Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #437

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:59:43 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Wednesday, July 4 2001 Volume 01 : Number 437

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:20:33 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends

What qualifies a vehicle as a "real off-road vehicle"?  What
disqualifies one?

That term gets thrown out a lot, but I don't think I've seen it
definitively described.

Happy Independence Day.

- - Jeff Bieler

"M. Tompkins" wrote:

> There are people that want to drive these so-called
> SUVs like sports cars and wonder why they tip
> over. I never heard of a sports car driver taking
> his car off-road and suing a car manufacturer
> because it failed to perform adequately.
>
> So what can you drive off a dealer's showroom
> floor that can be still considered a real off-road
> vehicle? For practical purposes let's assume
> the only thing you are changing are the tires.
>
> Oh and a Happy 4th!
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
> '66 Hybrid Coiler 109" SW
> http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Trails/6623/

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 15:39:13 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends

On Wednesday 04 July 2001 15:20, you wrote:
> What qualifies a vehicle as a "real off-road vehicle"?  What
> disqualifies one?
OK - real off road is something that you can use in a UK/ARC-style RTV 
event.

Which probably doesn't help much...

I'd guess that it's anything that could do a grade 3 trail (though all 
I know is that there are 5 grades, and #5 means winch required and body 
damage inevitable :)

- -- 
           --==**==--
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 16:48:52 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Happy, happy y'all

Have a good one guys.
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:42:19 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends

Although this is somewhat a generic term, I'd say there are some very
specific things that make an "off-road vehicle".

1.  Vehicle was designed and engineered to withstand the rigors of going off
the tarmac.  This starts with the chassis, but includes the suspension,
engine (good low down torque), real wheels and tires, seats are high, lower
dash, vibration management has been addressed, etc.

2.  Vehicle includes or gives room to add proper recovery points and
off-road accessories.

3.  Vehicle offers significant cooling capacity to keep the engine cool even
at slow speeds.

4.  Large capacity fuel tank so that time can be spent away from the road
without needed 10 jerry cans.

5.  Vehicle offers some convenience when trying to work on it in the field.

6.  Vehicle should be designed with good approach, departure, break over,
and tip angles.

7.  Vehicle should allow for the addition of larger tires without cutting
metal.

8.  Vehicle should include strong axles and drive train as well as a
low-range transfer case.

9.  Carpeting should be removable for cleaning.

There are many others, but I wouldn't consider a vehicle without these
things a serious off-roader.

- -Perrone

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Jeff Bieler
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 10:21 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends
>
>
> What qualifies a vehicle as a "real off-road vehicle"?  What
> disqualifies one?
>
> That term gets thrown out a lot, but I don't think I've seen it
> definitively described.
>
> Happy Independence Day.
>
> - Jeff Bieler

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 15:58:12 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Robert=20Ries?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: coil/leaf fire fight...

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)

And odd they are indeed....  ;>))

=====
Robert D. Ries
SSgt, USAF
Burwell, England
"With friends like these..."

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:58:51 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New vs. old reliability

On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:45:43 -0700 "Faure, Marin"
<[email-masked]> writes:
> 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....)
> exactly where I was when I first saw a picture of the new Studebaker 
> Same with one my all-time favorites, the Studebaker Golden Hawk.  
> I thought the thing was atrocious when you could walk onto a lot and 
> 
> buy a new one.  Now I'd love to have one, and I think their lines 
> are 
> almost Ferrari (sedan) like.

Ferrari sedan?  Must have been something coach built.  ALFA, Lancia
maybe, but Ferrari?  The Studebaker lines could have come Vingale, but
not on  Ferrari underpinnings.  Can't see Scagletti drawing that.  Lots
of little coach builders at the time that could pulled a one off on a
wreck, but still a Ferrari sedan.  The mind spins.

Chris hall

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:10:21 -0400
From: "Lee Jones" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: coil/leaf fire fight...

What about the "normal" Freelander?

- --See below --

Lee 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Robert Ries
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 10:58 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: coil/leaf fire fight...

- -snip-

No coils v
leafs arguments here. We even happily entertain the odd 
Freelander owner.

- -snip-

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 10:12:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Perrone Ford wrote:

:Although this is somewhat a generic term, I'd say there are some very
:specific things that make an "off-road vehicle".
:
:4.  Large capacity fuel tank so that time can be spent away from the road
:without needed 10 jerry cans.

That disqualifies the Series SWBs.

:
:8.  Vehicle should include strong axles and drive train as well as a

This gets rid of pre-salsbury rovers.

:9.  Carpeting should be removable for cleaning.

What's carpeting?

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:21:19 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

On Wednesday 04 July 2001 15:42, you wrote:
> 9.  Carpeting should be removable for cleaning.
Picking on one thing, I know...

The carpetting issue has not bearing on the vehicles ability, or 
strength, in the rough.

In stock form, which is the basis of the question, the Range Rovers and 
Discoverys are very competent vehicles off-road... Not as good as a 
D90, but better than a D110, or any Leafer.

The main reason people perceive the "posher" vehicles as less competent 
is that the drivers tend towards the over-cautious, and that affects 
the performance of the vehicle.

Me? Drive? I've sold my 1980 109 and am rebuilding a '49 series I.

- --
           --==**==--
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 15:17:10 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

Thought I'd forward this from another list I'm on. Hope you enjoy it and all 
score low (I scored 1).

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

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

With all the discussion regarding marketed images with respect to SUVs, 
lemmings, incompetency behind the wheel, etc, here's a simple test for SUV 
owners:

1. Do you tow more than 3 times per year?

2. Is your cargo area stained from hauling dirt, rocks, landscaping items, 
race car support items, etc?

3. Are your tire's load ratings D or E?

4. Have you ever removed the 3rd seat (if applicable) for extra storage?

5. You've never slid off the road in the winter (except when avoiding a 
collision with an out of control vehicle)?

6. You're never passed by a passenger car in snowy conditions?

7. You have more than 3 others, including larger dogs, to accomodate?

8. The underside, and/or skid plate(s), of your SUV has scrapes?

9. Have you ever used your roof rack?

10. Have you legitimetely had occassion to use the "low" transfer case
    gears? (double 'no' if you don't have this option)

11. Your tires are either M/S, A/T, or "off-road-only" rated?

Tally up all the times you responded with "no". Score as follows:

8+ Poseur! You have no reason to own an SUV. You're wasting fuel,
   blocking the roads, and are a detriment to society. Party officials    
will soon be at your door to confiscate said vehicle. (my       
neighborhoor's garages will soon have extra space! ;) )

4-7 Borderline. The higher end of this range should consider borrowing     a 
poseur friends SUV if said friend is not completely anal about     their 
vehicle.

1-3 "Justified SUV Owner" i.d. card is in the mail

0 My hero!

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 17:28:19 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

Ian Stuart wrote:
 
> The carpetting issue has not bearing on the vehicles ability, or
> strength, in the rough.

Agreed. I, for one carpet all my vehicles with a layer of insertion
rubber, topped with a 100% synthetic charcoal carpet (the stuff they use
in boats, it doesn't rot being 100% fake, and can be immersed in water
forever). Serves as sound-deadening and can also be washed out
regularly.
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:24:48 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

Did I SAY that posher vehicles were less competent?  I'll put my 91 RR up
against any other truck without lockers.  BUT, having easily removable
carpeting, allows one a fair chance to help combat rust and mildew in the
truck and is certainly a design consideration.  Having snap-down carpeting
is posh enough, but still allows easy cleaning and access to floor mounted
wiring routes.

- -Perrone

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Ian Stuart
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:21 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)
>
>
> On Wednesday 04 July 2001 15:42, you wrote:
> > 9.  Carpeting should be removable for cleaning.
> Picking on one thing, I know...
>
> The carpetting issue has not bearing on the vehicles ability, or
> strength, in the rough.
>
> In stock form, which is the basis of the question, the Range Rovers and
> Discoverys are very competent vehicles off-road... Not as good as a
> D90, but better than a D110, or any Leafer.
>
> The main reason people perceive the "posher" vehicles as less competent
> is that the drivers tend towards the over-cautious, and that affects
> the performance of the vehicle.
> >

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 17:31:54 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

N Forbes wrote:

> 5. You've never slid off the road in the winter (except when avoiding a
> collision with an out of control vehicle)?
> 
> 6. You're never passed by a passenger car in snowy conditions?

No fair! I score 2 coz we don't get ice on the roads, or snow :-{(}
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 17:33:42 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: coil/leaf fire fight...

Lee Jones wrote:
 
> What about the "normal" Freelander?
>> We even happily entertain the odd
>> Freelander owner.

Ah! But it's the owners that are odd, you see!
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 17:36:08 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends

David Scheidt wrote:

> :4.  Large capacity fuel tank so that time can be spent away from the road
> :without needed 10 jerry cans.
> 
> That disqualifies the Series SWBs.

I beg to disagree. Had to do a 1350km round trip between fuel stops last
month (Liuwa Plains, western Zambia - yell if you want to see photos),
my swb now carries 240l in the main tanks :-{)}
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:38:50 -0400
From: Jeff Berg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

>
>5. You've never slid off the road in the winter (except when 
>avoiding a collision with an out of control vehicle)?
>

I would consider a "yes" to this one to be more of a poseur trait 
then the "yes." Now if the question was worded "driven" off road...

(And several of the questions don't work well for SWB vehicles.)

On the other hand, I don't drive an SUV...

jeff
- -- 
==                                                                   
  Jeffrey A. Berg     Purple Shark Media        Rowayton, CT        
                     [email-masked]
                      ==================
	My garden is full of papayas and mangos.
	My dance card is filled with merengues and tangos.
	Taste for the good life, 
	I can see it no other way.
		--Jimmy Buffett, Lone Palm (live version)

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 11:30:35 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends

Take it as you may....

The things you pointed out are significant weaknesses.  In the case of the
SWB, I could also have added not having to SIT on top of the fuel tank, and
a vehicle that also FITS people who are taller than 5'7".

- -P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of David Scheidt
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:12 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Perrone Ford wrote:
>
> :Although this is somewhat a generic term, I'd say there are some very
> :specific things that make an "off-road vehicle".
> :
> :4.  Large capacity fuel tank so that time can be spent away from the road
> :without needed 10 jerry cans.
>
> That disqualifies the Series SWBs.
>
> :
> :8.  Vehicle should include strong axles and drive train as well as a
>
> This gets rid of pre-salsbury rovers.
>
> :9.  Carpeting should be removable for cleaning.
>
> What's carpeting?

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 17:39:12 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

Paul Oxley wrote:
>  topped with a 100% synthetic charcoal carpet  

Umm, that should, of course, read 'charcoal coloured' :-{)}

Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:02:24 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

Yes, but RR doesn't do too hot on departure angles.  Yours is now lifted.  We
were talking stock.  That's an awful lot of rear end hanging out there to
catch on.  Also, not much more rubber you can put on the stock height RR
without cutting that rear wheel well.

In the ease of maintainance category, how hard is it to service a failed VCU
in the field?

Jeff

Perrone Ford wrote:

> Did I SAY that posher vehicles were less competent?  I'll put my 91 RR up
> against any other truck without lockers.  BUT, having easily removable
> carpeting, allows one a fair chance to help combat rust and mildew in the
> truck and is certainly a design consideration.  Having snap-down carpeting
> is posh enough, but still allows easy cleaning and access to floor mounted
> wiring routes.
>
> -Perrone
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> > Behalf Of Ian Stuart
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:21 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 04 July 2001 15:42, you wrote:
> > > 9.  Carpeting should be removable for cleaning.
> > Picking on one thing, I know...
> >
> > The carpetting issue has not bearing on the vehicles ability, or
> > strength, in the rough.
> >
> > In stock form, which is the basis of the question, the Range Rovers and
> > Discoverys are very competent vehicles off-road... Not as good as a
> > D90, but better than a D110, or any Leafer.
> >
> > The main reason people perceive the "posher" vehicles as less competent
> > is that the drivers tend towards the over-cautious, and that affects
> > the performance of the vehicle.
> > >

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:09:26 -0400 
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

But if you don't have snow then both these answers must be yes. 
#5 doesn't even mention snow.
I think #5 is unfair because it's OK to slide off the road so long as you
don't have to call a tow truck to get back on.

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Paul Oxley [SMTP:[email-masked]]
	Sent:	Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:32 AM
	To:	[email-masked]
	Subject:	Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

	N Forbes wrote:

	> 5. You've never slid off the road in the winter (except when
avoiding a
	> collision with an out of control vehicle)?
	> 
	> 6. You're never passed by a passenger car in snowy conditions?

	No fair! I score 2 coz we don't get ice on the roads, or snow :-{(}
	 
	Regards

	Paul Oxley
	AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 12:11:04 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: 95 Rangie and on...

Bravo.  I used to own a 1995 LWB and the only thing about it I remotely liked was the extra leg room my passengers enjoyed in the back seat.  Super high engine maintenance costs.  I now sport a SWB and am much more pleased with it.

>>> [email-masked] 07/03/01 16:36 PM >>>
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.... for
about $1500 invested, you could get an AWESOME highway cruiser for about
$15k.  That's a pretty good deal in my book....Certainly not for everyone as you have 
to be willing to get your handsdirty and let people work on your vehicle for tricky 
things, but certainlynot the money pit some people would have you believe.

I don't deny you can modify 
the 4.2 LWB into a less trouble-prone vehicle, but why bother.  With plenty of 
earlier coil-spring Range Rovers around to pick from, even in the US, that would 
make a lot more sense than to waste a lot of time turning an LWB into a different 
vehicle.  And while exchanging the air suspension for coil springs will certainly 
eliminate the potential for high suspension maintenance or repair bills, I rather 
doubt adding some crossbracing in the engine is going to eliminate the 
engine's inherent flaws, which are the result of it's overall weakness for the 
power output.  If the solution to the block flexing was adding a few crossbraces, 
I would have expected Rover to do that.  But instead they virtually redesigned the 
entire bottom end, with thicker walls, heavier webbing and bearing supports, etc., 
etc., etc.

If the LWB was the only Range Rover model available, and one deserately had to have 
a Range Rover, then I could maybe see the justification in modifying it.  But since 
a buyer can go either way, to an older model with a less powerful but more reliable 
engine, or a newer model with a far superior engine and an air suspension that 
works, I don't really see the point of putting any effort into making a bad vehicle 
work better.  Scrap the thing and buy, up or down, a Range Rover model that 
worked right from the outset.

We're not talking about trying to preserve a 
valuable vehicle here, a justification one might make in trying to modify a 
NADA 2.6 litre Land Rover Series IIa to keep it from burning up pistons.  The 4.2 LWB 
Range Rover is the bastard of the Range Rover line.  The stretch makes it 
a bit ugly (to me, anyway), it's got a crappy engine and an iffy suspension.  It's not 
rare, it's not unique, it's not historical, it's just a bad car.  So unless one simply wants 
the challenge of trying to right its wrongs (which some mechanically-minded people 
like to do), why bother messing with it?  99.9999 percent of Range Rover buyers 
aren't buying the vehicle to do major surgery on it.  They simply want 
to own a Range Rover for whatever reason.  They're the ones who need to 
be aware of the 4.2s shortcomings, as they're not going to take the thing apart 
in an attempt to correct them.  They simply need to not buy one in the first place, 
and their Range Rover experience will probably be a lot happier.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:09:54 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

Yes,

	The departure angle on the stock RR isn't so hot.  Nor is the approach
angle with the front spoiler.  So the front spoiler was removed week one.
The rear overhang was more difficult to deal with, but I have dragged my
butt over a LOT of hills.  And a 33x10.50 Swamper fits easily in the stock
wheel well (yes I've done it).  I believe that's bigger than the stock
defender or series tire, so I don't see the problem.

	I'm not sure with your second question if you actually mean VCU (Viscous
coupling unit) or ECU (Electronic Control Unit).  In the case of the VCU,
I'd simply remove the front drive shaft, BTDT.  In the case of the ECU, I'd
simply replace it.  It takes all of 15 minutes and you don't even have to
get dirty doing it.  Too many people make such a big deal out of the ECU
getting fried.  It's just like anything else.  Keep a spare.  You can get
them from wreckers and other sources for a few hundred bucks.

- -P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Jeff Bieler
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 12:02 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)
>
>
> Yes, but RR doesn't do too hot on departure angles.  Yours is now
> lifted.  We
> were talking stock.  That's an awful lot of rear end hanging out there to
> catch on.  Also, not much more rubber you can put on the stock height RR
> without cutting that rear wheel well.
>
> In the ease of maintainance category, how hard is it to service a
> failed VCU
> in the field?
>
> Jeff

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 18:20:34 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

Easton Trevor A wrote:
 
> But if you don't have snow then both these answers must be yes.
> #5 doesn't even mention snow.

Ah! But you only score for the questions you answer 'no' to.

> I think #5 is unfair because it's OK to slide off the road so long as you
> don't have to call a tow truck to get back on.

:-{)}
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 06:29:18 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Lori's OVLR Birthday Party Photos

> Way to go - nice slide show Lori!
> 
> Makes us want to get in the 109 and head east next summer.....hmmmm.....I
> really do need that laptop so that I can take my work on the road!
> 
> Rich
> '60 SII 109sw

Hey Rich I am up for it.
Maybe we could get a couple of people together and convey.
Guess it would be about 2 weeks round trip though :-)
Pete

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 16:33:28 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

>In stock form, which is the basis of the question, the Range Rovers and
>Discoverys are very competent vehicles off-road... Not as good as a
>D90, but better than a D110, or any Leafer.

Really? I'm not so sure.

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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 16:37:39 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

>No fair! I score 2 coz we don't get ice on the roads, or snow :-{(}
>
>Regards
>
>Paul Oxley
>AfricanAdrenalin.com

Paul, I think you get to score 0 if something is not applicable. Also you 
get to subtract two more bonus points for living in Africa with a Land 
Rover. Congrats, you scored -2 ;-)

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: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 16:39:26 -0000
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends

>month (Liuwa Plains, western Zambia - yell if you want to see photos),
>my swb now carries 240l in the main tanks :-{)}

YELL!!

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: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 06:47:25 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: OVLR Birthday Party pictures

> Have a MX-1200 1.3 megapixel Fuji camera and used the E-Z autocam software
> to reduce the files from http://www.beausoft.com/

I went to the web site but didn't see anything about a slide show.  Was it
in the E-Z package or did you do that your self?

> Don't have the tunes your video has though ; )
> How about a longer version?
>
Files are to big.  I am 'renting' web space for my main sight currently and
farming photostorage off to Geocities.  The full song is over 4 minutes,
which gets the video up towards 100m in size.  When we get back to the
mainland this fall I am planning on standing up a webserver from my house.
Will then start streaming media.
A 40gig drive should hold about 10 hours of video.
I have been looking into some of those 'helmet cams' that bike racers and
skydivers use.  Want to use similar technology to mount a couple cameras
onto the roof rack.
I have always wanted to travel the country, will just do it so I can video
all the different Rover events.
 "RoverVision" will be born hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Pete

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:22:17 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Series driver height.

> a vehicle that also FITS people who are taller than 5'7".

Hmm, I am 5-11.  Kevin, Steve, Bryan, Mike,  and James are all about my
height.  Peter S. and Robert are about an inch taller.  Dave is 6-2 and Tom
is up there somewhere.  Only met Peter O once and don't remember but bet
he's over the 5-7 limit.

So looks like 11 Series rigs are going to  be up for sale as soon as I tell
everyone they are too tall for their vehicles.  Probably more like 16+ as
Peter O, Robert, and Steve own more then 1.

:-)

Pete

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:28:48 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Series driver height.

- --part1_20.18c7840b.2874ac50_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/4/01 1:24:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Hmm, I am 5-11.  Kevin, Steve, Bryan, Mike,  and James are all about my
> height.  Peter S. and Robert are about an inch taller.  Dave is 6-2 and Tom
> is up there somewhere.  Only met Peter O once and don't remember but bet
> he's over the 5-7 limit.
> 
> 

Well,
I am 6'6" and fit perfectly into all the Series Rovers I have owned.
Tony
         Anthony D. Miller & Co.
         ~ The Tintype Artist ~
      Ambrotypes & Ferrotypes
            34 Perryfalls Place
     Baltimore, Maryland 21236
                  410-256-7442
http://members.aol.com/likenesses

- --part1_20.18c7840b.2874ac50_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  COLOR="#800000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Bliss" LANG="0">In a message dated 7/4/01 1:24:23 PM Eastern 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">Hmm, I am 5-11. &nbsp;Kevin, Steve, Bryan, Mike, &nbsp;and James are all about my
<BR>height. &nbsp;Peter S. and Robert are about an inch taller. &nbsp;Dave is 6-2 and Tom
<BR>is up there somewhere. &nbsp;Only met Peter O once and don't remember but bet
<BR>he's over the 5-7 limit.
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#800000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Bliss" LANG="0">
<BR>Well,
<BR>I am 6'6" and fit perfectly into all the Series Rovers I have owned.
<BR>Tony
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Anthony D. Miller &amp; Co.
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;~ The Tintype Artist ~
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ambrotypes &amp; Ferrotypes
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;34 Perryfalls Place
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Baltimore, Maryland 21236
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;410-256-7442
<BR>http://members.aol.com/likenesses</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_20.18c7840b.2874ac50_boundary--

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 18:21:02 +0100
From: "Phil Norris" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Dodge front ends

I've heard folks on other lists jump at the SuperDutys just because of the
"old-fashioned" suspension and chassis etc...  the smaller trucks seem to be
getting close to big cars.
PhilN
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Leon Morin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 July 2001 04:05
Subject: LRO: Dodge front ends

>Unfortunately, the problems are not limited to Dodge vehicles only. Ford
>seems to be having major reliablility problems with their F250's.
>Interestingly, this winter, I came into work, and was met by a beautiful
>example of a Ford F250, nice Western plow, backrack, delta toolboxes, and a
>thoroughly broken tie rod.
>
>The owner had gotten the truck towed overnight, after blowing the tie rod
>plowing. We checked the front end, and to the owner's dismay, at 50 000
kms,
>the ENTIRE front end needed overhauling - end to end. The guy was raging.
He
>had blown 50 000$ on a beautiful landscape-mobile, replacing a 1 1/4 ton
>chevy pickup (ex mil). After playing phone tag with the local ford dealers
>to get a price on some suspension parts, the guy, red as a tomato, got the
>truck flat towed to the nearest dealer. Would NOT want to be the sales
>manager on at the time.
>
>This is not an isolated incident. 2wd, 4wd, today's work truck fleet is
>getting weaker and weaker. Front end parts seem to wear out extremely
>quickly - and this is not extreme use! A one ton snowplow prepped pickup
>ought to be able to handle a small western plow for a season. I know a
rover
>could push one for a decade at least...
>
>J-L
>
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 10:34:12 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Series driver height.

I'm sorry.  You're too tall for this ride...

Could mean a lot of Series trucks on the market!!!!

- -Jeff

Hope Peter wrote:

> > a vehicle that also FITS people who are taller than 5'7".
>
> Hmm, I am 5-11.  Kevin, Steve, Bryan, Mike,  and James are all about my
> height.  Peter S. and Robert are about an inch taller.  Dave is 6-2 and Tom
> is up there somewhere.  Only met Peter O once and don't remember but bet
> he's over the 5-7 limit.
>
> So looks like 11 Series rigs are going to  be up for sale as soon as I tell
> everyone they are too tall for their vehicles.  Probably more like 16+ as
> Peter O, Robert, and Steve own more then 1.
>
> :-)
>
> Pete

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 07:36:35 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends

> So what can you drive off a dealer's showroom
> floor that can be still considered a real off-road
> vehicle? For practical purposes let's assume
> the only thing you are changing are the tires.
> 

Worldwide?
Defender, Wrangler, Hummer, Unimog
And if you have the $$$$ Abrams, Bradely, LAV, t-80, BRDM 
hahahah
Pete

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:12:20 -0400
From: William L Leacock <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Overdrive

 Steve writes  
Does anyone know if a Fairey overdrive will fit on the T-case used on the
IIB FC?   

 The ser 11B uses the all helical transfer box which is not suitable for
fitting the overdrive.  To fit an overdrive would reqire a change of
transfer box as well.

  Bill Leacock.

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 13:53:52 -0400
From: Lori Sickley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Series driver height.

Hold on to those for sale signs......

I'm 5'4"
Could it be more a case of *if the shoe fits wear it*? : )

Lori

Pete and Jeff wrote:
>Hmm, I am 5-11.  Kevin, Steve, Bryan, Mike,  and James are all about my
>height.  Peter S. and Robert are about an inch taller.  Dave is 6-2 and Tom
>is up there somewhere.  Only met Peter O once and don't remember but bet
>he's over the 5-7 limit.
>
>So looks like 11 Series rigs are going to  be up for sale as soon as I tell
>everyone they are too tall for their vehicles.  Probably more like 16+ as
>Peter O, Robert, and Steve own more then 1.

>Well,
>I am 6'6" and fit perfectly into all the Series Rovers I have owned.
>Tony

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:52:12 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

- --part1_9a.168795dd.2874b1cc_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/4/01 8:33:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Ian Stuart wrote:
> 
> > The carpetting issue has not bearing on the vehicles ability, or
> > strength, in the rough.
> 
> 

It does if it cannot be removed. What would you lay on when fixing underneath 
the vehicle when in poisonous scorpion country, or use to wad up and throw in 
front of the tires when in marginal sand?

Zack

- --part1_9a.168795dd.2874b1cc_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 7/4/01 8:33:11 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">Ian Stuart wrote:
<BR>
<BR>&gt; The carpetting issue has not bearing on the vehicles ability, or
<BR>&gt; strength, in the rough.
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Book Antiqua" LANG="0">
<BR>It does if it cannot be removed. What would you lay on when fixing underneath 
<BR>the vehicle when in poisonous scorpion country, or use to wad up and throw in 
<BR>front of the tires when in marginal sand?
<BR>
<BR>Zack</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_9a.168795dd.2874b1cc_boundary--

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 07:59:23 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends

>From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
>The things you pointed out are significant weaknesses.  A vehicle that also 
>FITS people who are taller than 5'7".

I knew there was a reason I liked the Series Rovers.  Always wondered how 
the pituitary freaks could drive a series.  Though, at 5'7", I'm at the 
upper size range to be comfortable and see out.  Must be interesting for 
anyone much over my height to see stop lights or the tail lights on other 
SUV's.

Those Rover designers sure didn't waste useless volume.  Its always bugged 
me that we waste so many cubic feet to accomodate those with runaway 
pituitary glands.  Just think how much more efficient the world would be if 
we had 6' ceilings 5'8" door jambs.  Probably could even cut the door width 
down to 24".  Think of all the trees we'd save, might even get us in 
compliance with Kyoto without mandating us into rubber band powered cars.  
We solved the problem of 6'4"+ headroom when we built our Westsail sailboat. 
  Raised the cabin sole (floor) by 7" and picked up tremendous storage and 
tankage capabilities and we could even see out without a ladder.

Three cheers for the Series designers, a truly space efficient vehicle.

>In the case of the SWB, I could also have added not having to SIT on top of 
>the fuel tank.

What piece of mind there is sitting on top of the tank.  If you're ever 
trapped in the vehicle and the tank catches fire, you won't have to worry 
and fret for long about the flames.  With the tank located somewhere else, 
you'd be stuck there, seemingly forever, waiting to get barbecued.  Ooooh! 
the mental anguish.  That should be good for a couple mill. in the hands of 
a personal injury AC for pain and suffering.  Keep the tank close to lessen 
the suspense.

Aloha
Peter Ogilvie
Kona Coffee Rover
1970 88 soft top, 'huli' Mine since '84 but recovering
     from exposure of the dark side.
1966 109 pickup 'slime'  In my garage since '90, finally running.
1965 88 parts car, slowly sinking into the lava.
196? 88 hard top, possibly 'phoenix' if it rises, it will
     certainly be from ashes or at least a pile of rust

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

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #437
**********************************************