Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #439

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:32:39 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * Thursday, July 5 2001 Volume 01 : Number 439

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 19:37:12 -0400
From: "Larry Smith" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Series driver height.

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.

Best regards,

Larry Smith
Chester, VA
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: 04 July, 2001 01:22 PM
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: 4 Jul 2001 23:58:52 GMT
From: "DEREK POMMERENCK" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #438

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------NetAddressPart-01--=_tmp/emdBNaypx5fb2778d
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/emdBNaypx5fb2778d
Content-Type: multipart/related;
	boundary="----NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/emdBNaypx573be2a2"

- ------NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/emdBNaypx573be2a2
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_$tmp/emdBNaypx$-6c4796e9" 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/emdBNaypx573be2a2
Content-Type: image/gif
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <03=_$tmp/emdBNaypx$-6c4796e9>

- ------NetAddressPart-02--=_tmp/emdBNaypx573be2a2--

- ------NetAddressPart-01--=_tmp/emdBNaypx5fb2778d--

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

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 17:52:43 -0700
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Stock off-road

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:43:49 -0400
From: "Perrone Ford" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)

>Your call on the Grand Cherokee was a big miss.

As I said, I don't pay much attention to vehicles, so
I'm not totally aware of what's what these days.  My
inclusion of the Cherokee but not the Grand Cherokee
was based on what I've read in newsgroups over the recent
years posted by Jeep people that the plain-Jane Cherokee
was much better off-road than the Grand Cherokee.  This
seemed to be universally accepted by the Jeep freaks on the
lists, including the owners of Grand Cherokees, so I figured
they must know what they're talking about.  I believe it had
to do with things like ground clearance, overall reliability,
etc.  But the Grand Cherokee doesn't seem to fare too well
in the off-road department in the few reviews I've read. It
shines, however, in the on-road department, right up there
with the new-model Range Rover, or even surpassing it depending
on the reviewer.

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

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 21:48:17 -0400
From: Rick and Laura Lamb <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Rude comments

>  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.

Laura Lamb
'88 Range Rover
'70 Lightweight
     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?"

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

Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 22:38:48 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: series drivers heights

Hey there!

I'm 5'6"; fit in the "Aardvark" quite nicely thank you!

Only problem I have is working on the engine; either stand on a tool box at the sides or on the bumper!

Art Bitterman
1960 SII "Aardvark"
http://pub49.ezboard.com/bgunsandrovers

- --
Art Bitterman
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:05:23 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Jeep Liberty was Stock off-road (was Dodge front ends)

- --part1_c4.16a7dedc.28754f93_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 7/4/01 2:32:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 
> 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.  

When I bought my 88" a few years ago, it was in response to an ad, and the 
vehicle was located in Georgetown, CA.
I cruised up with my wife on a weekday. We met with the Rovers' owner Mark 
Smith. You may have heard of him, he founded J**p Jamboree, and participated 
in the 1979 Expedition of the Americas, and was a leader in the Madagascar 
Camel Trophy. He also is part owner of the Rubicon trail. Perhaps that's 
better stated as an owner of part of the Rubicon Trail. 

He was selling the Rover after quite a few years ownership, where the only 
driver was his grandkids, around the back of his property. Due to his long 
affiliation with J**p, it was unthinkable for him to get caught or 
photographed driving the 88" on the road. He had purchased it from a buddy in 
reminiscence of his prior experiences.

We sat and talked quite a long time about the Rover, and a little bit about 
his Grand Cherokee. He was quite pleased with the sliders he'd had made for 
the GC, and they were basically indistinguishable from the stock sills. The 
vehicle had been over the Rubicon at least 4 times, and was unmarked. I'm 
pretty sure that my recollection of four is low, but I'd rather be 
conservative than state the dozen trips I'm thinking. I think he used all the 
bypasses, but then again,

Pretty stock tires, and not lifted, kind of says it all.

Zack

- --part1_c4.16a7dedc.28754f93_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 2:32:54 PM 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">
<BR>Yes Jeep did, sort of, try the Rubicon with the new IFS Liberty. &nbsp;They used 
<BR>stock AT tires and had to be winched over most of the obstacles. &nbsp;Don't 
<BR>think the truck made it anywhere near all the way through the trail and 
<BR>suffered considerable customization by the country side. &nbsp;</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Book Antiqua" LANG="0">
<BR>When I bought my 88" a few years ago, it was in response to an ad, and the 
<BR>vehicle was located in Georgetown, CA.
<BR>I cruised up with my wife on a weekday. We met with the Rovers' owner Mark 
<BR>Smith. You may have heard of him, he founded J**p Jamboree, and participated 
<BR>in the 1979 Expedition of the Americas, and was a leader in the Madagascar 
<BR>Camel Trophy. He also is part owner of the Rubicon trail. Perhaps that's 
<BR>better stated as an owner of part of the Rubicon Trail. 
<BR>
<BR>He was selling the Rover after quite a few years ownership, where the only 
<BR>driver was his grandkids, around the back of his property. Due to his long 
<BR>affiliation with J**p, it was unthinkable for him to get caught or 
<BR>photographed driving the 88" on the road. He had purchased it from a buddy in 
<BR>reminiscence of his prior experiences.
<BR>
<BR>We sat and talked quite a long time about the Rover, and a little bit about 
<BR>his Grand Cherokee. He was quite pleased with the sliders he'd had made for 
<BR>the GC, and they were basically indistinguishable from the stock sills. The 
<BR>vehicle had been over the Rubicon at least 4 times, and was unmarked. I'm 
<BR>pretty sure that my recollection of four is low, but I'd rather be 
<BR>conservative than state the dozen trips I'm thinking. I think he used all the 
<BR>bypasses, but then again,
<BR>
<BR>Pretty stock tires, and not lifted, kind of says it all.
<BR>
<BR>Zack</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_c4.16a7dedc.28754f93_boundary--

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:16:05 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

<humour>

On Wednesday 04 July 2001 16:17, you wrote:
> 1. Do you tow more than 3 times per year?
No - my rear recovery point can't take a trailer

> 2. Is your cargo area stained from hauling dirt, rocks, landscaping
> items, race car support items, etc?
No - with the fuel-tank, roll-cage & spare wheel in the back of an 80", 
there's no room for stuff like this

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

> 4. Have you ever removed the 3rd seat (if applicable) for extra
> storage?
No - it was never present (since I aquired the basket-case)
[OK - it's really a yes]

> 5. You've never slid off the road in the winter (except when avoiding
> a collision with an out of control vehicle)?
No - I've always slowed down in bad conditions, and avoided bad 
situation like this

> 6. You're never passed by a passenger car in snowy conditions?
Yes, I'm often passed by passenger cars in snowy conditions - I'm no 
fool, and they're more likely to wreck their own car.
Answering no to this one results in a yes to #5 :)

> 7. You have more than 3 others, including larger dogs, to accomodate?
No. Me an one navigator

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

> 9. Have you ever used your roof rack?
No - the roll-cage will do instead

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

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

> Tally up all the times you responded with "no". Score as follows:
6 'no's

> 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.
That's me then...

> 1-3 "Justified SUV Owner" i.d. card is in the mail
>
> 0 My hero!

Me thinks that the questions are a tad squewed..

My versions:

1) Do you have used tow-point or recovery at the rear?

2) Can the rear point *only* be used for recovery?

3) Does your vehicle carry either off-road equipment or self-repair 
tools
 
4) Do you have a CB or Motorsports radio fitted?

5) Have you every recovered a passenger vehicle which has inadvertently 
left the road?

6) Do you have additional (non-standard) under-body/sill protection 
fitted

7) Do you have roll-over protection (eg a roll-cage)

8) Do you have tyres with an primarily off-road bias

9) Have you used low box legitimetely. Double points if you use it on a 
weekly basis

10) Do you compete with your vehicle

11) Do you compete with you vehicle, do well, and have avoided 
modifications such as diff-lockers, rarely used winches, etc.

Score 1 for each yes:

10+ : True off-roader

6-9 : You're either single, or have a second car - and enjoy your 
off-roading

3-5 : What you want is a soft-roader.

2 or less : Poseur! Go and get a metallic paint-job, underbody 
lighting, 800-watt sound system - and head for "Da 'Hood", wide boy!

- -- 
           --==**==--
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:19:35 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Real offoraders (was LRO: Dodge front ends)

On Wednesday 04 July 2001 17:33, you wrote:
> >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.
>From my experience:

Competitive off-roading; long trails; surveying and constructing 
cometitive courses; competitive recovery-work.

The best non-90 is probably the 2-door Range Rover classic, with either 
a V8, or a retro-fitted modern diesel engine.

- -- 
           --==**==--
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:10:47 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Junkyard Wars

Anyone catch last nights TLC broadcast of the Junkyard Wars championship?  The Brits made great use of a nice blue Series III 88" in powering their hydraulic car crusher.  The US farm boys sledgehammer method took the prize but with much less finesse.  

Anyone know where this show is filmed?  I saw an early Range Rover 2-door in a pile of junk.  It was a great show with many very humorous moments.  Wonder how we could incorporate the "junkyard war" element into Land Rover events like our upcoming Southern Land Rover Society (www.solaros.com) Southern Appalachian Expedition?

Cheers!

RW

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:24:38 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Junkyard Wars

On Thursday 05 July 2001 13:10, you wrote:
> Anyone know where this show is filmed?  I saw an early Range Rover
> 2-door in a pile of junk.  It was a great show with many very
> humorous moments.  Wonder how we could incorporate the "junkyard war"
> element into Land Rover events like our upcoming Southern Land Rover
> Society (www.solaros.com) Southern Appalachian Expedition?
Filmed in London.

This is the URL for the origional UK version. Junkyard wars was 
basically the same production team, in the same yard...

http://www.channel4.com/plus/scrapheap2000/
- -- 
           --==**==--
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:27:54 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: New vs. old reliability

What is the AMC 4 wheel drive station wagon?  Is that the AMX?  A guy I know in town has one lifted with 33's on it, a hood scoop and side pipes.  It is big and loud and one heck of a sight to see...

>>> [email-masked] 07/03/01 09:43PM >>>
the only old AMC product i like is the AMX with the 401 V8.  those things are 
pretty cool.  uh oh more specs from cars that went out of production long 
before i was born... : )

adam

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:45:56 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Dodge front ends/SUV Poseur test

Whew!  I scored a 1.  Need to tow more often.....

RW

>>> [email-masked] 07/04/01 11:17AM >>>
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:50:42 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Dodge front ends

Perrone, I am 6'3" and pushing 210 lbs and I fit very comfortably behind the wheel of my 88".

RW

>>> [email-masked] 07/04/01 11:30AM >>>
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:55:53 -0400 
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Re: New vs. old reliability

That's the Eagle. The AMX is a two door sports coupe.
The Eagle with the straight six is a very good 4x4 with a viscous centre
diff.
It's failings were poor build quality and corrosion.
It's the forerunner to vehicles like the Subaru Outback.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	RON WARD [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:28 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: LRO: Re: New vs. old reliability
> 
> What is the AMC 4 wheel drive station wagon?  Is that the AMX?  A guy I
> know in town has one lifted with 33's on it, a hood scoop and side pipes.
> It is big and loud and one heck of a sight to see...
> 
> >>> [email-masked] 07/03/01 09:43PM >>>
> the only old AMC product i like is the AMX with the 401 V8.  those things
> are 
> pretty cool.  uh oh more specs from cars that went out of production long 
> before i was born... : )
> 
> adam

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:06:09 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: New vs. old reliability

Ferrari made a sedan or two.  Can't recall the model as I don't claim to know a thing about Ferraris other than the 308s and Dinos.  I did read an article not long ago in Forza (?) magazine about David Letterman's collection and in it he has at least one such Ferrari 4-door sedans.  Nice.

>>> [email-masked] 07/04/01 04:35PM >>>
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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:43:17 -0400
From: "Lee Jones" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Junkyard Wars

Excuuuuuuuse Me!

HOW can you say that they had little finesse when they used a MINI for their
sledgehammer power plant?  I had a lot of problems on who to cheer for on
the show - the Mini or the Series III - Ah well good 'ol nationality won
out - but I got worried when the sledgehammer had trouble with the
bulkhead.... USA USA USA......

Lee

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of RON WARD
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Junkyard Wars

Anyone catch last nights TLC broadcast of the Junkyard Wars championship?
The Brits made great use of a nice blue Series III 88" in powering their
hydraulic car crusher.  The US farm boys sledgehammer method took the prize
but with much less finesse.

Anyone know where this show is filmed?  I saw an early Range Rover 2-door in
a pile of junk.  It was a great show with many very humorous moments.
Wonder how we could incorporate the "junkyard war" element into Land Rover
events like our upcoming Southern Land Rover Society (www.solaros.com)
Southern Appalachian Expedition?

Cheers!

RW

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

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:02:57 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Junkyard Wars

Hey, I stood and saluted the stars and stripes when they played the national anthem, don't misunderstand me.  I did think the Brits showed a bit more, err, shall we say 'elan' with the hydraulic press.  Good old 'Mercan passion for brute force prevailed though, even at the protests of the tini Mini's front left brake shoe!!

>>> [email-masked] 07/05/01 09:43AM >>>
Excuuuuuuuse Me!

HOW can you say that they had little finesse when they used a MINI for their
sledgehammer power plant?  I had a lot of problems on who to cheer for on
the show - the Mini or the Series III - Ah well good 'ol nationality won
out - but I got worried when the sledgehammer had trouble with the
bulkhead.... USA USA USA......

Lee

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On 
Behalf Of RON WARD
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 8:11 AM
To: [email-masked] 
Subject: LRO: Junkyard Wars

Anyone catch last nights TLC broadcast of the Junkyard Wars championship?
The Brits made great use of a nice blue Series III 88" in powering their
hydraulic car crusher.  The US farm boys sledgehammer method took the prize
but with much less finesse.

Anyone know where this show is filmed?  I saw an early Range Rover 2-door in
a pile of junk.  It was a great show with many very humorous moments.
Wonder how we could incorporate the "junkyard war" element into Land Rover
events like our upcoming Southern Land Rover Society (www.solaros.com)
Southern Appalachian Expedition?

Cheers!

RW

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

Date: 05 Jul 2001 09:08:35 -0500
From: george kase <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: 2.5L N/A oil filter?

Does anyone know of where to find a reference
for the correct oil filter for a 12J style 2.5L normally aspirated
diesel Land Rover engine?
Thanks,
George Kase
Chicago

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:19:14 +0100
From: "Mike Rogers" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST 

Hang on Bob, this is a Land Rover Owners
list and a Range Rover is still a Land Rover. We even have the odd Discovery
owner use this bar. last time I popped into the Coil/Range Rover bar it was
full of folk who do not like getting their hands dirty.

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)

>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?

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:41:05 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST

On Thursday 05 July 2001 15:19, you wrote:
> Hang on Bob, this is a Land Rover Owners
> list and a Range Rover is still a Land Rover. We even have the odd
> Discovery owner use this bar. last time I popped into the Coil/Range
> Rover bar it was full of folk who do not like getting their hands
> dirty.
We've been discussing this on the UK-LRO list.

I was here when the first LRO list split, and the split was *supposed* 
to be between the workshop/non-workshop people - with the majority of 
the RR/Disco people being firmly in the non-workshop camp.

Over time, it has mutated into leaf verses coil tribes - even to the 
extent that some people refuse to discuss the ability of the RR & Disco 
vehicles as serious off-road vehicles, and as vehicles that are 
suitable for home-restoration.

To us non-NorthAmerican listers, it's amusing/sad/worrying that so many 
people seem so hell-bent on ignoring the later models.

In the UK, the culture of Hybrid vehicles is much stronger, so we don't 
get as bogged down in the leaf/coil issue.

Just my opinion...

- -- 
           --==**==--
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:02:49 -0400
From: Perrone Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST

<html><head></head><body>Ian,<br>
<br>
 &nbsp;&nbsp; What's that subscription address?&nbsp; I own a 91rr, would someday like to
own a series, and I believe in doing ALL my own work.&nbsp; Although I am dreading
the day the tranny packs in!&nbsp; I have to agree that from the perspective of
someone who has only owned a rover for a couple of years, all this bickering
seems silly.&nbsp; I can see splitting the list over tech/non-tech users but there
is a MUCH easier way to deal with this through filtering but enforcing the
use of subject tags like [Tech], or [Accessory], or [Offroad].&nbsp; That way
users could send stuff directly into the trash bin without even seeing it.&nbsp;
Or you could send all mail from a particular user into the bin, and just
read the rest.<br>
<br>
 &nbsp;&nbsp; But honestly, I don't see the harm in asking basic technical questions
of a knowledgeable group of folk regardless of the type of truck.&nbsp; When you
get right down to it, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between one
petrol engine and the next, and between one LR chassis and the next.&nbsp; The
series trucks may not have an ECU, and the coilers don't have removable doors,
but come on.. there's not THAT much difference in the mechanicals...&nbsp; <br>
<br>
- -Perrone<br>
<br>
Ian Stuart wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]"><pre wrap="">On Thursday 05 July 2001 15:19, you wrote:<br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Hang on Bob, this is a Land Rover Owners<br>list and a Range Rover is still a Land Rover. We even have the odd<br>Discovery owner use this bar. last time I popped into the Coil/Range<br>Rover bar it was full of folk who do not like getting their hands<br>dirty.<br></pre></blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!---->We've been discussing this on the UK-LRO list.<br><br>I was here when the first LRO list split, and the split was *supposed* <br>to be between the workshop/non-workshop people - with the majority of <br>the RR/Disco people being firmly in the non-workshop camp.<br><br>Over time, it has mutated into leaf verses coil tribes - even to the <br>extent that some people refuse to discuss the ability of the RR &amp; Disco <br>vehicles as serious off-road vehicles, and as vehicles that are <br>suitable for home-restoration.<br><br>To us non-NorthAmerican listers, it's amusing/sad/worrying that so many <br>people seem so hell-bent on ignoring the later models.<br><br>In the UK, the culture of Hybrid vehicles is much stronger, so we don't <br>get as bogged down in the leaf/coil issue.<br><br>Just my opinion...<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
</body></html>

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:02:03 -0400 
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST

Many NA Listers feel the same way. There are real LROs and posers. There are
even posers in the leafer community.

Trevor (parabolics and coils 'r' us) Easton      IIA 88 and 3.9  RR
Classic(carburetted/HEI) er.... wot's an ECU then?

> To us non-NorthAmerican listers, it's amusing/sad/worrying that so many 
> people seem so hell-bent on ignoring the later models.
> 
> In the UK, the culture of Hybrid vehicles is much stronger, so we don't 
> get as bogged down in the leaf/coil issue.
> 
> Just my opinion...
> 
> -- 
>            --==**==--
> 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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:23:48 +0100
From: Ian Stuart <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: For Steve Mace...

So Steve,

you want to talk about the merits of fitting a Dicrovery 300TDi and 
autobox into an 80"

<duck!>

- -- 
           --==**==--
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:55:34 -0400
From: Bill Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: subject tags

Listers can't even change the subject line, let alone sort out what
category their post falls into.
- -- 
Bill Adams
Motion Graphics/3D Design Director
IBB Broadcast Design Center, Washington DC
[email-masked]
202-205-9638

1966 Land Rover 2A 109SW Diesel
1981 Honda GoldWing Standard
1963 Pearson Vanguard
"Practicing the ancient art of ren-ching"

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 01 08:57:07 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Re: LRO Mailing List DIGEST

>To us non-NorthAmerican listers, it's amusing/sad/worrying that so many 
>people seem so hell-bent on ignoring the later models.
>
>In the UK, the culture of Hybrid vehicles is much stronger, so we don't 
>get as bogged down in the leaf/coil issue.

Ian, I think the schism exists in American minds because Rover pulled out 
of North America early in the series III production life. Then came back 
to North America about 15 years later with a Range Rover priced and 
marketed to upscale professionals as a luxury SUV.

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.  It was a challenge 
to keep a rig going when the cost of rebuilding a gearbox or power plant 
usually exceeded the value of a OK running vehicle.

Rover North America targeted status conscious people with large chunks of 
disposable income and fed them the genteel sporting country life as the 
Land Rover lifestyle.

So yes the American/Canadian series owners are a very different breed of 
person than LR North America's target customer and the schism is quite 
real.

However, for better or worse the Disco and Range Rovers are not holding 
their prices well and older North American examples are coming into the 
hands of the same kinds of people who ended up with the series rigs.  So 
the schism is closing.  Some of us chalvanistic series types just have 
not raised our heads out of the engine bay long enough to notice.

TeriAnn Near Santa Cruz, California

My old car: 1960 Land Rover 109 owned since 1978
My new car: 1961 Triumph TR3A owned since 1986
  "Who could ask for anything more"

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:29:33 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

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 one thing the Series has in spades.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:32:21 -0500
From: "Carl Kinkade" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: subject tags

My 2 cents.  I am relatively new to both list and I have a Range Rover, that
I do all the repairs to.  Granted I don't do all the off roading that some
of you do, but I have gotten it dirty.  But I read most of the comments on
both list serves and I learn more about the rover world and it's
participants.  I have used the list to help with some of my repair problems
in the past and appreciate the responses that I have gotten.  But why
exclude listeners just because of their technical ability, okay they may ask
dumb questions but at least they are asking questions and are wanting to
learn.

I am on a list serve for GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and that is
what I do for a living, so I feel I am an advanced user.  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.  How hard
is it to hit the delete key?

My point is all list serves have people of different levels and interests,
but in order for a list serve to be truly successful you can't exclude
people.

Sorry for rambling on,
Carl

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 Bill Adams
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: subject tags

Listers can't even change the subject line, let alone sort out what
category their post falls into.
- --
Bill Adams
Motion Graphics/3D Design Director
IBB Broadcast Design Center, Washington DC
[email-masked]
202-205-9638

1966 Land Rover 2A 109SW Diesel
1981 Honda GoldWing Standard
1963 Pearson Vanguard
"Practicing the ancient art of ren-ching"

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #439
**********************************************