The Coil Sprung (Land-Rover) Owner List Daily Digest

Send Submissions uk-lro@Land-Rover.Team.Net

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:04:57 -0800 (PST)
From: John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org>
Subject: Returned mail: Host unknown (fwd)

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:56:10 -0800 (PST)
From: John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org>
Subject: Feeling outcast

As an involuntary outcast from the LRO list, it seems that most of the
folks who want separate lists are the series folks who look down on us
mere "plushies". 

If so, it would seem more logical for THEM to split off and form their own
list rather than take over the existing one and force us plushies out. I
can see the sense in separate destinations or sub-lists for technical
messages affecting one type or another, but the "LRO" list means Land
Rover Owners which I naively thought we all were.  Therefore I propose
that we stay on the LRO list, NOT agree to being unceremoniously kicked
off, and NOT agree to the series takeover of the main LRO list and name.
We should request that the series separatists form their own technical
list under some other name. 

Cheers

John Brabyn
89RR

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:55:10 -0800
From: Christopher Boese <cboese@co.san-bernardino.ca.us>
Subject: plushmobile ghetto

John Brabyn wrote:

> messages affecting one type or another, but the "LRO" list means Land
> Rover Owners which I naively thought we all were....
> We should request that the series separatists form their own technical
> list under some other name.

I fear that the list isn't, and never was a democracy. We have to thank 
Bill Caloccia for maintaining it, and it seems he would prefer only 
Series owners on the land-rover-owner list. Also, it seems that if any of 
us persist in posting to land-rover-owner, we'll get told off, as I 
was earlier this week when I tried to reply to a post on fluid couplings 
for the Range Rover. It seems that the split is a done deal. I haven't 
decided whether Series snobbery stems from jealousy on the part of those 
who can't afford Range Rovers, Discoveries, and Defenders, or whether it 
was just because we invaded their classic-car club.

As for me, I'd rather not deal with being flamed for owning a Discovery. 
I would expect to be excoriated by jealous Jeep owners, but I won't 
accept it from those who also own something that says Land Rover on it, 
yet who don't acknowledge our vehicles' common bloodline.

-- 
Christopher Boese
County of San Bernardino, California
Information Services, Information Systems Security Office
'95 beluga black LAND ROVER Discovery V8i

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

From: "David Chamberlain (Starwave)" <davidcha@starwave.com>
Subject: D90 Sunvisor
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 15:34:00 PST

Gee, here is a serious flaw in my D90.  I purchased it in the dead of   
winter, which in Seattle usually just means rain.  However, a strange and   
unfamiliar bright light came on the other morning during my drive to   
work.  It finally dawned on me that the SUN was actually out!  Here's the   
problem:  I flipped my sunvisor down and it whacked straight into my rear   
view mirror and moved it out of position.  The passenger sunvisor did the   
same thing.

Has anyone found a way to fix this?  Other than wearing dark sunglasses?   
 Is this LR's way of evening us up with other LR's that are sans cup   
holders?

 - Dave  

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 15:45:18 -0800 (PST)
From: John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org>
Subject: Re: plushmobile ghetto

On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, Christopher Boese wrote:
> ... It seems that the split is a done deal. I haven't 
> decided whether Series snobbery stems from jealousy on the part of those 
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 10 lines)]
> accept it from those who also own something that says Land Rover on it, 
> yet who don't acknowledge our vehicles' common bloodline.

Christopher -- so true and well said. For practical purposes I am sure 
you are right and we should let the issue die. It still seems a shame to 
me, but I guess we must ask ourselves whether we should continue to 
inflict our presence where we are clearly not wanted -- not a nice 
feeling. 

Here's to the future

Cheers

John Brabyn
89RR

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:52:08 -0500
From: Shaun Carrigan <shaunc@infi.net>
Subject: No more p-word

I for one was getting tired of the all the p****mobile digs (and wasted 
bandwidth). I would bet the RRO list has grown a lot in the past few 
days.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I'd like to follow up on my winch 
question. The "portable" winches that fit in a receiver... How portable 
are they? Size, weight, capacity, cost? And what is required to mount a 
front receiver on a Range Rover. Is it a welding job or strictly a bolt 
on?

Thanks to all for replies to my previous post.

Shaun Carrigan
'88 RR

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 16:08:24 -0800 (PST)
From: John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org>
Subject: Re: D90 Sunvisor

Dave -- you'll be encouraged to know that Range Rovers have a similar 
flaw -- the sun visor cannot be turned to the sideways position without 
risk of wrenching it from its moorings because the bump in the headliner 
in front of the sunroof stops it. I expect the sun shines so seldom in 
Solihull that they did not get a chance to test out such features as sun 
visors before beginning production!

Cheers

John Brabyn
89RR

On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, David Chamberlain (Starwave) wrote:

> Gee, here is a serious flaw in my D90.  I purchased it in the dead of   
> winter, which in Seattle usually just means rain.  However, a strange and   
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 15 lines)]
>  Is this LR's way of evening us up with other LR's that are sans cup   
> holders?
>  - Dave  

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 16:35:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Edwards <edwardsj@ohsu.EDU>
Subject: Re: Feeling outcast

I like this suggestion and support it wholeheartedly. As a past and 
probably future series owner and current Disco owner, I agree with the 
dislike of the tone of many series owners toward those of use with newer 
LAND ROVERs on the land rover owner list.

>John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org> wrote "Therefore I propose
>that we stay on the LRO list, NOT agree to being unceremoniously kicked
>off, and NOT agree to the series takeover of the main LRO list and name.
>We should request that the series separatists form their own technical
>list under some other name.

Any suggestions on how we should accomplish this? Should we send "polite" 
notes like Terianns to anyone using the term plushmobile? Or should we 
push for division into a Land Rover owner list with seperate tech list 
for series, range rover, disco owners, another recent suggestion which I 
thought had merit.

Someone else want to contribute?

Jim Edwards
1995 Discovery

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

From: Daryl Webb <dwebb@waite.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: HELLO WAKEY WAKEY...
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:16:12 +1030 (CDT)

YES I'M SHOUTING... I'M  SERIOUSLY PISSED OFF... ARRGGGHHHHHH   PING. 
1,2,3,4,5........ 100,101.......400,......648,.....872,.....998,999,1000.

AH thats a little better.  Ok this message is going to both the LRO and 
RRO lists (hey I subscribe to both and can recall when the LRO list had 
less than 50 of us and the RRO list had 5, this does not make me better, 
but at least I know a little of the history)

A few things that are really starting to get to me.

1. I strongly doubt that Bill C, has any desire to keep the LRO list for 
series cars only, Sh*t look at his .sig file he ownes "both" types of 
land rover.  Bill is the lists maintainer, he doesnt control what goes in 
it or who subscribes to what.  He is long suffering and deserves a lot 
more thanks than he ever gets.  (OK Bill, if i'm off base jump on me now...)

2. The recently named "plushmobile ghetto" is not new...  It has been 
around for over 5 months. I understand it was formed to provide a forum for 
the discussion of peculiarly Rangie/Disco/V8/etc type questions. Like the 
plethora of CD changer type questions that pissed so many people on the 
LRO list off.  RRO *is* the appropriate forum for this type of question, 
it is highly vehicle specific, and of *no* interest to non CD equiped 
vehicles.   
If you have recently subscribed to RRO welcome, lets use it for its 
intended purpose, not for bitching about being driven off the main list. 
I hope the RRO list will now go from strength to strength, and develop 
the camaraderie once so prevelant on the LRO list.

3. I dont believe that the LRO list should be purely series, BUT, there is 
no need for that list to be swamped by discussions on CD changers, ECU 
modules and electric leather seats.  Post questions and messages to the 
appropriate group, you will upset less people and probably get a better 
and possible more accurate answer.
Posting questions to inappropriate groups drives off a lot of very 
knowledgable people to local groups.  If this can be reduced some may 
come back and we will *all* benefit.

BTW welcome back Russ, hope Nigel is well, I cant afford him to get sick
at the moment :-)  Please stay around, we (well at least I) do miss you.

4. If you dont understand the last line then hang around the LRO list, 
this list has a history, and that is part of what makes it great and 
gives it so much strength.

5. Get to know your list personalities, we have many.  
To those recently chastised by TeA, you aint the first. Personally I'm 
glad to see "mum" back and active on the list, though i'm sure to get a 
few personal "messages" from her (g).

If you dont know about shipfitter's disease, nigel's disease, Taylor, the 
great race, or what beer a proper land rover owner should drink, listen 
and learn, You'll make a lot of friends....

Oh and for the record *everyone* knows that real OZ LRO's only drink 
Coopers Ale (ok pale ale, brown ale and extra stout too). We *Never* 
drink Fo***rs by choice.  (sorry mum, I had too...)

Ok I feel better now, lets get back to "normal" LRO and RRO programming

cheers

P.S> I have a new mailer too ande the spl cheker doosnt wroc.
-- 

  Daryl Webb   (dwebb@waite.adelaide.edu.au)

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

From: lenagham@inetmail.bachman.com
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 19:50:14 EST
Subject: Re: No more p-word

     Shaun,
     
     I agree. I joined the rro list because of all the c**p about 
     plushmobiles. I will monitor the lro list for a while for things that 
     interest me but I have to admit that I've been overworking the delete 
     key for the last week.
     
     The front mounted receiver I fixed onto my RR was a straight bolt on, 
     assuming the spoiler is not there. You also need to remove the front 
     tow attachment. I bought the receiver from Rovers North, it is 
     advertised for the Discovery. When I ordered it, it did not come with 
     the bolts needed to mount it. They are longer and stronger than the 
     bumper mounting bolts they replace.
     
     Regards
     Mike Lenaghan
     

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

From: mcdan@Rt66.com (Daniel McDonough)
Subject: Re: D90 Sunvisor
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:05:34

In article  "David Chamberlain (Starwave)" <davidcha@starwave.com> writes:
>Gee, here is a serious flaw in my D90.  I purchased it in the dead of   
>.
>problem:  I flipped my sunvisor down and it whacked straight into my rear   
>view mirror and moved it out of position.  The passenger sunvisor did the   
>same thing.

Lots of sun here in New Mexico :-)

On my D-90's the mirror mount has pivots at both ends, You can lower
the mirror so that the visors don't hit it.

   |      V
   |      V <- Visor
   |M     V
   |MO\   V
   | ^ \  M
   | |  \OM <- Mirror
   | |   
   | L___|_____Pivots
   | 
   | <- Windscreen

The only thing I don't like about lowering the mirror is that I can't
see tailgaiters behind me.

Now if I could swing the visor to the side window.

Daniel McDonough   mcdan@rt66.com
95 D-90
95 D-90 SW

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:08:57 -0800
From: Christopher Boese <cboese@co.san-bernardino.ca.us>
Subject: plushmobile ghetto - a clarification

OK, I promise this will be the last one from me on this topic!

When I wrote:

I fear that the list isn't, and never was a democracy. We have to thank
Bill Caloccia for maintaining it, and it seems he would prefer only
Series owners on the land-rover-owner list. Also, it seems that if any of
us persist in posting to land-rover-owner, we'll get told off...

I actually meant to thank Bill for his energy and for the service he's 
done for everyone on *all* the lists. Yeah, I received some quite 
unpleasant criticism, but not from Bill. It seems I may have been rather 
hasty in assuming that we Discovery owners were being dissed. I was 
just struck by the suddenness of the split in the lists and the reaction 
I got when I posted to the "wrong" one.

-- 
Christopher Boese
County of San Bernardino, California
Information Services, Information Systems Security Office
'95 beluga black Discovery V8i

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

Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:13:55 -0800
From: Christopher Boese <cboese@co.san-bernardino.ca.us>
Subject: Re: D90 Sunvisor

Daniel McDonough wrote:

> Now if I could swing the visor to the side window.

It's *really* difficult to do this on a Discovery as well. The visor jams 
against the map pockets as it's coming out of its clip.

Thank God there's a safe, separate list for this sort of thing.

-- 
Christopher Boese
County of San Bernardino, California
Information Services, Information Systems Security Office
'95 beluga black Discovery V8i

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

From: Steve Willey-pc <steve.willey-pc@attws.com>
Subject: RR '90 NAS: idle not idle
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:47:15 -0800

Help, my car is trying to run away!

In neutral the engine idles at 3000 rpm (which is _at least_ twice the
normal idle)  

It started when I backed out of my drive onto a fairly busy street.  There
had been no traffic before I pulled out, but as soon as I got out there,
there was a car being driven quite fast closing on me at a high rate.  I put
it in drive and stomped on the accelerator, put it to the floor and kept it
there until my oldish (134K + Miles) car came up to reasonable cruising
speed, maybe 35-40 mph.  

I immediately noticed that the something was amiss.  If I took my foot off
the pedal the car would continue with only minimal decrease in speed and the
pedal would have 'play' like it was not being returned all of the way 'out.'
 Stopping at a stop light it was difficult to contain forward momentum.  

It seems like the heavy acceleration right out of the gate confused
something into thinking that 3000 rpm was an appropriate idle speed.  I
tried disconnecting and reconnecting the ECU in hopes that a 'hard reboot'
would help.  No lock.  Also, note that the cruise control is off (button on
the dash off).  The slackness of the gas petal is similar to when the car is
cruising with Cruise Control set.

Any ideas?

If I don't hear much from this list I'll break the rules and cross post to
lro, but I'd thought that I would at least start off behaving.  

Cheers,
Steve

----
Steve Willey
steve.willey@attws.com
AT&T Wireless Services
Kirkland, WA
206.803.7693	206.419.8044	fax: 206.803.7407

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

Subject: Re: Feeling outcast 
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 22:29:16 -0500
From: William Caloccia <caloccia@OpenMarket.com>

Not put a damper on your party, but it seems as though one Teriann W@eworld
has unsubscribed from the LRO list.  So be cautious of what you ask for,
'cause sometimes it comes true.

All in all you miss the point.

There has been two lists, there will be two lists, you can subscribe to
one or either of them, or none if that suits your purpose.  But if you're
just going to clutter this one whinging about what is or what could be
as far as organization of the lists you can either shut up, or go start
your own list.

My proclaimation of the use of the lists is really quite insignificant
except in your petty bickering little minds.  If people  want to gather
together under the rro list to talk about coil sprungs they will, and
if they don't care, then they'll talk about whatever they want in whatever
list.

Amazing thing the power of suggestion, or is it the suggestion of power ?

>   I like this suggestion and support it wholeheartedly. As a past and 
>   probably future series owner and current Disco owner, I agree with the 
>   dislike of the tone of many series owners toward those of use with newer 
>   LAND ROVERs on the land rover owner list.
    
>   >John Brabyn <brabyn@skivs.ski.org> wrote "Therefore I propose
>   >that we stay on the LRO list, NOT agree to being unceremoniously kicked
>   >off, and NOT agree to the series takeover of the main LRO list and name.
>   >We should request that the series separatists form their own technical
>   >list under some other name.
    
>   Any suggestions on how we should accomplish this? Should we send "polite" 
>   notes like Terianns to anyone using the term plushmobile? Or should we 
>   push for division into a Land Rover owner list with seperate tech list 
>   for series, range rover, disco owners, another recent suggestion which I 
>   thought had merit.
    
>   Someone else want to contribute?
    

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

Subject: Re: Feeling outcast 
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 20:37:58 -0000
From: Hugo Madden <madhugo@best.com>

Bill, thanks for the note of sanity.  We promise we'll be good from now 
on.  But I'll sure miss TeriAnn.......

                                                        _______
                                                       //_/_|__\___
                                                       \_ - ___ - _d 
                                                         (o)   (o)

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 06:04:05 UT
From: "Matthew Loxton" <mloxton@msn.com>
Subject: high idle

Steve, 

I doubt that your ECU has anything to do with this. The clue lies in your 
statement ..<snip>.. The slackness of the gas petal is similar to when the car 
is
cruising with Cruise Control set....<snip>

I imagine (I am mainly a series driver) that your cruise control is a manual 
system and not computerised. It locks throttle position on a linkage or cable. 
This is a similar concept to the old rev-control of some series vehicles which 
was done by hand lever. I suggest you check the cable or linkage to your 
throttle for binding on a collar or nearby obstruction, or the cruise control 
has activated and must be released where it does it's physical interaction 
with the throttle.

One highly technical way to get out of this, which comes from series 
background, is to stomp the pedal again, this will probably do the trick. 
Failing that, threaten the truck in a stern voice while brandishing a large 
wrench. 

Cheers
Matthew	1982 RR
ZA			S-III (in for 947000Km service)

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 06:14:58 UT
From: "Matthew Loxton" <mloxton@msn.com>
Subject: Phew

Bill, thanks for the effort and good nature, and please don't stop.

Please folks, stop the whining. I am on the LRO because I have a S-III, and 
I'm on this list because I now own a 1982 Rangie (nearly had a 1990, but thats 
another story). The split was necessary because of traffic. 

Lets keep the contents of this list to plushie subjects, and not clutter it 
with "poor me" groans about being told by TeA to get ones plushie butt out of 
her way.

Matthew
ZA

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 08:37:35 +0000
From: Roy Wassili <wassili@AMC.UVA.NL>
Subject: Switching membership

Hello all,

Just want to let you all know that I made the switch too. Spend more time 
deleting files then reading them last week(s) 8-(.

I do still have the original LandRover Discovery rubber rear floor 
mats for sale. I've tried to sell them 4 months ago, but afterall 
none was interested. So since we have a own "plushy" list this might 
be the time to try it again ;-)  If anyone is interested in these 
mats, let me know.

LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR*LR
                ____
      |   _____/|__||     Roy Wassili,<wassili@amc.uva.nl>
      |  /(-8|  \   |       Almere, The Netherlands
  ____|_/[]__|__\___|#  Avalon Blue '95 Discovery, VG-XH-66
 |] __=|     |  __  |#         "The Chameleon"
[|_/  \|_____|_/  \_|]
  ( o )        ( o )

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

From: Steve Willey-pc <steve.willey-pc@attws.com>
Subject: Re: RR '90 NAS: idle not idle: Solution
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 00:52:04 -0800

My thanks to Matthew, John and Simon for there replies.

I have fixed my problem, and as usual it was something simple. 
 Something mechanical and simple.  

Connected to a vacuum actuated thingie (air hose coming 
from somewhere and diaphragm?) is a wire that is shaped 
somewhat like a diaper pin.  It is maybe 6cm long and doubles 
back on itself and has a hook bent into the end that hooks 
around itself.  The crotch of the bend is connected to 
throttle linkage stuff.  The hooked end was not hooked but 
instead was open allowing the throttle linkage to be too open 
also.

I'm sure this is a lame description, but I don't have the 
terminology and it's late.

Thanks all

Cheers,
Steve

Steve Willey-pc wrote:
>Help, my car is trying to run away!
>In neutral the engine idles at 3000 rpm (which is _at least_ twice 
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 54 lines)]
>Kirkland, WA
>206.803.7693	206.419.8044	fax: 206.803.7407

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 07:18:58 EST
From: dmccor03@counsel.com (David McCormack -- Hinshaw ^ Culbertson - Brookfield )
Subject: portable winches

 To:	rro@land-rover.team.net		Inet 	

Shaun,

	I am working on the same problem for my Discovery.   The best
deal I have found on a winch is at my local Farm & Fleet Store* (I
live in the mid west - I don't know how pervasive they are).  They
have a Superwinch X8,000 for $599.00.  Superwinch sells a 2 inch
square bar (part no. B  1559) that the winch can be bolted to that
fits into the receiver, but it says it is only rated for class II
receivers.  (I'm going to have call them to learn if it is
adequate).  One has to buy  additional accessories separately like
a roller fairlead and pulley blocks.  They make a portable winch
kit, but  I don't believe it  is designed to fit a class III
receiver.  They do respond to e-mail: info@superwinch.com , 
phone: 860-928-7787.

	The winch weighs over 80 pounds.  I probably would get it
permanently mounted if it was not for the whole air bag/bull bar
issue or if Land rover's winch mount was more reasonable. 
However, I 've got to belive that it will be handy to be able to
winch form the back as well as the front.  Besides, a permanently
mounted winch may require one to beef up their front springs due
to the added weight and is exposed to theft, water and salt.  I
figure that if the receiver deal doesn't work, I can always bight
the bullet and mount it on the Land Rover winch mount down the
road.  

*  Farm & Fleet also has Hi-Lift jacks for $39.00.  

Best personal regards,

Dave McCormack
McCormack@counsel.com
'95  Discovery, White, Wisconsin, "Mack X 4"

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 7:27:24 -0500
From: "barnett childress" <barnett=childress%Eng%EMCHOP1@fishbowl02.lss.emc.com>
Subject: re:D90 Sun visor

Dave,
WELCOME TO LAND ROVER WORLD! Where the usual doesn't always work like 
usual!

When I put my visor down I just flip it far enough that it just touches 
the mirror without disturbing it. Gotten pretty good at it to, "can do it 
on the fly". Course I'm kinda small (5'8") and can easily still see under 
the visor.

Now if I could only reach the pedals better...........HaHa!

Cheers,
Barnett
Childress
95 D90

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 07:51:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Edwards <edwardsj@ohsu.EDU>
Subject: Re: Feeling outcast 

I'm sorry to hear Teriann has unsubscribed from the lro list. In spite of 
my comment I actually enjoy her responses (with the one exception). And I 
certainly do not blame Bill Caloccia for any of this. I second all those 
commending his dedication for keeping the lists running.

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

From: JEPurnell@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:41:25 -0500
Subject: RE: vacuum advance

I don't know where to post this so I will cross post...(lawks! )
I want to try and clear up a couple points on vacuum advance, vac retard, and
ignition timing that were brought up a few days ago.  Hope i don't muddle the
issue.

>I always understood that vacuum advance was an emission control thing.  

Actually, vacuum RETARD was an emissions control thing, as well as a way on
some turbo charged cars (e.g. Corvair Spyder)  to keep the pistons from
exiting the engine out the
side of the block (apparently not the correct way to remove a piston?).  If
you look at most pre-smog cars, you'll notice that they indeed did have
vacuum
advance diaphram on the distributor.  Vacuum retard on turbos was used at
high boost conditions, manifold pressure (positive in this case) was used to
push back the timing from the point the centrifugal weights had advanced it
to.    Lots of boost, plus lots of advance and commercial fuel,  makes Jack's
engine a pile of
scrap.

Some emission control distributors used both a vac advance and a vac retard.
 The retard was generally used at idle and to stop/prevent dieseling.  The
mechanisms were usually designed such that the advance took precedence, i.e.
if the two were fighting, the advance would always win. (how's that for fuel
economy and power OVER emissions!)  The advance is routed to ported vacuum,
just above the idle postion of the butterfly, and the retard is plumbed just
below the idle butterfly position.  This way they don't fight at idle.  When
you shut off the engine, the retard is active and if your engine is dieseling
there will still be a vacuum below the butterfly and this cranks back your
ignition timing, helping to stop the dieseling.  

>This centrifugal advance means that at zero rpm (i.e. as the engine is 
>started), the timing is sifgnificantly retarded (equal in fact to the 
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 7 lines)]
>advance the timing somewhat while the engine is idling.  The centrifugal 
>advance doesn't really kick in significantly at idle.  

Well, no, not exactly.  For a clean burning idle...you want
to RETARD the ignition.  In general, for emissions purposes, you want the
ignition event retarded throughout the whole operating range compared to the
optimum power/efficiency timing.  Hence vac retard as explained above.  You
get a significant HC and CO reduction  if
you delay the point of ignition until just after the exhaust valve opens,
i.e.
start opening your exhaust valve BEFORE you complete your burn.  Yup, it
wastes fuel, however you get a wonderful thermal reaction in the exhaust
system which
promotes more complete burning of those unburned HCs that made it through the
combustion event unscathed.  And, if you add an air
injection pump to supply excess oxygen in the exhaust manifold, you can
augment the benefit during the warm-up phase (when
the mixture is still rich), before the catalyst starts working.    

Retarding ignition timing also lowers combustion chamber temperature, and
that gives you lower NOx.  So, if you are trying to pass those smog tests at
your local gas station, RETARD your ignition to the point where it runs fer
crap and hope the technician doesn't check your timing, this method has
gotten  "cammed up" V8s to pass California tests, it's one of those cheatin'
tricks.  (checking your timing is one of the components of smog tests.)

While not specifically on topic, this brings up another past post.  This idea
of lowering combustion chamber temperature is also the reason for EGR,
exhaust gas recirculation.  By feeding a controlled amount of exhaust gas
back into the intake manifold, you are diluting the incoming charge and
utlimately lowering chamber temperatures.  Again, yup, it wastes fuel, but
the effects on emissions are dramatic.  Many cars today have EGR accounted
for by valve overlap  timing via the camshaft, so there are no extra parts or
passageways needed in intake manifolds.   And the wasting fuel part has been
much more than compensated for by super fine fuel control.  When EFI
works...it really works.

>The vacuum advance 
>system provides the necessary ignition advance by taking ported vacuum 
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 8 lines)]
>never any significant vacuum advance under acceleration 'cos the throttle 
>is open too far.

Vacuum advance, as opposed to mechanical advance, is used at part throttle
and decelerating conditions mainly for fuel economy and driveability, though
everything has some effect on emissions (see vac. retard above).  At part
throttle and decel conditions, your mixture in the combustion chamber is
lean.  Lean mixtures are slower burning, so for max efficiency you need to
ignite the mixture SOONER, to account for this longer burn time.  This gives
the piston the maximum push at the correct time once the mixture is nearly
done burning.  

 Think of air intake, ignition timing, fuel control, and piston timing as one
big slinky.  You know, the kid's toy that is a big coiled spring.  At all
speeds and loads, the idea is to keep the slinky moving smoothly back and
forth, back and forth.  If you get your rhythm down right, you can really
build some movement in that slinky, but if you then jiggle your hand out of
sync, you really blow the movement.  And that is what knock, or pre-ignition
does to your piston.  If you have too far advanced ignition timing under
heavy load, you'll get early combustion, which starts pushing the piston down
while it is on  its way UP.  Besides the mechanical pounding the piston head
takes, it wastes fuel too.

Static timing, and mechanical advance take care of ignition  timing for
engine speed (rpm), and vacuum advance take care of the timing corresponding
to engine load and output.

Interesting use of variable ignition timing in new cars (not in the Series of
course...) is individual cylinder knock control and "idle-catching."  Using
the computer controlled ignition, if one cylinder is knocking, only THAT
cylinder's ignition timing is retarded to stop the knock, instead of backing
off all cylinders.  Much less power/efficiency loss here, better mpg.  And if
the engine seems like it is gonna stall at idle, the ECU can advance the
ignition timing instantaneously, thereby raising the engine's idle, and
creating more idle torque to prevent a stall.  This is a much easier and more
 responsive way of "idle-catching"  when compared with idle control valves
with motors, as ignition timing can be changed electronically and thus
immediately.

who woulda thunk it?  You Series folks sure you don't wanta add a computer or
two??

Hope this helps.

John. Defender90

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

From: PurnellJE@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:41:50 -0500
Subject: Re: portable winches

In a message dated 96-03-01 07:32:54 EST, dmccor03@counsel.com (David
McCormack -- Hinshaw ^ Culbertson - Brookfield) writes:

 Superwinch X8,000 for $599.00.   One has to buy  additional accessories
separately like
>a roller fairlead and pulley blocks.  They make a portable winch
>kit, but  I don't believe it  is designed to fit a class III
>receiver.  They do respond to e-mail: info@superwinch.com , 
>phone: 860-928-7787.
  Besides, a permanently
>mounted winch may require one to beef up their front springs due
>to the added weight and is exposed to theft, water and salt.  I
>figure that if the receiver deal doesn't work, I can always bight
>the bullet and mount it on the Land Rover winch mount down the
>road.  

>*  Farm & Fleet also has Hi-Lift jacks for $39.00.  

Wo...really?  Great info David, thanks.  I have a "Farm and Barn" here in
Madison,  I didn't know they were that inexpensive.

And I've been thinking more about that winch idea.  I am completely in favor
of the receiver mounted winch since most of the thime the truck is on the
road, not off.  I don't remember if you got the RoversNorth catalog, but they
sell a Warn 8000lb receiver mounted winch kit  for $895.  A front Class III
receiver for your Disco is $195.  Winch kit includes the mount, hand control,
100 ft cable 5/16", electric cable for plug in.  They say the front receiver
is a bolt on deal, no welding.  So compare anything you find with RN, what I
like is being able to call them and get someone who knows my vehicle and what
I'm trying to do.

John. D90, 

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

From: PurnellJE@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:41:49 -0500
Subject: Re: D90 Sun visor

In a message dated 96-03-01 07:44:14 EST,
barnett=childress%Eng%EMCHOP1@fishbowl02.lss.emc.com (barnett childress)
writes:

>When I put my visor down I just flip it far enough that it just touches 
>the mirror without disturbing it. Gotten pretty good at it to, "can do it 
>on the fly". Course I'm kinda small (5'8") and can easily still see under 
>the visor.

I guess I'll have to look closer at my 94, but I don't remember this being a
problem in sunny California.  Of course here in Wisconsin, I have simply
removed them completely for better cloud visibility.
John 94 D90

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

From: HalatGRM@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:54:34 -0500
Subject: Cruise and abs on disco fixed, sort of

Thanks for the responses to my question on why my cruise went out and abs
light came on.  Unfortunately, we don't have a winner.  :)

I should have mentioned that I got under the dash to lubricate my brake pedal
before this happened.  I noticed my brakelights were staying on, and realized
that the brakelight switch was a prime suspect.  Turns out there are two: one
for the brakelights and one for the cruise control.  Both are adjustable, and
I had pressed them in while monkeying around with the brake pedal.  Adjusted
the switches and presto, the brake lights work, the cruise works,
and...$%&#$%@&!!! the abs light is still on.  Turns out, once it comes on, it
stays on until the dealer resets it, even if (as in my case) the problem is
fixed.

So everything works, except the abs light is staring at me.  Unless, of
course, someone out there knows how to reset it...

Hal Hunnicutt
Burlington, NC
(910) 226-7997
Tools, sofa, beer

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

From: lenagham@inetmail.bachman.com
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 96 12:16:47 EST
Subject: Range Rover Speedometers

     Has anyone ever dismantled a speedometer from an 87/88 Range Rover? 
     
     A few years ago the speedometer in my RR stopped working when it was 
     turning over to 31000 miles. I bought a new speedometer head and 
     installed it. I had one ineterim problem that was fixed by installing 
     the right angle drive on the back of the speedometer head and had no 
     further problems with it until a few months ago when it turned over to 
     80000 miles. It began to behave erratically, with the needle 
     fluctuating between 0 and 70 m.p.h. accompanied by lots of clicking 
     noises and the odometer stopped turning. I checked the cable and the 
     right angle drive but the problem was definetely inside the 
     speedometer head. This went on for a couple of days when something 
     must have connected inside and it all started working again.
     
     Today on the way to work the odometer turned over to 83300 and the 
     problem came back, this time it fixed itself within a few minutes and 
     then I had brief recurrences at 83310, 83320 and 83330. Its sitting 
     outside my office at 83339.
     
     I don't want to buy another speedometer unless I have to. THe symptoms 
     this one is displaying are the same as the failure of the original 
     unit which I still have. I wondered if anyone has experienced similar 
     problems and fixed it.
     
     Thanks
     Mike Lenaghan
     87 RR with noisy speedo
     87 RR with quiet speedo
     

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

  END OF LAND ROVER OWNER DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 27 lines 1298 [forwarded 139 whitespace 284]
 Output: lines 1039 [content 674  forwarded 65 (cut  74) whitespace 266]

Additional Information:

In addition so subscribing and unsubscribing, the Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) file and the last month of daily digests may be retrieved
(by mail) from majordomo@Land-Rover.Team.Net

Useful commands for this are 'index uk-lro-digest' which returns a list of
files available, as well as 'get lro-digest <filename>', etc.

Range Rover World Wide Web Sites start at 
Range Rover Register:	http://www.apricot.co.uk/rel3/directory/rrr/index.html
RoverWeb:	http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/RoverWeb/
Other:		http://www.OpenMarket.com/personal/caloccia/lr/pages.html
Lloyd's		http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeLand-Rover/

If Major Domo barfs at something, and you're convinced he should have 
understood what you sent him, contact majordomo-owner@Land-Rover.Team.Net

  -B