My 5-door 109" SIII arrived from England today! The fuel cap was open and
the tires were deflated to about 15 psi each. No fuel at all left in the
tank. (It only had about a half a gallon when I left it at the shipping
company in London six weeks ago.)
I'm assuming Customs opened the fuel cap to make sure it wasn't packed with
something illegal, though they obviously didn't check inside, as none of the
parts bins appeared to have been opened. (I shoulda stuck some Cuban cigars
on board. . .)
Do they lower the tire psi for a reason, or do you think it was it too tall
to fit in the ship? It barely fits in my garage with the tires fully
inflated.
Todd Vess
Windsor, Colo.
1990 Range Rover
1972 SIII 109" CSW Euro 6 cyl (Home finally!) "Effie"
1969 SIIA 109" Pick-Up Euro 6 (Arriving Saturday morning) "Annie"
1971 Mini "Minnie"
1993 VW EuroVan
> From: Peter Ogilvie <roverhi@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: lro@koan.team.net
> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 08:54:04 -0800 (PST)
> To: lro@koan.team.net
> Subject: Re: [lro] See, it all figures...
>
>
> Ocean shipping is not billed by weight but by cube.
> The amount of freight a ship can carry is almost
> always limited by physical size of the cargo, not
> weight. Draining a few gallons of gas out of every
> car wouldn't even count as to the number of autos the
> ship could carry. It's limited by space. Possibly
> may effect the amount of HP and thus fuel to drive the
> ship, however. If they save a 100 pounds in fuel,
> that's 50,000#s less water that has to be displaced
> and pushed out of the way as the ship moves.
>
> There may be something to limiting the amount of
> gasoline that could spill. Twenty gallons of gas
> splashed on a deck full of vehicles could be enough to
> light the entire ship on fire. Of course most fuel
> leaks are pin hole corrosion that lets the gasoline
> drip out and evaporate before it can accumulate. A
> full tank is definitely less of an explosion hazard,
> however.
>
> Aloha
> Peter O.
>
>
>
>> I talked to a bloke about this when I shipped
>> Smudger to the
>> USA. He said they were most concerned about two
>> factors, i.e.
>> weight and the possibility fuel would spill when
>> rough seas
>> were encountered or an accident resulted in a
>> ruptured fuel
>> tank. Less fuel in the tanks equates to less
>> spillage.
>>
>> Figuring about 4kg (~9 lbs.) per (US) gallon of
>> petrol, and an
>> average auto holding ~15 gallons of fuel, and let's
>> say 100
>> autos per shipload, you could save up to 5700kg
>> (12,600 lbs or
>> 6+ US tons) by draining all but 1 gallon of fuel
>> from each one.
>> That represents ~3 more cars or equivalent cargo
>> tonnage per
>> ship.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> dj
>> 1974 SIII Airportable, 'Smudger'
>>
>> At 08:01 27-03-03 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>> A tank full of gas is much safer than a tank full
>> of fumes, which is why I
>>> don't understand why shipping companies only let
>> you ship vehicles from
>>> England to the US with less than a gallon of fuel.
>> They say the fuel is a
>>> fire hazard. . . and the fumes aren't?
>>>
>>> Todd Vess
>> _______________________________________________
>> LRO mailing list
>> LRO@land-rover.team.net
>> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> LRO mailing list
> LRO@land-rover.team.net
> http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
LRO@land-rover.team.net
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 00:56:51 EST