PhaedrusMC
Guest
I had a 92 Discovery for a year.
It was a 7 year-old car with over 100,000 miles on it when I bought it.
The only thing that went wrong was the CV joint which cost £80 Irish parts & labour.
I asked a lot & read a lot about Discoveries & LRs in general. In one Discovery biography the early second-generation models (built 94/95) were reported to have hugely inconsistent panel gaps.
Owners tolerate consistently crap build quality (misaligned body panels & inconsistent gaps, leaking windows & sunroofs, weak engine components turning to mush in very few miles... etc.), because they're sort of cultish.
I even saw a 07 Range Rover a few weeks ago at a set of traffic lights and had to ask my wife who was with me if she was seeing what I was - the indented waist-line running along the side of the car dipped for the rear door: the waist-line on the rear door was maybe 2mm lower than on the front door and the rear panel. On a brand new car!
As I read more about BMW bikes, I'm getting the impression that owners & enthusiasts might be similarly tolerant of the "quirks" of the bikes (agricultural gearboxes, short gearbox lifespans), whereas owners of typical Jap bikes (for example) wouldn't accept these as quirks, but reject them as faults.
Is this correct?
I understand if it is the case - infatuation with the charm & character of anything can increase the tolerance level for the negative aspects of that thing, be it a bike, car, camera, partner or whatever.
GSs are becoming immensely popular, so reports of any defects / quirks don't seem to be that big a deal. Like all things, people talk mostly about (and want to know about) what goes wrong with stuff.
I guess if you want one, you want one?
Mark
It was a 7 year-old car with over 100,000 miles on it when I bought it.
The only thing that went wrong was the CV joint which cost £80 Irish parts & labour.
I asked a lot & read a lot about Discoveries & LRs in general. In one Discovery biography the early second-generation models (built 94/95) were reported to have hugely inconsistent panel gaps.
Owners tolerate consistently crap build quality (misaligned body panels & inconsistent gaps, leaking windows & sunroofs, weak engine components turning to mush in very few miles... etc.), because they're sort of cultish.
I even saw a 07 Range Rover a few weeks ago at a set of traffic lights and had to ask my wife who was with me if she was seeing what I was - the indented waist-line running along the side of the car dipped for the rear door: the waist-line on the rear door was maybe 2mm lower than on the front door and the rear panel. On a brand new car!
As I read more about BMW bikes, I'm getting the impression that owners & enthusiasts might be similarly tolerant of the "quirks" of the bikes (agricultural gearboxes, short gearbox lifespans), whereas owners of typical Jap bikes (for example) wouldn't accept these as quirks, but reject them as faults.
Is this correct?
I understand if it is the case - infatuation with the charm & character of anything can increase the tolerance level for the negative aspects of that thing, be it a bike, car, camera, partner or whatever.
GSs are becoming immensely popular, so reports of any defects / quirks don't seem to be that big a deal. Like all things, people talk mostly about (and want to know about) what goes wrong with stuff.
I guess if you want one, you want one?
Mark
