Thread: More Landys unreliable myths in 4WD Action

The Cook and I have just done a 12K trip through the top of WA including the GRR, the NT using the Mereenie Loop and down through SA and back home.
Never a hitch and no punctures but we were overtaken a few times by others at warp speeds......and one shredded a tyre.
The vehicle got a new transfer box under warranty because of a noisy bearing but nothing other major.
4th Landie, first was a Disco1 completely reliable, then 2 Deafeners, new Td5 then a 300Tdi. Td5 had a TPO prob in Newman but LR got it back and paid us airfares etc.
300Tdi was bought as it didn't have a computer but I sold it as it was gutless.
Compared to our boys 200 series Landcruiser our Landies have been virtually fault free.
AlanH.
PS. We did have a Prado for 4 years or so, completely reliable but oh so easy to scratch and dent.

Originally Posted by shanegtr

.......
Anyway this thread has got me thinking, is there any particular land rover that's responsible for the unreliability myths? Considering the early exploration feats of Len Beadell and use of them by the milatary, how is it that the masses have all ended up in Toyota and nissans and not land rovers

It started in the 1960s, and the origins are easy to find. Until about 1973, Rover was unable to produce enough Landrovers to meet demand. As a result they rationed supplies to each market. Through much of the 1960s, the Australian Army took most of the Australian ration, so that long waits were the order of the day.

This is why Thiess looked for an alternative, which they found in the Landcruiser. Because quicker delivery was possible, they were able to rapidly gain a substantial share of the market after Theiss went into the business of selling as well as importing for their own use. Another factor in their favour was the use of a larger six cylinder engine (remember diesels were not widely used in four wheel drives - and Landrover were the only one offering them), but also they produced a longer (121") wheelbase version with a higher payload than Landrover. A slightly wider track and roomier body also helped. But with a three speed gearbox, appalling steering, and numerous reliability issues, they also had their problems.

Meanwhile, Landrover, by now part of Leyland, and, in fact, the only part of that conglomerate making money, did little to respond to this competition, introducing only a small six and the V8 and coil springs far too late. In contrast, Toyota, with a growing market, were responsive to the market demands.

I suspect that most of the reputation for relative reliability comes from owners replacing an aging Landrover with a new Toyota, although the poor performance of Landrover Australia and its predecessors in customer relations has hardly helped.

John

Even now, LR easily sells every vehicle it brings into this country, meaning the demand outstrips the supply, particularly for the Defender.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Even when the article isn't about one brand over another they can't help them selves.

I was reading an article about rust preventention in 4WD's and the arcticle started something along the lines of........... "in any farmers field you'll find 40 series Cruisers, G60 Pootrols, and old Land Rovers; and with the exception of the Land Rover were all cracking 4WD's in their day". It then went on how these wonderfull Jap 4WD's would still be going if they weren't buggered by rust.

I think thats about the last time I've bought one of their magazines, it really annoyed me, and wrong on so many levels; as others have pointed out old Cruisers were not very good.

And the article itself had very little useful information about rust prevention.

Personally I part of the problem, reliability is also due to the fact that a lot of people over stretching the vehicle at the time. Look at the old leyland brothers films. How overweight were they and top heavy. Broken axels etc. But marketing was the killer as such. Feed the people what they want to hear and you win.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

It started in the 1960s, and the origins are easy to find. Until about 1973, Rover was unable to produce enough Landrovers to meet demand. As a result they rationed supplies to each market. Through much of the 1960s, the Australian Army took most of the Australian ration, so that long waits were the order of the day.

This is why Thiess looked for an alternative, which they found in the Landcruiser. Because quicker delivery was possible, they were able to rapidly gain a substantial share of the market after Theiss went into the business of selling as well as importing for their own use. Another factor in their favour was the use of a larger six cylinder engine (remember diesels were not widely used in four wheel drives - and Landrover were the only one offering them), but also they produced a longer (121") wheelbase version with a higher payload than Landrover. A slightly wider track and roomier body also helped. But with a three speed gearbox, appalling steering, and numerous reliability issues, they also had their problems.

Meanwhile, Landrover, by now part of Leyland, and, in fact, the only part of that conglomerate making money, did little to respond to this competition, introducing only a small six and the V8 and coil springs far too late. In contrast, Toyota, with a growing market, were responsive to the market demands.

I suspect that most of the reputation for relative reliability comes from owners replacing an aging Landrover with a new Toyota, although the poor performance of Landrover Australia and its predecessors in customer relations has hardly helped.

John

That is part of the story...

Theiss started imports in 1958. The LCs back as you say were 3 speed and not that good or reliable, but they did have a better engine the LR had on offer at the time (in fact LR would not have a comparable petrol till 1967... and diesel never in the utility models - except the ISUZU variant in AU).

LWB Landrovers already were becoming known for axle failures - a problem which would also not be properly rectified until 1967-71.

LR had the attitude that the colonies should be grateful for whatever they produced, whereas toyota wanted the sales, so sent teams of engineers to Australia to investigate why they were breaking down so they could upgrade.

Now of course things are the other way around. Any old rubbish with a toyota badge will sell, theiss can charge whatever they want, and since they have their hand in a large portion of the mining and construction in AU can ensure industry sales remain high.

That said, I would trust an LC79 over a Puma to take me around Australia trouble free.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I don't even own a Defender but I can still see how uninformed some of their comments are. There's a reason why Defenders are so sought after by long-distance overlanders - they're rugged, capable and relatively inexpensive to run.

I have a laugh when they say Discos and RRs are too electronic now to take in the bush, but say nothng about the fact that 200s and Prados are also very electronic. Apparently LR's electronics can't be trusted, but Toyota's electroncs are OK. Strange logic.

I get Pat Callinan's quarterly mag and enjoy it - quality writing and photography.
I also buy 4 x 4 Australia sometimes and its pretty solid.
I do enjoy some of the stuff in 4WD Action, particularly the 'how to' articles when the writers obviously knows their stuff and I can learn something, and the DVDs are fun.
I see they're trying to shift people onto their new digital edition for half-price, but I like printed mags and don't want to fill up my laptop or tablet's memory with mags.
There's a reason they've been very successful and full credit to them for that because publishing is a tough game and you have to know your market or you can go down quickly. Maybe I'm not their market, as I'm more interested in overlanding than in building monster trucks to climb rocks.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

I aree..the same goes for me

Originally Posted by shanegtr

............ how is it that the masses have all ended up in Toyota and nissans and not land rovers

Originally Posted by Bushie

Better marketing by Nissota


Martyn

A few years ago, Toyotas advertising budget for just the Kluger was as much as LRA's budget for the whole Land Rover range, this came directly from the president of LRA at the time.
Cheers, Murray