Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #29 - 36 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 03:06:13 -0400 (EDT)

Send LRO mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of LRO digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Peter's running problem (Tim Thorpe)
   2. Re: Terminology (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   3. Re: Terminology (Ivan Van Laningham)
   4. Re: Peter's running problem (Kirk Hillman)
   5. Help, I'm Stuck Solved (Carl Kinkade)
   6. Re: Peter's running problem (David Scheidt)
   7. Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-) (Hope Peter)
   8. Re: Terminology (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   9. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-) (Jim Hall)
  10. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-) (Hope Peter)
  11. Engine Speeds (Lance da Silva)
  12. Re: Terminology (Peter Thomson)
  13. cargo tie downs (joe mulqueen)
  14. Re: cargo tie downs (Jeff Bieler)
  15. Re: Engine Speeds (Jim Hall)
  16. Re: Engine Speeds (Jeff Bieler)
  17. RE: Engine Speeds (Lee Jones)
  18. Re: Engine Speeds (Phil Norris)
  19. Re: Peter's running problem (Kirk Hillman)
  20. RE: Engine Speeds (Lee Jones)
  21. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-) ([email-masked])
  22. Re: Engine Speeds (TeriAnn Wakeman)
  23. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-) (Kirk Hillman)
  24. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-) (Kirk Hillman)
  25. How to put on a soft top? (Nick Danger)
  26. Re: How to put on a soft top? (David Scheidt)
  27. Re: How to put on a soft top? (RON WARD)
  28. Re: shifting spanner ([email-masked])
  29. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)more on 5 mains ([email-masked])
  30. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)more on 5 mains (Kirk Hillman)
  31. Re: Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)more on 5 mains (Kirk Hillman)
  32. Re: Engine Speeds (Jim Hall)
  33. Steering Relay Installation (Rich & Lori Williams)
  34. Re: Steering Relay Installation (Jim Hall)
  35. Re: Engine Speeds (Lance da Silva)
  36. Re: Engine Speeds (Jeff Bieler)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 15:10:22 +0100 (BST)
From: Tim Thorpe <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Peter's running problem
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    Good point about the side 'draught' style carb.  They all used a little
> elbow looking piece of tubing which canted back a ways.  The really
> phenomenal thing about this is two-fold.  First, it's generally accepted not
> to use an air filter!  When I inquired about this (abhorrent look of disgust
> still on my face), my friend laughed.  'What about dust', I asked?  'It's  a
> tractor engine!', he replied.  They do it for years, in competition too,
> with apparently no ill affects.  Of course that same motor may not last the
> same as one with a filter that has been well maintained, but who cares?
> Over there they don't rebuild the motors, they just replace them because
> they are so plentiful.  ; )
>    Second because of where it puts the inlet it is very protected from the
> inflow of water.  The MOST protected spot under the bonnet I figure.  So,
> back to the no filter thing.  I asked about the deep water wading pitfalls.
> 'If you are actually deep enough to get water in there you are already too
> deep for your motor to run because the distributor is under water'.  I got
> to thinking this made total sense.  Burn, old ideas, burn!  You might get a
> few water drops in now and again but it would be 'consumed' with little
> effort.  The only real concern is the hydraulic effect of lots of water.
> For that matter I only saw one snorkel on all the vehicles I came across
> (thousands).  That was on diesel and was more for looks than practical
> purposes which I discovered after driving with the owner.
>     The major downfall of this system, beside the fact that it goes against
> everything I ever believed, is that  it won't work well on Left Hand Drive
> vehicles.  It especially won't work on brake boosted vehicles because of
> interference.  I came home so excited about all sorts of new ideas I wanted
> to try from hi performance brakes to power "steering in a day",
> unfortunately for the 60% of the world who follow the Yanks on their side of
> the road, things are terribly more complex!  : (

Thanks for the explanations. Sounds like it's a pity there aren't a few
Malaysians on the list.

I'd be unhappy about going filterless; David Vizard (writer on tuning Mini 
engines, etc) reckons that it will increase engine wear by 4-6 times, so I 
suppose it just depends whether you like your engines to last 5 years or 30.
Also, if I've got the right picture of where that puts the air intake, I'd 
expect it to be about the hottest place in the engine. Maybe a snorkel would
be a good idea for more than just wading.

The same author (Vizard) mentioned something which has sat at the back of
my mind for some years but which I'll never do anything about. He says
"independent runner systems usually produce superior torque at low engine
speeds, often much more than is produced by the same engine with a typical
plenum-type manifold". (IR == one carb/intake per cylinder). He goes on
to talk about better throttle response, improved mileage, etc. Other than
the expense in carbs, it sounds just the job for a Landrover.

Tim.

------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Thorpe	                        Tel: +44 1223 240366 
[email-masked]                  Fax: +44 1223 414402
------------------------------------------------------------

--__--__--

Message: 2
Subject: Re: [lro] Terminology
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 01 08:03:15 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>I've seen crescent wrench of course, and clyde spanner, but never shifting 
>spanner.  Any other terms out there for this indispensable knuckle gasher?

My dad always used to call it an Oklahoma socket set.

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

--__--__--

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 09:13:12 -0600
From: Ivan Van Laningham <[email-masked]>
Organization: God N Locomotive Works
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Terminology
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi All--

TeriAnn Wakeman wrote:
> 
> >I've seen crescent wrench of course, and clyde spanner, but never shifting
> >spanner.  Any other terms out there for this indispensable knuckle gasher?
> 
> My dad always used to call it an Oklahoma socket set.
> 

The term I've heard most often is "f***ing piece of s***."  This is
usually followed by throwing the offending instrument on the ground or
across the room, followed by going to the toolbox for the tool that
should have been used in the first place.

Metta,
Ivan
----------------------------------------------
Ivan Van Laningham
Symantec
http://www.pauahtun.org/
http://www.foretec.com/python/workshops/1998-11/proceedings.html
Army Signal Corps:  Cu Chi, Class of '70
Author:  Teach Yourself Python in 24 Hours

--__--__--

Message: 4
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Peter's running problem
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 09:02:30 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Tim,
    The points you mention regarding the writing of Vizard are good one's.
I have to admit that I still don't feel comfortable about not using a
filter, but to try it out I took off the air filter on my truck and tuned it
up.  Then I took it for a spin.  I can't say for sure but I thought it felt
much stronger on the road and I know the top speed was increased by at least
10 km/h.  It might just have been one of those days when the Rover was happy
though, my tach started working, along with half my other gauges, my OD
whine was gone, and there was no head shake or vibration at speed.  Go
figure.
    Then last night I took it out off road.  (We're having a family reunion
and one of the boys seemed pretty keen so he came with)  It's been a while
since I drove the LR but I would swear there is more torque.  Also I was
climbing hills in second that I previously did in first.  The engine would
lug down and then just keep pulling.  The really amazing thing was that if I
gave it gas it would actually accelerate.
    The end result?  Obviously more flow is making a tremendous difference.
I like the Weber in theory because it has a small bore which works better at
low throttle and then a larger one in tandem for higher throttle.  I haven't
had any complaints about the carb on extreme slopes either, not one hiccup.
I still think there is a better solution though.  Referring back to Tim's
post with respect to Vizard's ideas, I would say we could do even marginally
better than independent runner systems.  Try mechanical port injection.  I
still have the old intake manifold so Chris and I are going to try it.  We
have been planning this for a year but never got around to it.  We were
going to try different set-ups in series such as throttle body injection,
but going directly to port injection is so easy and we already have the
parts.  We are planning a camping trip in a couple of weeks, maybe we can
finalize the details then. (we have to do it together because I have the
manifold, he has the injection system and know-how   : )

    Unfortunately I won't be doing enough driving around to find out what
mileage I am getting now to compare with later, but that might change if I
get her ready and registered for the camping trip.

Kirk

--__--__--

Message: 5
From: "Carl Kinkade" <[email-masked]>
To: "RRO" <[email-masked]>, "LRO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:03:33 -0500
Subject: [lro] Help, I'm Stuck Solved
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Maybe they used Loctite as a sealant locking compound. Try a little heat on
>the nut. I ought to shift with a long bar on it. What you need is a
shifting
>spanner :-)

The heat did the trick, thanks Trevor, Sandy, and Jim for the suggestion.  I
always forget the heat trick.  That nut was on there tight, even after
heating I had to put a lot of muscle behind it and I am 6'1" and 250, so it
isn't as if I don't have the girth to put behind it.

Thanks again, now I can actually do the work, I spend yesterday just
removing stuff, i.e. front exhaust assembly, cross-member, and now the
"tough" filler tube.  The rest "should" be easy and I say that with my
fingers crossed.

Carl

--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:43:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Peter's running problem
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kirk Hillman wrote:

:    The end result?  Obviously more flow is making a tremendous difference.
:I like the Weber in theory because it has a small bore which works better at
:low throttle and then a larger one in tandem for higher throttle.  I haven't
:had any complaints about the carb on extreme slopes either, not one hiccup.
:I still think there is a better solution though.  Referring back to Tim's
:post with respect to Vizard's ideas, I would say we could do even marginally

You've got a two barrel weber?  what filter are you using?  The stock one is
very restrictive; put a K&N style on.

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

--__--__--

Message: 7
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 07:42:04 -1000
Subject: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> better than independent runner systems.  Try mechanical port injection.  I
> still have the old intake manifold so Chris and I are going to try it.  We
> have been planning this for a year but never got around to it.  We were
> going to try different set-ups in series such as throttle body injection,
> but going directly to port injection is so easy and we already have the
> parts.

Aloha,
trying to figure out how this would work.  I am imagining drilling and
tapping each runner of the stock exhaust to take the injector.  Where the
carb was would just be the air filter, snorkle attachment.  Or would you
just saw the intake in half so each cylinder had a straight intake?
How close to the head would the injector have to be installed?
Would you scrapyard hunt for all the components for the mechanical injectors
or go new?
How exactly is the mechanical injector timed?  Don t they work in the same
manner as the dizzy..direct gear off the cam?  How in the world would you do
this?
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 8
Subject: Re: [lro] Terminology
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 01 10:50:19 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>>I've seen crescent wrench of course, and clyde spanner, but never shifting 
>>spanner.  Any other terms out there for this indispensable knuckle gasher?
>
>My dad always used to call it an Oklahoma socket set.

Now that I think of it he called a gas siphon hose and Oklahoma credit 
card.

I do not think he liked people from Oklahoma very much.

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"

--__--__--

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 12:44:15 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Are you planning to have flames come out your exhaust or just need some
extra under floor heat? They would work better in the intake. You would
still need some butterfly arangement in place of the carb, also linked
to the injectors so that you have the right ammount of air for the fuel.

Hope Peter wrote:

> Aloha,
> trying to figure out how this would work.  I am imagining drilling and
> tapping each runner of the stock exhaust to take the injector.  Where the
> carb was would just be the air filter, snorkle attachment.  
-- 
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

--__--__--

Message: 10
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:08:30 -1000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Are you planning to have flames come out your exhaust

> > I am imagining drilling and
> > tapping each runner of the stock exhaust to take the injector

Doah
That would be pretty neat though, especially if it had an off/on switch.
For those pesky tailgaters.  Ya know, the ones that think if they ride right
up on your bumper they can change the laws of physics and make a series
rover magically attain speeds over 55mph
;-)

Pete

--__--__--

Message: 11
From: "Lance da Silva" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:49:58 +0200
Subject: [lro] Engine Speeds
Reply-To: [email-masked]

After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem 
maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor to high?

Lance
Series111 109

--__--__--

Message: 12
From: "Peter Thomson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Terminology
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:56:00 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

G'Day Sandy,
                    A Cresent wrench is the make of the spanner ' adjustable
takes too long to say so we just call it a shifter.  Hammer (knockcrometer)A
top mechanic never uses a hammer or chisel. We only use technical tools.( It
could be said that the only spanner that would fit was a shifter and I had
to beat the shi# out of it with my 10lb knockcrometer. ) Peter
From: A. P. "Sandy" Grice <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 12:35 AM
Subject: [lro] Terminology

> Note: The Mailman has replaced Majordomo
> for list operations go to http://koan.team.net/mailman/index
> - Cheers, Bill
> Rick Grant <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >I came across a term for adjustable wrench tonight on a Junkyard Wars web
> >site that I had never seen before.
>
> >"shifting spanner"
>
> >I've seen crescent wrench of course, and clyde spanner, but never
shifting
> >spanner.  Any other terms out there for this indispensable knuckle
gasher?
>
> Ummm...how about "hammer"....
>
> Cheers
>
>   *----jeep may be famous, LAND-ROVER is legendary-----*
>   |                                                    |
>   |              A. P. "Sandy" Grice                   |
>   |     Rover Owners' Association of Virginia, Ltd.    |
>   |    1633 Melrose Parkway, Norfolk, VA 23508-1730    |
>   |  (757)423-4898  (757)622-7054  FAX (757)622-7056   |
>   |                                                    |
>   *----1972 Series III 88"----1996 Discovery SE-7(m)---*
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 13
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: joe mulqueen <[email-masked]>
To: LRO <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] cargo tie downs
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hello,
Has anyone come across a good source for small cargo
tie down loops that fold flush when not in use?  I'd
like to install some to the inside my truck such as
done on newer SUVs, however, the only folding style
I've seen is the type with a "tee" cleat appearance
(and they warn against ratchet strap use).
Thanks for any leads!
Joe Mulqueen
'67 SIIA 109 SW

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

--__--__--

Message: 14
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:08:26 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] cargo tie downs
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Try these guys

http://www.snappinturtle.com/

I never could locate anyting decent at the local hardware stores.

Jeff

joe mulqueen wrote:

> Hello,
> Has anyone come across a good source for small cargo
> tie down loops that fold flush when not in use?  I'd
> like to install some to the inside my truck such as
> done on newer SUVs, however, the only folding style
> I've seen is the type with a "tee" cleat appearance
> (and they warn against ratchet strap use).
> Thanks for any leads!
> Joe Mulqueen
> '67 SIIA 109 SW
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 15
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 15:22:03 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Depends on tire size and if you have an od or not.

Lance da Silva wrote:
> 
> After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem
> maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor to high?
> 
> Lance
> Series111 109
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

-- 
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

--__--__--

Message: 16
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:27:35 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Out of curiousity, for those w/o tachs, what RPMs are you at (estimated) running 60MPH on 215/85R16's without an OD?

Jeff

Jim Hall wrote:

> Depends on tire size and if you have an od or not.
>
> Lance da Silva wrote:
> >
> > After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem
> > maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor to high?
> >
> > Lance
> > Series111 109
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LRO mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 17
From: "Lee Jones" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] Engine Speeds
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:30:13 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

There is a plate on my 109 FFR that says that the maximum speed on road is
60MPH...

Lee

"There are two kinds of fool. One says, 'This is old, and therefore good.'
And one says, 'This is new, and therefore better.'"

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Lance da Silva
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Engine Speeds

After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am
overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem
maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor
to high?

Lance
Series111 109

_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 18
From: "Phil Norris" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:37:39 +0100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

That's a pongo plate, the FFR being ex-mil....  Not factory civilian IMHO...
Brgds
PhilN
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Jones <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 July 2001 22:33
Subject: RE: [lro] Engine Speeds

>
>There is a plate on my 109 FFR that says that the maximum speed on road is
>60MPH...
>
>Lee
>
>"There are two kinds of fool. One says, 'This is old, and therefore good.'
>And one says, 'This is new, and therefore better.'"
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
>Of Lance da Silva
>Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:50 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [lro] Engine Speeds
>
>
>
>After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am
>overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem
>maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor
>to high?
>
>Lance
>Series111 109
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 19
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Peter's running problem
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 15:45:50 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

David,
    I do in fact have the Weber two barrel, and what came with it WAS the
small rectangular K&N.  Pretty much anything will be restrictive compared to
no filter at all.  : )
    That leads me to start thinking about snorkel design and how one would
maximize filter surface area and therefore flow.  I will have to think on
that one...

Kirk

--__--__--

Message: 20
From: "Lee Jones" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] Engine Speeds
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:21:10 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Yep!

Lee

"There are two kinds of fool. One says, 'This is old, and therefore good.'
And one says, 'This is new, and therefore better.'"

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Phil Norris
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds

That's a pongo plate, the FFR being ex-mil....  Not factory civilian IMHO...
Brgds
PhilN
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Jones <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 29 July 2001 22:33
Subject: RE: [lro] Engine Speeds

>
>There is a plate on my 109 FFR that says that the maximum speed on road is
>60MPH...
>
>Lee
>
>"There are two kinds of fool. One says, 'This is old, and therefore good.'
>And one says, 'This is new, and therefore better.'"
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
>Of Lance da Silva
>Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:50 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [lro] Engine Speeds
>
>
>
>After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am
>overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem
>maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor
>to high?
>
>Lance
>Series111 109
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 21
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:10:17 -0700
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the middle 80's I injected my 2.25.  I used a CIS system from a VW
Golf Gti and throttles from a 2L ALFA.  Injectors were in aluminum blocks
bolted to the head, throttles were bolted to those.  I used PVC plumbing
pipe to form the runners that were 25" long to a plastic plenum on top of
the flow meter/fuel distributor.  I built a header that was 59" from
valve to main collector.  only internal mods was a clean up of the ports,
just enough to improve bulk flow with lowering velocity.  Results were
impressive to say the least, ending in a bent crankshaft.  low speed
throttle response was better then any other vehicle I have driven,
tractable and big power on demand,  but the bent crank and 2 month life
span of my plastic intake made me shelf the idea.  I intended to get back
to it but didn't. 

Want some fun?  size the runners so max. intake velocity is 600- 650 fpm,
that should give you about 350 fpm at max. torque, with a plenum large
enough to stop interference and throttle at least 4x minimum choke area
you should get a broad flat torque curve and no lack of top end.

Chris hall

--__--__--

Message: 22
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 01 15:30:26 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>
>After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am 
>overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem 
>maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the 
>motor to high?

If you are still running 750X16 tyres you are rev'ing just over 3600 RPM 
at 62 MPH and just under 3800 RPM at 68 MPH.  My 2.25 engine always felt 
happiest on the highway around 3,400 RPM or around 55 MPH.  Even still I 
want through valves a little more often than I think I should have.
>
>Lance
>Series111 109
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>

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

--__--__--

Message: 23
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:19:43 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Pete,
    My, my, many questions has the boy in the back row today!  :-)  To start
with there are very few parts to add to the system, all of which are had at
the scrap yard.  First let me explain a little about the different options
here with regard to the type of system available.  The one you alluded to
requires things like a computer module, absolute timing, custom mapping,
etc.,etc.  The other extreme is a carb.  One step up from a carb is throttle
body injection like many vehicles had starting in the mid eighties.  The
advantage of this over the carb for off road is that camber is irrelevant as
far as the injectors are concerned  --> you won't have your engine die just
before cresting the top of a really steep hill.  The next evolution is the
port injector.  This means that each cylinder has its own injector pointed
at the intake.  Now I haven't mentioned the method of delivery yet on any of
these systems and that is probably the most important part.  When most
people think of injection they picture short spurts timed to coincide with
the combustion cycle.  In reality that isn't necessary.  The other type is
called CIS by Bosch (Constant Injection System).  The injectors are always
running and when the particular intake valve opens the air fuel mixture is
right there.  If this seems foreign, and it may, think about how your carb
is working.  It doesn't switch on and off four times for each cycle of the
motor does it?  Granted, pulse injectors are more efficient, but only on the
scale of a couple of percent.  If you consider that just by going to
injection you have increased performance and efficiency, then again by port
distinction, you have left carbs behind entirely.  It won't be another 67
Hp, but it should be noticeable at least (moreso if you go from an old worn
out Zenith or Solex).
    Now for the actual application.  I know very little about injection when
it comes right down to it.  I wanted simple and I wanted common so parts
were cheap and freely available.  So Bosch was the answer.  Specifically the
K-Jetronic system if I remember correctly.  This system is dead simple and
is completely mechanical so you aren't stranded when a diode burns up.  As
for integration of the German and British stock, you hit the nail on the
head Peter.  Just drill holes and tap for the injectors in convenient places
so the injection stream points to the intake valve.  It -should- be pretty
difficult to screw this up.  My uneducated guess is that getting the ports
pointed just this way or that will only make a difference in the order of
tenths of percents.  The real beauty of the whole idea is that is something
does go wrong in the middle of nowhere early on while we are still proving
the concept, I will just bolt on the carb or manifold with carb already
attached.  If anyone is really interested in pursuing this further and want
a down and dirty look at injection systems, Haynes has a book on it that is
both very information packed on the different types and very basic for the
novice to understand ( a category which I fit into).  Once you look at the
book or even an actual vehicle with a system installed all the mystique
fades away and you will wonder why you didn't consider it before.  Now I
will wait to eat my words...  :-)

Kirk

--__--__--

Message: 24
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:25:36 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, it seems Chris is the man to be heard on this subject.  I was just
planning on porting the manifold to prove the concept, he went a good deal
further.  I am curious though, was that a 3 or a 5 main?

Kirk

--__--__--

Message: 25
From: Nick Danger <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:01:33 -0400
Subject: [lro] How to put on a soft top?
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I got my soft top and installed the hoops after a little help from the 
RoversNorth catalog. The top is hooked fine in the front, and I figured out 
how the straps on the inside of the top buckle to the hoops quickly

The problem Im having is how does the back tie down? There is a loop of rope 
with ends on either rear corner that Im guessing tie to something, but what? 
And what does the front corner of each side flap loop onto? I have 3 "tabs" 
down each side that hold the flap, but the front corner has a loop that needs 
to catch on something... and where do those back ropes tie too??

Would love some images if anyone has some. Specifically close ups of the back 
corners for fitting, and the front corners of the flaps next to the doors. 
Right now I have the sides rolled & tied in the up position and its great, I 
LOVE it! Drove to show off to the family today. Only now it looks like rain 
(boo!) and I cant figure out how to tie the flaps DOWN. 

Thanks for the help all

-Nick

--__--__--

Message: 26
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:15:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] How to put on a soft top?
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Nick Danger wrote:

:
:
:I got my soft top and installed the hoops after a little help from the
:RoversNorth catalog. The top is hooked fine in the front, and I figured out
:how the straps on the inside of the top buckle to the hoops quickly
:
:The problem Im having is how does the back tie down? There is a loop of rope
:with ends on either rear corner that Im guessing tie to something, but what?
:And what does the front corner of each side flap loop onto? I have 3 "tabs"
:down each side that hold the flap, but the front corner has a loop that needs
:to catch on something... and where do those back ropes tie too??

There's supposed to be a hook at the front, just aft of the door for the
loop to catch on to.   There should be similar hoocks at thre rear for the
ropes to tie to. If you don't have those, you need to get them.

:
:Would love some images if anyone has some. Specifically close ups of the back
:corners for fitting, and the front corners of the flaps next to the doors.
:Right now I have the sides rolled & tied in the up position and its great, I
:LOVE it! Drove to show off to the family today. Only now it looks like rain
:(boo!) and I cant figure out how to tie the flaps DOWN.

If you don't get it tied down properly, and tight!, take it off before it
gets rained on.  It will shrink, and if it's not on right when it does, it
will never fit properly.

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

--__--__--

Message: 27
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:21:48 -0400
From: "RON WARD" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] How to put on a soft top?
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The long rope in back ties at either end to the little galvanized stantions on the rear of the truck.  If you don't have those they should have come with the hoop set from RN.  The ropes on the sides that run throught the canvas loop under the metal tabs on the sides and tailgate of the truck.  Should be pretty evident how it all goes together.  Check back issues of LROI if you get them, they usually have pictures of softtops in almost every issue.

Ron

>>> [email-masked] 07/29/01 19:01 PM >>>

I got my soft top and installed the hoops after a little help from the 
RoversNorth catalog. The top is hooked fine in the front, and I figured out 
how the straps on the inside of the top buckle to the hoops quickly

The problem Im having is how does the back tie down? There is a loop of rope 
with ends on either rear corner that Im guessing tie to something, but what? 
And what does the front corner of each side flap loop onto? I have 3 "tabs" 
down each side that hold the flap, but the front corner has a loop that needs 
to catch on something... and where do those back ropes tie too??

Would love some images if anyone has some. Specifically close ups of the back 
corners for fitting, and the front corners of the flaps next to the doors. 
Right now I have the sides rolled & tied in the up position and its great, I 
LOVE it! Drove to show off to the family today. Only now it looks like rain 
(boo!) and I cant figure out how to tie the flaps DOWN. 

Thanks for the help all

-Nick
_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 28
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:59:00 +1000
Subject: [lro] Re: shifting spanner
Reply-To: [email-masked]

in Australia it is called a "shifting spanner" or "shifter"

Richard C

--__--__--

Message: 29
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:54:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)more on 5 mains
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It was a 3.  I might have gotten back to it if I had easy access to a 5,
but they were new at the time and I was on the wrong side of the pond to
fine one in a scrap yard.  
The old adage about cam compression and carburetion changes with fuel
injection to cam compression and intake runner length and port injection
allows you to take full advantage with out loss of throttle response.

I currently have a Haltec E6K idle in my shop and the thought of welding
on injector bosses into a stock manifold and slapping on a throttle body
from a Honda to tided me over while the hybrid motor comes along has
crossed my mind, but the thought of all that redundant work just offends
me, so I will just stay with the 34ICH till the new motor is ready.

On a related subject, I seem to recall that the 5 main block is about 50#
lighter then the 3.  If I'm right could it be that they started using
modern thin wall casting techniques and higher spec iron?  Would the 5's
be more durable in the cylinders with fewer stresses?  does the service
history show any improvement?   
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 16:25:36 -0600 "Kirk Hillman"
<[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> Okay, it seems Chris is the man to be heard on this subject.  I was 
> just
> planning on porting the manifold to prove the concept, he went a 
> good deal
> further.  I am curious though, was that a 3 or a 5 main?
> 
> Kirk
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
> 

--__--__--

Message: 30
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)more on 5 mains
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:26:57 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Okay, I elect Chris to write a short thesis on the subject of injection for
all to see... in the next couple of days would be fine.  :-)
    You haven't said much yet but already you sound more educated on the
subject than anyone I have talked to.  Seriously, if you don't mind I would
love to hear any and all details you can remember about your experience.
And if this is deemed as too non-rover, send it direct please.

Regards,
Kirk

--__--__--

Message: 31
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Mechanical port injection (was: MY problems :-)more on 5 mains
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:30:14 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Oh, I almost forgot, 3 vs. 5.  I wasn't told, but it seems the 5 is more
capable of withstanding abuse and higher compression ratios.  Now is that
because the crankshafts grenade the motor when they fail?  Who knows, but I
am pretty sure people are doing more serious tinkering with the 5 main.
Sorry I don't have any technical data to show you... actually, sorry I
couldn't actually answer your question at all.  ;-(

Kirk

--__--__--

Message: 32
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:31:05 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Tim has this site that calculates rpm's. You will need to put a "1" in 
for 4th gear though, otherwise it just gives results to 3rd gear.
http://www16.brinkster.com/indio2/rpmtablecalc.html

Jeff Bieler wrote:
> 
> Out of curiousity, for those w/o tachs, what RPMs are you at (estimated) running 60MPH on 215/85R16's without an OD?
> 
> Jeff
> 
> Jim Hall wrote:
> 
> > Depends on tire size and if you have an od or not.
> >
> > Lance da Silva wrote:
> > >
> > > After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem
> > > maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor to high?
> > >
> > > Lance
> > > Series111 109
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LRO mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > LRO mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

-- 
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

--__--__--

Message: 33
From: "Rich & Lori Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Steering Relay Installation 
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:57:54 -0700
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So I am about to pur the front end back together and was wondering about the
steering relay.  Afetr libertaing it from the cross member I've been
thinking about how to about such a removal hassle in the future.  Any ideas?

I've thought about liberal teflon coatings, grease, 90wt, ... the usual, but
am not sure what is best ... or nothing at all?

Thanks,

Rich
'60 SII 109 SW

--__--__--

Message: 34
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:22:46 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Steering Relay Installation
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I would just slather it with a liberal coating of anti-sieze after
removing any rust that is present. That's what I did with mine when I 
got it out, and it came from the northwest. It's fairly dry where you
are isn't it? So it probably wouldn't do much good to get too crazy 
with it unless you are planning to move out east.

Rich & Lori Williams wrote:
> 
> So I am about to pur the front end back together and was wondering about the
> steering relay.  Afetr libertaing it from the cross member I've been
> thinking about how to about such a removal hassle in the future.  Any ideas?
> 
> I've thought about liberal teflon coatings, grease, 90wt, ... the usual, but
> am not sure what is best ... or nothing at all?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rich
> '60 SII 109 SW
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

-- 
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

--__--__--

Message: 35
From: "Lance da Silva" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 06:46:17 +0200
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4963392=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tyre Size 750 16

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:31:05 -0600, Jim Hall wrote:

>
>Tim has this site that calculates rpm's. You will need to put a "1" in 
>for 4th gear though, otherwise it just gives results to 3rd gear.
>http://www16.brinkster.com/indio2/rpmtablecalc.html
>
>Jeff Bieler wrote:
>> 
>> Out of curiousity, for those w/o tachs, what RPMs are you at (estimated) running 60MPH on 215/85R16's without an 
OD?
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> Jim Hall wrote:
>> 
>> > Depends on tire size and if you have an od or not.
>> >
>> > Lance da Silva wrote:
>> > >
>> > > After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no 
problem
>> > > maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor to high?
>> > >
>> > > Lance
>> > > Series111 109
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > LRO mailing list
>> > > [email-masked]
>> > > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LRO mailing list
>> > [email-masked]
>> > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LRO mailing list
>> [email-masked]
>> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>
>-- 
>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
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>

--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4963392=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>

<FONT SIZE="1" POINTSIZE="8" DEFAULT="SIZE"><FONT FACE="MS Sans Serif" DEFAULT="FACE"><BR>
<U><FONT SIZE="2" POINTSIZE="10">Tyre Size 750 16<BR>
</U><FONT SIZE="1" POINTSIZE="8" DEFAULT="SIZE"><BR>
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:31:05 -0600, Jim Hall wrote:<BR>
<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;Tim has this site that calculates rpm's. You will need to put a "1" in <BR>
&gt;for 4th gear though, otherwise it just gives results to 3rd gear.<BR>
&gt;http://www16.brinkster.com/indio2/rpmtablecalc.html<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;Jeff Bieler wrote:<BR>
&gt;&gt; <BR>
&gt;&gt; Out of curiousity, for those w/o tachs, what RPMs are you at (estimated) running 60MPH on 215/85R16's without an OD?<BR>
&gt;&gt; <BR>
&gt;&gt; Jeff<BR>
&gt;&gt; <BR>
&gt;&gt; Jim Hall wrote:<BR>
&gt;&gt; <BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Depends on tire size and if you have an od or not.<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Lance da Silva wrote:<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor to high?<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Lance<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; Series111 109<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; LRO mailing list<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; [email-masked]<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &gt; http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; --<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; Jim Hall<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; 1966 88" Elephant Chaser<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; "You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; with Jim." Mitch Stockdale<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; _______________________________________________<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; LRO mailing list<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; [email-masked]<BR>
&gt;&gt; &gt; http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro<BR>
&gt;&gt; <BR>
&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<BR>
&gt;&gt; LRO mailing list<BR>
&gt;&gt; [email-masked]<BR>
&gt;&gt; http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro<BR>
&gt;<BR>
&gt;-- <BR>
&gt;Jim Hall<BR>
&gt;1966 88" Elephant Chaser<BR>
&gt;http://www.users.qwest.net/~jimfoo<BR>
&gt;"You know, I never really damaged my Rover 'till I started wheeling <BR>
&gt;with Jim." Mitch Stockdale<BR>
&gt;_______________________________________________<BR>
&gt;LRO mailing list<BR>
&gt;[email-masked]<BR>
&gt;http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro<BR>
&gt;<BR>
<BR>

</HTML>

--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4963392=_=_=_--

--__--__--

Message: 36
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:07:21 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Engine Speeds
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Thanks.  If I did it right, it looks like about 3500rpm at 60MPH.

215/85's are about the same at the 7-16's I think.  About 30 1/2".

Jeff

Jim Hall wrote:

> Tim has this site that calculates rpm's. You will need to put a "1" in
> for 4th gear though, otherwise it just gives results to 3rd gear.
> http://www16.brinkster.com/indio2/rpmtablecalc.html
>
> Jeff Bieler wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiousity, for those w/o tachs, what RPMs are you at (estimated) running 60MPH on 215/85R16's without an OD?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Jim Hall wrote:
> >
> > > Depends on tire size and if you have an od or not.
> > >
> > > Lance da Silva wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After seeing some of the last few posts, I have been worrying that I am overevving my 2.25l petrol. I have no problem
> > > > maintaining speeds of 62 (100km/h) and 68 (110km/h). Am I revving the motor to high?
> > > >
> > > > Lance
> > > > Series111 109
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > LRO mailing list
> > > > [email-masked]
> > > > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LRO mailing list
> > > [email-masked]
> > > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LRO mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

End of LRO Digest