Last Land-Rover for mere mortals?

On or around Mon, 22 May 2006 12:42:30 +0100, "Simon Oates"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Interesting thought about whether still retailing Series IIIs would work.
>The Santana (which I think of as a developed Series III) seems to do ok, so
>who knows what would have happened if, for example, Land-Rover had done a
>production Series III(A?) or 90, with perhaps a factory-fitted intercooled
>Prima diesel engine + servo disc brakes as one option, and a slightly wider
>body, with space between the rear wheel arches for a standard Euro-pallet?
>

The santana is in effect a series IIIA, updated and improved SIII.
However... it uses an Iveco common-rail EDC diesel engine, so that's the
simple spanner-and-hammer out the window, then.

'tis a fact that LR still make TDis for the army, AFAIK, or did so until
very recently.

The modern electronic control systems are about meeting tougher emissions
targets, though, really - something that a mechanically-governed fuel pump
won't really do.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat" Euripedes, quoted in
Boswell's "Johnson".

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Mon, 22 May 2006 12:42:30 +0100, "Simon Oates"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> Interesting thought about whether still retailing Series IIIs would work.
>> The Santana (which I think of as a developed Series III) seems to do ok, so
>> who knows what would have happened if, for example, Land-Rover had done a
>> production Series III(A?) or 90, with perhaps a factory-fitted intercooled
>> Prima diesel engine + servo disc brakes as one option, and a slightly wider
>> body, with space between the rear wheel arches for a standard Euro-pallet?
>>
>
> The santana is in effect a series IIIA, updated and improved SIII.
> However... it uses an Iveco common-rail EDC diesel engine, so that's the
> simple spanner-and-hammer out the window, then.
>
> 'tis a fact that LR still make TDis for the army, AFAIK, or did so until
> very recently.

SG: I think they've come to the end of the line with the 300Tdi for HM
Forces. I was chatting with a guy I used to serve with who is now on the
joint services vehicle trials and evaluation team and they are eagerly
awaiting delivery of a TD5 powered Wolf (Defender HD).

>
> The modern electronic control systems are about meeting tougher emissions
> targets, though, really - something that a mechanically-governed fuel pump
> won't really do.
>


--
Regards

Steve G

Austin Shackles wrote:

|| 'tis a fact that LR still make TDis for the army, AFAIK, or did so
|| until very recently.

Not now - stopped 'em last year. Wonder what the army will use now, as they
apparently rejected the Td5 as "non-field-repairable" (and other issues with
the ECUs being susceptible to damage from passing ray-guns or something).
Probably something made elsewhere than Solihull.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

"Srtgray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matthew Maddock wrote:
>> Srtgray wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>>
>> Do people think that LR would be in business if it was still retailing
>> SIII's??! Times change, things change and if business doesn't
>> change with it they disappear. In 20 years time we'll probably have
>> people saying how wonderful and easy the Td5 was to work on compared
>> to the complicated crap that is being made now!
>>
>> Matt
>
> Well, not me for one. I loved my series IIs, but I much prefer my 110.
> I'm all in favour of progress, and I'm sure that the Range Rover and
> Discovery have benefitted from all the new-fangled stuff (and don't forget
> thet LR make most of their money on these models) BUT the Defender is a
> work horse that should be able to tackle most stuff without needing
> computer equipment to sort out problems. Would anyone in their right mind
> take a TD5 overland through Africa?
>

ALL engines sold in Western Europe, America and some of Australasia need
computer control to meet the last, latest and future emission regulations.
There is NO choice in this matter and NO alternative, whether you like it or
not.

Huw

"Matthew Maddock" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Srtgray wrote:
>> If been reading the threads regarding the TD5 models with some bemusement
>> (and alarm), and have come to the conclusion that Land-Rover (yes, I
>> still use the hyphen) have shot themselves in the foot. All this
>> electronic jiggery-pokery like ECUs and switches that are really relays
>> seems somewhat counter productive. So, which was the last "real"
>> Land-Rover? I'm assuming that the 300TDi could still be maintained with
>> a set of ring spanners and a big 'ammer, but when did they go out of
>> production?
>
> Do people think that LR would be in business if it was still retailing
> SIII's??! Times change, things change and if business doesn't
> change with it they disappear. In 20 years time we'll probably have
> people saying how wonderful and easy the Td5 was to work on compared
> to the complicated crap that is being made now!
>

I'll second that and add that they are not updating the Defender fast
enough. They have lost the plot and the market to the [mostly] pick-up
opposition. I haven't seen a serious business user, like a farmer, with a
new Defender in a very long time while the pick-ups are ten a penny,
especially Nissan and the new Mitsubishi. In fact combining the figures of
just these two examples sold over the last six months is likely to dwarf the
figures for the antiquated Defender.
Someone should get off their corporate arses and give the business customer
what he wants or the whole business will collapse if fashions change against
big expensive playthings.

Huw

"fanie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I would have no problem with ECU's if they were guanenteed, no
> questions asked, for the life of the vehicle as a free swap out.
>
> If you think of what you get charged for a replacement (anything up to
> ZAR50K here in South africa) it makes the prospect of owning a TD5
> scary to me, and the same goes for any new wagon.
>
> I am of the firm opionin that new vehicles are made for possbily
> around 5 year lifespans, and after that it should die. Could you
> imagine trying to sort Rangie Sport that is 15yrs old, worth a couple
> of thousand quid and being told that you need to spend thousands just
> to get the air bags legal.
>

This is a sign of old age because I remember my dad, who is 80, say just
this over and over back in the 60's

Huw

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f424182b4e%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Simon Oates" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Interesting thought about whether still retailing Series IIIs would work.
>> The Santana (which I think of as a developed Series III) seems to do ok,
>> so
>> who knows what would have happened if, for example, Land-Rover had done a
>> production Series III(A?) or 90, with perhaps a factory-fitted
>> intercooled
>> Prima diesel engine + servo disc brakes as one option, and a slightly
>> wider
>> body, with space between the rear wheel arches for a standard
>> Euro-pallet?
>>
>
> That is the HCPU - specifically designed to take Europallets.
>
>> I suspect that even today something like that would sell, and at a
>> profit!
>>
>
> There's a lot to be said for leaf springs - ask the Far Eastern
> manufacturers!
>

Yes, my 110hi-cap has always handled like **** with more than 3/4 of a ton
on board. That is even with heavy duty suspension. No complaints with most
other aspects though, for a late 1970's design. However, it is yesterdays
model which is no longer the vehicle of choice for its target market. The
same happened on a smaller scale when the Series III was kept in production
for too long and it took a while for the Defender to regain the market. This
time, I fear it is too late.

Huw

On 2006-05-22, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Not now - stopped 'em last year. Wonder what the army will use now,
> as they apparently rejected the Td5 as "non-field-repairable" (and
> other issues with the ECUs being susceptible to damage from passing
> ray-guns or something). Probably something made elsewhere than
> Solihull.

I'd read that the army were replacing them with a thing from Iveco,
designed from the outset to resist land-mines, unlike the Defender and
Hummer. It's not got a triangular-section body though like a proper
blast-proof truck, but that needs big size. It also uses the Iveco
3.0 litre common-rail diesel.

(Hunts for article on disk)

Iveco LMV (Light Multirole Vehicle). The article states that the
British Army has 400 of them available to them to be modified by Alvis
and called the "panther". This was in Autocar, 13th December 2005.

Also;

http://www.defense-update.com/products/m/MLV.htm

Then again I'd also read that they'd decided not to go for the Iveco
and had chosen something else. I sense a woman's hand at the
controls. Suzuki Vitara?

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> || 'tis a fact that LR still make TDis for the army, AFAIK, or did so
> || until very recently.
>
> Not now - stopped 'em last year. Wonder what the army will use now, as
> they apparently rejected the Td5 as "non-field-repairable" (and other
> issues with the ECUs being susceptible to damage from passing ray-guns or
> something). Probably something made elsewhere than Solihull.
>

You are right that they will not use the TD5 which, in any case, will not
remain in production now for more than a few months yet.

Huw

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:107f162b4e%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> Matthew Maddock <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Srtgray wrote:
>> > If been reading the threads regarding the TD5 models with some
>> > bemusement (and alarm), and have come to the conclusion that Land-Rover
>> > (yes, I still use the hyphen) have shot themselves in the foot. All
>> > this electronic jiggery-pokery like ECUs and switches that are really
>> > relays seems somewhat counter productive. So, which was the last
>> > "real"
>> > Land-Rover? I'm assuming that the 300TDi could still be maintained
>> > with
>> > a set of ring spanners and a big 'ammer, but when did they go out of
>> > production?
>>
>> Do people think that LR would be in business if it was still retailing
>> SIII's??! Times change, things change and if business doesn't
>> change with it they disappear. In 20 years time we'll probably have
>> people saying how wonderful and easy the Td5 was to work on compared
>> to the complicated crap that is being made now!
>>
>> Matt
>
> Does Land Rover exist without Defender? Or is it just a
> marketing name like Jeep? As a customer of theirs who wants
> a Defender-type vehicle then I have to say the if
> it were removed from the line-up there is nothing else in the
> range that I would wish to drive any more. A vehicle with a
> headlamp unit costing £200 to £400 is not an off-road vehicle,
> no-one could afford to use it (I'm not counting dirt tracks as
> off-road, many "family saloons" can be driven down those quite
> happily, and are in this neck of the woods Citroen & Pegeuot
> seem to be favourites).
>
> I'm certain that when Defender is "updated" it is going to be aimed
> squarely at the US market, and thereby become legislated into
> mediocrity like Jeep. No more £10 headlamp units, cheap body panels,
> £2.00 inicators etc etc. The way things are going the parts book is
> going to be a single page with one part number - that of a new vehicle!
> No doubt "legislation" will be cited as the reason, but Santana seem
> to be quite happy with their Defender clone, so that must just an
> excuse - what those who say that are really saying is US legislation,
> in which case LR should make two specifications of vehicle, just
> like Toyota etc.
>
> Sure I sell parts for all Land Rovers, but that's my business,
> but my passion is off-road vehicles and keeping the best 4x4xfar
> off the road.
>
> And I realy can't see anyone missing the Td5 and onwards engines,
> but I do see a lot of poeple, mostly farmers, on a dialy basis who
> miss their 200/300Tdi's in their work tools. If I had a quid every
> time someone said LR have lost the plot I'd be very wealthy! Still,
> like the bloke on Saturday, if they sell their Td5 Defender any
> buy s/h 300's I'll be a happy man.
>
> Soap box packed away. Well actually no, I've just got back from
> the Post Office and...... I'll start a new thread!
>

Your wish for a 'simpler' and more serviceable engine will soon be met by
the very mass produced Ford four cylinder diesel Transit engine. In fact it
is not 'simple' at all because it has to meet EuroIV regulations.

Huw

Huw <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> uttered summat worrerz funny about:

> I'll second that and add that they are not updating the Defender fast
> enough. They have lost the plot and the market to the [mostly] pick-up
> opposition. I haven't seen a serious business user, like a farmer,
> with a new Defender in a very long time while the pick-ups are ten a
> penny, especially Nissan and the new Mitsubishi. In fact combining
> the figures of just these two examples sold over the last six months
> is likely to dwarf the figures for the antiquated Defender.
> Someone should get off their corporate arses and give the business
> customer what he wants or the whole business will collapse if
> fashions change against big expensive playthings.
>
> Huw

Here Here!!!!

Come on Landrover.... I'm looking for a replacement for the Disco in a few
years and I'm currently looking L200 and Navarna, much as I love the marque.

Lee D

On Mon, 22 May 2006 12:19:23 +0100, Matthew Maddock
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Srtgray wrote:
>> If been reading the threads regarding the TD5 models with some
>> bemusement (and alarm), and have come to the conclusion that Land-Rover
>> (yes, I still use the hyphen) have shot themselves in the foot. All
>> this electronic jiggery-pokery like ECUs and switches that are really
>> relays seems somewhat counter productive. So, which was the last "real"
>> Land-Rover? I'm assuming that the 300TDi could still be maintained with
>> a set of ring spanners and a big 'ammer, but when did they go out of
>> production?
>
>Do people think that LR would be in business if it was still retailing
>SIII's??! Times change, things change and if business doesn't
>change with it they disappear.

Um, Santana are still producing what is basically a Series III with a
2.8 TDi in it.

Alex

On or around Mon, 22 May 2006 21:22:39 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>
>ALL engines sold in Western Europe, America and some of Australasia need
>computer control to meet the last, latest and future emission regulations.
>There is NO choice in this matter and NO alternative, whether you like it or
>not.

Mind, I bet it could be done mechanically if someone wanted to invest the
time and effort. More to the point though, there could be a more graceful
degradation, so that if the electronics fail it sets a usable set of
parameters which let you carry on driving meaningfully.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

On or around Mon, 22 May 2006 17:35:17 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>There's a lot to be said for leaf springs - ask the Far Eastern
>manufacturers!

mind, leaf springs in general give you a crap ride and way too much unsprung
weight.

I'm all in favour of simplicity, but there's nothing that complicated about
the rangie/defender coil set up and it improves the ride amazingly.

As for Huw... you have a trade-off in a real 4x4 between stability and
articulation. If you only use it on smooth surfaces, you could put sod-off
ARBs on and stop it wallowing, but then you'd much more easily get stopped
on uneven terrain by lifting a wheel.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

On or around Tue, 23 May 2006 00:06:46 +0100, Alex
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>Um, Santana are still producing what is basically a Series III with a
>2.8 TDi in it.

yeah, but it's not a 2.8 TDi, it's an IVECO. There is a lot in south
america producing the oversized TDi, but that's a different animal.

The IVECO is a damned good engine, used in trucks up to about 6 tons... but
it's not a simple mechanical engine.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent.
I shall attack. - Marshal Foch (1851 - 1929)

On Tue, 23 May 2006 07:39:02 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Mon, 22 May 2006 21:22:39 +0100, "Huw"
><hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>
>>ALL engines sold in Western Europe, America and some of Australasia need
>>computer control to meet the last, latest and future emission regulations.
>>There is NO choice in this matter and NO alternative, whether you like it or
>>not.
>
>Mind, I bet it could be done mechanically if someone wanted to invest the
>time and effort. More to the point though, there could be a more graceful
>degradation, so that if the electronics fail it sets a usable set of
>parameters which let you carry on driving meaningfully.

OBD is mandatory. Not sure how you'd do that mechanically...

--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
'06 Nissan Navara aka "The Truck"

On Tue, 23 May 2006 07:44:06 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2006 07:39:02 +0100, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> wrote:


>> More to the point though, there could be a more graceful
>>degradation, so that if the electronics fail it sets a usable set of
>>parameters which let you carry on driving meaningfully.

I imagine that if you had a failure mode that was normally usable,
unlike the limp home on a car I'm having a problem with atm that
restricts rpm to 2000, then chavs and thieves could modify it to
defeat the system, hence it would be less clean.
>
>OBD is mandatory. Not sure how you'd do that mechanically...

Is OBD a standard, i.e. the same system for all makes?

I've recently come across an aftermarket engine control system for big
engines converted from diesel to natural gas. In principle you could
piggy back this onto an engine who's engine management had failed but
this wouldn't help if the failure were cause by something in a sensor
or the high pressure fuel system.

AJH

On Tue, 23 May 2006 09:21:52 +0100, AJH <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 May 2006 07:44:06 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 07:39:02 +0100, Austin Shackles
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> More to the point though, there could be a more graceful
>>>degradation, so that if the electronics fail it sets a usable set of
>>>parameters which let you carry on driving meaningfully.
>
>I imagine that if you had a failure mode that was normally usable,
>unlike the limp home on a car I'm having a problem with atm that
>restricts rpm to 2000, then chavs and thieves could modify it to
>defeat the system, hence it would be less clean.
>>
>>OBD is mandatory. Not sure how you'd do that mechanically...
>
>Is OBD a standard, i.e. the same system for all makes?


Sort of....

There is a minimum implementation, which must be to a published
standard (E-OBD II). The manufacturers then use the system for all
manner of other things as a superset of this standard, and keep very
close rein on who sees the protocols for those.

--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'03 Volvo V70
'06 Nissan Navara aka "The Truck"

On or around Tue, 23 May 2006 07:44:06 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>
>
>OBD is mandatory. Not sure how you'd do that mechanically...

what exactly *is* OBD?

oh, and buggrem, just incidentally.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Soon shall thy arm, unconquered steam! afar Drag the slow barge, or
drive the rapid car; Or on wide-waving wings expanded bear the
flying chariot through the field of air.- Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)

On 2006-05-23, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> what exactly *is* OBD?

It's a car diagnostic bus specification, includes the required plug,
wiring, data formats, data speed etc, it allows you to plug an
analyser into the connection and read off various sensors, fault codes
etc. On some cars you can even re-programme the ECU via it.

It can be dead useful, my plastic rocket uses a different but similar
bus type, from that you can read off and log things like mass air
temperature, barometric pressure, throttle position, injector duty
cycle, exhaust Co2 content, knock sensor triggering etc and use it to
diagnose engine complaints. The forums I am in can even be used to
post the data logs from runs and get help on diagnosing quite
complicated problems. You can even use it to get telemetery details
from fast runs for bragging rights, or to calculate instantaneous fuel
consumption figures. Or at least you can if your car isn't in bits.
*sniff sniff*

You don't generally need expensive kit for this kind of thing either,
just an interface board (mine cost £30), a computer and software,
which is often free.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!