1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
DEAR
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SIR
LAND ROVER TURBODIESEL ENGINE DEBATE
• I was disappointed that Commercial Motor should grossly distort the real position concerning the Land Rover 2.5-litre turbo-diesel engine • (CM 9-15 June). The article has blown up the real situation out of all proportion.
It is totally inaccurate to describe the engine as having serious problems which are widespread and can lead to engine seizure. Major modifications have not been carded out, as reported by yourselves.
The problem is minor. A small number of reports of air filters being changed before the normal service interval of 12,000 miles have been received. The problem is certainly not serious and there have certainly been no cases of engine seizure.
I believe your article has done your readers a great disservice in portraying what is a relatively minor problem as a major engine failure.
Colin Walkey, Communications & Public Affairs, Land Rover, Solihull, West Midlands.
I have just read your article in Commercial Motor (9-15 June) and, as a dealer council member of the Land Rover dealer service operations panel, I must register our concern at the severity of the criticism you express.
While it is correct to say that isolated problems of air filter contamination have been experienced, these are not to the level of incidence or importance indicated in your article. To my knowledge, there have been no engine seizures attributable to this complaint. The introduction of the turbo engine has been highly successful, receiving acclaim from both customers and dealers.
Why you should have decided to publish such an inflammatory and misleading article 1 fail to understand, particularly about a relatively minor problem about which the manufacturer has been open and is addressing in a responsible fashion.
M J Duckworth, James Duckworth & Son, Aisthorpe, Lincoln. 0 From the number of reports on this Problem which we have received from dealers and customers, we are satisfied that there is a Problem which they, at least, regard as serious. The substance of Land Rover's original statement to us certainly confirms that, and it would be very remiss of us to ignore a problem which is wonying many of our readers, especially where they feel that they have not been kept up to date with what is going on.
We have no doubt that Land Rover has the matter in hand, and hope that the company's optimism, that any modifications (required to solve the problem) will be minor, will be borne out. Ed.
GIVE NOV DRIVERS A BREAK • thought I might put pen to paper to comment on your "Recruitment Special" (CM 915 June), in which some of the comments mentioned particularly apply to me.
I had been driving a Ford Cargo 3.5-tonne (unladen) for the last year or so. A few months ago I decided to get a bank loan and spent over £700 on training and taking my HGV 1 test.
After driving the Cargo, picking up £70 a week, I thought I'd made a wise decision, a step up the ladder, so to speak. All I had to do now was get myself a Class I job, which were always being advertised, and guarantee myself at least £120pw.
That's when the shock came. Every job I went for knocked me back because I'd no experience. I could rope and sheet like the pros, but because I'd only just got my licence, nobody would give me a look in.
How on earth are new drivers expected to gain experience if operators won't give you that extra bit of help? Paul Lake, South Shields, Tyne & Wear.