"beamendsltd" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3417ab94e%
[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:fbc87894e%[email protected]...
>> > In message <[email protected]>
>> > "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "Richard" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >>
>> >> > How much of a Santana has LandRover content in it?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> About I------------I that much.
>> >>
>> >> No Land Rover content at all although there is a common ancestry going
>> >> back
>> >> to the 60's and early 70's of the previous Century.
>> >>
>> >> Huw
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not strictly true - the gearbox and transfer box are Land Rover,
>>
>> The gearbox is Santana and they have indeed supplied gearboxes to Land
>> Rover
>> although I have no recollection of LR supplying Santana in the last 25
>> years
>>
>
> Santana may have made them, but the design was in cooperation
> with, and approved by, Land Rover.
I do not believe Santana needed approval to design and build their own
gearbox by the early 1980's. They supplied their gearbox to Land Rover for
use in V8 Defender from very late 84 or early 85.
>
>>
>> > and I believe quite a lot of other bits are Land Rover, as in
>> > LR desgned/have IPR on them. I don't know about this model, but
>> > for example previous Santana's had LR parabolibc springs (they had LR
>> > part numbers, hence they can be used in ALRC trials) despite LR never
>> > actually using them.
>>
>> They were pure Santana.
>
> Not so - LR experimented with parabolics many moons ago on the
> "Large Lightweight" - they were allegedly an option for the Stage I,
> but it was postponed to Stage 2 which never realy happened (or, as some
> commentators observe it did - Santana's), as Wedgi Benn injected
> sufficient capital into Leyland to allow the 110, later Defender,
> project to be started. The cash, or at least some of it, was
> specificaly given to LR and not the group as a whole to promote exports.
>
> Unfortunately Maggie then pulled a stunner in about 1980 and withdrew
> the subsidy paid by the Government on vehciles supplied to NGO's.
> No one else did, so the result was somewhat perdicatable to the
> extent that there was talk of Land Rover (not Range Rover) being
> sold to JCB.
>>
>>
>> The interrelationships between LR/Santan/OKtar
>> > are quite complex and with different A surfaces applied a part can
>> > actually be LR but not look the same - that sort of thing. I'll
>> > bet quite a lot is made under licence.
>> >
>>
>> Once upon a time.................
>
> Octar are definately very tied into Land Rover, though a lot of
> components are manufactured locally under licence. Some on my
> software is used by them for production of a significant sub
> assembly.
AFAIK they are only suppliers of components and parts for long obsolete LR
models such as parts for their gearboxes. LR supplies then with few, if any,
parts.
>
> The "all new" Santana is still Santana, any licencing deals are
> still extant (unless explicity ended, obviously) - all they have
> done is wipe the slate clean and sold all the "Series" parts to
> Britpart so they can clear he stores and start over. I've never
> heard what happened to their Suzuki venture, except that it closed
> some time ago.
>
There is no licence needed to build Santana vehicles or any parts that they
produce for their existing vehicles or for any parts and hasn't been for a
very very long time. Santana is not some kind of junior partner in any
venture that is known about today. They are an independent company long able
to produce vehicles without answering to anyone.
I tested a couple in mixed conditions last Spring and while being worthy
enough they were very basic and exceptionally poorly assembled with
appalling quality control by today's standards. The engine is probably the
best part though the installation makes it particularly noisy for the
passengers. The most surprising aspect is the rather OK ride and good axle
articulation which I assessed as being superior as a load carrier to the
rear coil set-up used by LR since 83.
The gearbox was notchy but OK while the worst dynamic aspect was the
steering which despite being power assisted and modified from a SeriesIII
still feels as appallingly vague as a series. This is unacceptable IMO on a
vehicle with such power if not performance.
The rear axle is not a Dana clone like the Salisbury used by LR but a
seemingly larger version of the LR unit used by short wheelbase Defenders.
The front is very similar to a Series with no CV joints in the swivels. The
transfer box is part time but with a modern gate to the lever. No
refinements like synchromesh to change from low to high like an Isuzu
though.
As far as the body goes it is made from steel and I don't remember whether
it had a separate chassis or not but something tells me that it is an
unibody. Anyhow the load area is severely compromised by the wheel boxes, a
legacy from LR which is no more acceptable than it is practical. There is no
Hi-cap available AFAIK. The rear tailgate on pick-up's is strong but when
lowered there is a massive gap between the body and tailgate.
Although I did seriously consider buying a pick-up there are just far too
many rough edges to the design and build to make it a serious contender
against the modern Eastern pick-ups or even a new Defender Hi-cap, which is
itself seriously in need of a major update and improved quality and chassis
corrosion protection.
Huw
