My Angry Defender Rant.
- Thread starter MattScott
- Start date
Alaska Mike
ExPo Moderator/Eye Candy
michaelgroves said:
I was into rock crawling at the time, so I doubt it would have fared well over time.
4Rescue
Expedition Leader
... I'm sorry... Land Rover what??? That's beautiful and if I'm correct it was in teh Readers Rides Section of Petersens a few years back???7wt said:
Let's get this back on topic. All this strife over a poorly chosen post is silly, let's drop it eh
What i find kind of funny about all this is that if you loow at say an M38A1, and FJ40 and a Series III Swb Rover they all kind of look like the same basic boxy narrow hood seperate fender truck... Clearly they were all gunning for the same concept and all of them hit the nail squarely on the head. I'm just happy these trucks have been around of all three, well 4 if you count the patrol, makes for me to drool over. I prefer toyotas for various reasons, but hey that's just me.
How simillar are the Defenders to say a Series III Rover??? Like in terms of being able to dismantle the thing and build it to suit. For instance, I see alot fo these serious trail rigs from over in Europe and the UK and alot of them have no rear quarter windows. Are these just different hard tops? I keep thinking about buying a second HT for my 4 RUnner and "camperizing it so I could just take out the roll bar and drop on the camper.
Cheers
Dave
Last edited:
Alaska Mike
ExPo Moderator/Eye Candy
4Rescue said:
A Defender to Series is kinda like the evolution from the Jeep CJ to the TJ. Creature comforts and performance were improved, suspensions moved to coils... There was a certainly part of that evolution when the utility vehicle became a sport utility to appeal to a broader market. However, the bones are there. Still a body-on-frame design with bolt-on construction, making for a very versatile vehicle in terms of configuration.
I have a soft place in my heart for vehicles that primarily have flat body panels.
michaelgroves
Explorer
I don't generally like it when threads get moderated, but Zooropa, lighten up! You made your point, and in principle, I am sure everyone agrees - Being Offensive, Bad.
Personally, I can't see why it would be considered an epithet to refer to a Japanese vehicle as a "rice burner". The only offensive part might be the context: "I'd never drive a rice-burner", kind of lumps all Japanese cars together, and implies that the car being Japanese is sufficient reason in itself.
It's human nature (and useful) to be able to generalise - we talk about Yank Tanks (American cars tend to be big), oil-burners (diesels tend to be smelly and smoky), pocket rockets (hatch-backs tend to be small and fast), etc. Japanese people tend to eat rice, so calling their cars rice-burners is just an amusing turn of phrase. It's only when the term used implies something derogatory about people, that generalisations are unacceptable.
Finally, the most important thing is the intention behind the term. Do you think Teri-Ann intended it to be pejorative? No. So, if you were personally offended, a PM (or a one-liner if you were really outraged) would have sufficed. Your assuming the role of public social acceptability judge over such a trifle is far more offensive than Teri-Ann's (all-but-imagined) gaffe. I would have been livid.
Personally, I can't see why it would be considered an epithet to refer to a Japanese vehicle as a "rice burner". The only offensive part might be the context: "I'd never drive a rice-burner", kind of lumps all Japanese cars together, and implies that the car being Japanese is sufficient reason in itself.
It's human nature (and useful) to be able to generalise - we talk about Yank Tanks (American cars tend to be big), oil-burners (diesels tend to be smelly and smoky), pocket rockets (hatch-backs tend to be small and fast), etc. Japanese people tend to eat rice, so calling their cars rice-burners is just an amusing turn of phrase. It's only when the term used implies something derogatory about people, that generalisations are unacceptable.
Finally, the most important thing is the intention behind the term. Do you think Teri-Ann intended it to be pejorative? No. So, if you were personally offended, a PM (or a one-liner if you were really outraged) would have sufficed. Your assuming the role of public social acceptability judge over such a trifle is far more offensive than Teri-Ann's (all-but-imagined) gaffe. I would have been livid.
VermontOverland
Explorer
Ah, the original post reminds me of the story about the truck and the trip.
You see, there are many who trip about nothing but the truck. Then there are some who trip more about the truck and less about the trip, or, at the very least, they're not interested in the trip unless it's in the truck and all the trucks on the trip are the same as the truck the many are in on the trip. Even if the truck can't make the trip, no problem because you have the truck, even if the truck costs lots and lots of buck in order to make the trip.
But then there are those who trip about, well, the actual trip. These trippy truckers are less about the truck and more about the trip. For these folks, missing the trip because of the truck going to muck or because it requires too much buck is more than just bad luck. In fact, it would suck. For these, saving your buck for the trip and not spending it on the truck is more than just good luck. It just might even get you to ReykjavUCK.
You see, there are many who trip about nothing but the truck. Then there are some who trip more about the truck and less about the trip, or, at the very least, they're not interested in the trip unless it's in the truck and all the trucks on the trip are the same as the truck the many are in on the trip. Even if the truck can't make the trip, no problem because you have the truck, even if the truck costs lots and lots of buck in order to make the trip.
But then there are those who trip about, well, the actual trip. These trippy truckers are less about the truck and more about the trip. For these folks, missing the trip because of the truck going to muck or because it requires too much buck is more than just bad luck. In fact, it would suck. For these, saving your buck for the trip and not spending it on the truck is more than just good luck. It just might even get you to ReykjavUCK.
Last edited:
VermontOverland
Explorer
Sorry, just trying to throw a little humor in and add my 2c to anti-hijack the thread back to the excellent questions raised in the original post.
Streakerfreak
Jan-Kee
VermontOverland said:Ah, the original post reminds me of the story about the truck and the trip.
You see, there are many who trip about nothing but the truck. Then there are some who trip more about the truck and less about the trip, or, at the very least, they're not interested in the trip unless it's in the truck and all the trucks on the trip are the same as the truck the many are in on the trip. Even if the truck can't make the trip, no problem because you have the truck, even if the truck costs lots and lots of buck in order to make the trip.
But then there are those who trip about, well, the actual trip. These trippy truckers are less about the truck and more about the trip. For these folks, missing the trip because of the truck going to muck or because it requires too much buck is more than just bad luck. In fact, it would suck. For these, saving your buck for the trip and not spending it on the truck is more than just good luck. It just might even get you to ReykjavUCK.
LOL, my head hurts now.
VermontOverland
Explorer
That's riotous, J-L! Glad to know someone else has had too much coffee on this snowy northeast morning.
revor
Explorer
Sorry, I'm a horrible poet... LOL!
Why a Defender
I've currently got my 110, two D1's and a S2A, I've had RRC's too.
In the past, numerous FJ40's, Hilux Pickups, Jeeps, Dodge Forest Service trucks, Military trucks and even a Trooper.Ford's Dodges,Isuzu's Toyota's, GM and Jeep.
They all provided me with great experiences loads of fun and more great memories than any one person should be allowed.
Exploring the Western USA and Mexico.
The 110 was my most recent purchase and aside from the few new vehicles I have purchased over the years it was the most expensive.
I went over it in my head a lot. For what I spent on theis truck I could have two FJ80's in top condition, and a whole herd of D1's and RRC's.
Physically it's an aluminum box on wheels,I'll need to put in a roll cage, the heater is pathetic, the wipers are crummy at best, I wear a rain hat in the truck when it rains and use an ice scraper on the inside when it snows.
But the seats fit me nicely (don't ask this question to my log legged 12 year old when he has to sit in the back though). The dashlights are akin to glow worms and the ignition switch is on the wrong side of the steering column (well the steering column is on the wrong side of the car too).
Underneath it's got a great frame and suspension. But the frame holds water and mud like a safe and they rust because of it.
It came with a 300tdi Nice little tractor motor, get's about 22 MPG, Could be a bit more modern I suppose what about that Brazilian 2.8? And the R380 it's a good tranny for the application (could use a lower first gear and that gap between 2nd and 3rd is like the grand canyon) The LT230 is a great Transfer case! But why change T case ratio's instead of diff ratios for the heavier trucks?
That's right there's those LR Diffs that can break with low gears!
The Salisbury, now there's a tough pice of kit! A Dana 60 in British trim! But 24 spline axles? One could easily fit 30's or even 35's.
The brakes are decent.
That front diff though... Ugh... Easy enough, I guess, to fit a FJ80 diff in there... And the CV's Try as they might (I don't think they tried) LR could have had a great set up there from the existing parts bin. I'll have to fix that.
Cr_p! I've got a lot of mod's to do to get this thing! Why on earth?
It's simple, tough, easy to modify.
So far in a Year it's provided some great memories and loads of fun over the course of 4 or 5 trips
I blame Marlin Perkins... Even though those would have been Series trucks back then. It's the Romance coupled with capability, the head turning, the fact that it's not the same as the others. Superior in many ways but in many ways not. It's a Defender.
I don't know if it's worth the $$. To me it apparently was, although I wish it didn't need to be that way, but then everyone would have one. Silly? Yes, Exclusive? Yes. Fiscally responsable? Maybe, but only if I ever sold it.
Of course now I've just finished "First Overland" and now I want a Series 1 88"SW so bad I can taste it!
Why a Defender
I've currently got my 110, two D1's and a S2A, I've had RRC's too.
In the past, numerous FJ40's, Hilux Pickups, Jeeps, Dodge Forest Service trucks, Military trucks and even a Trooper.Ford's Dodges,Isuzu's Toyota's, GM and Jeep.
They all provided me with great experiences loads of fun and more great memories than any one person should be allowed.
Exploring the Western USA and Mexico.
The 110 was my most recent purchase and aside from the few new vehicles I have purchased over the years it was the most expensive.
I went over it in my head a lot. For what I spent on theis truck I could have two FJ80's in top condition, and a whole herd of D1's and RRC's.
Physically it's an aluminum box on wheels,I'll need to put in a roll cage, the heater is pathetic, the wipers are crummy at best, I wear a rain hat in the truck when it rains and use an ice scraper on the inside when it snows.
But the seats fit me nicely (don't ask this question to my log legged 12 year old when he has to sit in the back though). The dashlights are akin to glow worms and the ignition switch is on the wrong side of the steering column (well the steering column is on the wrong side of the car too).
Underneath it's got a great frame and suspension. But the frame holds water and mud like a safe and they rust because of it.
It came with a 300tdi Nice little tractor motor, get's about 22 MPG, Could be a bit more modern I suppose what about that Brazilian 2.8? And the R380 it's a good tranny for the application (could use a lower first gear and that gap between 2nd and 3rd is like the grand canyon) The LT230 is a great Transfer case! But why change T case ratio's instead of diff ratios for the heavier trucks?
That's right there's those LR Diffs that can break with low gears!
The Salisbury, now there's a tough pice of kit! A Dana 60 in British trim! But 24 spline axles? One could easily fit 30's or even 35's.
The brakes are decent.
That front diff though... Ugh... Easy enough, I guess, to fit a FJ80 diff in there... And the CV's Try as they might (I don't think they tried) LR could have had a great set up there from the existing parts bin. I'll have to fix that.
Cr_p! I've got a lot of mod's to do to get this thing! Why on earth?
It's simple, tough, easy to modify.
So far in a Year it's provided some great memories and loads of fun over the course of 4 or 5 trips
I blame Marlin Perkins... Even though those would have been Series trucks back then. It's the Romance coupled with capability, the head turning, the fact that it's not the same as the others. Superior in many ways but in many ways not. It's a Defender.
I don't know if it's worth the $$. To me it apparently was, although I wish it didn't need to be that way, but then everyone would have one. Silly? Yes, Exclusive? Yes. Fiscally responsable? Maybe, but only if I ever sold it.
Of course now I've just finished "First Overland" and now I want a Series 1 88"SW so bad I can taste it!
Similar threads
