





Trundle wrote:I probably shouldnt be winding all these Euro owners up , it keeps my scan tool making a nice profit![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
!!!
quote="bang-thud-thump"]
Maybe I should post this in an open area but with all the slagging I wont get much useful info. People forget that Toyotas blow up too it seems.
quote]
Bulletproof wrote:What do you think of this for a dumb idea. When Landrovers were first made they used the P2 car gearbox. This had no oil seal on the front end which mean't if the Landrover was facing down hill the oil ran out onto the clutch plate.
All rover needed to do was fit an oil seal to the gearbox but no . Instead they fitted an oil slinger to the clutch plate to send the oil around the bell housing.
Here is one fitted to a 48 rover clutch . It is an aluminum pressed plate
Cheer Richard
lax2wlg wrote:Is that like saying 'she's hot, for a crackwhore??
DieselBoy wrote:I forgot to add:
2.8 Hilux
wow expensive
2.8 is so more gutless than the 540cc 2stroke in my LJ50!!!
Zip zero flex from the heavy comercial load carrrying leaf spring set up
horrible car style sit on the floor seating position
steering C arm a terrible design, break all the time
Hand brake cables fill with water and freeze up over night locking the hand brake on
can only just fit 31's with out a sus lift
solid axle front and rear is a plus
too gutless and ridgedly sprung(uncomfortable) for me
Bulletproof wrote:I'm just winding people up. I belonged to the Canterbury Landrover owners club for years so I have seen hundred of Landrovers of all types.
All the old ones broke down on every trip but the 110s and the 90s are very good and capable without any modifications. The diffs are fine as long as you stick to 33s but with 35s they start breaking CV when lockers are fitted and rear diffs are suspect too.
A friend in the club had a very modified Jeep . A few years ago he bought the latest 90. He said as a standard vehicle it would go the same places as the modified Jeep.
My pick is a 110 as a good all round truck. but I still enjoy driving my 48 and get lots of waves
Cheers Richard
lax2wlg wrote:Is that like saying 'she's hot, for a crackwhore??
BlakeNZ wrote:As an aside, tow truck drivers tell me that the car they pick up off the side of the road the most are Pre 2000 subarus.
DieselBoy wrote:The R380 gearbox?? Road car was that in??
DieselBoy wrote:Your missing the point, we are comparing apples with apples in this thread. No 1948 tech with 1990 and newer tech.
You comparing VINTAGE CARS with modern cars Richard.
No one has yet to provide a shred of factual evidence based on personal experience to prove that Toyotas and Nissans are more reliable than Land Rovers
We have 3 pages of nothing but unfounded opinion.
turoa wrote:DieselBoy wrote:The R380 gearbox?? Road car was that in??
SD1
lax2wlg wrote:
Whoa, lets not get too carried away here, they still used 10 spline axles up until the mid nineties, and still use spiral bevel gearsets in the Defender diffs, when the rest of the world went to stronger hypoid design in the 60s. You could keep going with this... the 'mighty Rover V8' was still a 16 valve pushrod unit with a distributor ignition system right up until its retirement..
Thats insulting to the owners of both vehicles who have voiced their opinions in this thread.
The unfortunate truth is that from a commercial standpoint, the writing is clearly on the wall with Land Rover, otherwise they would be a commercially highly successful company, they wouldn't have been through 5 parent-owners hands in less than 10 years, they wouldn't have been technically surpassed in the late 80s by the Japanese, and the Australian Military wouldn't have switched their contract to Toyota LandCruisers.
ice4x4 wrote:lax2wlg wrote:
Whoa, lets not get too carried away here, they still used 10 spline axles up until the mid nineties, and still use spiral bevel gearsets in the Defender diffs, when the rest of the world went to stronger hypoid design in the 60s. You could keep going with this... the 'mighty Rover V8' was still a 16 valve pushrod unit with a distributor ignition system right up until its retirement..
Thats insulting to the owners of both vehicles who have voiced their opinions in this thread.
The unfortunate truth is that from a commercial standpoint, the writing is clearly on the wall with Land Rover, otherwise they would be a commercially highly successful company, they wouldn't have been through 5 parent-owners hands in less than 10 years, they wouldn't have been technically surpassed in the late 80s by the Japanese, and the Australian Military wouldn't have switched their contract to Toyota LandCruisers.
Are you actually for real???
Or just trolling???
lax2wlg wrote:Is that like saying 'she's hot, for a crackwhore??
lax2wlg wrote:in fact that Discovery drivetrain of 300Tdi/ZF Auto/Borg Warner transfer was one of the most reliable setups they ever made
lax2wlg wrote:the 'mighty Rover V8' was still a 16 valve pushrod unit with a distributor ignition system right up until its retirement..
lax2wlg wrote:when the rest of the world went to stronger hypoid design in the 60s.....
lax2wlg wrote:they wouldn't have been technically surpassed in the late 80s by the Japanese
lax2wlg wrote:they wouldn't have been through 5 parent-owners hands in less than 10 years
lax2wlg wrote:The unfortunate truth is that from a commercial standpoint, the writing is clearly on the wall with Land Rover, otherwise they would be a commercially highly successful company
lax2wlg wrote:its just that those are the historical facts....please dont shoot the messenger...just provide some equally relevant evidence to counter the facts i have presented
ice4x4 wrote:turoa wrote:DieselBoy wrote:The R380 gearbox?? Road car was that in??
SD1
No it wasn't!
But I beleive it was fitted to TVR's and Morgans..