On or around Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:39:54 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
<email@example.com> enlightened us thusly:
>In message <3mjsiqF17ba2jU1@individual.net>
> "Bob Hobden" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> "Tim Hobbs" wrote
>> >>Yes - it's bodge jobs from now on - farewell LR's off-road ability :-(
>> >>I was around when the engine for Baby Bently was being chosen - all the
>> >>marques values went out of the window (with apprpriate marketing
>> >>codswallop) so that a "Not Very Appropriate But Its The Only One In
>> >>The Company That Even Comes Close" one can be used. The decision will be
>> >>made by people who have never driven off-road, towed anything other
>> >>a modern caravan (and certainly never done both together) and are
>> >>soley interested in bhp (or kW) at whatever speed the engine runs at
>> >>to do 80-90mph so it will look good on Top-Gear.
>> >>Yes - I am cynical, and yes - I have no doubt (from customer feed-back)
>> >>that LR are rapidly, as they say round here, losing the plot. Even the
>> >>Td5 is only tollerated, rather than liked.
>> > I don't think they've lost the plot, so much as chosen a different
>> > one. They have decided to build cars which are the best off-roaders
>> > in their class and very desirable to people with lots of money.
>> > They've done a very good job of that.
>> > That's not necessarily the same as building great off-roaders though,
>> > and certainly not about creating vehicles that last for years and
>> > years.
>> > Nobody is rushing to fill the void though....
>Indeed...... and a hell of a lot cheaper. If LR mess with Defender
>I can see them catching on.
If I were in the market for a new 110, it'd almost certainly be a Santana.
The only thing I think they should do is to offer the 146ps version of the
engine at least as an option. 125ps is all very well, but it doesn't
compete with the opposition - they're in danger of falling into the same
trap that LR themselves have never really got out of, and that's the one of
under-powering the diesels. A more-powerful engine in light use will
probably be just as economical, and has the reserve of go when you need it.
I reckon the TD5 should have had the same piston size as the TDi - which
would have given it something around 3.1l capacity which would have been
much more like it. the proposed TD4 would have been 2.5l, and the TD6 would
have been about 3.8 which would have been very useful in the new rangie.
still, 's all water under the bridge.
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net
my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.