Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #434

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:15:40 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Tuesday, July 3 2001 Volume 01 : Number 434

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:25:30 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Kinda Long and Opinionated

Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:32:25 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil comments bewarned

>The late model folk will have their
threads about ABS repairs, ECU problems, etc.  The leaf crowd gets to bitch
about fouled drum brakes, busting frame bushings out, frame cancer, and the
nightmare of correcting PO electrical work.  Somethings will never cross over
between the two.  What is sad is the rampant elitism.  Some folks are just
plain bitter.

It's human nature.  Everyone likes to feel they're better than someone else. Vehicles 
are a great way to generate the desired superior attitude: (MG-TD owner to MG-TF 
owner: "It's a great design, but it's too bad they dropped the classic separate headlights 
and went to those awkward faired in things."
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 18:31:03 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: strange looking French cars-way off topic

Phil Norris wrote:
> 
> OUCH!!  That IS ugly....  Makes a Musso look positively attractive!!

Oh wow! I never knew 'ugly' was spelt with an 'F'...

Your reference to the Musso just made me look, but have you seen the
Ssang Yong Korando yet?
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 09:48:06 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Kinda Long and Opinionated

True.

I just assumed that the board(s) were about being an enthusiast, or at least enthusiastic,
not about the manufacture date.

Jeff

"Faure, Marin" wrote:

> Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 09:32:25 -0700
> From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil comments bewarned
>
> >The late model folk will have their
> threads about ABS repairs, ECU problems, etc.  The leaf crowd gets to bitch
> about fouled drum brakes, busting frame bushings out, frame cancer, and the
> nightmare of correcting PO electrical work.  Somethings will never cross over
> between the two.  What is sad is the rampant elitism.  Some folks are just
> plain bitter.
>
> It's human nature.  Everyone likes to feel they're better than someone else. Vehicles
> are a great way to generate the desired superior attitude: (MG-TD owner to MG-TF
> owner: "It's a great design, but it's too bad they dropped the classic separate headlights
> and went to those awkward faired in things."
> ___________________________
> C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>   Seattle

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 09:51:01 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Heritage misconceptions  (was Leaf vs Coil....)

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:40:14 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Leaf vs coil attitude, you guys have it made

> I was amused to read an ad in the local 
newspaper for the very same vehicle which was advertised as a 1973 Land Rover 
Defender.

Had a fellow in the early 1990s pull into a service station in his Range Rover as I 
was fueling our Range Rover.  He walked over and made a few comments, in 
the course of which he expressed surprise that an automotive company that 
had been in business only since 1987 (the year the Range Rover was officially 
introduced in the US) could develop such a good vehicle in such a short time.  
He was convinced Land Rover had been incorporated in 1987, and the Range 
Rover was their first and (at that time) only product.  It wasn't worth the time 
and effort to set him straight.

I don't fault Land Rover North America for ignoring the heritage of today's 
Land Rovers other than as a way to continue the "mystique" they've successfully 
surrounded the brand with.  After all, you don't see Ford trying to link their 
lineage to the Model A or Chevy to the '57 Belair.  Just as at Boeing, we 
don't try to hang our hat on the 307 Stratoliner or the 707.  Companies are 
in the business of selling what's now and what's coming, not what's past.  
Don't forget, to the manufacturers, and to their distributors and dealers, a 
vehicle is a throwaway item.  They WANT you to get rid of it ASAP, so 
you'll buy a new one.  They have to tread a fine line between their desire 
to build something that self-destructs after a few years and the consumer's 
demand for something that lasts a long time.  So they want you to be always 
thinking of the most current model.

Also, the turnover at auto dealerships is pretty high.  Drive onto a lot and 
I suspect the average age of the salespeople is late 20s, early 30s.  Unless 
one of them is a true enthusiast, I wouldn't expect any of them to know any 
more about Series Land Rovers than what's contained in the distributor's 
literature, which isn't much.  To them, the Land Rover-shaped vehicle is 
a Defender, so it doesn't surprise me that a US dealer would apply that 
label to a 1970s vintage Series.

Speaking of vintage, you all know that Ford has "reissued" the Thunderbird 
as a retro design.  Well, I saw one of these things the other week while 
driving through a town east of Seattle.  It's huge.  It was considerably bigger than 
the BMW 635 I was driving at the time.  There are a few design details 
that are reminiscent of the Thunderbird, but so far as I could see as 
I passed it (it was parked), most of the "retro" is in the mind of the designer.  
I seem to recall the fellow who did the T-Bird retro is the same guy who did the 
VW Beetle retro, which isn't half bad.  But he sure missed on the T-Bird, 
unless it's supposed to be retro to one of the later 1960s models.  I assumed 
it was supposed to reflect the original mid-50s design.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:27:09 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Aztec

thanks to those who sent the AZTEC website.
 Ok, I give in, you lot won again, that is the worst truck I have ever seen
:-(

there must have been a hell of a party in the design studio the night before
they sat down and worked that out...
Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: 2 Jul 2001 10:38:27 -0700
From: Bryan Hoult <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Kinda Long and Opinionated

>> It's human nature.  Everyone likes >>to feel they're better than someone >>else. Vehicles are a great way to >>generate the desired superior attitude

Human nature just about sums it up.  In relevant human terms, it's only logical to be prejudicial about something in which you've invested emotion and monetary capital.  This works in our favor and detriment in various situations.  The important thing is to keep folks' comments in perspective with regard to our own interests.  If you can get past how you feel about someone's less than flattering comments regarding your choice, you will learn something that will help in the long run.  If nothing else, I have learned not to wave at Marin in traffic.  (I'm pretty sure I've seen him out and about)

Bryan
62 88
70 109 "Genie"

________________________________________________
PeoplePC:  It's for people. And it's just smart. 
http://www.peoplepc.com 

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 07:53:56 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 95 rangie and on...

Your right, 4.6 is probably the limit for the old Buick engine.  Haven't 
heard any negatives, only positives on that engine, though, for its extra 
power.  It was the 4.2 that was a dud.  Developed by TVR for auto use and 
was supposedly a reliable engine.  For some reason it was a short lived 
engine with the added weight and air resistance of an RR.

Aloha
Peter O

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:41:24 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Aztec

I was in Vancouver, B.C. a few weeks ago.  These AZTECs are all over the
place up there (as compared to the Seattle area).  The thing is that the
more you see, the uglier they get!!!

What the hell were they thinking?

Rich

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Elson <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:27 AM
Subject: LRO: Aztec

thanks to those who sent the AZTEC website.
 Ok, I give in, you lot won again, that is the worst truck I have ever seen
:-(

there must have been a hell of a party in the design studio the night before
they sat down and worked that out...
Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: 02 Jul 2001 13:01:09 -0500
From: george kase <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Defender/D-90 info

Does anyone know of a Defender/D-90 mail list based in the UK?
Thanks,
George Kase
Chicago

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:03:33 -0600
From: Brendan Evans <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Aztec

A local dealer picked up a few Aztec's, no doubt hoping that the 
influence of the National Outdoor Leadership School here in Lander 
would influence the purchase of these beasts.  I don't think any of 
them sold locally here in Lander, WY.  To follow up the Aztec the 
dealer now has a vehicle which competes in poor design.

The Chevy Avalanche.  I rode by the other day.  It just may be uglier 
than the Aztec.  Very close.

http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/index.htm

Regards,

Brendan

>thanks to those who sent the AZTEC website.
>  Ok, I give in, you lot won again, that is the worst truck I have ever seen
>:-(
>
>there must have been a hell of a party in the design studio the night before
>they sat down and worked that out...
>Best Cheers
>
>Frank
>     +--+--+--+
>      I !__|  [_]|_\___
>      I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
>      "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 08:12:19 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Aztec

HMMMMM!!!  Azteks all over Vancouver, BC.  Think!!  What does that say about 
our friends to the north.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: LRO: Re: Aztec
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:41:24 -0700
>
>I was in Vancouver, B.C. a few weeks ago.  These AZTECs are all over the
>place up there (as compared to the Seattle area).  The thing is that the
>more you see, the uglier they get!!!
>
>What the hell were they thinking?
>
>Rich
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Frank Elson <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:27 AM
>Subject: LRO: Aztec
>
>
>thanks to those who sent the AZTEC website.
>  Ok, I give in, you lot won again, that is the worst truck I have ever 
>seen
>:-(
>
>there must have been a hell of a party in the design studio the night 
>before
>they sat down and worked that out...
>Best Cheers
>
>Frank
>     +--+--+--+
>      I !__|  [_]|_\___
>      I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
>      "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:17:03 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Aztec

Hi All--

Rich Williams II wrote:
> 
> I was in Vancouver, B.C. a few weeks ago.  These AZTECs are all over the
> place up there (as compared to the Seattle area).  The thing is that the
> more you see, the uglier they get!!!
> 
> What the hell were they thinking?
> 

Remember the episode of Star Trek called "Spock's Brain"?

"Jim!  His brain is -- GONE!"

<jim!-his-taste-is--GONE!>-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, 02 Jul 2001 14:20:18 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Aztec

Didn't they give one of these things away on "Survivor" over here in the US?  That prize alone would keep me out of the competition, not to mention the bugs and the hairy legged women running around...

>>> [email-masked] 07/02/01 02:03PM >>>
A local dealer picked up a few Aztec's, no doubt hoping that the 
influence of the National Outdoor Leadership School here in Lander 
would influence the purchase of these beasts.  I don't think any of 
them sold locally here in Lander, WY.  To follow up the Aztec the 
dealer now has a vehicle which competes in poor design.

The Chevy Avalanche.  I rode by the other day.  It just may be uglier 
than the Aztec.  Very close.

http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/index.htm 

Regards,

Brendan

>thanks to those who sent the AZTEC website.
>  Ok, I give in, you lot won again, that is the worst truck I have ever seen
>:-(
>
>there must have been a hell of a party in the design studio the night before
>they sat down and worked that out...
>Best Cheers
>
>Frank
>     +--+--+--+
>      I !__|  [_]|_\___
>      I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
>      "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 15:27:56 -0300
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Aztec

Could it be that they are sooo fugly that even one seems like a crowd?
John and Muddy

Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> 
> HMMMMM!!!  Azteks all over Vancouver, BC.  Think!!  What does that say about
> our friends to the north.
> 
> Aloha
> Peter O.
> 
> >From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
> >Reply-To: [email-masked]
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Subject: LRO: Re: Aztec
> >Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 10:41:24 -0700
> >
> >I was in Vancouver, B.C. a few weeks ago.  These AZTECs are all over the
> >place up there (as compared to the Seattle area).  The thing is that the
> >more you see, the uglier they get!!!
> >
> >What the hell were they thinking?
> >
> >Rich
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Frank Elson <[email-masked]>
> >To: <[email-masked]>
> >Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 10:27 AM
> >Subject: LRO: Aztec
> >
> >
> >thanks to those who sent the AZTEC website.
> >  Ok, I give in, you lot won again, that is the worst truck I have ever
> >seen
> >:-(
> >
> >there must have been a hell of a party in the design studio the night
> >before
> >they sat down and worked that out...
> >Best Cheers
> >
> >Frank
> >     +--+--+--+
> >      I !__|  [_]|_\___
> >      I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
> >      "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:27:58 -0500
From: "KEITH ARMSTRONG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Test

Ping...

Keith Armstrong
Des Moines, Iowa

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:52:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Aztec

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Peter Ogilvie wrote:

> HMMMMM!!!  Azteks all over Vancouver, BC.  Think!!  What does that say
> about our friends to the north.

We're cheap and GM is trying to unload them?  :-)  It *is* LotusLand out
there you know.  Anything is possible.  They did buy submarines in 1914 to
defend their ferries and fishing boats against the maurading German
U-boats that were lurking in huge packs off shore... :-)  And we won't
talk about some of their more "interesting" Premiers.  

Now, at the other end of the country, Newfoundland's first provincial
Premier, and last colonial one, Joey Smallwood owned a Land Rover.  It was
the first vehicle to drive across the province, with Smallwood in it I
understand.  It still exists.  Owned by an OVLR member in St. John's.

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 18:43:49 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Aztec

>The Chevy Avalanche.  I rode by the other day.  It just may be uglier
>than the Aztec.  Very close.
>
>http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/index.htm
>

Oh look! They brought back the El Camino car/truck.

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 18:45:21 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Aztec

>HMMMMM!!!  Azteks all over Vancouver, BC.  Think!!  What does that say 
>about
>our friends to the north.

That the Canuck Buck is worth less than nothing and people can only afford 
to buy the only vehicles the dealers are giving away?  ;-)

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, 2 Jul 2001 14:48:10 -0400
From: "Lee Jones" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Re: Test

Pong...

Lee 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of KEITH ARMSTRONG
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:28 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Keith Armstrong
Subject: LRO: Re: Test

Ping...

Keith Armstrong
Des Moines, Iowa

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 12:59:35 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Aztec

Hi All--

N Forbes wrote:
> 
> >The Chevy Avalanche.  I rode by the other day.  It just may be uglier
> >than the Aztec.  Very close.
> >
> >http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/index.htm
> >
> 
> Oh look! They brought back the El Camino car/truck.
> 

<g>  Nope, those were a lot better looking.  Especially the 59s and 60s.

And sorry, no, the Aztec is still the clear winner in the fugly
department.  Compare to http://www.pauahtun.org/arvn-2.html at the
bottom of the page.

<which-one-would-you-be-caught-dead-in?>-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, 2 Jul 2001 20:17:50 +0100
From: "Phil Norris" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: strange looking French cars-way off topic

Oh yes, we suffer that one too.....
PhilN
- -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 July 2001 17:37
Subject: Re: LRO: strange looking French cars-way off topic

>Phil Norris wrote:
>> 
>> OUCH!!  That IS ugly....  Makes a Musso look positively attractive!!
>
>Oh wow! I never knew 'ugly' was spelt with an 'F'...
>
>Your reference to the Musso just made me look, but have you seen the
>Ssang Yong Korando yet?
> 
>Regards
>
>Paul Oxley
>AfricanAdrenalin.com
>

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:22:36 +0100
From: "Phil Norris" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Defender/D-90 info

'fraid not.  I'm on here (obviously!), UK-LRO and D-90.  There are uk and
Ireland guys on D-90 too so I suspect if there IS one it might not be
oversubscribed.  There are a few magazine forums and alt.fan.landrover too
but that's all I know of...
Brgds
PhilN
- -----Original Message-----
From: george kase <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 July 2001 19:11
Subject: LRO: Defender/D-90 info

>Does anyone know of a Defender/D-90 mail list based in the UK?
>Thanks,
>George Kase
>Chicago
>
>
>

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:58:33 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO:  Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil commentsbewarned

Ron wrote: >>>I've never thought about, or heard about, some rivalry between
coilers and leafers.  Sounds pretty silly to me...<<<

"It do, kinda, don't it ol' buddy?" (Kelly's Heroes)

Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 12:51:44 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: RE: Re: Test

You know, collectively, we all have way too much time on our hands.....

I was a little embarrassed at how much I got done at the office while the
list was down.

===============

Ping...

Keith Armstrong
Des Moines, Iowa

Pong...

Lee

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 16:38:28 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe

Great Basin Rovers makes a 4.75, and thats max.  stock series is 4.7, so n 
major improvement aside from gear strength.

adam

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:55:05 -0500
From: "KEITH ARMSTRONG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Transfer Case

Hi All,

I've got a problem in removing the intermediate shaft in my IIa transfer
case.

The clip that retains the shaft is in place, however, the "ear" opposite the
retainer has been broken off at some point in the distant past (SPOT).

It appears to me that my best alternative is to drill and tap the end of the
shaft in order to have a substantial point to grab onto the shaft for
removal.

Any thoughts?

tia,

Keith Armstrong
Des Moines, Iowa

'71 IIa 109 (ex-MoD)

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

Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 17:17:13 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO:  Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil commentsbewarned

"It show do, Miss Daisy, It show do!"  (Driving Miss Daisy)

>>> [email-masked] 07/02/01 03:58PM >>>
Ron wrote: >>>I've never thought about, or heard about, some rivalry between
coilers and leafers.  Sounds pretty silly to me...<<<

"It do, kinda, don't it ol' buddy?" (Kelly's Heroes)

Best Cheers

Frank
    +--+--+--+
     I !__|  [_]|_\___
     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 01 15:09:20 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Transfer Case

>I've got a problem in removing the intermediate shaft in my IIa transfer
>case.

If worse comes to worse, you can always remove your main shaft output 
gear and unbolt the transfer case with the intermediate shaft still in 
there, then pound the shaft out from the transmission side.

New shafts are available.  Unfortunatly the special LR tool for 
extracting them are not.

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, 02 Jul 2001 18:22:14 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Hella 4000's

Hey all,

Sorry for the cross post y'all.  I have a set of 4000's and need a mounting bracket for one of them.  This is a squared off C-shaped piece of high impact plastic that has a metal "core".  In other words, plastic coated metal bracket in the shape of a C laid over on its side...  Anyway, one is missing and presumed dead by the previous owner so can anyone point me in the right direction for an internet source?  I tried Hella themselves with no luck.  

Thanks,

Ron Ward

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:23:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Re: Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil 

- --part1_d9.16c10d0f.28724e77_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Frank Elson wrote:

> big bust up on the list and it was split up into 'leafers' and 'coilers'.
> Now you can try to fool yourselves as much as you like but that split was
> not over suspension systems although that provided a nice little excuse.
> It was over the completely different attitudes between owners of 'new'
> vehicles and owners of 'old' ones, between poseurs and enthusiasts, between
> .

You caught us, Frank.

Mea culpa...

Paul Donohue
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver

- --part1_d9.16c10d0f.28724e77_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Frank Elson wrote:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">big bust up on the list and it was split up into 'leafers' and 'coilers'.
<BR>Now you can try to fool yourselves as much as you like but that split was
<BR>not over suspension systems although that provided a nice little excuse.
<BR>It was over the completely different attitudes between owners of 'new'
<BR>vehicles and owners of 'old' ones, between poseurs and enthusiasts, between
<BR>cruisers and off-roaders... but not about suspension systems</BLOCKQUOTE>.</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>You caught us, Frank.
<BR>
<BR>Mea culpa...
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Paul Donohue
<BR>1965 Land Rover 109
<BR>Denver</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_d9.16c10d0f.28724e77_boundary--

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:24:19 -0400
From: "Scott Wickham Jr." <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Hella 4000's

  Try PUMA in Ohio.  800-354-3552.  He got me a Hella 500 housing cheap.

Scooter

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:04:09 -0400
From: "Scott Wickham Jr." <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: 101's and RR's

  So did I miss the Vampire at Ottawa or what?  I saw Andrew's tan 101 and a
ton of other great Rovers.
  And I think I fixed Lucy so I'll be at MAR with her.  Turns out it was the
fuel lines.  Not the dwell, not the timing, not the points, not the cap, not
the rotor, not the carb diaphragms, not the spark plug wires, not dirt in
the carbs, not the dirty filter on the end of the pick-up tube in the tank I
dropped out, not the fuel pump, not the 2nd fuel pump, not the coil, not the
vent to the fuel tank.  Nope, none of those ;)

Scooter

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:27:35 -0400
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Aztec

If you people think an Aztec is a "Marvel of 00 engineering", try removing
an oil filter on a brand new Kia Sportage. My my, I didn't think I was
capable of emitting such foul language...

(most serviced part on a automobile other than the dipstick, and it's
nowhere to be found)

J-L

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 101's and RR's

On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Scott Wickham Jr. wrote:

>   So did I miss the Vampire at Ottawa or what?  

Vampire didn't make it.  Engine problems.  Jeff knows the details.

> I saw Andrew's tan 101 and a ton of other great Rovers.

Sadly, there were more 80" sitting in driveways in and around Ottawa
needing work that were there! (Including mine sadly enough...).  And Bruce
made it through Customs with only one question with that paint job!  If we
are lucky some pictures may appear.

> Nope, none of those ;)

Rather thorough check I see...  :-)

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:28:16 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Bottle opener on Series trucks:

- --part1_118.11d115e.287295d0_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/2/01 8:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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
> 

Let's See, The rear bumper on one of the Rangies is a bit of 3" x 4" 1/4" 
Angle, and I gave the spoiler away. Now about those frilly bits, d'ya mean 
the mats in the back? 'Cause if'n ya did, it's just a substitute for the crap 
in the top of, and the grease/dirt coating of the underside of the rear of 
the tub of my Series.

Coilers, Leafers, no argument, they go where ya point em.

Zack

- --part1_118.11d115e.287295d0_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Book Antiqua" LANG="0">In a message dated 7/2/01 8:10:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
<BR>[email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">That is unless you have started turning your RR into a Series clone with
<BR>coils like Dale and the fancy bumpers and other associated frilly bits
<BR>have gone by the wayside</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Book Antiqua" LANG="0">
<BR>Let's See, The rear bumper on one of the Rangies is a bit of 3" x 4" 1/4" 
<BR>Angle, and I gave the spoiler away. Now about those frilly bits, d'ya mean 
<BR>the mats in the back? 'Cause if'n ya did, it's just a substitute for the crap 
<BR>in the top of, and the grease/dirt coating of the underside of the rear of 
<BR>the tub of my Series.
<BR>
<BR>Coilers, Leafers, no argument, they go where ya point em.
<BR>
<BR>Zack</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_118.11d115e.287295d0_boundary--

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:43:58 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: 95 Rangie and on...

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.

In order of introduction, the Rover V-8 went 3.5, 3.9, 4.2, 4.0/4.6.  I'm
assuming the 3.5 was the initial displacement.  The problematic version is
the 4.2.  This was developed by TVR for their fiberglass sportscars, and
Land Rover bought the rights to produce that version for the Range Rover.
This engine was used in the 4.2 LWB model (long wheelbase) that was
introduced in 1993, and was in production until 1995 or thereabouts.  Land
Rover wanted more power for the longer Range Rover, mainly to counter
complaints from the US that the 3.9 version was "underpowered."  The 4.2
was seen as a quick fix, as the development work had already been done.
Unfortunately, extracting more power from the original block was too much
for it.  While there may have been no problems with the 4.2 in TVRs, there
are a lot of problems in Range Rovers.  Simply put, the block is not strong
enough for the high loads imposed by moving a heavy vehicle like the Range
Rover, particularly when towing and so on.  Under load, the block can
actually flex a bit, with the result that the 4.2 suffers from maladies
like blown head gaskets and oil leaks.

It didn't take long for Land Rover to realize the 4.2 was a dud, and it
provided the impetus to devlop a more reliable, powerful version.  While
not a total redesign, the 4.0 and 4.6 that were introduced with the "new
model" Range Rover contain many improvements over the older versions, not
the least of which is a much stronger block.  The 4.0 and the 4.6 share
most of these improvements, although the 4.6 has added strengh through
things like
cross-bolted crankshaft bearings (I may have misnamed that item).  But the
4.0 and 4.6 are excellent engines by all accounts, although the 3.9 has a
good reputation as well.  The one to avoid like the plague is that crappy
4.2.

And as long as we're on the subject, steer clear of the Range Rover 4.2 LWB
in general.  Not only is the engine a repair bill waiting to happen, but
the LWB has Land Rover's first generation air suspension.  This is the
system that Rover used to learn how NOT to design an air suspension.  The
second generation air suspension, introduced on the "new model" in 1995, is
much more reliable.  Of course, if you get a coil sprung model, you will
never be presented with an air suspension repair bill at all.

________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
   Seattle, WA

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 23:44:12 -0400
From: "Bruce D. Fowler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 101's and RR's

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] 

:
:And Bruce made it through Customs with only one 
:question with that paint job!  

Ahhh... Yes, but that was New York...

Last week the Jackman crossing into Quebec
took two and a half hours.
Couldn't have been that "roach coach" paint job, now could it?

:If we are lucky some pictures may appear.
errr.... maybe :-)

Bruce F.

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:19:41 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

>>> [email-masked] 06/29/01 03:41PM >>>

>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 think your point is a bit apples and oranges.  If by reliable you mean
less things to go wrong with it, you are right.  But this holds true of ANY
type of machine, be it a vehicle, airplane, or can opener.  A Boeing 727
has less to go wrong than a Boeing 777.  A Series has less to go wrong for
the same reason-  there's less of it.  A Discovery, Range Rover, Nissan
Xterra or any other new 4wd you care to mention has a much greater number
of systems, and so has more to go wrong.  In that sense, they could be
considered less reliable.

But the real comparison should not be between the simplicity of the
vehicles, but with their actual reliability records.  I have owned a Series
III for 28 years, since it was new.  In all that time I've replaced leaking
hub seals, adjusted valves several times a year, replaced carburetors,
adjusted carburetors, replaced hydraulic clutch and brake components,
replaced a water pump, replaced an alternator, replaced the seats, replaced
the radiator, and a whole host of other maintenance and repair items.  The
Series, by its very design, needed routine maintenance and adjustment from
the day it was new.

We've owned a 1991 Range Rover since it was new.  We've put about 120,000
miles on it in its first ten years.  It is a far more complex vehicle than
the Series.  I've had to fix and replace things on it, true.  But I have
spent WAY less time maintaining or repairing it than I have the Land Rover.
Despite the fact the Range Rover has a lot more parts and systems than the
Series, it has in fact needed very little attention compared to the Series.
And even though some of the things I've had to replace on the Range Rover
have been expensive (ABS computer- $1,200), I suspect if I added up all the
money I've spent on the SIII in 28 years, adjusted it for inflation (or
maybe not even that) it would total more than what we've spent on the
expensive, but few repairs to the Range Rover.

Neither vehicle has so far broken down on the road.  So in that respect,
their reliability has so far been excellent and equal.  But in terms of the
effort to keep them running correctly, the Range Rover has been far easier
and less time consuming than the Series.  So at this point (who knows what
will break tomorrow?) I would say the Range Rover, with all its window and
seat switches, central door locking, air conditioning, ABS, engine control
computer, etc., is actually the more reliable vehicle.

That, I think, is the true way to compare reliability.  The Series is
simpler, but the technology available at the time of its design renders it
a lot more work to keep running.  Most of today's vehicles, despite their
incredible complexity, border on the drive-and-forget level of reliability
because the technology has advanced so far.

That doesn't automatically make a Defender better than a Series.  From
everything I hear from people in a position to know, the Defender's
construction isn't nearly as robust as the Series.  In some situations,
leaf springs are better than coil springs.  A low-horsepower, high-torque
four banger is sometimes better than a V-8 (I'm talking about a US-spec
Defender, here).  And the Series is certainly easier to work on.  But in
terms of reliability, assuming you define that as how often it has to be
worked on because it breaks or needs adjustment, I would say the Defender
is worlds more reliable than the Series.

________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
   Seattle, WA

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #434
**********************************************