Location of turnlights and side lights on SIII Lightweight-different?

[Bilbo42]

I have just recently been able to get back to fooling with my Lightweight. I showed it at an airshow in my city last weekend and I got an unexpected question about the location of the side lights and the turnlights. I put together a notebook from pictures of different lightweights from the internet and wrote a history about my particular Lightweight. Well, one guy looked at the photos and looked at mine and said, "why do some have the amber lights above the white/clear lens and others are reversed"? I couldn't answer his question. I had pictures of them both ways in the notebook I developed. Mine has the white over the amber. Mark Cook's book has them both ways too. I'm talking about a Series III here. I looked at my Military Land Rover Series III (Lightweight) User Manual and it says the following:

Turnlights

Paragraph 235. The front turnlights are mounted in the front wing panels below the side lights at the outside edge of the front wing. The rear turnlights are situated on the rear body above the stop/turn lights.

 

Paragraph 242 says side lights have white, rear lights red and turnlights amber lens.

 

If you look at the cover of Mark's book, it shows amber over white??????

Color me confused!!! Can anyone help here? Thanks, Bil

[andrewroberts.1953]

I have seen this with Series in general. This is normally because someone took the lights off the repalce a wing, or paint. Then put them back the wrong way.

[ruxy]

The Rover 1 (S2A) User Manual (dated August 1968) states on page 124 (293 Turnlights) The front turnlights are mounted in the front wing panels adjacent to the side lights at the outside edge of the front wings. The rear turnlights are situated on the rear body above the stop/tail lights.

 

If you study period photographs of S2A with headlamps in the grille panel - then the turnlamps are consistant and correct.

==============

 

Bug-eye turnlights - probably more important to have those marked FRONT on the front and those marked REAR on the rear (most times found incorrect).

 

I don't believe a particular contract would leave Solihull with lamps incorrectly positioned.

 

There were changes (due to Lighting Regs - such as rear fog lamps).

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

Mark Cooks book - page 95 & 96

 

00 WA 25 "Trials Vehicle" - so a valid exception.

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

 

I would only consider a period photograph that was factory fresh - in the book you will find some L'wts with front bumperettes , that should not have them fitted in theory - and this may be your best clue.

[Bilbo42]

OK. I'm still confused. As to the front location, I see period adverstisements and period military photos of the Series III with the amber on top and the white/clear underneath and also the same reversed with amber on bottom and white /clear on top. The photos and ads that I see may not be factory fresh but as for the period photos, they are "in service" photos and I would think that the ads would portray the arrangement of the colored lens correctly. So why both ways? I think the Series III User Manual I have is a correct copy of the military manual but I am not sure. Can anyone quote how they should be from a Series III Lightweight Military Users manual. I guess this could be stated another way...which color is intended to blink. I thought it was the amber color. For the amber color to blink when it is on top, every vehicle we see on the net that has the amber on top would have to be wired differently than if it is on bottom???? I could see the lens just getting rearranged by accident but for every vehicle that has amber on top to be wired differently than ones with amber on bottom....weird!! What are your thoughts? Bil

[ruxy]

Rover No. 608180 publication

 

Issued May 1972

 

Issued October 1977

 

Issued April 1979

 

?

 

But that would not get you on track, and in fact it probably the reason you are making a note of lamps as you are !!!

[airportable]

My mid/late 1980 Airportable, FFR.

I was the first registered owner since release. Not had to do anything to the lights, except had the mud shields off for cleaning, spray with WD. No sign that anything had been moved, all orig. military connecters and underseal over light fitting bolts etc.

Front, Amber over Clear.

Rear, Red/stop,brake over Amber and Fog next to Amber.

Andy.

[sirhc]

I also have a 1980 Series 3 1/2 ton FFR. My lights are the other way round, and it came this way direct from the MoD.

 

Chris

[airportable]

Hi Bilbo, bet your confused now!

Andy.

[ruxy]

No - he would not be confused , 1980 builds were relatively clearcut.

 

If he had the build instructions for 1979 - then he would be confused.

 

Rover Mods L16913/17364/17668

 

Contract No. FVE22A/78 Jan 1979

 

Contract No. FVE22A/87 March to June

 

Contract No. FVE22A/94 November 1979

 

On these , if you wish to be a rivet counter , then you need to have a "correct" mix of glass and plastic bug-eyes in correct position .....

[ruxy]

I also have a 1980 Series 3 1/2 ton FFR. My lights are the other way round, and it came this way direct from the MoD.

 

Chris

 

And I guess you are FVE22A-115 Item 3, 4, 15, 16 or 24 (WHICH ONE ?) - but then I am guesstimating after 24 - so Dec. 1980 ?

[Rover8FFR]

My 1976 winterised 24v FFR has amber over clear at front and it is a series III.

 

The sugestion that a previous owner doing some work re-fitted them upside down at the start of the thread is a 'foo par'!

 

There was a specific switch in process and the logical alignment is with the civi style landrovers that were also in use by the military as a variant (non-lightweight), namely the series III 88 & 109 variants.

 

It would arguably be a standard manufacturing ideal that prompted the landrovers of the day to have side lights over turn at the front!?

 

However the debate is that lightweights were running in parallel with their stable mates until they all were aligned, so why was there a difference to start with.....

 

Mark Cook are you out there to answer this.....Or as it's electrical does Mr Elliott have a suggestion???????

 

A good debate for Steven Fry on QI me thinks????????????/:nut::nut::nut::nut::nut:

[ruxy]

I have plenty of documentary evidence and a theory or two , not lost any sleep over it (yet) - BUT it would be pure supposition for me to pontificate further ......

[sirhc]

And I guess you are FVE22A-115 Item 3, 4, 15, 16 or 24 (WHICH ONE ?) - but then I am guesstimating after 24 - so Dec. 1980 ?

 

FVE 22A/87 - I think it's actually a 79.

 

Chris

[ruxy]

FVE22A/87 item 3 for 300 RHD vehicles & item 4 for 217 vehicles March to June 1979

 

Rover Mods L16913/17364/17668

 

 

Now do you want me to tell you EXACTLY - what mix of bug-eye and glass lens you should have on ????

[sirhc]

FVE22A/87 item 3 for 300 RHD vehicles & item 4 for 217 vehicles March to June 1979

 

Rover Mods L16913/17364/17668

 

 

Now do you want me to tell you EXACTLY - what mix of bug-eye and glass lens you should have on ????

 

You can tell me, but I'm not going to change them!

[ruxy]

Would probably be a eBay - Buy & Sell job

[Rover8FFR]

FT expand please m8y.

 

If you have a perspective then share it as this topic cannot involve rivet counters and every day is a school day!

 

As for glass and bug eye mixtures the different units had diffferent trends and these weren't sacrasant as the norm unless you can clear this up!

 

My 76 S3 FFR LTWT Wint was struck off in 1992 and has glass lenses all round????????????????:cry:

[ruxy]

What I would have to say - you and many others may consider quite convincing and before you know it is carved in stone. Then MOT examiners and VOSA pick up on it and then it could cause many people a load of bother.

 

I quite like the Joseph Lucas "Midget Gems" - so think yourself lucky.

[Rover8FFR]

What I would have to say - you and many others may consider quite convincing and before you know it is carved in stone. Then MOT examiners and VOSA pick up on it and then it could cause many people a load of bother.

 

I quite like the Joseph Lucas "Midget Gems" - so think yourself lucky.

 

???????????? what do VOSA and MOT have to do with side lights working in symetry on any vehicle as sides and main in symetry are to the BS/EN Norm

[ruxy]

Lights / lens had to be E marked , hence the Midget Gems became defunct during 1979 approx.

 

The Lighting Regs. extanct , are quite complex (and I don't wish to go researching into them).

 

Basically they are subject of positional dimensions for height & centres , light intensity (this will be why you have FRONT amber and REAR amber lens. Side and indicator changes sometimes have to be made depending on type of main beam dip. The trafficators must be seen far better than they had to be prior to E , if they can't be seen satisfactory - then wing side markers must also be fitted.

 

It could be that they were moved topmost at the front for best visibility , at front (lower) position they could be shrouded by the front bumperettes. I say this because I was once reliably informed that this is why mil. TUM's that are fitted with bug-eyes are not fitted with front bumperettes, the tow pin bumper blades are drilled to take them (the lower lamp would be masked more than on a Lightweight).

 

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

 

Regarding L'wt contracts of 1980 (and possibly some 1979) - many were extra to British MOD (Rover were prevented from delivery to a certain Middle East country) - I know some of the features were specifically ordered by this ME country .. I don't know - just speculating , possibly the lamps were positioned for that countries requirements and not re-worked ?

[Bilbo42]

Hi Bilbo, bet your confused now!

Andy.

I stay confused Andy!!

[Bilbo42]

I may have figured it out. Bear with me please. Mine is 13 FM 51 and it is an FFR too. It is a 1973/74 according to Mark's book. It was in service with 212 Battery in Scotland from 1974 until 1997. I don't think the wiring has been fooled with either from what I can see but I am certainly not as familiar as you guys are. It has white over amber and when I click my blinker the amber blinks!! Seems to me that if it was a reg change to change positions of the colors for some yet to be known reason , they would not go back and rewire very many, if any. Maybe after a certain date they decided for that unknown reason to swap postions-white went from top to bottom and amber to top! I think it was a reg change somewhere in 1975/6 and what contracts were underway affected the timing too. hERE'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO BEAR WITH ME! In Mark's book, the ad on p.46, has white over amber; p.48 28 FK 68 (1971 GS LHD) white over amber; p.59 28 FK 19 (1971 GS) white over amber;p.62 61 FK 11 (1971/2 FFR) white over amber; p.64 65 FK 13 (1972 GS) white over amber; p.91 46 FL 25 (1972/3 GS) white over amber;p.94-95 1972 series Station Wagon 27 FL 13 and WA 25 (early SIII) both have white over amber; then the ad for the 1/2 Land Rover on p. 97 comes along with... you guessed it...AMBER OVER WHITE!!!! It is on 20 HF 07 which if it is not a made up number for the ad is for a 1979 FFR; next page 98 has two rovers, both white over amber- one a Royal Navy SIII CL and then a 1972/3 GS Lightweight; the first amber over white in the book other than the ad showing the 1979 vehicle is p.104 a 1979 LW; then p. 105 15 FM 50 white over amber 1973/4; then 17 HF 64 amber over white a 1979; I'M SEEING A TREND HERE GUYS!!! OK, I went through the rest of the book and with only two exceptions, the Gurka vehicle P.123 41 KC 50(1984) but that is foreign service and the p. 157 27 GJ 73 a 1977 with the Military Police probably in out of country service as it is LHD were the only two Lightweights I saw that were later than 1975/6 and then depending on when the regulation hit in MOD contract number WV11733. Andy, that would make yours follow the theory for the date-amber over white. Chris, I don't know about yourS under the theory. Was it in foreign service at some point? Do you know the original registration number? I don't know guys but it seems to fit at least according to the registration numbers on the photos I saw! Any thoughts? Thanks to all for the interesting info. Bil

[ruxy]

I think anyone who has renewed S3 headlamp boxes would agree , it is such a fiddly job changing the backing rims for a lens and then getting fingers in to a limited space to feed in the wiring and rubber boot that a REME mechanic is not going to swop things around for a whim. In any case on early ones the underseal spray often covered the rubber boot and water seal gland nut !

 

I think you are safe in saying that looking at the vehicle front and using FK & FL as a base-line - the fronts were clear over amber , by GF the fronts were amber over clear (and this is still with pressed glass lens).

 

It is unwise to base any theory on the pictures of just one book , in particular the advert on page 46 (that is a very rough artists impression). To compare with S3 CL's or Defender positions would be wrong - apples / oranges.

 

The sales brochure showing 20 HF 07 , don't trust the VRM as being correct - somewhere I have photographs of self sat in a L'wt FFR with sides rolled up at the 1980 Earls Court Motor Show and IIRC the plates are 20 HF 07 !!

 

Most of the collection I have are both 12 volt & FFR's covering HF to KC where I went out of my way to obtain good low mileage unmolested examples . Lighting not something I notice - I need to take a survey !!

 

More important rivet counting - why did they leave off the front bumperettes and rear lift eyes from KA , why mess about with rear axle casing spec. at HG - long before the start of "rationalized axles" ????

[Bilbo42]

Thanks for taking the time to read my ramble. I am in the States and I purchased the only two Lightweights I have ever seem in real life so I don't have much of a base of comparison other than the internet or books like the one Mark Cook did.. The first was also a 1974 but not an FFR. I had to sell it a few months ago. I agree with you that they are many variations of different things throughout the years. A lot of times I really don't understand if things were a real change or I am just seeing a picture of something someone has cooked up. Or, if it was a real change, why they made that change. When you throw in the many years of production, years of service, location of service, regular Army or TA, branch of service, 12/24 volt, and maybe after MOD modifications, ..like I told Andy..I stay confused!!!!! Now I only have one actual example to look at but thank goodness, it has not been messed with too much. You guys who have actually seen or maybe owned a number of Lightweights are really a wealth of knowledge to me and discussions like this one a real help. I hope I have not bored to many of you. Best regards, Bil

[airportable]

Hi Bilbo. Your not rambling, just keep posting the questions. The answers help others as well.

My latest buy (79' GS Airportable, see my restoration blog) has all the light fittings in a box!!:nut:, so your question has put a new slant on what will have to go where.

Good luck with your project.

Andy.