LRO: Re: The Land-Rover Bodied Bastard (Long and Bitter)

From: Frank Elson (frankelson@felson.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Apr 07 2001 - 15:01:48 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Ogilvie: "LRO: Re: Nanker Phelg"

    Brian Willoughby wrote: >> I think that a vehicle properly restored to
    original condition or maintained from new in its original state is a
    considerably more difficult goal to accomplish than cutting one up and
    modifying it. <<

    true, but so what? Why 'restore' something to its flawed original when you
    have the knowledge and competence to improve it?

    >>I enjoy the challenge of tracking down rare parts that the engine swappers
    don't give
    > two cents about: I even have a set of four long-out of production Lodge
    > spark plugs for car show display purposes. (I could explain what Lodge
    > spark plugs are and look like; however, those who care already know and
    > those who are concerned about Iron Dukes will never understand.)<<<

    you own a set of useless, old fashioned spark plugs? wow, do you keep them
    in a glass case?

    >>>I didn't buy a Land-Rover expecting it
    > to be a perfect vehicle and I accepted it for what it was. People accept
    most other vehicles for what they are: why can't they do it with
    Land-Rovers?<<<

    because the technology exists to improve it. Do you light your home with gas
    or electricity?

    > I think it would do some of these engine swapping kids good to be forced
    to
    > read a history of the Rover Company Ltd. Mind you, I mean something
    > concerning Rover as a whole and not just Land-Rover. I would like them to
    > realize the company had a history prior to producing Land-Rovers,
    beginning
    > with bicycle manufacture during the late 1800s and proceeding to building
    > some of the first jet engines during World War II. Then after they've
    > covered the pre-war history, they could research the mergers of all the
    > automobile companies that formed British Leyland and finally proceed to
    > BMW's buyout of Rover Group and then the selling and division of the
    > remains to the subsequent purchase of the Land-Rover division by Ford.
    > Perhaps if they'd do this they'd have a little more respect for their
    > Land-Rovers and what they represent. <<<

    you mean a commercial company, dedicated to making a few pounds (sorry,
    dollars) for selling something? Car making isn't fine art.

    > I'm sure that in 1948 Maurice remarked, "You know, this vehicle is a heap
    > of crap and, quite honestly, I'm ashamed of it. My conscience is also
    > bothering me: these things are going to have a high selling price and
    they
    > are so flawed and irregular--simply trash. Though that's okay. We
    > designed them so that the people who buy them will be able to make their
    > own modifications and change them 'round. Nevertheless, it still seems a
    > pity to ask such a high price for the things and then expect people to be
    > forced to go out and have to purchase another engine to replace these
    > worthless lumps we're installing. Alas, I'm certain that 20 year old kids
    > in the year 2001 will understand that we so poorly engineered these things
    > that they have to be rebuilt by their owners to be any good." Of course,
    > Maurice Wilkes didn't say that and if the factory-stock Land-Rover had
    been
    > as bad as some people make them out to be, Rover wouldn't have ever sold a
    > single unit. For that matter, Rover, much less Land-Rover, would probably
    > have never survived.<<

    No, according to Tom 'Mr Land Rover' Barton, who was around at the time and
    who I have actually spoken to (have you?) the thought was: 'We have to get a
    vehicle out into the boonies to sell and bring a few pounds in. This old
    Jeep I'm runing around on Anglesey seems OK, it is very good on the farm. If
    we make a copy of it, we'll have to use aluminium for the body 'cos the
    government won't give us any steel, and make the chassis up out of the few
    off-cuts of steel we can get hold of, and use this old Rover car engine 'cos
    we've got the tooling for it, we might sell a few to farmers, like me, and
    get a few quid into the coffers while we sort out what to do with the cars.'
    (not a perfect quote, but the gist of what he said)
    The fact that a company called Land Rover might ever see the light of day
    was totally incomprehensible in those days of 1947. They didn't even see the
    thing lasting more than a couple of years.

    > All this engine swapping nonsense shows a complete lack of understanding
    of
    > Rover's history and how the Land-Rover came about.<<<

    see above, nobody even considered in their wildest dreams that they would
    build a 'second' Land Rover themselves.

    >> I guess that's what
    > happens when people buy them because they "look cool". The cool looks
    wear
    > thin after a short while and they can't and don't satisfy these peoples'
    > need for a modern car and, thus, they start in on engine conversions. <<

    So, forget gas, rushes soaked in bear grease is good enough to light your
    house then?

    >> It's
    > too bad that perspective buyers can't rent a Series Land-Rover for a
    couple
    > of weeks to find out if they really do want one. (Before any of you get
    > any ideas, I thought of this renting scheme first!)<<<

    I agree, first time this message tho.

    >>About seven years ago, being an admirer of all things Rover,<<<

    you admire a commercially operated company dedicated to selling anything
    that brings a pound (sorry again, a dollar) into the bank? Not an artist,
    or a composer, but a commercial company? Weird that.

    >>I nearly
    > bought a '66 Rover 2000SC from a college student: it had been bought
    > merely based on the fact that it "was funky". The idiot hadn't a clue
    > about how to care for the car and used DOT 3 to top off the fluid
    > reservoir. Naturally, the rubber in the brake system quickly
    > self-destructed and to alleviate the problem, a bottle of "Heavy Duty DOT
    > 3" was purchased (I found the bottle in the boot.) Of course, the car
    > wouldn't stop and since the kid was too dumb and proud to ask a question
    or
    > try to analyze what had gone wrong, the car was for sale as someone else's
    > problem to solve. The deal fell through and I later found out that a
    > salvage yard was called to haul the car away. I was told the kid got paid
    > $25 for the "funky car." The moral is that if the kid had bother to learn
    > something about the car, it might still be on the road rather than having
    > been crushed. What a shame, it was a really nice, original P6. <<<

    Having owned 23 products of the Rover Car Company over the years I have to
    admit that I never bought a one 'cos I 'admired' the company. I bought them
    (including a P6 that is still running today) 'cos they were better than the
    competitors. The 'Kid' you refer to was just a prat. I guess he'd have
    screwed up any car he got his hands on.

    > The thing that bothers me about these homemade hybrids is that they are
    not
    > being designed by automotive engineers. For that matter, they're not even
    > being approached in a very scientific manner at all. Engineering or
    > re-engineering a car is not for amateurs.<<<

    Gifted amateurs, without stockholders to answer to, can often do a better
    job than the professionals. No financial bottom line y'see. I've seen Land
    Rovers, and other vehicles, made far better than the original that came out
    of the factory with a stockholder breathing down the neck of the makers.

    >>>for that matter, even the experts
    > can develop things that are death-traps (the grossly overpowered Sunbeam
    > Tiger and A.C. Cobra are prime examples of a legitimate [i.e.
    > factory-built] hybrids that could be downright dangerous in the hands of
    an
    > inexperienced driver.) <<<

    'Could' was a word you used here. A tricycle 'could' be downright dangerous
    in the hands of an inexperienced driver. Your point is completely invalid.

    >> I have to seriously question the abilities of some
    > of the people currently contemplating re-engineering their Land-Rovers.
    Do
    > these people have the capabilities to perform testing with computer models
    > of how all their modifications will work out? I doubt it. <<

    See above, I have to seriously question your ability to comment on some of
    the people currently contemplating re-engineering their Land-Rovers. How
    many of them have you met?
     Over the years I have met 'amateur' engineers who, because of the unlimited
    time they have and because the end-cost does not matter - only the result -
    have totally out-engineered the professionals. Also, the vehicle you seem to
    like in its original guise was not built with the aid of computers. They
    didn't have any at Solihull in 1947.

    >>>They certainly
    > can't build a series prototypes to help envision what the finished
    > product's dynamics will be like. Most car companies build test mule after
    > mule in an attempt to get everything right. <<<

    well, yes, today. Not, with the original Land Rover according to Tom Barton.
    Except of course for the centre steer prototype. His words: 'When I drove it
    on the roads for the first time I came back into the works and said, that
    thing is bloody dangerous.'

    >>Does the Motor Heritage Trust go out seeking
    > hacked up Land-Rovers with Iron Dukes in them? Hardly. What is in their
    > collection? Vehicles like HUE 166--which was bought back from a farmer
    who
    > had owned and used it for years and hadn't "re-engined" it. <<<

    and the 'modified' Darien Gap Range Rover, a handful of fire-engine mods,
    the London-Sydney Rally 1800, the Paddy Hopkirk Monte Carlo Rally winning
    Mini Cooper, the Triumph 2.5 pi Mexico Rally vehicle, and loads more. (Many
    of which I have driven, with their permission, I've also driven HUE, wow!)
    all radically modified from the showroom model and all part of the
    Rover/British Leyland heritage.

    >>> Does anyone
    > ever discussed these vehicles after the fact? I've never heard anyone
    > concerning themselves about John Q. Public's Volkswagen-diesel powered
    > Land-Rover bodied bastard after John Q. does his conversion--no one cares
    > after a few months or years. If these things are so important in the
    > greater scheme of Land-Rover history, why aren't they detailed and
    > discussed in depth in books dealing with Land-Rover history? Could it be
    > because they aren't part of the history that the manufacturer was
    > responsible for? <<<

    I've not read many Land Rover books that don't have at least a chapter on
    modifications/alterations, for sport and other uses.

    >>> Obviously, the manufacturer (as well as many others) does
    > not recognize the Land-Rover-bodied bastards as being Land-Rovers and why
    > should they? They aren't anything more than a Land-Rover bodyshell in the
    > end.<<<

    On my many visits to the Land Rover factory I frequently see 'hybrid'
    vehicles being evaluated. Hell, my own IVECO engined vehicle was given the
    once over (and the seal of approval as in 'that fits very well') at the
    factory. They are interested in anything anyone does to a Land Rover, they
    just can't invite every altered Land Rover for a look-see and, anyway, they
    aren't very interested in any Land Rover more than five years old. They only
    sell new ones you see.

    >>>Speaking of hot rods, there's an interesting one locally--it's based on a
    > Citroen 15CV. Yes, it's fascinating that someone put a Chevy engine and
    > rear end in it, though what a shame to chop up what is a quite scarce car
    > on this side of the Atlantic. In this transition, it's lost all of its
    > original French charm that made it uniquely Citroen; now it's just a
    > collection of parts. Hell, it's even lost its famous "traction avant" in
    > this futile attempt to create a better Big 15. Is there a single auto
    > museum that would want this thing in their collection? <<<

    cars, you may be interested in knowing this, don't belong in museums. They
    belong on the road, going vroom vroom... ah, but you keep some old spark
    plugs in a glass case don't you?

    >>what these Land-Rover
    > engine swappers are doing is creating collections of unrelated parts that
    > have no value except to their owners<<<

    so who should your car have a value to, other than yourself? A car thief?

    Best Cheers

    Frank
        +--+--+--+
         I !__| [_]|_\___
         I ____|"_|"__|_ | / B791 PKV
         "(o)======(o)" Bronze Green 110 CSW



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 16:23:25 EDT