Your speculation about the inspection of your truck
brought something to mind. A guy down the street
rebuilt two 109 stationwagons into one very very nice
truck. Must have been 15 years ago. He offered the
truck to me for a $1,000 when he finished it. Thought
he was kidding, so didn't take him seriously. He
wasn't hurting for money and apparently had no
interest in the truck once it was fixed up. The fun
was in the resto, not the finished product. Found out
later he'd traded the truck for an old refrigerator
and a wood cooking stove. Kicked myself and still am
for not following up on that.
Anyway, the guy he sold the truck to packed the pukas
in the truck full of a locally grown medicinal herb
and shipped it to California. Somehow it's content
were discovered and the truck got confiscated on the
docks. Hear it eventually got sold at one of the DEA
auctions. Anyone on the list pick up a restored Red,
67 109 in the late '80s in California that had had the
six replaced with a 2 1/4.
Aloha
Peter O.
--- Todd Vess <toddvess@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 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
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 04:42:44 EST