In message <
[email protected]>
"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:cbdf85f4e%[email protected]...
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > PirateJohn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What's the rumor (or rumour, for most of you folks 
these days?
> >> >>
> >> >> Here in the States we were lead to believe that there was an all new
> >> >> vehicle based on the LR3 (Disco 3 to y'all) coming out in the next
> >> >> year
> >> >> or so. But reading the Brit magazines it appears that Land Rover is
> >> >> introducing a revised Defender with a new dashboard and a buldged hood
> >> >> and plans to keep that in production until 2010 or so.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did they cancel the new Defender?
> >> >>
> >> >> Are there two Defenders in the works?
> >> >>
> >> >> Were all of the earlier rumors simply wrong?
> >> >>
> >> >> What are your thoughts?
> >> >>
> >> >> --PirateJohn--
> >> >> www.PirateJohn.com
> >> >
> >> > The latest is, as you say, a revision of the current Defender. The
> >> > Defender
> >> > replacement has been pushed back (to after 2010) rather than cancelled,
> >> > and
> >> > there have been suggestions that it will be produced alongside the
> >> > existing
> >> > Defender, with its production possibly going offshore. What happens
> >> > will
> >> > depend largely on Defender sales, I suppose.
> >>
> >>
> >> The reality is that Ford are in financial difficulty and Jaguar is losing
> >> money and probably always will until it is shut down and that Land Rover
> >> make mainly big and thirsty vehicles which are difficult to move in a
> >> financial depression or when fuel is very expensive. All the while there
> >> is
> >> an increasing political and social stigma attached to owning such
> >> vehicles
> >> in many markets, whether we like it or not. Things are not easy and
> >> likely
> >> to get more difficult. In the light of this it is perfectly
> >> understandable
> >> if not palatable that Ford want to cut loose. JCB have publicly stated
> >> that
> >> they do not want LR, although this looks very much like a negotiating
> >> ploy
> >> to get it all free and with a nice sweetener thrown in cash-wise like
> >> when
> >> BMW offloaded Rover cars. JCB is a ruthless company and would not run a
> >> car
> >> factory at a loss so if they gain control of either car company, then
> >> they
> >> better shape up in double quick time or they shut and the real-estate is
> >> hived off.
> >>
> >> Huw
> >>
> >>
> >
> > JCB made it quite clear originly that they would be looking at a much
> > smaller Jag operation than the current one, but have since ceased
> > mentioning that. Ford, unfortuately, have dug their own grave with
> > regard to Jag & LR by resorting to badge engineering which has
> > removed the very individuality of the vehicles (warts and all) which
> > made them desirable.
> > This has damaged then in the very market where such individuality
> > was vauled, and they see as being so vital, - the US!
> >
>
> I don't recall either Jaguar or Land Rover having any success in the USA
> until relatively recently. Apart from engines I am not aware of much parts
> sharing between the two either. There is no 'badge engineering' that I am
> aware of except for the little X Type Jaguar that is very loosely based upon
> the Mondeo, though you would be hard pressed to tell. Personally I would
> prefer a Mondeo.
Jag certainly did more than adequately in the states, it was their
main market outside the UK. There is an excellent documentary
about the company when it was de-merged from Austin-Rover which
covers this ground in some detail.
There's was suprising amount of parts sharing throughut the old BL
empire (and indeed pre-Leyland), clutch master/slave cylinders, brake
components, switches, instruments etc etc. There's very little on
todays Jags that is not stright out of the Ford parts bins,
they may change the A surfaces etc but there is still compromise.
Badge Engineering is not the same as Platform Engineering!
> As for engines in LR products, the Ford and Jaguar and Volvo [all Ford if
> you must be pedantic] based engines now likely to be used in the vehicles
> are an improvement on the TD5 and lacklustre TD6 in the Range Rover
> application. I test drove an Audi Q7 last week and the engine performance
> and refinement make my TD6 appear really dire in comparison.
Two entirely different machines. Audi may like to think their
effrot is in the same league as the Range Rover, but it isn't,
by any stretch of the imagination. The Td5 is fine in its intended
application, the Discovery, the so called Td6 is just another example
of badge engieering - "We need and engine for this application, we
can afford to develop a new engine so we'll make this one do". I
have worked in VW/Audi group and seen this problem first hand in
one of their "brands" new models, and the result was the model
effectively being handed to the marketing people to re-define
the marques long-held image to "re-align customer expectations".
In other words it was a codge!
>No doubt the V6
> and V8 Jaguar/LR/Ford/Peugeot diesel engines will redress the balance in
> LR's favour again for a while. That is progress and what makes the world
> economy turn, that something new must be more desirable and/or provide
> positive advantages over existing products. This brings us back to the
> Defender and the reason I still run my old 1984 110 Hi-cap. A new one with
> TD5 is not more desirable and only provides one advantage which I am
> unimpressed by and that is more power. If the advantages of a new model were
> greater I would change more regularly and would thus provide a continuous
> income flow to Land Rover as I do for other companies and products. I bought
> a new Range Rover for instance. I would not have bought another of the
> previous model and I would not buy another TD6 even though I like my current
> one a lot.
Just keep the 110 - thats what I'm doing. I have no patricular desire
to have a Td5 Defender (wrong engine for the job), so I'm keeping
my 200Tdi 110 SW, which has exactly the right engine for the job.
I've got nothing agaist 300Tdi's - I would feel the same about my car
if it had been made a year later with a 300.
I have no interest in owning a Range Rover at all, so I can only
pass on cutomers comments, which are largely that LR have lost the
plot in terms of what the vehicle is "for", which for the company
that invented the market sector is seriously bad news.
>
> Huw
>
Richard
>
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
