FS td5 engine line

Huw wrote:
> "Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In message <813cc99c4d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>> Indeed...... and a hell of a lot cheaper. If LR mess with Defender
>>> I can see them catching on.
>>>
>>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> Landrover NEED to mess with the Defender.
>>
>> It is way behind the competition in many areas and way too expensive.
>
> LR need to but they are not likely to, other than to change
> components. Sales do not justify it. There is an element of 'chicken
> and egg' here of course and there needs to be a bold and creative
> initiative if sales are to recover. IMO they gave up a decade ago.
> Defender has remained largely unchanged for over twenty years and
> that is a disgrace.
> Huw

Still a cracking car though!

It's like my Subaru, it has it's knockers (ooh!) but it is a very well tried & tested combination & can
soon lose the Porsche drivers smile!

Simple answer is you buy a car because YOU like it, not what other folk think of it!

Nige

--
Subaru WRX (Annabel)

Landrover 110 County Station Wagon (Tyson)

'"Say hello to my little friend"

"Nige" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Huw wrote:
>> "Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> In message <813cc99c4d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>> Indeed...... and a hell of a lot cheaper. If LR mess with Defender
>>>> I can see them catching on.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Landrover NEED to mess with the Defender.
>>>
>>> It is way behind the competition in many areas and way too expensive.
>>
>> LR need to but they are not likely to, other than to change
>> components. Sales do not justify it. There is an element of 'chicken
>> and egg' here of course and there needs to be a bold and creative
>> initiative if sales are to recover. IMO they gave up a decade ago.
>> Defender has remained largely unchanged for over twenty years and
>> that is a disgrace.
>> Huw
>
> Still a cracking car though!
>
> It's like my Subaru, it has it's knockers (ooh!) but it is a very well
> tried & tested combination & can soon lose the Porsche drivers smile!
>
> Simple answer is you buy a car because YOU like it, not what other folk
> think of it!
>

Oh I quite *like* it. That does not mean that it is a competitive or safe
machine by today's standards.

Huw

"Raoul Donschachner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1h1lziz.4s5zmekdgwa2N%[email protected]...
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> produces it? What I want is a refined and economical engine with around
>> 400Nm of torque at 1600 revs and around 160hp at 4200rpm.
>
> Its a question of 1300 Euros to have what you want. Nice, quick,
> reliable and a little less thirsty than original.
>
> Raoul
> --
> ==To e-mail me exchange das_liest_keiner with anything else==
> I'll give up my Land Rover when you pry my cold dead fingers
> from the steering wheel.

Does that include a torque matched clutch, gearboxes and axles?
I want it as original equipment from the factory. Ideally it would be a new
vehicle from the ground up but at present they are only talking of changing
components. With a bit of luck they will also outsource the gearboxes while
they are at it. Not that I can complain about mine, just that we need a
future proof vehicle, or at least one that will satisfy the demands of the
next couple or three years.

Huw

In message <[email protected]>, Nige
<[email protected]> writes
>> Defender has remained largely unchanged for over twenty years and
>> that is a disgrace.
>> Huw
>
>Still a cracking car though!

It is as a "car" that it fails dismally.

As an offroad vehicle it is excellent. But people ask more than that
these days.

This has been bought home recently as I have sold all my stock
Discoveries and know we are having to use Defender CSW's as family
transport. The 110 is practical as it gets but not a patch on some of
the other 4x4's available.

Landrover can broaden the appeal without loosing the ability it really
is not that hard.

--
Marc Draper

www.mdeng.co.uk

Nige <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sorry? I didn't actually try to compare it to the TD5, I was simply saying
> that out of the box the Touareg engine is a very nice engine.

I thought your post was part of the TD5-bashing, sorry

Raoul
--
==To e-mail me exchange das_liest_keiner with anything else==
I'll give up my Land Rover when you pry my cold dead fingers
from the steering wheel.

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Does that include a torque matched clutch, gearboxes and axles?

I don´t see the demand. Mine has to go fast on the motorway on a daily
basis, some times goes offroad, sometimes has to pull heavy trailers and
once a year has to tackle the sahara. It has now done 50.000km on this
basis and there is not slightest sign of wear and of course, nothing
broke.

Raoul
--
==To e-mail me exchange das_liest_keiner with anything else==
I'll give up my Land Rover when you pry my cold dead fingers
from the steering wheel.

"Raoul Donschachner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1h1n2lo.2pp52u2m1ntaN%[email protected]...
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Does that include a torque matched clutch, gearboxes and axles?
>
> I don´t see the demand. Mine has to go fast on the motorway on a daily
> basis, some times goes offroad, sometimes has to pull heavy trailers and
> once a year has to tackle the sahara. It has now done 50.000km on this
> basis and there is not slightest sign of wear and of course, nothing
> broke.
>

So yours is a chipped TD5? A friend has one and it is adequately powerful if
a bit sudden in its delivery at over 2000rpm.
I've nothing against chipping and I run a TD6 myself which is chipped and it
is indeed less thirsty than standard.

Huw

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> So yours is a chipped TD5? A friend has one and it is adequately powerful if
> a bit sudden in its delivery at over 2000rpm.
> I've nothing against chipping and I run a TD6 myself which is chipped and it
> is indeed less thirsty than standard.

Just chipping is bull****. I really tried and tested what I wanted and
now have a big intercooler, a suitable chip, no cat and K&N filter.
So it now goes like stink and has lots of low down torque, more than any
TDI will ever reach at maximum ;-)

Throttle-response is also near perfect, you can measure this while
driving in soft sand in the Sahara where you need good throttle-response
and fat low-down-torque.

Raoul
--
==To e-mail me exchange das_liest_keiner with anything else==
I'll give up my Land Rover when you pry my cold dead fingers
from the steering wheel.

"Raoul Donschachner" <[email protected]> wrote>
> Just chipping is bull****. I really tried and tested what I wanted and
> now have a big intercooler, a suitable chip, no cat and K&N filter.
> So it now goes like stink and has lots of low down torque, more than any
> TDI will ever reach at maximum ;-)
>


You've only done 50,000kms so far. Keep us up to date with vehicle repairs
up to 200,000 kms. I would be surprised if the engine was still viable. A
friend [not the same one] has had his catastrophically fail at 30,000 miles
and the main dealer has been unable to start the new replacement, causing
the vehicle to be shipped back to Solihull for specialist attention at the
factory.

Huw

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> You've only done 50,000kms so far. Keep us up to date with vehicle repairs
> up to 200,000 kms. I would be surprised if the engine was still viable.

Me not. The life of an engine is more dependable from the way you treat
it than from the horsepower it has to deliver.
I had a lot of vehicles with tuned engines and as long as it was
professional tuning I never had any worries.

Raoul
--
==To e-mail me exchange das_liest_keiner with anything else==
I'll give up my Land Rover when you pry my cold dead fingers
from the steering wheel.

Chris Hi,

I would be grateful if you could post a link to the advertisement posted for
the sale of the TD5 production line (no I do not intend on buying it, I am
just curious)

Thanks in advance
Pantelis

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> landrover are advertising the sale of the complete production line for the
> storm engine ! wonder who will buy it ?
>
>
> the last landrover engine ?
>
>

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:59:48 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In message <813cc99c4d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>Indeed...... and a hell of a lot cheaper. If LR mess with Defender
>>>I can see them catching on.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> Landrover NEED to mess with the Defender.
>>
>> It is way behind the competition in many areas and way too expensive.
>
>LR need to but they are not likely to, other than to change components.
>Sales do not justify it. There is an element of 'chicken and egg' here of
>course and there needs to be a bold and creative initiative if sales are to
>recover. IMO they gave up a decade ago. Defender has remained largely
>unchanged for over twenty years and that is a disgrace.
>
>Huw
>

LR have spent the last 10 years establishing the Range Rover as the
icon of the brand. That job is just about complete and I cannot see
any reason why Land Rover as a company 'needs' the Defender any more.
It doesn't fit with anything else they sell, either in design,
componentry, image etc.




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

In message <[email protected]>
Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:59:48 +0100, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Marc Draper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In message <813cc99c4d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
> >> <[email protected]> writes
> >>>Indeed...... and a hell of a lot cheaper. If LR mess with Defender
> >>>I can see them catching on.
> >>>
> >>>Richard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Landrover NEED to mess with the Defender.
> >>
> >> It is way behind the competition in many areas and way too expensive.
> >
> >LR need to but they are not likely to, other than to change components.
> >Sales do not justify it. There is an element of 'chicken and egg' here of
> >course and there needs to be a bold and creative initiative if sales are to
> >recover. IMO they gave up a decade ago. Defender has remained largely
> >unchanged for over twenty years and that is a disgrace.
> >
> >Huw
> >
>
> LR have spent the last 10 years establishing the Range Rover as the
> icon of the brand. That job is just about complete and I cannot see
> any reason why Land Rover as a company 'needs' the Defender any more.
> It doesn't fit with anything else they sell, either in design,
> componentry, image etc.
>
>

LR *do* need Defender. Old Series motors and battered Defenders sell
far more Range Rovers than LR's naff adverts ever do. Customers are
buying into the image of ruggedness and duarbility these old vehicles
represent - take Defender away and what have you got? Expensive,
unreliable vehicles that are made better by every other manufacturer
(since Discovery II anyway) that are firmly in the "image" market.

The other market, which round here LR are doing well in, is the
user who needs a utility vehicle for work. Most farmers, most
utilities and such like have tried non-Defender solutions round
here and have now gone back to Defender. While there are not many
except me and a few other loonies who would drive a Defender as a
first-choice vehicle, there are plenty who buy other LR vehicles
as a spin-off from their work vehicle. Toyota understand this, as
do Nissan of late. Jeep don't, and look where they are in market
perception.....

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:49:21 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

>LR *do* need Defender. Old Series motors and battered Defenders sell
>far more Range Rovers than LR's naff adverts ever do.

Nostalgia, important as it may seem to people here, plays very little
in the broader purchasing decisions of individuals, fleet managers and
large corporate / governmental procurement offices.

Tim is nearly right, LR/Ford don't really 'need' the Defender, however
it's fairly essential in other ways for them to keep it in the line
for at least another 10 years. If only the build quality weren't so
bad, they'd have enviable sales too.

In message <[email protected]>
Mother <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:49:21 +0000 (UTC), beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >LR *do* need Defender. Old Series motors and battered Defenders sell
> >far more Range Rovers than LR's naff adverts ever do.
>
> Nostalgia, important as it may seem to people here, plays very little
> in the broader purchasing decisions of individuals, fleet managers and
> large corporate / governmental procurement offices.
>

For individuals, image is everything - just look at car adverts
(any maker) to see how important it is. However much they may convince
themselves to the contrary, the vast majority buy accoding to image,
which may be "look at me, aren't I clever being this economical" to
"I'm an ace driver so I can handle all this power", via "I try buy
ones built in Britain" and "Isn't the CD player good". Very few are
bought after listing all the requiremnts and then matching that to
all the possible available vehicles. Having said that, many purchasers
will adapt their list to match the vehicle that they actually want
("well, look, one a year we take Granny to Aunti Flow, so we realy
do need 7 seats, Dear).
Corporate buyers, though being monitored by the bean counters, are not
a lot different at heart - one large local haulier would only have
Seddon-Atckinson in his fleet, whereas another would only have Volvo,
though for economy (for their milk tanker fleets) they would have both
been significatly better off with ERF at the time. One of then, at
least, must have been wrong!

> Tim is nearly right, LR/Ford don't really 'need' the Defender, however
> it's fairly essential in other ways for them to keep it in the line
> for at least another 10 years. If only the build quality weren't so
> bad, they'd have enviable sales too.
>

Since the primary non-road use for Defenders on farms is as temporary
fencing and the like, the asthetic build quality does not really matter
- the ability to halt an irate bull and be drivable is far more important.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

>LR *do* need Defender. Old Series motors and battered Defenders sell
>far more Range Rovers than LR's naff adverts ever do. Customers are
>buying into the image of ruggedness and duarbility these old vehicles
>represent - take Defender away and what have you got? Expensive,
>unreliable vehicles that are made better by every other manufacturer
>(since Discovery II anyway) that are firmly in the "image" market.
>
>The other market, which round here LR are doing well in, is the
>user who needs a utility vehicle for work. Most farmers, most
>utilities and such like have tried non-Defender solutions round
>here and have now gone back to Defender. While there are not many
>except me and a few other loonies who would drive a Defender as a
>first-choice vehicle, there are plenty who buy other LR vehicles
>as a spin-off from their work vehicle. Toyota understand this, as
>do Nissan of late. Jeep don't, and look where they are in market
>perception.....
>

How much marketing and advertising have you seen for the Defender in
the last five years? And how much for Freelander and Range Rover?

I don't think LR marketing see it quite how you do. Otherwise LR
would put far more effort into customer care and less into brochures,
adverts and other campaigns. How many Range Rover customers (remember
we are talking about people who have either £60K in spare cash or £1k
/ month for lease) even know the LR made the Series 1?

Today's Land Rover customer buys a car, runs it for 30-60K miles and
three years and then buys another. They don't give a toss how long it
lasts beyond that, and apart from 'image' the majority don't give a
hoot how well it performs off road. They only care about whether
their mates THINK it is good off-road. Hence the adverts and the
great care to make sure Clarkson drives one up a mountain without
getting muddy on prime-time TV.




--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

In message <3e6e7e9e4d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> writes
>Since the primary non-road use for Defenders on farms is as temporary
>fencing and the like, the asthetic build quality does not really matter
>- the ability to halt an irate bull and be drivable is far more important.



That's all very well but when you pay a kings ransom for it you expect
more.
--
Marc Draper

In message <[email protected]>
Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >LR *do* need Defender. Old Series motors and battered Defenders sell
> >far more Range Rovers than LR's naff adverts ever do. Customers are
> >buying into the image of ruggedness and duarbility these old vehicles
> >represent - take Defender away and what have you got? Expensive,
> >unreliable vehicles that are made better by every other manufacturer
> >(since Discovery II anyway) that are firmly in the "image" market.
> >
> >The other market, which round here LR are doing well in, is the
> >user who needs a utility vehicle for work. Most farmers, most
> >utilities and such like have tried non-Defender solutions round
> >here and have now gone back to Defender. While there are not many
> >except me and a few other loonies who would drive a Defender as a
> >first-choice vehicle, there are plenty who buy other LR vehicles
> >as a spin-off from their work vehicle. Toyota understand this, as
> >do Nissan of late. Jeep don't, and look where they are in market
> >perception.....
> >
>
> How much marketing and advertising have you seen for the Defender in
> the last five years? And how much for Freelander and Range Rover?

Defender - none, but, in the UK, Defenders sell themeselves - my point
entirely. Freelander had quite a burst at the last model launch, and
stillpops up now and again. Discovery III - plenty of pretentious
twaddle that turns me off rather than on. Range Rover - none, except
a articles in mags. LR would seen to have a very limited advertising
budget, so....

>
> I don't think LR marketing see it quite how you do. Otherwise LR
> would put far more effort into customer care and less into brochures,
> adverts and other campaigns.

.... they use brouchures which have a much longer "shelf life".

> How many Range Rover customers (remember
> we are talking about people who have either £60K in spare cash or £1k
> / month for lease) even know the LR made the Series 1?

Quite a lot, round here anyway. Like I say, they are buying into
the image created by Range Rovers in the 70's - practical luxury etc,
derrived from the stength and durability of the original that opened
the world up (Well, that's the story). The two dealerships I visit
still use subtlely placed pictures of Series and Defenders with their
ovaralls on to maintain the link.

>
> Today's Land Rover customer buys a car, runs it for 30-60K miles and
> three years and then buys another. They don't give a toss how long it
> lasts beyond that, and apart from 'image' the majority don't give a
> hoot how well it performs off road. They only care about whether
> their mates THINK it is good off-road. Hence the adverts and the
> great care to make sure Clarkson drives one up a mountain without
> getting muddy on prime-time TV.

My point exactly, the image created by Defender and Series is being
nurtured - take that away and it does indeed become just another 4x4.
When that happens, the ego's you've outlined above, will not put
up with all the "Land Roverisms" that they do now while it is
percived as being the best. As Mr. Lincon said "You can fool all
the poeple some of the time........"

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

In message <[email protected]>
Marc Draper <[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <3e6e7e9e4d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> writes
> >Since the primary non-road use for Defenders on farms is as temporary
> >fencing and the like, the asthetic build quality does not really matter
> >- the ability to halt an irate bull and be drivable is far more important.
>
>
>
> That's all very well but when you pay a kings ransom for it you expect
> more.

Funnily enough, and it does surprise me, farmers don't complain about
the cost very much, if at all. Having said that, compared to a tractor
they are two a penny, plus they get full capital allowances and all
that stuff to set against tax (even the tax man is not going to try and
claim they are a car - something any future Defender plans should take
into account).

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

Tim Hobbs wrote:
>
> How much marketing and advertising have you seen for the Defender in
> the last five years?

Strangely, about four weeks ago there were full page Defender adverts in
the national papers (or at least one of them). It rather surprised me.