Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #144 - 22 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 03:08:27 -0500 (EST)

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: Koenig winches (Hope Peter)
   2. Re: Fuel Economy? (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   3. RE: RE: The Stent Brothers (Easton Trevor A)
   4. RE: PTO drive options (Easton Trevor A)
   5. Problems with Paddocks... (Michael Hatton)
   6. heater blower (Bob & Sue Bernard)
   7. Re: Fuel Economy? (David Scheidt)
   8. Re: Problems with Paddocks... (russell wilson)
   9. Re: Problems with Paddocks... (Keith Tanner)
  10. Re: Problems with Paddocks... (lro lro)
  11. Trip to the UK ([email-masked])
  12. Re: Fuel Economy? (N Forbes)
  13. Re: RE: The Stent Brothers (Larry Smith)
  14. Re: RE: The Stent Brothers (John Cranfield)
  15. Re: RE: The Stent Brothers (John Cranfield)
  16. PTO rebuild kits (Andrew H. Litkowiak)
  17. Re: Rich running Zenith (C. Marin Faure)
  18. Do Land Rovers run on day one? (was new Series...) (C. Marin Faure)
  19. Re: Rich running Zenith (C. Marin Faure)
  20. Re: Rich running Zenith (C. Marin Faure)
  21. Aux fuel tank capacity (was my new Series) (C. Marin Faure)
  22. Re: Do Land Rovers run on day one? (was new Series...) (Keith Tanner)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Koenig winches
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 16:57:46 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I don't know if anyone has noticed, but when I searched for 'Koenig
winch',
> I found the site for Rawson-Koenig.  I would venture a guess that they are
> the remnants of the same company.  Is this where people are getting parts
> from?

www.aloharovers.com has the stuff
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 2
Subject: Re: [lro] Fuel Economy?
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 01 02:52:08 -0800
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Did a bit of driving today (on road unfortunately) and noticed how bad the
>fuel economy was. I couldn't have been doing better than 2mpg, 1.5mpg is
>probably closer

>I wasn't expecting great economy but this seems a little too bad to me. What
>should I expect to get on a well tuned, healthy 2.25 petrol sIII 88? I
>suspect it's running rich.

At less than 2 MPG I would suspect the fuel is pouring out under the LR 
and would check very carefully for leaks.

You should be getting around 15-17 miles/US gallon.

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
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked] '"
  <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] '"
  <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] RE: The Stent Brothers
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 09:27:58 -0500 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Good to see that you were inspired to put fingers to keyboard. How's Muddy
taking to all the goings on?
Alright if we call you Nelson?

--__--__--

Message: 4
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
To: "'Kirk Hillman '" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] '"
  <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] PTO drive options
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 09:36:08 -0500 
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 To retain the OD you can use a "bottom" PTO. This fits in place of the
bottom cover of the TC and picks up its drive from the output gear (I
think). Probably now made of unobtainium :-). I have seen pictures but never
anything in the flesh.

Another alternative is to go with a belt drive hydraulic pump. Similar to an
A/C unit with an electric clutch but pumping oil instead of freon. Trouble
is to put out a decent amount of power a multibelt drive or seroius toothed
belt is needed.

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 09:49:13 -0500
From: Michael Hatton <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Problems with Paddocks...
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Has anyone else had problems ordering parts from Paddocks?

Over the past few years I have ordered parts from numerous different UK
suppliers and had service varying from good to below average, but Paddocks
has consistently given me bad service.
I have learned not to change any order to any UK supplier as this seems to
cause an endless amount of confusion on their end, with extended delays
incorrect orders.
I emailed an order to Paddocks on October 2, 2001, which I followed up
with a phone call to make sure they had received it and to give them my
visa no. (which I also emailed seperately).
I was told that my order should be ready to ship in a week, and that they
would send me a tracking no. Two weeks later I phoned and asked the status
of my order. I was kept on hold for about ten minutes whilst they tried to
find out what had happened to it. They then said that they would email me,
so that I would not have to stay on hold. I got nothing.... (and we have a
very solid email server, so it is not like the email got lost)

I have followed up once a week since then and have been given the same
run-around.

Does anyone know a how to get them to make some kind of response, a bad
excuse would be better than nothing.

Michael Hatton.

1972 SIII 88" (almost done frameover - except for the Paddocks Parts!)

--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 07:02:10 -0800
To: [email-masked]
From: Bob & Sue Bernard <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] heater blower
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi,
Let's see if this will get through. My last post for some reason couldn't 
get in.

Welcome back John, I hope you heal well!

John's idea about the GM blower is excellent for the S2A, and I've done it.
But the S3 I looked at had a bigger blower than the S2A, so it might fit 
right in without enlarging the hole. The GM blower is quite cheap at most 
wreckers.

Bob B

>A recent post by John Cranfield to this list might be useful for you, Mark:
>--------------------------------------
>A motor and cage from a mid 80s front wheel drive GM will fit if you
>open up the hole in the housing rather off centred to the outlet. This
>will move about 200% more air than the original.
>John and Muddy

--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 10:18:09 -0500 (EST)
From: David Scheidt <[email-masked]>
To: LRO List <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Fuel Economy?
Reply-To: [email-masked]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, apsilon wrote:

> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Did a bit of driving today (on road unfortunately) and noticed how bad the
> fuel economy was. I couldn't have been doing better than 2mpg, 1.5mpg is
> probably closer if I actually sat down and worked it out. This was for
> suburban traffic so constantly flowing as opposed to stop start or sustained
> highway.
> 
> I wasn't expecting great economy but this seems a little too bad to me. What
> should I expect to get on a well tuned, healthy 2.25 petrol sIII 88? I
> suspect it's running rich.

You're not running rich, you spilling fuel.  Check for leaks in the tank,
the lines, at the fuel pump (a pretty common failure mode is gush fuel), the
carb.  Make sure the drain plug for the gas tank is tight.  OH, and keep a
fire extinguisher handy....

--__--__--

Message: 8
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 07:46:57 -0800
Subject: Re: [lro] Problems with Paddocks...
From: "russell wilson" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Craddocks, LR Supermarket, or Blanchards seem to be the way to go.

On Sunday, November 4, 2001, at 06:49 AM, Michael Hatton wrote:

>
> Has anyone else had problems ordering parts from Paddocks?
>
> Over the past few years I have ordered parts from numerous different UK
>
>
Russ Wilson

--__--__--

Message: 9
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 09:48:23 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Problems with Paddocks...
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sounds about right to me. I was always made to feel like a boor for 
actually trying to contact them. My second order - made via the web and 
shipped to the UK - was dealt with very professionally and by a different 
person at Paddocks. I won't be bothering with the telephone anymore if I 
order from them again.

Craddocks - well, they got the order wrong, assured me everything was in 
stock and never bothered to tell me that they hadn't shipped the items 
because something wasn't in stock.

While the prices may be higher, I've never had any complaints with RN or 
Atlantic British Canada.

Keith
------------
Keith's page de home:
    http://keith.miata.net
------------

--__--__--

Message: 10
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 08:58:46 -0800
From: "lro lro" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Problems with Paddocks...
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[demime could not interpret encoding binary - treating as plain text]
May I suggest to have a look at the Land Rover portal at http://THE-Land-Rover.Com follow the links - commercial - parts & accessories. Take your pick from the different possibilities. 

Have fun,
Bruno Jansen

>>Craddocks, LR Supermarket, or Blanchards seem to be the way to go.

Greetings,
Bruno Jansen
Hoboken - Antwerp
[email-masked]
http://THE-Land-Rover.Com

------------------------------------------------------------
Send by Mail at Fanaka.com - please also visit "Fanaka.org"

--__--__--

Message: 11
From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 14:11:40 EST
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Trip to the UK
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The week after Thanksgiving, God willing and the passports get here in time, 
I'm going to London with my mother. She's been a few times and I don't really 
know what she's up to, but she got a killer deal on tickets, so off we go! 
I'm not inclined to do touristy things much, but I do want to get some bits 
for my LRs and RR while there. Interested in any help whatsoever.
Other interests include:
Spurgeon; would love to see and hear the village he grew up in.
Emergency Medical Service systems; I'm getting back into that after a long 
hiatus (was an EMT in the 70s)
Amateur radio

Suggestions? Respond off list, as I get the digest. No sense boring everyone 
with the details.
Cheers!
John Dillingham
Canton, Georgia
93 VW EV, Red Bettie
85 Range Rover Vogue 5speed, Hyacinth
68 SWB series IIa, project, to be sold!
72 SWB series III, old 502
73 VW Beetle, Daisy

--__--__--

Message: 12
From: "N Forbes" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Fuel Economy?
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 20:23:05 +0000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Matt,
That's a tenth of what you should be getting. Something is badly wrong. I 
doubt that much fuel is going through the engine. I think you have a leak 
somewhere.

Niall Forbes
66 IIa 88SW - The Red Zit
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
The Nova Scotian Rover - http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/forbes/intro.htm

"See the happy moron,
He doesn't give a damn.
I wish I were a moron.
My God! Perhaps I am!"
--author unknown

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

--__--__--

Message: 13
From: "Larry Smith" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] RE: The Stent Brothers
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 17:02:46 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

John,

You seem to be "handling" it well.

Hey!  Good to have you back!!!  Excuse the laziness in not sending a snail
mail card.

Will keep my fingers crossed for the future.

Best regards,

Larry Smith
Chester, VA
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cranfield" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: 03 November, 2001 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [lro] RE: The Stent Brothers

>
> I'm sure you have all managed with out my bloody comments and in future
> I will be turning a blind eye to many of yours. Before I continue in
> this vein too long....
> John and Muddy
>
> Easton Trevor A wrote:
> >
> > I of course have an arterior motive (Groan)
> >
> > We'll miss Cranfield's input here. Maybe the Rosvall's can pass this on
and
> > get John's reply for us.
> >
> > Trevor
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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: 14
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 19:14:42 -0400
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] RE: The Stent Brothers
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Larry Smith wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> You seem to be "handling" it well.
> 
> Hey!  Good to have you back!!!  Excuse the laziness in not sending a snail
> mail card.
> 
> Will keep my fingers crossed for the future.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Larry Smith

How about keeping your eyes crossed? I can do the crossed fingers
still:)
John and Muddy

--__--__--

Message: 15
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 19:19:13 -0400
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] RE: The Stent Brothers
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Well Muddy is still in the shop awaiting the finishing of the engine
rebuild. This will have to wait a while.
Nelson? Hmmmmm that's got good British historical ring to it.
John and Muddy

Easton Trevor A wrote:
> 
> Good to see that you were inspired to put fingers to keyboard. How's Muddy
> taking to all the goings on?
> Alright if we call you Nelson?
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 16
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:21:34 -0600
From: "Andrew H. Litkowiak" <[email-masked]>
To: Land Rover List <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] PTO rebuild kits
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've check several catalogs. No one seems to list PTO parts at all. I
need gaskets and seals for a rear PTO box and the rear power unit.

Any ideas?

Andy Litkowiak

--__--__--

Message: 17
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 19:56:55 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Re: Rich running Zenith
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 09:57:47 -0400
Subject: [lro] Rich running Zenith
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>The vehicle runs great, but the carburetion is extremely rich. With choke
off, the tailpipe spews black smoke, which gets worse upto about 2000 -3000
rpms, and after that it seems to clean up quite a bit, and run much better.

I've just returned from a couple of weeks in Europe, so you may have gotten
all this sorted by now.  But what you describe is not necessarily the
symptom of the Zenith warp.  The over-rich problem with a warped Zenith
occurs at idle.  The problem is that the warp allows fuel to seep past the
main gasket and run or get pulled down a passage that bypasses the idle
jet.  The result is that the engine gets too much fuel at idle.  In fact,
the couple of incidents of Zenith warp I've experienced only created an
over-rich mixture at idle when the vehicle was pointed uphill, or as it
rocked back after coming to a stop.  The reason is that the passage that
allows the fuel to bypass the idle jet is behind the float bowl.  If the
float height is adjusted correctly, and if the float bowl intake valve is
operating correctly and not sticking open, the fuel level in the float bowl
will never be high enough to "escape" past the main gasket unless the
vehicle is pointing uphill, which allows the fuel to reach the gasket at
the back of the float bowl, or when the vehicle rocks back after coming to
a stop, which allows the fuel to slop up against the rear of the gasket.

But if the floats are adjusted correctly, the fuel will never reach the
main gasket with the vehicle sitting level, and the over-rich condition
will not occur even though the main gasket is not sealing properly because
of the warp.  Same thing if the vehicle is pointing downhill.  While fuel
may escape past the poorly sealed main gasket, it won't get pulled into the
carburetor because the bypass passage is behind the bowl, not in front of
it.

While the Zenith you have may indeed be warped, I would suspect that if you
are getting an over-rich mixure at 2,000 to 3,000 rpm while driving, then
the immediate problem may be incorrectly adjusted floats in the bowl, a
damaged or worn out O-ring in the carburetor throat, a damaged or worn
"economy device" in the upper half of the carburetor, or a worn or
incorrect main jet.  When two of the Zeniths I've had warped, I had the
characteristic over-rich problem at idle when the vehicle was stopped on a
grade, but other than that, the engine ran perfectly with a correct mixture
and no smoke.

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

--__--__--

Message: 18
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:43:00 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Do Land Rovers run on day one? (was new Series...)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: "Alex Maiolo" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] My "new" series III
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:24:13 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Does anyone EVER buy a Land Rover and have it run fine on it's first day
home?

Of course...:-).  My brand new 1973 Series III-88 ran perfectly from the
moment I picked it up at the dock in Honolulu.  Our 1991 Range Rover ran
perfectly from the moment we drove it off the dealers lot in Seattle.  They
are both still running extremely well, although it takes good
troubleshooting and maintenance to keep them that way.

It's only after they've been "worked on" by previous owners that Land
Rovers seem to develop the chronic problems experienced by so many new
owners.  It's been my observation that although a lot of people like old
Land Rovers and buy them, not that many owners really understand how to
work on them, or operate them to ensure a minimum of problems.  This is an
argumentative statement, I realize, but reading the kinds of problems
people seem to have with their Series on this list, I feel that a fair
number of them are due to owners trying to operate a crude, 1950s utility
vehicle as though it was a sophisticated 2001 SUV.  The results are burned
valves, blown head gaskets, prematurely worn brakes, prematurely worn
transmission, transfer case, and differential bearings and bushings, worn
out U-joints, etc., etc., etc.

In my opinion, a Series Land Rover is a "hands on" vehicle.  They were
desiged for farmers and the like back in the late 1940s, people who tended
to have a thorough knowledge of their relatively simple machines and who
worked on them themselves.  While things changed rapidly in the automotive
world, the design philosophy of the Series Land Rover stayed the same.
Compare the owners manual (not the service manual, the owners manual) of a
1973 Series III to that of a car from the same era.  The car manual tells
you how to operate it, how to check the oil level, and maybe how to change
the light bulbs and fuses.  The Series III manual tells you how to time the
engine, change the spark plugs, adjust the carburetor, change the oil in
the transmission and transfer case, lubricate the drivshafts, and check the
oil in the swivel balls and steering relay.  In this regard, the whole
philosophy behind the design of the Series is totally the opposite of
today's vehicles, which are pretty much designed to be driven with little
thought to maintenance.  Maybe a light will come on every 40,000 miles to
remind the owner to have something done, but that's about it.  And who's
buying most of the Series Land Rovers these days?  People who grew up with
today's low-maintenence, drive-it-and-forget-it vehicles.

I'm not trying to say that today's Series owners are mechanically inept or
couldn't troubleshoot a burned out lighbulb.  But a Series Land Rover truly
is from another era.  People who don't realize that and treat them
accordingly are often in for a big disappointment when they start driving
their new purchase.

In fact, in terms of construction, mechanics, and design philosophy, a
Series Land Rover probably has more in common with a hay bailer or seed
drill than a car.  New owners trying to figure them out will have an easier
time with troubleshooting and maintenance if they think of their new
purchase as a farm implement rather than a vehicle.   Series are incredibly
simple, easy to work on, made out of easy-to-remove parts, and require a
relatively few number of tools.  If you can read the factory service
manual, you can fix it.

Just like the seed drill, they are made to go from point A to point B in a
straightforward manner, doing what they do with few problems.  But like the
seed drill, they are NOT designed to accelerate briskly, go fast, corner
well, stop quickly, ride smoothly, or provide much comfort to the operator.
When the Land Rover folks realized there were people out there who wanted
those attributes in a 4wd, their answer was not to change the Land Rover,
but to create the Range Rover.  You want to crawl around over crappy
terrain in a reliable vehicle that's easy to fix when it breaks?  Buy a
Land Rover.  You want that other stuff?  Buy a Range Rover.  Land Rover
virtually said as much in the advertising brochures for the Range Rover
that were packed in with the manuals for my Series III back in 1973.

New Series owners may also suffer from the "I have a better idea" syndrome.
How many times have we had the oil-vs.-grease-in-the-swivel-balls
discussion here?  I'm not trying to resurrect it, but the Land Rover folks
had real good reasons for stating that the proper lubricant for the swivel
balls on a Series vehicle is 90wt lube oil.  If the swivel ball seals
started to leak, their stated solution was to replace the seals, not try to
minimze the leaks by replacing the oil with something thicker, like grease.
The grease might indeed slow or stop the seal leak.  But now the upper
swivel bushing won't be getting the lubrication it needs, and the hub
bearings might not be getting the lubrication they need.  But the owner
thinks he knows better, and decides grease is just the ticket for his
vehicle's leaking swivel balls.  Then the vehicle is sold, and the new
owner wonders why on his drive home the front end feels loose, or why after
fifty miles a funny sound starts coming from one of the  hubs.  The
previous owner thought he had a better idea, but the new owner is the one
who gets to find out the hard way that the manufacturer had an even better
one.

Also, a Land Rover tends to be a tinkerer's vehicle.  This list bears that
out, with everything from discussions about engine swaps to adapting
different springs and carburetors.  Some of these modifications work as
advertised.  But judging from a lot of the posts on this list, a number of
them don't, or at best require continuous fiddling with.  So some new
owners of Series Land Rovers get saddled with a previous owner's
"improvements" that actually don't improve anything.

A 1982 BMW 633csi I owned a while back was like that.  The previous owner
had installed all sorts of stuff on it, from a homemade cruise control to a
hill-holding device to something hooked to the throttle that was supposed
to improve midrange acceleration (it didn't).  Most of the stuff didn't
work, or worse, actually caused problems.  I pulled all sorts of crap out
of the engine bay and from behind the panel during the first few months I
owned it.  Finally, when we had returned the vehicle to stock condition, it
ran well and ran reliably.  This is not a prelude to a "modifying a Land
Rover is a sin" lecture, but simply intended to point out that the proud
new owner of a Series Land Rover may suffer from some dubious add-ons by a
previous owner when he goes to drive it home.

Of course, the other thing that can really mess up a Land Rover, or any
machine really, is not being used at all.  And because Series Land Rovers
are not all that pleasant to drive in today's traffic conditions, they tend
not to be driven all that frequently these days.  For the first ten years I
owned it, my SIII was my only vehicle.  As such, it was driven every day,
all day.  Sure, things wore out faster like hub seals and brake shoes.  But
because I totally depended on it, anything that even looked like it might
be going wrong was adjusted or fixed immediately.  As a result, the vehicle
never once failed to start, and never once quit while it was running.  The
worst thing I ever did to it was stop driving it much from 1983 to the
early 1990s.  Not being used did far more harm than being driven every day
for hours at a time for the first ten years.  Since the early 90s, it's
been driven much more frequently, and is in much better condition than it
was during the previous ten years.

For some reason I've had a lot of conversations this last year with the
owners of classic cars.  These have ranged from Model A's to 1941 Cadillacs
to MG-TDs to an Aston Martin DB-4.  What impressed me was how reliable all
the cars have been, according to their owners.  But to a man, they all said
they drove their vehicles they way they were intended to be driven when
new.  This meant lower road speeds (except for the Aston Martin :-) ),
easier braking, etc.  Even the DB-4 owner said if he drove the way people
drive today's cars, he'd be breaking stuff every week.

I must admit that like Mr. Maiolo, I'm rather surprised at the number of
problems that seem to plague a lot of the Series owners on this list.
People set out to make a drive of a few hundred miles, and to read the
posts, damn near have to rebuild the vehicle along the route.  The only
Series Land Rover I've had a lot of hands-on experience with is my own, but
based on that experience, I see no reason why a Series Land Rover with the
proper parts, good maintenance, and driven the way the designers assumed it
would be driven should be any less reliable today than it was the day it
rolled off the assembly line.  I drove my SIII on trips of several thousand
miles to the Yukon in the 1970s.  I would not hesitate to do so again
today, although the Range Rover would be a much more comfortable
ride......:-)

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

--__--__--

Message: 19
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:00:16 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Re: Rich running Zenith
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Rich running Zenith
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:21:44 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>What's the list's consensus on a Weber? The owner of the truck hasn't a
>clueon the mechanical aspects of rover ownership, he will have to learn,
>but I'drather he learn with easy things than continually fiddling with a
carburetor...

The Weber supposedly is less fuel-efficient than the Zenith, and some
models are even supposed to turn out less performance (if you can consider
any aspect of the 2.25 engine "performance.")  The upside is you eliminate
the warp problem that plagues many of the Zenith carburetors.

The Zenith is actually a pretty good little unit.  Unfortunately, its crude
construction, less-than-ideal metallurgy, and poorly placed bolt pattern
can offset its operational advantages.  I've run a couple of different
kinds of carburetors on my SIII over the last 28 years, and have actually
been happiest with the Zenith.  The first two I had warped, so I changed
brands altogether.  The other carburetors did offer some advantages, but
had the disadvantage of reduced fuel mileage, too lean a mixture which
meant higher cylinder head temperatures and burned valves, and they
encouraged run-on, or dieseling, which can stretch or break a timing chain
or snap off a timing gear tooth in short order.

So I eventually came back to the Zenith, and the one I have now has
performed well since the early 1980s with virtually no attention other than
when I lean the hell out of the idle mixture prior to taking the vehicle
through an emissions test.  The Zenith doesn't allow the engine to diesel,
it gets 20 mpg on the highway (a flat highway with no headwind), the engine
runs cooler which is good for the valves, and it mates up nicely with the
oil-bath air cleaner, which is a far superior air cleaner for dirty
off-road conditions than any other device on the market.  So if you get a
good one, the Zenith 36IV is a good example of low-tech being better than
high-tech.  If you get a bad one, they can be quite a frustration until you
get it right again.

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

--__--__--

Message: 20
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:03:26 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Re: Rich running Zenith
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 14:16:32 -0300
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Rich running Zenith
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Sounds like the dreaded Zenith warp.......Find a piece of flat glass and a
>sheet of 200 grit emery cloth.  Lay the cloth on the glass and place the
>first half on it. With a smooth  motion sand the joining face until you
>see that all of the surface has been touched by the emery cloth.  Repeat
>for the other half.  Assemble in the reverse order. Remembering to set the
>float level
correctly.

This will fix the warp, but not the problem that causes the warp, so the
carburetor halves will warp again in time.  The only way to permanently fix
the warp is to do what the factory failed to do, and that is heat-treat the
carburetor halves.  This involves heating the halves to a specific
temperature for a specific time, and than stepping the temperature down
over specified periods of time.  I don't recall the temps or times, but I'm
sure someone else will post these.  You can do it in your oven.  It's
important that you do the heat treating first, then follow the sanding
steps outlined by Mr. Cranfield.  If you do them the other way round, the
heat treating may undo your efforts to sand the mating surfaces flat.

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

--__--__--

Message: 21
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:04:03 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Aux fuel tank capacity (was my new Series)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Paul Quin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] My "new" series III
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>There was / is an optional fuel tank that installs under the left (drivers
in North America) seat in place of the tool / battery box to create a
switchable dual tank system....It is quite big, probably close to 16 gallons.

The axilliary fuel tank supplied by Land Rover for the Model 88 held the
same amount as the main tank- 12 gallons.  There may have been aftermarket
tanks that held more, but the "factory approved" aux tank had the same
capacity as the main tank.  I know this because I was going to install one
once, and that was the capacity quoted by Land Rover.  I decided against
the aux tank because for the work I was doing and the trips I was taking,
the storage space under the driver's seat was more useful than an aux tank
would have been.  So I simply carried a couple of five gallon fuel cans.
But the capacity of the underseat aux tank supplied by Land Rover in the
1970s was 12 gallons.

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

--__--__--

Message: 22
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 21:46:02 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Do Land Rovers run on day one? (was new Series...)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My truck didn't run on day one at all. It took a month of work before I 
could drive it around the block :)

>In this regard, the whole
>philosophy behind the design of the Series is totally the opposite of
>today's vehicles, which are pretty much designed to be driven with little
>thought to maintenance.  Maybe a light will come on every 40,000 miles to
>remind the owner to have something done, but that's about it.  And who's
>buying most of the Series Land Rovers these days?  People who grew up with
>today's low-maintenence, drive-it-and-forget-it vehicles.

When I bought my Series, I thought I knew cars. I'd been working on my 
Miata for years, modifying and tinkering (and it runs faster and smoother 
than it did when Mazda was done with it, BTW - it is possible to improve 
things).

Turns out that about the only things my modern Miata and my 1950s (built in 
1967) Land Rover have in common are internal combustion. It's been highly 
educational and it's changed my driving style. Now I'm happy bumbling along 
at 45 mph.

As most of you know, I brought my truck from Ottawa to Colorado this 
summer. 2000 miles, and the only mechanical problems suffered by the truck 
were a sporadically leaking water pump (I suspect a pre-existing condition, 
as Nebraska is a little hotter than Ottawa) and a slowing locking diff 
(brought on by my unawareness of the diff type). The whole way, my friend 
who was driving the Miata was laughing at the amount of care I was 
lavishing on the truck - checking fluids, investigating little noises and 
the like. He was also chafing at my 50 mph speed. But that's what it takes 
to keep a Series happy on a long journey.

Marin, most of us haven't had the chance to babysit our trucks from new. I 
figure that I'm getting the failures that were brought on by my truck 
sitting for a decade or more, unused. But if the failure happens again, 
it's my fault....

Keith
------------
Keith's page de home:
    http://keith.miata.net
------------

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
* 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