Gone and dun it..............................

[Degsy]

abn, have a look at Bearmach web site, click on catalogue, then series 2A and 3 accessories, scroll down to pic of parabolic springs.

[fv1609]

RSN8 are fine, they were specified for Rover 10 & 11. See page 22:

 

http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/IGNITIONMATTERS.pdf

[Mark]

Another question my lightweight was built in 1980 and yes I know they were built for a purpose, but are the mechanics of it the same as a series 2 or 3, 88" or 109" etc. etc. any ideas please.

[Ivor Ramsden]

Most of the mechanical bits really are standard Land-Rover or can be replaced by standard bits. This includes bearings, oil seals etc. You've already learned about the 24V situation but stuff is available so leave it as it is. Somebody local to you will have converted one of these to 12V and will have all the 24V bits in his garage. Ask around.

 

I wouldn't do any irreversible changes - I'm not such an animal. But there aren't many things that you can do to a Land Rover that aren't reversible.

 

Here's a photo of my lightweight on parabolics. The springs look much skinnier than the standard ones but I'm not too worried about originality on this vehicle. That's why it's got radial tyres on white wheels - they came off a dead 90 and they also help the ride and cut down on noise (the tyres, not the wheels, ha ha).

 

The RLC museum will have the history card for your lightweight. I got the history for mine but it was very uninspiring. It was originally LHD and served in Germany.

[abn deuce]

Ah what we would refer to as leaf springs ! then the standand is coil springs.

[sirhc]

Ah what we would refer to as leaf springs ! then the standand is coil springs.

 

Parabolic springs are a special kind of leaf spring. The standard leaf springs are heavy duty, have several leaves and give a harsh ride. It's even worse when they are 25 years old and rusty. Parabolic springs have a lot less leaves, usually 2, and give a much more comfortable ride due to the design. I have them on my Lightweight and there is quite a difference.

 

http://www.parabolicspring.com/parabolic.htm

 

Chris

[Tony B]

Should have gone the whole hog and got a 101! Parbolics do improve the ride considerably. The odd thing the 'Lightweight' is actually heavier than than the standard 88.

[Ivor Ramsden]

Ah what we would refer to as leaf springs ! then the standand is coil springs.

 

Aye, leaf springs were standard in 1980. They're also known as "cart springs" for obvious reasons

[Mark]

I found it quite comfortable after the 109

[Mark]

OK another quick question, are Landrovers (being British) UNC, UNF, Whitworth or Metric threads etc, some confusion in the household.

 

Answers on a postcard please.

[Richard Farrant]

OK another quick question, are Landrovers (being British) UNC, UNF, Whitworth or Metric threads etc, some confusion in the household.

 

Answers on a postcard please.

 

 

Mark,

 

Have not got a stamp for a postcard, so will write it here.............doubtful if there is any Metric threads on your Lightweight, unless someone has put some rogue bolts in it. From new they were mostly UNF, with some BSF mainly on the axles.........and possibly gearbox

[Mark]

Mark,

 

Have not got a stamp for a postcard, so will write it here.............doubtful if there is any Metric threads on your Lightweight, unless someone has put some rogue bolts in it. From new they were mostly UNF, with some BSF mainly on the axles.........and possibly gearbox

 

 

Many thanks Richard I have loads of them handy.

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Dont forget your 1/4 5/16 whit spanner and hammer/cold chisel for g/box work.:-D

[Richard Farrant]

Dont forget your 1/4 5/16 whit spanner and hammer/cold chisel for g/box work.:-D

 

There is a man who has L/R experience :-D

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

There is a man who has L/R experience :-D

:rofl::rofl::rofl::tup::

[fv1609]

The odd thing the 'Lightweight' is actually heavier than than the standard 88.

 

True but not comparing like with like. The civilian figure includes half a tank of fuel whereas the Lightweight includes two fuel tanks both full. Not to mention a FFR with a second battery, a generator panel, a heavy generator, pioneer kit etc. But it does seem a paradox I know:)

[Richard Farrant]

True but not comparing like with like. The civilian figure includes half a tank of fuel whereas the Lightweight includes two fuel tanks both full. Not to mention a FFR with a second battery, a generator panel, a heavy generator, pioneer kit etc. But it does seem a paradox I know:)

 

Not forgetting that the 88" was classed as a 1/4 ton, where as a Airportable / Lightweight was a 1/2 ton.

 

Actually to quote the 1981 MVEE book;

 

Rover 10 88" FFR unladen ; 1.7 tonne laden; 2.17 tonne

Lightweight unladen ; 1.496 tonne laden ; 2.02 tonne

[Degsy]

The 2A LtWt was about 300lb heavier than a normal military 2A but in stripped form was close to 300lb lighter.

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

The 2A LtWt was about 300lb heavier than a normal military 2A but in stripped form was close to 300lb lighter.

Hello mate ,just woke up.how come i dont know all these figures ,just shows you only read the bits you need.:-D

[Degsy]

Hi CW,:yawn: knew it was lighter but had to look up the figures,:readbook: there was an article in Dec CMV as it is 40 years since it first appeared. Doesn't that make you feel old:-D

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Hi CW,:yawn: knew it was lighter but had to look up the figures,:readbook: there was an article in Dec CMV as it is 40 years since it first appeared. Doesn't that make you feel old:-D

:shocked::shocked::shocked: not arf,i remember the first ones we worked on all fg reg,parachute failure had usually a dumb iron bent,got a leg out of bed we used to write on the ruddington catalogue.then came the lights on the wings,spoilt them.When i think of the radio racks,battery trays,split tailgates etc all went in the scrap,whot would we get for this stuff now,Ho hum never was any good on the futures markets.bed time.:-D

[Degsy]

:shocked::shocked::shocked: not arf,i remember the first ones we worked on all fg reg,parachute failure had usually a dumb iron bent,got a leg out of bed we used to write on the ruddington catalogue.then came the lights on the wings,spoilt them.When i think of the radio racks,battery trays,split tailgates etc all went in the scrap,whot would we get for this stuff now,Ho hum never was any good on the futures markets.bed time.:-D

 

There's a new market for Jack, repro bulkheads and split tailgates.:cool2:

Edited December 12, 2008 by Degsy

[fv1609]

Not forgetting that the 88" was classed as a 1/4 ton, where as a Airportable / Lightweight was a 1/2 ton.

 

True for a S3 Lightweight, but the Rover 1 ie 2A Lightweight was classed as 1/4 Ton.

[Mark]

Is mine an S3 lightweight (1980) ?

[sirhc]

Yes, it should say 'Truck, 1/2 Ton, FFR, Series 3' on the dataplate.