first Land Rover????

[TSR53]

I agree with you greenmeanie. Yes, 101s are my personal favorite (produced) Land Rover as well, with exception to the prototype powered trailer and AG tyred version as I designed on our RN T-Shirts a few years back - that is my fav. (psst they are ALL on sale at a rediculously low $10 ea) grab 'em now!)



If only Land Rover had taken the 101 to lofty heights we'd be blue in the face with Llamma parts by now.

Just wait until the latest Rovers North News hits the stands . 101's will be on my trick vehicle list forever. Very, Very good thread - this is what makes forums ROCK - thanks for the post.

[JeffB]

I read somewhere to carefully check the front swivel balls because they cant be replaced as they are integral to the front axle housing, fwiw.

[greenmeanie]

Front axle swivels
Steering box
Steering relay
Steering ball joints (can be overhauled rather than replaced.)
Rear cross member especially behind the bumperettes
Brake load apportioning valve
Brake servo
Brake and clutch master cyls.
Transfer box thrust washers
Engine oil pump.
Wear in the prop shaft splines


These items are all unique to the 101 and expensive to get new ones

If you have a winch:
Cracking around the fairlead mount.
Broken strands/rust on the cable.
Cable secured to the winch drum
Clutch set to approx. 4000lbs max
Alignment of the bicycle chain gears and mount.

There is also the usual things you would check on any Land Rover .

Cheers
Gregor

[archaeologistjen]

All good points! I don't know if the 101 would be the best "first" LR to acquire. Parts can take awhile to track down, and it's best if you have a lot of patience, especially if you're trying to get items from overseas.

[J!m]

I do a good portion of the work on Mike's 101 and you can have the wretched things. In the model world, we call what Rover did "kit bashing", where you take parts from several kits to make one unique thing. This is exactly what LR did with the 101.

Absolutely abysmal to work on, as everything was crammed into the smallest possible space to maximize cargo capacity. He broke the throttle linkage for crying out loud! To be fair, the Salisbury axles are nice, and the turning circle is surprisingly small. On the other hand, obtaining tires for these is getting harder and harder, not to mention expensive. Oh, and the 101 "6-stud" wheels are specific, although I hear the (expensive) Unimog wheels fit...

Mike is seriously considering selling his, after investing about $30,000.00 in restoration and repair over the last few years (see www.drivetheglobe.com). Anyone interested? I wouldn't take it if he gave it to me...

A first rover? Well, I suppose if you owned a large repair/fabrication shop, and/or had limitless wealth, it's an excellent idea.

As always, buy the best condition one you can find/afford, and assume you will spend double the purchase price on top of that just to make it reasonably safe on the road, regardless of who you buy it from.

It is definitely a love/hate thing. I am obviously in the latter group. Also, if you are taller than 5'9" and over 150 pounds, try sitting in one before you buy one. I'm 6'2" tall, and even with Mike's modified interior and smaller steering wheel I BARELY fit; not comfortably enough for expeditions at all...

Think long and hard about it before you buy one...

[greenmeanie]

Love 'em or hate 'em is very true. If its not obvious yet I am in the first category.

Other than burning my knuckles on the manifolds setting up the carbs I've never had problems with component access for maintenance. Show me another rover where you can gain complete access to the to the engine and gearbox from the bottom top and sides by merely releasing quick fasteners instead of dismantling the interior of the cab. Ambi's obviously have more issues due to their more extensive bodywork.

The design constraints were not for payload but for airportability. The physical size of the vehicle was to allow it to fit inside the RAF transport of the day (I can't remember if it was the Argossy or the Belfast that drove this.) The strip down capability was to reduce weight to permit underslung load by the helicopters of the day which were underpowered compared to the current offerings. Like all Rovers there are design issues but they are well documented and easily fixed.

This vehicle is really no more complex than a series and share a lot of components. As you say - kit bashing - but then look at most British cars of the seventies and you will find the same.

Tyres are easy - Buckshot mudders are popular in the US and if bar grips are your thing they can be had from Denman or Speciality Tires although they are not very cheap.

Lot of people have used them for trans continental expeditions so the comfort can't be that bad. If you are under 6' (I'm 5'11'' and 180lbs.) and you can put up with a series truck then a 101 should not be a problem.

Having said that the previous poster is correct in stating that you could save yourself a lot of heartache and money by actually finding a willing owner and test driving one first. This is not an F150.

Due to the aforementioned parts commonality ownership costs are not too high comapred with many other military vehciles. Paying someone to restore your truck is always going to be expensive so its best that you like getting dirty yourself, but all series owners know that.

If a 101 is what gets your juices flowing there is no need to be any more afraid than buying a regular series truck. Join the club and the Yahoo group and you will find lots of support and a good safety net.

Cheers
Gregor

[J!m]

Love 'em or hate 'em is very true. If its not obvious yet I am in the first category.

The design constraints were not for payload but for air portability.

My mistake. I'm not the expert on "why"; however I have worked on every system of the 101 (against my will) and have to say there were quite a few things which could have been done more intelligently and still work as needed...

The strip down capability was to reduce weight to permit underslung load by the helicopters of the day which were underpowered compared to the current offerings.

My understanding is that they broke down to stack more easily, as with the air-portable 88", to ship more in the same space... I doubt it was to save weight because those parts would have to get to where the tuck is eventually... Did they have all the cab tops and hoop sets in another helicopter for several trucks???

Like all Rovers there are design issues but they are well documented and easily fixed.

Well documented, maybe. Easily fixed? Thad depends greatly on your skill set and bank account...

This vehicle is really no more complex than a series and share a lot of components. As you say - kit bashing - but then look at most British cars of the seventies and you will find the same.

Agreed... No more complex in construction, but I'd rather work on a series truck than the 101... I have worked on both, including the frame-up on my series.

Tyres are easy - Buckshot mudders are popular in the US and if bar grips are your thing they can be had from Denman or Speciality Tires although they are not very cheap.

Mike had the buckshot mudders. He rolled his truck because of them (WAY to bouncy to be safe). They ride horribly, are noisy and not cheap, not to mention no longer made. He now has military surplus Michelin 11.00-16's and they are far superior to the crappy mudders (don't ask how much...). Bar-grips are fine to drive off a trailer onto the show field ONLY. Absolutely useless for anything else; ESPECIALLY a cross-continent expedition. Ask anyone who's tried it, like Shane for example...

Lot of people have used them for trans continental expeditions so the comfort can't be that bad. If you are under 6' (I'm 5'11'' and 180lbs.) and you can put up with a series truck then a 101 should not be a problem.

I HAVE used a series truck for a trans-continental expedition. I will never do it again! I bought my 110 because of that trip! The 101 actually has the potential to ride better than a series truck (and according to Mike his does after several years of tweaking), but I still would not suggest it to anyone thinking of doing a big expedition.

Due to the aforementioned parts commonality ownership costs are not too high compared with many other military vehicles.

I'm with you half-way here. Many of the parts interchange, but an equal number do not. Let's take a look at the cables for the parking brake, high-low range and diff lock for instance... Price any of these lately? and no, they don't interchange with anything else...

If a 101 is what gets your juices flowing there is no need to be any more afraid than buying a regular series truck. Join the club and the Yahoo group and you will find lots of support and a good safety net.

Mike is a member of these groups and still comes to me with problems every trip that cannot be solved by anyone else. At this point, Mike's truck is more custom than stock, and we improve whenever we can, as the stock 30+ year old parts are crumbling into dust as I write this. More parts every day become "NLA" and you are out of luck. PLEEAASE think it through carefully, and if you have zero experience with a series truck, don't expect this to be an "easy" truck to deal with. I still strongly suggest NOT getting a 101 as a "first Rover". You will be put off to the brand for life.

I'm done now. In fact, I'll even refrain from saying "I told you so" if you do decide to get one and learn the hard way...