Offroad-Express

I probably shouldnt be winding all these Euro owners up , it keeps my scan tool making a nice profit !!!

Trundle wrote:I probably shouldnt be winding all these Euro owners up , it keeps my scan tool making a nice profit !!!

Pity you dont live up here, I could do with the hire of one if those...

well well DB. Haven't you turned in to a sweet ray of sunshine.

FYI, I just cut up a 92 surf to make a single cab (including windscreen removal). It had sat out side unused and uncovered for about three years (I believe). No rust anywhere except a 50c coin size in the bottom of one rear door. And I cut the doors up so I know there was nothing else.

Your LJ50 is not more powerful than a 2.8 Toyota diesel. It just weighs a quarter of what the Hilux does so it feels more powerful. Horses for courses.

I think what you were saying is that all brands have their ups and downs, and we all just need to pick what suits our particular needs and preferences. These lists should help bang-thump-thud with a decision I guess.

DB, you used to be such a positive guy. It would appear that buying a landy has made you all sour?

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]

Your prediction came true.

No matter where you posted on ORE you were going to get the slagging from those that don't know or understand Land Rovers.

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

Here is another weak idea. This a pinion out of a 1948 Landrover.

It has a roller bearing at the drive end and a ball bearing at the other with a spring in between so there is no preload anywhere.Very strong indead I must say.



Cheers Richard

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

Yes, but that was in 1948 Richard!!!!

Your missing the point, we are comparing apples with apples in this thread. No 1948 tech with 1990 and newer tech.

You can see that right??

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.

Should we define reliability first??

Is it how long a truck will go with out maintenance before it craps out in the middle of know where??

Is it how hard you can beat it up before it breaks??

Is it how many k's you can get before components needs replacing??

Define the parameters of the discussion and we might actually get somewhere

P.s Shortylux, I still love you lots, it's ok, nothing has changed

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

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

AMEN. (with emphasis on the seating and ride quality)

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

I can't wait until I have our 55 back on the road!!!!

Try this, it's from an automotive warranty company. The results surprised me.

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/comparison

as far as i can tell, there has not been any slagging from people who haven't owned land rovers, or worked lots on them.
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.

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.

well thats not a suprise at all is it

Passionate buggers arent ya!

I put reliability as how long it goes with proper maintenance and reasonable usage until it breaks - relative to similar vehicles.

And yes Subarus are shit unless you own a workshop or like pinching cars.

I appreciate the info, Im getting all brands here anyway, no need to post in a general forum

FYI I ride an italian bike so I obviously didnt learn much from being a mechanic for years! It aint that hard to work on but not being under time pressure helps, coffee breaks can linger if I feel like it.

One Rangie issue that amused me was wiper motors needing new park switches. What the hell?! I have never done one in a jappa.

Did do a few motors though in Vitaras, Toyotas ( no shit) etc.

One Safari clutch - big heavy box to remove. Not fun and that was on a hoist with a trans lifter. I think at home Id make up a cradle to fit into a trolley jack. Time well spent to me.

Well if you are going to use it for hunting, then maybe a short wheel base cheapy that won't matter if you spill a little blood in the back for less than say, $4000??

That means you have got mitsi pajero, isuzu mu, if you want diesel or suzuki vitara (if you are lucky to get a good one for under 4k), mitsi pajero in petrol.

Long wheelbase then look at isuzu bighorn, v8 rover, pajero, old terrano

you probably won't get toyota or nissan worth owning in the low price range

DieselBoy wrote:The R380 gearbox?? Road car was that in??

SD1

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.

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..

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.

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.

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..

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???

If we are having a go at pushrods dont let HSV owners near here.

They may be old school but they work. And holdens sell by the tonne. People will waste money on tarts handbags eh.

The poppet valve engine is a dinosaur anyway you run one. Just glorified stationary engines 30% efficient if you are lucky.

I still love them but lets be real.

DOHC multi valve engines with individual coil ignition looks flash and work more efficiently but are flash hats on old ladies in reality.

And for the record the dohc alloy head goes back to at least the 1920s so what is new and what is old?

Besides real engines have Desmo valve operation.

And for the record, cheers for the cheap 4x4 advice earlier to.

to the original poster, what is your budget please?

100% for real, these are just hard truths from the automotive history books.
Hard, factual, evidence based truths... its like debating with a creationist!

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???

He's just trolling, check his other thread from a week ago

Whats trolling? I an ex LR owner, LR greasemonkey, LR fan... 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, thats what intelligent debate is all about, not irrational accusations

Like you don't already know... Trolling is making stupid comments or asking stupid questions to deliberately wind people up and its not very friendly...

lax2wlg wrote:in fact that Discovery drivetrain of 300Tdi/ZF Auto/Borg Warner transfer was one of the most reliable setups they ever made

Bollocks! The Borg Warner transfer box was never fitted to any Discovery and they are crap, they suffer from chain stretch and the viscous couplings seize up making for interesting road driving...

lax2wlg wrote:the 'mighty Rover V8' was still a 16 valve pushrod unit with a distributor ignition system right up until its retirement..

Wrong again! The 4.0 and 4.6 liters both had electronic distributor less ignition from 1994 when the P38 Range Rover with the Lucas Gems system (followed by the BOSCH Thor system) was introduced to when the Rover V8 was actually retired when the Disco 2 was replaced by the Disco 3 in 2004. Thats 10 years, a decade!

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

Are you saying that Japanese 4x4 vehicles are more technologically advanced because the have hypoid differentials? I think you need to look up the word technology

lax2wlg wrote:they wouldn't have been through 5 parent-owners hands in less than 10 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover

The "Rover" group was bought by BMW in 1994, they sold "Land Rover" to Ford in 2000 who in turn sold it to TATA in 2007 who still own it. Now according to my calculations thats 3 owners in 19 years actually only 2 for "Land Rover"......

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

Errrrm..... WTF!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... rofit.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/new ... ofits.html

The past 2 years they have made over $6000 million Nzd in profit! I bet the administrators are banging down the doors in Solihull. Whats your idea of a high success?

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

Please don't shoot the messenger but as pretty much every post you made in this thread has been wrong it appears you are either,

a) A bit cock sure...
b) Full of shit... or
c) Trolling

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..

Touche mr salesman. Sd1's only got the lt77. Daf vans got an r380 apparently

I never knew that TATA owned the company now! That's pretty interesting

Ha! 6000 million nzd in profit, thats what you just said!
My friend had a Disco 1 w the 300tdi and ZF auto. Correct me if i am wrong but thought that was the chain drive borg warner transfer that was also in the Rangie classic. In any case it was a v reliable setup.

And okay they put elec ignition in the later Buick V8s

I appreciate the rebuke but I am not trying to wind you up nor do i want to show you my cock. As for trolling, i'm not jst making stuff up or taking cheap shots at landies.

Other than the xfer case technicality i believe what I have written as just facts.

Ps you forgot Hondas involvement as a major stakeholder in the 90s while they were being juggled between owners.

A colleague of mine owned a Disco II TD5.
It was seriously nice to drive (on road), very luxurious, and pretty quick.
He never offroaded it, but when I knew him, it was in the garage (it seemed) monthly. Had to pick him up or drop him off all the time in my old Nissan. All sorts of electrical (ABS, windows) and a couple of mechanical problems from memory. He'd owned it since new, and always had it serviced by dealerships (for better or worse). He's an English guy, very loyal to the brand, but even he joked "they come from the factory with an oil leak". He told me about a couple of things he'd had fixed, and the prices made my eyes water. But that's buying new, and having it done by a dealer, whereas I'm a DIY mechanic. He ended up selling it because "it costs too much to fix all the time". It had about 100,000miles (UK import) on it. Bought a late model Audi. Not sure how that's worked out for him They can have electrical gremlins aplenty!
I've had my '95 Terrano for a few years, and my Dad had it almost from new. Only ever needed the oil changed (touch wood). Broke down once when fuel system leaked and sucked in air. Probably seal washers leaked, according to Nissan (the one time Nissan NZ have touched the car). They didn't end up even replacing a part, except for the fuel filter and washers, which was just done as part of their elimination process. The filter had been replaced 20K-30K before, so probably someone just didn't do up a banjo bolt fully.
Not really comparable vehicles ofcourse - the Nissan is b.a.s.i.c. where as the Disco is dripping technology/creature comforts. Just my experiences/observations, nothing more or less.

Some of you guys need to take a deep breath and relax! Lax2wig may not always get all the facts right, but he's no noob either, his opinions are also valid. At least he keeps it civil. Be reasonable when arguing the facts, and show the evidence, don't just flame people the moment they make a mistake (perceived or otherwise).

all this just makes me want a disco more.
sucker for punishment... my citroens and peugeots give me no issues and french cars are regarded as having a reliability only one better than italian vehicles...