Thread: 4wd Action 200 Series Review DVD- this months edition

re the Patrol and Toyota in the SMHEA

The SMHEA 50th anniversary web-site (see Snowy Mountains Scheme 50th) listed all the vehicles believed to be used on the scheme, but there is no mention of the Patrol?

And to back up the LR version of events, it seems the move to Toyota didn't really happen until the early 1970s, 2 decades _after_ the Landrovers had been used to establish the road network and camp sites. So it's a bit rich of Toyota to suggest they were the primary player

Cheers,

Gordon

Originally Posted by JamesH

[soapbox/]

Just off thread for a moment but this is my pet rant. The message is useless if bad grammar makes it unclear. That is what the rules of grammar are about, making a point clearly and concisely.

There are a lot of great contributors here at AULRO and Ron's grammatical advice posts are up there with the most useful technical posts in my humble opinion.

[/soapbox]

Back on thread, I hate to see history re-written and Toyota's stealing of the Snowy in its advertising really irks me.

"Land Rover built the roads that Toyota drove on"

The message is very clear, if in fact the grammar is incorrect or not. Many bumper stickers created are for the clear message, not for winning a spelling bee or Pulitzer Prize for correct grammar anyway.

Picking apart a post for the sake of pickiness, re grammar...stupid. When the education system do not feel it important I don't see we should here, I have read a few posts very wanting

Within the last week two of Rons posts both had spelling errors, I didn't have the bad manners to point it out to him, get off your soapbox.


As far as the Snowy goes; isn't it the case that both Land Rovers and Toyotas and maybe also Nissans were used? I seem to recall that from conversations with old-timers.

Actually Jeep were first, then in 1949 three Land Rovers were employed by the initial surveyors, then from 1950 on, there were up to 700 Land Rover used, the most at any one time was 300.

As Toyota LC wasn't on the road until 1958 it gave Land Rover time to knock up a few roads in the snowy for the others to get around on, with the help of vary trucks & two wheel drive vehicles, dozers, graders & blasters etc just to keep Baz happy.

Originally Posted by Redback

I can't believe you blokes are still crapping on about this, who bloody cares, the mag is a business run to make money like all the other mags (Land Rover ones included) and all this rubbish about who built the Snowy, well all the 4WDs that were around at the time were used, even Jeeps, Land Rover just happened to be used first, Holden, Ford, Bedford, Austin, Morris, Chevs and so on and so on were used too, it was a combined effort really, not just one make of vehicle.

My view of it.

Baz.

Pretty obvious by the number of posts before yours & after yours, that a number of members do care whats written.

I would have thought a bit of brand loyalty was a good thing, it's what we drive, it's what the forum is here for, some of us will never own another brand, it's what some live and breath...Land Rovers, I don't recall another brand celebrating like Land Rover has the 40th, 50th & now the 60th. I went a Ford milestone (75th I think), they couldn't muster half the cars that were at Cooma.

Originally Posted by RoverOne

"Land Rover built the roads that Toyota drove on"

The message is very clear, if in fact the grammar is incorrect or not. Many bumper stickers created are for the clear message, not for winning a spelling bee or Pulitzer Prize for correct grammar anyway.

Picking apart a post for the sake of pickiness, re grammar...stupid. When the education system do not feel it important I don't see we should here, I have read a few posts very wanting

Within the last week two of Rons posts both had spelling errors, I didn't have the bad manners to point it out to him, get off your soapbox.

Calm down, Bryce. It was said tongue in cheek. Ending a sentence with a preposition is one of those things which even grammaticists can't agree on.

I don't make spelling errors. I have typos.......

Originally Posted by p38arover

Calm down, Bryce. It was said tongue in cheek. Ending a sentence with a preposition is one of those things which even grammaticists can't agree on.

I don't make spelling errors. I have typos.......

Believe it or not I am very calm old mate, I haven't even had a scotch yet.

I have plenty of typos myself. I'm just too lazy to go back & correct, unless I catch them the instant I read after posting

When ever I write a trip report for the magazine, I go back & do spell check & grammar check, if it corrects the grammar & I don't like the correction, I ignore it and do it my way anyway.

so back on topic...

having not seen the DVD, I'm not going to comment too much, however a lot of print magazines and papers run 'advertorials' it's not like it's a new thing... if the DVD highlights this, or has it on the cover that it's an advertorial, I think nobody has the right to judge the content any more than an episode of american idol - it's product placement, plain and simple. However, if there is no disclaimer plainly evident, then IMHO, 4WD action need to pull up their socks and be honest that it was a paid advertisement.

does anyone here judge the Solo ads when you drink a can and find out that your man sized thirt is not quenched? or that in reality McDonalds really isn't the healthiest food available?

Viewer discresion (sp?) is not the job of the author, it is of the veiwer. personally, I change channels when ads come on, or fast forward/skip the crud at the start of a DVD.... in this case, I wouldn't watch it anyway as I have no interest in a vehicle I have no particular interest in... same as when you read 4WD Action or similar mags - do you feel that you paid for the advertising when you bought it? or the content? same with a DVD or even a TV show like 4WDTV... of course there is product placement, but it is the choice of you as a veiwer to switch off (or not).

related example - I HATE with a passion the endless promotion of DVD's, signed bats, limited edition tack-o-rama during the cricket commentary on channel 9, so what do I do? watch it on TV with the sound off and the radio on the ABC... much better

Originally Posted by RoverLover

hey boys and girls,

Dad has just gone and purchased a new 200 series Sahara 4.5ltr tt V8 Diesel,
I tried my best to talk him into the range rover, but he was persistent, hes been a toyota man all of his life.

Anyway, im kindof getting sick of all of this advertisement of "the best 4WD on earth" and "king of the Outback" i mean, Have a look at the thing, absouloute shocker... Mechanically amazingly, but bugger me if it was my money, Range Rover Vogue here i come.

Anyway, my two cents,
Have a good one guys
Jacob

My boss did the same. Forked out to have the first Sahara in WA. I was telling him to go the RRS. He said it was to small. Not even 3 months later he sold the cruiser back to the dealer and forked out another 40k for a Vouge (Spelling, I got caught out for that one last time...). Being a Toyota fan he was bitterly disappointed with the 200 series. In his and everyone elses opinion when comparing the two cars it had poor ride, bad fuel economy (was getting 16-17l/100) and was unimpressed with the gadgetry.

When he made a deposit on the car (before official specs came out) he was promised air suspension, and everything the range rover had but better. Turns out they're leaving all that for the lexus and the lexus as far as I know only comes with a petrol v8.

I think most people agree that the 100 series was a better car for what they are advertised as. Better off road, bushability, touring etc. If you want an SUV why not buy a Bimmer or Merc

Originally Posted by EchiDna

so back on topic...

having not seen the DVD, I'm not going to comment too much, however a lot of print magazines and papers run 'advertorials' it's not like it's a new thing... if the DVD highlights this, or has it on the cover that it's an advertorial, I think nobody has the right to judge the content any more than an episode of american idol - it's product placement, plain and simple. However, if there is no disclaimer plainly evident, then IMHO, 4WD action need to pull up their socks and be honest that it was a paid advertisement.

does anyone here judge the Solo ads when you drink a can and find out that your man sized thirt is not quenched? or that in reality McDonalds really isn't the healthiest food available?

Viewer discresion (sp?) is not the job of the author, it is of the veiwer. personally, I change channels when ads come on, or fast forward/skip the crud at the start of a DVD.... in this case, I wouldn't watch it anyway as I have no interest in a vehicle I have no particular interest in... same as when you read 4WD Action or similar mags - do you feel that you paid for the advertising when you bought it? or the content? same with a DVD or even a TV show like 4WDTV... of course there is product placement, but it is the choice of you as a veiwer to switch off (or not).

related example - I HATE with a passion the endless promotion of DVD's, signed bats, limited edition tack-o-rama during the cricket commentary on channel 9, so what do I do? watch it on TV with the sound off and the radio on the ABC... much better

Agreed on all points. Yes, the mag did state that the DVD was funded by Toyota. However, that is not the same as an advert - it is, in new-age jargon, an "infomercial" (think along the lines of the "Brand-power" ads on TV). So it still needs to pay a passing nod to factuality, and certainly doesn't give them the right to re-write history. The DVD claims that the Snowy scheme relied on Toyota - solely Toyota. It also claims several other things that are simply untrue or unsubstantiated - see my post on page 4.

Perhaps we _are_ being foolish thinking that a media source would value accuracy - and maybe it _is_ stupid to try and rally against a company like Toyota steam-rollering over Landrover's past, but I still live in hope ............


Cheers,

Gordon