Subject: LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #444

From: [email-masked] (LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *)
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:43:07 -0400

LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * *  Friday, July 6 2001  Volume 01 : Number 444

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:46:33 -0600
From: Brendan Evans <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Electrical Issues

Duly noted from all corners.  Called this morning and the Delco 10si 
double pulley should be at the local NAPA tomorrow morning.  Thanks 
for all the good insight, the ovlr page looks to be pretty 
straightforward on building the wiring harness and hooking it all 
together.

Brendan

>--- Brendan Evans <[email-masked]> wrote:
>  When rev'd sparks flew between two of the coils in
>>  the regulator, (as you face it the two most right). 
>
>Cough
>Cou<delco>gh.
>Cough
>
>
>DaveB
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
>http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:51:08 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:01:35 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

- - --part1_8.16c39acb.2876ca5f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>I have an 
opportunity to purchase a 1994 County SWB from an aquaintance...
I have read some of the debate over the LWB model, and at least 
one person mentioned that the SWB models might not have as much 
trouble with the engine and suspension.

The two big problem areas with the LWB models (1993-1995?) are 
the 4.2 litre version of the Rover V-8 and the first generation air suspension.  
Other than that, so far as I know the LWB has all the benefits and detriments 
of the other classic-styled Range Rovers.  I was not aware that "standard" 
wheelbase, coil-sprung Range Rovers were imported to the US after the 
introduction of the 4.2 LWB in 1993.  But I could very well be wrong.  In 
any event, if the vehicle you are interested in does not have the 4.2 litre 
engine, but has the earlier 3.9 variant, then you shouldn't have to worry about 
the head gasket problems and oil leaks that plague most 4.2s  The current 
4.0/4.6 variants of the V-8 did not appear in the US until the introduction of the 
"new style" Range Rover in 1995 or thereabouts.

If Land Rover North America did continue to import standard wheelbase 
Range Rovers after 1993, but they had the 4.2 engine, I would steer clear of 
them.

I am not aware (but again I could be dead wrong) that Land Rover ever put 
air suspension on a standard wheelbase Range Rover.  So if what you are 
looking at is truly a standard (100-inch) wheelbase vehicle, I don't believe 
it would have air suspension on it.

If you are outside the US (can people be on AOL outside the US?) then 
it's anybody's guess what's available.  I know Land Rover continued to 
produce the "classic" Range Rover in limited numbers after the introduction 
of the "new style" Range Rover.  So it's very possible they continued producing 
the standard wheelbase version (I have a hard time calling it a short wheelbase) 
after they introduced the LWB in 1993.  I know they fit 3.9 engines into the 
Discovery after the introduction of the 4.2 LWB, so it's certainly possible to have 
a 1994 Range Rover with a 3.9 engine.  But I'm not sure if it's possible to find that 
combination in the US.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:55:42 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 01 07:10:10 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

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

>>Jeez, I'm not THAT bad, am I?

>If there were no counter points, the world would be a much 
duller place with way too narrow a view point....It is just that I often do not 
agree with your observations.  But they do cause me to think about them 
and be less complacent about my own.

Fair enough.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:01:27 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Rangie Fuel Milage

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 05:40:56 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Rangie Fuel Milage (was:  1994 County SWB)

>> I have a '95 RR LWB and love it, but be prepared to pay for fuel costs if
> you drive it very much.  I average about 10 mpg.

>Is this typical milage?

This seems very poor mileage, even for a Range Rover.  Our '91 
gets about 15mpg in town and 18-20 on the freeway, usually 
closer to 18 than 20 unless the road's real flat and there's no 
headwind.  When we tow our fishing boat (about 3,000 pounds) 
the highway mileage drops to around 16 mpg.

However, perhaps in addition to its other ills, the 4.2 litre version of 
the engine also gets crappy mileage.  The couple of people I know who 
bought 4.2 LWBs unloaded them within the first two years, and I 
never had a chance to find out how they performed mileage-wise.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:05:49 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

It's no nightmare - follow the procedures in the manual and there are no
surprises.

                         ajr

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 12:03:53 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: best way to clean crap out of engine

Well, it's been damn hot here in Denver, and I guess the rover couldn't
take it as it blew a head gasket I believe. What is the best way to 
clean the oil/antifreeze mung out of the engine?
- -- 
Jim Hall
1966 88" Elephant Chaser
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo
"You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling 
with Jim." Mitch Stockdale

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 14:08:04 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

De nada - this is what it's all about.

One of the joys of an NAS Rangie is that parts are actually available in
the real world. A lot of parts are better mailorder (engine gaskets come to
mind) but the day-to-day tune-up bits are often available right down the
street.

               ajr

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:10:11 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: The LRO/RRO test

> Nicely said Perrone - Plus a lot of the time the trucks are under
warrantee
> (something I don't think ANY coiler can say!) and even if bought used the
> warrantee is still in place.  On the LRO list I have told people to "take
it
> to the dealer" on warrantee issues rather than tell then how to fix it.

Did I miss something?
Shouldn't this be
"(something I don't think ANY leafer can say!)"
and
"On the RRO list"

Pete 'wondering if my IIa is still under warrantee'

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:09:26 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Rangie Fuel Milage

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:05:40 -0500
From: "Carl Kinkade" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: Rangie Fuel Milage (was:  1994 County SWB)

>I have found that it is pretty consistent no matter what I am doing with it,
highway or city or off road.  The highway mileage may get up to 14 and if it
does I feel lucky (that must be with a strong tail wind).

Unless the 4.2 litre version of the Rover V-8 has inherently horrible 
fuel consumption (and I have never heard that it does), I would say 
that perhaps you have a problem.  Highway mileage of 14mpg is 
not normal, I would think.  The 3.9 litre Range Rover gets between 
18 and 20 mpg on the highway, and 13-15 mpg in town, depending 
on the driving conditions, which include how you drive it.  But 10 mpg 
in town and 14 mpg on the highway sounds like a problem needing 
to be fixed unless you are driving around a 90mph on the highway and 
leave the shifter in 2nd in town.

I would suggest that unless you are equipped and capable of troubleshooting 
the Rover V-8 yourself, you might want to cough up the $100 or whatever it is 
to have the local Land Rover dealer put your engine on the diagnostic machine.  
You may have a failed or failing component, perhaps in the emission system or 
in the engine control computer, that is allowing the engine to run too rich.

_________________________________________
C. Marin Faure
Producer/Director, Boeing Video Services
telephone (425)393-7721
mobile (206)650-5622
fax: (425)393-7741
e-mail: [email-masked]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:11:06 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: parts houses...

> Out of curiousity, for some reason British Pacific doesn't seem to get
> mentioned much when people are looking for parts.  Usually I only see
> Atlantic British or Rovers North.
>
> Is it a regional issue?

I never noticed a lack of mention of BP on the list.  Maybe it is just
regional.
Pete

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:11:41 -0400
From: Perrone Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

<html><head></head><body>Easy..<br>
<br>
 &nbsp;&nbsp; Only LWB models got the 4.2.&nbsp; All 100" wheelbase models got coil suspensions
and 3.9l engines.&nbsp; And yes these were produced and imported well into 1995.&nbsp;
Somewhere&nbsp; I have a picture of the first and last 100" Range Rovers to ever
leave the line at Solihull.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
- -P<br>
<br>
Faure, Marin wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]"><pre wrap="">Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:01:35 EDT<br>From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a><br>Subject: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB<br><br>- --part1_8.16c39acb.2876ca5f_boundary<br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"<br>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit<br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">I have an <br></pre></blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!---->opportunity to purchase a 1994 County SWB from an aquaintance...<br>I have read some of the debate over the LWB model, and at least <br>one person mentioned that the SWB models might not have as much <br>trouble with the engine and suspension.<br><br>The two big problem areas with the LWB models (1993-1995?) are <br>the 4.2 litre version of the Rover V-8 and the first generation air suspension.  <br>Other than that, so far as I know the LWB has all the benefits and detriments <br>of the other classic-styled Range Rovers.  I was not aware that "standard" <br>wheelbase, coil-sprung Range Rovers were imported to the US after the <br>introduction of the 4.2 LWB in 1993.  But I could very well be wrong.  In <br>any event, if the vehicle you are interested in does not have the 4.2 litre <br>engine, but has the earlier 3.9 variant, then you shouldn't have to worry about <br>the head gasket problems and oil leaks that plague most 4.2s  The current <br>4.0/4.6!
 variants of the V-8 did not appear the <br>Discovery after the introduction of the 4.2 LWB, so it's certainly possible to have <br>a 1994 Range Rover with a 3.9 engine.  But I'm not sure if it's possible to find that <br>combination in the US.<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
</body></html>

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:22:21 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: The LRO/RRO test

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 01 08:33:49 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: The LRO/RRO test

>I'm not sure I can handle much of anything on something newer than a '74. 
 I'm not about to blame someone with a new coiler that can not work in 
their engine bay.

I have always done all the work on my Series III myself, outside of 
partial engine overhaul when it burned a couple of valves.  But while 
we have been very lucky so far with our '91 Range Rover and have 
not yet needed any engine work, when that time comes, it's off to the 
dealer with it, as much as I hate the idea of doing that.  My wife and 
I have replaced the radiator, re-adjusted the wiper motor, replaced lights 
in the dash, cured an inoperative tailgate lock (the culprit was a failed 
noise suppressor in the radio antenna circuit- look at the schematic 
and you'll find it), removed and replaced brake calipers, changed the 
fluid and filter in the transmission, and a few 
other mechanical-type items.  But when it comes to the engine, 
I put myself in the same category as TeriAnn: I think the electronics 
and extremely integrated systems are beyond my expertise, and certainly 
beyond the time I'm willing to devote to learning them and the money it 
would take to acquire the specialized diagnostic equipment.  I could do 
it if I really wanted to, but I've got better things to do with my time.

So I change the oil and filter every 3,000 miles, the coolant once or 
twice a year, the spark plugs once a year, the air filter every 10,000 
miles or so, and we drive it very conservatively.  The longer I can avoid 
going to a dealer, the better.  But when the ABS system got intermittent, 
I put up with it for a year, resetting the system periodically to make the damn 
light go off (the fault code was the brake light switch, which wasn't the problem).  
Eventually, we took it to the dealer, and their diagnostics showed a fault with the 
ABS computer itself.  So we replaced it.  Some things you just can't do with the
rollaround toolbox and a floor jack.

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 01 11:26:41 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

>109 regulars have 3 more inches at top-of-seat-box height. With the
>defender seats in my 109, I fele like I have 4-6 inches more leg room
>than in my 88 with either the original or defender seats.

OK, I'll bite.  How and the heck do you get more leg space with the top 
of the seat back tilted 3 inches rearwards and the bottom of the seat 
back and the seat bottom in the exact same location????

Your hips are in the same location on both an 88 and a 109.

TeriAnn Wakeman               Marigold Ltd.
Santa Cruz, California        Web design, site updating, testing
[email-masked]      search engine optimization, graphics
                              and more

http://www.overlander.net/Marigold/index.html

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 01 11:29:42 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: parts houses...

>Out of curiousity, for some reason British Pacific doesn't seem to get
>mentioned much when people are looking for parts.  Usually I only see
>Atlantic British or Rovers North.
>
>Is it a regional issue?  Am I shopping with the evil empire?  Just
>curious.  British Pacific is local to me (30 miles) so I use them and
>the prices seem good.
>
>Just wondering.  I don't have a stake in anything other then my own
>truck.

I think it is more of a regional issue.  A lot of vocal people on this 
list are near the East North American coast.

TeriAnn Wakeman               Marigold Ltd.
Santa Cruz, California        Web design, site updating, testing
[email-masked]      search engine optimization, graphics
                              and more

http://www.overlander.net/Marigold/index.html

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:32:58 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:11:09 -0500
From: "Carl Kinkade" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

>I have had no time to look at it, work has been killing me.  As a matter of
fact, the pads have been squealing and I haven't had time to pull the wheels
off and look at them, even though I keep telling myself I need to do it.

The brakes on our '91 squealed at low speed braking almost from the day 
we bought it.  We put up with it for 9 years, and then this year I used the 
Rolls Royce trick of drilling the pads and inserting pencil lead in the holes.  
Haven't heard a peep out of them since then.

>Speaking of which, do ya'll have any suggestions for pads ('95 RR), I looked
in my Atlantic British catalog and noticed the prices are outrageous.  I
replaced the ones on our BMW and it costs me about $20 per set and they had
a lifetime warranty.

Try Rovers North, I think the pads are about $80 a set.  You can't get old backing 
plates relined at most brake shops (like you can the shoes for a Series) because 
of the brake wear sensors.  At least that's what all the brake/clutch relining outfits have 
told me around here.  They don't have the correct sensor for Range Rover (or any other 
sensor-equipped vehicle).  Obviously, somebody can put sensors in brake pads; I suspect 
the independent shops just don't want to mess with it.

I'm surprised someone would offer a lifetime warranty on a part where wear and eventual 
failure is an inherent property of the function and design of the part.  I can see a lifetime 
warranty on the work, maybe, but I'm surprised a company would offer a lifetime warranty 
on a component which, by its very function, will never last a lifetime, or even a significant 
portion of one.  But you're right, brake pads by their very nature should be pretty cheap.  
I'm sure the Range Rover pads cost the supplier $2.50 to make.  But because they 
are for a Range Rover, you pay through the nose in the US.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:36:03 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

Not all SWB RR's came with coil suspensions Perrone.  I just removed the EAS system from my 1995 RR SWB.  Shouldn't this be on the RRO list anyway?

>>> [email-masked] 07/06/01 02:11PM >>>

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 01 11:48:13 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

>--- TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> bottom line is that your 
>> hips and feet are in the same relative locations in both 88s & 109s.
>
>I can slide the defender seats back over the lip at the back of the
>seatbox, which said lip is the greatest hindrance to further back
>sliding of the seats in a series land rover. this really does end up
>creating a huge differenc in the leg position, not just shoulder
>position.

I know, that's why I was comparing 88s to 109s and not crossing the 
coiler line.  The series sliding seat rail under the driver's seat is too 
low to push the cushion past the lip.  A combination of the 109's added 
behind the seat space plus the coiler seats will indeed provide more leg 
space.  Besides I really like the coiler deluxe seat's lumbar support.

But if you stick to series seat mounts you have the same rear slide stop 
and same hip location in both 88s & 109s.

The one problem with the Defender seats is that the higher seat rails 
translate into a higher cushion location and a higher head height in 
relation to the top of the windscreen.  That is why the nineties and one 
tens have a taller windscreen than the series rigs.  I have checked and 
it looks like the deluxe coiler seats will fit the series seat frames as 
long as differences in mounting are taken care of.

I've toyed with the idea of cutting away the seatbox mating lips just 
behind the seats and mounting the series slider back a couple of inches.  
That would do the same thing without  raising the seating height.  One 
could add a couple extra top mounting bolts.  Besides the seat box really 
sits on the side rails anyway.  I once went a couple of years without any 
bolts in the seat box (call me lazy, but I had a very loud transfer case 
and thought it would break soon anyway.  Darned thing never did break but 
I replaced it anyway just for relevant quiet.)

TeriAnn Wakeman               Marigold Ltd.
Santa Cruz, California        Web design, site updating, testing
[email-masked]      search engine optimization, graphics
                              and more

http://www.overlander.net/Marigold/index.html

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:47:30 -0400
From: Perrone Ford <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

<html><head></head><body>Son of a GUN... now I KNOW I read that in a book
I have.&nbsp; Thanks for the correction Ron.&nbsp; And no, I think this should be on
the LRO since its not about the radio, A/C, or power seats.<br>
<br>
- -P<br>
<br>
RON WARD wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]"><pre wrap="">Not all SWB RR's came with coil suspensions Perrone.  I just removed the EAS system from my 1995 RR SWB.  Shouldn't this be on the RRO list anyway?</pre>
  </blockquote>
  <br>
</body></html>

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: DaveB <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

- --- TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> OK, I'll bite.  How and the heck do you get more leg space with the
> top 
> of the seat back tilted 3 inches rearwards and the bottom of the seat
> 
> back and the seat bottom in the exact same location????
> 
> Your hips are in the same location on both an 88 and a 109.

On most series rovers, 88 or 109, the position of the seat bottom
cushion is dictated by fixed brackets attached to the seat box. since
this style of seat has a fixed bottom attached to fixed bracket and
since seat boxes are identical from 88 to 109, in those instances you
would be corrrect.

However: when a sliding seat is introduced, there is an opportunity  to
take advantage of the 109's 3 extra inches between the back of the
seatbox and the front of the bulkhead. Now, bear with me a moment...

there are two options that i know of when it comes to sliding seats
that will fit in a series rover without drilling. One is the "deluxe"
seats as found on US late IIa and SIII 88's. these use a pair of
sliding tracks combined with a square frame for the cushion. the
cushion/frame slide back and forth. This setup also apparently was
offered on some early IIa's as an option. I think in those cases though
you would find an elephant hide cushio as opposed tot he pleated deluxe
black ones in US market late IIa's and III's.

the other option is late series III county/90/110/defender seats. these
are a totally differnet animal and are quiter comfy, incorporating a
much more modern cushion design and a much greater range of adjustment.

Now, the mechanics of it all. The early sliding mechanism, which i have
only used on a series III 88" allowed the seat to go back until either
the sliding frame came into contact with the vertical lip where the
seatbox attaches to the rear bed, or the back of the seat back came
into contact with the front of the bulkhead behind the seats. I don't
remember what was hitting what but i know that i could slide the seat
back a certain distance and that was it.
A friend of mine had a kneee injury and had her 88 customized so that
the bulkhead behind the seats is now in the same position it would be
on a 109. At the same time, the vertical lip where the seatbox bolts to
the front of the rear bed was folded down flat. but only behind the
driver's seat, since this lip is what gives that area of the truck some
of its rigidity. the result is that her 88" has a great deal more leg
room than a standard 88".

Now. with my defender seats in my 88, I noticed a great deal more
comfort because of the more modern cushions and an increased sense of
safety due to the high back and head rest. But there was definitely no
increase, or no noticeable one anyway, in leg room. Long days of city
driving would often result in a crmaped, sore knee. 

When i got my 109, i decided that I wanted to spend more time in it
than in my 88, so i swapped the defender seats into it. I was able to
slide the base back  a good two to three inches further, since the back
did not hit the bulkhead and the slider itself clears the vertical lip
where the seatbox bolts to the front of the rear bed. The resulting
increase in leg room, decrease in knee angle acuteness, and decrease in
knee pain acuteness for me, as well as the increased ease of in-motion
cigarette rolling has been very noticeable and real. The rear bed on my
109 came from Jim Mead, an older gentleman that lived down the street
from me. He has owned a '66 IIa 88 since new, as well as a string of
other trucks, including the long since dead 109 tow truck that my bed
came off of, and a few series ones which supposedly acquired for a six
pack of beer when he was living in Newfoundland. I let Jim sit - he
wouldn't drive it despite my prodding-  in the front seat of my 109
after I finished it, and although his speech is often somewhat halting
and difficult to understand, the look on his face of befuddlement and
amazement over the amount of leg room was unmistakeable. Al his life he
had been having the same experience as TerriAnn. 

best
dave

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: DaveB <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

- --- TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The one problem with the Defender seats is that the higher seat rails
> 
> translate into a higher cushion location and a higher head height in 
> relation to the top of the windscreen.  That is why the nineties and
> one 
> tens have a taller windscreen than the series rigs.  

well, my defender seats are kinda worn out, I don't notice much
differnece, i always had trouble seeing traffic lights anyway. but with
4-6" more leg room, I can comfortably slouch down. i haven't noticed
any great overriding inconvenience caused by the defender seats. in
fact i would say they arre one of the most useflu things I've added to
any of my vehicles ever, and one of the best bargains too. 

I can measure the difference in height when i get home today. 

my defender seats did not come with the sliding rails and i had to find
them used somewhere. i looked at the various pieces, and they woujldn't
work together without some serious modification. there are molded
palstic bits that hold the defender seat cushion in place that would be
hard to make up yourself, and that would difficult to imitatte in a
differnet material. but all power to you if you want to try.

also, fwiw, i think the defender bottom seat cushion is thinner than
the series item. series seats are about 5 or 6 inches thick, and the
90/110 seat is probably 3 or 4 in the center of the bottt depression.
but the seat is of a more modern construction so they remain
comfortable despite their low-profileness.

there, i feel like I have written the book on LR seating...

dave

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 09:40:08 -1000
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: British Registration Codes

> Just a small point, contrary to something Frank said:
>
> Garages are issues a block of registrations, as appropriate for their
> area.
>

Thanks for the update Ian.  I added the data to the web page.

PS. Frank E:  I created the website in response to a discussion that was
taking place on the USA West Coast mendo email list.  They wanted me to pass
along their thanks for the data.
Pete

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: DaveB <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

- --- Perrone Ford <[email-masked]> wrote:

<HR>
<html><head></head><body>Son of a GUN... now I KNOW I read that in a
book
I have.&nbsp; Thanks for the correction Ron.&nbsp; And no, I think this
should be on
the LRO since its not about the radio, A/C, or power seats.<br>

I think it should be on the RRO since it is of absolutely no interest
to someone who doesn't own or isn't interested in owning a range rover.
message threads very similar to this one were one of the factors
involved in the spilting of the list.

I should add to this that i personally couldn't care less. That's
because I have what is known as a "delete key." this special key may go
by some other name in other parts of the world, inlcuding canada. or
maybe not. In any case, the "delete key" or a similar key is avialble
on almost every modern computer in use today. i use mine, and it saves
me from getting upset at hsving to open and read half a floppy disk's
worth of messages about some stupid plushmobile that is loaded with
poorly built high tech gizmotry.

But since we arre obviously on a trend here of openness, and  honesty,
(see Marin and TerriAnn's touchy feely messages re:agreeing to
disagree: ) I wil offer up my opinion that this thread definitively
does not belong on the LRO list. In fact, I think it epitomizes exaclty
the type of message that precipitated the list split in the first
place. I wish there were a way that message threads like this could be
detected by some giant mainframe computer at NORAD, and then zapped out
of the sky like using the "Star Wars technology that was rendered
useless at the end of the cold war, which, is on again btw. Yippee. In
the meantime, i will continue to use my so called "delete key"

dave

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:58:46 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: best way to clean crap out of engine

All right, you folks complaining about the lack of series stuff, I could
use an answer as the engine is almost back together.

Jim Hall wrote:
> What is the best way to
> clean the oil/antifreeze mung out of the engine?
> --
> Jim Hall
> 1966 88" Elephant Chaser
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo
> "You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling
> with Jim." Mitch Stockdale

- -- 
Jim Hall
1966 88" Elephant Chaser
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo
"You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling 
with Jim." Mitch Stockdale

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:07:28 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Axel

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jerrod <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Axel

>I have a question...I have a lean on the rear
wheels, they lean in at the top.

While there are people on this list (including me)
who own Range Rovers, the primary focus of this 
particular list is Series Land Rovers.  It may well 
be that someone on this list can give you advice 
with your wheel problem.  But you might want to 
subscribe to the Range Rover mailing list (same 
URL for subscription as this list), too  That list is 
devoted specifically to Range Rover issues, and 
you may get more, and more accurate, answers 
from the folks over there.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:12:22 -0400
From: "Lee Jones" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: The LRO/RRO test

Yep - OK it IS the drugs!!!!!

Lee 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Hope Peter
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 2:10 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: The LRO/RRO test

> Nicely said Perrone - Plus a lot of the time the trucks are under
warrantee
> (something I don't think ANY coiler can say!) and even if bought used the
> warrantee is still in place.  On the LRO list I have told people to "take
it
> to the dealer" on warrantee issues rather than tell then how to fix it.

Did I miss something?
Shouldn't this be
"(something I don't think ANY leafer can say!)"
and
"On the RRO list"

Pete 'wondering if my IIa is still under warrantee'

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:15:30 -0700 
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: changing RR brakes (was Pros and Cons....)

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:13:37 -0500
From: "Carl Kinkade" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: LRO: Pros and Cons: 1994 County SWB

>I haven't changed the pads on a rover yet, is there anything I should know?

It's very easy, and the instructions in the shop manual make it child's play.  
The biggest issue with Range Rover brakes is the potential for squeal.  I use 
BMW anti-squeal plates on the pads on our Range Rover, which may or may 
not help.  But the biggest anti-squeal device I've experienced so far has been 
the pencil lead treatment.  But the pads themselves are very easy to change.  
I'd advise you to have a little angled pry bar on hand to push the caliper pistons 
back into their cylinders.  This can take a lot of pressure to do.  Also, before you 
push the pistons back, take a moment to check the condition of their chrome 
plating.  The factory original plating is prone to failure after about 80,000 miles.  
When this happens, the seal around the piston starts getting chewed up, and the 
cylinder will start to seep fluid.  At least, that's been my experience.

And as long as you've got the front wheels off, take the opportunity to check/top off 
the oil in the swivel balls if your Range Rover has them (the "new model" Range Rovers 
don't, I believe, although I could be wrong on that).
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 04:08:26 -0400
From: "James G.Wolf" <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: RE: real offroaders

So, are REAL offroaders the weekend mud fest guys and gals or are REAL
offroaders the people who trek to the ends of the earth,
where roads are sometimes just indented places in the savannah? Where if
you break down you had better damn well know how to fix it or jerry rig it
good enough to get going again. My vote goes with the trekers. People who
use the vehicles to the fullest and enjoy what they find along the way. In
the true spirit of the old-time adventurers, these are  REAL offroaders in
my book.
Jim Wolf

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 16:17:12 -0400
From: Bill Adams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: best way to clean crap out of engine

If you're cleaning the gunk out of the inside of the engine, the best
way is to simply reassemble the engine and run a couple oil changes
through it before running it on the road. If you're cleaning the engine
bay, then a pressure washer will do the trick.
- -- 
Bill Adams
3D & Motion Graphics Design Director
International Broadcasting Bureau
Washington, D.C.
202-205-9638
[email-masked]

'66 Land Rover 109 SW Diesel
'81 GoldWing
'69 Le Sabre Convertible
'63 Pearson Vanguard
"Practicing the ancient art of ren-ching"

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:18:08 -0700
From: "G. Mugele" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: RE: Series driver height.

At 10:03 AM -0700 7/6/01, DaveB wrote:
>Since I've had the steering proeprly aligned, it tracks straight
>enough that I have time to perform the parts of the cigarette rolling
>procedure that require both hands, before the truck starts to veer too
>much into the other lane/soft shoulder/bridge pylon/what have you.

Oh THAT'S reassuring!!  And on which roads are you driving and at 
what time of day, while rolling your cancer delivery system?  I think 
that fair warning is a reasonable request.

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

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:33:32 -0400
From: "Alan Richer/CAM/Lotus" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: LRO: best way to clean crap out of engine

Personally, I'd just run it back up with cheap oil and water, then count on
a change after an hour or so of running (basically after you do the hot
torque of the cylinder head bolts).

Once you do the change then get the proper antifreeze in after a good
reverse flush and Bob's yer uncle.

                         ajr

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

Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 13:38:14 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
Subject: LRO: Re: Real offroaders

Fair enough on your definition.  Personally, I think the definition is a
bit more open ended.

I just jumped on that thread and the one of coils vs leaf springs when I
thought it became a way to exclude people on the list and not a subject
for debate.

I break out my soap box on many occasions and keep a good pitch fork
handy to fling manure randomly, but at the end of the day, I would
rather pop a beverage in someone's garage while turning a wrench or over
a bonfire after trail ride then get into a angry pissing contest over
whose truck is the best.

Jeff

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 16:42:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LRO: best way to clean crap out of engine

- --part1_e4.176539dd.28777cc2_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jim,
If you're talking about the inside of the motor, after assembly throw in a 
pint of ATF in the oil for a couple of quick oil changes.  It works on the 
same principle as some of the BG products.  Breaks down the sludge.  I use 
the technique at every oil change prior to draining, I add the pint, run 
motor for approx. 20 minutes and drain.  After a few treatments (regular 
scheduled oil changes) the old oil appears to be still usable (I know it 
isn't) as it isn't as dark as 3-4k oil usually is. 

 i.e. the inside of the valve cover no longer has that dry, thin film of 
brown, oil discolored crust the times I changed the gasket.

oh yeah, I do this to my 109 and 91 RR (coiler content.....just to instigate 
and add some fuel to the fire...how funny) :--)

Matt & "the Marlin Perkins Mobile"

- --part1_e4.176539dd.28777cc2_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Jim,
<BR>If you're talking about the inside of the motor, after assembly throw in a 
<BR>pint of ATF in the oil for a couple of quick oil changes. &nbsp;It works on the 
<BR>same principle as some of the BG products. &nbsp;Breaks down the sludge. &nbsp;I use 
<BR>the technique at every oil change prior to draining, I add the pint, run 
<BR>motor for approx. 20 minutes and drain. &nbsp;After a few treatments (regular 
<BR>scheduled oil changes) the old oil appears to be still usable (I know it 
<BR>isn't) as it isn't as dark as 3-4k oil usually is. 
<BR>
<BR> i.e. the inside of the valve cover no longer has that dry, thin film of 
<BR>brown, oil discolored crust the times I changed the gasket.
<BR>
<BR>oh yeah, I do this to my 109 and 91 RR (coiler content.....just to instigate 
<BR>and add some fuel to the fire...how funny) :--)
<BR>
<BR>Matt &amp; "the Marlin Perkins Mobile"</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_e4.176539dd.28777cc2_boundary--

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

End of LRO Mailing List DIGEST * * * * V1 #444
**********************************************