At the risk of bringing down the wrath of the hundreds of gleeful LR
owners (not to mention TeriAnn) I'd like to cast my vote on old Land
Rovers.
Had a 1964 109, petrol 4-banger, purchased new at the Fulham Rd LR
depot in Lunnun. Lived in Cleveland (the mistake on the lake) at the
time and maintained the beast about as well as could be done given the
level of "factory authorised" service available there (two Scots
brothers masquerading as British Engineering). Put about 80,000 miles
on it over ten years. Many of these were on long-distance trips on
interstate highways.
Never again. I could only stand it because I was filled with the
exuberance (and resilience) of youth. All comments regarding the
choppy ride and noise are, if anything, understatements. My complaint
is that the damn thing was as unreliable as any car I have owned, save
one (a Rover 2000. Is there a theme here?) After about the first
20,000 miles, it never had an intact exhaust system. Either the parts
were incorrect, or they were made improperly, but the pipes constantly
broke, usually at the pipe/muffler seal. This led to _three_ valve
jobs (in the aforementioned 80,000 miles). The generator failed
twice. And the rear axles broke four times, shearing off at the diff.
I recall changing one once in a parking lot in Ithaca, NY in the dead
of winter. (To the credit of the designers, this could be done
without jackstands and no more tools than a pair of pliers and a rusty
spoon. I once asked a Britisher why they installed plumbing pipes on
the outside of buildings, who replied "Why, so we can get at them when
they freeze, of course!" Of course.)
Sold it in mid-70's. The purchaser came back furious because the
frame had rotted and there was a lot of electrolytic corrosion on the
body. Cleveland, remember?
Bottom line: You gotta have heart. And don't get one from anywhere
north of the Mason-Dixon line.
A. B. Bonds
|