Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #440

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:48:36 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Thursday, July 5 2001 Volume 01 : Number 440

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:33:15 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Frame bushings

In a message dated 6/8/01 2:43:50 PM, [email-masked] writes:

<< I doubt that the rubber has a torque tube effect on the suspension.  The 
resistance of the rubber to twisting just isn't enough to really affect the 
motion of the shackles.  Believe the rubber is bonded to the outer sleeve 
just to keep the inner sleeve centered in the bushing.  The inner bush is 
slightly wider than the frame so the shackles don't rub up against the frame 
when they flex.  With the rubber bonded to the outer sleeve, the inner bush 
is held in the middle.  A bushing with the rubber completely gone can allow 
the spring to mover enough to cause problems, like the tire tearing up an 
inner fender, BTDT.  Of course that explanation doesn't cover the 
Polyurethane bushings, which I understand don't have an outer sleeve.

Aloha
Peter O >>

Peter 
    I was going thru some old emails and noticed your note. A standard 
bushing can in fact have a torque tube effect on a suspension as evidenced by 
Land Rovers suggestion on installation about not tightening up the spring and 
shackle bolts until you have jumped up and down on the bumper a few times or 
driven the rig around the block to settle the suspension. This is because the 
rubber part of a stock bushing will not stretch enough to compensate for any 
binding. This also effects the ride quality because the more the suspension 
has to move, the more the bushings bind. This is also why flexible 
suspensions, such as parabolic springs,  go thru stock bushings at a much 
faster rate. This is also why I supply all of the parabolic suspensions we 
sell with poly bushings. Poly bushings are unbound bushings so you don't need 
to settle them on installation, they last longer in extreme conditions and 
give a better ride quality.

Bill
GBR

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:50:56 -0400
From: Perrone Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

<html><head></head><body>Maybe I have had the misfortune of getting into
trucks with the bulkhead behind the seats.&nbsp; Come to think of it, I believe
every one of them did.&nbsp; My friends 109 did not.&nbsp; That could account for the
difference.&nbsp; I distinctly remember a gent with a SII working on his front
propshaft asking me to get in a move the truck forward a bit.&nbsp; As I got in,
I noted that my knees were VERY bent and I was having a hard time working
the pedals.&nbsp; I thought there was no way I could drive one of those on a daily
basis.&nbsp; My friends 109 was not the same and I felt very comfortable in it...
and my 6'5" buddy does as well.<br>
<br>
Lets put this one to bed.<br>
<br>
- -P<br>
<br>
Faure, Marin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]"><pre wrap="">On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Perrone Ford wrote:<br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Maybe you've got short legs!  I sure as hell can't fit into any series 88<br>truck I've ever tried to fit into.  At least not with the doors on.  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.  Glad your trucks fit you..<br></pre></blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>I wonder if the mud is getting a little deep here..... So far as I'm aware, the <br>front passenger compartment in a Model 109 is virtually identical to the <br>front passenger compartment in an 88, particularly if the 109 is fitted <br>with a bulkhead or bar behind the front seats (some were, some weren't).  So <br>if your friend had no problems fitting in a IIa 109, he shouldn't have had <br>any problems fitting into a IIa 88.  Particularly since, unlike most cars, <br>the seating position in a Series is almost chair-like, as opposed to being <br>reclined.  Even a long-legged person has room for their knees, although <br>the position may not be the most comfortable in the world.  As I mentioned <br>before, my 6-6 friend, with very long legs, had no problems driving my SIII-88.  <br>I'm 6-3 and have all sorts of room for my legs.  If I was 6-8, there would still <br>be room for my legs.  My only complaint has to do with the height of the top <br>!
of the windscreen.. But legspace is    </blockquote>
    <br>
</body></html>

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:52:21 -0400
From: "James G.Wolf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Series driver height

I must add that when my daughter was looking to buy a Range Rovers with the
sunroof, when I sat down in the front seat my head touched the headliner.
That was with the seat all the way down. I am 6' tall. I have been driving
series vehicles since 1971 and they could use more leg room but it's no
worse than some of the smaller compact cars. You just learn to adjust.
Jim Wolf

>Look!!
>
>I drive a Series III daily and have for the past seven plus years.  I'm 6'
>3' and weigh 220 lbs.  Only occasionally do I feel cramped and then,  with
>the left foot under the clutch pedal needing some relief.
>

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

Date: 5 Jul 2001 17:10:01 GMT
From: "DEREK POMMERENCK" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #439

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------NetAddressPart-01--=_tmp/shfsybWAw59bf30cd
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/shfsybWAw59bf30cd
Content-Type: multipart/related;
	boundary="----NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/shfsybWAw3340e7a9"

- ------NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/shfsybWAw3340e7a9
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_$tmp/shfsybWAw$-3caa38a2" 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/shfsybWAw3340e7a9
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <03=_$tmp/shfsybWAw$-3caa38a2>

- ------NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/shfsybWAw3340e7a9--

- ------NetAddressPart-01--=_tmp/shfsybWAw59bf30cd--

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:16:00 -0400 
From: Matt Peckham <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C10576.2D5D0DFC
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

I am 6'2", and own a lightweight, so I don't have a lot of room for
adjustment, let alone a place to rest my right foot (RHD) but I have to say,
the seating position does take some getting used to.  I think active bikers
are best suited to drive series vehicles, as they have good ankle and knee
strength at varying degrees of bend, as I have noticed my lower calf and the
tendons on top of my feet get a bit sore come springtime.  And  if you break
down at least you can bike to where you needed to go, and probably beat
yourself in the Rover to boot!

- -----Original Message-----
From: Perrone Ford [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

Maybe I have had the misfortune of getting into trucks with the bulkhead
behind the seats.  Come to think of it, I believe every one of them did.  My
friends 109 did not.  That could account for the difference.  I distinctly
remember a gent with a SII working on his front propshaft asking me to get
in a move the truck forward a bit.  As I got in, I noted that my knees were
VERY bent and I was having a hard time working the pedals.  I thought there
was no way I could drive one of those on a daily basis.  My friends 109 was
not the same and I felt very comfortable in it... and my 6'5" buddy does as
well.

Lets put this one to bed.

- -P

Faure, Marin wrote:

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Perrone Ford wrote:

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..

I wonder if the mud is getting a little deep here..... So far as I'm aware,
the 
front passenger compartment in a Model 109 is virtually identical to the 
front passenger compartment in an 88, particularly if the 109 is fitted 
with a bulkhead or bar behind the front seats (some were, some weren't).  So

if your friend had no problems fitting in a IIa 109, he shouldn't have had 
any problems fitting into a IIa 88.  Particularly since, unlike most cars, 
the seating position in a Series is almost chair-like, as opposed to being 
reclined.  Even a long-legged person has room for their knees, although 
the position may not be the most comfortable in the world.  As I mentioned 
before, my 6-6 friend, with very long legs, had no problems driving my
SIII-88.  
I'm 6-3 and have all sorts of room for my legs.  If I was 6-8, there would
still 
be room for my legs.  My only complaint has to do with the height of the top

!

of the windscreen.. But legspace is    

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C10576.2D5D0DFC
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">

<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3018.900" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D285491917-05072001>I am=20
6'2", and own a lightweight, so I don't have a lot of room for =
adjustment, let=20
alone a place to rest my right foot (RHD) but I have to say, the =
seating=20
position does take some getting used to.&nbsp; I think active bikers =
are best=20
suited to drive series vehicles, as they have good ankle and knee =
strength at=20
varying degrees of bend, as I have noticed my lower calf and the =
tendons on top=20
of my feet get a bit sore come springtime.&nbsp; And&nbsp; if you break =
down at=20
least you can bike to where you needed to go, and probably beat =
yourself in the=20
Rover to boot!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Perrone Ford=20
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, July 05, 2001 =
12:51=20
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: LRO: RE: =
Series=20
  driver height.<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Maybe I have had the misfortune of =
getting=20
  into trucks with the bulkhead behind the seats.&nbsp; Come to think =
of it, I=20
  believe every one of them did.&nbsp; My friends 109 did not.&nbsp; =
That could=20
  account for the difference.&nbsp; I distinctly remember a gent with a =
SII=20
  working on his front propshaft asking me to get in a move the truck =
forward a=20
  bit.&nbsp; As I got in, I noted that my knees were VERY bent and I =
was having=20
  a hard time working the pedals.&nbsp; I thought there was no way I =
could drive=20
  one of those on a daily basis.&nbsp; My friends 109 was not the same =
and I=20
  felt very comfortable in it... and my 6'5" buddy does as =
well.<BR><BR>Lets put=20
  this one to bed.<BR><BR>-P<BR><BR>Faure, Marin wrote:<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE=20
  =
cite=3D"mid:[email-masked]=
eing.com"=20
  type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Perrone Ford =
wrote:<BR><BR></PRE>
    <BLOCKQUOTE type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">Maybe you've got short =
legs!  I sure as hell can't fit into any series 88<BR>truck I've ever =
tried to fit into.  At least not with the doors on.  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.  Glad your trucks fit =
you..<BR></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE wrap=3D""><!----><BR>I wonder if the =
mud is getting a little deep here..... So far as I'm aware, the =
<BR>front passenger compartment in a Model 109 is virtually identical =
to the <BR>front passenger compartment in an 88, particularly if the =
109 is fitted <BR>with a bulkhead or bar behind the front seats (some =
were, some weren't).  So <BR>if your friend had no problems fitting in =
a IIa 109, he shouldn't have had <BR>any problems fitting into a IIa =
88.  Particularly since, unlike most cars, <BR>the seating position in =
a Series is almost chair-like, as opposed to being <BR>reclined.  Even =
a long-legged person has room for their knees, although <BR>the =
position may not be the most comfortable in the world.  As I mentioned =
<BR>before, my 6-6 friend, with very long legs, had no problems driving =
my SIII-88.  <BR>I'm 6-3 and have all sorts of room for my legs.  If I =
was 6-8, there would still <BR>be room for my legs.  My only complaint =
has to do with the height of the top <BR>!
of the windscreen.. But legspace is    =
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C10576.2D5D0DFC--

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:24:01 -0700
From: "G. Mugele" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST

- --============_-1217768650==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

At 11:02 AM -0400 7/5/01, Easton Trevor A wrote in response to Ian Stuart:
>Many NA Listers feel the same way. There are real LROs and posers. There are
>even posers in the leafer community.

>At 3:41 PM +0100 7/5/01, Ian Stuart wrote:
>>To us non-NorthAmerican listers, it's amusing/sad/worrying that so many
>>people seem so hell-bent on ignoring the later models.

Prior to the official NA introduction of the '87 Range Rover, the 
Land Rover crowd in North American always seemed to me to be 
iconoclastic, individualistic, eccentric and generally well out of 
the main stream and mostly proudly so.  After all, Land Rovers were 
always relatively rare and an owner had to endure some hardships in 
order to continue driving his truck.  I always thought of myself as 
being rather middle of the road but acquaintances would react with 
laughing fits when I suggested that.

Easton is absolutely correct; there have long been all many of Land 
Rover owners here... some just buying the image of world traveler and 
explorer and those really applying them to their proper use.  As with 
the current crop, it was those early posers buying a new toy they'd 
shed after a few years, who allowed many of us to get our first LRs.

So RRNA/LRNA begins marketing to the American public by representing 
the Range Rover as a luxury SUV and status symbol.  The price 
certainly reinforced that concept.  The majority of buyers readily 
accepted that representation and really couldn't imagine the idea of 
using such a vehicle for mug-slogging or rock crawling although I 
suspect they found image appealing.  The result was that there was 
soon a large block of LR owners that were totally unable to relate to 
a bunch of weirdos with greasy hands/clothes driving rather abused 
looking faded "jeeps" that were more than ten years old.

"Who was that?  Why the heck did that guy wave at us Debbie? Do YOU know him?"

So what we see here is the negative reaction to the apparent 
rejection by the new-comers to our marque.  Whereas in the UK every 
farm has long had at least one LR in some state of decay and they're 
pretty much everywhere you might go serving utilitarian needs.  When 
the RR was introduced in the UK, according to the press at the time, 
they were bought up instantly by the moneyed Land Owners, the same 
people who'd traditionally been buying Land Rovers.  Soon there was a 
waiting list for new RRs and the image was born.  Farmers owned Land 
Rovers whereas the Landed Gentry owned Rangies.  Down at the village 
pub it was fairly clear who belonged in which Rover.

The key is that the Range Rover owners in the UK likely understood 
the connection to that funky old carcass out by the barn.

So, right or wrong, I think that long time North American Land Rover 
owners legitimately learned their antipathy for the newbies with 
clean hands.

Now let's get on with the important LRO issues: just which models of 
Ferrari were quattro portes?

Gerry Mugele
*** "It's not on any map - true places never are."  -- Mark Twain

- --============_-1217768650==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:02 AM -0400 7/5/01, Easton Trevor A wrote in response to Ian
Stuart:

<excerpt>Many NA Listers feel the same way. There are real LROs and
posers. There are

even posers in the leafer community.

</excerpt>

<excerpt>At 3:41 PM +0100 7/5/01, Ian Stuart wrote:

<excerpt>To us non-NorthAmerican listers, it's amusing/sad/worrying
that so many 

people seem so hell-bent on ignoring the later models.

</excerpt></excerpt>

Prior to the official NA introduction of the '87 Range Rover, the Land
Rover crowd in North American always seemed to me to be iconoclastic,
individualistic, eccentric and generally well out of the main stream
and mostly proudly so.  After all, Land Rovers were always relatively
rare and an owner had to endure some hardships in order to continue
driving his truck.  I always thought of myself as being rather middle
of the road but acquaintances would react with laughing fits when I
suggested that.  

Easton is absolutely correct; there have long been all many of Land
Rover owners here... some just buying the image of world traveler and
explorer and those really applying them to their proper use.  As with
the current crop, it was those early posers buying a new toy they'd
shed after a few years, who allowed many of us to get our first LRs.

So RRNA/LRNA begins marketing to the American public by representing
the Range Rover as a luxury SUV and status symbol.  The price certainly
reinforced that concept.  The majority of buyers readily accepted that
representation and really couldn't imagine the idea of using such a
vehicle for mug-slogging or rock crawling although I suspect they found
image appealing.  The result was that there was soon a large block of
LR owners that were totally unable to relate to a bunch of weirdos with
greasy hands/clothes driving rather abused looking faded "jeeps" that
were more than ten years old.  

"Who was that?  Why the heck did that guy wave at us Debbie? Do YOU
know him?"

So what we see here is the negative reaction to the apparent rejection
by the new-comers to our marque.  Whereas in the UK every farm has long
had at least one LR in some state of decay and they're pretty much
everywhere you might go serving utilitarian needs.  When the RR was
introduced in the UK, according to the press at the time, they were
bought up instantly by the moneyed Land Owners, the same people who'd
traditionally been buying Land Rovers.  Soon there was a waiting list
for new RRs and the image was born.  Farmers owned Land Rovers whereas
the Landed Gentry owned Rangies.  Down at the village pub it was fairly
clear who belonged in which Rover.

The key is that the Range Rover owners in the UK likely understood the
connection to that funky old carcass out by the barn.

So, right or wrong, I think that long time North American Land Rover
owners legitimately learned their antipathy for the newbies with clean
hands.  

Now let's get on with the important LRO issues: just which models of
Ferrari were quattro portes?

Gerry Mugele

*** <fontfamily><param>Palatino</param><smaller>"It's not on any map -
true places never are."  -- Mark Twain   
</smaller></fontfamily>

- --============_-1217768650==_ma============--

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:28:32 -0500
From: "Carl Kinkade" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Series driver height

I am 6'1" and have a '95 RR LWB and my head doesn't touch the headliner, as
a matter of fact that was one of the things I liked about it, plenty of
room.

Carl Kinkade, MCRP
ESRI Authorized Instructor
Kinkade GIS
Using GIS for Public Health and Community Analysis
Lincoln, NE 68502
work (402) 420-6882
fax (402) 420-6882
[email-masked]

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of James G.Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Series driver height

I must add that when my daughter was looking to buy a Range Rovers with the
sunroof, when I sat down in the front seat my head touched the headliner.
That was with the seat all the way down. I am 6' tall. I have been driving
series vehicles since 1971 and they could use more leg room but it's no
worse than some of the smaller compact cars. You just learn to adjust.
Jim Wolf

>Look!!
>
>I drive a Series III daily and have for the past seven plus years.  I'm 6'
>3' and weigh 220 lbs.  Only occasionally do I feel cramped and then,  with
>the left foot under the clutch pedal needing some relief.
>

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:30:43 -0700
From: "G. Mugele" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST

>Ian, I think the schism exists in American minds because Rover pulled out
>of North America early in the series III production life.

Looks like TeriAnn and I meshed completely on this one.  :-D

Gerry Mugele
*** "It's not on any map - true places never are."  -- Mark Twain

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 07:37:14 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Re: Lori's OVLR Birthday Party Photos

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

I am up for it.  Though at 55mph will need to use my whole vacation to get
there and back.  But it does sound like a great trip.  Would need to plan
different route there and back to hit different sites.
Pete

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:40:54 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Re: rude comments

In a message dated 7/5/2001 9:43:07 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> You know, it's comments like this that remind me of why I hardly read
>  this list anymore much less write to it. 20 people can write and talk
>  about  how ugly the Aztec is, but someone throws in some comments about
>  coilers and some people get all bent out of shape. A true Land Rover
>  lover can and does appreciate both leafers and coilers...and yes, I do
>  have both.
>  

I own a coiler ... extensively modified Discovery (see sig line below) and, 
until several months ago, I was a member of the Rangie list for several 
years.  I dropped off of the Rangie list because it was turning into the 
"SuperSwamper, nose bleed lift list."  It wasn't what I was interested in, so 
I dropped off.

I belong to several other lists with varying (usually focussed) topics, most 
of which are oriented to Land Rovers of different types.  Most of my LRs are 
modified to some extent (carbs, parabolics, ACR heads, etc.) so I'm not a 
purist.

Except for a few threads recently, this has been everything but the Series 
list (Aztecs, French cars, LWB Vs SWB Rangie, Scout, Jeep Cherokee, etc.)  
Quite simply, I joined this list so that I could read and continue learning 
about Series trucks and offer the occasional bit of advice when appropriate.  
How far afield are we going to go here?  The list's volume of e-mails is 
increasing, but the LR (Series) content is decreasing.

There is a forum out there to satisfy everyone, they just have to seek it 
out.  I just want to read about Series trucks. If I'm in the wrong forum for 
Series trucks, can someone suggest the proper list I should check?  Or, is 
that too much to ask?

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?"

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 01 10:44:22 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

>>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..
>
>I wonder if the mud is getting a little deep here..... So far as I'm 
>aware, the 
>front passenger compartment in a Model 109 is virtually identical to the 
>front passenger compartment in an 88,

This really hurts me to admit this but I agree with C. Marin.

The bulkheads and seat boxes are in the same location on the 88, 90, 109 
& 110.

The difference between an 88 and 109 is that the 109 seat BACK can LEAN 
farther rearwards providing more shoulder to top of steering wheel 
distance and a head location farther rearward of the windscreen.  The 109 
two door's behind seat bulkhead is set farther to the rear than that of 
an 88.  I believe the 109 station wagon cross brace is as well.

So yes your arms are more stretched out, your head is farther away from 
the windscreen and your hips are not bent as acutely (A tummy to leg 
clearance issue with larger waist lines).  But bottom line is that your 
hips and feet are in the same relative locations in both 88s & 109s.

TeriAnn         
                      http://www.overlander.net

  The world's most complete set of links connecting Rover 4X4 owners
  with Rover parts, service, accessory & sales companies world wide.

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 07:51:08 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Dumb Questions

> But there are
> people on that list that ask dumb or irrelevant questions, so I either
> delete them or glance through them or answer them, it is up to me.  

Looking for this bumper sticker:
"The are no dumb questions, just persistant idiots"

Pete

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 07:54:15 -1000
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST

>From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
>By that time the series rigs were mostly in the hands of independent
>minded, somewhat out of the mainstream people, who had to mail order all 
>parts and learn to do most all their own maintenance.

Hey!!!  I vigorously resemble that characterization.  'Somewhat' is off the 
mark, however, I'm completely at the end of the stream and the World, for 
that matter, living on an Island in the middle of the Pacifc Ocean.  Imagine 
the rest of us old time Series owners probably are in the same boat as 
TeriAnn's description.  I think most of those who say 'don't modify anything 
on the series' aren't us.  We just think that those who want to try and make 
a Sow's Series into a Silk D90 are beating, not only a dead horse, but one 
that has gone way beyond dead into advanced decomposition.  Do it yourself, 
make it reliable, and keep it simple should probably be the motto of the 
leafer list.  If it can be done with coils or V-8's, so much the better, but 
don't ruin the character of the basic truck.  Especially since we don't have 
the interim vehicles or reasonably priced ones, for that matter, that are 
available in Merrie Olde.  Even though the decade old RR's are cheap, they 
still are an overly complicated vehicle with electricity routed throughout, 
and through all sorts of magic devices.  They will never be suitable 
tinkerer's trucks for those of us, like me, who can't get beyond the water 
hose anology of electrical theory.

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:05:33 -0700
From: "Rich Williams II" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lori's OVLR Birthday Party Photos

Agreed, my mental wheels are already turning - we could try to hook up with
other LROs along the way and show up at the BP with a huge "south of the
border" contingent.

Rich

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Hope Peter <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:37 AM
Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Re: Lori's OVLR Birthday Party Photos

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

I am up for it.  Though at 55mph will need to use my whole vacation to get
there and back.  But it does sound like a great trip.  Would need to plan
different route there and back to hit different sites.
Pete

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:16:40 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: RE: Series Driver Height. Was: Dodge front ends

- --part1_a5.17fad4e0.28760908_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 04 Jul 2001, Peter Ogilvie <[email-masked]> wrote:

<< 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. >>

Fourty five years ago when the Series Land Rovers were designed, the
average height of an Englishman was several inches shorter than today.

My recollection from visits to the UK was that Brits are shorter than
Americans. Of course, easterners in this country seem shorter than
westerners. This probably has a lot to do with diet and living conditions.

Does anybody on this list have access to hard facts?
Is there an ergonomist in the house?

Paul Donohue  6' (183cm)
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver

- --part1_a5.17fad4e0.28760908_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>On Wed, 04 Jul 2001, Peter Ogilvie &lt;[email-masked]&gt; wrote:
<BR>
<BR>&lt;&lt; I knew there was a reason I liked the Series Rovers. Always wondered how
<BR>the pituitary freaks could drive a series. Though, at 5'7", I'm at the
<BR>upper size range to be comfortable and see out. Must be interesting for
<BR>anyone much over my height to see stop lights or the tail lights on other
<BR>SUV's. Those Rover designers sure didn't waste useless volume. &gt;&gt;
<BR>
<BR>Fourty five years ago when the Series Land Rovers were designed, the
<BR>average height of an Englishman was several inches shorter than today.
<BR>
<BR>My recollection from visits to the UK was that Brits are shorter than
<BR>Americans. Of course, easterners in this country seem shorter than
<BR>westerners. This probably has a lot to do with diet and living conditions.
<BR>
<BR>Does anybody on this list have access to hard facts?
<BR>Is there an ergonomist in the house?
<BR>
<BR>Paul Donohue &nbsp;6' (183cm)
<BR>1965 Land Rover 109
<BR>Denver</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_a5.17fad4e0.28760908_boundary--

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

Date: 5 Jul 2001 11:33:01 -0700
From: Bryan Hoult <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dumb Questions

Empirically, one's tolerance for "dumb" questions is inversely proportionate to their tolerance of "dumb" people around them.  Go forth and inform......

Bryan
62 88
70 109 "Genie"

On Thu, 05 July 2001, "Hope Peter" wrote:

> 
> > But there are
> > people on that list that ask dumb or irrelevant questions, so I either
> > delete them or glance through them or answer them, it is up to me.  
> 
> Looking for this bumper sticker:
> "The are no dumb questions, just persistant idiots"
> 
> Pete

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

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

Date: 5 Jul 2001 11:36:00 -0700
From: Bryan Hoult <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lori's OVLR Birthday Party Photos

Somebody's been watching re-runs of '70's movies featuring big rigs......

Bryan
62 88
70 109 "Genie"

On Thu, 05 July 2001, "Rich Williams II" wrote:

> 
> Agreed, my mental wheels are already turning - we could try to hook up with
> other LROs along the way and show up at the BP with a huge "south of the
> border" contingent.
> 
> Rich
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hope Peter <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:37 AM
> Subject: LRO: Re: Re: Re: Lori's OVLR Birthday Party Photos
> 
> 
> 
> > We could put together a Series convoy from the west coast - that would be
> > great.
> >
> > Rich
> 
> I am up for it.  Though at 55mph will need to use my whole vacation to get
> there and back.  But it does sound like a great trip.  Would need to plan
> different route there and back to hit different sites.
> Pete

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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:37:29 -0600
From: Brendan Evans <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Electrical Issues

Hello,

I am having some issues with the electrical system in my 1968 109 sw. 
It has a negative ground and uses the generator/regulator combo. 
Recently the generator went out, no problem I took to the local shop 
here in Lander and it was fixed and test good.  On pacing the 
generator back into the Rover the charge light did not go off.  On 
closer listen the regulator seems to be now making an ominous 
crackling noise.  When rev'd sparks flew between two of the coils in 
the regulator, (as you face it the two most right).  Should I be 
looking for a problem with the connections from the generator to the 
regulator and possibly a short somewhere else in the system, or is 
this type of behavior indicative of a problem with the regulator?

Thanks for your time,

Brendan Evans

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:43:48 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Roverfest Registration

- --part1_75.1720c337.28760f64_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Last year's Roverfest was a huge success, and we expect this year to be 
better. But we need everyone's cooperation. 
An event the size of roverfest only works if 90% of the participants 
PREREGISTER, and the majority need to do it atleast a month in advance. 
We know from talking with you guys that a large number of people plan to 
attend, but very few have mailed in the check. If you've ever planned a 
wedding you know the caterer needs several weeks notice on the number of 
guests. We have THREE catered meals for this event. T-shirts, registration 
packets, camping area, all need advance planning. Most importantly we need to 
know how many trails and trail leaders will be needed. (this was our biggest 
problem last year when almost twice as many trucks lined up for the first 
trail rides as had signed up for them)
PLEASE take 5 minutes right now to go to www.roverfest.com, download the 
registration and waiver forms,  and mail them in. 
- -Ed Messenger
VP
WCRC

http://www.roverfest.com
http://www.landroverclub.com

- --part1_75.1720c337.28760f64_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Book Antiqua" LANG="0"><B>Last year's Roverfest was a huge success, and we expect this year to be 
<BR>better. But we need everyone's cooperation. 
<BR>An event the size of roverfest only works if 90% of the participants 
<BR>PREREGISTER, and the majority need to do it <I>atleast</I> a month in advance. 
<BR>We know from talking with you guys that a large number of people plan to 
<BR>attend, but very few have mailed in the check. If you've ever planned a 
<BR>wedding you know the caterer needs several weeks notice on the number of 
<BR>guests. We have THREE catered meals for this event. T-shirts, registration 
<BR>packets, camping area, all need advance planning. Most importantly we need to 
<BR>know how many trails and trail leaders will be needed. (this was our biggest 
<BR>problem last year when almost twice as many trucks lined up for the first 
<BR>trail rides as had signed up for them)
<BR><I>PLEASE</I> take 5 minutes right now to go to www.roverfest.com, download the 
<BR>registration and waiver forms, &nbsp;and mail them in. 
<BR>-Ed Messenger
<BR>VP
<BR>WCRC
<BR>
<BR>http://www.roverfest.com
<BR>http://www.landroverclub.com</B></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_75.1720c337.28760f64_boundary--

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 21:38:31 +0100
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Leaf vs coil attitude, you guys have it made

Michael Hatton wrote: >>>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....<<<

true, not ALL, but....

Best Cheers

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

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #440
**********************************************