Thread: Heads in the sand...Jap Bias.

Noticed that,everyone to their own,even if i don't agree.
Those freelanders did have a lot of problems,particularly the earlier models.

What i do notice are the number of complaints about the 6 speed ZF box in the falcon,a box very similar to the D3/4.Maybe it is the way ford are controlling the auto.I wonder what the storey is?

Just because you can't put big boots on a freelander doesn't mean that they have no capability.
I don't personally like them myself, because I am biased by the fact that the only land rover worth a toss was built from 1943-2006 and mainly that would be a diesel engine at that.
But should someone want a vehicle to go down country byways and buzz around the city then why not a freelander early 1800 petrols had their issues but that has been overcome.
It is a bit sad that the mail should slate the vehicle out of hand when it has huge economy(in the new ones) and a bit of potential probably as good as one of those missing x trials or the rev 4.
Again the later disco is not the sort of vehicle that I would consider, but has been proved to have enough ability to navigate round the land rover testing ground at Gaydon where the Defender does not fear to tread, which in it's self indicates to me it still has Land Rover breeding.
It is sad that these bias blind people should be given such a job and get payed for it when they are just continuing the limited belief that there are only a couple of capable brands in Australia.
Give me his email Addy and I will correct his manner.

Typical rubbish, as you say, from people who don;t know better.
Write or email in and direct the fella to aulro.com

Can't educate idiots, so why bother, regards Frank.

Originally Posted by VladTepes

Typical rubbish, as you say, from people who don;t know better.
Write or email in and direct the fella to aulro.com

The same item was in the Herald Sun on Friday morning in Vic. It was under the heading Last Word in the Cars Guide. It seems that the comment came from motoring writer and National editor Paul Gover.

landychris

[QUOTE=lardy;1275539]J
I don't personally like them myself, because I am biased by the fact that the only land rover worth a toss was built from 1943-2006 and mainly that would be a diesel engine at that.
Interesting dates!!!
Regards
Glen

Originally Posted by lardy

Just because you can't put big boots on a freelander doesn't mean that they have no capability.
I don't personally like them myself, because I am biased by the fact that the only land rover worth a toss was built from 1943-2006 and mainly that would be a diesel engine at that.
But should someone want a vehicle to go down country byways and buzz around the city then why not a freelander early 1800 petrols had their issues but that has been overcome.
It is a bit sad that the mail should slate the vehicle out of hand when it has huge economy(in the new ones) and a bit of potential probably as good as one of those missing x trials or the rev 4.
Again the later disco is not the sort of vehicle that I would consider, but has been proved to have enough ability to navigate round the land rover testing ground at Gaydon where the Defender does not fear to tread, which in it's self indicates to me it still has Land Rover breeding.
It is sad that these bias blind people should be given such a job and get payed for it when they are just continuing the limited belief that there are only a couple of capable brands in Australia.
Give me his email Addy and I will correct his manner.

Lardy this is the email address which is shown.
car@qnp.newsltd.com.au

Thanks Mate

I would never recommend to a friend to buy a Land rover i would tell them to buy a Toyota

And then go back and buy it myself