Richard said:
>Hi Robin et al,
>>
> >The picture of the Land Rover was shot in the UK and the
vehicle
represents
> >a typical series 3 109" Land Rover,
>>
>Hmmmm, Series III; Dave who you met has one in Safari
(station wagon) guise.
>SIII - F head 6 cyl, desperately slow and thirsty as F
heads are, a penchant
>for burning exhaust valves on leaded so forget unleaded
fuel. Needs the
>Fairey overdrive to make 50 mph comfortably and has a
turning circle worse
>than a FV623 as we well know. To all intents and purposes
is suspensionless
>and will jar your spine going over a crown cork top.
A tad negative Richard concerning on of our (British)
automotive icons I feel.
6 cyl. petrol (gasoline) engine? - rare as hence teeth in a
military LR (if not generally). These will all be 2.25L
petrol, which is a traditional OHV 4 banger with no
particular vices or weak points to speak of. Not designed
for unleaded but so far appears to be quite capable of
handling it if not thrashed.
Yes they are nosiy above 50mph, but are we buying them as
military vehicles or motorway (freeway) cruisers? If the
former case, a 50 mph cruising speed with a 65-70 mph
maximum is OK I would suggest. As you note, if you want
more, you can add an overdrive, or high (low) ration
transfer box, high (low) ratio diffs. Ditto the springs, is
it the standard military HD suspension appropriate for their
intended duty you have in mind? If not, you can convert to
parabolic springs or even coils, to get a (relatively)
comfortable ride.
Out of all the military vehicles one might think to collect,
the Land Rover must be one of the most amenable to
'customising', if originality is not your thing.
>Chassis frames are the definitive example of a rust bucket,
out-riggers
>first quickly followed by rear cross-member and main
chassis rails,
>excellent welding training aid. Plus the alloy panels
pop-riveted to steel
>are not good bed-fellows, sure the steel you can _see_ is
galvanised. . . .
. . . . .
Yes the chassis rusts eventually, but the military ones are
undersealed from new and assuming you don't get one that the
Royal Marines have been playing beach landings with, it
should be good for 20 years or so without repairs. When
repairs are required, as we are talking nice thick box
sections, it couldn't be easier to do. I also have a 1950's
non military Land Rover that was not undersealed and which
is now nearly fifty years old and on its original chassis
with only minor repairs. Hardly justifies the comment 'rust
bucket' methinks.
As to the bodywork, yes, the chassis (steel)/panels
(aluminium alloy) interface can be problematical, but I can
live with that localised corrosion when compared to the
benefits of the alloy bodywork's lack of corrosion
elsewhere. As you know, the galvanised capping is there to
protect the alloy in areas of likely damage and does the job
well.
>At the first hint of winter the British authorities grit
the roads, the grit
>is 50% salt and they spread it up to 5 tons/mile. . . . . .
. . . . .
Not strictly LR's fault but true enough.
>
> I guess the watch words Caveat Emptor go along
here............
>
>Oh yes, undoubtedly.
In the case of this particular deal, yes of course, but as a
general warning to avoid military Land Rovers? The case for
the prosecution is not proved m'lud.
You aren't getting all superior on us soft skin vehicle
types are you Richard? (grin).
Regards
Andrew Morrey
Shropshire
UK
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 09:32:27 PDT