Weighing in from the Yank perspective -- aw quiet down, I haven't said anything bad yet!...
I owned a few Jap and US trucks over the years. They all seemed competent and reliable enough. I used a Mitsu Pajero (badged as a Dodge Raider in the US) as a daily driver and off road toy for several years. In 2001 I finally gave in to a life long itch and bought a Land Rover, a 1992 Range Rover County SWB, what would be a Vogue here. Despite it having a lot of power modcons, which I usually avoid, it was a revelation. The ride on road was comfortable, and the seating position and view of the road was excellent. OK, the 3.9 V8 was thirsty (in fact "Thirsty" became the truck's name), and it didn't provide amazing on road power, but it was simple to work on and even at US prices, it wasn't a lot of money to deal with all the usual wear/deferred maintenance issues to get a good reliable runner. And yes, the trim bits inside seemed to be made of hard candy rather than any useful form of plastic, but there are lots of dead RRC's in the US to scavenge.
But after the first off roading trip, I knew I would never own another brand of 4x4. Once the RRC was on the dirt, everything came together. The suspension compliance was remarkable; it soaked up rough trial like a magic carpet. The V8's torque combined perfectly with the ratios in the 4HP22. It would crawl up and down steep terrain in low range like, uh, like... Well like a Land Rover, there's nothing else that does it like that!
My experience with the RRC was a revelation in another way -- the mechanical simplicity. The chassis, suspension and drive train are simple and sturdy. The front CV's, hidden in swivels, looked like a nightmare waiting to happen, but turned out to be something you could r&r on the trial in an hour. Prop shafts were equipped with normal U-joints, easy to replace. Rear axles were a 5 minute swap! Steering was very conventional, and if something got bent on the trail, a little hammer massage or a bit of work with a ratchet strap and it would get you home.
When I came to the UK nearly two years ago, I knew I would end up buying a "real" Land Rover, which in my definition is a Defender. In reality, I bought 2 -- an early production A reg 110 (Sept 1983 build), and a 1995 Defender 110. Both were SORN, and now two have become one -- the 1995 donated its complete low-mileage 300TDi drivetrain and some body panels to complete the A reg 110, which had been scavenged of its 200TDi and front body for another truck being rebuilt.
I personally don't buy into the "unreliable Land Rover" stereotype. My experience in the US is that since Land Rovers are premium priced, and the dealer network charges an arm and a leg for service, once the original purchaser moves on, depreciation sets in fast and the next 3 or 4 owners don't do the needful. Lack of maintenance leads to mechanical failures, it's inevitable. Once I corrected the things that resulted from deferred maintenance, my truck was stone reliable for two years (and I expect it would have soldiered on a for a few more, had I not suffered a moment of inattention at the wrong time and wound up wheels up). And even before it was all sorted, it never stranded me -- and that was a petrol V8 with 150,000 miles on it, running a 14CUX! I'm not ignorant of some of the electrical foibles in RR's and Discos over the years, but other makes have similar issues. Read the message boards of any brand, and you'll find the "stickies" with solutions for this or that common complaint.
Another thing people seem to forget is how slowly the LR changed. That is a good thing in terms of it's intended use, in severe conditions, off road, in remote places where parts could be scarce. The type of things being seen as reliability issues in the 80's would not have been viewed the same in the 60's. An 80's LR was still a 60's LR, just built more recently. Up until the TD5, the Defender could be had electronics-free, a remarkable thing in the late 1990's. I love the simplicity of my 110, in particular the 300TDi, with no ECU. If needed, it can run without any supply of electricity. That is comforting when you intend to use the vehicle for trips where you may be away from settled areas for days on end.
I'll also accept that Land Rover axles are not the strongest. I've never broken one, but I have friends who have. This was usually when attempting difficult terrain, using a locker, and/or with larger than standard tires. Even Land Rover acknowledged their weakness and licensed the Dana 60 for the back of LWB's beginning with the 109, used a 4 pin diff for early V8's and again in the P38. I don't know why LR has never beefed up the axles (or galvanised the frames, or properly rustproofed the bulkheads...), but I have a theory on why they are how they are. When Rover created the LR, they were often up-engineering existing Rover parts. The long-serving 3rd member used in Series LR's up through the latest Defenders began life in a passenger car. Toyota and Nissan entered the market using parts down-engineered from commercial vehicles, which were stronger. Jeep was built to Mil-Spec, again from truck parts, and over the years adopted the Dana axle, which has been at home under every US-made light truck at one time or another.
My usual response to people who want to have the "my Toy/Nissan/GWagen/Jeep is better than a Land Rover" argument is to say "I'm sure it's better for you -- but the Land Rover is better for me and my needs." For me the 110 is perfect. It's big enough for how I use it, but not nearly as big as a US full size SUV, or even a late model LC. It is simple and reliable. Most of the body is made of panels that can be hand formed in the shed if need be. The electrics are dead simple and can be patched around in a pinch. The 300TDi is stout and will run on damn near anything from melted Yak butter to used motor oil. If the turbo dies, I can run without it. If I break an axle, it's an easy fix, and if I can't make the repair, I can lock the center diff and keep moving. The only thing I wish I could change is to somehow eliminate the cam belt, but if I replace it regularly it really shouldn't be an issue.
The comments about patriotism, quality of UK manufactured goods, labor cost, etc. are interesting. I am old enough to remember the output of the UK motor industry before the BL consolidation and the ugly 80's. Jaguar, Aston Martin, Rolls Royce, Bristol -- those names mean superior engineering to me. Likewise British tools, British electronics (Quad, Leak, SME, Linn, Rega, Wharfdale, Thorens! What a list!). And look back into history -- Bacon, Halley, Boyle, Hook, Newton -- or more recent -- Issigonis, Chapman, Mclaren (OK, a Kiwi) -- lots of big brains and amazing inventiveness on these little islands.
Did unions and socialism kill industry? Meh. They created challenges, but entrepreneurs have been leveraging challenges to make money for centuries. My perspective, from a lifetime in the consumer products industry on the other side of the pond (and a fair bit on the other side of the world), points the finger in a slightly different direction. What killed manufacturing in the UK, and the US? The stock market. Specifically, the stock market's growing focus on quarterly profits of public companies.
In an unstable environment (the economy), how do you deliver profits and hit specific targets every quarter? Well, realistically you don't. But as the number of people making their living trading stocks grew from thousands in a few western countries to hundreds of thousands globally, and a few thousand large institutional investors began demanding continual profits, and boards of directors started holding CEO's accountable for those constant gains, the game changed. In the last 30 years, the business of business has changed from creating a product to "creating shareholder value". Shareholder value = stock price. The biggest, most highly valued companies used to be the ones that made the most demanded products, or provided the most valuable services. Now that is secondary to stock performance.
I've seen the same pattern over and over again in my career. Strategies are established, plans are made, projects are launched. Everyone from the mailroom to the boardroom agrees that the company should invest in capacity, develop people, build market, yada, yada, whatever. Then the CFO calls the CEO and says "Hey Chuck, I think we might be a bit short on the Q3 target." Oh, No! The Street (or the City) will not take that well! Our stock price will plummet! Quick -- cancel all the capital investments. Lay off 15% of the workforce. Trim the development budgets and kill half of the new product introductions.
Chuck calls Fred, and Fred reports that the numbers are back on track. Chuck is a hero, the board rewards him with a huge bonus and a new contact with a golden parachute. Two years later, the company goes bust because it failed to invest for the future. Chuck, Fred, the board, they all fall into their pile of money and are none the worse for wear. The rest of the company fares somewhere between OK and destitute. And of course, the failure of this company ripples out to their suppliers, and in a few years some of them go bust. Others are gobbled up in acquisitions, which usually end with at least some of the existing staff released and parts of the business sold off or shut down. Competition decreases, so prices go up, quality goes down, and manufacturing seeks the lowest price with the smallest capital commitment.
Welcome to 2011. How are your stocks doing?
