| Author | Message | ||
     Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 71 Registered: 08-2003 |
I know there has been plenty of uncertainty where the 05 Disco is concearned but it is sounding better and better all the time. Latest info from dealer meeting sounds very good! More to the point, the most capable Land Rover ever... | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 796 Registered: 08-2002 |
Ah right. Why? | ||
| Barrett Edwards (Tinmann) New Member Username: Tinmann Post Number: 10 Registered: 05-2003 |
I'll 2nd that...Why? | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 72 Registered: 08-2003 |
Locking center diff. and optional locking rear to start with. They ran it up a hill after a new Range Rover, the Range spun a little over the rocks as the traction control worked. The Disco never lost traction at all. I don't know about any of you but I have spent some quality time off-road in the new Range Rover and it is impressive! If the new Disco is better I'll be first on the list. | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 73 Registered: 08-2003 |
Not to mention the product deveopment on that truck cost $900 million! Nearly as much as the Range Rover. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 798 Registered: 08-2002 |
So what.... The fact that an 05 Disco might be better off road than the existing Range Rover does not mean that your statement "the most capable Land Rover ever." is true. In fact I cannot imagine that will be the case. The fact that it has locking rear diff option means not much at all since you can lock nearly any 4x4. A billion dollars of development... that is an urban myth starting, even if true the amount of money spent on a vehicle development does not mean that it is the best 4x4xfar. I am far more impressed with old RR than new. Primarily because I have yet to see a new one outfitted to the point where anyone would take it on challenging trails. Call me a skeptic, but I am most definitely not convinced that the new Discovery will be the best LR yet. Even if so, I would definitely not get the '05. maybe an '07 around 2012 or something. | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 857 Registered: 09-2002 |
If what you say is accurate Brian, then all I ask is that it retain some of the more traditional Disco looks. At least it would be leaning more towards traditional LR heritage. Right now it doesn't feel that way. | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 74 Registered: 08-2003 |
Well I can tell you that the billion dollar development is most surely not a myth. I'm not sure if you know but you can't get a factory rear lock on any Land Rover right now! By the way, what the hell are you talking about "maybe an 07 or 2012"? | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 75 Registered: 08-2003 |
Alan, I can't speak for the looks as I've only seen the same spy photos as the rest of you. All I'm saying is that out of the factory it will be incredibly capable. Far from the Land Rover Explorer that everyone feared. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 799 Registered: 08-2002 |
I would not purchase a new model year of any vehicle, many are seriously hating it in many areas, fit and finish being the most common, but many are recalled a fare amount more than subsequent years. It takes a while to get the bugs out. Thus my statement "I would definitely not get the '05. maybe an '07 around 2012 or something". If they are that good. I'll pick up an '07 five years after production. No way would I ever buy a new Rover or any other vehicle for that matter. A factory rear locker does not mean that the entire vehicle is the most capable LR yet. You can't get a factory locker in any LR that I am aware of. That doesn't mean it will be better than a D90. And it won't be. There is no possible way we will get any of the classic disco looks back, too late. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 800 Registered: 08-2002 |
BTW Brian how the hell can you say this without actually having one for a while. Seems like you got all hyped y the salesman. Take a breath. Relax. It will be a POS explorer... with a locker. if you think the dealer is going to say anything other than it is the mose capable vehicle LR has made, you are smokin something. Their goal is to sell, that's it. Before you go buyin that new '05 go read a book called "Don't Get Taken Every Time". Excellent reading for when you make an emaotional car purchase. Written by a guy that has had almost every job imaginable in automotive dealerships. | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 76 Registered: 08-2003 |
If you compare a new Range Rover to a 1997 D-90 off-road. I'll take a new Range Rover hands down. I have driven both side by side off-road. Also most of Land Rover's driving instructors agree with that comment, or so they told me. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you but if they don't know I can assure you nobody will, as most of them were involved with the Camel trophy and other such events. | ||
| Lewis Jones (Cutter) Member Username: Cutter Post Number: 42 Registered: 10-2003 |
I second the 'never purchase a new model in the first year' statement. Always a bad (or at least not good) idea. The factory can try to test for everything, but let the pulic get ahold of the thing and they WILL find weakness. It gets fixed and the next year it is better. Not always the case, but often enough to wait. | ||
| Blue (Blue) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Blue Post Number: 769 Registered: 04-2003 |
I would not purchase a new model year of any vehicle but then you wouldn't even need the carfax... | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 802 Registered: 08-2002 |
There are many trails that I do that a new rangie won't even make it to. I have yet to see a new rangie on many trails out here in CO. For a couple reasons. Primary reason is $$$. They cost to much for people to desire to thrash them and if you do you'll spend a fortune fixing it. Its an impressive vehicle nontheless, but for the kind of trails and wheeling that I do, it will not cut it. Now if I had about $110k to spend on a 4x4 I could even change that, but it would lose many of the "features" that make it the new Rangie. Anyway enough arguing a point that cannot be argued with a LR sales guide. When you get that '05 and are ready to do some decent trails, give me a shout maybe you can make me eat my words. But you are going to have to address the approach and departure angles and get some armor first. ;-) | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 803 Registered: 08-2002 |
Good one Blue, you always jump in and get me unexpectedly. Man am I ever sorry for asking for that fucking carfax. Yeah I said it I am sorry, it was a bad thing to ask for. I didn't think about what I was asking for. I won't do it again OK???? Sheesh. | ||
| Blue (Blue) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Blue Post Number: 770 Registered: 04-2003 |
LOL, just yankin your chain | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 804 Registered: 08-2002 |
I new that. ;-) Darned dweb lounge members. Always getting on our newbie cases. ;-) Next time I'll just post the request over on Pirate. JUST KIDDDING!!!!!!!!! | ||
| David Kronenfeld (Kronie) New Member Username: Kronie Post Number: 2 Registered: 09-2003 |
As long as the new Disco maintains some vestige of LR's off-road heritage and puts the company in the black such that they'll bring the Defender back (unless of course they completely botch it with no ladder frame or solid axles) then I'm all for the '05. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 805 Registered: 08-2002 |
Total agreement there David. I hope they sell like hotcakes. But in order to do so they will compromise a lot of the stuff that we like in the Disco and that is already apparent, IMHO. We want the soccer moms to buy them out! But don't get your hopes to high the Defender botch could still happens, it depends on the market that LR tries to address. It may not be us. BTW this really should be in General not technical eh? | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 493 Registered: 02-2002 |
That spare tire under the truck gag is never sexy. That is all I have to say about that. e | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 494 Registered: 02-2002 |
On the other hand, if that tire went onto a roof-rack, you could use the space for an LPG, long-range gasoline or potable water tank... Hmmm... | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 1176 Registered: 02-2003 |
2005 disco could be the cats ass offroad, but if it breaks you will be fucked like an alter boy at seminary school. what makes the 'most capable' does not necessarily make it the most reliable. i dont know why people get all pissed at land rover for not offering a locker from the factory. you can toss one in with upgraded components for about $1000, if it was offered from the factory it would probably cost more than that. what pisses me off is removal of swivle balls and free floating axels and the addition of mega complex computer systems. rd | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 807 Registered: 08-2002 |
Oh my god, I had not heard that one before (yeah welcome to last week, I know, but that saying is funny). Hey you could take the concept of the D1 rear spare cover, make it out of 1/4" aluminum and you've got a skid plate. Now that is functional and sexy. They have abandoned the die hard defender folks with no importation since 97, now the disco folks. My guess is that they don't care a rat's ass for the niche wheeler market anymore and they may not come back. | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 77 Registered: 08-2003 |
I'm apparently the only one trying to support Land Rover. Yes, I'm a Sales Guide and therefore inherently not a true Land Rover fan... I should have known that unless it's a Defender or Series one Discovery then it must suck. Technology doesn't have to be a bad thing. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 1178 Registered: 02-2003 |
Technologies is not a bad thing, just on 4 whl drive trucks that are supposed to be taken anywhere and everywhere. Brian, you just don't get it. | ||
| David Kronenfeld (Kronie) New Member Username: Kronie Post Number: 3 Registered: 09-2003 |
Hmmmm, Just a thought, but maybe someone could do a little research and set up shop to build that CKD Defender that was on display at SEMA. Then everyone could stop complaining about where Land Rover takes its new products. Any takers??? | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 78 Registered: 08-2003 |
You're right Rob, I just don't get it. I've obviosly missed the point somewhere in the last 8 years of owning only Land Rovers and quiting my Network Engineering job to sell Land rovers. Day in and day out Land Rovers are all I do because that's what I enjoy. So am I missing it or are you? Part of going anywhere and everywhere means keeping a company profitable but that doesn't enter in to it does it. Should they keep putting out the same old technology and get left behind just so you can make a repair on the trails? That sounds pretty stupid to me. David's idea is the best one I've heard so far! | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 809 Registered: 08-2002 |
The new '05 is redesigned because LR wishes to increase market share. As a result they go mainstream and forget about their niche. Pretty much a sell out. Especially if they don't bring in a *real* vehicle to the US. The point you are missing is that some of us are not going to agree with you that the new '05 is the most capable LR ever which was your original claim. To us, it won't be. The most capable of making more money for LR? Maybe, we shall see. But if they lose thier following *and* the '05 only addresses the same sized market it will be a double whammy. | ||
| Michael Noe (Noee) Senior Member Username: Noee Post Number: 775 Registered: 03-2002 |
amen. There are 13 or so new "soft-roader" SUVs on the market this year. Even the new disco, which is aimed squarely at this market, will have a very difficult time competing in this space. Chances are, the Toureg will kick it's ass in every way, right off the showroom floor and that most of the others will outperform it most ways. Then, there's fit and finish. Hans, I wish you luck selling that thing. | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 1180 Registered: 02-2003 |
changing from swivel balls to Rubber booted CV ? Hill decent? ETC? spare tire underneath? nothing ground breaking there. What is so special the 2005 disco? what improvement is not a massive reliability compromise? i realize becasue of fuel economy and crash tests, things must change. but they keep changing the things they got right which have no bearing on the other aspects. have fun selling people vehicles that once could but no longer can. dilute the brand further and jump on the gravy train. had you quit your career to become a land rover Tech.... never mind rd | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 79 Registered: 08-2003 |
Well, By the sounds of it you guys aren't going to like it but it's going to sell well. Truth be told, much to my dismay and definately yours, the more mainstream it is the more of them they will sell. Please don't get me wrong, the last thing I want is for the Disco to blend in with the rest of the crowd and I've been ranting and raving about how easy it would be for L.R. to do another special project like the 1993 110's. Those 500 were all handbuilt and it took the entire year to make them but it gave many of the enthusiasts something to be happy about. It shouldn't be that difficult to do something like that again. We can hope. By the way, my only point here is that the 05 Disco isn't going to be a knock off Explorer. It's all Land Rover. It would just be nice if we could keep an open mind. I sure hope that I'm not wrong, it often happens though. My optimism is aimed at trying to see some good come from something that most people arent' looking forward to. | ||
| Brett A. Naquin (Bnaquin) New Member Username: Bnaquin Post Number: 6 Registered: 09-2003 |
Until the ’05 is in the dealerships and on the trails we probably won’t know what it’s capable of. This is an old argument for any major changes to a product line. I’ve owned Toyota Land Cruisers for years. I’ve owned two mid ‘80’s FJ60 models and I currently own a 1995 FZJ80 with front, center and rear factory lockers. Every time there was a change in the design or function of this product line, Land Cruiser people balked at the changes. When the FJ80 series was introduced in 1991 it was called a “Mall Cruiser”. People believed Toyota sold out and stopped producing true off-road vehicles (at least in this country). Well, guess what, the ’93 – ’97 Land Cruiser is one of the most capable off-road vehicles off the showroom floor. Of any make. The factory electric lockers work flawlessly and the driveline is as beefy as a one- ton truck. As a matter of fact, my ’95 Land Cruiser can run circles around many of the older “true off-road” Land Cruisers. This also includes the Land Rover product line. I own both and I can tell you there are some areas my Land Cruiser is far superior to my Land Rover Disco. When the 100 series Land Cruisers came out in 1998 again, the Land Cruiser people said it was the end of the line. Toyota sold out and made a “mall cruiser”. I can tell you from personal experience, this isn’t true. Yes, they dropped the solid front axle and went to independent suspension (thus no front locker) however, they did retain the center and rear locker. But this time they made them standard equipment and not an option. As the 100 series Land Cruisers get older and we start to see more of them on the trails, I think they will continue to prove themselves as a substantial off-road vehicle. So, the point of all this Land Cruiser ranting is this: Let’s wait and see what the ’05 Disco is capable of when it goes into production and is available of purchase. It may surprise the traditional style/performance Disco crowd. I doubt this is the death of the Land Rover heritage. Brett San Antonio, Texas 1995 Toyota Land Cruiser 1995 Land Rover Discovery | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 811 Registered: 08-2002 |
Ah, now you are changing your story Brian. You first point was "the most capable Land Rover ever..." now it is "05 Disco isn't going to be a knock off Explorer". Quite a change eh? In fact it is a knock off explorer. Maybe not made from the same parts but Ford/LR really hope to have another home run like the exploder, so they are using what they learned in developing and marketing that vehicle. It is the LR name but shares no heritage and it is that heritage that keep US coming back. Now that is gone who gives a shit about Rover new vehicles, the heritage exists with the older models and that is what the enthusiasts will continue to use. There is no reason for me to "keep an open mind" and "trying to see some good come from something we aren't looking forward to." There is a reason for me to never buy another new LR though, because you have abandoned nearly everything that I look at in a 4x4 vehicle. You and the rest of LR might as well just face the fact that you have now lost many of your niche customers and stop trying to convince us that your products will meet our needs when they clearly won't. Walk away from us proud onto soccer moms knowing very well why you are doing this. You can always tell us I told you so when you hit the home run and bring back a real vehicle or when the '05 really proves itself on the trail. I won't hold my breath. | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 80 Registered: 08-2003 |
Ok Brian. you got me, great job. My apologies for voicing an opinion, I'll try to keep my comments limited to technical questions on the Classic. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 813 Registered: 08-2002 |
You don't need to apologize, mine is only opinion too. But realize that voicing an opinion that has been debated here frequently, that some of us are passionate about, will be met with enthusiastic debate. You obviously new this from reading your first post. Also realize that mine is the opinion of a LR customer that shelled out more for new '95 D1 then he has on any other vehicle and has spent well over $10k with LR alone maintaining the vehicle. I might do it again if I thought that LR had enough to offer me in the 4x4 performance and value proposition. At this time I do not believe that you do. When you have something technical on the '05 that helps me believe that this is the best LR yet, post away or email it to me whatever you choose. Until then I remain unconvinced. Cheers, Brian | ||
| Blue (Blue) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Blue Post Number: 771 Registered: 04-2003 |
Part of going anywhere and everywhere means keeping a company profitable but that doesn't enter in to it does it. Should they keep putting out the same old technology and get left behind just so you can make a repair on the trails? That sounds pretty stupid to me. the P&L side of the business has nothing to do with this discussion of "capability", or better yet, of "reliability". Apples & oranges, man. Sure, LR has to chase the hot market trends to make the money, but that has nothing to do with the fact that a computer-run truck is less reliable than a simpler version. LR should jsut keep producing old faithfuls that have a reasonable chance of trailside repair alongside the shiny new gizmo models. Then everyone is happy...simple enough. | ||
| Christopher Boese (Christopher) Member Username: Christopher Post Number: 221 Registered: 10-2002 |
Where I live in the mountains, it seems no one but me uses their Discovery for its intended purpose. I only meet Jeeps and various pickups on the trails. But I certainly see lots of Range Rovers and Discoveries parked at the nice markets and shops. And those are only here because rich LA people want something for the snow. Losing the Land Rover heritage? If there's any heritage to be bought along with LR's new vehicles, most buyers just throw it away. At least in Southern California, it's a done deal; maybe there's some folk memory of LR's history on safari and at war, but its only expression seems to be those spare tire covers with Rhinos printed on them. So, bring on the new Discovery. What difference does it make if you have solid axles and 11 inches of suspension travel if you never get your truck dirty? It's not just Land Rover selling out, it's everyone who buys an SUV and doesn't ever drive it off the pavement. My hope is that LR will make tons of money selling Discoveries to people who want an Explorer with "Land Rover" stuck on the hood. If the new Discovery is actually capable, so much the better. But we all have an interest in Land Rover remaining profitable. Then we can have the Defender back, and consistent dealer support for our earlier-generation trucks. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 814 Registered: 08-2002 |
Folk memory? LR are used at war and safari all over the world today. Of course most of these are Defender class vehicles not readily available in the US. Whether or not LR is profitable really has nothing to do with bringing the Defender back although many elude to this possibility. Sure if they have money, then it might make it more likely, but it is a decision that LR will make regardless of profitability. In fact it will depend more on whether or not the costs of bringing to the US market will be covered in a timely manner by the profit made on the sales of the new vehicle. Its not as clear cut as people here have said. They may not bring the Defender to the US even if they are profitable. | ||
| Lewis Jones (Cutter) Member Username: Cutter Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2003 |
War Disco...  | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 858 Registered: 09-2002 |
I think to bring Defenders to NA, they have to make them cost efficient from a fabrication perspective. Right now Defenders are mostly hand built so cost is incredibly high. To bring them over, their pricing would have to be quite high to offset the cost of fabrication and making them comply with safety standards so by the time they reach here, they're in the same price range if not higher than Discos. If they could automate fabrication of Defenders and bring the costs down, then I think bringing them to NA would be more feasible. LR probably feels that the market wouldn't tolerate paying high dollars for what is essentially a stripped down off-road vehicle when customers could go out and buy a Rubicon for a fraction of the cost. I think Discos are in the same boat as far as being primarily hand built but the amenities that they offer make them more attractive to buyers so the market is willing to pay the dollars for a "luxery" off-roader. | ||
| Christopher Boese (Christopher) Member Username: Christopher Post Number: 222 Registered: 10-2002 |
I'd forgotten that the Defender was hand-built, Alan, and I've seen photos of the Defender production "line", with everything on rolling jigs being hand-welded and -riveted into place. I was being optimistic, but you and Brian make some good arguments against the current Defender ever making it here. I'm still convinced that the American market will welcome the comfy new Discovery. The folk memory I'm thinking of is what Americans remember from Wild Kingdom and Daktari on TV. This is what Land Rover counts on for the success of their marketing here in the US. Abroad, of course, Land Rovers are very much still working (and fighting) trucks, and I know that. | ||
| BW (Bwallace35) Member Username: Bwallace35 Post Number: 78 Registered: 07-2002 |
Well hell. I don't post often but this thread has fired me up. B. Anderson, you undoubtedly have chosen the toughest crowd to "sell" the 05'. Good luck. You seem confident that the 05' will benefit LR's aim at competing in the North American SUV frenzy, and your probably right; however, I think LR should tackle a few limitations of their own before they dive deep into the NA market. That limitaion my friend . . . is reliabilty. To "us" LR enthusiasts here on this BB, reliability is an issue- but is better known as one of the defining qualities of the LR "experience". News Flash! The fast food, drive-in, microwave frozen food, krispy kreme market here in the U.S will NOT tolerate poor reliability. The ONLY reason I still own my DISCO (which is broke by the way) is because I morphed into a LR addict somewhere in the first 2,000 miles. I have ran up 38,000 to date. My rover has been in the shop more times than my previous five vehicles combined. This is no secret to you though - you are fully aware of LR's crappy reliablity issue. My point- I do not think LRNA will be successful if it doesn't "fix" this issue regardless of how capable the 05' will be. The Defender saga- We all know LR makes a vehicle 4x4 we admire - the Defender. We all know that the Defender pick-up and other models are primarily sold as a work/farm trucks in the UK. They are marketed this way and emphasize their towing capacity in their ads. I'm not an expert in the "car selling" industry but I am a red-neck whose driven a few "turn-rows". Give a man a diesel, straight axels, tough tires, an adequate bed and a 7,000 lb + towing capacity - then you've found a customer. Very few farm trucks exist these days with these qualities and the ones that do cost a fortune! The "pick-up" Defender which looks like similar to an old International is just begging to hit the U.S. market. My point - the Defender 90 can not compete with Jeep unless they drop the price tag. There is a need for the Defender "pick-up". It's customers are not soccer moms but your local farmer. Maybe this is the door-way for the remaining Defender class. If you think I'm full of crap and completely disagree with me but like the idea of a Defender finding a market to enter in the U.S. honk your horn twice and chalk one up on the board for me as a better sales guide than B. Anderson. If you think I'm full of crap and think I've done nothing to promote the selling of LR products, then I will join Anderson on the bench. My .02 (the guy with a broke LR) | ||
| Andrew Maier (Newman) Senior Member Username: Newman Post Number: 376 Registered: 04-2003 |
Yeah, good point. Why can't LR go after the GMC's and Dodge's and Ford's (irony of ironies) by challenging them in the utility TRUCK market? Year one: Sell the D110 pickup with the crewcab, marketed against the other utility trucks. Then sell the Disco cargo "van" as a similar niche vehicle. Year three of this sell the D90 as an alternative worksite vehicle to a Jeep. How difficult is this? | ||
| Rob Davison (Nosivad_bor) Dweb Lounge Member Username: Nosivad_bor Post Number: 1182 Registered: 02-2003 |
i am actually glad land rover has not bent over to america and put airbags in the defenders. you guys realize this is the main reason they wont import these. | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 81 Registered: 08-2003 |
That's the thing. I wasn't trying to "sell" anyone, merely a light-hearted message of what I thought was good news. The new Discovery will still have class leading off-road ability and not just an expensive Explorer as it has been portrayed. This has certainly tought me a lesson though... keep my mouth shut or be treated, quite rudely, as a huge dumbass. By the way, I would like nothing more, as I've already stated, for the Defender to make it's come back. | ||
| Michael Noe (Noee) Senior Member Username: Noee Post Number: 777 Registered: 03-2002 |
Come on man. You know where the lines are drawn around here re: this new disco. There's been quite a bit of "debate", I'm sure you've seen, hence your post. Whether light-hearted or not, you're opening yet another round of arguments, nothing wrong with that. Just be prepared to back your stance with substance. | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 236 Registered: 02-2002 |
Good morning to all, I'd have to say that overall Land Rover is slowly headed in the right direction. Remember Guys and Gals, Land Rover is a relatively small company in the big picture. Sure Ford owns them but that relationship is now justs getting started. As for reliability I think we need to look at the Ford/Jaguar track record. Remember Jaguar's reputation for reliability? Rememeber their resale value? It wasn't too good. Now take today's Jag. They are beginning to challange BMW with both models and reliability. I fully expect Land Rover to benefit from Ford but it takes time. What is the time from concept to first production - 5 years or so? So we should start to see the impact of Ford in yr2000+5=yr2005. As for reliability of electronic systems I tend to view the auto industry as in it's infancy. As a EE I know what can be accomplished. Today's systems are relatively simple. Unfortunately also not forgiving when they fail. There is no reason tomorrows electronic systems can't be redundant and low cost. If a system fails just fail-over to the backup system. Silicon is cheap. As for the future - derivatives of locomotives. Electric motors powered by small diesel powerplants. This could be an awesome "trail rated" :-) 4wd. I remember a company in Utah converting a Series II? to electric. It's off-road capabilities were great but range sucked. Make this a hybrid and we have something that works. It's probably even a bio-diesel. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 816 Registered: 08-2002 |
Rude? Give me a break. Just debating man, lighten up. | ||
| Andrew Maier (Newman) Senior Member Username: Newman Post Number: 378 Registered: 04-2003 |
But Brian, it was rude of you to challenge his views...and with logic no less!  Andy | ||
| Brian Anderson (Hans) Member Username: Hans Post Number: 82 Registered: 08-2003 |
It's all good. | ||
| Brian Dickens (Bri) Senior Member Username: Bri Post Number: 817 Registered: 08-2002 |
Right on. No offense intended. Cheers, Brian | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 861 Registered: 09-2002 |
Mark - do you feel that today's Jags have that Jag "feeling"? When you see one now, does it give off that Jag heritage or does it not quite seem the same. I think you can help a company improve without removing its heart but it seems that Ford has moved these companies under it's own umbrella and they are starting to lose their own distinct heritage. When you start having vehicles share parts and platforms, they have a tendancy to start looking the same too but doesn't that become counter productive when you buy a company like LR? I think that's what a lot of people (at least here) are upset with. If Ford wanted LR to enter "mainstream" markets, then maybe design a vehicle that caters to that. Don't take vehicles that have significant history in the off-road arena and change them into something they're not. What did Ford do when they wanted to enter the "cute-ute" market? They made the Escape. They didn't downsize the Explorer to fit that market. They made the Expedition to go into the full-size SUV market. What they should have done was let LR continue in their off-road niche market but help them on areas like QA, parts distribution, R&D as opposed to trying to redesign the vehicle into another market. Expand their line up to include new models that target specific markets. The Freelander was LR's first step into something a little more mainstream and it looks like they did a good job so why not try a model that goes after the soccer-moms. You don't lose any heritage by that because vehicles like the Disco and Defenders remain on their original course. That was what the green oval meant (Series owners are going to disagree with that but you know what I mean). Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part but as things progress with Ford, it looks more and more like they're slowly assimulating LR into their own product line so that pretty soon it's going to be like GM where they have vehicles like the JGC and one of their other brands (Mitsubishi) essentially look identical. I just think that LR has to be careful they don't lose their image which I think is starting happen. | ||
| Christopher Boese (Christopher) Member Username: Christopher Post Number: 223 Registered: 10-2002 |
And yet - as I was saying earlier - the Soccer Moms already buy most of the Discoveries. The selling-out isn't just on Ford's part. It's also on the part of those who buy Land Rovers and never take them offroad. | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 862 Registered: 09-2002 |
That is true. I guess that applies to 99% of all SUVs, regardless of make. | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 240 Registered: 02-2002 |
Alan - I understand what you are saying. For the auto industry it's a fine line to walk between character that was created from previous generations and the demands of a competitive market and government regulations. Here's my perspective on Jag as a Jag owner. In 1986 I bought a 82' XJ-6 Series III with 26K miles on it for $17K. The depreciation on Jags during that timeframe was very high. I love the car, the early Series I-III and it has been very reliable for me. In the mid-80's Jag was private and quality was increasing but perceptions last a long time. The 1987 follow-on to the XJ6 Series III was the XJ-40. I'd have to say that the XJ-40 did not have that Jag feel. The styling was wrong and reliability suspect. It wasn't Ford that gave birth to the XJ-40. That came from inside Jaguar. Enter Ford in 1989. The latest XJ8 is a return to the Series III styling. The 2004 is Jaguar innovation sporting a aluminum body. With the help of Ford, Jaguar has returned to racing sports cars and competes in F1. To me these are all good. To me the current XJ8 and XK feel more "Jag" than right before Ford bought Jaguar. If there are areas of concern it would be with the X-type and S-type. The floor pans are shared with other Ford models but suspension and drivetrain are Jaguar. They are meant to compete with BMW. In today's market volume is needed to survive. As for Land Rover they must evolve or die. Government regulations and political conditions have a significant impact on auto companies. The Defender, while we all love it for it's simplicity, also must evolve. Unless it does it's current military vehicle market will dry up and so will the Defender. I'm hoping that the Ford/Jag scenerio plays out with Ford/Land Rover. I understand Land Rover is already beginning to design in Jaguar diesels. Start with the power plants and then move to chassis technologies? This doesn't feel like Ford Explorer stuff. What if the next Defender was Jaguar aluminum body technology with Jaguar diesel powerplants? Maybe not but sounds interesting. Let's see, original aluminum bodies, changed to steel by BMW and then back to aluminum by Ford. I'm hoping that this keeps Land Rover on it's original course while leveraging technology developed at the Premium Auto Group (PAG) level. As for simplicity , that's a tough one. There's no way one can meet environmental requirements with 60's technology. There is also no hope in keeping service cost down without intelligent on-board computing to monitor and report control system data. The only hope is to make technology as reliable and accessable as possible. You would have to agree that today's electronic systems are much more reliable than previous systems. They are also much easier to diagnose. The next step is standardization and redundancy. Silicon is cheap. |
