New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[Pilat]

That said, it's one lie after another with you. And when you get caught out, you pretend that that wasn't what you meant, and then continue to lie.

 

[Pilat]

That wasn't even close to rock crawling. It was dirt. Dirt normally has some rocks in it. They weren't even big enough to crawl over. This is rock crawling:

Ah, I see now: They take a stupid route over those rocks = rock crawling (they could have gone behind the blokes to the right of the vehicle) to show their rock crawler can do it.

And it is rock crawling here, despite there being only a few rocks along a path (that you can see in front of the rock patch), because, well, the dude got some big tyres.

I get it now. If you say something isn't rock crawling, it migh be because the rocks are only parts of a trail, and it will be rock crawling, despite the rocks only being part of a trail. I get it; Reality, consistency, and truthfulness doesn't come into it.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Ah, I see now: They take a stupid route over those rocks = rock crawling (they could have gone behind the blokes to the right of the vehicle) to show their rock crawler can do it.


And it is rock crawling here, despite there being only a few rocks along a path (that you can see in front of the rock patch), because, well, the dude got some big tyres.

I get it now. If you say something isn't rock crawling, it migh be because the rocks are only parts of a trail, and it will be rock crawling, despite the rocks only being part of a trail. I get it; Reality, consistency, and truthfulness doesn't come into it.

Bash rock crawling all you want. It's not my cup of tea either. However, the first video is not rock crawling. The second is, obviously, but I never claimed it wasn't. It was in response to a completely different topic (technology). Quote me.

 

[Pilat]

Bash rock crawling all you want. It's not my cup of tea either. However, the first video is not rock crawling. The second is, obviously, but I never claimed it wasn't. Quote me.

Now you admit that at least one of them is rock crawling. When you posted those two I mentioned "rock crawling", and at that time, you claimed it was wrong of me to consider it rock crawling. Then you got caught lying, and briefly took it back (also a lie), then to mosey on out with what was "real" rock crawling, and here we are again, with you acknowleding that at least one of the videos was indeed rock crawling. Oh, and you did this only after having shot down your "it's rocks on a path so it doesn't count as rock crawling" by posting photos of "real rock crawling" where one of the pictures clearly show that that bit of rock crawling was also part of a path (dirt road with very small rocks).
I guess you have to be in your head to understand all those conflicting ideas and notions.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Now you admit that at least one of them is rock crawling. When you posted those two I mentioned "rock crawling", and at that time, you claimed it was wrong of me to consider it rock crawling. Then you got caught lying, and briefly took it back (also a lie), then to mosey on out with what was "real" rock crawling, and here we are again, with you acknowleding that at least one of the videos was indeed rock crawling. Oh, and you did this only after having shot down your "it's rocks on a path so it doesn't count as rock crawling" by posting photos of "real rock crawling" where one of the pictures clearly show that that bit of rock crawling was also part of a path (dirt road with very small rocks).
I guess you have to be in your head to understand all those conflicting ideas and notions.

Quote me where I lied. You're very confused.

 

[Blaise]

That wasn't even close to rock crawling. It was dirt. Dirt normally has some rocks in it. They weren't even big enough to crawl over. This is rock crawling:

I've been down this trail. In my lifted, rock-rail equipped, manual locker Xterra.

And my buddy who was in his fully locked LC80 invited a friend in his wife's bone stock LR3. I was blown away and that's when I started thinking about an LR3.

Yet here we are thinking that a *newer* LR with *better* angles and *larger* tires and *better* TC/etc will not be good enough.

lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

[Pilat]

The second is, obviously, but I never claimed it wasn't. It was in response to a completely different topic (technology). Quote me.

Here you go. You posted the two videos in this video, claiming they were "real trails" (my emphasis):

Yes, most any vehicle can drive down a dirt road. How are you going to get today's softroaders down a real trail?



Hmm..

To which I responded:

LOL; and we're back to attempted rock crawling. Frigging hilarious.

And here's the clincher: Apparently saying "You think that's rock crawling. It's an uneven dirt road". Doesn't mean what it says.

You think that's rock crawling? It's an uneven dirt road. Very common. Not even close to extreme.

Oh, and just because I figure you need to "clarify" your statements again, I will say that it very obvious you claimed they weren't rock crawling at that point.
But I'd like to add, that according to that last sentence in the above quoted paragraph it can apparently not be called "rock crawling" because it is not "extreme rock crawling".

How do you even get pleasure from discussing things when what you say changes constantly and without any merit to it all?

 

[Pilat]

Quote me where I lied. You're very confused.

I have now. Look above for a couple of instances of this.

But I seriously can't continue to spend time re-quoting your posts to show you were you lied as you do it constantly and from one post to the next. You seem to think that if you just request the quotes time and time again, then you must be right when I stop spending oodles of time doing it time and time again. I have explained your lies and quotes enough.

If you don't get it by now that you will get called out on them, and constantly requesting to be quoted (again!), is not exactly the mark of someone with integrity. A single quote and an explanation should more than suffice. If not, you can look at your own post history and see if there are anything that might spring to mind. If not, you can have a window open with the explanations while you do that. Or you can simply go back to those posts mentioned to get the full context.

Edit: And when confronted with quotes showing exactly what is going, you merely go:

lol. Your quotes are fully vindicating.

So much for your request to be quoted again and again.

 

[leeleatherwood]

Stop bickering back and forth, it's very effete.

 

[DieselRanger]

****, soccer mom? I guess times have gotten tough for my local middle school then if they require 2 factory lockers to make it to practice. Related, are Wranglers "sorority girl" vehicles? Are Hummers for people with tiny genitalia? I'm curious how you've arrived at this conclusion.

Actually, Jeep Wranglers in the 1990s were well known choices of what is now known as the LGBTQ+ community. The Grand Tour even poked fun of this fact in the last season.

Stereotypes are stereotypes, nothing more.

Perhaps @EricTyrrell was concerned that the stunt driver profiled in the recent Bond 25 film's Defender was a woman? Bet she could drive circles around him off-road.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

 

[DieselRanger]

Okay, but in that regard a Porsche 911 is built to perform. If the next 911 was turned into a mid-engine Ferrari looking thing, I'm guessing the 911 fans would be upset. Even if the new car out performed the old. They'd say...hey. It's a great car. But, call it a... Carrera GT or something. Not a 911. I think that is the same sentiment a lot of folk have with the new Defender.

The next one very well may be electric. And all 911s are turbos, but the Turbo is still the Pinnacle of automotive performance. Oh, and remember when they went to a liquid-cooled engine?

The new 911, side by side, looks nothing like the original, except in a vague line drawing profile.

You all are arguing that the 911 should still look exactly like it did in 1963.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

 

[DieselRanger]

You also fell into a trap. How is it a perfect Defender if it is not utilitarian and cannot be field repairable, relying on SOTA for 'field' when there is spotty to no cell service? The new Defender is highly dependent on urban communications infrastructure. The new Defender is like my nephew who came to Colorado and then complained that his cell phone no longer worked in the high country and had to return by the same highway that took him to his pre-booked 'excursion', not able to read a paper map. When he asked "What should I do?" I told him to take his cell phone and toss it in the back seat and learn how to read. Is that why Home Depot realized the younger generation didn't know tools and started a Saturday morning 'Learn to use a hammer' class?

Oh, and let's stop the comparison to the old Defender that had ZERO investment since basically 1983 ................ Most of today's SUV's could follow the old Defender down 90% of trails.

You're not going to be stuck in the field because your software isn't up to date.

Jeeps and Toyotas have a great many computers controlling things like engine management, traction control, infotainment, braking, stability, .... The list goes on. You just have to go to the dealer and pay them money to have them updated.

If you don't like that, go buy a CJ, FJ, or even a Razor quad.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

 

[DieselRanger]

Sure, let's set aside character and appearance, even though many people prefer to enjoy their vehicle too. The luxury Defender is not a tool, unless your Makita comes in an Urban pack. Visit a few construction sites. The people buying "tool" vehicles are buying trucks, utility vans, Jeeps, and UTVs with various implements. These are tools:

And you can't get that "tool" new in the United States because it hasn't been homologated here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

 

[DieselRanger]

You might want to lookup a RAM 3500.

You don't think a RAM 3500 has progressed? It's a rolling supercomputer compared to the original, just like every other vehicle on the road.

It also has to meet lower emissions and different collision standards because of the vehicle class it is in, especially if sold in its Fleet configuration.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

 

[DieselRanger]

Bash rock crawling all you want. It's not my cup of tea either. However, the first video is not rock crawling. The second is, obviously, but I never claimed it wasn't. It was in response to a completely different topic (technology). Quote me.

If it's not your cup of tea, why do you insist the Defender must be a rock crawler to be good?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk