Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #159 - 24 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 03:01:08 -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. Freelander (again) (KURT W. KRAUSS)
   2. Re: 88" weight (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   3. Re: 88" weight ([email-masked])
   4. A thank you (John Cranfield)
   5. Re: Brake questions (C. Marin Faure)
   6. Re: A thank you (Phil Norris)
   7. Re: Brake questions (revised) (C. Marin Faure)
   8. Re: 88" weight (Hope Peter)
   9. Re: Re: Brake questions (Peter Ogilvie)
  10. Re: Re: Brake questions (Alan J. Richer)
  11. Re: A thank you (Scott Wickham)
  12. front halfshaft difference (Jim Hall)
  13. Re: front halfshaft difference (Jim Hall)
  14. Re: front halfshaft difference (Tim Czajka)
  15. Re: Re: front halfshaft difference (Jim Hall)
  16. Re: Re: Brake questions (revised) (Bill Fishel)
  17. Re: front halfshaft difference (Jean-Leon Morin)
  18. Re: front halfshaft difference (Jim Hall)
  19. Re: front halfshaft difference (Tim Czajka)
  20. Re: Re: front halfshaft difference (TeriAnn Wakeman)
  21. IIB information (Jean-Leon Morin)
  22. Re: front halfshaft difference (Tim Czajka)
  23. Re: more heat (Tim Czajka)
  24. Series II Rear PTO on Ebay (Andrew H. Litkowiak)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 07:42:27 -0500
From: "KURT W. KRAUSS" <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Freelander (again)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Went to my dealer and saw personnel and the truck driver trying to
unlock a Freelander still on the rig that someone had locked the keys in
(typical).  One Freelander was offloaded, though, a base S model which
was going for bottom line of $26,500.  While I read that it drives well,
it appeared somewhat plasticy.  My personal feelings is that there's an
awful lot of Libertys and CRVs (both new models, too) that will give
Freelander very serious competition.  Especially when a loaded Liberty
(with a V6, sunroof, heated leather seats) goes for the same price as a
stripped Freelander and, while I am a die-hard LR fan, I must say even
the Jeep appears of better quality.   And no one can seriously argue the
relative lack of problems found on Hondas.  I wonder how long the
"waiting lists" will actually be when the dust settles.  However, I do
applaud LR for trying to broaden its appeal here.
Kurt Krauss
1973 NAS SIII
2000 Discovery II

--__--__--

Message: 2
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 01 07:57:27 -0800
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>I want to get a Rover light weight.  So maybe I re-engine the heavy and 

Huummmm Didn't I read someplace that a topless light weight actually 
weighed more than a topless 88?

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: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:25:15 EST
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

 Mark Pilkington wrote:
You know that the "lightweights" are actually heavier than the stock Land 
Rover?

Can you elaborate?  

Paul Donohue
1965 Land Rover 109
Denver Colorado

--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:33:30 -0400
From: [email-masked] (John Cranfield)
To: LRO LIST <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] A thank you
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Some of the list members already know that 3 weeks ago I had an accident
when using a Hi-Lift jack.
This resulted in the loss of my left eye and broken facial bones. Three
operations later my face repaired with metal plates and the eye socket
is prepared for the prosthetic eye.
I had planned to use the 3 weeks to get my winter supply of wood in.
This no small task since I need about 8 cords to last through.
Some of my friends were aware of my concern and organized a work party
to do the job. So yesterday about 16 people arrived with chainsaws, log
spliters, and trucks and worked from 9am til after dark. Now I have a
basement full of fire wood.
I am not going to try to list all of those who helped, you know who you
are. Thank you so much, you have saved me a major worry.
There were also many wanting to come  but there were already enough to
do the job, thanks to them also.
John  (and Muddy)

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:14:42 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Re: Brake questions
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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]

>My question is can the front brakes be moved to the rear?

It's been a long time since I've had to work on my brakes, but if we're
talking about a Model 88 here, I believe the front and rear components are
identical.  I know the shoes are all the same in terms of size and
curvature (there two shoes on each wheel are different, and the shoes are
different left to right, but this refers primarily to the position of
spring post.)  But in terms of the drums, brake cylinders, etc. I believe
there is no difference between the front and rear brakes of an 88.  I've
never had a 109, but I seem to recall there is a difference between the
front and rear brake components on that model, or some variants of that
model.

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

--__--__--

Message: 6
From: "Phil Norris" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] A thank you
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:08:53 -0000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I didn't know, having just re-joined the list...
I wish you all the best for the future and speedy recovery.....
Regards
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cranfield <[email-masked]>
To: LRO LIST <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 November 2001 16:30
Subject: [lro] A thank you

>
>Some of the list members already know that 3 weeks ago I had an accident
>when using a Hi-Lift jack.
>This resulted in the loss of my left eye and broken facial bones. Three
>operations later my face repaired with metal plates and the eye socket
>is prepared for the prosthetic eye.
>I had planned to use the 3 weeks to get my winter supply of wood in.
>This no small task since I need about 8 cords to last through.
>Some of my friends were aware of my concern and organized a work party
>to do the job. So yesterday about 16 people arrived with chainsaws, log
>spliters, and trucks and worked from 9am til after dark. Now I have a
>basement full of fire wood.
>I am not going to try to list all of those who helped, you know who you
>are. Thank you so much, you have saved me a major worry.
>There were also many wanting to come  but there were already enough to
>do the job, thanks to them also.
>John  (and Muddy)
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:20:52 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] Re: Brake questions (revised)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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]

>My question is can the front brakes be moved to the rear?

In a previous answer, I stated I was pretty sure the front and rear
components of a Model 88 are the same.  I should have clarified that I'm
talking about a 1973 Series III-88 with vacuum boosted, dual-circuit
brakes.  On this model, the front and rear brake cylinders are, if I recall
correctly, the same size.  This may not be the case with a non-boosted, or
single-circuit Series III, or a different Series model altogether.

--__--__--

Message: 8
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] 88" weight
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:42:44 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

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

Paul replied:
> Can you elaborate?

>From the owners manual:
Series III 88" petrol hardtop is 2953 lbs.
Series III lightweight 12v with softtop is 3210 lbs
"   "  24v " " is 3330
Stripped down the lw is 2660 and 2810 respectively.

Pete

--__--__--

Message: 9
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Brake questions
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:06:57 -1000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In the 88, brake components are the same front or rear except the slave 
cylinders.  Fronts are, I think, a quarter inch larger in diameter than the 
rears.

You don't want stronger or equal braking force at the rear.  If the rears 
have more power they will lock fairly easily as weight transfers to the 
front on braking.  Interesting trying to modulate brakes while steering out 
of a rear end skid while needing to stop to keep from hitting a car crossing 
in front.  BTDT when one of my front wheel cylinders seized and Master 
Cylinder was only pumping fluid to three cylinders and thus gave the rears 
more pressure than normal, in relation to the front.  Even with only one 
front brake, had plenty of stopping power but couldn't control truck in 
panic stop unless I let off the pedal to keep the rear wheels from locking 
up.

A common move when adding 11" front drums to an 88 is to move the front 
slave cylinders to the rear.  It increases rear braking force but ratio is 
still biased to the front because of the 11" drums.

Aloha
Peter Ogilvie
Kona Coffee Rover
1970 88 soft top, 'huli' Mine since '84 but recovering
     from exposure of the dark side.
1966 109 pickup 'slime'  In my garage since '90, finally running.
1965 88 parts car, slowly sinking into the lava.
196? 88 hard top, possibly 'phoenix' if it rises, it will
     certainly be from ashes or at least a pile of rust

>From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: [lro] Re: Brake questions
>Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:14:42 -0700
>
>
>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]
>
> >My question is can the front brakes be moved to the rear?
>
>It's been a long time since I've had to work on my brakes, but if we're
>talking about a Model 88 here, I believe the front and rear components are
>identical.  I know the shoes are all the same in terms of size and
>curvature (there two shoes on each wheel are different, and the shoes are
>different left to right, but this refers primarily to the position of
>spring post.)  But in terms of the drums, brake cylinders, etc. I believe
>there is no difference between the front and rear brakes of an 88.  I've
>never had a 109, but I seem to recall there is a difference between the
>front and rear brake components on that model, or some variants of that
>model.
>
>
>________________________
>C. Marin Faure
>   (original owner)
>   1973 Land Rover Series III-88
>   1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
>    Seattle, WA
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

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

--__--__--

Message: 10
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:53:46 -0800 (PST)
From: "Alan J. Richer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Brake questions
To: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]

--- "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> But in terms of the drums, brake
> cylinders, etc. I believe
> there is no difference between the front and rear
> brakes of an 88.  

Sorry to disagree, Marin, but the brake cylinders are
different front and rear. The front cylonders are
1.25" bore, and the rear 1"...

Believe you're right on the shoes and drums, though.

             ajr

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

--__--__--

Message: 11
From: "Scott Wickham" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] A thank you
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 16:11:25 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

  Glad your back online and have wood (didn't know about this problem).

Scott Wickham Jr.
Pgh., Pa.
Fort Pitt Land Rover Group
'72 SIII
'84 RR
http://www.fplrg.org/ 

--__--__--

Message: 12
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:59:33 -0700
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: "lro" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] front halfshaft difference
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft? I need
one and saw an ad for a ser III halfshaft. I didn't think there was any
difference, but wanted to make sure.
-- 
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: 13
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:38:14 -0700
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] front halfshaft difference
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Never mind. I now see it says "with fine splined hub".

Jim Hall wrote:
> 
> Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft? I need
> one and saw an ad for a ser III halfshaft. I didn't think there was any
> difference, but wanted to make sure.
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 14
From: "Tim Czajka" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:42:37 -0700
Subject: [lro] Re: front halfshaft difference
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Jim Hall wrote:
>Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft?
>
Jim, my Rovers North catalog lists the same front
half shaft part number for Series II, IIA, and III.

Tim Czajka
1972 Series III 88

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

--__--__--

Message: 15
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:59:58 -0700
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: front halfshaft difference
Reply-To: [email-masked]

So, have any spare front short halfshafts, with normal splines of
course?

Tim Czajka wrote:
> 
> Jim Hall wrote:
> >Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft?
> >
> Jim, my Rovers North catalog lists the same front
> half shaft part number for Series II, IIA, and III.
> 
> Tim Czajka
> 1972 Series III 88
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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

Tim Czajka wrote:
> 
> Jim Hall wrote:
> >Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft?
> >
> Jim, my Rovers North catalog lists the same front
> half shaft part number for Series II, IIA, and III.
> 
> Tim Czajka
> 1972 Series III 88
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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: "Bill Fishel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: Brake questions (revised)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:57:37 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

The 74 Series 3 with vacuum boosted, dual-circuit
 brakes sitting in my driveway has different size slaves
front to rear. Its a NADA spec Rover. 
Bill Fishel
----------
> From: C. Marin Faure <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [lro] Re: Brake questions (revised)
> Date: Sunday, November 18, 2001 12:20 PM
> 
> 
> 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]
> 
> >My question is can the front brakes be moved to the rear?
> 
> In a previous answer, I stated I was pretty sure the front and rear
> components of a Model 88 are the same.  I should have clarified that I'm
> talking about a 1973 Series III-88 with vacuum boosted, dual-circuit
> brakes.  On this model, the front and rear brake cylinders are, if I recall
> correctly, the same size.  This may not be the case with a non-boosted, or
> single-circuit Series III, or a different Series model altogether.
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 17
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] front halfshaft difference
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 19:03:22 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hey, if it's any consolation, I've got a set of spare front halfshafts here,
I'd be willing to sell for really cheap...

e mail me off-line if you want them...

J-L
>
> Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft? I need
> one and saw an ad for a ser III halfshaft. I didn't think there was any
> difference, but wanted to make sure.
> --
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 18
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:03:01 -0700
From: "Jim Hall" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] front halfshaft difference
Reply-To: [email-masked]

My lucky day!!! Ralph dropped by with a short shaft from the parts 
rover. I didn't think it had one. Too bad I put the front end together
already. And since it's snowing, I don't feel like pulling it back apart
right now. Guess I'll have to drive the bronco tomorrow :(

Jean-Leon Morin wrote:
> 
> Hey, if it's any consolation, I've got a set of spare front halfshafts here,
> I'd be willing to sell for really cheap...
> 
> e mail me off-line if you want them...
> 
> J-L
> >
> > Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft? I need
> > one and saw an ad for a ser III halfshaft. I didn't think there was any
> > difference, but wanted to make sure.
> > --
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-- 
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: 19
From: "Tim Czajka" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 17:34:52 -0700
Subject: [lro] Re: front halfshaft difference
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Jim Hall wrote:
>And since it's snowing, I don't feel like pulling it back apart right now.
>
Yes snow in Colorado - what's up with that?  The way
things have been going so far I thought we might have
60 degree temps all winter:)  Time to fire up the
wood stove.

Tim Czajka
1972 Series III 88

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

--__--__--

Message: 20
Subject: Re: [lro] Re: front halfshaft difference
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 01 16:02:00 -0800
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>>Is there any difference between a IIA and III front halfshaft?
>>
>Jim, my Rovers North catalog lists the same front
>half shaft part number for Series II, IIA, and III.

If memory serves there is a Series III version that uses the early inner 
half shaft and a thicker 24 spline outer half shaft.  This allows the use 
of the Salisbury driven flange on the front.

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: 21
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:25:32 -0500
Subject: [lro] IIB information
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Good day folks,

I am doing some thinking about possible suspension modifications for my poor
old 109.

I was looking at an old book of mine, and there is a body-less illustration
of the IIB Forward Control and I was interested in the suspension design,
after admiring the Millenium Bug in all it's glory.

But something caught my eye. The rear axle is sprung over. Yes, it's a IIA
or IIB FC, not a 101.  2.25L engine, not a V8. I can't tell if the front one
is sprung over as well. Is this how early 109-based forward controls were
made or simply an artists misconception?

Okay, that's not that special. But the propshaft angles are. They're not
that bad. If it was sprung over and the drawings are accurate, it's actually
pretty surprising that with that much higher of a driveline the angles
aren't more pronounced. If this picture is good, the angles are very decent.
Interesting as well is the thickness of the leaf spring packs in the rear,
which would add considerable to the driveline angles. This means a 109 with
88" rear leafs (for increased articulation) would not gain as much
altitude...

Any insight on this would be appreciated...

thanks to all,

Jean-Lion Morin
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
__________________________________________________________________

 - Land-Rovers are not accepted for racing - not at this writing anyhow -
and they will
never replace the limousine as a way of transporting the very rich, but they
do have
style and a kind of studied carelessness. A man who rockets around the
suburbs- or
attempts to seduce fastidious women - in a Land-Rover, is obviously a man
worth
watching. He must be one who can tell society to go to hell and get away
with it.

- Car and Driver, sept 1964.

--__--__--

Message: 22
From: "Tim Czajka" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:16:49 -0700
Subject: [lro] Re: front halfshaft difference
Reply-To: [email-masked]

TeriAnn Wakeman wrote:
>If memory serves there is a Series III version that uses the early inner 
>half shaft and a thicker 24 spline outer half shaft.
>
Could this be the later 1980 plus models?  I notice in
the RN catalog that there is a separate part listing
for the outer front stub shaft for Series III models
1980 and on.  Maybe this is that 24 spline outer that
joins to the standard inner half shaft.

Tim Czajka
1972 Series III 88

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

--__--__--

Message: 23
From: "Tim Czajka" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 18:25:23 -0700
Subject: [lro] Re: more heat
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Jim Hall wrote:
>So my question is will a black heater core radiate
>noticeably more heat than a bare one?
>
I have read that paint will actually act as an insulator
and thus keep some heat from radiating out - albeit a
very thin insulator.  So will some other coatings and
platings.  For example, I read that one should stay away
from pretty chrome automatic tranny oil pans because they
do not dissipate heat as well as stock pans.

That said, when I had a shop re-core my radiator a few
years back they promptly coated it in black paint.  The
owner was unconcerned with heat transfer issues and my
radiator has worked fine.  I would say that if paint
does reduce heat transfer it is not by an amount that
will usually compromise the cooling/heating system.
Regardless I don't think paint is the issue, especially
since in your case the old painted core actually worked
better.

Could your problem be that the new core has fewer cross
tubes or more widely spaced fins?  The number of fins
and whether they are securely attached to the cross tubes
has a significant impact on cooling.  Can you see into the
inlet and outlet tubes to get a look at where the cross
tubes mate with the tanks?  If the brazing job was sloppy
these connections could be partially plugged thus reducing
coolant flow.  Another possibility is air trapped somehow
in the core.

Tim Czajka
1972 Series III 88

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

--__--__--

Message: 24
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 22:10:11 -0600
From: "Andrew H. Litkowiak" <[email-masked]>
To: Land Rover List <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Series II Rear PTO on Ebay
Reply-To: [email-masked]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=598178062

--__--__--

_______________________________________________
* 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