Re: LR3 was SER1 2.0L engine Part needed (gaskets source)

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/04/08]

From: Matthew J. Clark
Subject: Re: LR3 was SER1 2.0L engine Part needed (gaskets source)
Date: 14:01 on 08 Apr 2005

Mark-

Our local Rover club has been tossing around the opinions about how the new
LR3 looks.  There is an very definitive split amongst us.  Some love it,
many hate it.  Some people even drew comparisons of the LR3 to the Honda
Element....plastic, lack luster toy boxes that aren't very confidence
inspiring.  It is a trend we'll be seeing more of.  Take a look at the new
Toyota SWB FJ series:
http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/2005_chicago/0502_toyota_fj_cruiser/

The horror.  Looks like a play mobile inspired vehicle.   I make fun of it
now, but I had a nightmare last night that I fell in love with a new one.  I
woke in cold sweats.

Matt
______________________________
Matthew J. Clark
Seattle, Washington, US of A
206.932.4610
107 Station Wagon
SWB Classic Range Rover
TDI 110 Station Wagon

On 4/8/05 12:47 AM, "Mark Strangways" <mark.strangways@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx>
wrote:

> 
> Sorry this is off topic, but I am glad to see that I am not the only
> one who does not like the look of LR3 or Discovery3 as it is here in the
> UK. I think it is a pig ugly vehicle and the worst looking of the whole
> Land Rover product line up. The whole thing reminds me of the kids story
> about the Kings new clothes - where he was really naked and nobody would
> dare to critise his appearance. Thats what its like with LR3, no one
> seems to dare to comment on how it looks over here in the UK - and maybe
> elsewhere?
> 
> Anyway, its no where near as pretty as a Series One!
> 
> Cheers
> Mark
> Halifax UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To change subscription see www.landrover.net/series1/mail
> 
> 

To change subscription see www.landrover.net/series1/mail

(message missing)

LR3 was SER1 2.0L engine Part needed (gaskets source)
Mark Strangways 07:47 on 08 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 2.0L engine Part needed (gaskets source)
Matthew J. Clark 14:01 on 08 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 2.0L engine Part needed (gaskets source)
Tom Wykes 14:12 on 08 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 2.0L engine Part needed (gaskets source)
Allan Harding 00:33 on 09 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Bruce Stewart 22:25 on 09 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Diana Alan 23:59 on 09 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
MARTIN 07:45 on 10 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 2.0L engine Part needed (gaskets source)
Mark Strangways 14:22 on 08 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Bruce Stewart 08:25 on 10 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Allan Harding 23:22 on 10 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Diana Alan 00:41 on 11 Apr 2005

RE: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Tom Tollefson 18:21 on 11 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Diana Alan 19:22 on 11 Apr 2005

RE: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Tom Tollefson 19:54 on 11 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Allan Harding 22:45 on 11 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Diana Alan 03:42 on 12 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
MARTIN 09:33 on 12 Apr 2005

Re: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?
Bruce Stewart 10:24 on 12 Apr 2005

SER1 =?iso-8859-1?B?R29vZCBuZXdzICEgVNxWICEhIQ==?=
Brett Pritt 16:13 on 12 Apr 2005

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_SER1_Good_news_!_T=DCV_!!!?=
Bob Phillips 17:28 on 12 Apr 2005

=?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_SER1_Good_news_!_T=DCV_!!!?=
Mark Strangways 18:24 on 12 Apr 2005

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_SER1_Good_news_!_T�V_!!!?=
Tom Wykes 08:19 on 13 Apr 2005

=?iso-8859-1?Q?AW:_SER1_Good_news_!_T=DCV_!!!?=
Ulrico Becker 21:10 on 15 Apr 2005

SER1 =?iso-8859-1?B?UkU6IFNFUjEgR29vZCBuZXdzICEgVNxWICEhIQ==?=
Brett Pritt 21:18 on 12 Apr 2005