Uncomplimentary article: Land Rover ownership

[El Rey]

The irrational Land Rover . . . (http://www.exploringoverland.com/overland-tech-travel/2015/4/16/the-irrational-land-rover-)

[Slunnie]

I think we all know what he's talking about! :lol2:

[V8Ian]

Pfft, what would he know...........I've owned both Cruiser and Rover, I'd buy another Landy.....

[V8Ian]

I think we all know that he's talking :censored:! :lol2:
Sorted for you Slunnie. ;)

[Tote]

It wasn't the d3's fault that it siezed solid, it had done 270,000km maybe I didnt whisper enough sweet nothings to the sump when I was changing the oil.......:):)
Regards,
Tote

[ramblingboy42]

Well I must be irrational....I sold the D2 and bought a ranger......rangER.... not rangie.

[Disco Muppet]

If it's a 3.2 you're excused. If not, you're boring :p
Funny, the attitude of 'not a break down but maintenance' seems common in lots of Toyota people I know....big ends are a maintenance item right?

Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

[ramblingboy42]

oh? same engine as Defender?...lighter body....pulls so much harder than td5 , is much more economical , quieter , faster everywhere.....definitely not boring.

just done it's first SA desert trip , nothing to report.....2hr breaks almost compulsory.....wonder if I can transplant some disci seats into it.

[Blknight.aus]

big ends are a maintenance item right?

Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

Technically, Yes.

any part that wears during normal usage is a maintenance item and they have an expected life, if yours are beyond that expected life (which is the warranty period) then replacing them is a maintenance item, just not as obvious as changing engine oil and filters.

anything that can have its life detriment-ed by non adherence to a maintenance requirement (in this case oil filter changes and using the right oil counts against every bearing and friction surface in an engine) then those items become secondary maintenance concerns.

any item that can have its life expectancy linked to driver technique and usage is also classed as a maintenance item.

In a reasonable world.

no, up until at least double the warranty period I wouldn't call a big end a maintenance item provided reasonable use and related maintenance was demonstrable.

By my definition

Replacement after failure is a repair.
Replacement before failure because you were in the guts of the sub assembly for another reason is maintenance.
Retorquing a nut/bolt/screw/fitting is maintenance
Putting something back together after its fallen apart or has started to leak/malfunction because of the bolts working loose is a repair

real world exampes...

replacing brake pads before they hit the wear markers- maintenance
Replacing the brake pads AFTER they goto metal - repair

replacing fractured syncros in a series gearbox - repair
Replacing the bearings while youve got the box apart - maintenance

tightening the securing screws on the door hing mirrors - maintenance
replacing the mirror and screws - repair

[vnx205]

if you do what advertising men and journos do all the time, it can be turned into a complimentary article.

All you have to do is selectively quote the following paragraph from that article.

One simple answer on logical grounds would be that Land Rovers work so well .... .... ..... . From the range-topping Range Rover, still unmatched in its combination of luxury and off-pavement prowess, to the Defender, still unmatched in its combination of pliant ride with outstanding cargo capacity, and fine turbodiesel power with excellent fuel economy, Land Rover has been ahead of other marques in numerous engineering details since the 1970s.

[Disco Muppet]

Technically, Yes.

any part that wears during normal usage is a maintenance item and they have an expected life, if yours are beyond that expected life (which is the warranty period) then replacing them is a maintenance item, just not as obvious as changing engine oil and filters.

anything that can have its life detriment-ed by non adherence to a maintenance requirement (in this case oil filter changes and using the right oil counts against every bearing and friction surface in an engine) then those items become secondary maintenance concerns.

any item that can have its life expectancy linked to driver technique and usage is also classed as a maintenance item.

In a reasonable world.

no, up until at least double the warranty period I wouldn't call a big end a maintenance item provided reasonable use and related maintenance was demonstrable.

By my definition

Replacement after failure is a repair.
Replacement before failure because you were in the guts of the sub assembly for another reason is maintenance.
Retorquing a nut/bolt/screw/fitting is maintenance
Putting something back together after its fallen apart or has started to leak/malfunction because of the bolts working loose is a repair

real world exampes...

replacing brake pads before they hit the wear markers- maintenance
Replacing the brake pads AFTER they goto metal - repair

replacing fractured syncros in a series gearbox - repair
Replacing the bearings while youve got the box apart - maintenance

tightening the securing screws on the door hing mirrors - maintenance
replacing the mirror and screws - repair

Yes but Toyota's never break because don't you know they're unbreakable and they're the only car that can survive Australia's harsh conditions so the fact that they need to be done at all should have Toyota people aghast.

Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

[BigBlackDog]

His 35 year old fj40 has never left him stranded. I can believe that, but tell the whole story, I bet not a lot of it is factory original now. Plenty of reliable old cars out there, if they are correctly maintained and the worn out bits replaced in time.

[Blknight.aus]

Im in the same boat about landrovers, never had one leave me stuck yet.

[MR LR]

oh? same engine as Defender?...lighter body....pulls so much harder than td5 , is much more economical , quieter , faster everywhere.....definitely not boring.

just done it's first SA desert trip , nothing to report.....2hr breaks almost compulsory.....wonder if I can transplant some disci seats into it.
2.2 is gheyyyyy, I test drove a 3.2 manual the other day, twice as good as the lethargic 2.2, in fact I wouldn't own the 2.2 we have at work if it was given to me, the old 2.5 is a better engine.

the 3.2 is so good that I'm pricing up the possibility of shoehorning one into my D2, I think it's going top be cheaper than maintaining a td5 impeccably! And that's before I think about the rebuild I'll need to do in 150,000km.

I know why people buy Toyotas :wasntme:

[MR LR]

To keep it O.T... I think the article is quite accurate, I grew up 'in' the Land Rover circle, so I've seen it more than most.

When they work, they are exceptional, but when they don't work, your mother will be loading her 4 and 7 year old children into the car (Discovery 2) to go and pick up her husband who was driving the 6km home from his dealership in a BRAND NEW Td5 Discovery when the fuel pump failed to proceed. That's just one example...

Land Rover people are so blind by the love that they think this is normal... (it's not, wake up you dope). So blind that as soon as anyone says anything negative about the brand they are clutching at every little stub of a straw to bring up ridiculous reasons as to why theirs is better in every way (again, it's not, you dope).

I think it's a very accurate article, but you need a somewhat open mind to read it, and that's not something you find in Land Rover circles very often.

[bob10]

Well, I read thru the article, I think it was totally tongue in cheek, and not a put down at all. I'm slightly surprised by the response from the LR community here. It seems every time some random stranger posts a similar story, the green oval mob come out en mass, like a sack full of angry cats, trying to justify their choice of vehicle. It goes without saying, they do not have to. Not on a Land Rover forum, surely. I certainly do not feel the need to justify owning the Land Rover I do , and never will. May I say, a spoonful of cement, and harden up , chaps. After all, you are owners of the best 4x4 by far. Bob

[ramblingboy42]

well , when I put up on another thread that my disco's total ownership costs over 8yrs were over $70, 000 many here said that was pretty good.....and that's what the article is pertaining to...

[Disco Muppet]

I found it pretty funny, particularly the last bit :D

Sent from my HTC One using AULRO mobile app

[MR LR]

well , when I put up on another thread that my disco's total ownership costs over 8yrs were over $70, 000 many here said that was pretty good.....and that's what the article is pertaining to...
An old sale rep's saying "If you can't afford a new Land Rover, you most certainly can't afford one second hand"

[superquag]

The worst thing about that article, is I find myself making similar excuses and rationalisations, despite my avowed 'dislike' of my Mistress, the Lady Sarah. :eek:

IF only, if ONLY LR/British Leyland/Rover had bitten the bullet and sub-contracted out the building to the Orient, encouraging them replace Pommy parts & materials with better quality... there would be NO other 4WD / AWD on the market.

James in Gosnells.

The Lady Sarah, 1995 Vogue SE with working air suspension. And RWD only...
- But don't mention the sun-roof, upper tailgate frame, lack of heater and ineffective demister (when it was connected...) or BW transfer case abomination. ;)


Lovely seats and nice to drive, on a balmy, non-raining day. :angel:

[d2dave]

My first 4x4 was a 74 FJ 40. Its thirst cost me more a year than my Disco's fuel and repair costs.

My last business was gearbox repair/reconditioning.
Back in the late seventies and early eighties it was mainly change over boxes for Ford, Holden and Valiants.
This kept us busy enough.

As time went on these vehicles started to disappear and as well automatics started to take over. 4x4's started to become popular and most were all manuals, so we diversified to repair them.

Had it not been for the Toyota Landcruiser we would have eventually gone broke. The gearboxes and transfer case in these things kept us in business.

[bsperka]

My first 4x4 was a 74 FJ 40. Its thirst cost me more a year than my Disco's fuel and repair costs.

My last business was gearbox repair/reconditioning.
Back in the late seventies and early eighties it was mainly change over boxes for Ford, Holden and Valiants.
This kept us busy enough.

As time went on these vehicles started to disappear and as well automatics started to take over. 4x4's started to become popular and most were all manuals, so we diversified to repair them.

Had it not been for the Toyota Landcruiser we would have eventually gone broke. The gearboxes and transfer case in these things kept us in business.

Those were the glory days for Toyota; under powered and thirsty and a marketing driven reputation for reliability.

[Dark61]

I've always thought that the engineering of the vehicle was basically good but the build quality, particularly in the 70's was basically poor. I think , spurred on by the go anywhere advertising - owners ran them into the ground and didn't properly maintain them. I've never had a new one , but would hope that the build quality has improved a bit. I'm not someone who thinks they are any better or any worse than the next vehicle - I just like them.
cheers,
D

[goingbush]

The article is right on the money as far as I'm concerned.

I had a BJ40 - diesel version of FJ40, by far the most reliable 4x4 I have ever owned, apart from regular servicing I never touched it. My tools actually went rusty during my ownership of it, I almost forgot how to work on cars by the time I bought my next 4x4.

It had just as much character as any LandRover Ive owned , and I actually wish I still had it - too bad it rusted away .

[TerryO]

Well, I read thru the article, I think it was totally tongue in cheek, and not a put down at all. I'm slightly surprised by the response from the LR community here. It seems every time some random stranger posts a similar story, the green oval mob come out en mass, like a sack full of angry cats, trying to justify their choice of vehicle. It goes without saying, they do not have to. Not on a Land Rover forum, surely. I certainly do not feel the need to justify owning the Land Rover I do , and never will. May I say, a spoonful of cement, and harden up , chaps. After all, you are owners of the best 4x4 by far. Bob


Totally agree with Bob, not sure why anyone with a LR would take any offence from that short story. It was entertaining , clever and funny and explains what it is to be a true long term LR owner.

In fact I book marked it and when the next person I meet asks me why I own Landys, rather than sitting down and going through everything I will just give them a print out copy of his article as it explains it way better than I can.

Some of you guys are over reacting defensively about nothing, I bet the author if he ever gets to read your comments will just shake his head and say to himself ... They didn't get it!

[steane]

- owners ran them into the ground and didn't properly maintain them. .
cheers,
D

That right there is the most accurate thing said yet.

The toughest thing a Defender has ever had to deal with is the legions of bearded, key chain wearing tight wads who bought them over the years and failed to look after them...because it cost money. The same ones that think a complete bucket is worth $15k now.

Like any vehicle, there are good and bad. Some people have bad experiences but most have good experiences. The people who have bad experiences need to learn to let go and move on to forums for the vehicles they feel are superior.

I completely understand the article although the seemingly inevitable comparison to Toyotas wore thin a long time ago.

I am very comfortable owning my Landy. It's been in a steadily improving state of repair for four years having been rescued from the PO when it was literally on life support. It should have stopped and stranded me a hundred times but it soldiered on with all sorts of issues caused by neglect (now resolved) and that includes numerous trips to Alice, across the Simpson twice, Vic High Country and NSW Snowies. 40k kms all up, never stopped, always made it home.

I'd take it anywhere without thinking twice about it.

Will do me and I will see it well looked after for the next 20 years:D

[Tombie]

Just sat here laughing to myself as I read the article..

I fettle my vehicles, but more for additions than anything...

I've yet to be let down by my vehicles - the Roo strike took me down; yes..

Heard many a sob story about LR, and then spent Saturday night doing a 2 hour Night Navigation run offroad - where the LR out crawled, walked, climbed even the most modified of other vehicles...

And it was like riding in an armchair :cool:

[MR LR]

Those were the glory days for Toyota; under powered and thirsty and a marketing driven reputation for reliability.
Your statement is false... In fact I'd question if you've ever even sat in one, let alone driven one.

They're a good machine, and that is what they are, a machine. It is unfair to detract from that to satisfy your green blooded ego. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

A Toyota of the period (60's - 70's) was more powerful than the equivalent Land Rover, and I'd wager quite comparable on fuel (Our HJ47 was not bad at all, nor is our 1HD-FTE 79 series). And somewhat (not) surprisingly, the marketed reliability has been backed up by real world performance in the harshest conditions (farming).

Of course it's slowly changing these days, but that is as everything starts to plateau out.

[mrapocalypse]

I'm not someone who thinks they are any better or any worse than the next vehicle - I just like them.
cheers,
D[/QUOTE]

Exactly. That is the bottom line.

Not better. Not worse? MINE.

[stealth]

I don't bother batting away criticism of LR anymore. It becomes boring.

I look at it this way. I know very little about Toyotas, Nissans, Jeeps (expect the first one MB/GPW), Mitsubishi's or any other brand of 4WD. Why? Because I couldn't give a stuff about them. But what I do know is the drivers of those other brands never seen to stop talking about Land Rovers. And good or bad or indifferent they seem to know a lot about Land Rovers.

My first one was a Series 2 cab chassis which I owned for about 15 years and saw it through three remods and a couple of engine changes plus constant repair. But I learnt alot and had a lot of fun improving, changing, maintaining and repairing it. I sold it when I bought a brand new 2003 130 cab chassis. And I had a lot of fun building the tray and other mods to it.

The only real difference I told my wife between the new one and the old one was four weeks leave. That was about what I gained on repairs and maintenance that I didn't have to commit to each year with the new one.

And I still couldn't give a stuff about what other people drive.

[DiscoMick]

I had a chuckle at the article - obviously a bit tongue in cheek.
Jeep owners seem to be as fanatical as Landy owners - it's a Jeep thing, apparently.
My experience with several Toyotas is that they are competent at everything, but not outstanding at anything.
In comparison, Landys are usually at the front of the pack for ability.
Maintenance is obviously the big issue with any vehicle.
All vehicles are much more reliable now than they were in the past. Electronics seems to have helped them become more reliable, which is something the traditionalists deny of course, but I think it's true.

[JDNSW]

.../.....
A Toyota of the period (60's - 70's) was more powerful than the equivalent Land Rover, and I'd wager quite comparable on fuel.....
......

Since I ran an exploration effort in the middle of the Simpson in 1965-6 with a fleet of FJ40 and FJ45s, I feel I am in a position to comment, especially since I also had in camp my personal Series 2a diesel.

You are right, the landcruiser of that era was more powerful than the Landrover of the samme era - and also had a greater payload. But while Landrover had at this stage sold a diesel for nearly ten years, Toyota had yet to introduce one, at least to Australia, so that if you were concerned about fuel economy, you need to compare to the diesel. Even in the Desert, my 2a diesel did around 20mpg, on the highway I saw well over thirty on occasion and almost never much below. Compared to this, the Toyotas gave much lower. I don't remember figures for the desert, but highway figures were never above twenty, and usually around 10mpg, often single digit. Part of this was due to the impossibility of keeping the carburettors working properly.

The Toyotas had alternators, which Landrover did not then - but this simply meant that when the voltage regulator failed, and they did, the alternator could destroy the battery in only a few miles.

All of them broke wheel studs so often that we always carried spares and nuts in the glovebox - fortunately they came with a good tookit, with a hammer and a drift you could use to remove the old ones.

I could go on, especially about the FJ45V that was my company car as Party Chief - it was the worst riding vehicle I have ever driven, and the body just started falling to bits on the trip from Brisbane (purchased new) to Alice (lots of dirt in those days).

I'm afraid that the Toyota legend was still to be established in the mid sixties, but it was certainly helped along by the fact that Landrovers were in short supply, which led to a problematic attitude of Rover and their dealers towards customers. And this was not helped by the indifferent quality and lack of development following the Leyland merger in 1967, at the same time that Toyota (and their dealers) were taking their customer's needs and problems seriously.

John

[El Rey]

Sounds like interesting times! Have you posted elsewhere about what it was like?


Since I ran an exploration effort in the middle of the Simpson in 1965-6

[JDNSW]

Sounds like interesting times! Have you posted elsewhere about what it was like?

Probably bits and pieces from time to time in this forum.

John

[bsperka]

Yeah driven them and was never impressed. Troopie, swb, station wagons. Plus G60 Nissan and S3 Troopie as well. "You don't know man, you weren't there." Except I was...

Fun fact: Landcruiser even got its name from Landrover as part of the Toyota marketing machine.

Fun fact: Toyota doesn't have any "series" as part of its range.

Fun fact: A total of 3 Landcruisers were used in the Snowy Mountains scheme during its main build phase.

[Tombie]

Still a 2nd class drive is better than a first class walk

[Homestar]

Since I ran an exploration effort in the middle of the Simpson in 1965-6 with a fleet of FJ40 and FJ45s, I feel I am in a position to comment, especially since I also had in camp my personal Series 2a diesel.

You are right, the landcruiser of that era was more powerful than the Landrover of the samme era - and also had a greater payload. But while Landrover had at this stage sold a diesel for nearly ten years, Toyota had yet to introduce one, at least to Australia, so that if you were concerned about fuel economy, you need to compare to the diesel. Even in the Desert, my 2a diesel did around 20mpg, on the highway I saw well over thirty on occasion and almost never much below. Compared to this, the Toyotas gave much lower. I don't remember figures for the desert, but highway figures were never above twenty, and usually around 10mpg, often single digit. Part of this was due to the impossibility of keeping the carburettors working properly.

The Toyotas had alternators, which Landrover did not then - but this simply meant that when the voltage regulator failed, and they did, the alternator could destroy the battery in only a few miles.

All of them broke wheel studs so often that we always carried spares and nuts in the glovebox - fortunately they came with a good tookit, with a hammer and a drift you could use to remove the old ones.

I could go on, especially about the FJ45V that was my company car as Party Chief - it was the worst riding vehicle I have ever driven, and the body just started falling to bits on the trip from Brisbane (purchased new) to Alice (lots of dirt in those days).

I'm afraid that the Toyota legend was still to be established in the mid sixties, but it was certainly helped along by the fact that Landrovers were in short supply, which led to a problematic attitude of Rover and their dealers towards customers. And this was not helped by the indifferent quality and lack of development following the Leyland merger in 1967, at the same time that Toyota (and their dealers) were taking their customer's needs and problems seriously.

John

Yep, my brother bought an FJ45 - he averaged 8MPG in the 6 months he owned it before selling it because there weren't enough servos in existence to keep it running. I didn't do a lot of KM in it, but I don't recall the ride in it being any worse than my series IIa shorty I had at the same time.

I also recall he had a lot of hard starting issues with it, although I don't recall what the cause was.

Edit - I just remembered a conversation I was having to a truck driver the other day at a mates workshop about fuel economy - he is running a Cummins ISX450 (detuned signature engine basically) towing 1 trailer that averages just in 20 tonne - and he was saying he was getting 8MPG in that... :D.

[Homestar]

Still a 2nd class drive is better than a first class walk

They have some nice golf courses over here mate - they make a first class walk, and I wouldn't drive a Land Cruiser to them - the Rangie is a lot more at home in that environment. :D

[cuppabillytea]

I hereby declare that I am not rational. I don't want to be rational, and I will never attempt to be rational.
Furthermore, I would assert that all those who think they are rational are deluded, and so, not rational either. This causes them to run off and buy white goods with wheels purely because they are reputed to be more reliable. Never mind how capable they might be. Then they can be stuck in the middle of nowhere comfortable in the knowledge that there vehicle hasn't let them down.
Cheers, Billy.

[JDNSW]

Yep, my brother bought an FJ45 - he averaged 8MPG in the 6 months he owned it before selling it because there weren't enough servos in existence to keep it running. I didn't do a lot of KM in it, but I don't recall the ride in it being any worse than my series IIa shorty I had at the same time.
...........

My comments regarding the ride applied only to the FJ45V. This was the station wagon variant, and had a completely different body, which was just too weak. It also had only a 104" wheelbase, compared to the 121" wheelbase of the FJ45 traybacks we had. They actually rode well.

Other significant problems with all of them (not just the station wagon) included poor steering. This was the result of poor design. There were two problems. The first was that the drag link connected to the track rod about four inches from the end, so that every steering movement rotated the track rod about thirty degrees - lost motion from new. But this paled into insignificance compared to the steering relay, which, like the Landrover, changed the fore and aft movement of the pitman arm on the steering box to crossways motion. Unlike the Landrover, which had a shaft about eight inches long with a more or less horizontal arm at each end, pivoting on tapered bushes about five inches apart, spring loaded to ensure a complete absence of play, Toyota had the upper and lower arms forges as one piece, but bent up and down, pivoting on bushes only about an inch apart. Unlike the Landrover these were grease lubricated rather than having an oil reservoir, so, especially under desert conditions, they wore quite rapidly. And this allowed the relay to tilt with every steering movement, with the one inch bearing spacing and the vertical separation of the two ball joints being about six inches, this movement was magnified about six times.

The seriousness of this steering problem is indicated by the fact that one of our employees claimed (and may have been right) that his FJ40 soft top, with the hood off and the windscreen folded, would do an indicated 100mph (crossply tyres, 10" unboosted drum brakes, no seatbelts.

Another interesting feature of this model Landcruiser was that the fuel tank is inside the body, under the driver's seat (Landrover is outside the body, under the driver's seat). With raised sills, this means any fuel spillage from a cracked filler spout on top of the tank ends up on the front floor. Add a smoker .... We lost one that way, fortunately the smoker waited until the vehicle was clear of the fuel dump before lighting up, but was going slow enough that three across the front bailed out without injury.

When the Landcruiser entered production shortly after WW2, it was based (like Landrover) directly on the Jeep, and in fact, was called a Toyota Jeep - until Willys threatened legal action, when they changed the name to Landcruiser, having had a look at Rover's new venture.

John

[Blknight.aus]

I use it against them...

of course I'm a good mechanic, got here in a landrover didnt I?

[El Rey]

I use it against them...

of course I'm a good mechanic, got here in a landrover didnt I?

That's gold.

[slug_burner]

Article was entertaining, tongue in cheek, however there has to be some bits that connect with the audience to make it interesting. Many a thing said in jest also come to mind.

Brand rivalry is much like supporting a football team, it doesn't have to be logical.

For me LR is a lot about the people, interesting people, knowledgeable people, adventurous and with an element of conservation thrown in.

LR is now only interested in the top end of the market, they will never dominate the utilitarian sector, not enough capacity therefore not enough dollars to support development and testing and quality. I don't know that one of the Japanese makers would have released vehicles with bad batches of diffs, when your selling millions you don't want bad batches getting out to the client. It costs too much to fix and reputation is easier to damage than to build up.

Maybe the utilitarian market will get more attention if Tata takes an interest in that sector. They would have to take the marque to be made somewhere with a modern higher volume factory.

[bsperka]

When the Landcruiser entered production shortly after WW2, it was based (like Landrover) directly on the Jeep, and in fact, was called a Toyota Jeep - until Willys threatened legal action, when they changed the name to Landcruiser, having had a look at Rover's new venture.

John

Toyota was more than based on Jeep. First couple were direct copies in major components. I worked with a bloke who would drop his Jeep part (iirc C20 / CJ20? and I'm too lazy too see if the model is correct - it was years ago) on the counter and ask if they had stock. Usually the spare parts guy would indicate its off a Toyota and get the part to fit his Jeep. Brakes, including master cylinder, pistons, valves, water pump, engine mounts etc - all copies. That was his story; don't know the validity of it.

[JDNSW]

Toyota was more than based on Jeep. First couple were direct copies in major components. I worked with a bloke who would drop his Jeep part (iirc C20 / CJ20? and I'm too lazy too see if the model is correct - it was years ago) on the counter and ask if they had stock. Usually the spare parts guy would indicate its off a Toyota and get the part to fit his Jeep. Brakes, including master cylinder, pistons, valves, water pump, engine mounts etc - all copies. That was his story; don't know the validity of it.

Probably right - in 1945 Japan's industry had been largely destroyed, and they were almost certainly designed specifically to be interchangeable with disposals Jeep parts as there were no existing stocks of parts or designs. And the country was occupied by forces using Jeeps so surplus and stolen parts would be readily available.

Different in Britain after the war, where industrial capability was large and, with the war effort ended, looking for work to do. And with the dollar/sterling divide, Rover had no reason to exactly copy American designs, and every reason to adapt the design to use existing technology and parts, which is what they did.


John

[Redback]

Toyota was more than based on Jeep. First couple were direct copies in major components. I worked with a bloke who would drop his Jeep part (iirc C20 / CJ20? and I'm too lazy too see if the model is correct - it was years ago) on the counter and ask if they had stock. Usually the spare parts guy would indicate its off a Toyota and get the part to fit his Jeep. Brakes, including master cylinder, pistons, valves, water pump, engine mounts etc - all copies. That was his story; don't know the validity of it.


Probably right - in 1945 Japan's industry had been largely destroyed, and they were almost certainly designed specifically to be interchangeable with disposals Jeep parts as there were no existing stocks of parts or designs. And the country was occupied by forces using Jeeps so surplus and stolen parts would be readily available.

Different in Britain after the war, where industrial capability was large and, with the war effort ended, looking for work to do. And with the dollar/sterling divide, Rover had no reason to exactly copy American designs, and every reason to adapt the design to use existing technology and parts, which is what they did.


John

So does this mean the first Toyotas had Ford/Wileys gear in them, didn't most of the WWII Jeeps have Ford engines in them??

Baz.

[goingbush]

The first Toyota Landcruiser was designated Toyota BJ

It was nothing like a Jeep (except in looks) and had no Jeep Components

I had an opportunity to buy one about 35 years ago from Fred Parkers yard in Epping. One of the stupidest things I ever did was to decide not to buy it .

It would be worth an absolute fortune now.

Underneath is was almost identical to a late 60's early 70's FJ40
as was the engine , Memory is sketchy but it had a 4 speed gearbox (yes 4 speed) the transfer case was just 2wd / 4wd but 1st gear in the main box was a crawler gear. I dis an article on it for LROCV Review at the time, I'll try to dig it up.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/09/537.jpg

[goingbush]

more info here
Toyota Global Site | Land Cruiser - Model BJ Series (http://www.toyota-global.com/showroom/vehicle_heritage/landcruiser/collection/model_bj_1.html)

[JDNSW]

So does this mean the first Toyotas had Ford/Wileys gear in them, didn't most of the WWII Jeeps have Ford engines in them??

Baz.

Ford and Willys were the prime contractors for the Jeep, and Ford possibly built more than Willys - but they were all built to the Willys design (actually the design was mostly by Bantam, but the engine was an existing Willys design) including the engine, so it is no more a Ford engine than my Auster aeroplane had a Holden engine, just because GMH built the de Havilland design engine!

John

[V8Ian]

Early Toyota (4x4) petrol engines were Chevrolet based.

[JDNSW]

Early Toyota (4x4) petrol engines were Chevrolet based.

Yes, and early Nissan engines were Austin based, and I think Subaru got theirs from Borgward. Probably changed around 1970, but I would not be surprised if similarities remained today in some products.

The Japanese car industry did very little really original design until the 1960s.

Of course, the car industry worldwide has always been like this - a couple of examples are that the OHV Austin engines bear a remarkable similarity to a mirror image of a Chevrolet engine, and that the early Morris Motors engines even had interchangeable parts with Continental engines. In neither case did a licence exist. Then there is the "coincidence" that a few years after Rover started making four wheel drives with IOE engines, so did Willys. Other examples would include the remarkable similarity between the early thirties Tatra and the VW, or the copying of the VW by Chevrolet with the Corvair.

I'll bet there are lots of other examples worldwide as well. At least the post war Japanese manufacturers usually had production licences!

John

[Eevo]

good thing land rover never got any engine designs from the US

[slug_burner]

good thing land rover never got any engine designs from the US

Where do you think the aluminium V8 comes from?

[Eevo]

Where do you think the aluminium V8 comes from?

:whistling: