I actually went down to the dealership to buy one a while back. When I got there, I found they'd already sold the last 3 cylinder model, which is the one I liked. That kind of sucked, because that thing was a hell of a lot of fun on the test drive previously. I don't know how they'll hold up over time, but that little 1.0 was sweet. It just isn't quite as fun with the normal engines on offer. That was the wild one.He might as well get the Fiesta, as the D2, which he doesn't want to replace, will do everything else.
I've never liked that body style, but my biggest problem with Nissan at the moment is they're going the way of Mitsubishi with their normal stuff. They can't even get undercoating consistent; with bare metal showing in wheel arches on the vehicles in the fucking showroom. They don't get any money from me for a new car, but the dealership service department is actually quite good.
Ha yeah I forgot he was musing about keeping the D2 (and that he despises V6s).He might as well get the Fiesta, as the D2, which he doesn't want to replace, will do everything else.
Looks like it, but it's still probably following the lines a bit more closely...and a 3d rendering of a disguised version.
The engine in my RRC is a RPI 4.6 and was provided a build sheet for it. This was back in 1998 though.RPI annoyed me by being unable to provide dyno sheets or even anecdotal data for their engines. I don't give a fuck how much power you're making. If you can't tell me where it's coming in and leaving, you have no business in the industry. You simply do not know what you're doing.
I want that data for the engine before I buy it. If you're building engines, you need to test one of each offering at some point so you have the data available. If you've never tested them, you have no idea what you've built. You don't have to test everything you build, but you need to have tested a configuration before you offer it to a customer with glowing language about how awesome it is.The engine in my RRC is a RPI 4.6 and was provided a build sheet for it. This was back in 1998 though.
It has performed well and hopefully with the recent work will keep on going.
What is your interpretation of what you see? I see the brush guard protecting expensive headlamps, whatever's under those mesh panels (possibly fog lights), and serving as a mounting platform for the usual accessories like aux lamps and winch. It appears to be a clean and reasonably sturdy brush guard that, from a functional standpoint, does more or less what brush guards are supposed to do. It's not like this is brain surgery. If anything, this iteration is a little more useful than versions on previous vehicles if it extends to cover fog lights. There are presumably sensors in the bumper that the brush guard can't obstruct. Overall I think it looks pretty good. It won't do much if you drive into a tree at speeds exceeding 0.25mph. It may help protect your expensive headlamps from getting thwacked by a branch on the trail, an errant shopping cart, or scraping against another car if you suck at parking. Lack of grilles over the headlamps is a limitation in the branch protection department, but maybe they will add those later.If Land Rover designed that brush guard, it's telling us a lot unless they're just being dicks.
They'll have wrapped that tube where it needs to be to protect important parts. Observe the lower guards on that thing, and where it mounts.