Thread: Old 4wds vs new 4wds, which is better?

I found it hard to take the report seriously after the rubbish at the start about Toyota and the Snowy Mountains scheme. Obviously the reporter didn't do his homework on that or he would have realized the first Toyotas only turned up years later after the hard work was already done - and they didn't even have low range!

As for the new vs old argument, wouldn't something be seriously wrong if a new vehicle was not better than a previous version? What does that actually prove?
My BIL sold his new Triton and bought an old 80 series because he wanted to be able to fix it himself, rather than having to take it back to the dealer under warranty. Does that prove anything?
As the owner of a relatively recent version of a Defender I wouldn't hesitate to take it across the Simpson, in the same way we took our old Discovery 1 across it. Does that prove anything?
If we're going to discuss what is 'best' we have to first define what we mean by 'best'. Is best something that is the best performer or something we can bash about and fix ourselves?
So, really, when people divide about what is 'best' maybe it's because they disagree about what 'best' actually means. What do you think?

The biggest bit of stupidity was giving the award in one section because of the tyres fitted. Like apparently some four wheel drives can't be fitted with certain brands?
Pathetic.

Tom.

The other reports I read said the Defender spent a significant time towing the 40 and seemed to cope with many obstacles better than most other vehicles.
The 40 was broken down for much of the trip. The 79 had a wheel fall off. The Nissan used a lot of fuel. The Hilux was gutless. That's what I remember reading.

Yeah, but besides all that Mick the Defender was unreliable and no good. Apparently.

Cheers,

TimNZ

Actually the defender only had some grease issues which taking into consideration it's age I think wasn't an issue at all.
Loosing a wheel like the 79 did is a issue, a big issue! That could have killed someone.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I found it hard to take the report seriously after the rubbish at the start about Toyota and the Snowy Mountains scheme. Obviously the reporter didn't do his homework on that or he would have realized the first Toyotas only turned up years later after the hard work was already done - and they didn't even have low range!

As for the new vs old argument, wouldn't something be seriously wrong if a new vehicle was not better than a previous version? What does that actually prove?
My BIL sold his new Triton and bought an old 80 series because he wanted to be able to fix it himself, rather than having to take it back to the dealer under warranty. Does that prove anything?
As the owner of a relatively recent version of a Defender I wouldn't hesitate to take it across the Simpson, in the same way we took our old Discovery 1 across it. Does that prove anything?
If we're going to discuss what is 'best' we have to first define what we mean by 'best'. Is best something that is the best performer or something we can bash about and fix ourselves?
So, really, when people divide about what is 'best' maybe it's because they disagree about what 'best' actually means. What do you think?

Exactly. This is why I did not even bother to look at the original. The same applies to any argument over which (anything) is best. First define and agree on what you mean by "best"!

1nando, I should have added the /s tag.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by cripesamighty

Got to the Snowy Mountains bit and never realised that thousands of Land Cruisers were imported to help on the Scheme because Land Rover couldn't keep up. Learn something new every day....

Seriously though, what was the actual number of Land Cruisers used after 1956, a few dozen?

13 all up and they weren't on site,they didn't get here untill 1960. Pat