>They didn't make the modules IP68 or that fact would be touted all over the brochures. Just because it is possible to build things to IP68 standards does not mean they built their car that way.
>So you're saying you wouldn't do X with your Land Rover, but "It's the best one they ever made", even after I informed you they left a 1980s Range Rover at the bottom of a river completely submerged for DAYS and it still ran fine and probably still exists out there. Interesting.
yeah, I'm saying I wouldn't intentionally leave my vehicle with the doors open in over 36 inches of water, because I don't want it to end up with evidence that it was in a "flood" such as having to replace carpet and clean silt out of seat rails and such, should I ever decide to sell or trade it. Would you do that to yours? No, didn't think so, but if I'm wrong, enjoy yourself. But as I said, if I ended up in that situation for whatever reason, I'm confident I could start it, drive out and get home safely, which is what matters.
Land Rover touts the D5's ability to drive better off-road than anything it's ever built, and it does. That's all that's necessary. The fact that they did let it sit in a pond for an hour and it still started and drove out seems to indicate there is a level of waterproofing in the electronics. Don't care how they do it and neither do most consumers. Sure, a Range Rover started after several days underwater. Super. You could probably do the same with a 1940 Ford pickup after taking the same actions they took with the Rangie. Not saying older LR vehicles weren't spectacular - just that this one is more capable off-road than anything they've ever built. I don't believe you would leave yours at the bottom of a river for four days just because you could, would you? Again, no, I didn't think so.
>D5 is not using galvanized steel. ZA land rovers 20 years ago already used galv frames.
The body panels are aluminum but structural members are high-strength steel, a type of steel that was not in automotive use 20 years ago. Aluminum doesn't rust or corrode like steel does, but any steel will rust without alloying with other metals or applying an anti-corrosion coating. Zinc and nickel are still the most widely-used anti-corrosion coatings used for steel, but today, as opposed to 20 years ago, they're mixed into paint and applied via electro-coating. Electro-coating is far more effective at penetrating nooks and crannies that could not be reached in the older hot-dip method, and the bonding to the steel is more consistent. If you use zinc, it's called "galvanization". It's not pure zinc, so sure, that's an inaccurate term by itself.
>and yet I have yet to find one that rusted because of fording rivers. 20 years in salt, sure. You are still being hyperbolic. Where are you getting this amazing info from? I can walk outside and look at two cars right now that are 20+ years old with minimal rust issues and both have been forded.
I gave you links to two vehicles plus a post describing the most common places rust can be found on D1/D2's. If you live in a nonzero-humidity environment - and yes, if you don't have a spacesuit on, you do - then rust will happen. It typcially happens at places where steel is bolted together, where it flexes, and anywhere water pools. Show me a vehicle that's been forded, or even driven in a rainy climate, and if it's old enough, I will show you rust. Unless owners were fastidious in scrubbing and painting these areas and they habitually garaged them, over time rust will be an issue, as evidenced by the links I gave you. Mine will have rust too, eventually, but I will wager that because of the application of newer technology, given the same use and same time, newer vehicles will rust less. Sorry, there are probably places on the two vehicles you have that are rusting worse than you can see. It's not your fault, it's chemistry.
>Lol an 8274 is a Warn. Pick between an accessible tray and a hidden behind the bumper fascia tray, and then try removing it for service, service it in situ, replace the solenoids, wire one up. One is better for working, and one looks better. I encourage the working platform.
For convenience, sure, an external winch is preferred. But the bolt-in recessed ones already on the market only take a few minutes on a jackstand to remove and service.
>Have you compared the "beefier" axles? CT vehicles were built off the factory line with commercially available parts. They were not "modified", as someone noted above this was a One Ten V8 configuration given to event vehicles. Land Rover was building salisbury front and rear axles since the 1970s, and see also the Wolf axle program the army demanded. CT axles are just normal stuff. They look like Land Rover axles, nothing special.
Ah, so the event vehicles with the "better" pinon and axles were built specifically for the event using an axle made for another model, a configuration that wasn't available to the consumer, but they weren't "modified." OK....
>My only major issue with what you say is:
D5 is not the best Land Rover they ever made. Almost objectively so.
It has not proven itself enough, it is not cheap enough, it is not robust enough, it is not versatile enough. The only thing you might say about it is that it is a nice car, and is probably one of the safest land rovers they ever built but even then, the sentinel program exists and those are safer. It has maybe the best traction computer in it, sure. You have a super cool, super nice to drive, super sophisticated car. You do not need to prove to the internet how nice it is. But when you say absolutes like oh its the best ever, I'm going to tell you "nah man.... it isn't..."
Not trying to prove how "nice" it is. I don't think anyone disputes that. You're right, "best" is subjective because, obviously, many don't like the way it looks, or its price, or whatever. It's the "best" to me. But it is, demonstrably and without question, the most capable vehicle they have ever built. What would it take to "prove" it to you? Does it need to go through a Camel Trophy and then still be around 20 years later? If so, that may be an impossible standard to meet since there is no CT any more. Your opinion of its robustness is based on your disdain for independent suspension as a concept, which has been proven over and over again on the toughest races on the planet. And your distrust of electrons, despite thousands - perhaps tens of thousands - of hours of engineering and testing and over a million miles of real-world testing, which were not applied to Land Rovers (clearly) prior to and even during the early Ford years. Certainly not when Lucas supplied wiring harnesses.
