Subject: LRO digest, Vol 1 #187 - 24 msgs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:03:18 -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. interior door panels (Simon J. Harding)
   2. Re: Series spring over. (Jean-Leon Morin)
   3. interior door panels (Simon J. Harding)
   4. Re: Series spring over. (Peter Ogilvie)
   5. Power Brakes  ;o) (Brian Horner)
   6. Starter button vs key (Faure, Marin)
   7. Re: Series spring over. (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   8. Re: 88' Gross weight (TeriAnn Wakeman)
   9. Re: Interior Door Panels (Faure, Marin)
  10. Re: Series spring over. (Keith Tanner)
  11. Re: Tyre clearance (TeriAnn Wakeman)
  12. Re: 88' Gross weight (Mark Pilkington)
  13. RE: Interior Door Panels (Faure, Marin)
  14. Re: Series spring over. (Hope Peter)
  15. RE: 88' Gross weight (Easton Trevor A)
  16. RE: Series spring over. (Easton Trevor A)
  17. Re: Series spring over. (Jean-Leon Morin)
  18. Re: Series spring over. (Jean-Leon Morin)
  19. Re: Series spring over. (Jean-Leon Morin)
  20. Re: 88' Gross weight (Rich Williams)
  21. Loose differential pinion (joe mulqueen)
  22. KODIAK HEATERS (Bruce Wachal)
  23. Re: Series spring over. (Keith Tanner)
  24. Re: KODIAK HEATERS (Keith Tanner)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: "Simon J. Harding" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:49:52 -0800
Subject: [lro] interior door panels
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I used sheet metal screw, phillips head, with an integrated washer.  When
you look at it it looks as if there is a washer under the head of the screw,
but its actually all one piece.  I know there's a name for them but I can't
think of it.  Aren't the genuine panels backed with masonite or some other
wood like stuff, and kind of spendy?  The ones I removed from my front doors
were such, and were rotted and the screws had pierced the vinyl.  The ones
in the middle doors are still there and are in very sad shape.  IMHO, they
are water traps.  Consider using rigid black plastic (PVC?) instead.  I did
my front doors and the rear SW door this way, with a 5/8ths sheet of closed
cell insulation for about $15.00 per door.
Simon

--__--__--

Message: 2
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:01:40 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Waste of bandwidth? No way - this is very interesting to many of us I
> would suspect, after all, its the discussion of what at first may seem
> crazy ideas which often results in progress. As always when someone
> suggests something different, there will be soothsayers who either don't
> get the point (that's me) or whose perceptions of correct rovering may
> be offended (though I'm not sure there are any of those on this issue).
>
I'll soldier on then...

> I may also be coloured by the bureaucratic regulations here in Denmark,
> which prevent legal modification of a vehgicle without tests and
> documentation which even a car importer finds expensive to supply. A
> popular modification for example is the use of 109" brack drums and
> backplates (and cylinders etc.) on 88" series vehicves - which (someone
> will correct me if I am wrong here) was actually standard on the late
> 88"'s anyway. When you turn up for your MOT test in denmark every year,
> they look up the vehicles spec for the year of manufacture on the
> computer, and almost anything non-spec other than radios, ash-trays and
> furry-dice will get a failure. That makes us recitent to try hacking the
> basic design about too much.
>
Canada is much more lenient for this type of insanity... I figure if I ever
tried to sell this beast I'd have some serious licensing problems, that's IF
I found a buyer for it. I'll be in a position to rate the usefulness of
these mods in a few months when I've put sufficient mileage - on and off
road - on them...

> But it doesn't mean that i think its a lousy idea, just that for me, the
> apparent gains are not worth the trouble.
>
Simple combination - Upcoming time off from college, and new axles to play
with. Putting range rover axles in a series with leafs means as much work
with a spring over than with a conventional suspension. I just figure while
I'm doing so much grinding and cutting, I'd might as well try and get
creative. This is the stuff I live for - building things, modifying to fit
my (insanity?) needs. Then, when it's done, I'll probably be offroad trying
to break it so I can start over again.

> But I would be interested in hearing the results of your attempts.

I wouldnt worry about that part ;-)

J-L

--__--__--

Message: 3
From: "Simon J. Harding" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:09:07 -0800
Subject: [lro] interior door panels
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Whoops!  read too fast and now see you are talking about the metal with
vinyl over it panel that covers the area of the joint between the door top
and the door bottom.  I'd still use the screws I described but I take back
what I said about the masonite.  Consider looking into stripping the vinyl
off and painting the steel.  The ones I removed from my doors were very
rusty under the vinyl, especially where the little lip meets the window
edge.

Simon

--__--__--

Message: 4
From: "Peter Ogilvie" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 14:18:34 -1000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Reread my message and I wan't looking at things properly.  You do lose the 
width of the axle so that increases the distance from frame to the 
suspension.  Exactly what JL is trying to do.

Still think adding length to the springs would be a big plus for front 
articulation, a real weak point with the Rover.

Adding anything to the distance of the axles above the terrain is a real 
plus.  The underside of my 88 looks it hit a mine.  Every cross member is 
mangled, not just bent.  When I went from 15" to 16" wheels, no longer ended 
up hung up on every little pebble on the trail.  No more bangs and crashes 
and reconstruction of the undersides.  Every little millimeter of additional 
ground clearance makes a difference.

Aloha
Peter O.

>From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
>Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:17:52 -0500
>
>
>In response to Peter Ogilvie's post...
> >
> > It's simple, spring over decreases roll stability, and does nothing for
> > axle/spring perch frame clearance (one of your complaints).  A spring 
>over
> > is a pretty drastic measure just to get tire clearance.  Cutting the
>fenders
> > is a sound engineering means to accomodate larger tires.
> >
>The interference I'm getting is the axletube hitting the chassis rail where
>the bumpstop should be. You are right in assuming that the chassis's 
>one-off
>design makes this worse than a regular series truck... it is a serious
>design flaw with my chassis... I wish I had some pictures to better explain
>this.  Putting more distance between the frame and any object that goes 
>bump
>(axle tube, or the spring in a spring over) will give me a couple of inches
>clearance to install good bumpstops.... and hopefully dampen the thump on
>extreme drops or potholes.
>
>As I have mentioned, if I was merely trying to fit tires, I'd just skilsaw
>the wings... but since at the same time I'm basically redoing the entire
>suspension and driveline again, I'd figure I might as well try and make
>things work better off-road to take advantage of the larger tires and maybe
>improve articulation a bit.
>
> > I'm sure you've noticed that the serious rock crawling Jeep crowd cut 
>the
> > fenders before they lift the body.  Of course we're talking a design 
>flaw
>in
> > the TJ jeep that requires cutting or lifting the body to fit tires that
>are
> > considered normal in a stock Rover.
> >
>Yes, I'm not a big fan of the redneck machine rockcrawlers although some
>designs are interesting. The most common thing amongst rock rigs (other 
>than
>fender trimming) is to fit wider axles to their machines... This increases
>the basewidth of their vehicle, and makes the tires stick out of the body,
>and increases stability. That's one of the major ideas behind putting the
>wider coiler axles on the rover. I want to try and limit the amount of lift
>because I'd like the vehicle to gain some height to clear obstacles and
>larger tires, etc, but still be low enough to remain decently stable.
>
>I think if my front bumper ended up 5" higher than it is now, with the
>larger tires, I'd be happy. That would mean spring over, with dearched,
>deleafed, much softer springs, which would allow more body roll, and easier
>rollovers, but at the same time allow better articulation...
>
> > To get frame clearance from the suspension, you've got to get all the
> > suspension further away from the body.  A spring over exchanges the 
>spring
> > pack for the axle as the parts closest to the frame.  It doesn't change
>the
> > distance of the two, however.
>
>Yes it does. The spring rate is the same. The spring will stay in the same
>spot whether the axles in above or below it... Therefore it will "raise" 
>the
>vehicle... Theoretically, if you move the axle tube to the bottom of the
>spring, you gain the thichkness of the axletube between the spring's upper
>surface and the chassis - more travel.
>
>   Taller springs and/or mounts combined with
> > longer front springs will increase articulation/distance of the pieces
>from
> > the frame.  Larger tires will decrease the apparoach/departure angle.
>Might
> > want to work out the geometry to see if the frame modifications to fit 
>the
> > longer front springs doesn't actually decrease approach/departure angles
>in
> > combination with taller tires.
> >
>One of the reasons I'm not willing to get into longer springs until I get
>this one together. I want to make sure that there is some room to put rear
>leafs in front.
>
>J-L
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:25:08 -0800
From: Brian Horner <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Power Brakes  ;o)
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Has anyone upgraded a Series III 88" to power brakes?  I saw a article on
TeriAnns site about her upgrading to dual power brakes on her 109.  Has
anyone else done this? Was it expensive? Was it worth it?  My brakes are
just horrible and would love to have something more dependable.  I am
wondering if a Defender brake system would work?

Thanks

Brian "Yet another question" Horner

------------------------
http://www.roverme.org
"Land Rover community, links and email services."

--__--__--

Message: 6
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Land Rover Mail Group'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:36:22 -0800
Subject: [lro] Starter button vs key
Reply-To: [email-masked]

It's interesting how trends come and go.  One of the 
car manufacturers, I can't remember which one, is 
making a big deal out of the fact that one of 
their new models starts by pushing a button, 
"just like the great sports cars of yesterday" to 
paraphrase their ad.  I think it might be Jaguar, 
come to think of it.

Starter pushbuttons are fine.  The diesels 
in our trawler are started by pushing big 
chrome buttons.  Pushing 
the starter button for each of the diesels 
in our trawler also activates a solenoid 
that connects our two 8D batteries 
together in parallel for maximum starting 
energy. The batteries are connected for 
as long as you hold down the start button.

Buttons are good and so are spring-
loaded toggle switches.  The de Havilland 
Beavers I fly all use a big, spring-loaded toggle 
switch to activate the starter (as does the 
generator on our trawler).

But while either of these devices is a 
perfectly delightful device for sending 
power to a starter motor, I can't help 
wondering why not simply replace the 
ignition switch with a new one if the original 
one is failing?  If the problem is with the 
barrel lock and key, you can replace 
both from Rovers North for a whopping 
$8.50.  A negative ground switch is a 
staggering $36.  Finding a proper push
button or toggle switch for the starter, 
buying it (if you don't just salvage it from 
somewhere) installing it, running all the 
wires, re-wiring it after you discover 
you wired it wrong the first time, has 
a cost and time value far exceeding 
the $50 or so it would cost to buy a new
one, take it out of the box, and put it in.

Based on my experience with my SIII, 
the ignition key is not the same cut as the 
door key, so you won't be adding another 
key to the ring by replacing a bad ignition 
switch with a new one.

But if you really want a big button to push 
instead of turning a key, try 
the marine stores if you live in a harbor town.
Most of the diesels in trawlers and commercial 
fishing boats use pushbuttons to 
engage the starter.  I can't imagine 
that they're very expensive.

And here's a suggestion for people wanting 
to deter potential car thieves (for any kind of 
car, not just Land Rovers).  Run a wire from one 
of the input wires on the coil to ground through a 
switch you can access.  On one of my cars, I glued 
a speaker balance knob to a SPST toggle switch 
that I mounted on the lower part of the panel near 
the radio/CD player. You want to be able to 
get at the switch, but you don't want it to attract 
attention or be obvious as to what it is.  
When you park, simply flip 
'the switch to ground the coil.  As long as the switch 
is not obvious, someone breaking into the car may 
punch the ignition or short it to activate the starter, 
but the engine will never start even though it will 
turn over just fine because the coil will be grounded 
out.  Don't use a brightly colored wire, and run the 
wire in conjunction with other parts of the wiring 
harness so it doesn't stand out.

Of course, when you get back in, you'll have to 
remember to flip the switch the other way otherwise
the engine won't start for you, either.

This is not my idea, but a suggestion I was given 
by an acquaintance in the Seattle Police Department 
a number of years ago.  Car alarms can be defeated 
(or ignored), ignition switches can be bypassed, usually 
within seconds, but if a car won't start even after 
a thief has done all the "normal" things, he'll 
generally give up almost immediately and go in search 
of something else.  According to my SPD 
acquaintance, stealing cars is all about time.  If 
they can't be stolen in less than a minute or two, 
the thieves will move on.

The coil ground is a nice thing to use in conjunction 
with a Club.  The Club is easy to defeat, either 
by punching its lock or cutting the steering wheel 
and removing it.  But it will make the thief think 
he's defeated your anti-theft effort.  Then when 
the car fails to start, he'll figure there's something 
wrong with it and bail.  A coil ground is a super-
easy thing to install, and is apparently one of the 
most effective things you can do.

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

--__--__--

Message: 7
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 01 16:02:29 -0800
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>The most common thing amongst rock rigs (other than
>fender trimming) is to fit wider axles to their machines... This increases
>the basewidth of their vehicle, and makes the tires stick out of the body,
>and increases stability. That's one of the major ideas behind putting the
>wider coiler axles on the rover. 

I have a friend who's is selling front and rear 101 axle assemblies if 
you want width plus strength.  The 101 assemblies are the stongest 
available on any Land Rover, while the coiler swivel ball assemblies are 
much lighter duty than stock series swivel assemblies.

Why go half way?

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: 8
Subject: Re: [lro] 88' Gross weight
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 01 15:57:01 -0800
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Does anyone know the gross weight of a Series II SWB

4353 pounds on tarmac (3 standard people plus 1000 pounds)
4253 pounds cross country (3 standard people plus 800 pounds)

For extra credit:

Rover defines a standard person as weighing 167 pounds

Land Rover springs are rated to carry  somewhere around 75-85% of the 
added weight on the rear springs.

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: 9
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Land Rover Mail Group'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:45:50 -0800
Subject: [lro] Re: Interior Door Panels
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:33:56 -0800
From: Brian Horner <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Interior Door Panels
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>So I just received the two upper left-hand and right-hand side interior
door
panels for my Series III 88" and I am confused on something here.  Rovers
North told me to drill these bad boys in using finishing screws - is this
the preferred method?

All I can tell you is that when I received my brand new SIII in 1973, the 
fabric-covered panels, which were made out of some sort of pressboard 
it seemed like, were held to the door frame with little, black, round-head 
machine screws.  The holes went right through the fabric and backing and 
lined up with holes drilled in the door frame.  Each machine screw had
a small washer on it to "spread the load" a bit against the fabric.

I have since replaced my original panels with composite panels from a 
manufacturer in Wales, but they still use the same holes in the door 
frame that the original fabric-covered panels used.

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

--__--__--

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:44:48 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I've got 235/85-16 tires on Basil along with parabolic springs. Hanging out 
in Moab with modified D-90s, I don't think I ever hit the frame. The stock 
4" sills, once. Big tires make a big difference.

I've been out in the woods with J-L, and he's right about the size of those 
109s. Huge! I think the increased breakover will be worth the effort of 
lifting the truck. Plus with that frame, his C-G is lower than a standard 
Rover.

Keith

--__--__--

Message: 11
Subject: Re: [lro] Tyre clearance
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 01 16:12:41 -0800
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: "LRO list" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>J-l,  look at a military frame,  a 2 inch lift is provided by the simple
>expedient of using deeper brackets for mounting the front of the springs
>and using a 2 inch longer shackle at the rear. Castor angles are
>maintained and prop shaft drive angles are still within reasonable
>limits.  Not a lot of welding and cutting required, much less than all
>the axle work you are going to do.

They also put a front prop shaft clearence notch in the under bulkhead 
crossmember and extend the length of the bumper stops so you do not bind 
the 'U' joint on full upper articulation.

I can tell you from experience what happens when you bind that front U 
joint.

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: 12
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:56:53 -0800
From: Mark Pilkington <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] 88' Gross weight
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Extra credit for sure.  Thanks.

TeriAnn Wakeman wrote:

> >Does anyone know the gross weight of a Series II SWB
>
> 4353 pounds on tarmac (3 standard people plus 1000 pounds)
> 4253 pounds cross country (3 standard people plus 800 pounds)
>
> For extra credit:
>
> Rover defines a standard person as weighing 167 pounds
>
> Land Rover springs are rated to carry  somewhere around 75-85% of the
> added weight on the rear springs.
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 13
From: "Faure, Marin" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Land Rover Mail Group'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:58:52 -0800
Subject: [lro] RE: Interior Door Panels
Reply-To: [email-masked]

From: Brian Horner <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Interior Door Panels
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Rovers
North told me to drill these bad boys in using finishing screws - is this
the preferred method?

TeriAnn's post is correct.  I'd forgotten that the lower panel had those 
spring steel clips. They pushed into holes drilled in the door frame and 
expanded to hold the bottom of the panel in place (in theory).  The 
door pull handle screws also held the panel in place, and I recall that 
the screws holding the plastic covers over the door locks also held the 
panels, but I'm a bit hazy on that.

Anyway, it's rather academic as the originals were about the most 
poorly constructed pieces of crap I've ever seen in an automobile.  
The pressboard backing swelled with moisture, the vinyl came unglued, 
and the lower and middle panels pretty much fell apart on their own 
within a couple of years.  The upper door panels, the ones right 
below the window, have held up fine, however, for 28 years. Go figure.

There are some nice one-piece panels on the market, and the 
shape of the door is such that you can also fabricate something 
pretty easily.  My first replacement lower panels were ones I made 
from mahogany ply.  My current ones are black composites.
_________________________________________
C. Marin Faure
(original owner)
1973 Land Rover Series III-88
1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
Seattle

--__--__--

Message: 14
From: "Hope Peter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:37:40 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

J-L,
when I made my frame I did as a few have mentioned about repositioning the
axle mounts.
I basically lowered all the holes by 2".
I made new wedge shaped pieces for the front hangers.
I used the rear-rear welded to the frame thing for the front-rear mount.
Then made my own rear-rear mount.
Wasn't too hard to do, compared to building the whole frame :-)
Let me know if ya want a photo.
Pete

--__--__--

Message: 15
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
To: "'Mark Pilkington '" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked] '"
  <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] 88' Gross weight
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:28:46 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Miss G, IIA 88" SW weighed in at 3600lbs exactly with Marsland Chassis, Half
tank of gas, Tools, shackles and high lift on board.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Pilkington
To: [email-masked]
Sent: 12/12/01 4:05 PM
Subject: [lro] 88' Gross weight

Does anyone know the gross weight of a Series II SWB
Thanks
Mark
_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
[email-masked]
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 16
From: Easton Trevor A <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked] '" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:39:08 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

For articulation, what you need is to eliminate the roll resitance of
diagonally opposite wheels. This can be done by an anti-roll bar that
connects the wheels diagonally or a fluid suspension that provides fore and
aft connections on the same side. The Austin Hydrolastic suspension is a
good example of the latter. One way to achieve this wopuld be to take part
of the suspension load through the dampers by pressurising them so the force
acting on the rod area provides an extending action. Then connect left front
to left back etc. By varying the pressure the suspension height could be
changed and the front to back fluid transfer provides the diagonal
compliance for articulation. A small gaseous resevoir is needed close to the
damper to allow for the volume variation as the unit extens and retracts or
else very high pressures could be developed.

Not quite as simple as it all sounds but within the realms of practicality

--__--__--

Message: 17
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:09:08 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> Still think adding length to the springs would be a big plus for front
> articulation, a real weak point with the Rover.

Definitely. I just don't feel like cutting 20ft of weld bead at the
moment...
>
> Adding anything to the distance of the axles above the terrain is a real
> plus.  The underside of my 88 looks it hit a mine.  Every cross member is
> mangled, not just bent.  When I went from 15" to 16" wheels, no longer
ended
> up hung up on every little pebble on the trail.  No more bangs and crashes
> and reconstruction of the undersides.  Every little millimeter of
additional
> ground clearance makes a difference.
>
My chassis is a lot higher up than the stock rover chassis, this is a plus
because I tend to get hung up on the middle because of the length. I feel 5"
will make a lot of difference, basically making it possible to run the usual
88" trails without having too much trouble...

J-L

--__--__--

Message: 18
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:26:05 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I have a friend who's is selling front and rear 101 axle assemblies if
> you want width plus strength.  The 101 assemblies are the stongest
> available on any Land Rover, while the coiler swivel ball assemblies are
> much lighter duty than stock series swivel assemblies.
>
Uhh. Thanks but no thanks. The main reason for my choice was brakes and lug
pattern. Since 101" still have drums and a 6 lug pattern, I'd have to change
wheels, etc. I wanted to be able to use stock series wheels as a design
criteria, in order to make the vehicle as stock looking as possible, and
allow me to use a spare from some other bloke if need be, or borrow Eric
Riston's swampers ;-)

> Why go half way?
Personally, I would rather have perfection in the braking dept and lighter
weight over the added beef and weight of 101 axles. Plus, the 3.54 gears are
much better suited to my 300 cube six, which monas and groans at the current
cruise RPM... I don't view coiler axles as "halfway" at all. They just suit
my needs better.

J-L

--__--__--

Message: 19
From: "Jean-Leon Morin" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 22:31:04 -0500
Reply-To: [email-masked]

> I've been out in the woods with J-L, and he's right about the size of
those
> 109s. Huge! I think the increased breakover will be worth the effort of
> lifting the truck. Plus with that frame, his C-G is lower than a standard
> Rover.

Yes, and imagine it now! I have lights I don't want to break! 109's can be a
handful, especially when you off-road with 88's who love getting into tight
spaces. Such fun to make 15 point turns and thrash taillights.

I hadn't thought of the lower CG because of the chassis, Keith. I wonder how
heavy that sucker really is. Since I took it off the trailer by myself, and
lived, I think I'd be best NOT to know.

J-L

--__--__--

Message: 20
From: "Rich Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] 88' Gross weight
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:33:50 -0800
Reply-To: [email-masked]

FWIW...

>From an original Series II owner's manual dated August 1960:

Running weight (water, oil, 5 gallons of fuel):

88 Regulars
2900 lbs for petrol models and 3095 lbs for diesel models

88 Station Wagons
3228 lbs for petrol models and 3423 lbs for diesel models

(yes, I know, that's not the gross weight)

:o)

Rich Williams
1960 Series II 109 SW

----- Original Message ----- 
From: TeriAnn Wakeman <[email-masked]>
To: LRO list <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [lro] 88' Gross weight

> 
> >Does anyone know the gross weight of a Series II SWB
> 
> 4353 pounds on tarmac (3 standard people plus 1000 pounds)
> 4253 pounds cross country (3 standard people plus 800 pounds)
> 
> For extra credit:
> 
> Rover defines a standard person as weighing 167 pounds
> 
> Land Rover springs are rated to carry  somewhere around 75-85% of the 
> added weight on the rear springs.
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

--__--__--

Message: 21
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 20:56:49 -0800 (PST)
From: joe mulqueen <[email-masked]>
To: LRO <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lro] Loose differential pinion
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hello,
The front dif pinion on my SIIA has been a little
loose (side to side) for a long time.  I'm surprised
the oil seal has held up (yes it does have oil in
it!).  I don't often use 4wd and when I do there are
no sounds up front but I'd like to correct this
problem.  Is it fairly easy or should the entire dif
be torn down?
Thanks, I appreciate the help!
Joe Mulqueen
'67 SIIA 109
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--__--__--

Message: 22
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:01:01 -0600
From: Bruce Wachal <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [lro] KODIAK HEATERS
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Does anyone out there know anything about kodiak heaters?
I've never seen one. Where do they mount,how do they work,what so they
look like,are they effective in extreme weather?
Does anyone know a good place to get one?
Thanks,

Epsilon.

--__--__--

Message: 23
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:01:04 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] Series spring over.
Reply-To: [email-masked]

>Yes, and imagine it now! I have lights I don't want to break! 109's can be a
>handful, especially when you off-road with 88's who love getting into tight
>spaces. Such fun to make 15 point turns and thrash taillights.

I seem to recall a number of ATV trails. How I didn't trash that safari 
roof, I'll never know. BTW, speaking of lights, I've got two Hella 3000s 
and two 4000s for Basil now. Three Euro beams and a cornering beam, all 
9.5" in diameter and 100 W bulbs each. Heh heh heh...

Good thing I'm redoing the electrics. I think I'll need to upgrade the 
alternator.

>I hadn't thought of the lower CG because of the chassis, Keith. I wonder how
>heavy that sucker really is. Since I took it off the trailer by myself, and
>lived, I think I'd be best NOT to know.

Well, a stock 88 frame with close-to-stock wall thickness weighs somewhere 
in the neighbourhood of 300-350 lbs IIRCs a bit of a pain to manouver 
around. The "sport" frame that Basil has now is probably no more than 200 
lbs, based on the wall thickness. Given the massive girders that your frame 
is made of, I would expect it to be at least 400 lbs for 88 length. Add to 
that your engine - is that thing as heavy as a 2.25? You've probably got a 
very low C-G.

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

--__--__--

Message: 24
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:03:50 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: Keith Tanner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [lro] KODIAK HEATERS
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Check this site out for photos and descriptions of the various sorts. I 
used it to identify my heater as a Mk III. Or at least, the author 
identified it for me and used my truck as an example!

http://php.indiana.edu/~idgoss/kodiaks/kodiak.html

Keith

At 00:01 13-12-01, you wrote:

>Does anyone out there know anything about kodiak heaters?
>I've never seen one. Where do they mount,how do they work,what so they
>look like,are they effective in extreme weather?
>Does anyone know a good place to get one?
>Thanks,
>
>Epsilon.
>_______________________________________________
>LRO mailing list
>[email-masked]
>http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro

------------
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