Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #438

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 19:33:22 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Wednesday, July 4 2001 Volume 01 : Number 438

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 14:13:01 -0400
From: Lori Sickley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: OVLR Birthday Party pictures

At 12:47 PM 7/4/01, Pete wrote:

>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?

Nope not from e-z, sorry Pete, thought you meant something else. It's a 
script I modified. There are some others here: 
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex14/ or do a search for image slide 
shows. Lots are available.

If you don't like any of those just view source mine and play : ) I may 
have saved a template.

I'm partial to the anfy 
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex14/dhtmlslide.htm and will be 
trying that next. Comments could probably be placed in the status bar.

HEY!
Any interest in list members with their Land Rovers pictures all in one 
place???
I'd be willing to give it a go with a different script. Perhaps one you 
could choose which pictures to view?

>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.

Um, yeah......takes a bit to dl in the background here and when it plays it 
tends to get your attention! ; )

>  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

*That* will be fun. Hurry up and move!
I see a new fall pilot : )

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

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

Date: 4 Jul 2001 18:24:25 GMT
From: "DEREK POMMERENCK" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #437

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------NetAddressPart-01--=_tmp/upg0pbqth17acccd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

PLEASE BE INFORMED:  Due to increased SPAM mail, Derek Pommerencks email =
address has been changed.  This email has been forwarded, please email th=
is address again for a request of the new address.  Sincerely,  Derek Pom=
merenck   
- ------NetAddressPart-01--=_tmp/upg0pbqth17acccd
Content-Type: multipart/related;
	boundary="----NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/upg0pbqth342e2779"

- ------NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/upg0pbqth342e2779
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<STYLE TYPE=3D"text/css" TITLE=3D"Bright Colours">
	<!-- =

		BODY { margin-left: 10px; }
		A    { color:       000000; }
	-->
	</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY background=3D"cid:03=3D_$tmp/upg0pbqth$-32e35cd2" bgColor=3D"white"=
<font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"000000" size=3D"4">
PLEASE BE INFORMED:

Due to increased SPAM mail, Derek Pommerencks email address has been chan=
ged.  This email has been forwarded, please email this address again for =
a request of the new address.

Sincerely,

Derek Pommerenck

</font>
</BODY></HTML>

- ------NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/upg0pbqth342e2779
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <03=_$tmp/upg0pbqth$-32e35cd2>

- ------NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/upg0pbqth342e2779--

- ------NetAddressPart-01--=_tmp/upg0pbqth17acccd--

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 08:25:09 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends

Even though the Wrangler can be a very capable off road vehicle, it can't do 
it by just changing tires.  You can't run 32" on a Wrangler without a 4" 
lift, body and/or suspension.  So its a $1,000 dollars plus tires to get the 
Wrangler into the same realm as a stock d90.

Aloha
Peter O.

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 20:31:27 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

N Forbes wrote:
 
> 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 ;-)

Kewl. Never was good at reading the instructions - must be why I prefer
Microsloth products... I don't think!
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 20:58:24 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends

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

They're in an embarrassingly crappy format, but you can view at
http://BraaiGrid.org.za/liuwanumber1.htm, and
http://BraaiGrid.org.za/liuwanumber2.htm

Mine is the green shorty that gets snatched off it's jerry cans to try
get out of a 7km marsh :-{>}

If that sounds cryptic, let me explain... The plains are very shallow
depressions, covered in long grass. The water is invisible until you are
already well into it, at which stage you can't risk stopping or you sink
into the mud which lies about a foot under the water's surface. Anyway,
so you pray that you don't hit a soft patch or a hole, or run out of
momentum before you reach the edge of the water.

On the 21st of June, on the way to the northern reaches of the park to
view the solar eclipse, I drove into one of these plains, and got bogged
after about 7kms - ironically just 25m before the dry ground. I had one
other vehicle with me (a Series 3s with Chev 4.1 engine for the
technos), and the rest of our 11 Land-Rover convoy was just at the edges
of radio contact (all we could hear was "On my mark now.
One...two...three, pull!", so we figured we were on our own). We tried
to pull the shorty from the front, but the other truck just got bogged
immediately. We tried pushing the shorty, but were immediately rewarded
with a "Snap!" sound as the rear long half-shaft said goodnight.

After much toing and froing we developed the technique of jacking and
pushing the S3s into fresh tracks so it could pull away, then jacking
the front of the shorty, putting jerry cans under the front wheels, then
jacking the back and placing jerrys there. Then we would attach the
towropes to the front shackle on the shorty, leave a loop on the ground
next to the vehicle, and have DJ (son of a friend) hold the loop of the
towrope waiting for the S3s to circle round, gather speed and come
sailing past so we could lassoo the towball and snatch the shorty off
it's 'starting blocks'. We would gain about 5m everytime we did this,
then start all over from scratch, rotating the shorty slightly to give
us new tracks every time.

Much fun was had by all, and the eclipse was viewed standing knee deep
in water and mud :-{)}
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:57:14 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

Well,

	Maybe you've got short legs!  I sure as hell can't fit into any series 88
truck I've ever tried to fit into.  At least not with the doors on.  And my
friend who is 6'6 and has a 67 IIA 109 passed up on a IIA 88 because he had
to open the door to operate the clutch.  Glad your trucks fit you..

- -P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Hope Peter
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 1:22 PM
> To: [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, 04 Jul 2001 15:18:08 -0400
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends

>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.

While taking my friends out offroad for the first time at the BP, I 
informed them halfway through that they were sitting on top of the tank. 
This did not seem to help their peace of mind.

Oh, and I'm 5'10" and fit into my 88" just fine. 'Course, a few years of 
autocrossing other cars has taught me to sit close to any wheel...

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 15:36:48 -0400
From: Michael Hatton <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

I am 6'3" and i fit just fine, OK, a little tight, an inch or two back
would be perfect, the top of the windscreen up 3" to see traffic lights
and completely finished the restoration would be the best....:)

Michael Hatton
1972 SIII 88"

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Perrone Ford wrote:

> Well,
>
> 	Maybe you've got short legs!  I sure as hell can't fit into any series 88
> truck I've ever tried to fit into.  At least not with the doors on.  And my
> friend who is 6'6 and has a 67 IIA 109 passed up on a IIA 88 because he had
> to open the door to operate the clutch.  Glad your trucks fit you..
>
> -P
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> > Behalf Of Hope Peter
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 1:22 PM
> > To: [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 12:54:32 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Heritage misconceptions

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 16:58:44 -0700
From: "G. Mugele" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Heritage misconceptions

At 2:08 PM -0700 7/3/01, Faure, Marin wrote:
>>For my money,
>the only real design innovator today (outside of the exotics few of
>us can afford)
>is Audi.  The TT design is brilliant.  Even if you don't like it,
>you have to credit someone

>The first time I saw one, my immediate reaction was that it was a
cool reflection of the pre-war Audi Grand Prix monsters.

That's true, it does utilize some of the same basic lines as the Auto Union
Grand Prix cars.  So I suppose you could say the TT and other Audi models
are a bit retro.  But like I said, there's only so much creativity in
design.  Eventually, you'll see the same design elements again as long as
the basic requirments of a vehicle remain the same.

>Land Rovers ain't retro; they're the real thing.

They're not retro because they never changed.  They've been building the
same damn thing for fifty five years (you'd think they'd get bored.....).

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 18:25:01 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: RE: 95 RR

this is why so many of us in the UK are turning to Rangies and early
110s/Nineties.
They're still emphatically Land Rovers, but add a fair degree of comfort and
slightly better performance... and a fully restored/rebuilt Ser3 can cost
you as much...

of course, the spares side of things is easier in the UK as well. More of
'em for a start and less pricey - than the US I mean.

Best Cheers

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: James G.Wolf <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2001 9:54 AM
Subject: LRO: RE: 95 RR

> > 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.
>
> So, this would be a good deal for the average Series owner. We mostly all
do
> our own work dirty or not anyway. I am thinking about some comfort while
> traveling
> to dog shows with one to three dogs in crates. plus all the other stuff
> that one needs
> when doing a field course.
>
> Jim Wolf
>
>

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:27:43 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:44:59 -0400
From: "M. Tompkins" <[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?

I rarely pay attention to vehicles except when I'm
in the market for one, which is not very often, so I'm
not all that familiar with everything that's on the
market these days.  But I would say vehicles that will
perform well off-road as built are:

Jeep Wrangler
Jeep Cherokee (not Grand Cherokee)
Toyota Land Cruiser/Lexus 450
Nissan Xterra
Land Rover Defender
Land Rover Discovery
Land Rover Range Rover
Mercedes something-wagon (not the ML320, etc.)
Hummer
Ford F-250 short wheelbase 4wd
Chevy equivelant to the F-250

Some of these are pretty gussied up with fancy interiors, power-everything,
etc.  But I believe the basic vehicles underneath all the glitz are reasonably
good off-road performers out of the box.  Some are bigger than others, and
that can pose some limitations on some roads.  But I believe the vehicles on
this list are all capable of traversing the sort of off-pavement roads that
are typical.  Certainly not Moab, Rubicon Trail, etc., but probably 90
percent of the "off-road" roads most of us drive are well within the
capabilities of
these vehicles.

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:35:09 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: New vs. old reliability

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:

>> 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.

I used the wrong word, I expect.  I guess sedan tends to imply four doors.
I should have said coupe.  Ferrari produced a whole lot of coupes, like the
Superamerica series, that have lines that are similar to the Golden Hawk's.

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:19:13 +0100
From: "Mike Rogers" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: coil/leaf fire fight...

Look I said we entertain the odd Freelander owner, I never claimed any
Freelander was a NORMAL Land Rover.

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)

>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.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 13:30:58 -0700
From: "Rich & Lori Williams" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Lori's OVLR Birthday Party Photos

We could put together a Series convoy from the west coast - that would be
great.

Rich

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Hope Peter <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 9:29 AM
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, 4 Jul 2001 16:43:49 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)

Ohhh Marin...

	Your call on the Grand Cherokee was a big miss.  The Grand Cherokee with
the Quadra Drive will run circles around most of our trucks.  It uses Zexel
diffs front and rear (same system as the hummer) so it basically has the
equivalent of softlockers on both ends!  With some aggressive tires, its a
VERY capable truck.  This option is not available on the base Cherokee.  The
Mercedes Galendewagon is a pretty good offroader which has locking diffs
front and rear.  But at the current price of almost $150k, I'd have a TOUGH
time taking it offroad!

	I'm not so sure about that F250/Chevy Silverado call either.  I think the
4wd systems are pretty weak.  However the new Toyota TRD truck should be on
the list.  Its tough as nails and comes with a rear locker. REALLY gets you
into and out of places.  Under $30k too so its a good bargain.

	Oh, and Jeep really does test all its models on the Rubicon as a matter of
routine so even the new Liberty has some roots away from the road.

- -P

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of C. Marin Faure
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:28 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: LRO: Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)
>
>
> Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:44:59 -0400
> From: "M. Tompkins" <[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?
>
> I rarely pay attention to vehicles except when I'm
> in the market for one, which is not very often, so I'm
> not all that familiar with everything that's on the
> market these days.  But I would say vehicles that will
> perform well off-road as built are:
>
> Jeep Wrangler
> Jeep Cherokee (not Grand Cherokee)
> Toyota Land Cruiser/Lexus 450
> Nissan Xterra
> Land Rover Defender
> Land Rover Discovery
> Land Rover Range Rover
> Mercedes something-wagon (not the ML320, etc.)
> Hummer
> Ford F-250 short wheelbase 4wd
> Chevy equivelant to the F-250
>
> Some of these are pretty gussied up with fancy interiors,
> power-everything,
> etc.  But I believe the basic vehicles underneath all the glitz
> are reasonably
> good off-road performers out of the box.  Some are bigger than others, and
> that can pose some limitations on some roads.  But I believe the
> vehicles on
> this list are all capable of traversing the sort of off-pavement
> roads that
> are typical.  Certainly not Moab, Rubicon Trail, etc., but probably 90
> percent of the "off-road" roads most of us drive are well within the
> capabilities of
> these vehicles.

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:54:34 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

- --part1_11c.137ef2a.2874dc8a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/4/01 3:08:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Maybe you've got short legs!  I sure as hell can't fit into any series 88
> truck I've ever tried to fit into.  At least not with the doors on.  And my
> friend who is 6'6 and has a 67 IIA 109 passed up on a IIA 88 because he had
> 

P,
Not sure where your fit problem is. At 6' 6" and 265# I am far from small and 
have a 36" inseam. I have owned and driven a Ser.IIa 109 LHD, a Ser.I 88 RHD 
and currently a Ser.III Lightweight LHD with no problem. These were daily 
drivers of 30 to 80 miles a day and although weary at the end of a trip no 
problem reaching clutch or gas unhindered.
Thanks,
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_11c.137ef2a.2874dc8a_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 3:08:53 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">Maybe you've got short legs! &nbsp;I sure as hell can't fit into any series 88
<BR>truck I've ever tried to fit into. &nbsp;At least not with the doors on. &nbsp;And my
<BR>friend who is 6'6 and has a 67 IIA 109 passed up on a IIA 88 because he had
<BR>to open the door to operate the clutch</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#800000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Bliss" LANG="0">
<BR>P,
<BR>Not sure where your fit problem is. At 6' 6" and 265# I am far from small and 
<BR>have a 36" inseam. I have owned and driven a Ser.IIa 109 LHD, a Ser.I 88 RHD 
<BR>and currently a Ser.III Lightweight LHD with no problem. These were daily 
<BR>drivers of 30 to 80 miles a day and although weary at the end of a trip no 
<BR>problem reaching clutch or gas unhindered.
<BR>Thanks,
<BR>Tony
<BR>
<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_11c.137ef2a.2874dc8a_boundary--

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:00:27 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Series driver height.

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.

I'm 6-3, and have no difficulty fitting into the front seats of my SIII-88.
My problem is that my upper body is taller than "normal."  While I still
have plenty of headroom in the Series, the top of the windscreen limits my
upper vision.  So I have to duck down (or look at the reflection on the
wing) to see overhead traffic lights if I'm first in line.  Someone my
height but with their height more proportionally distributed would not have
this problem.  When I took my Land Rover to the Yukon back in 1977, a good
friend went with me, and he's a very thin 6-6.  However, much of his height
is in his legs.   But he also fit just fine in the passenger and driver's
seat, and in fact was even able to wear the Stetson hat he likes to wear on
these trips.  He probably would have liked a bit more legroom, but he
didn't complain.  I feel  more cramped in the front seats of another
friend's Jeep Grand Cherokee than I do in my Series.

I do wish the  windscreen was taller by a few inches, though.  I wanted to
fit a sunshade after I bought the vehicle, but I didn't because I didn't
want to restrict my forward vision even more.  I've thought about lowering
the seats a bit, but that looks like too much work.  That's one advantage
of the Defender's one-piece screen.  It's a few inches higher, and gives me
better upward vision.  However, everything I've read and been told by
people with a lot of Defender experience is the Defender's windscreen is
far weaker than the Series, and more often than not collapses in a rollover
accident   I read this in a UK police report a few years back; the
conclusion was that they see more people injured or killed in Defender
accidents where the vehicle rolls over than in similar Series accidents as
a result of the roof crushing down over the front seats.  Of course, speeds
are higher today, which accounts for some of this, and a slow-motion
rollover on a trail probably won't result in a roof collapse in a Defender.
But according to this report (and to a friend of mine who has a commercial
vehicle hire company in the UK), the Defender's roof and windscreen frame
are pretty weak, and offer little protection in the event of a severe
rollover.

But that's another topic.  The point is, I've never found the Series to be
a cramped vehicle despite my 6-3 height and greater-than-it-should-be
weight.

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 23:01:16 +0200
From: "Lance da Silva" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

I am also a bit tall for my Series 111, but mine is in daily operation as a work vehicle, and mainly gets used on the farm for 
the duties that I wish to save my modern Japanese vehicle from. This morning when all the diesel was frozen, and I 
could not get the turbo diesel started I informed the staff that I would be using the Landy. Fired up first time and took me 
off to town. I am sure she enjoyed the tarmac for a change.
For Sale "NEVER"
Lance da Silva
S111 109

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001 15:36:48 -0400, Michael Hatton wrote:

>I am 6'3" and i fit just fine, OK, a little tight, an inch or two back
>would be perfect, the top of the windscreen up 3" to see traffic lights
>and completely finished the restoration would be the best....:)
>
>Michael Hatton
>1972 SIII 88"
>
>
>On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Perrone Ford wrote:
>
>> Well,
>>
>> 	Maybe you've got short legs!  I sure as hell can't fit into any series 88
>> truck I've ever tried to fit into.  At least not with the doors on.  And my
>> friend who is 6'6 and has a 67 IIA 109 passed up on a IIA 88 because he had
>> to open the door to operate the clutch.  Glad your trucks fit you..
>>
>> -P
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
>> > Behalf Of Hope Peter
>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 1:22 PM
>> > To: [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, 04 Jul 2001 17:13:24 -0400
From: "M. Tompkins" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Skytop Rover

A friend is going to look at one of the military 109s
up for sale at Skytop Rovers in Pennsylvania.
Anyone have any experience with Skytop or
have heard any gossip for me to pass on to him?

Thanks!
Mike
'66 Hybrid Coiler 109" SW
http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Trails/6623/

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 14:18:39 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Model 88 fuel tank (was Dodge front ends)

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

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

Well, in a LHD drive Model 88, you're not sitting on top of the
fuel tank unless you've added an auxiliary tank.  And I think
I'd rather sit on top of a metal tank like the Land Rover's
than be in a vehicle with a plastic tank like many vehicles
seem to use these days.  Actually, a real
advantage of the Model 88's tank is its position.  More than likely,
you're going to be hit from the front or rear in a road accident.  My
BMW 635csi has its fuel tank under the floor of the trunk, like most
cars.  Someone slamming into me from behind is going to have a
pretty good chance of rupturing that tank.  The Model 88's center-
mounted fuel tank is pretty much out of the way when it comes to
front, rear, or quartering impacts.  The 88's tank is vulnerable
to a hit from that side, but T-bone accidents are not as common
as front, rear, and quartering hits.

If a person is truly concerned about sitting on top of fuel tanks,
they would be advised to stay off of busses and most commercial
airplanes.  In both cases, there's a lot of fuel under the floor, unless
it's a propane bus, in which case the fuel is over your head.

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 11:29:30 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Jeep Liberty was Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)

Yes Jeep did, sort of, try the Rubicon with the new IFS Liberty.  They used 
stock AT tires and had to be winched over most of the obstacles.  Don't 
think the truck made it anywhere near all the way through the trail and 
suffered considerable customization by the country side.  Really took b*lls 
for them to even try a stock truck on that trail, however.  Universal 
response from the testers was NOT WITH THOSE SMALL TIRES.  Unclear what you 
would have to do to fit decent rubber under the truck.  If its typical jeep, 
its a 4" lift minimum.

Testers did praise Jeep for getting as much travel and ground clearance out 
of the IFS as possible, unlike the Freelander.  Funny they went with a new 
V-6 instead of the tried and true inline 6.  Even GM is seeing the light on 
straight six engines for truck applications.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: LRO: RE: Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)
>Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:43:49 -0400
>
>Ohhh Marin...
>
>	Your call on the Grand Cherokee was a big miss.  The Grand Cherokee with
>the Quadra Drive will run circles around most of our trucks.  It uses Zexel
>diffs front and rear (same system as the hummer) so it basically has the
>equivalent of softlockers on both ends!  With some aggressive tires, its a
>VERY capable truck.  This option is not available on the base Cherokee.  
>The
>Mercedes Galendewagon is a pretty good offroader which has locking diffs
>front and rear.  But at the current price of almost $150k, I'd have a TOUGH
>time taking it offroad!
>
>	I'm not so sure about that F250/Chevy Silverado call either.  I think the
>4wd systems are pretty weak.  However the new Toyota TRD truck should be on
>the list.  Its tough as nails and comes with a rear locker. REALLY gets you
>into and out of places.  Under $30k too so its a good bargain.
>
>	Oh, and Jeep really does test all its models on the Rubicon as a matter of
>routine so even the new Liberty has some roots away from the road.
>
>-P
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> > Behalf Of C. Marin Faure
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 4:28 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: LRO: Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)
> >
> >
> > Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:44:59 -0400
> > From: "M. Tompkins" <[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?
> >
> > I rarely pay attention to vehicles except when I'm
> > in the market for one, which is not very often, so I'm
> > not all that familiar with everything that's on the
> > market these days.  But I would say vehicles that will
> > perform well off-road as built are:
> >
> > Jeep Wrangler
> > Jeep Cherokee (not Grand Cherokee)
> > Toyota Land Cruiser/Lexus 450
> > Nissan Xterra
> > Land Rover Defender
> > Land Rover Discovery
> > Land Rover Range Rover
> > Mercedes something-wagon (not the ML320, etc.)
> > Hummer
> > Ford F-250 short wheelbase 4wd
> > Chevy equivelant to the F-250
> >
> > Some of these are pretty gussied up with fancy interiors,
> > power-everything,
> > etc.  But I believe the basic vehicles underneath all the glitz
> > are reasonably
> > good off-road performers out of the box.  Some are bigger than others, 
>and
> > that can pose some limitations on some roads.  But I believe the
> > vehicles on
> > this list are all capable of traversing the sort of off-pavement
> > roads that
> > are typical.  Certainly not Moab, Rubicon Trail, etc., but probably 90
> > percent of the "off-road" roads most of us drive are well within the
> > capabilities of
> > these vehicles.
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 00:54:43 +0200
From: "Huub Pennings" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Billing

>Any folks on this list heading to Billing this year?
>Over on the UK-LRO list we have been busy the last few days exchanging
>meeting details, would you like to join in?

Yep, Huub and Wilma Pennings from Holland want to join, could you give us
any details on meetingpoints and ways of recognition?

Regards,

Huub Pennings

(110, 109, 88, 88 LW)

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 00:21:29 +0100 (BST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Robert=20Ries?= <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: gas tanks

>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

BTDT in a 56 VW Bettle (front gas tank, cumbustion heater
directly behind it <running>, head on collision with a Bl****
Fu***** IDIOT) last Thanksgiving.  Nearly lost myself and four
co-workers.  When B.D. gets her new skeleton, She gets dual,
larger tanks, hopefully foam filled a la aviation tanks, with
hefty guards around them.  Paranoia is not neccasarily a bad
thing....

1980 SWB SIII, Blue Daemon

=====
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 19:32:59 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #437

In a message dated 7/4/2001 11:05:10 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 
>  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.
>  

Why don't you take your comments about coilers to the RANGIE list?  This is 
the SERIES list, or haven't you been paying attention to the reasons why the 
list split SEVERAL years ago?

Bob Sharp
Tucson, AZ
The slumbering herd on the Rover Ranch:
52 Series I 80"
53 Series I 80"
60 Series II 88"
63 Series IIa 88"
71 Series IIa 109"
96 Discovery Series I 

"Why is it that every project you complete on a Land Rover results in 
knowledge and skills you hope you never need to use again?"

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #438
**********************************************