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>14</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>13</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>TDC</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Manual says to use 16 for older pumps and 15 for =
newer=20
pumps.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>So where doe this flywheel fit in?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Also I can't rotate the distributer pump far enough =
to line up=20
the timing mark (A) to where it should be. Tried with the flywheel at =
13, 14 and=20
where 15 and 16 would be.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>What component is worn most =
likly?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>thatns</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Keith R. Mohlenhoff</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C102E5.515B7880--

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:57:46 -0400
From: Perrone Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 95 rangie and on...

<html><head></head><body>Let me dispel some myths.<br>
<br>
First, tech info is available on the RRO list.&nbsp; We don't ONLY talk about
radios and ABS.&nbsp; Hell, I don't even HAVE a radio in my 91. &nbsp; Anyway, let
me answer your questions:<br>
<br>
1.&nbsp; You can convert the new body to coils although I am not sure I would.&nbsp;
At least not right away.&nbsp; The newer systems seems to be more reliable at
least in the short term.&nbsp; They aren't old enough yet to see the dry-rotting
we are seeing on the 1993 models.<br>
<br>
2.&nbsp; You seem to be misinformed about the engines.&nbsp; The 3.5/3.9/4.2 engines
all use the same block and heads.&nbsp; This was the engine as it was bought from
GM with minor massaging over the years.&nbsp; By the time the engine had been
stroked to 4.2, several weaknesses had started showing up.&nbsp; Like the propensity
to blow head gaskets due to poor sealing, and the disturbing tendency to
spin bearings due to flexing of the crank and block in the bottom end.&nbsp; So
rover redesigned the engine from the bottom up.&nbsp; They used a cross-bolt design
like a diesel to minimize block flex.&nbsp; Used larger oil journals, and better
water circulation.&nbsp; This engine was offered as the 4.0/4.6 and was FIRST
available in 1995.&nbsp; Its a good engine and makes decent power for its size
and technology (given the power band).&nbsp; It would be difficult for it to make
better torque without adding forced induction, and it could make a lot more
horsepower, but the power band would have to get moved up in RPM.&nbsp; The 4.6
would be my choice as it is every bit as reliable, and has a good bit more
power.&nbsp; In truth, I'd get a classic, strip the engine compartment, add a
stroked , distributorless, Chevy 350, and call it a day.&nbsp; You could go this
route, run RINGS around a 4.6, have roof-rack, winch, lockers, reasonable
comfort, a good sound system, and still come up cheaper.<br>
<br>
Good luck!<br>
<br>
- -Perrone<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ray Harder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]"><pre wrap="">i think there were some earlier postings that <br>the 4.6 engine was perhaps at the engineering<br>extreme and was problematic.  any thoughts<br>on this.  but i also think the 4.6 came out<br>later and if i am in the under $20k market, i<br>would have the 4.0 as my choice...  ray<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap=""></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><pre wrap="">the 95 range rovers are selling under 20k now.<br>i had a 87 classic and liked it.  i have<br>2 series (so i am posting to the leaf list cause<br>i want mechanical-type advise).  anyway, could<br>i be happy with the new body-style rangie...<br><br>like (for example) does the spring replacement for<br>the air-bag suspension work on this model, too.<br><br>other things like that...<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Ray Harder <br><br><br></pre></blockquote>
          <pre wrap=""><!----><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Ray Harder </pre>
          </blockquote>
          <br>
</body></html>

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 10:59:51 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 95 rangie and on...

Heard that the 4.2 was a bored out 4.0/3.9.  Don't know a thing about the 4.6.  Sorry...  But for $20kUS you could buy a lot of Classic RR, I mean a really nice one.

>>> [email-masked] 07/02/01 10:18AM >>>

i think there were some earlier postings that 
the 4.6 engine was perhaps at the engineering
extreme and was problematic.  any thoughts
on this.  but i also think the 4.6 came out
later and if i am in the under $20k market, i
would have the 4.0 as my choice...  ray

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, RON WARD wrote:

> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 08:30:49 -0400
> From: RON WARD <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked] 
> To: [email-masked] 
> Subject: Re: LRO: 95 rangie and on...
> 
> That's a good question.  I think the coil conversion is available/possible on a new body Range Rover, but consider this...  The new body style Range Rover is a 2nd or 3rd generation EAS system that is very sophisticated and, I'm told, trouble free.  In fully extended height, the new Rangie has more body clearance than a D90.  But the smaller, less aggressive tires will limit the under axle clearance.
> 
> I recently went on a weekend off-road event and the truck behind me was a Callaway Range Rover 4.6 with 17" rims and Pirelli Scorpions.  We were on level 3 and 4 trails all day, stuff that made lifted Discos and a stock IIa 88" suffer.  The 4.6 never hesitated...a surprise to us all.  Give it a try.
> 
> Ron Ward
> 
> >>> [email-masked] 06/29/01 04:10PM >>>
> 
> the 95 range rovers are selling under 20k now.
> i had a 87 classic and liked it.  i have
> 2 series (so i am posting to the leaf list cause
> i want mechanical-type advise).  anyway, could
> i be happy with the new body-style rangie...
> 
> like (for example) does the spring replacement for
> the air-bag suspension work on this model, too.
> 
> other things like that...
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Ray Harder 
> 
> 

Sincerely,

Ray Harder 

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:00:31 -0400 
From: Matt Peckham <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: strange looking French cars-way off topic

The Pontiac Aztek, the Hunchback of Notre Detroit.

As a part of the Xterra owning minority, we have WAY too much fun at the
Aztek's expense.  April fool's day, the owner of www.xterraownersclub.com
turned it into the Aztek Owners Club, replete with new graphics, an
interview with celebrity Aztek owner Richard Hatch and a photo of the day of
an Aztek getting towed out of a grassy backyard.  It was pretty darn
amusing.

The scary thing is that the fools at GM have rebadged the Aztek as the new
Buick  Rendezvous.  Which, honestly, has gotten a bit better face lift, but
is still, just an Aztek in Tiger Wood's clothing.

Matt

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ogilvie [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:37 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: strange looking French cars-way off topic

Checked out the Renault, its a work of art compared to the Aztec.  At least 
the Renault looks it was designed by a team of designers who worked together

and communicated.  The Aztec looks like a bunch of designers individually 
designed parts of the car and never met or saw the work the others were 
doing until it was assembled.  Saw one actually being driven today.  My 
first thought was, how could any auto company let that design out on the 
road??  Then I realized it was an Aztec and I still couldn't figure out how 
the thing ever got out of the prototype stage.  It actually looks like one 
car on top of another like they designed 1 1/2 cars and didn't have the 
heart to kill off the extra 1/2.

Aloha
Peter

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:21:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Joseph S Dufresne wrote:

> How low can I go in a LR axle?

Well, a set of the later IIA/III fifteen inch rims would be a start,
though I have not made a habit of checking out what low-profile tires are
available for that size of rim.  I do warn you though, making it do the
hop a-la the Puerto Rician rigs will be tough with leaf springs...  

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:24:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Bottle opener on Series trucks:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus wrote:

> If you, beer in hand, move to the rear of the Range Rover you'll find the
> rear bumper. Where the bumper is bolted to the chassis the inside edge of

That is unless you have started turning your RR into a Series clone with
coils like Dale and the fancy bumpers and other associated frilly bits
have gone by the wayside.  I'd say the Gin Palace has half a dozen openers
on it by now.

The '88 side steps make a great rear bumper...

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Bottle opener on Series trucks:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, John Cranfield wrote:

> Kindly explain just why, when on Canadian soil you found it necessary to
> use said bottle opener when Canadian beer has screw tops!!!! Hrmph.

Alan loves American beer, so I am sure he brought up cases of that swill
and was in need of an opener.  Series vehicles have very wise & kind
ephemerial Spirits inhabiting them.  These Spirits told Alan if he got so
near to opening a jar of that stuff nearby, Churchill would disown him. Of
course, Alan having the experience of Lucy knows the evil therein as well
as the Range Rover will take any kind of attention and thus lead him to
find something useful on their bodies.

Of course, Alan has the choice.  Admit to this, or admit he didn't notice
everyone around him opening their beer with a simple twist... :-)

Dixon
'64 109sw

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:33:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: New Guy or All about Joe

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Jim Hall wrote:

> Do land rovers use the hubs designed and patented by Warn, or a diffrent
> type?

Depended on era...  You can almost date vehicles from the type of
(optional) FWHs on them.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:18:07 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Bottle opener on Series trucks:

I'd say the Gin Palace has half a dozen openers
on it by now.

Yes, but we're not discussing welded-on church keys here.....8*)

                         ajr

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:27:14 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: RE: New Guy or All about Joe

>	As for added width, what is a disco, maybe 3-5" wider?  He could have made
>up that difference by folding in the mirrors.  So in fact, this guy

Perrone,
Two years ago our club ran a trail which had very deep ruts. The Series 
trucks were narrow enough that they had one wheel in a rut and one in the 
middle. The coil trucks were wide enough that they had to have both wheels 
in a rut. Consequently they had to be pulled through a large part of the 
trails as the were high centered. So width can make a difference.

Anyway, Keith never said his vehicle was better than a Disco. He said they 
were designed with different end results in mind. In fact I believe he said 
he liked the Disco. Just enjoy your truck. Who cares if a few list members 
are Series-snobs.

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, 02 Jul 2001 12:00:43 -0400
From: Bill Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Diesel timing question

Static timing should be set with #1 piston ASCENDING the bore on the
COMPRESSION stroke. If you turn the engine with the #1 glow plug removed
and the rocker cover off, you should be able to tell when you are on the
compression stroke by observing the valve position. Another way to tell
where you are in the cycle is to watch the exhaust valve to see when it
is fully open. The Exhaust Peak mark should show up in the window. From
here you should rotate the engine until you feel air pushing out the
glow plug hole...the piston will now be on the compression stroke.
As to the flywheel marks, these do not seem to be 2A marks. Guess your
best. EP should be the same.
- -- 
Bill Adams
Motion Graphics/3D Design Director
IBB Broadcast Design Center, Washington DC
[email-masked]
202-205-9638

1966 Land Rover 2A 109SW Diesel
1981 Honda GoldWing Standard
1963 Pearson Vanguard
"Practicing the ancient art of ren-ching"

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 09:51:13 -0600
From: Joseph S Dufresne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Prejudices wasKinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil comments bewarned

- --=====================_3767918==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 11:00 AM 6/29/2001 -1000, you wrote:
>Are big FAT tires really better for off roading or is it just a myth that 
>the Wider the tires, the longer the equipment of the operator.  I'm a big 
>proponent of ground clearance though have found 32" tires get me where I 
>want to go.  With all respect to Peter H. can't see anything wider than a 
>9.5" tire on a 2 1/4 powered series truck.  Also can't imagine a taller 
>tire than 33" on a series without widening the track.  You'd huli the 
>truck on a 20 degree sideslope with anything bigger.  Just because the 
>mall poseurs take along ladders to climb into the cab, doesn't mean they 
>really work off road.  More likely it's just a vain fashion statement to 
>impress the chicks.  Peter H's comments against Defender owners also 
>applies to the big tire American Iron crowd.  Of course, when you take 
>your 143" wheelbase extended cab pickup, with custom pinstriping and 
>graphics, offroad, you need 40" tires to get the same breakover angle as a 
>Series on 31" tires.  With a wheel base that long you aren't going to get 
>far off road, in any case.
>
>As far as Joe, it sounds like he ought to strip the rusty body off his 
>scout, buy a bulkhead, rear tub, fenders, and breakfast, adjust the Scout 
>frame accordingly and graft the body onto the Scout Frame.  The only thing 
>that will be left of the series is the look.  Why waste a good series 
>doing this.  If all he wants is the looks, its easier and cheaper to do it 
>with parts than butchering a whole truck.  Hell, if he wants to pay the 
>shipping, I'll give him an 88 tub that is pre customized for rock 
>work.  If he insists on Rover underpinnings, a coil frame and donations 
>from a RR may get him what he wants.  Though that conversion may not be cheap.

ok, how much does it weigh?  whaqt are the dimensions?  and where are you?

>Some modifications to a series make sense.  A more efficient, more 
>powerful motor would be nice to have but not a big American V8 unless

i'm not a fan of V8's, and in any case, only a small american v-8 would fit 
in a landrover w/o serious modifications

>you're also going to swap in an appropriate transmission and 
>axles.  Especially on a 109, power steering would be nice, your going to 
>be doing a lot of wheel twisting to get that long wheelbase, huge turning 
>circle vehicle into even open spaces.  Of course, if you had 9.5" or

power steeri ng is nothing,  it's power brakes i want

>narrower tires, power steering wouldn't be needed quite so much.  Only 
>drastic modifications to the front suspension will get you a lot more 
>articulation.  More cost effective to just install parabolics and put 
>lockers all round.  Extending the spring mounts and putting on longer front

A spring over can do pretty well

>springs and shock towers won't get you nearly as far as the above 
>modification.  A way to get the road cruising speed up a little at a more 
>comfortable rpm would be nice, especially if your running 100hp or 
>so.  Going faster than 70mph on ANY off road capable truck is 
>irresponsible and dangerous to the rest of us.  An offroad capable truck 
>is physically unsuitable for highspeed on road work.  Yeah, you can

I have to agree here.  if properly built, a "off-road capable" truck can 
sustain high speeds.  I have several freinds who race scouts, those scots 
are bilt diffrent than the rockcrawlers they own

>put air springs and electronic suspension (sound familiar) to lower and 
>stiffen the suspension for road work and then pump it up and give the 
>wheel travel needed for off road work.  For most of us mortals, the 
>combination of high CG for ground clearance and the reliability of springs 
>and mechanical suspension means we have to drive prudently on the road.

oh, defiently.  I used to drive semi's, i don't take chances

>Use a little common sense in how you want to modify your Series truck.  If 
>you want a gonzo rock crawler, it ain't a series truck.  With a few

series trucks aren't rock crawlers?

>judicious and cost effective changes, you can have a series truck that 
>will get you almost anywhere that 4 wheels will go, however, and still 
>have a vehicle that bears a close resemblance to the Series Truck that you 
>started with.  Don't spend a lot of money on a paint job, if your going to 
>USE your truck off road.  You WILL be customizing the body work.

almost anywhere is the problem.  a stock 4wd can handls most 3 rated 
trails, but i'm moving towards 5 rated trails.

Joe

>Aloha
>Peter O
>
>>From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
>>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>>To: <[email-masked]>
>>Subject: LRO:  Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil comments bewarned
>>Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:41:49 -1000
>>
>> >
>> >    While I respect you a lot as you bring a lot of experience to the list,
>>it pains me that your statements ring true.  I know many leafers don't care
>>about coiler guys, and that permeates with your attitudes.  It seeps into
>>the persona of off-road events, and generally makes for a difficult time
>>planning events between the two groups.  Those of us who own coil-sprung
>>rovers and actually are enthusiasts tend to appreciate the series trucks and
>>learn what we can about the heritage of our marque.
>>
>>
>>Unfortunately for some of us leafers we don't meet many coilers that fall
>>into this description.
>>A couple of us Series guys on island have taken the time to stop and chat
>>with coilers and invite them to participate on our trips and get togethers.
>>Pretty much get treated like we are not good enough for them.  I am not
>>talking about the station wagon soccer moms either.  If it's a stock
>>looking, new, scratchless Rangie or Disco I don't bother any more.  I am
>>talking about the guys/girls that have off road tires, bars, lights, racks
>>etc.    Ask em to go off roading, they think you mean drive through the
>>pineapple fields or to Keana Pt.  Tell em we mean Peacock Flats, the
>>Kahuku's, or the training areas of Schoffield.  Tell them about the knee
>>deep mud, how Kevin and I have both flooded our engines, about the time I
>>had water up to my seat cushions and they get this look on their face like
>>we are talking about going to mars.  These people have the pushbars so they
>>dont scratch their fenders in parking lots.  They thought that those three
>>white round disks on the front just let people know they spent more $$$ on
>>their vehicle.  Don't really use the lights, because that would mean getting
>>ut of the vehicle to remove the covers.  The roof rack is to put the beach
>>chairs on so you don't get sand in the vehicle.  The tires, well it's a
>>truck, ya have to have truck tires ona truck.  The three Defender guys I
>>have met on Island bought the "image".  They have money and want everyone to
>>know.  Oh they also have a Benz and a BMW Z-3.  You know, the people who
>>think Series means new Disco, or the "early Defender", or the vehicle used
>>by the Desert Rats in North Africa during WWII.  Had one guy go into this
>>long explanation about how the Range Rover company designed the Land Rover
>>for a British oil company in the 50's for oil exploration and they were
>>never sold to the general public.  Other oil companies, logging companies,
>>mines, etc were the only one that got them.
>>
>>I have met some of the people from this list that own coilers and I know
>>that my above rant is not a blanket statement against all coilers, but it
>>does describe the majority of coil owners.  It has been mentioned on this
>>list in the past that hopefully Ford realises that there exists a market for
>>a true utility type 4x4.  I hope they do, but you know what, I think the
>>market is very, very, very small.  Ford bought a Name.  If the Defender line
>>continues, in less then 10 years it will be an aerodynamic, unibody design
>>vehicle with crumple zones, molded plastic bumpers, airbags, and all the
>>electric gadgets you can imagine.  Some people believe that this elctrickery
>>makes the vehicle more reliable, recent dsicussion on the Mendo list about
>>this.  People didn't believe me when I claimed to have had many vehicles
>>towed into our shop for sensor related failures, including one GM car that
>>had it's brakes lock up when the ABS system went out.  If you are looking
>>for something that doesn't require much in the way of maintance, then buy a
>>brand new vehicle and swap it out every 3-4 years.  But dont try and tell me
>>that a 10 yo EFI vehicle is more reliable then a Series vehicle would have
>>been when it was 10 years old.  And if you believe that a coiler is more
>>reliable then a leafer how about a $for$ comparison.  I will wager a months
>>pay that if two people both had the same budget, the one that puts all the
>>money into new parts for a Series rig will have a more relaible vehicle then
>>the person that buys a Disco II.
>>
>>I am not saying that coil sprung vehicle are bad.  I would love to get a
>>1975 2 door rangie.  Maybe swap out the duel SU/Stromberg carbs for webers,
>>but I would be happy with the rest of the package.  For my next project I
>>want to build a coil 109 with a dormie top.  Diesel engine and auto tranny.
>>Hope Joe does build his Series so I can learn from his experiance.  I can't
>>wait to get to the PacNorWest and meet some of the people up there and see
>>how they have built their rigs.  From the photos I have seen and the people
>>I have talked to, hope I can talk Timm Cooper into letting me an apprentice
>>for a while.  To me the Rover is a big lego set.  I like the looks.  I like
>>working on them.  I enjoy the simplicity and the funny quirks.  I love that
>>I had to remove the radiator in order to take off the steering relay, I
>>still laugh at that one.  I like the small 4 cyl in the 88 and the low
>>gearing.  Yes I drive in more mud then rock crawling and I "rednecked" the
>>88 by putting 33's on it, but they are working great for me.  I do cringe at
>>times when I think about what I have done to my vehicle and know there are
>>people out there that probably think I have truely ruined the vehicle.  But
>>I am happy with it.  The only thing I have done that isn non-reversable is
>>to change the shape of the rear wheel wells.  If I ever got rid of the
>>thing, someone could get a stock chassis and springs it it would be a stock
>>series again.  Show of hands, who remembers the kid that wanted to put 33's
>>and a v-8 in a Series rig?  he was run off pretty quick.  Think some are
>>trying the same with Joe, and am sure that if I had started out discussing
>>my plans I would have been run off also.  BTW I found this list sometime in
>>mid 97, but never posted until May 98 when I found out about the move to
>>Hawaii, and asked about Rovers for sale here.  Other then asking questions,
>>I stayed pretty quiete for another year.  I saw alot of how the
>>non-traditionalist were treated and didn't want any part of it.
>>Well that is enough for now I am sure,
>>Pete
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>

Joe Dufresne, [email-masked]; ICQ# 25751950;
http://tigger.tmcom.com/~josad/
"Don't shoot to kill, shoot to live!"
- --=====================_3767918==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
At 11:00 AM 6/29/2001 -1000, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Are big FAT tires really better fo=
r
off roading or is it just a myth that the Wider the tires, the longer the
equipment of the operator.&nbsp; I'm a big proponent of ground clearance
though have found 32&quot; tires get me where I want to go.&nbsp; With
all respect to Peter H. can't see anything wider than a 9.5&quot; tire on
a 2 1/4 powered series truck.&nbsp; Also can't imagine a taller tire than
33&quot; on a series without widening the track.&nbsp; You'd huli the
truck on a 20 degree sideslope with anything bigger.&nbsp; Just because
the mall poseurs take along ladders to climb into the cab, doesn't mean
they really work off road.&nbsp; More likely it's just a vain fashion
statement to impress the chicks.&nbsp; Peter H's comments against
Defender owners also applies to the big tire American Iron crowd.&nbsp;
Of course, when you take your 143&quot; wheelbase extended cab pickup,
with custom pinstriping and graphics, offroad, you need 40&quot; tires to
get the same breakover angle as a Series on 31&quot; tires.&nbsp; With a
wheel base that long you aren't going to get far off road, in any
case.<br><br>
As far as Joe, it sounds like he ought to strip the rusty body off his
scout, buy a bulkhead, rear tub, fenders, and breakfast, adjust the Scout
frame accordingly and graft the body onto the Scout Frame.&nbsp; The only
thing that will be left of the series is the look.&nbsp; Why waste a good
series doing this.&nbsp; If all he wants is the looks, its easier and
cheaper to do it with parts than butchering a whole truck.&nbsp; Hell, if
he wants to pay the shipping, I'll give him an 88 tub that is pre
customized for rock work.&nbsp; If he insists on Rover underpinnings, a
coil frame and donations from a RR may get him what he wants.&nbsp;
Though that conversion may not be cheap.</blockquote><br><br>
ok, how much does it weigh?&nbsp; whaqt are the dimensions?&nbsp; and
where are you?<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Some modifications to a series mak=
e
sense.&nbsp; A more efficient, more powerful motor would be nice to have
but not a big American V8 unless </blockquote><br><br>
i'm not a fan of V8's, and in any case, only a small american v-8 would
fit in a landrover w/o serious modifications<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>you're also going to swap in an
appropriate transmission and axles.&nbsp; Especially on a 109, power
steering would be nice, your going to be doing a lot of wheel twisting to
get that long wheelbase, huge turning circle vehicle into even open
spaces.&nbsp; Of course, if you had 9.5&quot; or </blockquote><br><br>
power steeri ng is nothing,&nbsp; it's power brakes i want<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>narrower tires, power steering
wouldn't be needed quite so much.&nbsp; Only drastic modifications to the
front suspension will get you a lot more articulation.&nbsp; More cost
effective to just install parabolics and put lockers all round.&nbsp;
Extending the spring mounts and putting on longer front
</blockquote><br><br>
A spring over can do pretty well&nbsp; <br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>springs and shock towers won't get
you nearly as far as the above modification.&nbsp; A way to get the road
cruising speed up a little at a more comfortable rpm would be nice,
especially if your running 100hp or so.&nbsp; Going faster than 70mph on
ANY off road capable truck is irresponsible and dangerous to the rest of
us.&nbsp; An offroad capable truck is physically unsuitable for highspeed
on road work.&nbsp; Yeah, you can </blockquote><br><br>
I have to agree here.&nbsp; if properly built, a &quot;off-road
capable&quot; truck can sustain high speeds.&nbsp; I have several freinds
who race scouts, those scots are bilt diffrent than the rockcrawlers they
own<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>put air springs and electronic
suspension (sound familiar) to lower and stiffen the suspension for road
work and then pump it up and give the wheel travel needed for off road
work.&nbsp; For most of us mortals, the combination of high CG for ground
clearance and the reliability of springs and mechanical suspension means
we have to drive prudently on the road.</blockquote><br><br>
oh, defiently.&nbsp; I used to drive semi's, i don't take
chances<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Use a little common sense in how
you want to modify your Series truck.&nbsp; If you want a gonzo rock
crawler, it ain't a series truck.&nbsp; With a few&nbsp;
</blockquote><br><br>
series trucks aren't rock crawlers?&nbsp; <br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>judicious and cost effective
changes, you can have a series truck that will get you almost anywhere
that 4 wheels will go, however, and still have a vehicle that bears a
close resemblance to the Series Truck that you started with.&nbsp; Don't
spend a lot of money on a paint job, if your going to USE your truck off
road.&nbsp; You WILL be customizing the body work.</blockquote><br><br>
almost anywhere is the problem.&nbsp; a stock 4wd can handls most 3 rated
trails, but i'm moving towards 5 rated trails.<br><br>
Joe<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>Aloha<br>
Peter O<br><br>
<blockquote type=3Dcite class=3Dcite cite>From: &quot;Hope Peter&quot;
&lt;[email-masked]&gt;<br>
Reply-To: [email-masked]<br>
To: &lt;[email-masked]&gt;<br>
Subject: LRO:&nbsp; Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil comments
bewarned<br>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:41:49 -1000<br><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; While I respect you a lot as you bring a lot of
experience to the list,<br>
it pains me that your statements ring true.&nbsp; I know many leafers
don't care<br>
about coiler guys, and that permeates with your attitudes.&nbsp; It seeps
into<br>
the persona of off-road events, and generally makes for a difficult
time<br>
planning events between the two groups.&nbsp; Those of us who own
coil-sprung<br>
rovers and actually are enthusiasts tend to appreciate the series trucks
and<br>
learn what we can about the heritage of our marque.<br><br>
<br>
Unfortunately for some of us leafers we don't meet many coilers that
fall<br>
into this description.<br>
A couple of us Series guys on island have taken the time to stop and
chat<br>
with coilers and invite them to participate on our trips and get
togethers.<br>
Pretty much get treated like we are not good enough for them.&nbsp; I am
not<br>
talking about the station wagon soccer moms either.&nbsp; If it's a
stock<br>
looking, new, scratchless Rangie or Disco I don't bother any more.&nbsp;
I am<br>
talking about the guys/girls that have off road tires, bars, lights,
racks<br>
etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Ask em to go off roading, they think you mean
drive through the<br>
pineapple fields or to Keana Pt.&nbsp; Tell em we mean Peacock Flats,
the<br>
Kahuku's, or the training areas of Schoffield.&nbsp; Tell them about the
knee<br>
deep mud, how Kevin and I have both flooded our engines, about the time
I<br>
had water up to my seat cushions and they get this look on their face
like<br>
we are talking about going to mars.&nbsp; These people have the pushbars
so they<br>
dont scratch their fenders in parking lots.&nbsp; They thought that those
three<br>
white round disks on the front just let people know they spent more $$$
on<br>
their vehicle.&nbsp; Don't really use the lights, because that would mean
getting<br>
ut of the vehicle to remove the covers.&nbsp; The roof rack is to put the
beach<br>
chairs on so you don't get sand in the vehicle.&nbsp; The tires, well
it's a<br>
truck, ya have to have truck tires ona truck.&nbsp; The three Defender
guys I<br>
have met on Island bought the &quot;image&quot;.&nbsp; They have money
and want everyone to<br>
know.&nbsp; Oh they also have a Benz and a BMW Z-3.&nbsp; You know, the
people who<br>
think Series means new Disco, or the &quot;early Defender&quot;, or the
vehicle used<br>
by the Desert Rats in North Africa during WWII.&nbsp; Had one guy go into
this<br>
long explanation about how the Range Rover company designed the Land
Rover<br>
for a British oil company in the 50's for oil exploration and they
were<br>
never sold to the general public.&nbsp; Other oil companies, logging
companies,<br>
mines, etc were the only one that got them.<br><br>
I have met some of the people from this list that own coilers and I
know<br>
that my above rant is not a blanket statement against all coilers, but
it<br>
does describe the majority of coil owners.&nbsp; It has been mentioned on
this<br>
list in the past that hopefully Ford realises that there exists a market
for<br>
a true utility type 4x4.&nbsp; I hope they do, but you know what, I think
the<br>
market is very, very, very small.&nbsp; Ford bought a Name.&nbsp; If the
Defender line<br>
continues, in less then 10 years it will be an aerodynamic, unibody
design<br>
vehicle with crumple zones, molded plastic bumpers, airbags, and all
the<br>
electric gadgets you can imagine.&nbsp; Some people believe that this
elctrickery<br>
makes the vehicle more reliable, recent dsicussion on the Mendo list
about<br>
this.&nbsp; People didn't believe me when I claimed to have had many
vehicles<br>
towed into our shop for sensor related failures, including one GM car
that<br>
had it's brakes lock up when the ABS system went out.&nbsp; If you are
looking<br>
for something that doesn't require much in the way of maintance, then buy
a<br>
brand new vehicle and swap it out every 3-4 years.&nbsp; But dont try and
tell me<br>
that a 10 yo EFI vehicle is more reliable then a Series vehicle would
have<br>
been when it was 10 years old.&nbsp; And if you believe that a coiler is
more<br>
reliable then a leafer how about a $for$ comparison.&nbsp; I will wager a
months<br>
pay that if two people both had the same budget, the one that puts all
the<br>
money into new parts for a Series rig will have a more relaible vehicle
then<br>
the person that buys a Disco II.<br><br>
I am not saying that coil sprung vehicle are bad.&nbsp; I would love to
get a<br>
1975 2 door rangie.&nbsp; Maybe swap out the duel SU/Stromberg carbs for
webers,<br>
but I would be happy with the rest of the package.&nbsp; For my next
project I<br>
want to build a coil 109 with a dormie top.&nbsp; Diesel engine and auto
tranny.<br>
Hope Joe does build his Series so I can learn from his experiance.&nbsp;
I can't<br>
wait to get to the PacNorWest and meet some of the people up there and
see<br>
how they have built their rigs.&nbsp; From the photos I have seen and the
people<br>
I have talked to, hope I can talk Timm Cooper into letting me an
apprentice<br>
for a while.&nbsp; To me the Rover is a big lego set.&nbsp; I like the
looks.&nbsp; I like<br>
working on them.&nbsp; I enjoy the simplicity and the funny quirks.&nbsp;
I love that<br>
I had to remove the radiator in order to take off the steering relay,
I<br>
still laugh at that one.&nbsp; I like the small 4 cyl in the 88 and the
low<br>
gearing.&nbsp; Yes I drive in more mud then rock crawling and I
&quot;rednecked&quot; the<br>
88 by putting 33's on it, but they are working great for me.&nbsp; I do
cringe at<br>
times when I think about what I have done to my vehicle and know there
are<br>
people out there that probably think I have truely ruined the
vehicle.&nbsp; But<br>
I am happy with it.&nbsp; The only thing I have done that isn
non-reversable is<br>
to change the shape of the rear wheel wells.&nbsp; If I ever got rid of
the<br>
thing, someone could get a stock chassis and springs it it would be a
stock<br>
series again.&nbsp; Show of hands, who remembers the kid that wanted to
put 33's<br>
and a v-8 in a Series rig?&nbsp; he was run off pretty quick.&nbsp; Think
some are<br>
trying the same with Joe, and am sure that if I had started out
discussing<br>
my plans I would have been run off also.&nbsp; BTW I found this list
sometime in<br>
mid 97, but never posted until May 98 when I found out about the move
to<br>
Hawaii, and asked about Rovers for sale here.&nbsp; Other then asking
questions,<br>
I stayed pretty quiete for another year.&nbsp; I saw alot of how=20
the<br>
non-traditionalist were treated and didn't want any part of it.<br>
Well that is enough for now I am sure,<br>
Pete<br>
</blockquote><br>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
<a href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com/"=
 eudora=3D"autourl">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br><br>
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Joe Dufresne, [email-masked]; ICQ# 25751950; <br>
<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u><a href=3D"http://tigger.tmcom.com/~josad/" eudor=
a=3D"autourl">http://tigger.tmcom.com/~josad/</a></u></font>
<br>
&quot;Don't shoot to kill, shoot to live!&quot;</html>

- --=====================_3767918==_.ALT--

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #433
**********************************************