Morris Minor Owners Club

how about this for stupidity then. The 2.2 and 2 litre diesel citroen c8 has a problem with removal of injectors ie after about 50 thou. impossible to remove .they stick and basically become fused into the head,they then need precision drilling to get them out and fit new ones ,(£150 each). But,the inlet manifold sits over the head bolts,so that needs removing, what holds the inlet manifold on,The injector bolts. The injector need to be removed before you can take the manifold off to remove the head.So the injectors become fused blah blah blah. On the 2 litre they smash the manifold to bits,(£400) to get at the head then £300 for drilling out injectors, £600 for new ones.(no secondhand ones cos they need to be drilled out) On the 2.2 even smashing the manifold leaves a section under the injectors and covers four of the head bolts So second hand engine required, Thats why a second hand 2.2 C8 diesel costs £1500 to 2000 and is in very short demand. Just been down that route because of a blown head gasket ,so never complain about trunnions,headgaskets, scroll oil seals so simple compared to modern crap.

kennatt wrote:how about this for stupidity then. The 2.2 and 2 litre diesel citroen c8 has a problem with removal of injectors ie after about 50 thou. impossible to remove .they stick and basically become fused into the head,they then need precision drilling to get them out and fit new ones ,(£150 each). But,the inlet manifold sits over the head bolts,so that needs removing, what holds the inlet manifold on,The injector bolts. The injector need to be removed before you can take the manifold off to remove the head.So the injectors become fused blah blah blah. On the 2 litre they smash the manifold to bits,(£400) to get at the head then £300 for drilling out injectors, £600 for new ones.(no secondhand ones cos they need to be drilled out) On the 2.2 even smashing the manifold leaves a section under the injectors and covers four of the head bolts So second hand engine required, Thats why a second hand 2.2 C8 diesel costs £1500 to 2000 and is in very short demand. Just been down that route because of a blown head gasket ,so never complain about trunnions,headgaskets, scroll oil seals so simple compared to modern crap.

If you're planning to hold on to a C8 would it be worth changing the injectors at 40,000? Or removing them, and refitting with copper grease (or some suitable compound that inhibits fusing)?

PSL184 wrote:The Discovery system is far from silly. The computer is required to control the brakes which it does on all 4 corners individually if required for use when off road and using the onboard computer to control traction and wheelspin. Its what makes it one of the most competant all terain vehicles you can buy

How does having to use a computer to fit new brake linings help?

Dean wrote:I beg to differ, I'm on my third new Toyota since 2000. My first Toyota was recalled due to a braking problem in 2002'ish. They were good cars, but the quality over the past ten years has dropped enough for me not to consider them next time. It seems they seriously can't handle being the largest car manufacturer.

Maybe its complacency creeping into the equation? I understand that VW are not what they were - my 1987 VW Golf was a very good car, probably the best "All rounder" I ever had. I suspect that complacency played a part in the decline of the BMC/BL empire, particularly during the 1970s.

Blaketon wrote:-snip-

Maybe its complacency creeping into the equation? I understand that VW are not what they were - my 1987 VW Golf was a very good car, probably the best "All rounder" I ever had. I suspect that complacency played a part in the decline of the BMC/BL empire, particularly during the 1970s.

I agree, as the Minor was on record as being the car with the lowest warranty claims of all time in it's day and was loved as a car into the 70's for it's inherent reliabillity, you could consider the Minor to be the equivalent of the ""VW golf/ reliable Japanese car"" of it's day. And of course BL got too big and bloated and lost the plot. Much like VW and Toyota sadly seem to be doing now.

Having said that, I had to buy a modern car over a year ago because I had no roadworthy car at the time- Traveller was awating accident repairs at the time. And I bought a 1996 Toyota- it has been great since then. Sailled through the MOT and only required one exhaust part in maintainence since then. So 1990's Toyotas are reliable even when old and leggy. Having said that, i am currently replacing brake pipes on my beloved Traveller and hope to have it re- MOT'd soon.

Blaketon wrote: How does having to use a computer to fit new brake linings help?

I'm not sure I understand the question as I never said anything about it been "helpful". I guess you mean in terms of maintenance - well there are very few things you can do to the modern car these days that don't require computer diagnostics. The Discovery is more sophisticated than normal road cars, hence the need for a trained person (not back street numpty) to service it. Personally I wouldn't let any untrained bafoon loose with a £30k + car of any sort.
At the end of the day it is called progress. We don't like it in our cars (I'm assuming) so we choose to drive Minors and the like but if it wasn't for progress we would all be sitting here having our discussions carved out of tablets and flown to each other by carrier pidgeon

The point is that designing something where you MUST take it to the dealer, for something straightforward like brake linings, is over the top and I can't see that the functioning of the braking system, no matter how good, should require it. I would also think it could be a nuisance, given that these vehicles are sometimes taken to remote locations, where access to computer diagnostics is limited.

You will always get people trying to have a go and the vehicle in question was a case in point (The owner apparently not being put off by the stated need to take it to the dealer), though maybe fewer may now be tempted to try. I think it will tend to shorten vehicle life, as once the depreciation kicks in (Possibly aggravated by the anti 4X4 lobby and fuels costs), the servicing costs will mean that vehicles will become uneconomic sooner than might otherwise be the case. In the case of Land Rover, there are of course numerous independent specialists, so this might ease the situation (Assuming they have access to the software).

I don’t think anyone would be against progress, provided it is beneficial. In the case of the motor industry, it seems to me that progress made during the late 1970s and into the 1980s, involving, for example, rust prevention now seem to have been negated by built in obsolescence. As a result, cars are not lasting longer as might have been expected.

Up to a point, it has always been there. Before classic cars became a recognised “Scene”, getting parts for old cars could be a nightmare (For some it still is) but provided you could get said parts and knew how to fit them, you didn’t need any special tools (To do the routine stuff at least). VW were going towards dealer only serving many years ago, although it was still possible to do your own. My father had a Type 3 Variant in 1971 and that had a socket for the dealer to plug in their diagnostics. It was his first foreign car and the handbook was not very useful. He had never needed a “Haynes” manual, for routine stuff before, as British cars still covered that perfectly well in the drivers’ handbook.

Blaketon wrote:

PSL184 wrote:The Discovery system is far from silly. The computer is required to control the brakes which it does on all 4 corners individually if required for use when off road and using the onboard computer to control traction and wheelspin. Its what makes it one of the most competant all terain vehicles you can buy

How does having to use a computer to fit new brake linings help?

I'm with PSL, look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-yFmnu0sY

There are questions in the comments to suggest it is fake..... you'll have to trust me on this, but these cars can do this kind of off roading out of the box. If you are not taken aback by the shear quality in the off road ability of these cars, then you should be ashamed as this is British technical genius at work. No serious mods apart from off roading tyres will be on these cars.

To come down an incline like that your brakes need to be talking to your traction control system, your gearbox your engine, your suspension and your foot pedals. Everytime a slip is felt it needs to put the braking/grip somewhere else. Only an onboard computer could do this.... not your usual 7" drums.

That highlights exactly why the Disco system is designed specifically so that it MUST go to a dealer to be serviced.

Dean wrote: There are questions in the comments to suggest it is fake..... you'll have to trust me on this, but these cars can do this kind of off roading out of the box. :

Whilst this trick looks wonderful on video just what does it have to do with the situations the car will encounter in normal operation. Many years ago a short wheelbase Land Rover would get you anywhere you needed to go without all the gismos (the same could be, dare I say it, said about the Lada Niva). A much better test would be to see it travelling cross country in areas where some computer whizz kid is not available to fix the brakes.

I guess, like all companies, you strive to be best in the field at your chosen profession. When you make claims to be the best 4x4 in the world, you have to hold that claim with evidence. There's no point in saying and showing your cars can do something and not have every car you build have that capability. Whether it just takes a trip on the local school run or not. Yes, Land Rovers could do demanding tasks years ago, but like PSL says, companies that stand still and get complacent get into trouble. Even Land Rover has had it's financial problems spread across the press of late. Remember 99% of these cars do not go off road, so 99% of them will be within distance of a dealership.

I must say I have a lot of time for the Series Land Rover (I don't think I've ever been in or driven a Defender). It may be basic but it gets the job done. A local garage sells a make of Japanese 4X4 and a fitter I know used to work there. Some of the local farmers (Perhaps that should read "Most") tend to abuse their equipment and were breaking their 4X4s bought from said garage. They were overloading them but when ever they were told this, the answer every time was "My Land Rover used to take it". I have to wonder why they changed if that was the case.

As billloban says, in remote areas, sophistication is not always what you need. As an example, during WW2, I think it is fair to say that some of the German Panzers were the best tanks (Tank for tank) of the war BUT the Soviet tanks were simpler and easier to maintain in the field, so maybe that hands the overall title to their T34.

Dean wrote: Remember 99% of these cars do not go off road, so 99% of them will be within distance of a dealership.

If what you need is a 'Chelsea Tractor' then why in heaven would you need the complexity of this thing. Land Rover lost out in its essential export markets because things like the dreaded Totota just did it better, cheaper and longer. Sainsbugs carpark surely is not that muddy.

"I guess, like all companies, you strive to be best in the field at your chosen profession"

What companies really want is not to excel they want to make money! and sometimes the most sofisticated piece of kit is not the best or most profitable. The world has been littered over the years with cars that were 'simply the best' but didnt make money in many cases forcing the company to the wall.

I guess if Land Rovers weren't that good off road the customer wouldn't buy them. Whether they intend to use them for that or not. Some of these cars are £70,000 and upwards and 5.0L S/C gas guzzlers at that. If you are paying in excess of several thousands of pounds per month in fuel and possibly £3K per month in loan payments (for a toy)... what would a £1000 service be worth to these people every 12,000 miles. Pittence I guess.

Dean wrote:Remember 99% of these cars do not go off road,

Dean wrote:I guess if Land Rovers weren't that good off road the customer wouldn't buy them

Sorry Dean you've lost me

I think you are asking the wrong person, perhaps you need to ask the people that buy Discovery's to do the "school run" or collect the shopping from Sainsbury's. Ask them "why do you buy a specialised off road vehicle to do that?" Maybe they will tell you why they don't take it off road neither, even though it is kitted out to do so.

Why do you drive a Minor when infact something less engineered like a pair of shoes would do the same job in principle.

Why do they but these tractors------respect man! Remember that ad, ----demand respect! What a sick statement, worked on some though.

Can you imagine that happening in the BMC/Leyland days - they'd have to have run a new channel exclusively to report the latest faults

That's just the kind of attitude that led to the UK loosing it's only volume car producer. Similar kinds of kinds of statements came from my (ex) boss, despite his new VW passat going back to the dealer 6 times in the first year and being off the road for 2 weeks waiting for parts. After the Passat he got a 5 series beemer in black with blacked out windows and a shark fin on the roof... and a year after that they closed our UK site. I rest my case.

In the last year of Rover, there was a Rover was in the top 5 of most reliable cars, in between Toyotas and Hondas. A lot of of the German stuff didn't make the top 100.

Toyota make a lot of cars, and a lot of their parts come from the same suppliers as everyone else uses (Bosch, Conti-Schaeffler, et al.), They insist on using their own standards which are usually above average, and they are never satisfied that a design is ok just because the other leadeing vehicle manufacturers buy the same thing - they need to see that the design works in detail on paper. Unlike most of Europe they try and "produce" quality buy using attention to detail, rather than try and 'manage' quality using paperwork and six-sigma style corporate lingo.
Their insistance on checking designs thoroughly and their commercial hard-nosed insistance on re-inventing the wheel if needed when buying a commodity product is why they have been top of the reliability leagues for a LONG time. None of that prevents the occasional mess-up when dealing with highly complex embedded logic system control relying on sensors and communication networks etc..

Totally agree Ray, on the topic of Toyota, but it was simply poor management, at all levels plus none committment of the government to see through their investments to the end. Unions were too militant but were probably just frustrated with the bad man management and inststance on make do, rather that Toyotas philosophy of trying to do the very best.
I'm amazed at them being inthe top 5 most reliable as all versions of the K series kept most garages in business. The H/G issue being yet another example of manegerial incompetance in not listening to their engineers, who were amongst the top in their profession. Afterall thats the only reason BMW bought it to asset strip and pass on.

I keep on saying British Leyland made good cars!!!

As the world saw even the biggest car manufacturer has it's flaws and it's safety flawS!!