| Author | Message | ||
     Gregory M Lichtenson (Gml) New Member Username: Gml Post Number: 4 Registered: 09-2003 |
We all know I think,that The engine used in the Discovery is a General Motors Engine,but why did L/R incorperate it into there Product line?I read many bad stories about these Discoverys 94thru 98 why,it makes me wonder why we seem to love the Discos so much,the rumors of pushing production lines to the brink of disaster,one memo that had leaked out that when BMW started lookingsniffing around they where shocked at the things they saw after they bought the company etc... saw.So I pose this question is the 3.9 good bad??????? | ||
| Phillip Perkinson (Rover4x4) Senior Member Username: Rover4x4 Post Number: 431 Registered: 02-2003 |
perhaps because there are so many of the trucks on the road would be a factor as to why you hear so many people talking shit. It is true BMW made some changes in the quality control dept. thats why the 97-98 are desirable. ALso many people did not take care of thier trucks in terms of maintinace etc which is very important to these trucks There were problems with the heads and carbon, which is what I think has really plauged those model years, and I think that is largely from people not using high octane fuel. there are a shitload of the 3.9/4.0 motors around. if you can find one that has been maintained and cared for you shouldnt have problems. However as with any automobil there are problems associated regardless of quality control reputation etc. the rover (gm) v8 was first used back in the late 50's I think? a LR is just as good of an automobil as the next one, however they will require more attention and care. FWIW | ||
| Pete Stefano (Pete_s) Member Username: Pete_s Post Number: 78 Registered: 02-2003 |
I think thats the problem though. Most people who would buy a LR would think this is the best and most heavy duty truck out there. I was one of those people and I still am but I never realized that the maintaince would be so high. It doesn't bother me all that much cause I like working on my own trucks anyway. But lets face it most people do not care for their trucks and the LR is not for them, but I beilive it should be. The LR should be Toyota style maintaince free. I work part time with my uncle's construction company and we have F-350s with 200K+ and the last time they had fluids and spark plugs changed were probably about 80-100K ago. I also work my LR D2 under these same conditions (mud, snow, salt, chemicals, tools, saws, you name it) but do my servicing by the book, (which I always do for any of my trucks) But I would never say that the LR is reliable long term unless you clean it, service it, etc. Which is too bad, cause I hate when my cousin laughs at me when his Tundra has 140K on it with no tune up or fluid changes since 30K and I have only 43K and had to change the radiator 3 times, rocker arms and gaskets replaced, and a bunch of little things that I haven't got to yet. No eletrical problems though, knock on wood. | ||
| Ron L (Ronl) Member Username: Ronl Post Number: 162 Registered: 11-2002 |
The technology on the 3.9/4.0 short-block may be dated, however, next to the Oldsmobile rocket block; there is no stronger mass production small block out there. As dated as the design is, when it was first designed/manufactured it was so far ahead of its time, most manufacturers laughed at it. Historically you will find that nearly every manufacturer has looked at the engineering that was put into that design and incorporated something into their own production. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1049 Registered: 09-2002 |
Gregory, Rover bought the rights to manifacture the all-aluminum 215 c.i.d. V8 from Buick, I believe, in 1961. It was used in what they called "saloon car," and then in 1970 Rover decided to stuff it into the Range Rover. It was punched out to 3,947cc in 1989, and the displacement remained the same since. 4.0 (96+) and 3.9 (89-95) have the same displacement, 3947cc. The reason Buick developed the engine in the first place was difficulty in making thin-walled iron castings; this difficulty was overcome soon after they developed it, and Buick did not need it anymore. Now, good or bad? You've got Ron's response here. On top of that, it weighs about 250lb, compared to typical 500-550lb for a cast-iron small-block V8. There's nothing particularly bad in the Buick/Rover engine design that I am aware of; all the bad rap comes from really poor quality control at LR. Pete Stefano, if indeed your friend's Tundra never had any fluid changes (I assume it doesn't apply to motor oil), it will start leaking coolant from every possible place soon. And it'll be a goner. I admit to under-maintaining my trucks, too - haven't changed a spark plug on the Disco from 56 to 133K miles - but I sure hope to keep it running for another one or two hundred K. | ||
| Marlin Begay (M_begay8) Member Username: M_begay8 Post Number: 41 Registered: 03-2003 |
I have a 1969 Jeep Wagoneer that has a 350 5.7 liter Buick engine thats still running. Why could Land Rover use that motor. | ||
| micky dee (Kincangokicker) Member Username: Kincangokicker Post Number: 65 Registered: 06-2003 |
yes i tend to agree. it is now well past 2000 and we are aproaching 2010. so why is there still a 1961 technology engine in these underpowered rovers? and why dont they start thinking about some kicking v8 turbo deisels like in the fords? dosent ford own this company now? and why could they not at leat used a 327 or some thing similar i guess for weight reasons. but i keep my fingers crossed for a for a ford turbo deisel in a ranage rover. who knows | ||
| Shaun Power (Shaunp) Member Username: Shaunp Post Number: 160 Registered: 05-2003 |
In fact the talk is that they are going to replace the TD5 engine with V6 tdi multi cam jointly designed with Pugeot. The current TD5's go ok 35 mpg and neerly the same performance as the V8. It's a shame you blokes don't get them. We don't seem to have the same problems as you guys with the carboning up in OZ, in fact a part from a normal stuff they don't give much trouble, maybe it's the fuel. Lowest octane here is 92. | ||
| Dave Thomas (Davet) New Member Username: Davet Post Number: 4 Registered: 09-2003 |
The last time I checked all of the pushrod V8's that are still being sold by GM and Ford are 'old technology' as well...that does not mean they dont work! | ||
| Bill Ross (Billr) Member Username: Billr Post Number: 91 Registered: 11-2002 |
To add to Dave's comments, keep in mind that Chrysler is using a 10 cylinder pushrod motor and all those cars that you see running in those NASCAR races every Sunday are also pushrod powerplants. Overhead cams does not make an engine modern if you recall that those were in use as early as the 20s or so. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1052 Registered: 09-2002 |
Micky dee, every car on the road uses the same technology which dates back to 1600s (when somebody first attempted burning something in a vessel with a piston, with an intent to produce useable mechanical action). Marlin, I drive a 1968 Wagoneer with the same engine and love it. However, it has about as much power as the Rover's 3.9 (but a lot more torque at low end) - it runs out of breath around 4k rpm. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1053 Registered: 09-2002 |
This is an absolute BS. | ||
| Chris Browne (Chris_browne) Senior Member Username: Chris_browne Post Number: 303 Registered: 02-2003 |
Funny Micky Dee mentions V8 turbo diesels, during the early 70s oil crisis, right after Land Rover dropped the V8 in the Range Rover, 101 and P 3500, they contracted with Perkins to build a V8 diesel, codename Iceberg. The engine was shown publically then dropped.....Even Jag was on the list for the engine...Now Jag is the first to get the new v6 diesel, with Land rover to follow with the S3. fwiw scroll down the page from this link http://carspyshots.proboards2.com/index.cgi?board=spy&num=1052801984&action=disp lay&start=30 | ||
| Marlin Begay (M_begay8) Member Username: M_begay8 Post Number: 42 Registered: 03-2003 |
My Wagoneer has much more power than my rover and once it hits overdrive it really takes off. I think the wagoneer is just as good as my rover off road, maybe better. | ||
| Tony Zuniga (Tony23007) Member Username: Tony23007 Post Number: 181 Registered: 05-2003 |
You guys have to remember that Land Rover is a business and as all business they want to make money, so why do they still have an out dated Oldmobile engine in their trucks, well quite simple $$$$money$$$ it cost a lot to develop and incorporate new engines into a new car, that is why most manufacturers use the same engine in different models. As for my car, the engine is running great at 120K its the other stuff around it that sucks, radiator, coil, fuel pump etc. etc. Quality is not a word associated with Land Rover, hopefully Ford will do something about that like they did with Jaguar. | ||
| micky dee (Kincangokicker) Member Username: Kincangokicker Post Number: 66 Registered: 06-2003 |
peter, come on; 1600's?. technology and change! i love my microwave, high effecient gas furnace and synthetic mmotor oils. i mean if they can put peolple in space you would think that they would improve some how. what are the new nissan sports cars pushing for horse? and if we did regress instead of progress could you imagine the complaitns of consumers using steam or even flat head strainght eights. let alone taking away gps or even wireless computers. and im almost for sure that there was no demand for the 215 lump in the 60 when all the muscle power hit north america. so they sold it off for the simple reason of no demand. supply and demand if people dont want it, they dont buy it! seem feasiable. the area that surounds us is a confusion of nuclear fusion, geometric matmatics and progressing to the speed of light. maybe some day we will have the power of a 7.3 turbo in the new rover line. and why in the hell cant they start selling defenders in north america? air bags? simple little task to over come. but again maybe no demand for them! who knows, who cares, cause im going fishing today! bill dance out doors. | ||
| Greg Hirst (Gregh) Senior Member Username: Gregh Post Number: 300 Registered: 10-2002 |
Ford's making changes- http://www.dovebid.com/Auctions/AuctionDetail.asp?auctionID=2158 (I wonder if all this would fit in my garage? Hmmmm...)  | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 206 Registered: 10-2002 |
Peter, Your right, that is BS. Given the performance on the low-end, the TD5 would be far superior, not just equal to the V8. And a hell of a lot simpler ..... | ||
| Shaun Power (Shaunp) Member Username: Shaunp Post Number: 161 Registered: 05-2003 |
TD5 is a big seller in oz | ||
| Justin (Vanroth) Member Username: Vanroth Post Number: 87 Registered: 02-2003 |
Diesels aren't all they are cracked up to be... I wonder how many people extolling the virtues of the diesel have actually owned a few. They have their advantages, but they are not as tractable as gas engines… Especially here in the States (lots of wide open roads). Sometimes, they are just plain pain in the asses. Yeah, were I in the bush, I would think they were great, use less gas, great low-end power, and ford water easier… But those aren’t as important as cold weather starting, passing power, quietness, etc… I guess the best thing that LR diesels have going for them is they simply have less crappy LR electronics to go haywire! I think a lot of people get hung up on torque without understanding its importance and role. Here is a pretty good primer on the subject. Granted it is more geared to Zcars (and hence the emphasis on HP) but it good reading. http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/torqueHP.htm | ||
| Shaun Power (Shaunp) Member Username: Shaunp Post Number: 164 Registered: 05-2003 |
Sorry Justin the TD5 is a common rail ECU conrtoled job. They are smoother then the old TDI engine and go ok on the Highway on trouble sitting on 80 mph if you want to. The biggest problem with them is the turbo lag. They feel like you could walk faster until they come on boost. You can tune this out of the TDI's with a tweek of the pump but the TD5 engines need to be rechipped although they are not as bad as the TDI. Some of my mates have tdi's and they have no trouble keeping up with my V8 on the road. The main differance is I get 600km to a tank and they get 850km. | ||
| Ron L (Ronl) Member Username: Ronl Post Number: 164 Registered: 11-2002 |
Why would you want/need all that power in a small SUV? All that extra weight, noise and heat. Why? And why would Land Rover consider offering a loud mill when their primary market here is luxury? Just wait and see what they come out with, I'll bet they will decide to "advance" their technology, and then the complaining will be "why did they make it so difficult to work on?" | ||
| Justin (Vanroth) Member Username: Vanroth Post Number: 88 Registered: 02-2003 |
Shaun, I'm fully aware that the TD5 is an ECU controlled engine... I was only stating the typical LR diesels have fewer electronics, not none. Turbo lag detracts driveability which is one of reasons I stated they are less tractable on the street. Granted there are tons of little low power econoboxes running around the roads every day that can easily hold 80mph, but life on roads here in the US are eat or be eaten. Not being able to safely pass slower cars and easily keep up with traffic can wear you down. -justin "trasplanting diesels into his ~300HP Tahoe and 300ZX" | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Senior Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 328 Registered: 08-2002 |
Check this out, my buddy's new Honda Odessey Minivan has 60 more ponies than my D2. Its shamefull cause he also gets 15 more miles per gallon. OUCH! | ||
| June H. Han (Junehhan) Member Username: Junehhan Post Number: 89 Registered: 04-2003 |
Christopher, perhaps your buddy's Odessey has 60 more ponies, and get's 15 more miles to the gallon, but what does that have to do with you? It's like comparing apples against oranges because there, you have a minivan that's based on a car chassis which is designed for going to the grocery and shopping malls. Here, we have a fully decked out utility vehicle based on a REAL SUV/truck chassis with a real suspension designed to nearly go anywhere. He might get 15 more miles per gallon, but his vehicle also weighs over 1000lbs less due to it being designed for pedestrian transport only, and it has a rev happy engine that would simply croak and bog off the line if it was able to be put in something like our Rovers. Also, that's an engine that's more or less tuned for hp, while we have engines that are tuned for torque. While the other engine may be faster, guess who will have a vehicle capable of yanking them out after it slides into a ditch? | ||
| Scott Scott (Scottoz) Member Username: Scottoz Post Number: 109 Registered: 02-2003 |
I have driven several 02 TD5's in OZ and own 2 v8's (an 01 and 02). The V8's a far quicker - and how it feels on the road is backed up by the stats. From the line to 100 the diesel is left behind - long way. Rolling start is a little different, especially on the highway. However the constant, linear stump pulling torque of the V8 is better for off roading in my opinion - and you gotta love the sound. s PS. I dont like my boat getting soot on it! | ||
| Curtis N (Curtis) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Curtis Post Number: 650 Registered: 05-2002 |
Christopher, Along with what June said, your friend is full of crap unless you have a badly running Rover. The Odyssey gets an EPA stated 15/25. I will bet the realized average is a little below 20. With lift, tires and all the other stuff, I get about 12.5 in my DS2. Stock I would get 14. My point is not that the Rover is better, or that the Honda is worse. Just that your frind and you have some erroneous figures bouncing around in your heads. Curtis | ||
| Shaun Power (Shaunp) Member Username: Shaunp Post Number: 169 Registered: 05-2003 |
The diesel / petrol thing is a matter of choice. In Europe they put oilers in little cars, even flash stuff likes BMW's Merc's and Jaguar is soon to fit them as an option. My own disco is V8 but it doesn't get too far bush, mostly beach. If I was going to do the Canning stock route, The Kimberly or similar I'd go get an oiler. It's a compromise which ever way you go the V8 sounds nice, drives better but uses more fuel,the tdi /td5 use less fuel are not as smooth or quiet and don't steer as nice. Most of my mates with Nissans and Toyota's would not even consider a petrol engine. | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Senior Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 329 Registered: 08-2002 |
Ok I was off by 4 or 5 MPG... shoot me. Anyway, I wasn't comparing the two vehicles. I was comparing power and milage. You can have decent power and decent gas mileage too and Rovers don't. Jesus its like you took it as a personal attack. I love my Rover but there are negatives with the vehicle. I was trying to make a light hearted attempt at humor which obviously missed its mark. | ||
| Luke Tolson (Luke4696) Member Username: Luke4696 Post Number: 164 Registered: 06-2003 |
Christopher, When attempting to make jokes, you have to push the "sarcasm" key. For future reference, it's to the left of the "any" key. One comment left me very confused, and that one was about the "driveability" of the modern diesel powerplants. I have never owned a diesel, but I disagree with Vanroth's assessment about "eat or be eaten" and "power to pass". Before I had my Rover, I drove a '99 Tahoe with the 350, a '00 expedition with the 5.4 litre Triton, and a '02 an '02 Ram with the 360. I find my '00 Disco's performance to be the scariest of them all, having little to no passing power and the worst mileage observed of any vehice I have owned (albeit the most capable off-road). I'll say this though, as bad as the performance is, I would much rather have my 4.0 than any current diesel in the Land Rover stable. But, offer me a light duty v-6 version of Ford's Powerstroke (an upcoming rumored option for the Expedition that is still in development), and I am all over that. Where are the downsides? Monster torque, comparable if not greater horsepower, longevity, and the aftermarket tuner potential is endless. Who hear wouldn't want 250hp and 500 foot pounds of torque? Of course a revised drivetrain would be in order, but I can always dream that LandRover may just tap into the good side of the Ford Parts Bin. Oh well.... | ||
| Luke Tolson (Luke4696) Member Username: Luke4696 Post Number: 165 Registered: 06-2003 |
Christopher, When attempting to make jokes, you have to push the "sarcasm" key. For future reference, it's to the left of the "any" key. One comment about this thread left me very confused, and that one was about the "driveability" of the modern diesel powerplants. I have never owned a diesel, but I disagree with Vanroth's assessment about "eat or be eaten" and "power to pass". While living in Austin and Dallas, I was passed multiple times a day by Dodges, Fords, and Chevys with diesels on my commutes to work (and no, my Land Rover was not on the side of the road with the hood up). Now I am living in Cleveland, not so many diesels on my commute, but trucks of that caliber aren't quite as popular with the masses like they are in the South and Southwest. Before I had my Rover, I drove a '99 Tahoe with the 350, a '00 expedition with the 5.4 litre Triton, and an '02 Ram with the 360. I find my '00 Disco's performance to be the scariest of them all, having little to no passing power and the worst mileage observed of any vehice I have owned (albeit the most capable off-road). Also, as bad as the performance is, I would much rather have my 4.0 than any current diesel in the Land Rover stable. It blows my mind to think of anyone operating in a bustling urban environment (maybe it's just an American thing) even considering any other engine than LR's current gasoline line up. But, offer me a light duty v-6 version of Ford's Powerstroke for my DiscoII (an upcoming rumored option for the Expedition that is still in development), and I am all over that. Where are the downsides? Monster torque, comparable if not greater horsepower, longevity, and the aftermarket tuner potential is endless. Who hear wouldn't want 250hp and 500 foot pounds of torque? Of course a revised drivetrain would be in order, but I can always dream that LandRover may just tap into the good side of the Ford Parts Bin. Oh well.... | ||
| Luke Tolson (Luke4696) Member Username: Luke4696 Post Number: 166 Registered: 06-2003 |
sorry...2 posts, refer to the second one...revision screen is so damn small... -Luke | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1062 Registered: 09-2002 |
ok Shaun and Todd, a TDi is a great engine, with good low-end torque, and great fuel economy. But to say it blows the 4.0 out of the water is BS, and just as misleading is using miles per imperial gallon rating on this board. Take your TDi or TD5 on I-15 between LA and Las Vegas, and see where you are - either hopelessly stuck between big rigs in the right lane with A/C on, or just as hopelessly stuck in the same lane enjoying 120F heat. Small things make big difference - if you can't maintain 80-85 mph pace (at a 5-6% grade), get out of the fast lane. Even 4.0 V8 is borderline capable there - and that's at only 3-4k ft elevation. Take it to Utah and Colorado, and see where you are on I-70 near Eisenhower Tunnel. The british Land Rover mags full of ads about electric fans as real substitutes for engine-driven fan speak for themselves. Micky dee, the GEMS engine is just as modern as it gets. It burns pretty damn ALL gasoline it gets, doesn't spill any, and makes all the power out of it. What is that you want? more power from the same block? Do you think others are different? GM 4.3L V6 - 200hp. Ford 4.0 V6 - 160 hp. Now, comparing LR's engine to a sports car is absolutely, totally meaningless. A sports coupe may have an engine that is rated at 450hp. A Freightliner truck may have an engine that is rated at 450hp. Does it mean that the little car's engine is more modern because it cranks out the same power being of smaller size? No, it only means that there's no practical way for this car's engine ro develop this power. It takes less power to pull this car through thin air at any reasonable speed. To get all 400hp from a Carrera 4 twin turbo, you need to run it at 200+ mph; in ten minutes, you'll melt it. Meanwhile, a Freightliner's engine will run at the top of its lungs for million miles or two. | ||
| Justin (Vanroth) Member Username: Vanroth Post Number: 89 Registered: 02-2003 |
Luke, I see where you are coming from... There are far better engines out there (and many of them diesels) than what we currently have in our Discos. I will say those GM, Dodge, and Ford diesels that passed you up were not 2.8/3.0L diesels... Those were big CI full-size truck diesel engines that are not suited for our mid-sized trucks. Personally I would think to handle 250HP/500ft we would need an all new drivetrain like you mentioned and a beefed up chassis (sorry but Discos are not stiff enough). -justin | ||
| Danny Otter (Neo) New Member Username: Neo Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2003 |
FWIW/IMHO; TD5 is a good engine, but.......it lacks the low down grunt of the V8 in the field, and is much more prone to stalling, needs the revs to be kept up too. ECU is in the engine bay behind the battery, not really waterproof. 35mpg, nah never seen that even LR figures quote 31.4 mpg (Euro), I can get 28/29 by keeping it under 65mph with no real load in it - and no get up and go like the V8. All round I would rather have the V8, but here in the UK the fuel prices make it about £100 per month more expensive in just gas alone ! UK. | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Senior Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 330 Registered: 08-2002 |
"Christopher, When attempting to make jokes, you have to push the "sarcasm" key. For future reference, it's to the left of the "any" key." Thanks for the tip Luke. I'll keep it in mind for future posts. Wow, what a tough room. -Chris | ||
| Bill Ross (Billr) Member Username: Billr Post Number: 95 Registered: 11-2002 |
You know the thing I can't figure out is when some these folks cry about the power and mileage of a Rover versus something else, why the hell are you driving one of the damn things. If you want a grocery-getter, but a Honda. If you want mileage, buy one of those hybrid things. Hell, if you want one of those "I'm a real man" kind of vehicles buy a H1 Hummer or a real sportcars (depending on your definition of "real man"). But if you want a vehicle that can go damn near anywhere, is modifiable to do so even better, has a real tradition, and is worth having a love affair with (at least in a plaid, flannel shirt kind of way), that's a Rover. I've had three of the things (versus 37 of the other alternatives) and you either like them for what they are, warts and all; or you are much better off is a more suitable option. If you want to pose, do it in something that will get you more bang for your gallon. | ||
| Justin (Vanroth) Member Username: Vanroth Post Number: 90 Registered: 02-2003 |
Bill, well said. Though I think all of us here (regardless how much we argue or complain) all do accept our Rovers (and non-rovers) for what they are, warts and all. I think that is why we bought them and still own them. I think everyone here is proud of LR's history, but we are talking about modern disco's here that share little with series rovers of lore. I think is fair for us to dream of better engines, diesel or not) and hoping LR will play catch up with their powerplant technology... There are pleny of engines out there that pack more punch, get better gas mileage, and last a few hundred thousand miles. Pretty simple request in my mind. No different than my love-affair with my wife. It is safe to dream of bigger boobs (as she probably dreams of me having bigger muscles). -justin "who really would want a "real man" H1's if it could keep up with "those hybrid things" on the highway" | ||
| Bill Ross (Billr) Member Username: Billr Post Number: 96 Registered: 11-2002 |
Justin: I hear you; but on the other hand, I'm one of those guys who would love to have a diesel (the bigger boobs/muscles stuff would be good as well I suppose). But what do I know? But then again, my Rover goes into the bush and I'm getting a bit tried of standing thigh-deep in cold water to dry out the ignition. I'm not too worried about the mileage, its the thing having to drink $.879/l fuel versus $.649/l diesel that I'm not too keen on. And boy, the more I think about it, I'd love to have a bit more "modern" (although diesel) engine. But it would have to fit in my Rangie because its an ugly box that does not have a bunch of plastic crap that is going to fall off every time I hit a tree (except for the bumper end caps). Those new ones are just a wee bit too pretty for all of that. Cheers | ||
| Shaun Power (Shaunp) Member Username: Shaunp Post Number: 170 Registered: 05-2003 |
Peter you have me all wrong I've got a V8 and I choose it because it is the correct car for what I do with it, The diesels are for a different market / group of buyers wanting different things. No farmer in OZ would buy a petrol car when he gets his diesel subsidised. The TD5's go as well as similar cars in the bracket in OZ I didn't say they went better then an 8. I to prefer not to drive A turbo diesel around town. I'm happy to do trips to the cape and Gulf country in mine but there are some trips in OZ I'd think about an oiler because it's a long way between fuel stopps and I don't think anyone will go with you on the "Canning stock route" if your truck is run on petrol in case it catches fire. Some of Oz is pretty remote. What I can't understand is why the US buyers don't have the choice to make you their mind what they want. I reckon in Oz most of the new Toyota landcruisers and Nissan Patrols sold would be Diesels, clearly Australia is a different market to the US. On another note I thought the speed limit in the US was 55mph but see comments above people going much faster, don't your copps have speed cameras every where like ours do. | ||
| Scott Scott (Scottoz) Member Username: Scottoz Post Number: 110 Registered: 02-2003 |
Shaun - what a pisser of a day - smoke in the air and overcast! | ||
| Shaun Power (Shaunp) Member Username: Shaunp Post Number: 171 Registered: 05-2003 |
Great day in South east QLD only I had to put up with stories from one of the blokes long week end at Fraser Island,stories of fish, XXXX, Bundy rum and driving up the beach. This is the best time of the year in Qld not too hot. Think I go up the beach to Double island pt in the next few weeks. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 1069 Registered: 09-2002 |
Shaun, I didn't mean to knock the TDi, in fact, I'd love to have one in every truck I own - my yearly gas bill is about $6k US. But, I realize that if I ever do it, none of these vehicles will be the same and drive like V8s. |
