Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #96 - 15 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 03:05:31 -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: LR's and some young ladies (Jean-Leon Morin)
   2. Re: dimmer switch (Jean-Leon Morin)
   3. Re: re:Interested in GM Engine conversion stories (Jean-Leon Morin)
   4. Re: LR's and some young ladies (Jean-Leon Morin)
   5. Re: bloody idjuts with big spanners (Jean-Leon Morin)
   6. Re: Land Rover Six (Paul Oxley)
   7. Cruise control (A. P. "Sandy" Grice)
   8. Roof Bottom Seal,  Fuel Gauge Questions (Paul Quin)
   9. Re: Re: Interested in GM Engine conversion stories (Hope Peter)
  10. Re: re:Interested in GM Engine conversion stories (Hope Peter)
  11. Re: dimmer switch (Mark Pilkington)
  12. Re: Land Rover Six (TeriAnn Wakeman)
  13. 6 in an 88 (William L Leacock)
  14. Re: Land Rover Six (William J. Rice)
  15. Leaf Count (Paul Quin)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] LR's and some young ladies
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:17:58 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think the link should be sent to the list as most of us reside in the US
or Canada, and this is a potentially unknown bodystyle of landrover. This
might contribute to our global rover education, making us, indeed, better
people.

Better people build better rovers.

J-L, who has an interest in different bodies worldwide...

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Wickham <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [lro] LR's and some young ladies

>
>   It's a thankless job, searching for LR/girlie pics but, someone's got to
> do it.  I was looking for wInch info, must of typed wEnch by mistake ;)
>
> Scooter
>
> Material possessions never really thrilled me. I guess its like having a
> hammer. Owning a hammer isn't thrilling but beating the crap out of
> something that doesn't want to cooperate is gratifying.
>
> -Bill Fishel 2001.
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 2
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] dimmer switch
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:58:27 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Re: Door tops

Not usually a huge job, I find some good penetrating oil applied once the
nut is removed, trying to soak it into the sleeve that holds the stud, works
well.

I have heard some horror stories that resulted in a new door though...

Try and pry it up evenly on both ends as getting it crooked will jam the
whole thing...

J-L

----- Original Message -----
From: Monty Brandenberg <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:23 PM
Subject: [lro] dimmer switch

>
> Years ago when I bought my '69 88", it came with the headlight
> dimmer switch mounted on the dash.  I wondered why the PO had
> done this and put this on my list of things to 'restore' later.
> A few years ago when I replaced the chassis, this was fixed and
> in so doing the demons of Lucas have truly been set loose.  I've
> been through a half dozen or more dimmer switches which are
> continuously jammed or otherwise rendered non-functional by
> mud and water from gentle interior showers getting into the
> works.  I've tried sealing in epoxy to keep the ooze from getting
> in and creating openings to let it out.  Is there a fix for this
> or should I follow the path of the PO?
>
> On another track... the driver's side door top needs to be
> replaced due to serious corrosion under the window channels that
> have left it less than structurally sound (and also a contributor
> to the 'gentle showers' above).  I have a replacement half which
> will be painted.  Is this a quick-n-easy swap or is this one of
> those looks-trivial jobs that can turn into a nightmare (e.g.
> first time I tried to replace springs using only hand tools).
>
> --
> Monty Brandenberg, Software Consultant                             MCB,
Inc.
> [email-masked]                                         P.O. Box
426188
> [email-masked]                             Cambridge, MA
02142-0021
> 617.864.6907
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 3
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] re:Interested in GM Engine conversion stories
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:38:30 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

You might benefit from my conversion, as it is basically the same thing,
only with Ford parts.

I also thought that the six would be a much better choice for the 109 as it
produces more torque low down, and it's just more of an old truck engine -
It seems to be at home in the rover, I think a V8 would have been  little
too powerful for the old beast. Not knocking V8 conversions, I have seen
some nice ones, but the six does exactly what I want it to - Pull the 109
along, fully loaded, at any speed, without fuss. It's not fast, it's not
peaky, it's not revvy. It's just a meaty torque curve that pulls from 300
rpms.  I am very pleased with the end result, although I haven't hooked up
the power steering setup yet, as I try and find a bracket that will use a
saginaw pump on a ford engine...

Mine is a ford 300 cube inline six with a Borg Warner T-18 transmission
adapted to a rover transfer case. The motor is mounted in with a 4 cylinder
bulkhead, at about the same height as the stock motor. The breakfast had to
be extensively modified to fit the radiator directly flush with it - This is
early IIA however, so I run headlights without headlights buckets, and the
connectors are barely clearing the rad. The bulkhead was clearanced to fit
the fatter, taller toploading tranny. Mechanical race car fan, will be
replaced by a better electric fan as the current setup is too low for the
rad.

I have driven a couple of pickups with this engine combination, and I really
didn't think the stock tranny could handle the torque. I am glad I put in
that tranny, as I have found that the six puts out more torque than I will
ever require. I can also power away in 4th, smooth as silk, all the way to
70+ mph. The crawler gear is nice, always great to eliminate the
possiblility of stalling in 1st high. It basically will not stall in low
range 1-2-3.

I would recommend the SM465 Muncie, coupled to a rover T case, it will be a
reliable old cast iron chunk that will take any kind of abuse. You won't
blow it up. EVER. The gears in these babies are 2X the size of a rover
tranny... The NV4500 is nice, but for a student's budget, it was waay
overpriced. I stuck with common parts that were cheap and easy to rebuild.

The rover T case is also a super piece, capable of handling some serious
torque. Mine is happily living it up behind the tranny, by way of some
custom made tricks similar to Timm Cooper's job on TA Wakeman's rig. It is
nice to have all the familiar knobs, even with another engine and tranny. I
even welded the stock rover tranny shifter to the ford's, so it looks
somewhat original - feels original too...

It should be mentioned that the conversion, although it has carried me over
8000 miles since done last winter, is not complete. I am still trying to
locate some range rover axles and diffs to raise the gearing. Keep in mind
that the motor will be thoroughly unhappy at higher speeds, mine spins a
loud 3800 rpms at full rip. Mind you, it did that for almost 48 hours in
five days once, and lived, but gas mileage sucks, and the motor has the
torque to spin 1500 rpms on the highway. I think I'll eventually couple the
tranny to a santana overdrive and 3.54 diffs, as I think I could run it on
the flats, which are pretty common around here. The vehicle the motor and
tranny came out of I had driven many times before, and would pull a 20 ft
trailer at 65 mph with 2.7? rear end. Not fast to get there, but a feat in
itself.

J-L

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [lro] re:Interested in GM Engine conversion stories

>
> Regarding torque, but with no specific figures, I tested my Series II
Tranny with the 350 Chvy V8 by pulling away at idle in 4th with three people
in it in high range.  It did it well and hardly juddered at all.  I added
power and she went all the way to 50 like an automatic.  No more than 50 at
the moment because I do not trust her yet.  She was keen though.  Anecdotal
I know, but potentailly informative.
> Kind regards,
> Mark Pilkington
>
> Bryan Hoult wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 18 September 2001, Mark Pilkington wrote:
> >
> > >Interesting that you mention the >tranny holding up to the 250 Chevy.
>This was formost in my thoughts as I >got the 350 powered Series IIa going.
> >
> > You know, based on anecdotal information that's kicked around here and
on other message boards, this has to be one of the most statically variable
pieces of Series data.  I am building a 300 ci chev six based on a bored
over 250 using a 292 crank for my 109.  I love chev small block V8's, but I
like the way the six develops torque lower in the rpm range, and believe
that will work better for my intended use of the 109.  I have been looking
into transmission alternatives to the suffix D that I have in the truck, as
most folks I talk to feel that the engine's torque output will toast the
tranny.  On one hand, I'm thinking about just getting a Scotty's and seeing
what happens, if not for my own edification, the benefit of my LR family.
On the other, Scotty's adapters aren't free and I could put that money into
a transmission that I know will handle the six - sm465 or NV4500, for
instance.
> >
> > My own experience with the series trannies includes the suffix A that
came with my 62 88.   It was totally trashed, but I have no way of knowing
how many miles were on it when it met me.  My guess is somewhere around
200K.
> >
> > I'd love to know if anyone has substantive comparison data regarding the
components in the II/IIa transmissions that would indicate if they were
potentially suited for higher torque engines (over 180 lb/ft).
> >
> > As always, thanks for the help.
> >
> > Bryan
> > 62 88
> > 70 109 "Genie"
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > PeoplePC:  It's for people. And it's just smart.
> > http://www.peoplepc.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 4
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] LR's and some young ladies
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:54:32 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Damn, what impeccable concentration. Truly an act of skill!

> funny, I asked for a diagram on lacing up the hood on a lightweight and
some
> member gladly sent me a photo of a FFN chick in the bed of an 88.
Luckily,
> I was able to scrutinize it closely to discern the correct way to put the
> top on.
>
> Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Wickham [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 4:14 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [lro] LR's and some young ladies
>
>
>
>   I just *accidentally* stumbled upon a web site that has a shot of 3
> partially nude women.  In the backround is a white Defender with a
headache
> rack and a flat bed on the rear.  I have the link if anybody wants to take
a
> peek.  I thought it was pretty funny but, I didn't want to post it since
> this is mixed company here.  I'd think they're Aussie babes as I've never
> seen a LR like this anywhere in the States.
>
> Scooter
>
> Material possessions never really thrilled me. I guess its like having a
> hammer. Owning a hammer isn't thrilling but beating the crap out of
> something that doesn't want to cooperate is gratifying.
>
> -Bill Fishel 2001.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 5
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] bloody idjuts with big spanners
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:52:00 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Yeah, they exist.  I don't know where you'd get one except out of the
trunk
> of a car.  And I don't know why you'd want ot use one either.
>
Scissor jacks? Tons of uses. Damn handy when trying to plot out motor
mounts, trying to fit a four foot long motor where a 2.5' motor once lived.
I used four of them when doing my engine swap to fine tune the engine
position, and they are great!

Used them to get my chassis bits all plumb, square and true when I built the
chassis for my 109.

Good for separating things - not necessarily on a rover. Used to use them to
split engine and tranny on large tractors - easy to dose applied power, much
gentler than pry bars. For the unitiated, tractors are separated into two
unique halves when doing a clutch, the motor and front wheels go one way,
the rear end and tranny goes another. They can be a bit of a pickle to
split.

Also, what else WOULD you use to change a L-R's tire on-road? Instead of
jacking the thing up four feet until the flexy suspension FINALLY lets the
wheel leave the ground, and then having a potentially super unstable hilift
on land-rover mess, you can use the little jack, crank the handle gently,
and raise the axle 1" to get the tire off. Useless off-road, but real handy
on road. Plus, no hydraulics to blow or leak, just simply, gorgeous
engineering.

J-L

--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:07:01 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
Organization: AfricanAdrenalin Safaris
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Land Rover Six
Reply-To: [email-masked]

James Spyker wrote:
 
> Hello All, I have just acquired a 6 cylinder Land Rover engine and was
> wondering what the general consensus is on its suitability to overhaul
> and put in my 1973 SIII 88".  The 2.25 in the 88" runs great, but I
> was wondering if there is any power advantage to the six.

Hahahahaha... The 2.6 rollover sidevalve is a stump-puller (it will lug
waaay down low), but in every other respect it is more suited to the
role of a boat anchor. With the weird head it is impossible to improve
on, and it burns exhaust valves if you look sideways at it. It is slow
and heavy on juice. But... it's sooo smooth!

You also won't fit it in a 4 cylinder engine bay without modifying the
firewall or moving the radiator forward.

Factory specs on the two give the 6 cyl one or two hp over the 4 cyl,
but the 4 cyl can easily surpass this with better breathing (intake and
exhaust), to say nothing of increasing the CR a tad.

Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:07:45 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: "A. P. \"Sandy\" Grice" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Cruise control
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Scott Wickham" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  I haven't checked these but, did the check on the rubber diaphragm.  It's
>ok.  The hoses go to a small pump looking device by the driver side
>headlight area.  There is one plactic branch coming off there that has
>nothing connected to it.  Should there be?

...ummm...yeah.  From the T, one hose runs to the vacuum pump down by the
headlight - as you have found.  The other branch runs through the bulkhead
to a poppet valve on the brake pedal assembly.  This disengages the cruise
control the moment you touch the brake pedal.  With no connection, the
system stays constantly 'disconnected'.  Look about for an errant vacuum
hose.  Most likely it cracked off and has gone astray.  If you can't fint
it, just buy several feet of vacuum tubing and make the connection.

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)---*

--__--__--

Message: 8
From: "Paul Quin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:55:02 -0700
Subject: [lro] Roof Bottom Seal,  Fuel Gauge Questions
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The end of summer has arrived in Western Canada so I had the bitter sweet
task of bolting on the Lane Rover's roof on Thursday night.  Good timing as
Friday was very wet.  We've had a long dry summer in Victoria.  The entire
city has been on water restrictions since early May.  I've never seen so
many brown lawns in a city that used to be know for its lush greenery.

This year I put a little effort into making the inside of the Landy a bit
less draughty and more water tight - okay, well a bit less leaky...

I had some leftover door seal stripping that I had bought from Wise Owl and
found that it fits perfectly in the track at the bottom of the roof to form
a seal between the roof and the galvanized body caps on the box.  Not really
a big deal but as Wise Owl sells it by the foot, it makes an economical
option.  I think that you could get enough weather stripping seal do an
entire 88 for about $50.00.   It glues in, unlike the original which riveted
in, but original weather stripping is big bucks.   $100 + per door.

The steering relay has worked itself loose again, with a little freeplay
side to side that sets up some shoogly resonance on certain bumps.  I think
that I'll have to pull it out and see what can be done to make it a tighter
fit.

The fuel guage has been pinned on full for a few months now.  If I
disconnect the + wire from the guage and ground it out (igition off) then
plug it back in, the fuel gauge will read correctly for about half an hour
then it will pin itself again.   Any thoughs??  (SII with no voltage
stabalizer)

Looks like a Rover mainenance Saturday is here :-)

Paul Quin
1961 SII 88
Victoria, BC  Canada

--__--__--

Message: 9
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Interested in GM Engine conversion stories
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:10:34 -0700
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Peter,
>     Did you notice that the author of one of those pages (the one
regarding
> the 4.3 into a RR) mentioned 'Roverheads'

Yes I did notice the roverheads email list.  Wonder if it's not just this
list??  Or the RRO list.  The author of the piece is in the USA BTW.
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 10
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] re:Interested in GM Engine conversion stories
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:21:41 -0700
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> You might benefit from my conversion, as it is basically the same thing,
> only with Ford parts.

Yes I have been looking at inline 6s as well as the V-6.  The biggest
advantage I see to the V is that it is half the length.  As well as helping
to prevent and radiator or bulkhead mods it also helps to prevent getting
weight in front of the axle.
I have built a Chevy I-6 250 and done a bunch of work on the jeep 4.0's.  No
hands on experiance with the Ford, but can't imagine it being all that
different.

I am tossing the coin right now between a 4.3v6 and a 200TDi.  I love the
idea of the diesel and with it being a LR product the rest of the drive
train shouldn't require too many custom built pieces.  I found someone that
made a th350 to Series transfer box adapter and am thinking of going that
route with the v6.  Would get the underdrive gears for the box and use a
Santana OD.  With a Salisbury rear I think I will be ok.

Pete

--__--__--

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:29:06 -0700
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] dimmer switch
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Whilst removing the door tops, take care not to turn the wrench/spanner so far
that it dents the outside of the door outwards.  It does not take much to do
this so be careful.
Mark Pilkington

Jean-Leon Morin wrote:

> Re: Door tops
>
> Not usually a huge job, I find some good penetrating oil applied once the
> nut is removed, trying to soak it into the sleeve that holds the stud, works
> well.
>
> I have heard some horror stories that resulted in a new door though...
>
> Try and pry it up evenly on both ends as getting it crooked will jam the
> whole thing...
>
> J-L
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Monty Brandenberg <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 7:23 PM
> Subject: [lro] dimmer switch
>
> >
> > Years ago when I bought my '69 88", it came with the headlight
> > dimmer switch mounted on the dash.  I wondered why the PO had
> > done this and put this on my list of things to 'restore' later.
> > A few years ago when I replaced the chassis, this was fixed and
> > in so doing the demons of Lucas have truly been set loose.  I've
> > been through a half dozen or more dimmer switches which are
> > continuously jammed or otherwise rendered non-functional by
> > mud and water from gentle interior showers getting into the
> > works.  I've tried sealing in epoxy to keep the ooze from getting
> > in and creating openings to let it out.  Is there a fix for this
> > or should I follow the path of the PO?
> >
> > On another track... the driver's side door top needs to be
> > replaced due to serious corrosion under the window channels that
> > have left it less than structurally sound (and also a contributor
> > to the 'gentle showers' above).  I have a replacement half which
> > will be painted.  Is this a quick-n-easy swap or is this one of
> > those looks-trivial jobs that can turn into a nightmare (e.g.
> > first time I tried to replace springs using only hand tools).
> >
> > --
> > Monty Brandenberg, Software Consultant                             MCB,
> Inc.
> > [email-masked]                                         P.O. Box
> 426188
> > [email-masked]                             Cambridge, MA
> 02142-0021
> > 617.864.6907
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
Subject: Re: [lro] Land Rover Six
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 01 12:45:46 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Hello All, I have just acquired a 6 cylinder Land Rover engine and was
>wondering what the general consensus is on its suitability to overhaul
>and put in my 1973 SIII 88".  The 2.25 in the 88" runs great, but I
>was wondering if there is any power advantage to the six.

Having traveled several times with a Dormobile that has the lower power 
European LR six, I would say yest there is a torque and power advantage.  
The other Dormi chugged up hills in fourth that I attacked at high RPM in 
fourth and down shifted into third...then watched the Other Dormi drive 
past with a smilling driver holding up 4 fingers.

Max torque for the LR six is at the same RPM was the LR diesel but the 
amount of torque is much higher.  The 3L engine from the Rover passanger 
car is the best of the Rover sixes.

The downside is it takes up a lot more space.  You will need to enlarge 
the bulkhead bell housing dish, and move the transfer case cross member 
rearwards about 4 inches.  You will need to also use the gearbox that 
came with the six cyl engine (slightly narrower engine bolt pattern & 
different shaped gear lever), the tounnel that came from the six and the 
front prop shaft.  You will need to have the rear shaft shortened.

There are a couple of other odds & ends but that is the main stuff and 
gives you an idea of what all is involved.
>
>Thank you for your opinions James Spyker p.s.  I will also be parting
>out a 1963 109 Pickup.  If anyone has any specific needs, let me know.

Now that you mention it....  There are a pair of galvanized brackets and 
rubber stops that holds the top of the seat backs in place on 109 
pickups.  They are rivited on to the behind the seat bulkhead.  I could 
use a pair of them.

TeriAnn Wakeman               If you send me direct mail, please
Santa Cruz, California        start the subject line with TW - 
[email-masked]           I will be sure to read the message

http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman   

"How can life grant us the boon of living..unless we dare"
Amelia Earhart 1898-1937

--__--__--

Message: 13
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 18:14:50 -0400
From: William L Leacock <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] 6 in an 88
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 James ;-  Fitting a rover 6 in an 88 is a relatively simple operation,(I
did it a few times in the 70's when Rover P5 engines were plentiful in
the UK scrapyards and also high ratio diffs)  but using the LR 6 is a
waste of effort, it has very ittle more power ( perhaps 10%) than a 4 cyl
and a lot more weight, which is also further forward.  The 3 litre mk 2
or 3 six cylinder is a different proposition, it has significantly more
pwer and torque.  Some front spring upgrade is essentail. 
 The fitting requires the use of a 6 cylinder bell housing on the
gearbox, some extension plates to move the engine mountings, or cutting
off the 4 cylinder mounts from the chassis and moving them forward a few
inches.
 The fiddle is mounting a suitable radiator (unless one moves the
transmission and engine back - problem then is rear prop is too short)
The longer engine means that the raditor must be mounted above the front
chassis cross member  and clear the steering idler.  A cross flow rad is
probably simpler to fit, particularly if the headlights are mounted in
the front of the wings.
  The exhaust also requires a littlle creativity, particulrly for serious
off roading, there are a lot of bends required to keep it tucked out of
the way.
 
Regards from Western New York State

  Bill Leacock.

--__--__--

Message: 14
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 18:51:31 -0600
Subject: Re: [lro] Land Rover Six
From: "William J. Rice" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

If you do decide to go through w/ this and need a 6-cyl. bellhousing
(TAW's post made me think of this), I've got one you can have for the $$
of shipping.

bill

> >Hello All, I have just acquired a 6 cylinder Land Rover engine and 
> was
> >wondering what the general consensus is on its suitability to 
> overhaul
> >and put in my 1973 SIII 88".  The 2.25 in the 88" runs great, but 
> I
> >was wondering if there is any power advantage to the six.

--__--__--

Message: 15
From: "Paul Quin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:55:00 -0700
Subject: [lro] Leaf Count
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Got a few odd jobs done on the Rover today.  I was under the front end
checking out the steering linkage and having a look a the leaf springs when
I decided to count them.  Turns out that the front drivers side has nine
leafs, which is right for a petrol 88, while the passenger side has eleven!
I always though that one side was noticeably softer, especially when rolling
over speed bumps.  Funny thing is, it feels like the side with eleven leafs
is the softer one...

Both rears have eleven leafs.

Oh well, they both seem to be in okay shape and the truck sits as level as
the next Rover...  so I'll let them be until there is a problem.

Paul Quin
Victoria, BC

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
* 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