Subject: LRO: New vs. old reliability (was long and kinda....)

From: "C. Marin Faure" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:19:41 -0700

>>> [email-masked] 06/29/01 03:41PM >>>

>But dont try and tell me
that a 10 yo EFI vehicle is more reliable then a Series vehicle would have
been when it was 10 years old.  And if you believe that a coiler is more
reliable then a leafer how about a $for$ comparison.

I think your point is a bit apples and oranges.  If by reliable you mean
less things to go wrong with it, you are right.  But this holds true of ANY
type of machine, be it a vehicle, airplane, or can opener.  A Boeing 727
has less to go wrong than a Boeing 777.  A Series has less to go wrong for
the same reason-  there's less of it.  A Discovery, Range Rover, Nissan
Xterra or any other new 4wd you care to mention has a much greater number
of systems, and so has more to go wrong.  In that sense, they could be
considered less reliable.

But the real comparison should not be between the simplicity of the
vehicles, but with their actual reliability records.  I have owned a Series
III for 28 years, since it was new.  In all that time I've replaced leaking
hub seals, adjusted valves several times a year, replaced carburetors,
adjusted carburetors, replaced hydraulic clutch and brake components,
replaced a water pump, replaced an alternator, replaced the seats, replaced
the radiator, and a whole host of other maintenance and repair items.  The
Series, by its very design, needed routine maintenance and adjustment from
the day it was new.

We've owned a 1991 Range Rover since it was new.  We've put about 120,000
miles on it in its first ten years.  It is a far more complex vehicle than
the Series.  I've had to fix and replace things on it, true.  But I have
spent WAY less time maintaining or repairing it than I have the Land Rover.
Despite the fact the Range Rover has a lot more parts and systems than the
Series, it has in fact needed very little attention compared to the Series.
And even though some of the things I've had to replace on the Range Rover
have been expensive (ABS computer- $1,200), I suspect if I added up all the
money I've spent on the SIII in 28 years, adjusted it for inflation (or
maybe not even that) it would total more than what we've spent on the
expensive, but few repairs to the Range Rover.

Neither vehicle has so far broken down on the road.  So in that respect,
their reliability has so far been excellent and equal.  But in terms of the
effort to keep them running correctly, the Range Rover has been far easier
and less time consuming than the Series.  So at this point (who knows what
will break tomorrow?) I would say the Range Rover, with all its window and
seat switches, central door locking, air conditioning, ABS, engine control
computer, etc., is actually the more reliable vehicle.

That, I think, is the true way to compare reliability.  The Series is
simpler, but the technology available at the time of its design renders it
a lot more work to keep running.  Most of today's vehicles, despite their
incredible complexity, border on the drive-and-forget level of reliability
because the technology has advanced so far.

That doesn't automatically make a Defender better than a Series.  From
everything I hear from people in a position to know, the Defender's
construction isn't nearly as robust as the Series.  In some situations,
leaf springs are better than coil springs.  A low-horsepower, high-torque
four banger is sometimes better than a V-8 (I'm talking about a US-spec
Defender, here).  And the Series is certainly easier to work on.  But in
terms of reliability, assuming you define that as how often it has to be
worked on because it breaks or needs adjustment, I would say the Defender
is worlds more reliable than the Series.

________________________
C. Marin Faure
  (original owner)
  1973 Land Rover Series III-88
  1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
   Seattle, WA