Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #435

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:39:34 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Tuesday, July 3 2001 Volume 01 : Number 435

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:12:30 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Re: 95 Rangie and on...

	Marin,  I agree with most of what you said, but I'd have to disagree in the
last paragraph about avoiding a LWB.  I truly feel that these are some of
the best bargains out there for those who want family luxury.  The primary
problems with these models are the suspension and the flexy engine.

	The first problem can be sorted with a conversion kit to coils.  If you do
the labor yourself, that is a $500 change.  The second problem can be
ameliorated somewhat by adding some cross bracing along the bottom end.  A
good machine shop should be able to do this without too much trouble, so I
would bet on about $800.  LR had sorted a lot of the issues with the
electrics by this point, and the ride is pretty good.  This means that for
about $1500 invested, you could get an AWESOME highway cruiser for about
$15k.  That's a pretty good deal in my book.  And there are PLENTY of
motivated sellers out there who simply cannot justify the high dealer costs
of maintaining the air suspension and other small issues.

	Certainly not for everyone as you have to be willing to get your hands
dirty and let people work on your vehicle for tricky things, but certainly
not the money pit some people would have you believe.

- -Perrone

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of C. Marin Faure
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 11:44 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; ";;;;ronward"@synovustrust.com;;;
> Subject: LRO: Re: 95 Rangie and on...

> 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.

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:56:11 -0400
From: Jeff Berg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: 101's and RR's

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

We all missed it. The Vamp's front brakes failed before Gerald even 
got out of Massachusetts. Roebison's couldn't get it repaired so the 
mission was scrubbed.

Start working on Gerald to head south in October!

jeff
- -- 
==                                                               
  Jeffrey A. Berg   Purple Shark Media         Rowayton, CT        
                   [email-masked]  
                    ==================
	Ia oro te natura
	E mea arofa teie ao nei
	Ua oau te maitai no te fenua
	Te vai noa ra te ora o te mitie
		--Jimmy Buffett, One Particular Harbour

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 22:35:43 -0700
From: "Rich & Lori Williams" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Aztec

And not to sit around and bash other brands but since we're talking about
how ugly the Aztec is, has anyone seen the Mercedes-Benz new "Vaneo"?
Geeeez!  For my money, I'll stay away from the newer cars.  I need to
replace SWMBO's Nissan at some point, but with what?  I think a nice litte
IIa SWB would be the ticket but it's an impossible sell.  She wants one of
those new VW bugs - she thinks they're "cute".  Well, lets get the 109
running first and see where that takes us.

Rich
'60 SII 109sw

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:20:39 -0600
From: Joseph S Dufresne <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe

no.  How low of gearing?

owners of lowered trucks should be shot.

Joe

[email-masked] wrote:

>Well, a set of the later IIA/III fifteen inch rims would be a start,

Joe Dufresne, [email-masked]; ICQ# 25751950; 
http://tigger.tmcom.com/~josad/
78 SSII; Smoking Scouts, Rocky Mtn chapter  Recruitment officer for Smoking 
Scouts. 

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:20:38 -0600
From: Joseph S Dufresne <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe

Matt Peckham wrote:
.
>You should seriously consider what type of offroading you enjoy before
>pretending to know what the perfect rig is.  I mean, just because your

I never said I knew what the perfect rig is

>friends all do one kind of offroading, doesn't mean you have to follow suit.

of course not

>Go out with different groups of guys to the same place and you may find very
>different ways of handling the trails.  And all these things you talk about
>sure sound like the kind of people who GET TRAILS CLOSED for the rest of us
>by ripping up the trail with their 44" boggers without regard for the casual
>4 wheeler who should be able to get through just about anything but

the group i'm with spends many hours rebuilding damaged trails

>those
>ruts created by Mr. Macho with 44" tires.  I'm sorry, if you have 44" tires,
>you have to show off how big your engine is too.  It's just part of the
>image.
>i

I don't have 44s, but my engine is pretty big

>The same goes for 38"s.

why?  Most run little chev 350's

>Whatever you choose, don't screw it up for the rest of us.  be the one guy
>in the group who doesn't rip up the trail and you will have respect in my
>book.
>

Don't assume everyone who lifts their truck doesn't care about the 
enviroment, and you'll have respect in mine

Joe

>Matt Peckham
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Hall
>To: [email-masked]
>Sent: 6/28/01 11:54 PM
>Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe
>But you can see them if you go to:
>http://tigger.tmcom.com/~josad/images/  but you have to know which pic
>you want to look at.
>Pete wrote:
>>Like then site.  Really like the swing out tire/fuel/hilift rack on the
>78.
>>The links to you photos are to your local machine however. :-)
>>Pete
>
>--
>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

Joe Dufresne, [email-masked]; ICQ# 25751950; 
http://tigger.tmcom.com/~josad/
78 SSII; Smoking Scouts, Rocky Mtn chapter  Recruitment officer for Smoking 
Scouts. 

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:40:45 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Off-road vehicles (was Prejudices, was Kinda Long and Opinionated...)

There has been an awful lot of talk about the best vehicle for off-road 
work - and talk about class 3 trails and class 5 trails; and talk about 
coil verses leaf; and talk about V8 and diesel....

This is all missing the point!

A standard Land Rover is not a great off-roader. Oh, don't get me 
wrong: it's better than almost any other *standard* vehicle off-road. 
Great off-road vehicles are always modified.

When you come to modifications, then you modify to suit the conditions 
you're going to play in.

In the UK, competitive vehicles conform to either ARC specifications 
(http://www.the-arc.co.uk/regulations/), and/or the AWDC, and/or the 
RAC MSA "Blue Book"

For UK people, there are a number of ways to go with you're off-roading.

See http://www.slroc.co.uk/image_archive/ for some pictures of vehicles 
in our club.  You will see some leaf-sprung vehicles doing well, but 
never as well as the coilers - this is because the coilers are better 
at speed events, and that counts..

If you think that's easy, then try this: 
http://lucas.ucs.ed.ac.uk/rainforest.challenge.2000/ 
The 2000 event was won by a bloke in a Range Rover!

In the UK, you can get a hand-made 4x4 - for competitive use.

See:
http://www.bowler-offroad.com/
http://www.ibex4x4.co.uk
http://www.qtservices.co.uk

So, in summary, when Joe (or anyone else, for that matter) askes about 
building a better Series Land Rover, there are two main questions:

1) What do you want to do with it (on-road/dirt-track/full-gonzo 
off-road?)
2) How much are you prepared to modify the vehicle (costs $$$$ and time)

I got a Series 1 80", with the plan to use it as a dirt-road/easy 
off-road vehicle. I am now making a serious off-road toy (by UK/ARC 
standards) See http://lucas.ucs.ed.ac.uk/count.zero/ for details...

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 06:43:38 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Aztec, Avalance and other uglies...

Y'know, it sounds like carpet-bombing GM's design lab could be a good
idea.....that's definitely got the same problems as the Aztec. Prob'ly the
same design team...

               ajr

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 07:32:30 -0500
From: "Keith Armstrong" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Transfer case

TAW,

>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.

That sounds like a good approach.....but I must misunderstand.  There appear
to be at least two studs/nuts that attach the transfer case to the tranny
that are under the intermediate gear.

Remaining confused,

Keith Armstrong

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

Date: 3 Jul 2001 07:57:42 -0700
From: Bryan Hoult <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

On Mon, 02 July 2001, "C. Marin Faure" wrote:

>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.

While agree in principal that the more complex systems and improved design of the newer vehicles represent a gain in reliability when the amount of time maintaining them is factored in, I don't believe you can discount the overall longevity built into the older designs by "overuse" of material.  It goes for everything; cars, boats, airplanes, houses, toys, furniture.....

The key difference in comparison is where the additional, or higher quality, material used lends to improvement in the intrinsic functionality of the item.  As far as cars go (I think Marin pointed this out yesterday), most people seem to fall for the manufacture's ploy that newer is better.  What, with all the extra time we have now since we're not trying to synch dual carbs, we can have long conversations on our cell phones while we drive.  Obviously, my personal preference is to take time to smell the 90 wt.

Bryan
62 88
70 109 "Genie"

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:09:10 +0100
From: "Mike Rogers" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re-LRO: 95 rangie and on...

>Your right, 4.6 is probably the limit for the old Buick engine.  

I know of a few running around at 5.2 here in the UK. 

Mike Rogers
Lightweight/Range Rover hybrid
LPG V8 110 project (thanks to Marijn)
(if you can't get there in a Land Rover you can't get there)

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:07:52 +0100
From: "Mike Rogers" <[email-masked]>
Subject: re-LRO: Defender/D-90 info

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

Try the UK-LRO list, we are very friendly, and cover all models. No coils v
leafs arguments here. We even happily entertain the odd Freelander owner.

Mike Rogers
Lightweight/Range Rover hybrid
LPG V8 110 project (thanks to Marijn)
(if you can't get there in a Land Rover you can't get there)

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 10:25:58 -0500
From: "KEITH ARMSTRONG" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Friend walking in the UK

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C103AA.8C954140
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

Just this morning we received the following message from our adventurer =
friend.  We never know where he'll be writing us from -

- ----- Original Message -----=20
>From: william nedderman=20
>To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked]=20
>Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:12 AM
>

>hi
>
>painswick england  now,      walking from landsend to john o. groats =
scotland
>bill

So if you happen across the American hiking along the side of the road, =
it might be Bill from Des Moines!

- ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C103AA.8C954140
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV>Hi all,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Just this morning we received the following message from our =
adventurer=20
friend.&nbsp; We never know where he'll be writing us from -</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----=20
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>&gt;From:</B> =
<A=20
title=[email-masked] =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">william=20
nedderman</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>&gt;To:</B> <A title=[email-masked]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]=
</A> ; <A=20
title=[email-masked]=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</=
A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>&gt;Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 03, 2001 10:12 AM</DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&gt;<BR></DIV>
<DIV>&gt;hi</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;painswick england&nbsp; now,&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; walking =
from=20
landsend to john o. groats scotland</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;bill</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>So if you happen across the American hiking along the side of the =
road, it=20
might be Bill from Des Moines!</DIV>
<P></P></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C103AA.8C954140--

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:28:13 -0700
From: "Rich & Lori Williams" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

And consider this, by the mere design of cars today they are designed to be
"disposable".  Like Marin and Bryan said, most people seem to fall for the
manufacture's ploy that newer is better.  So when that 36 month car loan is
up, go in and start over.  And who the heck is going to restore a 1999
Subaru Outback?  In 40 years it will likely have been in a scrap heap for a
decade.  The newer autos just aren't that durable, by design none the less.
On the other hand, a '36 Cadillac, '57 Chevy, '67 Rover.........all are
worthy of redos, but a Geo Metro - uh, not a chance.

I don't know if it was on this list or somewhere else but I heard something
not too long ago about a fee built into the purchase of a new car to cover
the "disposal" of the car.  When we go to the county transfer station we
have to pay a fee based on the gross weight of what we dump, but often junk
cars just get abandoned due to the cost of legitimate disposal.

Rich
'60 SII 109sw

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bryan Hoult <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

> On Mon, 02 July 2001, "C. Marin Faure" wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> While agree in principal that the more complex systems and improved design
of the newer vehicles represent a gain in reliability when the amount of
time maintaining them is factored in, I don't believe you can discount the
overall longevity built into the older designs by "overuse" of material.  It
goes for everything; cars, boats, airplanes, houses, toys, furniture.....
>
> The key difference in comparison is where the additional, or higher
quality, material used lends to improvement in the intrinsic functionality
of the item.  As far as cars go (I think Marin pointed this out yesterday),
most people seem to fall for the manufacture's ploy that newer is better.
What, with all the extra time we have now since we're not trying to synch
dual carbs, we can have long conversations on our cell phones while we
drive.  Obviously, my personal preference is to take time to smell the 90
wt.
>
> Bryan
> 62 88
> 70 109 "Genie"
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> PeoplePC:  It's for people. And it's just smart.
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 01:12:45 -0400
From: "James G.Wolf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Frank's Right

If we (I) could get our (my) hands on a say mid-80's 110/109, I would in a
flash. I would still keep my 1966 SIIA 109 sw, but for trips etc
the later model would be my choice.

Jim Wolf

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:32:50 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Frank's Right

Jim,

I know a guy with a 1990 ex-military V8 110 3-door canvas top for sale.

>>> [email-masked] 07/03/01 01:12AM >>>
If we (I) could get our (my) hands on a say mid-80's 110/109, I would in a
flash. I would still keep my 1966 SIIA 109 sw, but for trips etc
the later model would be my choice.

Jim Wolf

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:09:58 -0400
From: Michael Hatton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Leaf vs coil attitude, you guys have it made

I was in the process of dismantling my SIII in our driveway in the middle
of a Canadian winter, when a guy walking by stopped to talk to me. It
seems he works for one of the Toronto LR Dealers. He seemed so impressed
with my enthusiasm (insanity) for Land Rovers that he went home a got me a
cap! He also invited me to go offroading when he takes clients next time.
They can't all be bad....

Michael Hatton
1972 SIII 88"

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Jim Hall wrote:

> At least one of the Denver area dealers is supportive of series ehicles.
> LR Superior, which was LR Flatirons, invited a bunch of series to attend
> their grand opening, and gave out free shirts or hats or something to
> the ones who could make it. This is also the one that Charlie Hague(sp?)
> works at. A different dealer wanted series rigs at it's 50th aniversary
> celebration. Unfortunately I wasn't able to make either.
>
>
> Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus wrote:
> >
> > Andy {lastnameuntypable} said:
> >
> > In the US, Land Rover is
> > extremely supportive of the entire family of trucks, form Series I to the
> > 2002
> > models. History and purpose drive your advertising. The relationship
> > between old
> > and new is wallowed in. LR supports the magazines, events, etc. A new
> > customer
> > walking into the showroom will leave with a certain knowledge level
> > concerning
> > Land Rover roots. It's all part of the mystique.
> >
> > Where are you and where can I find this dealer?
> >
> > I have never been to a land-=Rover dealer that wanted to acknowledge the
> > fact that their toys and mine came out of the same factory. LR Motors West
> > and the other in Peabody  may sponsor things, but if a Series owner ever
> > got invited to any ofhtem it was because he also owned a Range Rover. I
> > know, I was the sod with the Rangie.
> >
> > They may show them in their ads, but as far as parts stock, technical
> > support or even service the answer is a resounding NO.
> >
> > In the USA, the corporation that is LRNA started out as Range Rover North
> > America when the RR was first to be brought in - there is no connectivity
> > to the original LR organization and they want to keep it that way.
> >
> >                     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, 03 Jul 2001 08:11:39 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

There are people out there who collect and restore Nash Metropolitans.  
Since there are many people that would lift a finger to uglify our streets 
by keeping the dysfunctional Metropolitan running, there certainly will be 
those who will lovingly restore a Geo Metro in 40 years.

I can't say that todays cars have any more obsolesence planned in.  As long 
as the parts are available and someone has the interest and wherewithal to 
keep them running, these new cars will be kept running.  One thing that is 
different is that a lot of the parts are not easily rebuildable.  If the 
parts are NLA, the vehicles may indeed turn itno throw aways for the lack of 
a 15 cent electronic part.  Newer autos have much higher tolerances and seem 
to run farther before things go wrong, however.  Of course when things do go 
wrong its time to mortgage the house.  The big difference is that us 
backyard mechanics are going to be SOL when it comes to diagnosing and 
repairing the electronics unless the diagnostic equipment gets cheaper and 
our knowledge of the systems gets way better.  The first is probably a given 
the second is probably beyond expectation.

As far as the structure of the cars.  Think they are much better than the 
good old days.  The use of galvanized steel, plastics, aluminum, and better 
design seem to have severely stunted the rustermite.  They are also much 
stiffer and structurally sound.  New cars handle so much better than the 
good old cars.  My SAAB turbo would leave a 68 Camaro  in the dust and do it 
without white knuckles.  Of course, I could probably puzzle out any thing 
that went wrong with the Camaro, but don't have a clue what to do when the 
check engine light comes on in the SAAB.

Since the new cars are so much better, why did I just go out and buy an '83 
300D Mercedes??  Simple, I can fix it all by my lonesome if I feel like it.  
Its a dog simple vehicle with an engine you can actually find when you lift 
the hood.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: "Rich & Lori Williams" <[email-masked]>
>And consider this, by the mere design of cars today they are designed to be 
>"disposable".  And who the heck is going to restore a 1999
>Subaru Outback?  In 40 years it will likely have been in a scrap heap for a 
>decade.  On the other hand, a '36 Cadillac, '57 Chevy, '67 
>Rover.........all are worthy of redos, but a Geo Metro - uh, not a chance.
>Rich

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 14:25:47 -0400
From: Michael Hatton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe

I nearly fell over once when this good looking blonde in a power suite got
out of her disco parked in front of my SIII and said "Nice Land Rover" and
walked into the Starbucks.....

Just when you get everyone neatly packaged, one of them falls out

Michael Hatton
1972 SIII 88

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Faure, Marin wrote:

> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:24:38 -0400
> From: Perrone Ford <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New Guy or All about Joe
>
> >Maybe thats why coil sprung guys don't wave more
> to you guys.
>
> Actually, up here it's the other way around.  I don't wave
> at Defender drivers because: A) the chances are the guy
> has no clue as to what he's really driving, and doesn't
> recognize a Series anyway, B) the only reason he bought
> it is because it's expensive and the Microsoft newsletter
> said that owning a Land Rover is cool, and C) his primary
> concern is status with his neighbors and co-workers.
> Since my SIII doesn't look enough like a Defender to be
> recognized as a Land Rover by a Defender driver, and
> Series Land Rovers are not considered cool in the Microsoft
> newsletter, and driving a Series denotes a definite lack of
> social status, I see virtually no point in waving at a Defender
> driver because we have nothing whatsoever in common.  And
> don't even get me started on Discovery drivers......:-)
> ___________________________
> C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>   Seattle
>

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 18:34:30 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Fwd: [racing] Petition to Speedvision, please sign!!

Hey Folks,
Seems there are some nasty rumours that Fox bought Speedvision and are 
planning on turning it into an all NASCAR channel. Yuck!!

There is a petition which you can sign to try to kill this bad idea before 
it goes any farther.

=================================
>This has been fortunately set up for us to
>explain ourselves to Fox who has just purchased
>Speedvision.  I thought it was pretty dead on.
>
>Please review and sign the petition so that we
>can continue to get good coverage of what the
>rest of the world considers Motorsport.
>
>Received this today......
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>I have just read and signed this online petition.
>
>It comes in the wake of
>the Fox Broadcasting buyout of Speedvision from
>the Outdoor Life Network.
>Fox has been big into NASCAR racing and has a lot
>
>riding on it and as you
>have seen on the air, Fox, like PT Barnum, never
>lost a penny
>underestimating the taste of the American public.
>
>While it would be nice
>to see less boats and planes and more vintage
>racing on Speedvision, more
>NASCAR roundy-round racing would worse to me than
>
>another small craft
>maintenence show. Check out this petition and see
>
>if it says anything for
>you. It would be a shame to see this station turn
>
>to the Fox Top-Forty
>Motorsports Channel.  Log on to:
>
>    "Speedvision & NASCAR programming"
>
>hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free
>
>online petition
>service, at:
>
>    http://www.PetitionOnline.com/svsn/
>
>I personally agree with what this petition says,
>and I think you might
>agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please
>take a look, and consider
>signing yourself.
>
>__________________________________________________

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 22:24:57 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Kinda Long and Opinionated Leaf/Coil comments bewarned

TeriAnn writes: >>>.  Whereas in the UK you may go to an IVECO engine or
something like
> that. It is no different than UK people putting in IVECO, peugout, or
other
> more powerful,  or less expensive diesel into their LRs.<<<

yes, into my coil sprung LR...

you also write: <<<I too have opinions.  A lot of them as a matter for
fact.<<<

yup, spotted that :-)>

Best Cheers

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 19:21:00 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Defender/D-90 info

uk-lro deals with all Land Rovers, no fear or favour, no elitism, all
welcome...
Best Cheers

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: george kase <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 7:01 PM
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 22:20:11 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Heritage misconceptions  (was Leaf vs Coil....)

I was with you, cheering on the sidelines Marin, right up until you got into
the retro thing...
why, if up-to-date manufacturers don't want to know about earlier models, do
they then turn around and try to sell modern vehicles on the backs of older
models?

my brain hurts, I'll have another Jameson.
Best Cheers

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Faure, Marin <[email-masked]>
To: 'Land Rover Mail Group' <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 5:51 PM
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 12:44:25 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

Hi All--

Peter Ogilvie wrote:
> 
> Since the new cars are so much better, why did I just go out and buy an '83
> 300D Mercedes??  Simple, I can fix it all by my lonesome if I feel like it.
> Its a dog simple vehicle with an engine you can actually find when you lift
> the hood.
> 

And ...
> >From: "Rich & Lori Williams" <[email-masked]>
> >And consider this, by the mere design of cars today they are designed to be
> >"disposable".  And who the heck is going to restore a 1999
> >Subaru Outback?  

I bought a 2000 Subaru Outback for a number of reasons; I've owned it
over a year and am still delighted.  But I couldn't fix anything on it,
even though I spent quite a few years maintaining pre-1973 vehicles,
including head gaskets, exhaust systems and valve jobs.  A few days
after I bought it, I gave a friend, whose auto mechanical experience is
roughly equivalent to mine, a ride.  He asked to see the engine. 
"Sure," I said, and opened the hood.

We stared at it blankly.  After three minutes, Frank pointed to
something and said, "That's the radiator."

I searched.  "And there's the dipstick.  Oh, and the battery."

"Cheat."

"OK, there's the refill tank for the windshield washer fluid."

"Too easy."

"You think that's the distributor?"

"Whatever you say."  He thought.  "But didn't they get rid of
distributors a few years ago?"

"Beats me," I said.  I closed the hood.

And that's the last time I had it open for anything but filling the
windshield washer fluid reservoir.

<and-i-keeps-my-dogs-out-of-there>-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, 3 Jul 2001 13:44:00 -0500 
From: "Jablonski, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Chicago Sighting SII?

Any one on the list lay claim to a light blue Series II/IIA with a canvas
top living in Chicago?  Saw it last Friday around the Chicago White Sox
stadium....

 - Mike J.
"learning as much as I can, before I make the purchase to realize I know
nothing"

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:53:32 -0400
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

New cars aren't necessarily impossible to work on. Sure, they take 
different skills. But I've been modifying and maintaing several 1990 Miatas 
for years. Now, they're between 11 and 12 years old. Electrical problems 
can be identified and fixed with a good wiring diagram. There are many test 
procedures in the manuals that can be done with normal electical tools to 
identify what's wrong with the part and what can be done. I've never had to 
replace an electronic doodad although I have repaired a couple. I've also 
learned how the engine computer works by installing a programmable one and 
playing with it. There's no mystery.

The Rover, on the other hand, takes a totally different set of skills. 
Right now, I'm far more competent when the Miata starts to misbehave (once 
every couple of years). The Rover still mystifies me because it uses very 
different technology like carbs and distributors. I'm learning - but I 
wouldn't say that the Miata (ie, a modern car) is any less maintable just 
because it uses different systems. All that electrickery means that the car 
runs cleaner, gets better mileage, is more reliable, develops more power 
and starts easier than a stone-age Rover.

What will the situation be in 23 years when the Miata is as old as my Rover 
is now? I can't say. The plastics on the interior will be harder to repair, 
but the SIII already has this problem. Some of the computer bits might be 
harder to get but it will also be possible to make our own, the same way we 
can machine a part that's NLA for a Rover. The car will probably still run 
as well as it does now, with suitably long maintenance intervals.

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

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:00:59 -0400
From: Lori Sickley <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: OVLR Birthday Party pictures

I've put together a slide show of people places and things from my trip to 
the 18th OVLR birthday party. Used a trial version of picture software and 
a new digital camera I'm not used to yet, so please be kind : )
A different script would have been preferred, but that's it for now.

It takes about ten minutes on my cup and string connection. If you choose 
to view it, hopefully it will work for you too. Let the pictures load first 
or the comments won't match!

Anyone know the missing name for a red 88 on the RTV?

OVLR knows how to put on an event. The best bargain around too!

Thanks to all involved for their hard work and great food. You know who you 
are.

Caution : )

There are coilers, leafers, people, ferrets! and even a Unimog all getting 
along equally well for those easily offended ; )

http://www.simplerthyme.com/pics/OVLR_BP2001enter.html

Hope you enjoy!

Lori in NE Pennsylvania
http://www.simplerthyme.com/store/LR.html

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 15:02:57 -0400
From: William L Leacock <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Shaft extraction

To remove a stubborn intermediate shaft from the Land Rover transfer box
I have found it useful to rotate the shaft prior to attempting to extract
it.  In order to rotate the shaft it is necessary to remove the lock tab,
removal of the stud facilitates this.  Then whilst rotating with a
Channel Lock or similar use a lever to apply some end load.

Regards from Western New York State

  Bill Leacock.

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

Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:35:54 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: OVLR Birthday Party pictures

Excellence.

>>> [email-masked] 07/03/01 03:00PM >>>
I've put together a slide show of people places and things from my trip to 
the 18th OVLR birthday party. Used a trial version of picture software and 
a new digital camera I'm not used to yet, so please be kind : )
A different script would have been preferred, but that's it for now.

It takes about ten minutes on my cup and string connection. If you choose 
to view it, hopefully it will work for you too. Let the pictures load first 
or the comments won't match!

Anyone know the missing name for a red 88 on the RTV?

OVLR knows how to put on an event. The best bargain around too!

Thanks to all involved for their hard work and great food. You know who you 
are.

Caution : )

There are coilers, leafers, people, ferrets! and even a Unimog all getting 
along equally well for those easily offended ; )

http://www.simplerthyme.com/pics/OVLR_BP2001enter.html 

Hope you enjoy!

Lori in NE Pennsylvania
http://www.simplerthyme.com/store/LR.html 

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #435
**********************************************