g&t

Sorry guys if this is not the appropriate sub forum for this subject but the others seem less so! I know the law requires trailers to carry a plate depicting weight ratings (& in the case of un-braked units the year of manuf.) but if I buy a trailer that's missing it's original spec. plate (they are after all only riveted on) & there is also no indication as to the manuf. what do I do? There are suppliers who sell blank plates in various formats but where do I get the relevent (spec) figures to stamp on the plate? Could it be that, in the same way as you don't buy a car w/o a V5, it's a case of 'don't buy a trailer w/o a rating plate' I know there are a lot of folks on here that 'tug' so any help would be appreciated.

When they left Crewe certainly, but unless it's been looked after it will suffer in the same way as the rover lump but cost rather a lot more to rebuild/replace! When you consider the car's status when new it's amazing how many dogs there are for sale, most of them ex wedding cars that have been run on a shoe-string & that's probably where 'your' engine would come from!

Deal PM on it's way

Hi Bowie, I've measured my cowl & it does seem to be slightly larger that yours (ie 730mm wide across the top compared to your 715) so I'll take a chance on yours being the better bet. If you are happy to go ahead then I suggest that you either (a)find out the postage cost & I'll pay you in advance by what ever method (except cash in the post obviously) you prefer or (b)send me the cowl & you are assured of prompt payment of the ticket/stamp price. Thanks for your trouble.

Thanks a lot for your time Bowie, I'll compare your measurements with my existing cowl over the W/E & reply.

This one appears to have a deeper core, so maybe that's the cowling I need. Thanks for that.

I'd be happy to pay the carriage as I'm in Essex. If you are still up for it can you follow my previous post re. the measurements first?

O.K guys, I agree there's no need to fall out over this. My independent always prefers to fit genuine parts for the very reason Nige gives, but on this occassion the local main stealer was unable to scource one for a 3.5 so MY choice was either pattern or recore. As the RR is not a daily-use car then with hindsight (that word again!) the latter would have been a better choice. If someone with a 3.9 could take some measurements from their cowl (not the rad) for me i.e the width across the top & the position of the aperture in relation to the cowl body itself I'd be very grateful. As to the villain of the piece, the rad itself, I'm taking the RR on a trip early next month & expect to cover around 1000m most of it on motorway's so watch this space!

I'm going to pull out of this discussion now as some of the replies are not exactly helpful, but not until I've had my (final) say: To cast aspersions on the abilities of a reputable one-man independant without even knowing the guy or the quality of his work is, quite frankly, not the sort of attitude I would have expected from this forum. He's had his own business for a number of years & has around 20 years of LR experience. He too is no stranger to the shortcomings of pattern parts (including BP) & took the trouble to satisfy himself as to the quality of the rad as soon as it was delivered, as should it turn out to be unfit for purpose he would be expected to remove it again in his own time & have the hassle of sending it back to his suplier. If the rad was indeed 'made to poor tolerances' how come it dropped straight in(?) only the cowling seems slightly wider (though it does fit & does not foul the fan) & I think that's probably because BP have opted for one rad that will fit both the carb (hence my point about the extra water outlet)& EFI models. With hindsight I would have gone for a re-core, but then they say hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I think it's a question of what you expect from a vehicle of such an old design. I've always found RRC brakes 'adequate' for the job, considering how you (dare I say) should drive these vehicles whose handling will never compare to a modern car. If I had used the brakes in the same way on my old BMW, or our current Mondeo, it would only be the seat-belt stopping me going through the windshield!

Think you are being a tad judgemental there Nige, the guy is a pro & I've used him for several years. He described the said genuine rad as 'poorly finished & with paint flaking off' scourced from a main stealer at a cost of £450.......... I'm not a cheapskate & often fit genuine components, it's just that when they are no longer available from LR the commonly used outlets only do pattern parts & most of them are scourced from Britpart. It's a question of being choosey about what you buy as BP's stock comes from a number of different manufactures (some of it NOS) & it's often the unit price you pay that's the clue to the quality.

Too late, fitted on Thurs. My independant (who's worked on LR's for 20 yrs) is happy with the quality, in fact thinks it's better than the last genuine unit he fitted for another customer last year. It's just that the original cowl seems very slightly wider than the rad. which incidently is obviously a standard 3.5 unit as it's got 2 outlets at the top LH side, one for the expansion tank & the other, now plugged, was for the inlet manifold of the carb version. Perhaps if I measure the cowl's width some-one can compare it to a later (3.9?) item for me.

Sorry to bore you guys again with this (last post 5th Aug) but like many of you I do like thing to be 'right' Having fitted a Britpart replacement rad to my 3.5efi I find that although the fan cowlng will re-attach, it's not possible to secure it with all the original screws & the fan blades are closer to the cowling opening on the driver's side than t'other. I'm happy to scource a alterative cowl but the question is which one(?)how many different cowls are there for the V8 I wonder. The rad itself seems to be decent quality enough but, because I am not 'trade', Britpart won't even talk to me let alone give any advice re. cowl fitment.

Has anyone recently replaced their 3.5efi radiator (basic core with no coolers incorporated) with a pattern part unit recently? If so, did you also have to change the fan shroud to the later (3.9) spec? My independant thinks this might be the case, if so it might be less hassle to get my own re-cored even though local prices are on par with a pattern rad, or even dearer.

Chevy 350? Supposed to be a straightforward swap, hence it's choice for converters like Overfinch.

Hi Fux1, I won't even try to reply in German I personally would'nt swap the 3.5 for a 3.9 as, having owned both, I did'nt find any significant difference in performance when I used the RR's over the same journeys & the later 94mm bore engines can develop block problems that will make your current troubles seem minor by comparison. Other than saying that the early EFI system is the most simple of all I'm afraid I can't add anything that has not already been posted by others, sorry

So lets get this right on my 'cost/ease of ownership' angle: Six ecu's vs my one, a 94mm block vs my orig. bore, a motor to shift the transfer box vs my lever, a VCU vs my manual diff lock, pricier tyres vs my 205's, CAT's in the exhaust vs my none, EAS vs my coils, ABS vs my none, a style & presence that, I think, leaves the P38 (& any other modern 4x4 for that matter) in the shade - 'oh lets leave it there Geoff, I don't want to alienate you mate or bore anyone else to death either!

I have to confess Geoff that I've never owned or desired a P38. I was comparing the ease of ownership between the two models, especially the 3.5 engined Classics. My main concern as an owner (surely I'm not the only one on this forum that has to pay an independant to carry out repairs) would be the electronics, how many ECU's does the '38 have compared to just the one on the Classic? Moving quickly past the flawed block problems of the later V8' to the troublesome EAS, coils were not an option on the P38 whose production run only ran for 8 years compared to the Classic's 25. I'll agree on the build quality issue though, how LR ever convinced the market that the original model was worth it's sticker price we will never know, especially with a dashboard assembly that would be unacceptable today even in the cheapest import. I'm sticking with my 'London cab' comment though!

I suppose it's a case of horses-for-courses. If you want an underdeveloped, overcomplicated moneypit that looks like a london cab go for the P38. If on the other hand you want relative simplicity with a style that never dates then it has to be the Classic, preferably a 3.5 for durability. I have an everyday car to use (plus I'm retired) so fuel consumption isn't an issue.

But then there is A/C & there is A/C. A friend of mine rented a car in the states a good few years ago & when he put the A/C on full blast he thought it had misted the 'screen. When he went to wipe it he found it was icing up! Yanks 1 LR 0

I've only ever had one RRC (a '93) with A/C & was so disappointed with it's funtions that I didn't bother when buying each of the three classics I've had since. I'd rather have a sun-roof & save 42kg of dead weight.

M&M 4x4 used to make them 'in-house' & were generally reckoned to be good value but I'm not sure if they are still available. Might be worth a 'phone call though.

In fact it's not leaking at all, just that I sus. that the RR's lack of use during the years prior to my purchase of it did'nt do the rad any favours esp. since it's a horizontal flow design. The car's only done 44k (verified) now & runs at normal temp. when cruising or punting around town but will start getting hot if I drive at higher speeds for any length of time. I am going on a 300m motorway journey later this summer so can't afford to risk it. I will enquire as to Essex Rads prices though, thanks for that DB

Thanks Steve, didn't find their website very informative but it's an option at least. Suprisingly despite posting this thread on (now) three different forums, yours is only the second reply I've had! Perhaps rads. have a greater service life these days?