2nd Best series 3 at Cooma

**lro11** · 3rd February 2009, 08:39 PM

Spotted this on ebay does anyone know this vehicle? It doesn't look totally original has it been restored?

LAND ROVER SERIES THREE 1981 MODEL MINT - eBay, Other Car Parts, Accessories, Car Parts, Accessories, Cars, Bikes, Boats. (end time 13-Feb-09 21:00:00 AEDST)

**Sleepy** · 3rd February 2009, 08:46 PM

Very Nice S3

- I must say! Not a bad price if it is as good as it looks. May even sell for a bit more.

**lro11** · 3rd February 2009, 09:09 PM

It is a very good buy I have spent three times that on mine with another 10k to go and it is just a ute. If I only had the space.

**vnx205** · 3rd February 2009, 09:17 PM

Does anyone else believe the "ORIGINAL 39766 KLMS"?

I thought that sort of misalignment of the numbers on the odometer tended to happen more on the second or third time around.

So what do you think is more likely? 138766 or 239766?

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

MickS · 3rd February 2009, 10:58 PM

The rego number jogged my memory, and I now remember seeing it at the NRMA motorfest on Australia Day 2008. Looked very nice inside and out. Pic of it here - Message - AULRO Photo Gallery - compliments of DiscoDave.

Cheers
Mick

**Xtreme** · 3rd February 2009, 11:03 PM

This Landy was displayed at the recent NRMA Motorfest at Sydney.
I know the vehicle and everything about it is absolutely genuine.
It would be an excellent buy and is worth somewhat more than the 'starting price' quoted.

Attached pic taken at the Motorfest on Australia Day.

Roger

PS - I'm not the owner

**weeds** · 3rd February 2009, 11:05 PM

runner up...did they mention 1st 2nd 3rd.......should have been playng attention

i don't recall seeing it there but that doesn't mean it wasn't i guess

**JDNSW** · 4th February 2009, 06:14 AM

I do remember seeing it at Cooma. It is certainly worth more than the quoted starting bid, unlike a lot of optimistic sellers!

John

**vnx205** · 4th February 2009, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by vnx205

Does anyone else believe the "ORIGINAL 39766 KLMS"?

I thought that sort of misalignment of the numbers on the odometer tended to happen more on the second or third time around.

So what do you think is more likely? 138766 or 239766?

Maybe I'm just too cynical.

OK, I stand corrected .. .. ..again.

It seems I am just too cynical.

However that odometer does look a bit odd. Obviously it's just another sign of the quality of British engineering rather than an indication of something suspicious.

**JDNSW** · 4th February 2009, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by vnx205

OK, I stand corrected .. .. ..again.

It seems I am just too cynical.

However that odometer does look a bit odd. Obviously it's just another sign of the quality of British engineering rather than an indication of something suspicious.

The first two digits are starting to turn as the next thousand approaches - normal performance for that speedo.

(The Series speedos have the serious defect, like most 1950s designed speedos, that they only have five digits on the odometer. It is worth remembering that 100,000 miles was a good life for most cars in the 1950s - you could expect an engine overhaul well before that in most circumstances. However, they do have the major advantage that unlike later speedos they are easy to disassemble for repair or simply to reset the mileage.)

John

Thread: 2nd Best series 3 at Cooma

Thread Tools

2nd Best series 3 at Cooma

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions