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