Another one bites the dust?

[R_Lefebvre]

Yep. I was fording a river right behind a late Defender when its crank angle sensor got immersed in the cold river and broke from the thermal shock. The Defender had to be towed all the way back down the trail and to a motel where it sat until a replacement crank angle sensor could be shipped to them. Those OBDII vehicles are hydrophobic for good reason.

And we've all heard about older trucks getting water in the distributor, etc. You're kidding yourself and showing your true colours when you make comments suggesting that older trucks are more reliable or capable than the newer ones, because the rest of us know there is no end of trouble you can have with an older truck.

And those who want to have vehicles old enough to be modified without breaking State emissions regulations. In California its a 1973 & older petrol powered engine or vehicle, whichever is newer.

And for the rest of us who don't live in California? As long as I pass a sniffer test, I'm good to go. Not that I plan on modifying the engine on this truck anyway. Why? Because it shipped from the factory with more than enough power.

Umm, Manufacturers want you to buy new cars. The faster used cars go to the recyclers the better for them.

Car manufacturers hate people like me who bought my Land Rover used then own it for 30 years and counting.

True enough. Can't argue that point.

However, some have changed their ways. As I said, Ford has released the entire programming language for their engine computers. In 2001, I had to purchase a whole new engine management computer for $2000 and program it from scratch for my turbo Focus. Now, guys just buy a $500 flasher and tweak the factory computer.

Things change.

 

[James86004]

However, some have changed their ways. As I said, Ford has released the entire programming language for their engine computers. In 2001, I had to purchase a whole new engine management computer for $2000 and program it from scratch for my turbo Focus. Now, guys just buy a $500 flasher and tweak the factory computer.

Things change.

You hit the nail on the head with this point. It is not so much that the new vehicles have all this electronic gimmickery. It is that you can't buy the tools to work on them for a reasonable price. I am glad Ford has seen fit to release the information necessary for cheap tools to come on the market.

 

[Alaska Mike]

I can remember for the past 20 years, people have been talking about how technology would make cars unserviceable. When they switched from carbs to basic fuel injection, the world was supposed to end. Then when OBDII came along, look out!

The way I see it, things have never been better. One can buy a code reader for $100 that can give you insight into what's wrong with your car instead of fiddling about with points and floats. For $500, one can buy a computer flasher for the more popular models that allows you to completely retune the engine without mucking about with recurved distributors and jets.

The only people who have been left behind are those who are afraid of change.

Sure, the LR3 looks complicated now. And it is... but it's also been made with vastly better engineering resources and materials. It has a lot of systems, but once the price comes down and home mechanics start buying them, I hope that affordable diagnostic systems will be available.

The only threat to my view of things is the OEM's desire to make things proprietary in order to force people to return to the dealer for $ervice. They must realize that no matter what... people with money will not be buying used cars. And you have to have money to maintain an older car if you are going to go to the dealer. I mean, who in their right mind would buy a 3 year old car for half it's value, but then spend $1000's every month on repairs at the dealer? If I had that kinda cash, I'd just buy a new one with a warranty and service plan.

That means they have to accept the fact that it's people who will be fixing their own cars who will be buying them at the end of the lease. The more complicated you make them to maintain, the less appeal there is for us, and thus the value is lower.

This is why the complicated fancy cars plummet in value no matter who's name is on it. It happens to all of them, MB, BMW, Audi, etc. This drives up the cost of leases, or makes the purchase decision more difficult because resale is so low. I hope they figure this out soon.

Technology has at least leveled the playing field, as new systems have been developed. A simple points system may be a little cranky at times, but it's pretty straightforward and parts are easy/cheap to install and source. Likewise, carbs can be field serviced and require very little to operate properly. The basics of the internal combustion engine haven't changed (fuel, air, ignition), but the management and monitoring certainly has. Call me a neo-Luddite, but I used to work on F-15 avionics on a component level, specifically the radar system, and what often failed wasn't the core function of the unit, but the diagnostic and management equipment that surrounded it.

That said, I'm installing a fuel injected engine in my Rover (pre-OBD II). You can't deny the capability and efficiency fuel injection brings to the table, and parts availability for this particular engine is very good in the states.

Most people don't work on their vehicles anymore if they can avoid it. Sure, I can buy a diagnostic reader for $100, but it very well could flash a code for a part that costs $500. That adds up over time. As vehicles become more and more proprietary, this is more common. As manufacturers go towards a more lean logistics stream, parts availability will continue to dwindle over time for older models. The aftermarket can only devote their resources to where the money is, namely large marques like Ford, Toyota, or Chevy that cross-utilize parts a little more. You remember that ad one of the manufacturers had where they welded a hood shut and said you could drive that vehicle for 100,000 miles? That's what they want- a disposable mentality so they can make money on new car sales.

Governmental regulations also play a role, as engine swaps for more modern and efficient engines can be prohibited. Gas economy on Rovers in stock trim isn't exactly exceptional, which may play a role in the future.

It kills me every time I see a Disco go up on Craigslist for next to nothing with nothing more than high mileage being wrong with it. The bottom line is that the market in general has deemed that vehicle beyond economical repair. The owner would certainly like more money for it, but the market won't bear it. Most modern vehicles suffer this same fate.

It's not a pretty picture, but it's one worth considering.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I'm not quite sure which direction you were going with that. Old or new?

The part about welding the hood shut reminded me of something. I was an engineer at Ford a few years ago. I watched as the premium marques paid more and more money to put fancy engine covers on their engines. The only visible items were the oil dipstick and fill tube, and the washer fluid. You know, look at an Audi for example.

So, I see Ford start putting engine covers on. But, they don't want to spend the money on anything fancy, they just put some piece of crap cover on that looks terrible. I suggested, this whole idea is a waste of money. We have this metal hood which you lift, and then see a plastic cover with a few things sticking out. I suggested that they do away with the plastic covers and the hood pulls. Just have the dipstick sticking right out of the hood.

I mean really, the whole situation is silly. Why bother having openable hoods if you're going to spend $200 putting a plastic cover over everything anyway?

 

[TeriAnn]

And we've all heard about older trucks getting water in the distributor, etc. You're kidding yourself and showing your true colours

You missed the point. The crank rotational sensor sits near the bottom of the engine block usually at the mid line of the crank. A distributor sits much higher up on top of the engine block. You can wade deeper with a distributor. Deeper yet with a mechanical injection diesel. Get the distributor wet you take the cap off & let things dry. Break the crank angle sensor and you have to hope you have a spare along because that is one sensor you can not do without & there is no limp home mode for it.

My true colours? My 1960 Land Rover has a 1970 Ford 302 (doesn't require California SMOG tests) and 1991 Mustang EFI.

You're kidding yourself and showing your true colours when you make comments suggesting that older trucks are more reliable or capable than the newer ones, because the rest of us know there is no end of trouble you can have with an older truck.

I think the statement should read "there is no end of trouble you can have with any truck" The key is can you fix it in the field or get it to the point where it can limp out on its own? Doesn't matter if it is new or old. What matters is the driver's ability to patch things up with the on board spares.

Is April trash Land Rover subgroup month?

 

[R_Lefebvre]

"there is no end of trouble you can have with any truck"

This is the key point that *I* am trying to make. You constantly criticize the newer trucks, suggesting they are less reliable or capable. I counter that by saying you would have difficulty coming up with any statistical evidence one way or the other. Instead, you use anecdotal evidence of only a few instances which support your biased point of view.

A previous poster showed evidence that you have espoused this viewpoint for more than 10 years.

IIRC, your 302 suffers from a potentially weak oil pump drive which can lead to catastrophic oil pressure failure, or loss of distributor drive. So how is that better? Is that also not the same engine which suffers from the terrible TFI problem?

If you were pro-Toyota, I'd have a hard time arguing with you. But arguing about which era of Land Rover is more reliable is a null-sum game.

Again, this argument seems to be one-directional. I think most of the coilers here love and respect the leafer trucks. You however, seem to go out of your way to constantly attack the coilers with no provocation at all. I daresay your behavior is not befitting of this board.

 

[Alaska Mike]

I'm not quite sure which direction you were going with that. Old or new?

Both. I pick and choose as I see fit. I gotta admit, I wouldn't want to commute every day in a vehicle designed with 1960s technology (although I have). Modern vehicles are more comfortable and more efficient, and I really like being comfortable day to day.

However, with my trail rigs I generally go more simplistic. The less "systems" I have to deal with, the more confident I am. On my CJ, I replaced the stock Ford-sourced ignition system with a less-complex but more powerful HEI system. Other, non-essential systems were eliminated, along with the yards and yards of wire. I don't even have a radio in my trail rigs.

The plan for my Series III is to take the entire wiring harness (headlights to tail lights) from the engine's donor vehicle, removing any excess circuits that I can't use. Cruise control? Not likely. A/C? Maybe, for onboard air. Each circuit will be evaluated and eliminated if not needed. I have that opportunity, and I'm going to make the best of it.

A local guy was prepping a DI for the Rainforest Challenge, and the amount of wire he was pulling from that vehicle was incredible. I'm used to basic vehicles like CJs, and so seeing exactly what is under all of those trim panels can be eye-opening. From a pessimistic standpoint, I see every lead as a potential for failure. The fewer the better.

That said, my wife would kill me if I started hacking on her Sienna with that same goal in mind. It will never see the kind of abuse over the lifespan of the vehicle. It will never cross a river, be submerged in a mud pit, or bounce off rocks (if I can avoid it). Different intended use, different environment, different audience.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Yes, different horses for different courses.

 

[Alaska Mike]

Again, this argument seems to be one-directional. I think most of the coilers here love and respect the leafer trucks. You however, seem to go out of your way to constantly attack the coilers with no provocation at all. I daresay your behavior is not befitting of this board.

TeriAnn explained to me the leafer vs coiler issue from her standpoint via PM, and she certainly had many good points. I'd have to ask her permission before I reprinted it here. I'm not defending the continuation of the argument, but I can certain understand the roots.

I do agree with her that in general a simple vehicle is more reliable and sustainable in the long run than a complex one. You have to compare apples to apples, and compare the two vehicles over the same period of time (decades). Notice I didn't say more capable, and that is where the tradeoff is. Everyone has to make the choice for themself.

TeriAnn has moved to a modern fuel-injection system, backed by a beefier transmission and rear axle, and has upgraded countless systems to make her vehicle more reliable. She would probably be the last person to say that Land Rover did everything perfect the first time. She's among the least dogmatic of the hardcore Series owners I've come across on the internet. She's managed to build a vehicle that suits her needs. Would she have done some things differently along the way if she had the resources and knowledge at that time? I think she's admitted that she would have. We all make compromises and missteps as we try to mold a mass-produced vehicle into our ideal expedition platform. I think the telling comment was hers in the "Dream ExPo rig" (not exact title- memory is bad) that her ideal rig was the one she drives now. I hope I'm as lucky.

 

[david despain]

I can remember for the past 20 years, people have been talking about how technology would make cars unserviceable. When they switched from carbs to basic fuel injection, the world was supposed to end. Then when OBDII came along, look out!

The way I see it, things have never been better. One can buy a code reader for $100 that can give you insight into what's wrong with your car instead of fiddling about with points and floats. For $500, one can buy a computer flasher for the more popular models that allows you to completely retune the engine without mucking about with recurved distributors and jets.

and therein lies the problem with your statment: you cant buy just a $100 dollar tool to give you insight as to why your system failure lights are on. it will only do one of many systems on the truck. and you cant buy a 500$ tool for a rover because its not a popular model built in high numbers. you cant even get a module for a high end scan tool like the ones built and sold by snap-on. and there is NO tool for any amount of money that will allow you to retune it to higher power or aftermarket specs.

The only people who have been left behind are those who are afraid of change.
Sure, the LR3 looks complicated now. And it is... but it's also been made with vastly better engineering resources and materials. It has a lot of systems, but once the price comes down and home mechanics start buying them, I hope that affordable diagnostic systems will be available

.

the prices have come down on older rrc DI and DII, even P38 and there are alternatives to the factory T4 computer but i dare say no one here would call them afordable.

The only threat to my view of things is the OEM's desire to make things proprietary in order to force people to return to the dealer for $ervice. They must realize that no matter what... people with money will not be buying used cars. And you have to have money to maintain an older car if you are going to go to the dealer. I mean, who in their right mind would buy a 3 year old car for half it's value, but then spend $1000's every month on repairs at the dealer? If I had that kinda cash, I'd just buy a new one with a warranty and service plan

.
thats how the manufactuers make their money

That means they have to accept the fact that it's people who will be fixing their own cars who will be buying them at the end of the lease. The more complicated you make them to maintain, the less appeal there is for us, and thus the value is lower.

no one will be able to fix them without a $5000+ computer based tool. who will buy a tool thats worth more than the truck is? if the value is lower it will just prompt more people to trade them in and buy new; where the real money is to be made.

This is why the complicated fancy cars plummet in value no matter who's name is on it. It happens to all of them, MB, BMW, Audi, etc. This drives up the cost of leases, or makes the purchase decision more difficult because resale is so low. I hope they figure this out soon

.

the only way/reason that the discos and rrc and to a lesser extent p38s/mk3 will be able to survive as long as a series is because there are many more of them here in the states in junkyards and LR specific recyclers. the factory will definitly not build parts for them or support them as long. they have already closed the classic parts support network. how long did that last? a few years at most.


this is expedition portal. this isnt discoweb or LRO, etc. or even a land rover based site. as a whole, the board could care less if the vehile was built in the us japan or europe. its a site based on vehicle dependent travel. TeriAnn would appear to have many many miles and years of overland travel experience under her belt perhaps it would be wise to listen to all parties with an open mind. a wise man once said " you learn a lot more by listening than talking"

 

[TeriAnn]

This is the key point that *I* am trying to make. You constantly criticize the newer trucks, suggesting they are less reliable or capable.

Actually I don't.

I think the coilers with a transfercase are more capable than Series rigs out of the box, tyre size for tyre size once you remove the spoilers & such. And that they are at least as reliable with the same level of maintenance. I have pretty much always thought that.

What I DO say is that Series Land Rovers have about as much in common with coiler Land Rovers (Defender body parts, & earlier diffs excluded) as they have in common with Xterras and Unimogs. Mechanical concerns are different, and they travel at different speeds so coiler owners often leave the Series rigs behind to travel by themselves.

I also maintain that with their level of complication it takes more work to keep a coiler maintained to the same level as a Series rig.

I also maintain that leafers are not the right kind of truck for most people. You need to be a bit masochistic and quite self reliant to live with one long term. Most people prefer the comforts of a coiler.

I counter that by saying you would have difficulty coming up with any statistical evidence one way or the other. Instead, you use anecdotal evidence of only a few instances which support your biased point of view.

It has become evident to me that you really don't know what my point of view is or you would not be distorting it so much.

I don't know anyone who has hard statistical maintenance data on Land Rover maintenance between 1951 and 2008. So my life experiences are all I have to go by. That's about 33 years of Land Rover ownership.

A previous poster showed evidence that you have espoused this viewpoint for more than 10 years.

Well Lets see, Range Rover North America started importing Range Rovers around 1989, so I would guess for about 19 years now. Is there anything wrong with a consistent viewpoint in the absence of overwhelming counter evidence?

I daresay your behavior is not befitting of this board.

Maybe your right. There is a lot of harassment going on here. You seem to have been harassing me at most every thread. Maybe I would find more peace elsewhere.

 

[MuddyMudskipper]

Sigh...

 

[Blair G]

Maybe both of you would find peace elsewhere. I know it would be more peaceful on this forum if you realized that nobody except you two seem to care what you drive or why. Go reread this thread to find that most of the people could care less about the points you two are trying to make and it has become tiresome.
Maybe you could PM each other and continue this entertaining banter?

 

[MuddyMudskipper]

Maybe both of you would find peace elsewhere. I know it would be more peaceful on this forum if you realized that nobody except you two seem to care what you drive or why. Go reread this thread to find that most of the people could care less about the points you two are trying to make and it has become tiresome.
Maybe you could PM each other and continue this entertaining banter?

 

[Alaska Mike]

Maybe both of you would find peace elsewhere. I know it would be more peaceful on this forum if you realized that nobody except you two seem to care what you drive or why. Go reread this thread to find that most of the people could care less about the points you two are trying to make and it has become tiresome.
Maybe you could PM each other and continue this entertaining banter?

Here's my take:
I care about both of their opinions and am very interested in what they drive and why. Actually, I have harbored feelings of extreme envy when confronted with images of their rigs. These are two people who have a misunderstanding about the other person's perspective, and maybe, just maybe, if we try to bridge this small gap we'll have fewer of these disagreements in the future.

I'm willing to bet they would get along fine out on the trail, over a nice bottle of wine, decanted into fine stemware over linen tablecloths...

I don't see anything that can't be talked about. Nobody seems to be brand- bashing or model-bashing, just discussing why they choose one over the other and explaining their position. A little heated, for sure, but hopefully that will cool.