Re: [lro] LWB Series III or IIa?

From: Alan J. Richer (mrchurchill109@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 10:20:49 EST

  • Next message: Todd Schlemmer: "RE: [lro] Wanted: old RR in Alberta"

    --- John <johng@kiltfart.org> wrote:
    >
    > LWB SIII or a
    > LWB SIIa what are
    > the upsides/faults of either one?

    S.III is a more conventional-looking vehicle to drive - the
    dashboard looks more car-like than the Rover functional
    design of the IIa with the center instrument binnacle.

    They also tend to be a bit more tarted-up inside with
    things like carpeting, door interiors and the like.

    Mechanically, S.IIIs have a full-synchro transmission -
    easier to shift but considered weaker than its IIa and
    earlier counterpart. The III will also likely have
    power-assisted dual-circuit brakes, start on the key rather
    than with a pushbutton, and will be newer (and potentially
    less abused).

    All that said, I personally mich prefer the IIa to the III.
    It's a ruggeder, simpler vehicle. The IIa tranny is easy to
    shift once you get used to it, and the lack of plastic
    makes it easier to get to things.

    A lot of it's personal preference - do you want to be seen
    in some plasticky Series III or a real he-person's truck -
    a II or IIa? (KIDDING, FOLKS!!!!).

                 ajr

    =====
    The journey is the destination. Anything else is illusion.

    Please ignore the following advertising.....
    Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
    http://taxes.yahoo.com/
    _______________________________________________
    LRO mailing list
    LRO@land-rover.team.net
    http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 12:04:00 EST