Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #34 - 14 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 03:05:21 -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: Unleaded fuel (was manifold pressure gauge) (G. Mugele)
   2. RE: Manifold pressure gauge (Faure, Marin)
   3. kids and rovers (Garrick Olsen)
   4. RE: Manifold pressure gauge (Faure, Marin)
   5. RE: windshield protection not just for trees! (G. Mugele)
   6. Re: spin on oil filter adapters (Frank Elson)
   7. Re: rear ends (Frank Elson)
   8. Re: Manifold pressure gauge (was engine speeds) (John Cranfield)
   9. RE: windshield protection not just for trees! (Simon J. Harding)
  10. Re: Driving a Series (Jeff Bieler)
  11. Re: spin on oil filter adapters (Jeff Bieler)
  12. RE: RE: Manifold pressure gauge (Vel Natarajan)
  13. Timing question (My running problem -update) (Hope Peter)
  14. Re: Kids and Rovers (Phil Norris)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:22:37 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "G. Mugele" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Unleaded fuel (was manifold pressure gauge)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 12:11 PM -0700 8/2/01, Faure, Marin wrote:
>I attended the EAA Arlington airshow a few weeks ago, and the folks
<snip>

>things like a 1941 Cadillac convertible,  1950s Mercedes, an MG-TD, 
>and a host of
>American cars from the 1930s, 40s, and 50s.  I asked a number of the owners
>what they did about the fact that leaded gas was no longer 
>available.  To a man,
>they laughed and said the "unleaded is bad for older engines" theory is crap.

<snip>

>These are
>stock engines, by the way, not engines modified with hardened seats 
>or valves, or so
>the owners all said.
>
>I'm not saying the lead thing is total bollocks, but that sure 
>seemed like an awful lot of folks
>with leaded engines all saying that running unleaded presented no 
>problems at all.

etc. ad nauseam

>Anyway, it's something to speculate about....

True... good for speculation.  While I am not really implying that 
Marin's account is apocryphal I certainly question his premise and 
conclusions.

My 72 Series III (bought new but never driven in Hawaii and only 
through Seattle a few times) did show signs of deterioration a few 
years after leaded fuel became unavailable.  The reasons may be 
degraded valve seating or any number of things including wear and age.

In the 60s I raced English cars in in California and found that Shell 
and Union 76 premium petrol both contained additives (such as Shell's 
TCP) that fouled my plugs when run hard.  After moving back east I 
was pleased to find lead free Amoco 100 octane widely available.  At 
that time no one I knew discussed the real or imagined benefits of 
lead for valves.  I burned the Amoco exclusively and also burned the 
valves within 15K miles on a new Cortina.  At the time I blamed it on 
many things but did not consider the fuel to be a problem.

In hindsight, it is probably worth considering just how "hot" the 
engine is and the typical revs used.  With the exception of the MG-TD 
none of the examples Marin cites have particularly high revving 
engines and certainly none could be considered high performance.  In 
the case of the 40s Plymouth and its flathead six; I doubt that those 
engines EVER burned valves.  All of the cases I heard about where 
burned valves were suspected to be the victims of unleaded fuel were 
in high-output engines and were driven far more enthusiastically than 
typical road use.

Anecdotal evidence aside, there were substantial accumulations of 
data documenting the problem potential published in the 70s when 
resistance to unleaded fuel was greatest.  But,  unlike Marin, I have 
not been driving for 53 years!  (heck I'm only a little bit older 
than that, he must be REALLY old) So I am not in such an experienced 
position to know all there is on the subject.  8-D

       _
     / o\_         Gerald Mugele
    /   )-- \       [email-masked]
   /    |            Glen Ellen, CA
*** "It's not on any map - true places never are."  -- Mark Twain 

--__--__--

Message: 2
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Land Rover Mail Group'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:34:20 -0700 
Subject: [lro] RE: Manifold pressure gauge
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] RE: Manifold pressure gauge
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:52:23 -0400 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>The waste gate on the turbo serves to dump excess manifold pressure
to prevent the compressor being overloaded and slowing down.

Nope.  The turbocharger is capable of generating far more boost 
at sea level than the engine can take. The waste gate is an overboost 
protector.  The gate dumps the excess air overboard, allowing only the 
maximum safe amount of air into the engine.  As the airplane gains altitude, 
the turbocharger generates less boost by the simple fact that the air gets 
thinner.  So the waste gate gradually closes as you go up, which keeps 
the volume of air being sent to the engine constant.  Eventually, the gate 
will be closed all the way, after which the amount of air to the engine will drop off 
as the altitude is increased.  I flew a Turbo 206 for years, and this was how 
the waste gate purpose and function was described in the operator's manual.  
I've never seen anything in any turbocharged airplane manual that I've read 
about the notion of a waste gate having anything to do with overloading or 
slowing a compressor.  When I would take off in my T206, there was a bit 
of a delay as the compressor spooled up, but this was only a few seconds, 
and had nothing to do with the waste gate.  On the Beaver I fly today, 
its mechanical supercharger has no waste gate protection.  So I have to 
be careful not to overboost the engine on takeoff at altitudes below 5,000'.  
On the T206, I could shove the throttle all the way in on takeoff, because 
the waste gate automatically protected the engine from overboost by dumping 
the excess air.  In the Beaver, I perform the same function as the waste gate 
by slowly increasing the throttle setting as I gain altitude.  In both planes, the 
end result is the same: the amount of air getting to the engine is higher than 
it would be with a normally aspirated system, and you get more power.  
In the case of the Beaver, I'm the onekeeping the air volume constant as the 
outside air gets thinner by opening 
the throttle, where in the case of the T206, the waste gate does the job for me by 
gradually closing and sending more of the turbocharger's output to the engine.  
The end result is the same, only a turbocharger is capable of generating more 
boost that a mechanical supercharger, which means that a turbocharged engine 
can maintain higher manifold pressures to higher altitudes than a similar engine 
with a mechanical supercharger.

One big aircraft engine, the Wright R-3350 Turbo Compound engine, had an interesting 
arrangement in that it had two turbochargers per engine, but instead of the turbochargers 
compressing air and sending it to an induction system, the turbocharger impellers were mechanically 
geared directly back to the engine's crankshaft.  So they acted sort of like exhaust driven 
turboprops in that the impeller power was transmitted directly to the engine's crankshaft and 
thus to the propeller.  The Wright R-3350 Turbo Compound was used on planes like the DC-7 and, 
I believe, the Lockheed Super Constellation.  The engine could generate about 3,500 horsepower.  
Now THAT's what you need to make a Series keep up with today's traffic.  You could mount the 
engine in a trailer with a multi-U-joint driveshaft running forward to put the power into the Land Rover 
itself.   Then you could get rid of the 2.25 engine and use the engine bay for storage, or for lots of 
batteries to start the R-3350.
_________________________________________
C. Marin Faure
Producer/Director, Boeing Video Services
telephone (425)393-7721
mobile (206)650-5622
fax: (425)393-7741
e-mail: [email-masked]

--__--__--

Message: 3
From: "Garrick Olsen" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 17:43:48 -0500
Subject: [lro] kids and rovers
Reply-To: [email-masked]

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>I haven't had my 15 month old in the rover while moving yet.</DIV>
<DIV>First off, it hasn't been running until recently, so I didn't want to push it with her in it.</DIV>
<DIV>Second, she's a minor and can't really give informed consent about driving in such a dangerous thing.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>-Rik, lap belts/ low back seats/ single chanel brakes/ broken hand brake/ no crumple zone, Olsen</DIV>
<DIV>1960 SWB SW</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></html>

--__--__--

Message: 4
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Land Rover Mail Group'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:47:59 -0700 
Subject: [lro] RE: Manifold pressure gauge
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: "Sergi, Michael" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] RE: Manifold pressure gauge
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:56:28 -0400 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Where is the connection made for the manifold gauge?

It needs to be fed directly from the intake manifold.  If 
you are "lucky" enough to have a California-spec Series 
III from 1973 or 1974, there is a great attachment 
point on the upper front of the manifold where the servo-operated 
EGR valve and throttle prop got their vacuum.  Perhaps all Land Rovers imported 
to the US in the early '70s had this fitting along with the EGR and 
throttle prop system, but I know it was on the Series III Hardtop Deluxes 
sold by California dealers in 
1973.  If you don't have this fitting, then I would imagine it 
would not be too difficult a thing to have some sort of simple 
fitting made up with a threaded male end that can be screwed 
into a threaded hole in the manifold.  The tube that feeds the 
gauge is then clamped onto the nipple of the fitting.  It's probable 
that a fitting already exists that would work for this, and all you'd 
have to do is drill and tap the hole in the manifold.  In the case of 
my vehicle, the EGR/throttle prop vacuum fitting is about halfway 
between cylinders one and two and is on the upper surface of the manifold.  
I removed both the EGR and the throttle prop from my vehicle within a few 
months of taking delivery, so the manifold pressure gauge in my car is not 
"sharing" its vacuum source with anything else.

As an alternative to drilling a hole in your existing manifold, you might be 
able to find a Series III emissions manifold from a breaker's yard or a parts 
house that stocks used stuff.  I have no idea if the emissions manifold is 
still available new.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
  Seattle

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:50:23 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "G. Mugele" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] windshield protection not just for trees!
Reply-To: [email-masked]

At 2:41 PM -0700 8/2/01, Simon J. Harding wrote:
>I think they're unnecessary and may even cause a person to cause 
>damage to their vehicle and the trail/environment by not being as 
>careful as they otherwise might.
>
>They're not for me, everyone has an opinion, etc, etc.  Nuff said.

Not quite.  You opened this line counsel.

My point was that you're comparing apples to oranges, or more 
accurately, mixed coniferous/hardwood forest in the PNW to chaparral 
in coastal California.  In the Mendocino National forest we have both 
environments and on one run a few years ago the Range Rover 
contingent was out there with pruning shears and trimmers trying to 
make an adequate path.  It brought the line to a crawl.  If clearing 
a path each year were necessary for every trail there would be no 
point in driving at all since hiking would be far more expeditious.

It doesn't take a very substantial manzanita bough to do serious 
damage and every year the stuff grows enough to reach well out into 
trails.   I don't want risers myself and you may deem them 
unnecessary for your purposes, but unless you've experienced the 
various situations you're not in a position to judge their utility 
for others.

Heck, by that standard, I guess that even means they have real value 
to the guys that use them as part of their breeding plumage and 
display down at the mall.

       _
     / o\_         Gerald Mugele
    /   )-- \       [email-masked]
   /    |            Glen Ellen, CA
*** "It's not on any map - true places never are."  -- Mark Twain 

--__--__--

Message: 6
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] spin on oil filter adapters
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:29:48 +0100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

We've just fitted a Rocky Mountain one to son Neil's Ser3. Easy peasy and
works well.
I've done a review in this month's mag.
Best Cheers

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:49 PM
Subject: [lro] spin on oil filter adapters

>
> Looking for some opinions on the spin on oil filter adapters out there.
In
> theory, it would be nice to get my engine oil and filters the same for
both
> trucks (IIA and Discovery), but do these adapters work well?
>
> Also, if they worth picking up, any installation tips?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>

--__--__--

Message: 7
From: "Frank Elson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] rear ends
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:40:24 +0100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

US rear-ending is, here in the UK, 'being shunted up the arse'
only people who are too hung up on CB (thankfully, less and less of them all
the time) use the awful phrase 'fender bender' in the UK as we don't have
fenders...
a collision affecting any other part of the vehicle is called a 'crash'.

Best Cheers

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: [lro] rear ends

>
>
> > What's the UK equiv? Wing warper? Wing wrinkler?
> >
> [Easton Trevor A]  Wing ding?
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>

--__--__--

Message: 8
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:17:19 -0300
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Manifold pressure gauge (was engine speeds)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Perhaps some confusion may be cleared up if I point out that vacuum
doesn't suck but is a reduction in the presence of atmospheric pressure.
John and Muddy

Perrone Ford wrote:
> 
> Hmm...
> 
>    My comments may have been misleading.  Lets see if we can rework this
> a bit:
> 
> Vacuum is created on the intake stroke by the piston.  This moves
> mixture into the chamber by force of vacuum.  At this moment pressure in
> the manifold should be HIGH as the mixture floods the manifold.  The
> more vacuum created by the cylinder, the more mixture gets forced into
> the manifold and therefore into the chambers.  A supercharger increases
> this because it supplements the vacuum of the piston with an external
> push of mixture.  This raises pressure in the manifold even more.  Think
> of it this way...
> 
> You are drinking a drink through a straw.  If we use your mouth to model
> the combustion chamber and your lungs as the piston, then the straw
> could be considered the manifold.  Pressure on the straw is greatest
> when you suck very hard on the straw.  Pressure would increase in the
> straw again when you exhaled, but in the case of the engine, there is a
> closed valve in the way to prevent that from happening.  So the manifold
> is getting pulses of pressure as each cylinder pulls mixture through it.
> 
> Or at least that is the way I see it. Anyone want to enlighten me to a
> different way of thinking?
> 
> -P
> 
> Tom Gross wrote:
> 
> > Perrone's comment:
> >
> > "Manifold pressure can be more than outside pressure and often is for
> > well designed engines and manifolds."
> >
> > Got me thinking that maybe my mental fantasy of what manifold pressure or
> > manifold vacuum is might be out of whack.  If I'm inside the manifold of a
> > normally aspirated engine, then the only way I can get air to come to me
> > through the carburetor is to be in a state of lower pressure than the
> > outside air, or else no air from the outside would come in.  I can envision
> > that there would be positive pressure relative to the outside air pressure
> > if there was a turbocharger or supercharger involved.  Maybe there could be
> > positive pressure generated if it came from the cylinder side into the
> > intake manifold.  That could happen if the intake valve is open during the
> > exhaust stroke.  I think this happens more with racing cams, though.
> >
> > A diesel engine doesn't usually have a butterfly valve like a carburetor
> > has, so a vacuum gauge probably wouldn't tell you much.  If it's
> > turbocharged, then there would be positive pressure inside the intake
> > manifold.
> >
> > Tom Gross
> > '67 IIa 109
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 9
From: "Simon J. Harding" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] windshield protection not just for trees!
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:07:38 -0700
Reply-To: [email-masked]

------ =_NextPart_000_01C11B6D.41AB11C0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I had written out a response, but I've no time for this and don't see =
the point.  You live where you do and have your opinion.  I live here =
(thankfully)  and have my opinion.  So I'll limit my response to the =
following, regardless of how tempted I am to disparage whatever it is =
you do for a living, make snarky comments, etc...:  Dude, Whatever.

TTFN,=20
Simon "Way Wrong About Limb Risers I Guess I'll Get Some Right Quick" =
Harding

------ =_NextPart_000_01C11B6D.41AB11C0
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

------ =_NextPart_000_01C11B6D.41AB11C0--

--__--__--

Message: 10
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:12:15 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Driving a Series
Reply-To: [email-masked]

When I put in my question about speed and RPM, it was a simple query to get a feel for what the engine is doing
when I make my infrequent highway runs.  I don't have a GPS, so the only guage I have on my actual speed was to
have my wife run parallel to me in the Discovery.  When my speednometer reads 68MPH, I am doing 55MPH.
Obviously the 16" wheels and 215/85R16 tires have wrecked havoc with the speednometer.  There was a similar
corelation at slower speeds (25, 35, and 45MPH).  At the lower speeds, I am not as concerned about the engine.
I was trying to find out what going on at 55.

I certainly don't think the truck is safe above that and the engine does not appear to struggle when I cruise at
that speed.  The traffic in LA is usually such that 55MPH is not too slow and the large # of semi's, buses, and
cars that shouldn't be on the road in the first place, makes the slow lane comfortable place to hang out.  I had
to drive the same way in our old '68 Kaiser Jeep anyway, so it's not a new sensation.  At least the frame on the
Rover is straight so I don't crab along down the road! ;-)

Unfortunately, to get to the moutains to play in the dirt, the highway is necessary.  Until we add a 3rd tow
vehicle, that's the way it will go.  In the meantime, driving around on surface streets is fine.  I just keep my
distance and don't worry about the people behind me because I won't gun the engine off when the light turns
green.

Jeff

"Faure, Marin" wrote:

> Somebody wrote:
>
> > Aren't we placing a lot of emphasis on rpm and engine stress here?  Even
> with the 16" wheels and tall tires, my SWB doesn't seem very happy above 50-55
> mph.  Drum brakes, square configuration (SWB), fairly high CG and solid
> axles all seem to indicate a truck that was never really intended for interstate speeds.
>
> You are correct.  The Series Land Rover was designed at a time when 60 mph was considered
> very fast for normal cars, although there were plenty around then that could go faster.  Roads were
> narrow, particularly in the UK and Europe, and the brake and suspension technology used on
> utility vehicles like the Land Rover were, by today's standards, pathetic.  However, they were fine
> for the way the designers anticipated the vehicles would be driven.  The Series was intended at the
> outset to be a utility vehicle like the Jeep.  As such, it didn't have to go fast or handle very well.  No
> one back then expected to climb into a utility 4wd and barrel down a motorway at 75 mph.
>
> It has only been fairly recently that the 4wd image has changed.  With only a relative handful of
> owners ever venturing off pavement, the emphasis on 4wds has been placed almost totally
> on road handling, acceleration, and braking.  Even Land Rover admitted that almost all the
> improvements and changes they made to the Discovery SII were intended to improve the
> vehicle's pavement handling.
>
> I bought my SIII in 1973, when I was living in Honolulu.  Back then, and perhaps still, road speeds
> were not nearly as fast as they are on the mainland.  I had no problems driving in traffic over there,
> as my self-mandated top speed of 55 mph was pretty much what everyone else was doing, too.  On the
> city and back roads, bumbling along at 35-40 mph was the norm for everyone, no matter what they were
> driving.  And the drivers were pretty polite, which figures given the more laid back attitude you
> get in a tropical environment.  After moving to Seattle in 1979, I found much the same situation.
> True, people drove faster on the freeways, but I had no problems driving in all traffic conditions
> at the Land Rover's "normal" speeds, acceleration, and braking.
>
> All this began to change in the mid- 1980s.  The "SUV" craze began to kick in big time, and road
> speeds began going up at the same time.  Drivers became more aggressive, preoccupied with their
> own needs and the hell with everyone else.  My Land Rover became more and more difficult to drive
> in traffic.  Forced to go faster, even on the surface streets, I tried to leave more room to the car in front
> to allow for the Series now-inadequate drum brakes, only to have impatient drivers zip into the gap.
>
> I finally stopped using the Land Rover as a daily driver and bought a pickup, and later a BMW.  Today,
> driving a stock Series, at least in the Seattle area, is an exercise in defensive driving, all based
> on the total inadequacy of the vehicle for the current conditions.  Just pulling out onto a busy
> street can be frustrating, as the cars barrel toward you.  Knowing the acceleration of the Land
> Rover is measured in minutes, you have to wait for a long enough gap between vehicles to pull
> out and get up to speed.  On a busy street, this can take awhile.  Meanwhile, the impatient
> soccer moms in their 300 horsepower, single-occupancy Expeditions are lining up behind you.
>
> If you want to go the route TeriAnn did and re-engine your Series and then add the brakes, steering,
> and suspension to cope with the added power and speed, you can end up with a vehicle much
> more suited to today's "me first, you're irrelevant" driving environment.  But if you keep
> the vehicle stock, the
> high center of gravity, "leaning suspension," sloppy steering, weak engine, and antique brake system
> all combine to make a vehicle pretty much totally unsuited for today's on-pavement driving conditions.
> Land Rover "did it with gearing" which is what you want in a utility vehicle that's supposed to negotiate
> horrible roads or pull things through fields.  For that, you don't need a lot of power, only a fair amount
> of torque and good gearing.  At this, the Series is excellent.  You don't need dual piston, self-adjusting,
> cross-drilled disk brakes because you're never going to go fast enough to need them.  A simple
> drum brake will work just fine.
>
> Today, speed's the thing, no matter whether you're driving a BMW or a Ford Excursion.  In reality,
> the Land Rover, like the original Army Jeep, has become a classic car.  Had Land Rover stopped
> making them in the 1960s, that is how they would be regarded and driven today.  But since the line
> kept going, and evolved into the Defender, there's a tendency to view the Series in the same vein.
> A Defender can cruise all day at 70-80 mph with the brakes and handling to deal with this, so the
> Series should too, right?  After all, they're basically the same vehicle, right?  So people drive them
> this way, and then you get people wondering why they're only getting 15,000 miles between valve
> jobs, or why they have head gasket problems, or why they're burning pistons, or why their brake
> lining is shot after 12,000 miles, or why they're only getting 12 miles to the gallon.
>
> Drive the thing like the designers meant it to be driven, and it will
> go 28 years needing little more than routine maintenance.  I think the Series Land Rover's
> design and construction basically sucks, but it's been the most reliable vehicle I've ever
> owned or driven in 53 years.
> ___________________________
> C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>   Seattle
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 11
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:15:32 -0700
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] spin on oil filter adapters
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Picked up the Wise Owl product via BP today and put it on.

Everything was OK, except the washers on the oil pressure sensor are
obviously not reusable as it leaks like a sieve.  I'll have to poke around
tomorrow for a replacement.

Access was sort of a PITA on the top nut, but it went on easy enough.

Jeff

Frank Elson wrote:

> We've just fitted a Rocky Mountain one to son Neil's Ser3. Easy peasy and
> works well.
> I've done a review in this month's mag.
> Best Cheers
>
> Frank
>     +--+--+--+
>      I !__|  [_]|_\___
>      I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
>      "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:49 PM
> Subject: [lro] spin on oil filter adapters
>
> >
> > Looking for some opinions on the spin on oil filter adapters out there.
> In
> > theory, it would be nice to get my engine oil and filters the same for
> both
> > trucks (IIA and Discovery), but do these adapters work well?
> >
> > Also, if they worth picking up, any installation tips?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 12
From: "Vel Natarajan" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] RE: Manifold pressure gauge
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:27:33 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
Of Easton Trevor A
>
>	 The waste gate on the turbo serves to dump excess manifold pressure
> to prevent the compressor being overloaded and slowing down. Without it
> there would be excessive turbo lag on acceleration.

You're correct in that the wastegate dumps excess (exhaust) manifold
pressure from the turbine wheel.  This slows down the turbo, and prevents
the compressor side of the turbo from building up too much (intake) manifold
pressure.

At least for automotive applications the immediate intent of the wastegate
was to keep the engine from being overboosted.  You could say it also helps
with turbo compressor longevity as well.

The wastegate doesn't prevent the compressor from slowing down (it's purpose
is to HELP the compressor to slow down by bleeding off the engine exhaust
from the turbine).

The compressor bypass valve (also called a blowoff valve), prevents the
compressor from slowing down when the throttle plate shuts (eg: when
shifting gears and letting off the throttle between shifts).

Without the bypass valve, under boost, taking your foot off the throttle
will shut the throttle plate, and the pressure wave of air will have nowhere
to go but back towards the spinning turbo, slowing it down.

With the bypass valve, it will either route the air back into the intake, or
it will "blow it off" to atmosphere.

Without the compressor-bypass-valve, you'd have more lag on acceleration
between shifts in a manual transmission.  BUT, if you're running an
auto-tranny (and have the throttle floored through the gears, you don't
really need a bypass valve as your throttle will always be open between
shifts.)

Don't know about how aircraft applications...

--__--__--

Message: 13
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 19:05:30 -1000
Subject: [lro] Timing question (My running problem -update)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

OK, pulled the front back off, and I will be damned if the timing chain
doesn't look spot on.  My chain gear doesn't have any marks on it so the
procedures in the green manual do not totally apply.
The instructions that came with the ACR cam and head had the following steps
for lining up the cam and crank.
25. roate crank to set #1 to TDC
26. rotate crank until #1 and #2 valves are at overlap.  This means #1 is
closing and #2 is opening.

this follows the advice I have been given from msome others...and the way we
installed the new cam and head on Daves 109.  I double checked mine and it's
just like this.  The reason I ask is the only way I have been able to get
mine to run smooth is with the timing between 18and 20 degrees advanced.  I
have a timing light that has a timing dial built into it.  WHen the light is
set to 0, the crank mark is no where near the timing points.  I turn the
dial on the light until the marks line up and its in the 18-20 range.
I have heard that getting a higher compression head causes a retarded
ignition but never an advance.  Prior to putting the head and cam in I was
running the same carb, intake and exhaust, and electric ignition and I was
able to get 3 degrees advance before she pings.
As it sits now I think I could even get a few more degrees out of here.
I have yet to try and use the book method of setting tdc and using a
standard test light, turn dizzy till the light lights.  Guess I will try
that and make sure that my other light is reading correctly.  Though the GMC
and Jeep are dead on with the light.......arrrrgh.
anyideas?
pete
> That advice seems spot-on to my semi-retired mind...your Weber, flowing at
> 191cfm, should be just fine when jetted correctly.  Keep us posted.
> Certainly want to know if your repair guy got the chain installed a tooth
> off...if he did he should definetly fix it for free!!! ;->)BTW, nice pics
of
> your play time in the mud!
>
> JT/ric
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Peter said:
>
> Been talking with ACR.  My head was bench tested and flowed at 145cfm.
The
> SU1 3/4 they use in their kit flows at 195cfm.
> They recommend changing my carb jetting.
> I am also going to double check to make sure the guy that installed the
> timing chain isn't off a tooth.  I can't say too much against him though
as
> he did the work for free......and it's me of course :-)
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
>

--__--__--

Message: 14
From: "Phil Norris" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Kids and Rovers
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:52:06 +0100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The way my two small enthusiasts are coming along, (went to bed reading LR
mags the last few nights...) I'll be leading a convoy 'round...!!
Alison already thinks I brainwash them whilst she's out...!!
No. 3 is too small to express a preference so far....
Brgds
PhilN
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Elson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 August 2001 19:31
Subject: Re: [lro] Kids and Rovers

>
>of course Land Rovers are OK for the kid until he gets old enough to borrow
>it...
>then you end up buying him one to keep his hands off yours,
>then you have to pay to keep two going,
>then you end up working on it as well as your own...
>
>but when you roll up at a show/event, you in your Land Rover and your son
in
>his... ain't nothing beats that!
>
>Best Cheers
>
>Frank
>    +--+--+--+
>     I !__|  [_]|_\___
>     I ____|"_|"__|_ | /     B791 PKV
>     "(o)======(o)"    Bronze Green 110 CSW
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: A. P. (Sandy) Grice <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:39 PM
>Subject: [lro] Kids and Rovers
>
>
>>
>> Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> >Today was Mr. Mom day with myself and our 2 month old.
>>
>> >I bought the Series for a lot of reasons, but while out and about
running
>> >errands today with Cameron buckled into the child's seat (gets to ride
up
>> >front, no airbags here!), I looked over at him as we bounced along over
>the
>> >potholes and he had the biggest sh*t eating grin I have ever seen.
>>
>> Kids love Rovers.  Years ago...many years ago...when my nephew was just 5
>> months old (he's 27 now....) we would go for a ride in the Rover.  He was
>> at that stage where his mother was having trouble getting him to calm
>down,
>> go to sleep and quit fussin'.  Anyway, we would come to a stop light or
>> stop sign, and he would bawl bloody murder.  Get going again, and all was
>> quiet...you could tell he was just diggin' it, having a great time, 'til
>we
>> came to another stop.  The rougher the road, the more he'd like it and
off
>> roading brought squeals of delight.   Unfortunately, he owns a jeep
>today....
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> *-----"jeep may be famous, LAND-ROVER is legendary"----*
>> |                 A. P. "Sandy" Grice                  |
>> |    The Rover Owners' Association of Virginia, Ltd    |
>> |     1633 Melrose Parkway, Norfolk, VA 23508-1730     |
>> |     757-622-7054  (H)423-4898  (FAX)757-622-7056     |
>> *------------------------------------------------------*
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
* Team.Net hosted courtesy of Amaranth Networks, Inc. http://Amaranth.com/ *
* Powered by SUN(r). The network is the computer.(tm) *
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

End of LRO Digest