Printable View
"Still they would have to convince the marketing guys in Australia that the 90 is marketable."
After my reasearch on bringing one in , the reason is they do not make the commercial vehicular standard for aussie ADR's...is what the LRA guy told me:eek:
CKD was viable in the era of tariff protection. Plus the required token local input - tyres & batteries. Wind back the protection, CKD disappears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
Regards
Max P
This may be a problem - but poor sales is probably a more important one, as the costs of approval have to be spread over a smaller number of vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyDawg
It is worth noting that (according to my observation, which may not be right) the short wheel base, two door, versions of the Landcruiser, Patrol and Pajero also seem to have disappeared from the market. I suspect that most people who used to buy them are now buying softroaders - applies for example to my sister - she used to drive an old (well, it wasn't when she got it!) two door Pajero, now drives a RAV 4.
My assessment is that most Australians who really need a proper four wheel drive travel with too much junk to make do with a 90 or similar. And this showed up when the 90 was briefly on sale here - sure, it cost too much, but that was inevitable given the poor sales expected (albeit a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy).
John
Do you think they'll change the name to say something like Ghandi Rover Surenderer?
:D:DHa!!Quote:
Originally Posted by foz.in.oz
I find it quite interesting, the way we question the quality of Indian made products and hold high the efforts of the Japanese industry. If my memory serves me correctly the much esteemed Nissan Patrol was originally made to fulfil an Indian army contract back in the 50/60's.
Not that many Toyotas in India either but a heck of a lot of Mahindra lookalikes doing admirable work in the mountains and desert areas. Tata is as common over there as Holden is here but with a much wider range of vehicles, from cars to heavy duty prime movers, and a lot of their smaller stuff uses Peugeot diesels maunfactured under licence, which IMHO has to be one of the best small diesels there are. I think they trade under the Lion group now and embrace most European diesel manufacturers, including the TDV6 that Disco 3 owners will know.
I was also led to believe that the gap under the doors on Series and defender models was a design feature for river crossing drainage as is the "no lip" floor pan! The 'softening' of the purchasing public over the years (fueled by the so called "ergonomics" banner of today) has put air conditioning, cup holders and CD stackers well above practicality of purpose built design requirements.
I am one of those swayed by the 'comfort stakes', so I bought a Disco. If I was intending to drive up and down the Jardine I would have bought a defender!
I for one will be very interested to see what comes out in the next few years from India and will wait until it happens before I pass judgement.
Regards
Glen
I'm at a loss as to why you're quoting me before stating that you're "always amused"... Anyway, you seem to be quoting me out of context as they say....Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW1. I am always amused by those who equate quality to panel fit and paint finish. It seems to me that these are almost totally irrelevant in an utility vehicle like the Defender. I see the REAL quality defects showing up as things like headlight switches that fail in normal service, oil leaking along wiring harnesses that causes breakdowns, front prop shafts hitting sumps, cracking chassis (130), leaking oil seals, drive flanges that chop out because the design does not allow for lubrication, this sort of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by D3Jon
2. The body assembly problems with Defenders, including water and dust leaks are a part of the structural design. This bolt together design philosophy originates from the decision to make the original Landrover with a minimum of tooling, and maximum versatility of body type. As long as this is retained, it is difficult to see how this sort of problem can be completely prevented.
To give one example - the sealing surface at the door corners is a sharp angle. This is almost impossible to reliably seal - look at any other vehicle produced today, and you will find it is radiused. But with the door pillars, sills, lintels all being separate pieces of metal, often in two or more pieces (necessary for the alternate body types), you are stuck with these sharp corners. Of course you could round them, but this requires a lot more tooling and simply changes the sealing problem from the door opening to between the bits. Not to say that improvements could not be made, but the cost of them may well be greater than is justified. And if the versatility of body type and meccano-like construction is scrapped (as is highly likely in a Defender replacement), then the vehicle is no longer a Landrover, even if it does have a Landrover label.
John
The words:
Were in response to the following that was quoted within my original post:Quote:
Originally Posted by D3Jon
The remainder of my post:Quote:
Originally Posted by rovercare
Was with obvious reference to an earlier post (that I didn't quote):Quote:
Originally Posted by D3Jon
I was simply saying that it's the basic design of the car that causes the sealing problems which you seem to concur with:Quote:
Originally Posted by djam1
So I guess we are in agreement? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Jon
Quote:
Originally Posted by p38arover
well can't be much worse :D:D:D
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by D3Jon
I was just using your post as an introduction to the subject of equating quality with panel fit in circumstances where it is clearly irrelevant, and then amplifying why it is irrelevant.
John
Is it available in blue and one more seat?Quote:
Originally Posted by one_iota