P38really so good?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Still waiting for Howardo's insightful explanation into why the P38 is so bad from an engineering point of view - the man who thinks the FR1 and 2 are the same thing - when they are vastly more different than say the P38 and the Classic which share many components - or at least developments of them unlike the FR2 which was a "clean sheet" design abet based on a Ford platform.
 
i don't think the fl1 and 2 are the same, it never ceases to amaze me how people on here read what they want to read and twist it to justify their own argument. The P38 is ****e and just coz you like it doesn't make it any good.
 
howardo said:
i don't think the fl1 and 2 are the same, it never ceases to amaze me how people on here read what they want to read and twist it to justify their own argument. The P38 is ****e and just coz you like it doesn't make it any good.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty weak argument and statistics seem to say otherwise!

Ok, random sample of P38 vs Freelander - using the 'how many left' site linked too earlier:

LAND ROVER FREELANDER - How Many Left?

&

LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER HSE AUTO - How Many Left?

Looking over a 5 year period between 2007 to latest figures (2012) 59% of the freelanders are still going vs 63% of P38 HSE Auto's. Given the economic disadvantage the P38 faces on economy (I deliberately picked the petrol), it's a fairly damming verdict on which one for longevity in the real world?
 
howardo said:
The P38 is an abomination against design and engineering, it is awful.
Click to expand...

Aesthetics are subjective - but please do let us know why the P38 - and only the P38 (as you like the other RR models) - is such an abomination from the engineering point of view? Of course the Freelander 1 was such a fine specimen in the engineering dept wasn't it?
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
Stop posting subjective nonsense and give us your valuable insight as to why (engineering wise) the P38 is so inferior to the other Range Rover models.
Click to expand...

my opinion would only be bias to me, but how can the experiences of others be subjective nonsense?

stop kidding yourself, its crap
 
howardo said:
my opinion would only be bias to me, but how can the experiences of others be subjective nonsense?

stop kidding yourself, its crap
Click to expand...

Options are subjective - that's why they are called opinions. If you don't like the P38 - fine - there are plenty of people on both sides of the camp - but you posted that it is an abomination from an engineering point of view - a statement you cannot back up. Opinions are supposed to be formed - not inherited (which is dogma) - therefore you must have deep knowledge of the P38 from an engineering point of view. If you cannot back up your statement take it back and say what you meant - you don't like P38s.
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
Yeah but it's still a MK1 Freelander - more special needs than special.
Click to expand...
is this an insightful comment worthy of a response
StuckAgainSteve said:
It'd struggle pulling the skin off a rice pudding let alone a horse box!
Click to expand...
obviously have an engineering background to come up with that one
StuckAgainSteve said:
FFS Howardo - give it a rest - to suggest a Freelander 1 is in the same league as a P38 for towing is beyond stupidity. Freelanders - especially 3 door ones with the roof off - are much better at giving male hairdressers a more butch image - at that particular task the P38 cannot compete.
Click to expand...
saying i suggested something that i didn't and another insightful comment not worthy of a response
StuckAgainSteve said:
Opinions are supposed to be formed - not inherited (which is dogma) .
Click to expand...
how are your opinions formed? or are you just reciting dogma?
you are not worthy of an educated answer.
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
Options are subjective - that's why they are called opinions. If you don't like the P38 - fine - there are plenty of people on both sides of the camp - but you posted that it is an abomination from an engineering point of view - a statement you cannot back up. Opinions are supposed to be formed - not inherited (which is dogma) - therefore you must have deep knowledge of the P38 from an engineering point of view. If you cannot back up your statement take it back and say what you meant - you don't like P38s.
Click to expand...

He can't because it's his opinion. The links I provided from the same site give the same review score for a Freelander (2.8/5) and a high score for another P38 model (4.6HSE). Opinion is just that and in terms of lifecycle, the 'how many left' site shows that the rate of decline is greater for at least some Freelanders than P38's. If engineering was that poor, this would not be the case. Bottom line is the Freelander is a budget Land Rover and the P38 was top of the range. Engineering quality is close enough to be of no consequence and design aesthetics of either will probably never appeal to everyone. Personally, a Freelander would be useless for me as it can't tow what I need, not enough capacity and not capable enough where needed. Oh, and has no street cred! :p
 
I'm not the one who implied by mentioning the other RR models that the P38 was inferior from an engineering point of view - I don't particularly like FL1s - I was recently offered a one owner TD4 for peanuts and turned it down. I think they have their merits - but I wouldn't go onto a Freelander board and start slagging them off.
 
quality is not 'bling' its 'fit for purpose'. When you spend the amount of money you spend on a rangerover you expect it to function correctly for a considerable length of time. For what you got with the P38 and considering its initial cost it is of poorer quality than the original mini which as a piece of engineering was brilliant (i know each was sold at a loss).
Towing aside, when you look at the initial cost of a rangerover and the initial cost of a freelander the freelander wins hands down as a 'fit for purpose' product.
 
StuckAgainSteve said:
I'm not the one who implied by mentioning the other RR models that the P38 was inferior from an engineering point of view - I don't particularly like FL1s - I was recently offered a one owner TD4 for peanuts and turned it down. I think they have their merits - but I wouldn't go onto a Freelander board and start slagging them off.
Click to expand...

you slagged the freelander off on here so wheres the difference
 
howardo said:
you slagged the freelander off on here so wheres the difference
Click to expand...

After a Freelander owner came onto a Range Rover section and slagged off the P38 - I have posted on the Freelander section many times - never anything insulting to Freelanders.

The P38 is a massively more complex car - it will (should) be less reliable than a more basic Freelander in the same way BMW 7 Series are hardly known for their rock-solid reliability but the more basic 3 series is - even though the 3 costs much less than a 7.

The Mini was a great piece of engineering - but I wouldn't want to drive one more than 25 miles - I used to race 'em and my back still hurts! The more troublesome but vastly more refined Hillman Imp on the other hand I'd have no problem driving to Scotland in.
 
howardo said:
quality is not 'bling' its 'fit for purpose'. When you spend the amount of money you spend on a rangerover you expect it to function correctly for a considerable length of time. For what you got with the P38 and considering its initial cost it is of poorer quality than the original mini which as a piece of engineering was brilliant (i know each was sold at a loss).
Towing aside, when you look at the initial cost of a rangerover and the initial cost of a freelander the freelander wins hands down as a 'fit for purpose' product.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the quality in terms of running gear is no different - it's the "extra's" that overcomplicated the P38 and cause reliability issues. Those extras are what the market in luxury SUVs wanted and Land Rover delivered. Land Rover were pioneers in terms of ride quality and 'features' and there's no doubt that these successes (however overpriced) kept the brand alive. The hydraulic suspension system used in Citroens is crap (along with much of the rest of the vehicles in my experience), troublesome and expensive, but they made them for years and persevered in the name of ride quality. The P38 was and is an engineering masterpiece and set new standards at the time of it's launch. I wasn't (and probably never will be) in a position to buy a new Range Rover, but given the choice of old Range Rover or new Freelander, it would be the former every time.

For what it's worth, those I've known with Freelanders have had every bit as much grief as I'm expecting from my P38! Our farrier joked that his first one was fine if he wanted it for the missus to run the kids to school, but as a work vehicle it was useless (That's saying something as his prior vehicle was a Frontera.) He reckoned he had no problems if he kept it dry and away from mud - not easy when you spend much of your time on farms... You don't expect a clutch to fail just under 19K either.
 
I'd agree with most of what you've said however I've had around ten Oleopneumatic Citroens over the years - the suspension never really caused me a problem on any of them, changing a sphere is as easy as changing an oil filter and is much cheaper and quicker than swapping a conventional spring and shock. I did have electrical issues on some of them though!
 
Your posts were - telling us to get a FL1 instead of a P38 - posting pictures of the FL2 to prove how good the FL1 is at towing and then posting the quip including "P38's can tow more than a freelander never disputed that. Rangerover classics and l322 are nice looking vehicles. The P38 is an abomination against design and engineering, it is awful.". Still waiting for you to justify the latter part of your quote - I can handle the subjective part about looks. All LR products are (were?) developed on a shoe-string and had more faults than should be the case, but from an engineering perspective the P38 is a solid vehicle. I doesn't rust like a classic (or L322), it's tough and easily repairable - good engineering I'd say - if poor in terms of execution and development (like most Rover products.)
 
I can't fathom why anyone is giving this idiot any time....he obviously knows little about P38's or Range Rovers in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Montyjohn
P38A Slow to change gear
Replies
1
Views
317
Datatek
Datatek
ukadamwest
P38A Farewell to another P38.. or hello ?
Replies
18
Views
917
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
ar1g3
P38A Stall speed monitoring gearbox fault
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
A
L322 L322 '03; Completely new to Landy's, so a couple of questions
Replies
2
Views
628
rich28uk
rich28uk
Montyjohn
P38A EAS Inlet Valve Stuck or leak?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Montyjohn
Montyjohn
Back
Top