Talk:Land Rover

Opening paragraph?

The opening sentence lists Land Rover as an 'all-terrain vehicle and Multi Purpose Vehicle (MPV) manufacturer'. Surely an MPV is an on-road people carrier-type vehicle such as a Renault Scenic or a Vauxhall Meriva? Certainly the Wikipedia article on MPVs makes no mention of 4x4/SUV/cross-over vehicles. Would it make more sense to reduce the sentence to just 'all-terrain vehicle manufacturer'? This would encompass all the LR products, as not all are SUVs (under some definitions of that term, only the Freelander would be an SUV, but the Defender certainly isn't an SUV by any realistic definition) and not all are 'off-road vehicles'. In the UK they could all be called '4x4s' or '4-wheel drives' but I'm not sure on how widespread these terms are for these sorts of vehicles. I was going to edit this out, but wanted to check my understanding of an MPV wasn't wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozg44 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rhinos

Removed:

Rhinos are often associated with Land Rovers - specifically Rovers being charged by rhinos. This is mainly due to the popularity of Land Rovers in Africa. The reason rhinos charge Rovers is not because they're angry, but because they're trying to mate - the vehicle is about the right size, and rhinos have very small brains!

Is this really true or just a cute piece of marketing? --Robert Merkel

From what I understand, this is actually true. Changed to "it is said..." and copyedit and reinsterted. --User:Justfred

---

LOL There is no evidence that Land Rovers will get charged more than any other vehicle, what complete tripe. The likelyhood of getting charged has to do with the inclination and temperament of the Rhino at hand and how sensible the driver of the vehicle is and diddly squat to do with the marque of vehicle. For instance Black Rhinos are very much more aggressive and bad tempered than White Rhinos and require much more caution. I live in South Africa and travel very frequently thorought Southern Africa and have heard no special association of LR with Rhinos. Oh and Rhinos are rather rare in Africa especially black rhinos. Most are in Southern Africa.

The popularity of the Land Rover in Africa is a myth. True, you see a goodly few in Kenya but in most African countries the Land Rover is outsold by the Toyota Land Cruiser which is ubiquitous, especially in the more remote areas. Indeed in some countries, such as Botswana and Namibia Land Rover is practically a swear word! There are hugely more Toyota Dealers in Africa than LR dealers making parts and back up much easier. Go check the respective websites for LR and Toyota in Botswana, Namibia, Mosambique, Zambia and see what I mean.

Same thing in Australia, you only see Land Rovers in any numbers in town driven by urbanite yuppies. In the outback it's literally mainly Cruisers because Cruisers outsell all other marques, including LR.

None of the aid agencies use Land Rovers, UNHCR, UN Medicines Sans Frontiers its mainly Cruisers with the occassional Nissan Patrol.

>According to some estimates, 80% of all Land Rovers manufactured (since 1947) are still in use< I think this is a myth, an urban legend. I've heard this many times but I'd yet to see a reliable source?

>They are also used by military forces worldwide. < Not true, they are used by military forces in many countries that were part of the British sphere of influence, such as Botswana. However it is notable that in the UK armed forces the very expensive Pinzgauer is appearing increasingly in the roles formerly occupied by the Land Rover Defender.

BJS - 11th Sep, 2005: LR's are actually used quite extensively around the world, and are currently enjoying a renaissance of sorts. The author of this article obviously has a bent towards Toyotas. LR's last. That's why they're used. Many countries still under British inlfuence still use LR's. The negative tone of this article is simply without merit or justification.

---

This section: "Challenge of Japanese makes" does appear to be oddly biased towards the Toyota Land Cruiser and not entirely relevant to the article. One of the reasons you see these vehicles as opposed to Land Rovers is simply because they are cheaper. There are some tasks that the Land Rover Defender (because of the low-down torque) can undertake that other vehicles cannot. So people use them. I've often seen Land Cruisers being winched out of ruts by Land Rovers, but if I was writing a piece on The Toyota I would not not necessarily mention it.

---

"Many of the service problems can be traced to the obsolete power train of the Discovery and Defender models. Produced under license by Land Rover, the Discovery's and Defender's engine was designed in the late 1950s by General Motors for Buick. Buick stopped production of the engine in the early 1960s because of faulty head gaskets, which remains a major problem today."

I would like some source to support the above assertion that the current and recent V8, TD5 and TDI engines are derived from General motors or Buick power plants. By far and away most Discos and Defenders sold in the UK are diesels and I don’t think the previous TDI and current TD5 powerplant has any connection with GM whatsoever.

It therefore follows that this would make the quoted paragraph erroneous because hardly any of the problems with the LR marque in the UK in various Which/ JD Powers etc surveys (and one recent one from JD Powers in Germany I've just noticed not yet quoted in the Land Rover ‘hall of shame’ list) would relate to the ‘obsolete power train’ derived from a GM product.--Nick-in-South-Africa 17:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please pardon my mistake, I was only referring to the petrol Land Rovers (diesel Land Rovers are not imported to North America). The petrol V8 engine is GM/Buick engineered [1], and is an absolute nightmare in terms of reliability (as a Land Rover service advisor, I observed that almost every engine needed at least some major work in the lifetime of the vehicle, as opposed to more reliable makes.) I am not downplaying other service issues such as the common air suspension faults or electrical/computer issues, these should probably become more satisfactory once Land Rover is more integrated with the Ford/Jaguar product line. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dick interesting that you are a service advisor so you have a powerful anecdotal handle on the problems in LR, I will qualify your remarks for the US market. Also didn’t mention the problems with the Softroader Freelander which has the Td4 Diesel engine, this is essentially the same engine as in the BMW 3.2 which I don’t think you get in the US but is very popular in Europe, the UK and South Africa.

All that said Defenders and Discos from my anecdotal experience, are rife with QA and design quality issues, many not related to power plants. One example they pop half shafts under tough conditions all too easily. I’ve toned my comment way, way down and not mentioned a massive catalogue of anecdotes because I am well aware of the problems with anacdotal evidence. So I have only referred to published surveys to keep the entry very NPOV, however this list is still not complete. I do hope that Ford can pull the thing together, they have done pretty well with other niche players such Jag, Volvo and Aston Martin. However they have their work cut out - BMW execs according to Fortune magazine described the Rover Group as 'the English Patient'; a rare piece of Teutonic humour.

After going over my edit, I think it would be best if I did not edit this article further. Since my knowledge is very specific, and North America centric, I think obtaining the information from an Internet source rather than first hand experience would be more NPOV. However, since pictures aren't biased, I will take some for this article. --H CHENEY 02:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think you are too harsh on your self, if you know about Land Rovers and their history you should write stuff, for instance I dont know what deignation of the US petrol engines are. Oh one point your comment 'picutures arent biased' is definitely a subverted support fallacy, some of the most misleading propoganda is pictorial :). But Im most certainly not saying you shouldnt post photos, I think that,s a great idea --Nick-in-South-Africa 04:39, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Defender 147"

Please add reference to the Defender 147" as well

Birmabright?

The article says "their most distinctive feature has been their bodies, constructed of a lightweight proprietary alloy of aluminium and magnesium called Birmabright (being rustproof, this contributes to the vehicle's longevity)", but aren't they nowdays made of orinary steel? // Liftarn

I believe Series / Defender models have always been aluminum-bodied. I don't think all other models have been. Experts? —Morven 20:47, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

The Defender is still made with an aluminium body with external rivets. The Defender is no longer sold in the US, its still however available in the UK, Australia, South Africa and other territories. The Disco, Freelander and Range Rover are of a conventional pressed steel construction--Nick-in-South-Africa 05:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could this be regional variation Nick?

Older Range Rovers (Pre-2002) and Disco 2's here (UK) seem to be aluminium skinned and a magnet, examination of accident damage or a typical internet search will confirm this. 'Some' - but not all - Range Rovers do appear to have steel bonnets and tailgates.

Range Rovers 2002 onwards are extensively boron steel (rather than conventional pressed steel) with doors, including frames, impact beams and skin, bonnet and front wings in aluminium. http://www.channel4.com/4car/road-tests/L/landrover/rangerover02-/rangerover02--factfile-1.html

Typical internet reference for Early Range Rover - "Body panels are aluminium" http://www.lrm.co.uk/archive/Range%20Rover/buyingrangerover.html

This is what I have for the Disco 3 "The bonnet, a characteristic Land Rover clamshell design, is aluminium upper and lower tailgates are made from lightweight aluminium. All four doors are wide and provide easy access. Made of steel, they have boron steel-reinforced side intrusion beams to improve impact performance. Alloy structures, which are inherently corrosion resistant, are treated to prevent electrolytic interaction with adjoining steel components.

Significant use is made of high-strength steels, while enormously strong boron steel is used for the A- and B-pillars, for added strength in front and side impacts." http://www.carpages.co.uk/land_rover/land_rover_discovery_3_structure_25_06_04.asp

--Daedelus 10:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bodies

All 'Defenders' are and always have hade aluminium alloy bodies. Prior to the current all aluminium construction Range Rovers had a 14 guage steel chassis with an aluminium alloy bodies. The resulting corrosion resistance is part of the reason why after nearly sixty years over half the Land Rover ever built are still running. —Daedelus

Daedelus Please quote a reliable source for this 60% if all Defenders ever built are still running story. Ive heard it often, sometimes the percentage are different. Regardless, it looks suspiciously like a myth, Ive never seen one reference on this 'factoid' that is not itself a mere assertion. By reliable source I mean a proper sampling study in all key markets to back this up, not a mere assertion by LR Marketing or such like. Personally I think it a tad of a questionable claim to say the least as it rather contradicts the attrition rate I see in the Defender living in Africa. I will delete the reference to this in the article if this is not forthcoming. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence and this is an extraordinary claim and an assertion does not a supporting case make --Nick-in-South-Africa 16:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nick-in-South-Africa. It's difficult to produce a NPOV on this without having the complete systematic registration records of every Land Rover produced. Even so many old Land Rovers are used off the public roads and therefore off the records and untaxed or uncertified. I've quoted and linked to some sources - which is generally the convention in scholarly work - and I'll add a disclaimer - but obviously the information that you say is mandatory would require in-depth document searchs of the government records of over a hundred countries and collation and inspection of approximately million separate vehicle records. At that level almost any comment on this Wiki (including the whole Land Rover article) could be considered a 'factoid' or mere assertion and therefore deleted.

Your POV comment on you local south african situation may reflect relative market condition (harsh conditions, poor quality mechanics, relative affluence allowing them to be replaced by cheap short lived, car-like far-eastern imports) - on the other hand I could walk out of my front door right now and find two or three, working thirty to forty year old Land Rovers where I live in a few minutes, and the only third-world government department that I have direct contact with still runs its Series 3s but this is direct experience rather than being linked to official figures.

bbbbbbObviously if we feature all articles that feature people who find that their my Land Rover isn't as easy to maintain as a Nissan Sunny (or the equivalent) and delete all those from people who have been using or running thirty or forty year old vehicles we are moving towards a particular POV.

If we are looking for a forensic POV then LR Marketing are legally bound in their claims by the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 .

--Daedelus 13:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Daedelus I duly note the POV charge and the implicit barb within the claim. Let me perhaps step back and put it in mild terms, but with a quiet insistence on credibility and objectivity fitting of an encyclopedia.

Daedelus wrote >It's difficult to produce a NPOV on this without having the complete systematic registration records of every Land Rover produced< Exactly my point, if one can't back up the claim with hard evidence such as sales records cross referenced with those still registered deriving a percentage then the claim is simply not worthy, it's simply an assertion. It begs the question 'How the hell was this claim derived, is it hard numbers or a thumb suck? If it's a thumb suck, who made it and on what basis and how was this extrapolated Globally? If it is a thumb suck its just an unsupported assertion, the claim then simply isn't credible or worthy of inclusion, or at least not without very clear caveats on this point to the extent that would make their inclusion in the article rather moot. This is very simple logic.

I am simply asking for sources that are not just assertions. If you can't provide source materiel supporting your claim that about 60% of all Defenders ever produced are still on the road, then the claim is simply hearsay and as such not fitting materiel for an encyclopedia. So please feel free to back the claim up by citing source materiel detailing exactly how this figure was derived and in each territory. As soon as you do this I am more than happy to gladly concede this point.

Daedelus wrote>LR Marketing are legally bound in their claims by the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 < The first point this is UK legislation, the 60% claim did not just relate to the UK. It was a Global claim. In the UK it should be possible to cross reference Land Rover sales with current DVLC records (annual vehicle road tax) and come up with a number. If this has been done and is properly cited I will concede the point, but on the UK only. Second point - to argue that a cliam is true because LR have not been prosecuted under the UK Trade Descriptions Act is at best rather thin. As far as I know Land Rover have not been taken to court aon their marketing catch phrase 'The Best 4x4 by far', The fact that LR have not been taken to court and lost over this does not make the claim in this phrase true or even provide a half decent argument that it is true, again an assertion does not an argument make --Nick-in-South-Africa 06:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kevin in Costa Rica> I'm not sure about the rest of the world but. Here in Central America. Especially Costa Rica. The Land Rover is the best thing on the road. It's like the Ford F-150 of Costa Rica. Finding some in Junk yards are hard to come by. That and Land Cruisers. But all the Land Cruisers here have extensive body rust and underbody rust. Due to heavy rains 6 months of the year. Aluminum Diamond Plating is common for LC. There are quite a few Nissan Patrols here to. But mostly used by Officals and such. The Santana which is also popular model here has some legends about it. Not using 100% Aluminum on the body panels, smaller rivets, And thin Aluminum. Poor Galvanized metals. etc. On all Land Rover models for saftely reasons they have a steel firewall that is between the door and the front fenders. Even all new model Defenders. It is common they rust in those areas. However in a third world almost 2nd world counrty like Costa Rica. They can fabricate anything. So just about any part for a land rover can be made here. Or made in Brazil. Even for Land Cruisers. The popularity of the Land Rover and Land cruiser has been around before these counrties had roads. Just because it was the only thing that got you around. After 40-50 years of tests. they all sell like hot cakes here. i would say from my personal view. (Maybe Biased) 90% of all Land Rovers are still running today in Costa Rica. i personally know 8 people that use a 1978 or older model rover as a daily driver. (Oh and mostly all diesel here too). As far as Defender and Discovery. I know 4 people. For Land Cruiser 2, and Mercedes G class sport utily 2, Unimog 1. Nissan Patrol 1. Oh and I have 2 1978 88 SIII Land Rovers. 1 Fully restored.

_kevin

Quality problems

Someone outright deleted the "Quality Problems" section. Personally I'm not sure it's appropriate - this is an encyclopedia, not consumer reports. But they should probably explain their reasons. I do notice a distinct anti-Land Rover bias here. mainly by a few individuals, as well as a personal, Africa-centric, anti-LR view. Rovers _are_ used as extensively as military vehicles; and I know they're used by the UN, I've seen pictures. Authors writing stories about the wilderness don't put their characters in a Nissan Patrol, or a Mitsubiushi Pajero, or a Toyota Land Cruiser, even though all three probably do outsell Rovers I think that the sections on Rhinos and so forth added character to the article and could have been re-stated and kept for flavor. Land Rovers do have a style, history, and charm that's recognizable; that's been used for advertising gimmics in the past but it does have a basis in reality. While you may have a grudge against LR, please try to keep it NPOV. --User:Justfred

Re Quality Problems: I agree, and don't believe Wikipedia is the platform for consumer feedback regarding Land Rovers. It's fair enough to mention the problems briefly, but the size of the section as a proportion of the enire article is way over the top. Many other car manufacturers have quality problems, but there is no other article on Wikipedia about a car manufacturer that devotes as much space to this issue. I feel that maybe just one disgruntled customer is responsible for this section, and I think it is certainly not NPOV and should be deleted.

Can someone get hold of the sample sizes of these JD Power surveys? JD Power do have a cut-off. What is it? This section should also make clear which countries JD Power surveys are being reported as Land-Rover may score pporly in the UK and USA but it does rather better in S. Africa, beating the industry average.

See JD Power Survey Results 2007 for S. Africa. 213.48.150.168 (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

What kind of Land Rovers are the armoured ones used by the police in Northern Ireland? How many do they have? How long have they used the land rovers?

zoney ♣ talk 00:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

They were often Shorlands, made by Shorts Brothers of Belfast. RUC got them from 1965. In 1990 approx. 1000 had been made, not all for RUC, mind. There's a bit about it in the no: military Land Rovers article. In Norwegian, though. That's all I've got... Harald Hansen 13:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

See the Shorland article for info and links to websites. GraemeLeggett 14:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

British Aerospace?

The introduction claims that one of Land Rover's past owners was British Aerospace, is this accurate? My understanding is that before Ford bought Land Rover, the company had always been part of Rover and that Rover was owned by British Leyland, Honda and then BMW, but certainly never British Aerospace. Joe 1987 00:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

1988 British Aerospace buys Rover Group from British Government for (pounds)150,000,000. justfred

Rover were never owned by Honda. they had a cross holding deal and worked together on vehicles. Honda no more owned Rover than the other way round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morcus (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Safety?

The Land Rover page says that according to a study into fatalities by vehicle make, the Land Rover Defender is about the safest vehicle on UK roads, yet the Land Rover Defender page says the Defender doesn't meet the safety standards to be sold in the US. Why is this? I've been looking for Euro-NCAP data on the Defender but can't find anything except pages supposedly about the Defender's safety rating but which give an "N/A" or Not Available rating next to the NCAP heading.

Does anyone have a link to any studies into the probability of roll-over crashes in Defenders?

Sciamachy 09:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It has probably more to do with what kind of driving Defender owners do rather than the technical safety features of the vehicle. Harald Hansen 09:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reason ... Land Rover (Series/Defender)#The Defender in the USA - it had to do with the inability to install air bags in the interior. --T-dot 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

--In addition, is there proof of the report that "Land Rovers are 3x safer than Volvos" I find that very hard to believe.

According to published statistics by the UK government; in a two vehicle collision the incidence of death for the drivers and passengers sit at 1% for a Defender, the safest volvo (statistically) the incidence of death is 3%. I cannot find links at the moment but I will. This doesn't mean a Defender is 3 times safer than a Volvo, it just means that death is less likely than in any other car for the driver and passengers in a two vehicle collision. I will find the link within the next couple of days.(82.25.108.241 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

That's because the incredible strength of the LR chassis means that it has very little front end crumple capability and in a head on collision relies heavily on the other vehicle absorbing the impact energy. The risk of death is simply transferred to the occupants of the other vehicle, who are likely to be crushed by their engine and steering wheel. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get what your point here is. At no point did I say that across the board the Defender is the safest, I quite clearly stated that purely the 'incidence of death to the driver and passenger in a two vehicle collision' the Land Rover Defender is 3 times safer than the safest Volvo. Luridhue (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Clubs

Why have the links to the Land Rover clubs been removed? Talskiddy 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a link repository. See the links to avoid in the external links guideline. The deleted links invariably fall under unverified (original research) sites and forums, all of which are to be avoided. JonHarder 00:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

where does it say no links to auto clubs? Talskiddy 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons that "external links should be used sparingly and kept to a minimum." Editors of a good article will include only the most valuable links for the reader. This prevents Wikipedia from becoming a web directory. Links should supplement and enhance the content of the article. This article had links to twenty-five clubs and forums, yet they are apparently of no particular importance in presenting the reader with balanced information on the Land Rover because no mention is made of the siginficance of clubs or forums in the article text itself. Clubs are analogous to fansites; both fansites and forum links are discouraged in an article, unless the article text demands it. If the editors of this article feel club links are essential to understanding the topic, then I suggest the solution used in other articles. Add a link to an open directory such as:

*{{dmoz|Recreation/Autos/Makes_and_Models/Land_Rover/Clubs/|Land Rover Clubs}}

which contains dozens of links and avoids having the article become a spam magnet, as often happens when indiscriminant lists are permitted to grow. I hope this helps! JonHarder 22:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added the link as suggested but I have visited other auto entries and there are many that have lists of forums and clubs. I expect they will be edited out also?, but it won't be by me! : ) Talskiddy

Despite being in a club, and being enthusiastic about Land Rovers, I'd agree that a list of clubs is perhaps not appropriate in the article. Mention of the fact that Land Rovers have an enthusiastic following, and that there are many local, regional, national and international clubs would be relevant and worthy of inclusion, though. AndrewH 11:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

LAND ROVER PROFITS

The most profitable part of PAG is Volvo,not Land Rover according to the Automotive News newspaper,the best of its kind, and Reuters...So I would like the phrase claiming that "In 2005 it was the most profitable part of Ford's Premier Automotive Group (PAG) brand portfolio." being deleted or please show me a reference... My references:[http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-01- 08T174815Z_01_N08377221_RTRIDST_0_FORD-VOLVO-UPDATE-1.XML&src=GLOBALCOVERAGE_auto]and [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.202.25.203 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Caption for logo

There is no need for a caption stating that the image of the logo is a logo. This is according to the WIKI caption policy. Showing the logo of the brand or the company is not an attempt at advertising. The notion of putting a caption stating that the logo is a logo will somehow reduce the effect of "advertising" is false. Showing the logo as part of a Wikipedia article is not advertising according to the definition of advertising --

"Advertising is paid and/or sometimes free communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled..."

Therefore, including an image of the logo in a Wikipedia article about the item or organization identified with that particular logo does NOT make it advertising. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that no caption needed for company or product logos, where the logo is current, and the article is about the company or product. -- Thank you -- CZmarlin 13:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE JUNE 2007

Land-Rover is now up for sale (a "fire sale"?) together with the associated Jaguar business.

84.68.81.11 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quality problems ? environmental ?

I am not sure the mention of 'environmental' problems should go under the Quality problems.

Maybe a new section for environmental issues should be started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.27.14 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

camel trophy

why you don't say anything about the camel trophy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.226.113 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

because you haven't written it yet? If you feel an inclusion is necessary, please feel free to research and write it!--Justfred (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Freelander 1/2 'move'

Corrected to read: Production of the "Freelander" (2) was moved to the Jaguar car factory at Halewood near Liverpool, as - technically - Freelander '1' was built at Solihull, while the new Freelander '2' started its production at Halewood - but where to next? [India?] A precedent for this move was the Rover SD1 moved from Solihull to Cowley, Oxford or more recently the Rover 75 build was moved from Cowley, Oxford to Longbridge, Birmingham.

91.108.12.237 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Tata yet!

The deal has been announced but not consummated. The infobox has been prematurely changed. See Talk:Jaguar Cars#Not Tata yet! 66.92.132.155 (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph has been added to the introduction to reflect the size of the sale:

"It is understood that Ford Motor Company Ltd. will not retain any shareholding in either the Jaguar or Land-Rover companies, unlike Aston Martin where on its sale a small shareholding was retained; the total sum to be paid in cash by Tata Motors is approximately US $ 2.3 billion, Ford will then contribute up to US $600 million to the Jaguar Land Rover pension plans."

91.108.50.27 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph: improvement

"with two UK production plants at Solihull, West Midlands and Halewood, Merseyside" has been added!

As far as the TATA takeover is concerned, it's now a DONE deal- whatever you may think of it!!

IF anyone has any doubts about the deal, just read what Ford themselves had to say about it:

FORD MOTOR COMPANY ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT TO SELL JAGUAR LAND ROVER TO TATA MOTORS

DEARBORN, Mich., March 26, 2008 – Ford Motor Company [NYSE: F] announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its Jaguar Land Rover operations to Tata Motors.

The transaction is the culmination of Ford’s decision last August to explore strategic options for the Jaguar Land Rover business, as the company accelerates its focus on its core Ford brand and “One Ford” global transformation.

The sale is expected to close by the end of the next quarter and is subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of applicable regulatory approvals.

The total amount to be paid in cash by Tata Motors for Jaguar Land Rover upon closing will be approximately US $2.3 billion. At closing, Ford will then contribute up to approximately US $600 million to the Jaguar Land Rover pension plans.

"Jaguar and Land Rover are terrific brands," said Alan Mulally, president and CEO, Ford Motor Company. "We are confident that they are leaving our fold with the products, plan and team to continue to thrive under Tata’s stewardship. Now, it is time for Ford to concentrate on integrating the Ford brand globally, as we implement our plan to create a strong Ford Motor Company that delivers profitable growth for all."

"This is a good agreement. It provides the Jaguar Land Rover management team and employees with the assurances needed to maintain their focus on delivering the best results for the business," said Lewis Booth, executive vice president, Ford Motor Company, who has responsibility for Ford of Europe, Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover. "I am confident that, under its new owner, Jaguar Land Rover will continue to build upon the significant improvements and product successes it has achieved in recent years."

As part of the transaction, Ford will continue to supply Jaguar Land Rover for differing periods with powertrains, stampings and other vehicle components, in addition to a variety of technologies, such as environmental and platform technologies. Ford also has committed to provide engineering support, including research and development, plus information technology, accounting and other services.

In addition, Ford Motor Credit Company will provide financing for Jaguar and Land Rover dealers and customers during a transitional period, which can vary by market, of up to 12 months.

The parties believe these arrangements will support Jaguar Land Rover’s current product plans, while providing Jaguar Land Rover freedom to develop its own stand-alone capabilities in the future that will best serve its premium manufacturer requirements.

The parties do not anticipate any significant changes to Jaguar Land Rover employees’ terms of employment on completion.

Speaking about today’s agreement, Mr. Ratan N. Tata, Chairman of Tata Sons and Tata Motors, commented: "We are very pleased at the prospect of Jaguar and Land Rover being a significant part of our automotive business. We have enormous respect for the two brands and will endeavor to preserve and build on their heritage and competitiveness, keeping their identities intact. We aim to support their growth, while holding true to our principles of allowing the management and employees to bring their experience and expertise to bear on the growth of the business."

Jaguar Land Rover’s employees, trade unions and the UK Government have been kept informed of developments as the sale process progressed and have indicated their support for the agreement.

Speaking on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover, Geoff Polites, chief executive officer, said: "Jaguar Land Rover’s management team is very pleased that Ford and Tata Motors have come to an agreement today. Our team has been consulted extensively on the deal content and feels confident that it provides for the business needs of both our brands going forward.

"We have also had the opportunity to meet senior executives from Tata Motors and the Tata group," Polites continued. "They have expressed confidence in the team that has delivered significant improvements in Jaguar Land Rover’s business performance. We feel confident that we can forge a strong working relationship with our new parent company, and we look forward to a bright and successful future for Jaguar Land Rover."

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27953

91.108.50.27 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian or British?

I contend that the company is certainly British. It is registered in Britain. It manufactures its product in Britain and always has done. It's (now) parent company is Indian but that doesn't and cannot re-write history. My mother is from Venus, my father from Mars but my place of birth, upbringing and residence is Earth, therefore I'm an Earthling.

I contend equally that the marque is and always will be British, for much the same historical reasons. It's a question of where it was created, not to whom rights over it were subsequently sold. Did anyone seriously claim that Land Rover was an American marque (or company) under Ford's ownership? -- Timberframe (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To 202.54.220.196 and various other IP editors who change the article's category from "British brands" to "Indian brands" on the basis that "parent is Tata, thus it cant be British", would you apply the same logic to say that in the days of the British Empire Mumbai was a British city? Sorry if that's a bit close to the bone, but I feel that it's a valid comparison with what you're claiming for a brand which is and always has been intimately associated with Britain. The financial ownership of a brand doesn't re-write history or the reality of geography. Since when was Chelsea a Russian football club? --Timberframe (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

70% of Land Rovers ever built still in use...

There has been a lot of contention over this information. The figure sits between two-thirds and 70% of all land rovers (all built since 1948, not just Defenders.) The first source for this figure is from a Top Gear program titled as 'The Greatest Cars of All Time' (first aired 8th June 2003)the clip hosted by Richard Hammond makes a point of there being 70% of all Land Rovers produced still in use and links it to the idea of 'what if' 70% of all VW Beetles ever made were still in use (this was in 2003). Secondly the then Managing Director (Matthew Taylor) said that two thirds of all Land Rovers were still in use ( http://archive.southwalesargus.co.uk/2003/8/1/66402.html ). Are we able to put on the article that in 2003 between two-thirds and 70% of all Land Rover produced before then were still in use? This is quite an important figure on the lastability of the Land Rover marque and also indicative of the passion of Land Rover enthusiasts in keeping the vehicles running. I have not got the experience with Wikipedia to feel confident in amending the article and wouldn't know where to put it. Any views any one else? (82.25.108.241 (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)) Land Rover

First Paragraph revert war

We appear to have a battle between two editors over the opening paragraph.

version 1:

Land Rover is an all-terrain vehicle and Multi Purpose Vehicle (MPV) manufacturer, based in Solihull, England, now operated as part of the Jaguar Land Rover business owned by Tata Motors.

Originally the term Land Rover referred to one specific vehicle (see Land Rover Series), a pioneering civilian all-terrain utility vehicle launched on April 30, 1948, at the Amsterdam Motor Show, but was later used as a brand for several distinct models, all capable of four-wheel drive.

Starting out as a model in the Rover Company's product range, the Land Rover brand developed, first as a marque, then as a separate company, developing a range of four-wheel drive capable vehicles under a succession of owners, including British Leyland, British Aerospace and BMW. In 2000, the company was sold by BMW to the Ford Motor Company, becoming part of their Premier Automotive Group. In June 2008 Ford sold its Jaguar Land Rover operations to Tata Motors.

Land Rover is one of the longest lived Four-wheel drive (4WD) brands, second only to Jeep and is not a truck.

Version 2:

Land Rover is a British automobile manufacturer of all-terrain vehicles. Founded in 1948 as part of the Rover Company, it is the second-oldest manufacturer of off-road vehicles after Jeep. The term 'Land Rover' originally referred to a specific vehicle - a pioneering civilian all-terrain utility vehicle launched on April 30, 1948 - but was later used as the brand name for all 4x4 models.

Starting out as a model in the Rover Company's product range, the Land Rover brand developed, first as a marque then as a separate company. It continued developing a range of off-road vehicles under a succession of owners including British Leyland, British Aerospace and BMW. In 2000, the company was sold by BMW to the Ford Motor Company, becoming part of their Premier Automotive Group.

In June 2008 Ford sold its Jaguar and Land Rover operations to Tata Motors, and they are now part of the Jaguar Land Rover division.

Can we get a concensus version from the two versions as thers not a lot of difference ! - Please discuse the differences and reason why it more correct before reverting again. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that a bunch of patriotic citizens of India would rather subdue any mention of Land Rover being a British marque, which I contend that it is; the company is based in UK, its employees are British and furthermore, the vehicles are designed and manufactured in Britain. Tata's ownership is purely fiscal and even Tata's CEO said that he aims to keep the brand British. I think my paragraph highlights the essence of Land Rover and consolidates the information in a much clearer fashion than the alternative.

For example:

"Land Rover is one of the longest lived Four-wheel drive (4WD) brands, second only to Jeep and is not a truck."

1, the term 'longest-lived' is wrong as Land Rover is not alive. 2, What does "and is not a truck" mean and how does it relate to the sentence? The whole paragraph is badly constructed.

-Yosh (Talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (edited Yosh's sig to link to talk page Bulldozer (talk))

Thank you for your reply Yosh, but I note you have again reverted it, which may be interpreted as engaging in an Edit War as you were asked to discus the issue here after the last round of reverts.

1) Agree the term Longest lived is poor.

2) The use of MPV has been discused before and is not technicaly correct, as its a van based on road vehicle, capable of carrying more than a cars normal 'load' of driver + 4 passengers.

I await AJ-India's comments, and any other editors comments, then we can reach a WP:concensus version for a new lead section. - Thankyou - BulldozerD11 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User: Bulldozer: I have been discussing this on jaguar Cars page, since the two have a similar change, and are both being reverted by user Yosh, in his patriotic zeal, while forgetting facts.

I would just copy my response there:

"::To begin with, "blind Patriotism" is being exhibited by user Yosh, not me. Did I mention it is "Indian" anywhere in my edit?

Instead it is he who is doing so, by over enphasizing its Britishness, which spoils the article. As has been amply debated above, its Britishness is covered in its being based in Britain. I have never heard or seen a sentence like "It is British & based in Britain"!! Its pure redundancy.

As we had all agreed (above) these things are less facts and more about brand positioning. I gave the example of Tetley Tea, again (incidentally) owned by Tata.

If being made in Britain is the criteria alone, what about the iphone? or for that matter any phone that Nokia makes? Bulk of them are made by Chinese guys. Obviously there is no set "rule" for deciding all this. And hence it (being British) isnt a fact.

What is a fact, instead is: Its made in Britain, by a labour which is British, and designed by guys, who must be British, with Money coming from Tata Motors.

Last but not least, Tata Motor's ownership is anything but fiscal. Just because they intend to keep its brand identity doesnt mean it is just a financial take over. Read This BBC Article The clear intent of the company is to grow worldwide, and for that, it is going to be in the driver's seat. Again see Tetley Tea. It is fully integrated into Tata Tea, globally. Have a look at the pack of Tetley tea, you would find "A Tata Enterprise" on it. This process took a number of years. Do read this Ratan Tata's statement.

Therefore, I feel the opening line sums up the way it is today. Regarding the rest, (ie Land Rover being the oldest, or second oldest), I have no issues. feel free to correct if any of that is wrong. My only appeal is, please keep patriotism out of this, in the interest of a good encyclopedic article"AJ-India (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• See articles: BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot, SEAT (which is owned by German VW), etc. Motoring articles open with "[name] is a [country] automobile manufacturer".
• Country of origin is a notable field in the automotive industry, as cars are often clumped together when similarities arise between manufacturers from a particular country. Land Rover is still a British company, invested in by an Indian one.
• One mention of the marque being British is not "over-emphasizing" as AJ_India claims. There is no redundancy.
• In my edit, I have removed mention of where the company is based from the opening paragraph. That is already stated in the infobox, therefore we can leave the word British in the article.
• This is an automotive article. This is not about Tetley Tea, which is run in a completely different way. The original Tetley company has been dissolved and integrated completely into Tata. This is not the case for Land Rover/ Jaguar.
• iPhone is in fact American because it is designed in USA by an American company and made in China by factories with exclusive contracts with Apple. Similarly, Land Rover is British with the manufacturing process remaining in the UK.
• Was Land Rover considered American under Ford ownership?
• Tata Chairman: "We have enormous respect for the two brands and will endeavour to preserve and build on their heritage and competitiveness, keeping their identities intact." = British
• I'll say it again, AJ-India's opening paragraph is poorly worded and badly constructed, which is unacceptable. I have reorganized the information to make it more coherent overall.
• This article has always opened with Land Rover being British, but as soon as the Tata deal was completed, some zealot Indians removed the word in a fit of ignorance. Same is true for the UK flagicon in the infobox. This exhibits a complete disregard for the standard set by other automotive articles on wikipedia.
• User:AJ-India is attempting to further his own nonsensical agenda. Taking a look at his talk page, you can clearly see repeated violations of the three revert rule and a general bias against the United Kingdom. He has been caught removing factual content from articles pertaining to the British Empire. I contend that he is trying to alter articles on Wikipedia to falsely improve the way India is portrayed.
• User:AJ-India would rather revert to a poorer article just to remove mention of it being British. Same goes for the Jaguar article, which I have vastly improved but said user still reverts it to remove a single fact.
• I am correct, there are no 2 sides about this. Why are we even having this discussion, just to humour ignorance?

Sorry about the last revert --Yosh (Talk 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at Toyota , Nissan , Honda or General Motors Where is the "Norm", to mention the country? By removing any mention of Land Rover being a part of Tata Motors in the first line, it is clear who is "biased" here, and trying to hide facts.

And by even refusing to discuss, it he who is trying to push his view.

Do any of the three automakers mentioned above have "Japanese Automaker" or "American Automaker" mentioned? Despite the fact that they are anything but Japanese (or American), by any of your yardsticks. (Yes, Renault is a big stake holder in Nissan). The simple reason is: such terms are subjective, giving the reader little clarity. Iphone is designed in USA, so it is American, Does that include the phone's hardware as well? The LCD? The chips? We know the Motorola Razr uses LCD screens designed by Toshiba & Sharp. Yet both Iphone, and Motorola are called American. Why? And you yourself mention this! Iphones are made in CHina by plants commisioned by Apple. So? Ownership weighs in doesnt it? So, why is Tata Motors' ownership so insigificant?

Thus, by being objective, not subjective, we make the article better.

Lastly, i give the example of Sony Ericsson. Based in UK, owned by Japanese & Swedish firms, where is the mention of any the countries in the opening line? Instead it mentions the countries of the owners, something we dont even have here. You want to even remove mentioning Tata Motors!

I understand this will require some British patriots like User Yosh to change their "view", but I am sure, in the interest of a good article, it can be acheived.

And needless to say, by bringing unrelated (and untrue) issues into this, user Yong is only trying to divert attention. But for the interest of those who wish to know what he is talking about, I welcome them to my talk page. If you require we can talk about that there:) My only appeal is to disist from patriotic jingoism, and stick to objectivity.AJ-India (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, there are two unrelated issues here and for the sake of making progress it would be useful to consider each on its own merits.

1. Putting aside the "national identity" issue, the other changes that Yosh made were to my mind a welcome and overdue cleansing of of article which was beginning to suffer from piece-wise and unstructured growth. I say let those changes stand; AJ-India's reversion of the changes en masse threw out the baby with the bath water.

2. The question of national identity was debated at length both here and in the Jaguar article. After changes were made which appeared to some editors (myself included) to be unduly emphasising the newly acquired Indian nationality of what was and is an iconically British marque, constructive dialogue here led not only to consensus but to a better article. I say let Yosh respect the outcome of that debate; contribute to it by all means here but don't change the article unless consesus supports the change.

-- Timberframe (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Timberframe. I have agreed (and even mentioned that earlier) to the changes besides the opening line.AJ-India (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety

The safety section needs info on pedestrian safety. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)