Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #158 - 19 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 03:01:23 -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: Fuel Sender (Alan J. Richer)
   2. Re: Fuel Sender (John Cranfield)
   3. Brake questions (apsilon)
   4. Re: Brake questions (John Cranfield)
   5. more heat (Jim Hall)
   6. Re: Brake questions (Mark Pilkington)
   7. Re: 88" weight (Hope Peter)
   8. Re: Re: Webers and coffee (Hope Peter)
   9. Re: 88" weight (Mark Pilkington)
  10. Re: Fuel Sender (Hope Peter)
  11. LWB to SWB (Mark Pilkington)
  12. Re: 88" weight ([email-masked])
  13. Re: LWB to SWB (Hope Peter)
  14. Re: 88" weight (Hope Peter)
  15. Re: 88" weight (Hope Peter)
  16. Re: Brake questions (apsilon)
  17. Re: Brake questions (apsilon)
  18. Re: 88" weight (Jean-Leon Morin)
  19. Re: 88" weight (Jean-Leon Morin)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:52:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "Alan J. Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Fuel Sender
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- Hope Peter <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Well I have a "spare" now :-)
> 
> Pete
> _______________________________________________

Try it - it could be the old one has burned contacts
and is not passing enough current - but the current
jumping is correct.

If you want to builsd something real, lemme know and
I'll try to dig out the schematic of the
all-electronic one I built.

      ajr

=====
Please ignore the following advertising.....
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:18:20 -0400
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Fuel Sender
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Before you get too far check the grounding of the tank and the sender.
This is often a problem and can easily be fixed by running a new ground
strap from the sender to the chassis.
John and Muddy

Ian Harper wrote:
> 
> How do you check the fuel sender?   I'm assuming that you hook up an
> ohmmeter to the positive and the body to notice the change as you move
> the arm....mine does not respond!!!
> 
> I'm getting a pulsing 12v from the +ve side (the voltage stabiliser-is
> this right?) and the ground is good, so I'm assuming that it's the
> sender unit itself...time for a new one, or can it be fixed?
> 
> Cheers, Ian
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 3
From: "apsilon" <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO List" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 01:24:39 +1100
Subject: [lro] Brake questions
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi all,

Finally found time to bleed and adjust my brakes this afternoon in the hope
of improving their performance. I didn't get very far. I found a significant
crack at the base of the fluid reservoir where the pipe running to the
master cylinder connects. How it's not leaking I don't know.

I thought while I had the tools out I may as well check the linings to see
how much material I've got left. During this I found that one of the pistons
on the right rear doesn't move when the brakes are operated.

My question is can the front brakes be moved to the rear? The catalogue I
have shows different part numbers for the front and rear but they look the
same to me. I'm almost certainly going to convert the front to discs and so
the current fronts will be available. I'm also going to convert to dual line
at the same time.

TIA,
Matt.
Sydney Australia
'75 Series III 88

--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 10:42:55 -0400
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Brake questions
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The fronts can be moved to the rear if you are doing brake modification
to increase the size of the fronts but you WILL need a different
mastercylinder too as the original doesn't move enough fluid.
One mistake I made in the past was to replace the smaller rear cylinders
with those sized for the front. I was never able to make the brakes work
with out a double pump of the pedal.
John and Muddy

apsilon wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Finally found time to bleed and adjust my brakes this afternoon in the hope
> of improving their performance. I didn't get very far. I found a significant
> crack at the base of the fluid reservoir where the pipe running to the
> master cylinder connects. How it's not leaking I don't know.
> 
> I thought while I had the tools out I may as well check the linings to see
> how much material I've got left. During this I found that one of the pistons
> on the right rear doesn't move when the brakes are operated.
> 
> My question is can the front brakes be moved to the rear? The catalogue I
> have shows different part numbers for the front and rear but they look the
> same to me. I'm almost certainly going to convert the front to discs and so
> the current fronts will be available. I'm also going to convert to dual line
> at the same time.
> 
> TIA,
> Matt.
> Sydney Australia
> '75 Series III 88
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:46:26 -0700
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: "lro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] more heat
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My original Kodiak core was leaking, so I had it re-cored. While it 
still puts out a lot of heat, it seems like the old one put out quite a
bit more. The only differences are the core design and that the old one
was painted black. So my question is will a black heater core radiate
noticeably more heat than a bare one? I'm actually tempted to experiment 
and find out, but I would like other opinions.
-- 
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: 6
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:25:57 -0800
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Brake questions
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Front and rear slave cylinders are different sizes.  The fronts are
significantly bigger.  The brakes are marginal enough!  It is best to put
everything back wher it should be new and you will not regret it.  Get all the
parts from the Land Rover Supermarket in England.  They will have it to you in a
matter of days and they are cheap. I rebuilt my ENTIRE Brake system on my SWB
for a hundred bucks or so.
Kind regards,
Mark Pilkington

apsilon wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Finally found time to bleed and adjust my brakes this afternoon in the hope
> of improving their performance. I didn't get very far. I found a significant
> crack at the base of the fluid reservoir where the pipe running to the
> master cylinder connects. How it's not leaking I don't know.
>
> I thought while I had the tools out I may as well check the linings to see
> how much material I've got left. During this I found that one of the pistons
> on the right rear doesn't move when the brakes are operated.
>
> My question is can the front brakes be moved to the rear? The catalogue I
> have shows different part numbers for the front and rear but they look the
> same to me. I'm almost certainly going to convert the front to discs and so
> the current fronts will be available. I'm also going to convert to dual line
> at the same time.
>
> TIA,
> Matt.
> Sydney Australia
> '75 Series III 88
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 7
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:13:28 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> why a 6.2? they are old technolgy, and massively heavy.  not very
impressive
> output figures, either.

Old Technology ... sounds perfect for the landrover hahahahaha

They are inexpensive and simple.  I can actually source one for next to
nothing, have a friend that deals in surplus mil  vehicles.  I have put many
miles on them in both the 1-1/4 ton pickup and the blazers.  Nonimpresive
output sounds kinder to the rest of the drive train.
My idea for a drive train is a GM engine, 700r4, Dana 18, Salisbury rear.
But with an adapter plate a GM engine will bolt on to the IIa tranny and the
rest can stay stock.

I would kinda like to stay with the 2.25.  But now that I know how much she
actually weighs I just don't know.  I mean now that I am on the mainland I
could just go ahead and get a rover frame.  That would solve all my
problems.  But ya know, I kinda like the fact that I built the damn thing
myself, and it works.  It is strong a heck and I did do a couple of things
that to me are better then stock.  The tub outriggers are from the same
material as the frame and I can support the entire weight of the vehicle
from them.  The rear xmem has been rebuilt along the same lines.  The
external cage will attach to these points.  As long as the cage is designed
properly, the thing will survive any roll over, maybe even a LAPES drop
hahahaha.

I want to get a Rover light weight.  So maybe I re-engine the heavy and then
try and find a good bodied, trashed drive train light.  I don't know.  I am
willing to spend the $$ to do the heavy right, but don't want to spend so
much that it effects other projects.  I mean I would love to do a 200 or
300tdi, but a 6.2 or 4.3 would be less expensive and I believe cheeper to
maintain.  But it will be a bunch of work to get it right.

Pete

--__--__--

Message: 8
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Webers and coffee
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:27:55 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Told you months ago you were running too large jets when I found out you
had
> the linked venturi kit.  Assume the 120/? jets are what Pierce reccomends
> for linked venturis.  Do you have one of those CC cups specifically for
> checking accelerator pump out put.

Yeah, I didn't realise that the idle jets were too big also.  Talked to the
tech people at pierce.  Given the RPM range I usually drive at (2500-3000)
they said that the idles have a large effect on things.  So I have an
assortment of idles and air correctors on the way.

The accel pump jets for the 32/36 are set up to only have a factory hole for
the primary, but there are also jets from another carb that have both sides
drilled.  This is what I have.  I am getting a couple spares for this also.

I do have the 90 2.5 petrol 32/34 DMTL webber.  It is a progressive carb.  I
also have the 1 bbl that came on it from the PO.  I have not tried the
32/34, but should give it a wirl.

I got her weighed this week too.  The frame, bumper, winch have added
1000lbs to the stock weight.  You are right, she never will run hills with
the stock engine.

I am also going to get an exhaust analyser, it really is the only way to
diagnose this problem.

I will need you mail address, can't find it.  And I will get a check over to
you.  I will take 10 bags.

Later,
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:37:13 -0800
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Reply-To: [email-masked]

You know that the "lightweights" are actually heavier than the stock Land Rover?

Hope Peter wrote:

> > why a 6.2? they are old technolgy, and massively heavy.  not very
> impressive
> > output figures, either.
>
> Old Technology ... sounds perfect for the landrover hahahahaha
>
> They are inexpensive and simple.  I can actually source one for next to
> nothing, have a friend that deals in surplus mil  vehicles.  I have put many
> miles on them in both the 1-1/4 ton pickup and the blazers.  Nonimpresive
> output sounds kinder to the rest of the drive train.
> My idea for a drive train is a GM engine, 700r4, Dana 18, Salisbury rear.
> But with an adapter plate a GM engine will bolt on to the IIa tranny and the
> rest can stay stock.
>
> I would kinda like to stay with the 2.25.  But now that I know how much she
> actually weighs I just don't know.  I mean now that I am on the mainland I
> could just go ahead and get a rover frame.  That would solve all my
> problems.  But ya know, I kinda like the fact that I built the damn thing
> myself, and it works.  It is strong a heck and I did do a couple of things
> that to me are better then stock.  The tub outriggers are from the same
> material as the frame and I can support the entire weight of the vehicle
> from them.  The rear xmem has been rebuilt along the same lines.  The
> external cage will attach to these points.  As long as the cage is designed
> properly, the thing will survive any roll over, maybe even a LAPES drop
> hahahaha.
>
> I want to get a Rover light weight.  So maybe I re-engine the heavy and then
> try and find a good bodied, trashed drive train light.  I don't know.  I am
> willing to spend the $$ to do the heavy right, but don't want to spend so
> much that it effects other projects.  I mean I would love to do a 200 or
> 300tdi, but a 6.2 or 4.3 would be less expensive and I believe cheeper to
> maintain.  But it will be a bunch of work to get it right.
>
> Pete
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 10
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Fuel Sender
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:33:10 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Try it - it could be the old one has burned contacts
> and is not passing enough current - but the current
> jumping is correct.
>
> If you want to builsd something real, lemme know and
> I'll try to dig out the schematic of the
> all-electronic one I built.

I placed a meter on the back side of the regulator and I am getting a
6.4-11v swing.

I am only running the Fuel gauge though.  I have a capilary smiths dual
temp/oil p gauge.  Since I not using the temp gauge in the triple cluster,
could this be causing problems?

My sending unit is definately shot.  Thing is swiss cheese with rust.  So
the arm hangs up.  The first 1/2 of the swing the resistance climbs
smoothly, then it jumps and stays constant.  I could try and rewrap the
thing, but am not going to take the time to build a new housing.

All electric?  parts from the shack?  I wouldn't mind seeing that.
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 09:50:09 -0800
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] LWB to SWB
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Call me mad and impetuous if you will, but last night in a single evening I
converted a 73 109 into a SWB by shortening the bed, chassis, drive train,
exhaust and hardtop.  I even added windows to the hardtop.  How? you ask.  Well
it was all on a 109 18th scale metal model.  I have wanted a SWB 18th scale
model as a corporate toy for a while and have found there to be none available.
I bought a 109 LWB hardtop and cut it down.  It was acually quite hard to get
the proportions right because length had to be removed both in front and behind
the rear wheel arch, which cost me the filler cap.  The exhaust had to be
rerouted and the chassis customised. I JB welded the tub back together and now
will sand and paint it.  It looks very good. I was surprised.  I was also
surprised at the fact that it came into 87 pieces and was very accurately
built.  How can they do this all for $9,95 at Costco?
Mark "I must have too much time and no life" Pilkington.
Prior to this I fitted 4 new shocks to my real Landy and with them and the new
BFG's I have created a monster!

--__--__--

Message: 12
From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:42:50 EST
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In a message dated 11/17/01 12:17:28 PM, [email-masked] writes:

>I mean now that I am on the mainland I
>
>could just go ahead and get a rover frame.

hey peter- seeing some pictures of your frame, what would you say to a 
straight up trade for a marsland galvy frame that has been painted black with 
some special paint?

adam

--__--__--

Message: 13
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] LWB to SWB
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:04:41 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> will sand and paint it.  It looks very good. I was surprised.  I was also
> surprised at the fact that it came into 87 pieces and was very accurately
> built.  How can they do this all for $9,95 at Costco?
> Mark "I must have too much time and no life" Pilkington.

Sounds like a great 'little' project.  Would love to see a photo when it's
all done.

Pete

--__--__--

Message: 14
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:14:03 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> hey peter- seeing some pictures of your frame, what would you say to a
> straight up trade for a marsland galvy frame that has been painted black
with
> some special paint?
> adam

hmmmm
Problem is I built my front bumper around the frame.  No way to remount onto
a stock frame, so would have to make up a new winch mount.
Tell ya, it really isn't that hard to do.  Make an 88 frame that is.
If I ever do it again I will just try to source some 1/8 wall tubing instead
of the 1/4 and 3/16 stuff.
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 15
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:18:00 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> You know that the "lightweights" are actually heavier than the stock Land
Rover?

really?  No I didn't.  Now that is interesting, the 12v model weighs 300lbs
more then a standard 88.  The 24v another 110 above that.
But they are 300 lighter stripped, which is what I want :-)
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 16
From: "apsilon" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Brake questions
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:49:08 +1100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> The fronts can be moved to the rear if you are doing brake modification
> to increase the size of the fronts but you WILL need a different
> mastercylinder too as the original doesn't move enough fluid.

I am going to change to a dual line system so a new master cylinder is
necessary anyway. I was hoping to do all of this a bit later rather than now
having only bought the truck 4 weeks ago. Oh well, at least my tax refund
just came through.

Thanks,
Matt.
Sydney Australia
'75 Series III 88

--__--__--

Message: 17
From: "apsilon" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Brake questions
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:55:42 +1100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Sourcing new parts isn't a problem, I'm only considering the front to rear
swap because I'm going to have them lying around after the front discs go
on. The marginal brakes are a big part of why I want to change to discs up
front. The last thing I need is to rear end one of the many braindead
drivers who think if they've got enough room to get in front of you then
you've got enough room to stop.

Thanks,
Matt.
Sydney Australia
'75 Series III 88

> Front and rear slave cylinders are different sizes.  The fronts are
> significantly bigger.  The brakes are marginal enough!  It is best to put
> everything back wher it should be new and you will not regret it.  Get all
the
> parts from the Land Rover Supermarket in England.  They will have it to
you in a
> matter of days and they are cheap. I rebuilt my ENTIRE Brake system on my
SWB
> for a hundred bucks or so.
> Kind regards,
> Mark Pilkington

--__--__--

Message: 18
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:22:57 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Adam, 

Who have you been talking to?

I'm also pretty set on this motor, where did you hear of it?

J-L

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight

> 
> In a message dated 11/16/01 9:00:33 PM, [email-masked] writes:
> 
> >Time to rethink engines again :-(
> 
> i say cummins 6AT 3.4- thats what im using in my truck.
> 
> adam
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 19
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:28:38 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Adam,

That 3.4AT is probably even more massive than the 6.2!

Think about it... That cummins is huge... Pretyt low in the power output
department..

(except the torque curve is flat from 800 to 2500 rpms)

J-L (who thinks a Cummins 3.9BTi 109 would be a really cool truck... )

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight

>
> why a 6.2? they are old technolgy, and massively heavy.  not very
impressive
> output figures, either.
>
> adam
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

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

End of LRO Digest