LRO: Re: Heritage misconceptions (was Leaf vs Coil....)

From: Frank Elson (frankelson@felson.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 17:20:11 EDT

  • Next message: Ivan Van Laningham: "Re: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)"

    I was with you, cheering on the sidelines Marin, right up until you got into
    the retro thing...
    why, if up-to-date manufacturers don't want to know about earlier models, do
    they then turn around and try to sell modern vehicles on the backs of older
    models?

    my brain hurts, I'll have another Jameson.
    Best Cheers

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

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Faure, Marin <Marin.Faure@PSS.Boeing.com>
    To: 'Land Rover Mail Group' <LRO@Works.Team.Net>
    Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 5:51 PM
    Subject: LRO: Heritage misconceptions (was Leaf vs Coil....)

    > Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:40:14 EDT
    > From: Eyekelly@aol.com
    > Subject: Re: LRO: Leaf vs coil attitude, you guys have it made
    >
    > > I was amused to read an ad in the local
    > newspaper for the very same vehicle which was advertised as a 1973 Land
    Rover
    > Defender.
    >
    > Had a fellow in the early 1990s pull into a service station in his Range
    Rover as I
    > was fueling our Range Rover. He walked over and made a few comments, in
    > the course of which he expressed surprise that an automotive company that
    > had been in business only since 1987 (the year the Range Rover was
    officially
    > introduced in the US) could develop such a good vehicle in such a short
    time.
    > He was convinced Land Rover had been incorporated in 1987, and the Range
    > Rover was their first and (at that time) only product. It wasn't worth
    the time
    > and effort to set him straight.
    >
    > I don't fault Land Rover North America for ignoring the heritage of
    today's
    > Land Rovers other than as a way to continue the "mystique" they've
    successfully
    > surrounded the brand with. After all, you don't see Ford trying to link
    their
    > lineage to the Model A or Chevy to the '57 Belair. Just as at Boeing, we
    > don't try to hang our hat on the 307 Stratoliner or the 707. Companies
    are
    > in the business of selling what's now and what's coming, not what's past.
    > Don't forget, to the manufacturers, and to their distributors and dealers,
    a
    > vehicle is a throwaway item. They WANT you to get rid of it ASAP, so
    > you'll buy a new one. They have to tread a fine line between their desire
    > to build something that self-destructs after a few years and the
    consumer's
    > demand for something that lasts a long time. So they want you to be
    always
    > thinking of the most current model.
    >
    > Also, the turnover at auto dealerships is pretty high. Drive onto a lot
    and
    > I suspect the average age of the salespeople is late 20s, early 30s.
    Unless
    > one of them is a true enthusiast, I wouldn't expect any of them to know
    any
    > more about Series Land Rovers than what's contained in the distributor's
    > literature, which isn't much. To them, the Land Rover-shaped vehicle is
    > a Defender, so it doesn't surprise me that a US dealer would apply that
    > label to a 1970s vintage Series.
    >
    > Speaking of vintage, you all know that Ford has "reissued" the Thunderbird
    > as a retro design. Well, I saw one of these things the other week while
    > driving through a town east of Seattle. It's huge. It was considerably
    bigger than
    > the BMW 635 I was driving at the time. There are a few design details
    > that are reminiscent of the Thunderbird, but so far as I could see as
    > I passed it (it was parked), most of the "retro" is in the mind of the
    designer.
    > I seem to recall the fellow who did the T-Bird retro is the same guy who
    did the
    > VW Beetle retro, which isn't half bad. But he sure missed on the T-Bird,
    > unless it's supposed to be retro to one of the later 1960s models. I
    assumed
    > it was supposed to reflect the original mid-50s design.
    > ___________________________
    > C. Marin Faure
    > (original owner)
    > 1973 Land Rover Series III-88
    > 1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
    > Seattle
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 03 2001 - 15:06:59 EDT