Disgraceful,is the word,Rick.
Yes i must admit it is quieter and faster than the Series 1,starts easier as there is no choke,but still bloody noisey,especially with a set of KM2's on.The ride is great,nice and smooth,and they handle pretty well.
They are not as frugal as the old models either,the D4 is way better,and the LC76 only about 1litre/100 worse on a run,about 2L at the very most around town.Although the drivability and low down torque off idle of the LC76 puts the 2.4 to shame,but the engines are completely different.
Although as Mick says they are a modern classic,with huge resale compared to other modern LR products.
But that is because there are very few around,and many people put them in the 'i just want one' category.
One of the guys at MR told me last week,priced sensibly,they do sell pretty quickly as well,particularly the later ones.
Paul
D2,D2,D2a,D4,'09 Defender 110(sons), all moved on.
'56 S1,been in the family since...'56
Comes out of hibernation every few months for a run
L322 tdv8 poverty pack - wow
Perentie 110 wagon ARN 49-107 (probably selling) turbo, p/steer, RFSV front axle/trutrack, HF, gullwing windows, double jerrys etc.
Perentie 110 wagon ARN 48-699 another project
Track Trailer ARN 200-117
REMLR # 137
I have just spent the last 3 weeks,on and off stripping one inside completely,and its about 1/2 back together.
Reminds me of the old Mecano set we had when we were kids
The paint on the actual body appears to be pretty good quality,but they forgot to treat a lot of the alloy pieces properly before painting.
The paint on the seat rails,brackets,etc, is just peeling off,very poorly done.Matts that go around seats and in front footwells,over transmission tunnel, are absolute rubbish quality.As is the gearstick,window rubbers,etc.
And haven't started on the mechanical stuff yet,except fluid changes.
Luckily we know a panel guy who works for himself,and knows Defenders inside out,has a steady stream of them in for repairs.
Thanks to the guys at MR auto,again.
Paul
D2,D2,D2a,D4,'09 Defender 110(sons), all moved on.
'56 S1,been in the family since...'56
Comes out of hibernation every few months for a run
I didn't say vehicle design was solely responsible I said it was directly attributable. I also said vehicle design - by that I mean advances in brakes, tyres, suspension, engines etc as well as safety features. Suggesting it's all down to better roads and no drink driving is a little bit ridiculous.
Of course it's hard to attribute to one specific feature - that's what continuous improvement is all about. It's an ongoing development that drives incremental improvements, each minor on their own but adding up to a significant whole. It's same reason that they have been steadily decreasing (on a deaths per million vehicle km driven rate) since cars existed. Because we are not driving 1920s cars anymore.
Improvements in tyres, rain wipers, stability control, brakes, headlights and suspension all have a major impact as well.
Tried driving a country road in the dark and in the rain in a car from the 80s with old tyres, crappy headlights and crappy wipers? Much safer in a modern vehicle, if only because you can see where you're going.
Hitting a tree at 60+ yeah you're probably stuffed no matter what car you're in.
But equally safe if you drive according to conditions, the vehicle you are driving and your ability. I have driven many, many kilometres in the dark and rain on country roads over the last sixty years, very little of it in post '80s cars, without accidents except for hitting (or being hit by) roos. The only other accidents I have ever been involved in were at low speed in built-up areas - two were my fault, the others were a car drove through a stop sign into the left side of me, and most recently a car ran into the back of my trailer while I was waiting to turn right. Other accidents my cars have been involved in while I was not driving were my d-i-l while learning side swiped a tree and while my car was lent to the captain of the local brigade a firetruck backed into it during a fire.
The "much safer in modern vehicles" is not supported by the actual accident data. It is if you just look at the deaths or injuries once you have an accident, but not if you look at the overall deaths and injuries per kilometre.
John
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Cant put my hands on the research right now, but I think it caught my attention via motorcycle forums.
Basically, it indicated that improvements in car dynamics, braking, lights etc tend to just mean people go faster, brake later etc etc.
People are complicated and inconveniently dynamic, so its not as simple as give the person better tyres/brakes (for example), and assuming the persons behavior wont change, and they will be safer.
The theory was that people tend to have a fixed idea of what their acceptable level of perceived risk is for a given activity. Make that activity safer, and that improvement in safety is quickly countered by people changing their behavior to be at the same level of perceived risk. Note - perceived risk, rather than actual probability. Make someone feel safer, and they'll push harder. Give em ABS, they'll brake later - cos they factor it into their idea of the perceived risk of driving.
I've seen the behaviors pattern in other areas too - as I'm sure has everyone else. How many times have we tried to make something safer only to turn around and see them now doing something else daft as a result?
Its thought be one of the reasons why the seatbelt and drink driving campaigns had an impact - as well as working on the social acceptability, it also worked on changing the perceived risk involved. I guess things like road side barriers and stuff tend to mean the even if the person does run out of talent (even with ABS, tyres, headlights, ASC etc), and least when they do, they may stay on the road and not in the trees.
Its always hard to try and work out why people do stuff. Ethics committees limit the legal experimentation, so you're stuck with trailing indicators, and end up scratching your head at the data and trying to understand why we're so daft :-) Logic can lead you astray too.
I remember someone on reading the research advancing the theory that we should all ride stark bollocky naked (from memory they allowed boots) to prevent accidents. In winter. Maybe they had been single for a while, but even then, in winter, you're hardly putting your best foot (ahem) forward.
I think I'm going to stand in front of the fire now.
cheers
Dave
Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
---|
|
|
Bookmarks