10FM68

Larry,

Regrettably it is considerably more complicated than that.  You need a copy of the Parts Catalogue for the Series 3 88” ½ ton military vehicle (Air Portable – Lightweight) 12v and 24V Part Number RTC9968FA of June 1993.  I offered to send you one in a PM, but I didn't hear back.

I won’t quote everything as there is too much for one shortish post, but starting with springs:

Driver’s side front either 562623 to Contract No WV11367 or 562627 from Contract No WV11367

Passenger’s side will be 562624 or 562628 respectively

Rear springs are relatively straightforward:  Driver’s side 562631 and passenger’s side 562632 

Bottom Spring Plate Front Left Hand 559636 (note 1) or 624077 (note 2) or NRC3696 (note 6)

Bottom Spring Plante Front Right Hand 559843 (note 1) or 624078 (note 2) or NRC3695 (note 6)

Front U Bolts (3 of each) then go: 562640 (note 1) 562641 (note 2) 624030 (note 5) NRC5002 (note 6)

Front U Bolts 1 of each) 562636 (note 1) 562637 (note 2) 624036 (note 5) NRC5007 (note 6)

Nuts for the above: 251323 7/16BSF (note 4) 8 required or NY1120416 M12 (note 7)

And so it goes on with the notes reading;

Note 1 12V from contract no WV10787 to WV11367 item 1 inclusive

Note 2 12V & 24V from contract WV11367 item 2 to contract no FVE22A/115 inclusive

Note 3 24V from contract WV10775 to WV11430 inclusive

Note 4 Applicable to U Bolts 562636/7 & 562640/1

Note 5 12V from contract no WV11367 item 2 to FVE/115 inclusive & 24V contract no WV11701 to FVE22A/95 inclusive

Note 6 Vehicles built 1980 starting with front axle serial no RHD – 2010654E and LHD 20410264E

Note 7 applicable to U Bolt 624030/6 & NRC5002/7

So there is quite a lot to it.  You must, though, refer to the original rather than what I have just written as it is perfectly feasible I have written the odd number down incorrectly or transposed the odd figure as I was flipping between applications on my computer as I copied from the parts catalogue.  But, although it is complicated, it is "doable" provided, as you restore your vehicle, you know what you are starting with and you can actually find all the numbers you need on the vehicle beneath the crud.  The ERM (mil reg no) is only a guide now, as these vehicles have been so long in private hands many will no longer be on their original running gear, so you have to check everything - a pain, but, as I say, doable and, it is great when you get there.

Good luck with your restoration and, if you want a copy of the IPC on a CD, PM me.

 10 68

Actually, this isn't really a military item.  Some years ago, it was realised by Greyhound owners that, as their racing dogs aged, they missed the track, they missed their friends and rivals and generally became depressed.  But, chasing the hare proved all too much.  So, White City introduced a veterans' day for retired racing greyhounds.  It included some bottom-sniffing, a set of lamp posts were set up for competitive pi**ing (height achieved, quantity and colour were all judged) and the highlight was the closing event... the veterans' race.  Chasing after a hare at their age would have clearly been impossible and so... thinking back to their childhood fairy tales the organisers remember the tale of the hare and the tortoise.  This is one of the tortoises which were pulled, very slowly round the track in front of the old dogs....  I'll get my coat. 

36 minutes ago, ruxy said:

Wording is  :-

• Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both front to rear (1.1.11 (c))
• Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both front (1.1.11 (c))
• exhaust middle section deteriorated
•  

Thanks for that, Tony, you're quite right.  The and/or is implied rather than actually stated.

1 hour ago, Rootes75 said:

I had a Karrier Bantam truck for many years and she needed testing at the VOSA station due to her weight.

I had an issue one year with the test which led me to make a complaint. The Bantam obviously is an old truck and was pretty much dwarfed when lined up with the modern Volvos and Scanias etc. 

Well first check in the line is the cab and fittings etc, the young tester had a good look round and then came up to the cab and said just to let me know the lorry had already failed the test, before I had even started the engine or anything! When pressed on why he got out a measure and took it to the windscreen, he said the factory fitted 6" wiper blades did not clear enough of the screen so she didnt comply with the modern rules!?!?

Well, very angry by that point I continued with the test. Got to the end and was told that was all she failed on, bearing in mind this test cost over £200 with hiring the lane and ballast etc.

I went straight to his boss in the main office and told him what happened, I made the complaint and was told the young lad was too eager and should have known there were certain things old trucks can get away with as such. I was then told that because it had been entered on the system it could not be retracted. In the end they invited me back a week later and I had to pay for a re-test, this time the boss came out the office with the Pass certificate without even looking round the truck.

Waste of time and huge waste of money. Two 50 mile round trips and 2 test fees.

That's a shocking experience and |I feel for you - it wou;d have been worth pursuing to get the money back.  The one time I took a vehicle for an SVA at a VOSA station was rather better.  I imported an Uaz 469.  I went along to Avonmouth, frankly expecting to have the tyres kicked and be told to bugger off.  Not a bit of it.  He went through it with a fine toothed comb and it failed on 22 different items.  I was amazed at just how much failed to comply with  (the then) EU conformity.  I thought I was going to be stuck with a pup which I couldn't use and wouldn't be able to sell.  But... the tester then took about half an hour telling me exactly how to go about fixing every one of the points he had identified to enable it to pass next time.  21 of them I was able to do myself, the only one I couldn't was to re-profile the front bumper - cost a fiver.  So I was lucky.  But, coming back to Lightweights and MOTs... I see that the last MoT mine got before I bought it advised that there were: 

"Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components

Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay". 

Somewhat unlikely, I think on a bog standard Lightweight!  The only other MoT annoyance has been on my car at a main dealer which caused a mighty row.  I asked the garage to replace some discs and pads and THEN give it an MoT.  So they gave it an MoT - failed it on discs and pads and then fitted the new ones.  When I blew up about having an MoT failure on the record the service manager justified it by explaining to me that, as an MoT centre they were expected to fail a certain proportion of cars they inspected and, not in so many words, that this was a perfect opportunity to keep their numbers up!  Needless to say, I now go elsewhere for all my MoTs - to a garage I know well and which is an expert on Land Rovers.

But, whether you, Larry,  have a case regarding "corroded, covered with oil and dirt" I'm not so sure as I think the wording is corroded and/or covered.... in which case, the likelihood is that, given the construction of a Land Rover, brake lines will nearly always be, at least part covered with oil or dirt.  The key, sadly will be the "and/or".

10 68

You're doing a really lovely job with it.  I've much enjoyed following your thread.

Yours is my favourite thread on this forum - I have read it from the very beginning - several times.  The standard of workmanship you share between you is really impressive and, actually, so are your photography skills.  I very much look forward, one day, to seeing your vehicles at a rally in the flesh.  Really interesting.

10 68

That's really very nice, indeed.  And valuable as well, now.  What tyres are you using?

Go in the first week of April - everything should be in place by then.  And then, best of all, buy your silver on black number plates!  A Lightweight looks so much better with them!

2 hours ago, sirhc said:

It doesn’t have to be a main post office. I have done it at a few different ones. You just need to find one with helpful and competent staff. Where I used to live the little village post office were very helpful and less of a queue than a main post office. 

Exactly.  As I wrote above...

I took my paperwork to the post office - they weren't interested in any supporting documents,  but simply sent off the V5 and within a couple of days DVLA had changed the status on line showing the vehicle as exempt from MOTs.  The Post Office, despite being small and with relatively new staff, weren't phased in the slightest - they seemed to be familiar with the process, which surprised me.  The replacement V5 was back within about three weeks."

The Post Office hadn't been open a year at that point, yet they still knew what was required.  All perfectly straightforward.

This all cropped up a few months back.  I had thought that a current MoT was a necessity.  "Oats and Barley" assured me that that wasn't the case and he was right.  Your vehicle does not require a current MoT.  This was the exchange, " 

Oats & Barley said, "The DVLA says Quote you do not need to pay vehicle tax if your vehicle was built before 1 JAN 1980 .this does not apply to large vehicles"

I replied, 

"You're right - but that applies from each April.  So it won't change to 1 Jan 1981 until April 2002.  But... and this is the more important point:  it looks as though you are quite right regarding not requiring an MoT and, for that I sincerely apologise and thank you.  Because, it seems there is a form V112 on which you can declare that the vehicle doesn't require an MoT when applying to register the vehicle as historic.  I had previously read the guidance notes but clearly badly as under category "r" (perhaps I didn't read that far) it includes: "(GB only) A vehicle other than a public service vehicle registered or manufactured 40 years ago and which has not been substantially changed in the last 30 years."  So, that means that, if you take your V5 and a V112 to a post office which deals with VED, with a cover note or insurance certificate they will send it all off for you and you're good to go.  You may even use your vehicle prior to receipt of confirmation from the DVLA.  I shall try this next week and see how I get on! "

This is what I wrote back to Oats and Barley having done it, "I ought to have replied more promptly to this.  I followed your advice, took my paperwork to the post office - they weren't interested in any supporting documents, (as you forecast) but simply sent off the V5 and within a couple of days DVLA had changed the status on line showing the vehicle as exempt from MOTs.  The Post Office, despite being small and with relatively new staff, weren't phased in the slightest - they seemed to be familiar with the process, which surprised me.  The replacement V5 was back within about three weeks."

Larry, Something was a bit odd about the first link I gave you for North Hants Tyres - try this link instead.  https://www.northhantstyres.com/tyre-finder.php then look for 6.50x16.  They seem to have just one in stock at the moment and, while not exactly Goodyear Hi Milers, they're about as close as one can get readily in new tyres https://www.northhantstyres.com/img/tyres/sta/STA-Super-traxion-650x16.gif

A couple of interesting points have been raised in this thread which prompted me to look a bit deeper.  I am fortunate in having a copy of the FVRDE “Notes for Acceptance Meeting on Lightweight Landrover” dated 20 April 1967 in which these points are clarified.  Attached to the Notes is an additional 4-page summary of the “Lightweight Version of Short Wheelbase Land-Rover” which gives the initial requirement, description and “Standard Specification – Land-Rover Models, Model – 88” Lightweight W.D”.  It claims that the oil cooler has been deleted, suggesting that it is an earlier document than the “Notes for Acceptance Meeting…”  But, disappointingly it lacks any further provenance.  I refer to it below as “the attachment”.

FVRDE’s own figures in the Notes state that, “the Lightweight vehicle is about 260lbs lighter than the comparable Mk.8 in both built-up and stripped forms”.  That is significantly lighter – over 18 ½ stone: a fully-equipped infantryman.  Elsewhere in the document the weights are detailed: “Unladen (without fuel):  Mk.8 Rover 3220lbs completely weatherproofed, 2856lbs stripped, compared with the Lightweight Rover’s 2957lbs and 2593lbs respectively.  These figures are for the GS version as, at this stage, the trials FFR was still using the radio harness of the Mk8 – the URS had yet to be designed.

Reading the Notes, it is clear where the weight-saving came from.  There was a small amount in the chassis in that its overall width was reduced.  The same is true for the front bumper and, of course, the bulkhead was narrower and lacked the parcel shelf.  The rest of the bodywork differed markedly with resultant weight loss.  And of equal significance was the replacement in the Lightweight of the heavy-duty springs used on the Mk8 and the change to 5.00Fx16 well-base wheel rims from the Mk.8’s 4.50Ex16 divided rims.  Incidentally, according to the Notes, both the springs and the wheels adopted for the Lightweight were to have been introduced on the Mk.8 had that remained in service, as an economy measure and with a resultant loss in weight of that vehicle. 

Initially, the oil cooler was discarded, but, during the trials it became clear that one was required and so the weights above include one (there is an alternative, lower, weight in the attachment of 2795/2495lbs unladen: it is possible that these weights refer to the vehicle minus the oil cooler, as it further states, “to save weight, well-based wheels replace the W.D. divided type, the oil cooler is deleted and standard suspension replaces the normal W.D. heavy duty one.  This is acceptable due to reduced gross weight.  If required, any of the deleted items could be fitted in service”.

Regarding tyre sizes.  The Lightweight was certainly designed and passed its acceptance trials on 6.00x16 tyres with the understanding that the Mk.8’s 6.50x16 tyres might be used if required in service at the cost of 8 ½lbs additional weight per tyre (34lbs all up).  The attachment also mentions that 7.50x16 tyres are optional and adds that, “provision is also made to fit 7.50x16 tyres if required”.  And, of course, the fitting of sand tyres would also have been considered.

Separately, I was particularly intrigued that, among the summary of some 24 user comments (from the trials vehicles) one complained that, “the fitting of the rear view mirrors to the door hinge is unsatisfactory”, leading to the FVRDE advice that, “Present location and (sic) [of] mirrors as for Mk.8.  Improved type of mirror will be specified.”  So they put them on the wings – that WAS an improvement wasn’t it?

What can be read into all that?  Well, compared with the in-service Mk8 (Rover 8), FVRDE certainly considered that the Lightweight WAS lighter at the introduction into service stage by a considerable margin.  And it was this comparison which mattered, not a comparison with any other Land Rover type.  What happened to it thereafter as it developed through into the Series 3 is another story.  And, of course, FVRDE had no qualms about running the Lightweight on 6.00x16 tyres, or, indeed 7.50x16, the latter being specified, of course, by some overseas users and did appear on occasion on British in-service Lightweights towards the end of their careers.  (There is, incidentally, a photo of 00WA25 on 7.50x16s undergoing trials at Chertsey in Mark Cook’s book, though this was an early Series 3).  But, 6.50x16 was the production tyre of choice whether Bargrips, Dunlop T29s, or, latterly, Goodyear Xtra Grip Hi milers.

https://www.northhantstyres.com/img/tyres/sta/STA-Super-traxion-650x16.png

Try them.  Easier than going to the Far East or the USA.  But, also keep your eye on Bay and Withams.  I bought a pair of genuine HiMilers about two months ago NOS and shortly after Withams had a set of four in one of their auctions.

Absolutely stunning - a lovely job.  Good luck with the registration process and road testing

1068

On 7/31/2020 at 6:48 AM, oseveno said:

Hi everyone,

 I met a guy who told me that 40 years ago,  a sergeant found out that members of his platoon had checked out a vehicle in his name and took it home. After telling his superiors that he would get to the bottom of this,  he left to take back the vehicle. Once he recovered it, he decided to take it home instead.  There it sat in a field, under a cover hidden from the world until another man bought the land 20 years later.  Now that man is selling this little gem. Can I buy this legally? Is it possible to check a MV to see if is stolen? Does it matter after 40 years?

 

Thanks for your help! 

This really does have to be utter tosh.  So the man who bought the land knew the history of the vehicle because the guy who sold him it admitted to him that he had stolen it?

More to the point, anyone with any knowledge of military accounting in the 1970s/80s could never give credence to such a story.  Some soldiers steal a vehicle... the unit then allows the platoon sergeant to "sort out the problem" but he fails.  So the regimental quartermaster does what?  The CO does what?  The soldiers who, presumably, have been returned to the unit do what?  They don't claim at their own court martial that the sergeant took the vehicle off them?  The sergeant does what? 

No, if a military vehicle were to go missing it would be both an RMP and a civil police matter - as would the absence of the soldiers (AWOL soldiers can be arrested by the civil police) and no commanding officer would have any interest in asking a sergeant to sort it out, particularly if the theft of a vehicle was concerned he'd get the RMP involved straight away - he couldn't afford not to, after all, he too is responsible to the chain of command.  Valuable items in the Army are accountable, they can't just be accepted as being lost and put down to misfortune.  If a prismatic compass or a G10 watch goes missing there is a board of enquiry, so a vehicle?  No, I'm with Nick Johns on this one... I expect the vehicle was used to move crates of hidden Nazi gold...

10 68

On 6/13/2020 at 9:07 PM, oats and barley said:

Its just a self declaration  and forget your cover note /certificate they do not need it it will come up automatically 

I ought to have replied more promptly to this.  I followed your advice, took my paperwork to the post office - they weren't interested in any supporting documents, (as you forecast) but simply sent off the V5 and within a couple of days DVLA had changed the status on line showing the vehicle as exempt from MOTs.  The Post Office, despite being small and with relatively new staff, weren't phased in the slightest - they seemed to be familiar with the process, which surprised me.  The replacement V5 was back within about three weeks.  I am very glad you challenged my preconception regarding the MOT as it enabled me to get on and use the vehicle without having to wait for one, which, in the current climate would have been a pain.  So, thanks for that!  Cheers!

10 68

It's second only to one which was on eBay a few months back - my all time favourite!  It had a large sign over the windscreen "LAD Armourer" and it was covered with every piece of REME recovery kit you could imagine.  It had a cab top with grilles over all the windows and, because of the weight of the snatch blocks on the bonnet, a patent screw assisted mechanism for raising the bonnet with a large handle at the front - just beside the enormous vice.  And, funnily enough, that was a good lightweight underneath as well.  I kept a photo of it, but, for some reason it won't download. 

10 68

I was told in school woodworking classes that wooden tools and handles should never be painted or covered with anything which prevented them from breathing.  Painted wood dries out and loses its flexibility and so is more prone to cracking or snapping.  The best treatment for wood is something like linseed oil.  Certainly in the Sappers after coming back off exercise wooden tools had the mud washed and brushed off them, they were then allowed to dry naturally before being given a good rub with a rag or cotton waste dipped in linseed oil.  Rather like the traditional treatment for cricket bats.  We didn't have any wooden ladders, so I can't speak for them - but we were always a bit sniffy about units which painted their shovel handles green!

10 68

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/military-infrared-headlight-covers-land-rover-101/274378984760?hash=item3fe2430d38:g:5yoAAOSwelheznhn

This chap reckons they're worth £600 a pair - and he'll still expect you to pay £2 for P&P!

Yep, really nice and, as Ferg and Terry said, good to see one in post-war British colours.

10 68

Post-war registration number for an RN-owned trailer.  May well have been issued to an RM commando.  Many RM vehicles had RN registrations.  In fact, I think I have seen a picture in a book somewhere of a similar trailer being towed behind a Series 1 Land Rover with RN markings.

10 68

1 hour ago, oats and barley said:

The DVLA says Quote you do not need to pay vehicle tax if your vehicle was built before 1 JAN 1980 .this does not apply to large vehicles 

You're right - but that applies from each April.  So it won't change to 1 Jan 1981 until April 2002.  But... and this is the more important point:  it looks as though you are quite right regarding not requiring an MoT and, for that I sincerely apologise and thank you.  Because, it seems there is a form V112 on which you can declare that the vehicle doesn't require an MoT when applying to register the vehicle as historic.  I had previously read the guidance notes but clearly badly as under category "r" (perhaps I didn't read that far) it includes: "(GB only) A vehicle other than a public service vehicle registered or manufactured 40 years ago and which has not been substantially changed in the last 30 years."  So, that means that, if you take your V5 and a V112 to a post office which deals with VED, with a cover note or insurance certificate they will send it all off for you and you're good to go.  You may even use your vehicle prior to receipt of confirmation from the DVLA.  I shall try this next week and see how I get on!  Thank you again.

5 hours ago, oats and barley said:

In the back of my mind there is 2 cut off dates in the 40 year bit tax exemption and MOT exemption are different one goes by the year and one goes by the month something like that one takes the year one takes the financial year

You are confusing the issue.  As I said, a vehicle can be registered as a vehicle of historic interest from the 1st of April following the year in which it reaches 40.  As any vehicle being so registered requires a current valid MoT on the date the application is made, then the date of MoT renewal thereafter is completely irrelevant as, once the vehicle is VHI, it will no longer require an MoT.  But, if the MoT runs out prior to the application being made, then the vehicle cannot be registered as a VHI and a new MoT must be obtained.  I am in that position myself as I cannot get an MoT at the moment.

10 68

58 minutes ago, 67burwood said:

You should be able to register it as historic from 1st Jan 2021. 

Not until the 1st of April 2021.

Yep!  Those were the days - fuel coupons tax-free from the pay office.  But redeemable only at certain garages - Esso and BP until the 90s as I remember and only for use in Germany.  So the last BP filling station on the autobahn home was at Wankum, close to the border at Venlo.  Fill up there, a couple of jerricans as well - refill the tanks before the ferry and ditch the can (borrowed, as you say, from the MT park) as the ferry operators objected to them (full or otherwise).  Of course, there was a bit of planning involved as the coupons were only sold in multiples of 10 litres - so you only filled your tank in multiples of 10 litres!  By contrast, the Americans sold their coupons in little books which contained a variety of coupons: some for 10l, some for 5 and a few for one litre.  Rather more convenient.

Enough reminiscing.  Happy Easter to one and all - keep safe.