Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #111 - 21 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 03:02:40 -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: Spring hangers (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   2. Re: flex lines revisited (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   3. Re: Quick Fix for Swivel Ball Leak. . . (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   4. Re: Spring hangers (Kirk Hillman)
   5. Re: Spring hangers (Jeff Bieler)
   6. Re: spring hanger (Jim Hall)
   7. El cheapo brake bleeding system (Sergi, Michael)
   8. Re: El cheapo brake bleeding system (David Scheidt)
   9. not so El cheapo brake bleeding system (David and Cindi Walker)
  10. Re: not so El cheapo brake bleeding system (Rob MacCormick)
  11. Re: Poser for Marin (Faure, Marin)
  12. Swivel Pin Bearing - alternate? (Tim Czajka)
  13. Re: not so El cheapo brake bleeding system (David Scheidt)
  14. Re: not so El cheapo brake bleeding system (David and Cindi Walker)
  15. Re: Swivel Pin Bearing - alternate? (Jim Hall)
  16. RE: not so El cheapo brake bleeding system (Sergi, Michael)
  17. RE: not so El cheapo brake bleeding system (Sergi, Michael)
  18. Re: Re: spring hanger (TeriAnn Wakeman)
  19. Re: spare tire carriers and tow plates (Jeff Bieler)
  20. Re: Re: spring hanger (Jim Hall)
  21. Re: Re: Poser for Marin (Paul Oxley)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Subject: Re: [lro] Spring hangers
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 01 06:17:10 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Would someone please be a dear and provide me with dimensions/drawings of
>the taller(military) spring hangers?  I have the extended shackles already
>and would like to correct the pinion angle in particular at the front.

I agree that extending the front spring hangers to the length that Rover 
did when they used the extended shackles is indeed the proper way to go 
when adding extended shackles to a vehicle that wasn't built to have 
them.  Otherwise you risk placing the front U joints at too great an 
angle, change your steering geometry and only get half the lift that 
vehicles that had extended shackles from the factory have.
  
Sorry I do not have the  number you are requesting at my fingertips but I 
do have one that you might find useful.

The Land Rover specification for maximum U joint angle is 26 degrees.  
That would be 26 degrees at full downward articulation, and the front 
prop shaft is the most likely place to see the sharpest angle.

Also don't forget you need the longer 109 military shocks or if you have 
an 88  you need to get the compressed and extended lengths for 109 
military shocks and go shopping.  Stock length shocks will be too short.

Get the longer 109 military rear axle straps, install the 109 military 
bumper stop extenders between the civilian bumper stops and the frame to 
readjust the upper articulation limit.

Chances are quite good that during downward articulation the front prop 
shaft will hit the under engine cross member.  If you use the vehicle off 
road under moderate to severe articulation you will need to make a 
diagonal indentation (about half way down the front of the cross shaft) 
under the front prop shaft.

When you get the new front spring hangers installed along with the 
extended shackles lift the front of the vehicle off the ground and 
measure the length of the prop shaft at full static articulation. Also 
measure the angle at both U joints to make sure you are not close to 26 
degrees. Undo the diff side prop shaft, extend the prop shaft its full 
length and measure again.  I had to put a longer slip joint and yolk on 
mine.  It was close to the extended length at static full downward 
articulation.  If you have an 88 do the same with the rear prop shaft.  
You do not want to be near the limit under static conditions because 
dynamic articulation will extend and compress the shaft even farther.

Dynamic articulation will also increase U joint angles.  I was forcible 
reminded of that a couple summers back when my Rover (with extended 
shackles) got to bouncing on loose stuff during a hill climb.  The front 
U joint angle exceed max, and the end result was the front prop shaft 
pulling the  the pinion gear fixing nut off the gear along with the front 
yolk.  I had a nice collection of loose R&P gear teeth when all was said 
and done.

All this reminds me that if you use your vehicle to it's limits any 
deviation from factory stock is never as simple as it first looks.  Even 
the simple act of adding extended shackles.

Take care,

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: 2
Subject: Re: [lro] flex lines revisited
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 01 06:38:58 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Anyone have any other suggestions?

I just moved from the series II flex line frame mount to the series I 
flex line frame mount in the front and picked up a few inches of 
effective length.

If you look at your frame near the frame mount for the flex line top you 
should see a welded on tab lower on the fame and if memory serves a 
little to the rear and 90 degrees to the series II frame tab.  That tab 
is not doing anything and just happens to have the correct size hole to 
be used as a frame mount for a flex hose.

Near I have been able to deturmine that unused tab is an articfact left 
over from series I production that never got removed from the assembly 
drawings.

I was plumbing new steel brake lines when I moved the flex line mounting 
location to the other bracket so I built it to fit.  There may be a 
problem with the stock steel tubing lengths.

It was like Rover was anticipating my need for longer flex lines by 
having a lower alternate tab so longer flex lines would not be needed.  
But in real life I bet someone put in a production change order and 
missed the frame drawing that the frame people build to.

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: 3
Subject: Re: [lro] Quick Fix for Swivel Ball Leak. . .
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 01 06:58:18 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>It was the blue tube. . .

Icky poo.  That stuff should never be used within 100 feet of an internal 
combustion engine or oil reservoir as far as I'm converned.  The stuff in 
the grey tube works much better around oil and none of it works in 
fontact with petrol.

You probably did not clean off every trace of the old oil where the seal 
sits.  The directions are serious when they say clean and oil free.

I would drain the reservoirs, carefully remove the seals fron their seats 
trying not to damage them, then clean the old blue stuff off.  CLean the 
seal seat on the swivel ball housing and wipe with Simple green to get 
the last of the oil film off.  Use the blue stuff in the silver tube or 
Permatex #2 or good equivlent and do it again.  As grungy as our Rovers 
get dirt is a real enemy when working on them.

>How do you judge tightness on the seal? Snug or tight, I thought I was OK.

If you have a feel for these things it takes about a normal torque as you 
would give a 7/16ths #2 bolt.  There should be no looseness on the seal 
retainer but it should not be distorted in any way.

>If I did over tighten is the seal reusable?

Look at them when you get them out.  If there are no visible bends and if 
the outer seating area is in like new shape you should be able to reuse 
them since they are new.  But it needs to look perfect.  I've never been 
good at getting an improperly seated new seal back out damage free so 
have replaced my share of improperly seated new seals.

You didn't mention the condition of your swivel balls.  the best seal in 
the world will not hold oil past pitting.

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: 4
From: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Spring hangers
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 08:04:54 -0600
Reply-To: [email-masked]

TAW,
    Jim Hall had a terrific idea which included welding up removable (bolt
on) spring hangers.  I don't know if I would use this method forever, but it
offers some very useful options.  I could build these units and test them,
then if I didn't like operation or new offset, I could change them or
replace them quite quickly without having to get underneath the 88" to work
on it for very long.
    Jim's my Pub buddy from now on, so if anyone has an issue... take it up
with me!  ;-)

    I don't have two sets of shackles, could someone tell me what the stock
shackle length is as well as the military ones.  I was under there yesterday
and looking at the shackles.  I couldn't believe that there are much shorter
ones than mine which are supposed to be military.  There were discussions a
while back about making custom shackles, maybe one of you could tell me.

Thanks,
Kirk

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 07:28:00 -0700
Subject: Re: [lro] Spring hangers
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I think the recent extended shackles conversation was one I helped start
looking for ways to keep my front springs from contacting the frame rails.

The stock shackles (center bolt hole to center bolt hole) are approximately
3 5/8" and the military shackles were  5 5/8".  Measurements are from
memory.  Don't feel like going to the garage to find my notes.

At the time, I was looking to increase my stock shackles by about 3/4" which
would get my springs away from the frame and would minimize any drive line
angle changes.  Originally, the idea was to either make longer shackles or
cut and extended stock ones.  In the end, I found military shackles and
drilled and tapped new holes making them shorter instead.

When I put on the military shackles (prior to shortening them), the drive
shaft hit the frame cross member at full extension (OME shocks).

Jeff
on 10/5/01 7:04 AM, Kirk Hillman at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> TAW,
> Jim Hall had a terrific idea which included welding up removable (bolt
> on) spring hangers.  I don't know if I would use this method forever, but it
> offers some very useful options.  I could build these units and test them,
> then if I didn't like operation or new offset, I could change them or
> replace them quite quickly without having to get underneath the 88" to work
> on it for very long.
> Jim's my Pub buddy from now on, so if anyone has an issue... take it up
> with me!  ;-)
> 
> I don't have two sets of shackles, could someone tell me what the stock
> shackle length is as well as the military ones.  I was under there yesterday
> and looking at the shackles.  I couldn't believe that there are much shorter
> ones than mine which are supposed to be military.  There were discussions a
> while back about making custom shackles, maybe one of you could tell me.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kirk
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:03:47 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kirk Hillman" <[email-masked]>, "lro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Re: spring hanger
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Actually I haven't done the front yet. However as a possible cross
member
beating/cutting alternative, there are drive shafts that are more of a
small diameter solid rod as opposed to a large diameter tube. This would
give you around an extra inch of clearance. My Rover buddy Travis found
one at the junkyard for his 88 for when he lifts the front of it. I 
think it was off of a Jeep. If you have the big u-joints, the Jeep 
u-joints are the same size, making it easy to put the Rover ends On the
Jeep drive shaft. I have a Jeep drive shaft on the rear of mine right
now.
Even I have only extended the rear hangers, I looked at the front and it
seems the same type of extension could be bolted to them also. As for 
shocks, I think I jacked the wheel as far as I could into the wheel well
and measured the compressed length and then went to Pep Boys and looked 
in their book for a shock with that compressed length and the longest
extended length I could find, which was 24" or 27". Between the shackles
hangers and re-arhcing the springs a little, I think I got around 3 to 4
inches of lift. Of course it looks a little funny not having done the 
front yet, but it sits fairly even when going up hills off-road since a
lot of weight gets transferred to the back. I think the springs may have
settled a bit since then also.

Kirk Hillman wrote:
> 
> Jim,
>     Did you have any driveline interference with your new set-up?  I haven't
> made the hanger extensions yet, but I suspect that TAW is right that there
> would be some touchy-feely betwixt the driveshaft and a crossmember.
>     What do you figure the total lift is that you achieved by adding the
> shackles and hangers?  Also, what shocks did you install?
>     Sorry about all the pestering, but I want to get after this thing before
> the snow flies.
> 
> Kirk

-- 
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: 7
From: "Sergi, Michael" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:22:45 -0400 
Subject: [lro] El cheapo brake bleeding system
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Here is the description of my cheap (less than $5 US) brake bleeding system.
I took a 1 1/2" flexible rubber coupling and placed an 1 1/2 PVC pipe cap
into the top.  Secure with hose clamp.  Drill hole in cap.  Insert truck
tire valve of choice.  I found one with an O-ring and nut.  Secure other end
to reservoir.  Then connect bicycle pump and pressurize as needed.  My
brakes bleed no problem even with a CB master brake cylinder.

	   | |   Truck tire valve 
	  _|_|_
	  |   |  PVC Pipe Cap
	| |	| |
	|	  |
	|	  | 1 1/2" Flexible Rubber Coupling
	|	  | 
	|	  |
	|	  |
	  |   |
	  |	|   Brake reservoir.

--__--__--

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] El cheapo brake bleeding system
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Sergi, Michael wrote:

> 
> Here is the description of my cheap (less than $5 US) brake bleeding system.
> I took a 1 1/2" flexible rubber coupling and placed an 1 1/2 PVC pipe cap

I'm a big fan of the bike inner tube method: go into bike store, ask for inner 
tube with a hole in it.  Pump up, find hole, cut ther.  Tie one end in knot, 
put other end of resevoir.  SEcure with spare person or hose clamp.  Total
cost ~$.50

--__--__--

Message: 9
From: "David and Cindi Walker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:30:26 -0700
Subject: [lro] not so El cheapo brake bleeding system
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I bought one of these and fell in love with it - you can't make it any
easier to flush the brake system. You use it by yourself and it works slick.
Gets the air out of hard to bleed systems as well. It also hold enough fluid
to flush almost any vehicle system without contamination.

http://www.motiveproducts.com/

brake fluid desolves innertube rubber, just a little interesting observation
:-)

Cheers,

David (tried all the other cool brake bleeding ideas - and finally one works
well)

[email-masked]
end of message

--__--__--

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 13:07:29 -0400
From: Rob MacCormick <[email-masked]>
Organization: Boston College
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] not so El cheapo brake bleeding system
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>From  the not quite qualitified to comment but will anyway corner....

1) Where do you live and could I borrow or rent your slick working system
when/if I get around to doing some more brake work?

2) Would the inner tube be in contact with brake fluid whilst using the bicycle
tube system?

Rob M
Concord, MA
'68 land roverlet dorkmobile AKA bitsa gnathos efacer

David and Cindi Walker wrote:

> I bought one of these and fell in love with it - you can't make it any
> easier to flush the brake system. You use it by yourself and it works slick.
> Gets the air out of hard to bleed systems as well. It also hold enough fluid
> to flush almost any vehicle system without contamination.
>
> http://www.motiveproducts.com/
>
> brake fluid desolves innertube rubber, just a little interesting observation
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> David (tried all the other cool brake bleeding ideas - and finally one works
> well)
>
> [email-masked]
> end of message
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 11
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Land Rover Mail Group'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:06:07 -0700 
Subject: [lro] Re: Poser for Marin
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
To: lro <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Poser for Marin :-{)}
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>As a matter of interest, how would you guys categorise this vehicle?
http://home.metroweb.co.za/~acotton/landrover/milbug.htm

My own opinion is that it's a hybrid based on a Forward Control 
Land Rover.

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

--__--__--

Message: 12
From: "Tim Czajka" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:10:57 -0600
Subject: [lro] Swivel Pin Bearing - alternate?
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Is there an alternate part number (so I can buy it locally)
for the roller bearing that goes on the lower pin of the
swivel ball?  It's for a Series III.  I have checked a few
alternate part number web sites to no avail.  - Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

--__--__--

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:15:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] not so El cheapo brake bleeding system
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Rob MacCormick wrote:

> 
> 
> 2) Would the inner tube be in contact with brake fluid whilst using the bicycle
> tube system?

Nope.  You will the resevoir.  You put the tube over the top of the resevoir, 
and it isnever in contact with the fluid.  Some tubes have chalk or some sort 
of similiar powder in them.  If you get one like that, frince it out well and 
allow to dry before using it.

--__--__--

Message: 14
From: "David and Cindi Walker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] not so El cheapo brake bleeding system
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:12:36 -0700
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Rob, I would loan it to you, if you were closer - to Seattle :-)

Please, check out the web site - they are really not very expensive for what
they do. I put them up there with my other 'what did I do before and why did
I not get this earlier' tools.

With the innertube, brake fluid splashes on the inside of the rubber AND you
only have the volume of fluid in your MC so you keep having to
remove/fill/repressurize.

Cheers,

David

[email-masked]
end of message

--__--__--

Message: 15
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 11:25:21 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Swivel Pin Bearing - alternate?
Reply-To: [email-masked]

21075-bearing and I believe 21212-race. I bought some at car quest once.

Tim Czajka wrote:
> 
> Is there an alternate part number (so I can buy it locally)
> for the roller bearing that goes on the lower pin of the
> swivel ball?  It's for a Series III.  I have checked a few
> alternate part number web sites to no avail.  - Tim
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> _______________________________________________
> 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
From: "Sergi, Michael" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] not so El cheapo brake bleeding system
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:55:39 -0400 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

No the bike tube is not in contact with the brake fluid.

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

--__--__--

Message: 17
From: "Sergi, Michael" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] not so El cheapo brake bleeding system
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 13:56:51 -0400 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

When I did mine I only had to refill once.  Not very difficult.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David and Cindi Walker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 12:13 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [lro] not so El cheapo brake bleeding system
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, I would loan it to you, if you were closer - to Seattle :-)
> 
> Please, check out the web site - they are really not very 
> expensive for what
> they do. I put them up there with my other 'what did I do 
> before and why did
> I not get this earlier' tools.
> 
> With the innertube, brake fluid splashes on the inside of the 
> rubber AND you
> only have the volume of fluid in your MC so you keep having to
> remove/fill/repressurize.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David
> 
> [email-masked]
> end of message
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 18
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: spring hanger
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 01 15:25:19 -0700
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> there are drive shafts that are more of a
>small diameter solid rod as opposed to a large diameter tube.

You understand of course that this will make for a weaker yet heavier 
front prop shaft that will bend easier.  It is really not all that 
difficult to modify the cross member.

> This would give you around an extra inch of clearance.

Which may not be enough at maximum downward articulation.  This assumes 
that you use the vehicle near it's suspension limits on occasion.  If you 
only do light to moderate offroading you may not even need to modify 
either the cross member nor the prop shaft.  What you need is up to your 
driving habits.

> I think I jacked the wheel as far as I could into the wheel well
>and measured the compressed length

That would provide a static measurement which is well inside the dynamic 
range if the vehicle does moderate to heavy off road work.  The rear axle 
undergoes a complex movement that includes front and rear directions as 
well as up and down.  In the stock configuration the factory assumed that 
the axle would strike the bumper stop at full upward articulation and 
even compress it an inch or so,  The bottom articulation would be limited 
by the axle straps.

The straps may possible also limit the twisting motion.  I've had my rear 
tyres rub an object about a foot forward of their static rest position.

So make sure the strap is set to limit travel a little before full rear 
shock extension and the bumper stop to limit upward articulation a little 
short of full shock compression.

>Between the shackles
>hangers and re-arhcing the springs a little, I think I got around 3 to 4
>inches of lift.

You could get 4 inches by doing a spring over conversion & no other 
changes.  The shackles are good for about 2 inches if the right length 
front hangers are added.

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: 19
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 16:49:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [lro] spare tire carriers and tow plates
From: Jeff Bieler <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Forget how this ended up, but Wise Owl is listing this on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=596162719

Jeff

on 10/3/01 10:09 AM, Rich Williams II at [email-masked] wrote:

> 
> WOW - To all of those who have made various offers (both on and off list) of
> tow plates and tire carriers - thank you very much.  Aside from the heated
> debates and flame wars, this is a very generous lot.
> 
> I'll contact some of you off list when I figure out exactly what I am going
> to do - there's so much out there that I don't think I will proceed with the
> manufacture of these things.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Rich
> '60 SII 109sw
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 20
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 20:37:38 -0600
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: spring hanger
Reply-To: [email-masked]

TeriAnn Wakeman wrote:
> 
> > there are drive shafts that are more of a
> >small diameter solid rod as opposed to a large diameter tube.
> 
> You understand of course that this will make for a weaker yet heavier
> front prop shaft that will bend easier.  It is really not all that
> difficult to modify the cross member.

Not really any heavier, and may bend, but is less likely to twist in 
half from a dent as it won't dent. They are stock on Scouts, and I 
haven't heard any complaints from any Scout people. And if I'm hitting
my front propshaft, I'd better watch where I'm driving.

> > I think I jacked the wheel as far as I could into the wheel well
> >and measured the compressed length
> 
> That would provide a static measurement which is well inside the dynamic
> range if the vehicle does moderate to heavy off road work.  The rear axle
> undergoes a complex movement that includes front and rear directions as
> well as up and down.  In the stock configuration the factory assumed that
> the axle would strike the bumper stop at full upward articulation and
> even compress it an inch or so,  The bottom articulation would be limited
> by the axle straps.

Ok, my upward articulation is limited by the tire rubbing the side of 
the tub as I haven't extended the bumpstops, but it barely ever rubs.
Axle straps? What axle straps? I have one cable to the center of the
diff as I don't want to limit articulation with axle straps.

> >Between the shackles
> >hangers and re-arhcing the springs a little, I think I got around 3 to 4
> >inches of lift.
> 
> You could get 4 inches by doing a spring over conversion & no other
> changes.  The shackles are good for about 2 inches if the right length
> front hangers are added.

A spring over would give about 7" of lift. I got yelled at by Dave 
Bobeck for suggesting such a thing a long time ago. The height gain is
equal to the height difference of mounting positions plus the height of
the spring pack since it is going from top mount to bottom mount. It
works well, is easily reverseable and I'm keeping it. 8')
-- 
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: 21
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 08:11:33 +0200
From: Paul Oxley <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Poser for Marin
Reply-To: [email-masked]

"Faure, Marin" wrote:

> http://home.metroweb.co.za/~acotton/landrover/milbug.htm
 
> My own opinion is that it's a hybrid based on a Forward Control
> Land Rover.

Ahh! But it IS all Land-Rover (right down to the hydraulic winch), so
it's kind of a 'Land-Rover-hybrid-Land-Rover'. Every single piece of it
rolled off the Land-Rover production line - just not attached to the
same vehicle at the time :-{)}

The idea with the Milbug is to stomp all over the Jeep Club's annual
Jamboree next year :-{)}
 
Regards

Paul Oxley
AfricanAdrenalin.com

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
* 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