RE: LR3 was SER1 where have we gone in 60 years?

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2005/04/11]

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

The frustrating part is the system does not allow for common sense. While
wating for the "customer service" guy to grasp the concept of customer
service we went to the parts department to but a fuel filter and air filter.
The parts man checks his computer and says , Sorry we only stock parts for
the North american spec car not the german spec car, different part numbers
no file available.
It took over an hour before we managed to lure him from behind his magic box
and warm to the concept of a visual inspection of the existing filter
(analog aproach?) and sure enough it looked just like the one in the shelf
right behind  his desk, imagine that!!
It is impossible to blame these drones for their ignorance, they are
programmed at head office to be that way ,because somehow that increases net
profits..

And we ARE poster children for the enviromental lobby:
we reduce pollution by not buying new Land rovers every 10 years
we reuse vehicle components (brake shoes, engine blocks, washable fuel and
air filters et c
we recycle (see ebay)
Tom T




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