RE: PH Zeroes: Rambo Lambo
Discussion
DrTre said:
magic torch said:
Just because I wouldn't buy one doesn't mean I'm not grateful that it exists.
I'd not own a Countach either. Genuinely. I think they're spectacularly absurd, bordering on hideous, in pretty much every sense. Doesn't mean it's not a Hero. In fact, they're a Hero because of that absurdity.
In fact, there are plenty of vehicles I'd not own, for any number of reasons, that are brilliant just because someone had the audacity to make them.
It's simply a glorious motoring irrelevance and I love the fact that it was produced. Viewed with the head of course you slowly shake your head and mutter "Stupid", viewed with the heart you slowly shake your head and grin "Stupid!".
.
[/quote]
Precisely. I don't care that it's a bit s
t, and if they go for 80k then presumably there are enough people who agree.
[/quote]
If somebody does take the plunge at that price, surely all that signifies is that there is always a market for low-volume cars built by revered marques. Values of such cars are based on rarity, not ability.
[/quote]
Precisely. I don't care that it's a bit s
t, and if they go for 80k then presumably there are enough people who agree.[/quote]
If somebody does take the plunge at that price, surely all that signifies is that there is always a market for low-volume cars built by revered marques. Values of such cars are based on rarity, not ability.
tonym911 said:
I take your point, but I bet the Libyan Army mechanics didn't use the 'hero' word that often. Six gulping carbs in the desert? And even when they were running, how would the fuel tankers keep up?
Oh I know they're fundamentally abysmal at pretty much everything...but it's kind of part of their charm. Like Frank Spencer. Albeit Frank Spencer with a drinking problem.
I'm just kind of less fussed about its ability than its character.
Like you said though, it's horses for courses!
I note the purchase price these days is quoted at *around* £50K.
If I had £50K and I was in the market for an absurd 4x4, I wouldn't buy one of these. I'd buy a Bowler. Equally absurd but with even better performance and more "useful" economy.
BUT it doesn't diminish the LM002 or its place as a PH car. Just because I don't want to sign-up to another fuel-hungry monster (the Cerb and the current Scooby flat-6 are wallet-puckering enough) doesn't mean someone else won't want to.
And to be honest, even though petrol's current 80-something-pence price isn't **really** cheap, it feels cheap compared to the prices we were exposed to around Sept last year. It's so rare for petrol prices to go down that we all got the high prices into our mindsets and adjusted our lives to suit. To now find it so (relatively) low gives us opportunity to splurge on poor-economy monsters.
I wish the LM002 was still being made. Imagine what it might have been developed into under VAG's leadership and the current engine range? The bloody Hummer, by comparson, is a hopeless asthmatic dinosaur.
If I had £50K and I was in the market for an absurd 4x4, I wouldn't buy one of these. I'd buy a Bowler. Equally absurd but with even better performance and more "useful" economy.
BUT it doesn't diminish the LM002 or its place as a PH car. Just because I don't want to sign-up to another fuel-hungry monster (the Cerb and the current Scooby flat-6 are wallet-puckering enough) doesn't mean someone else won't want to.
And to be honest, even though petrol's current 80-something-pence price isn't **really** cheap, it feels cheap compared to the prices we were exposed to around Sept last year. It's so rare for petrol prices to go down that we all got the high prices into our mindsets and adjusted our lives to suit. To now find it so (relatively) low gives us opportunity to splurge on poor-economy monsters.
I wish the LM002 was still being made. Imagine what it might have been developed into under VAG's leadership and the current engine range? The bloody Hummer, by comparson, is a hopeless asthmatic dinosaur.
tonym911 said:
I said:
Precisely. I don't care that it's a bit st, and if they go for 80k then presumably there are enough people who agree.
If somebody does take the plunge at that price, surely all that signifies is that there is always a market for low-volume cars built by revered marques. Values of such cars are based on rarity, not ability.t, and if they go for 80k then presumably there are enough people who agree.mechsympathy said:
tonym911 said:
I said:
Precisely. I don't care that it's a bit st, and if they go for 80k then presumably there are enough people who agree.
If somebody does take the plunge at that price, surely all that signifies is that there is always a market for low-volume cars built by revered marques. Values of such cars are based on rarity, not ability.t, and if they go for 80k then presumably there are enough people who agree.BLUETHUNDER said:
bishbash said:
BLUETHUNDER said:
I dont know where the comparisons of the LM002 and sports suv,s come from???.
Sports suv,s came about after BMW entered the market with the X5.
sports suv, so that would be a sports sports utility vehicle?Sports suv,s came about after BMW entered the market with the X5.
Slippers said:
griffter said:
Anybody else have the Tamiya remote controlled Cheetah model? One of my favourite toys as a kid - begged my parents for it for the best part of a year.
No I had the Countach but my best mate did have the Cheetah which he hand painted with a wallpaper brush for that authentic ratty military look! Reckon that's going back 25+ years nowI love them!! I remember as a kid reading about this monster and thinking how cool it was, didn't the car mags state it had something like wheels from a 747? (okay, complete rubbish obviously, but there was definitely some talk of airplane wheels on it).
It's a hero car for me, the sort of car they shouldve done a radio controlled version of, imagine being a kid and opening a massive present and it's a radio controlled LM002!!
The article needs to be changed to make this a Hero, I think more people think of it that way then think it was a waste or shouldnt have been built.
It's a hero car for me, the sort of car they shouldve done a radio controlled version of, imagine being a kid and opening a massive present and it's a radio controlled LM002!!
The article needs to be changed to make this a Hero, I think more people think of it that way then think it was a waste or shouldnt have been built.
This article certainly seems to be written by someone who isn't getting any loving at the moment.
Instead of bashing a vehicle they don't like, maybe they should review their own writing style - it sucks. Blatant sgging off based on inaccurate facts just surmounts to making one look rather stupid.
1. Lamborghini was made famous and a success making these long before making sports cars.
So the LM002 is really not a surprise. And if it was to you, then you really ought to do more research first.
2. The VM diesel engines are fantastic. And if you've even been on a diesel boat (most are) there's a good chance it was a VM. So instead of bashing an engine you evidently have no knowledge of try and grow up.
Also the latter 2.5 VM's used by Land Rover were superb engines and easily outperformed the latter Land Rover own 200/300 TDI series of engines. A later development of this engine was also rather well accepted in Jeeps Cherokee range.
3. I'm very disappointed in PH for allowing such a low rent write up on their webpages. I thought we were all meant to be motoring enthusiasts?
Such tripe is the reason many of us don't bother buying or reading British motoring magazines. PH - please don't allow this disease to continue.
-A motoring enthusiast.
Instead of bashing a vehicle they don't like, maybe they should review their own writing style - it sucks. Blatant s
gging off based on inaccurate facts just surmounts to making one look rather stupid.1. Lamborghini was made famous and a success making these long before making sports cars.
So the LM002 is really not a surprise. And if it was to you, then you really ought to do more research first.
2. The VM diesel engines are fantastic. And if you've even been on a diesel boat (most are) there's a good chance it was a VM. So instead of bashing an engine you evidently have no knowledge of try and grow up.
Also the latter 2.5 VM's used by Land Rover were superb engines and easily outperformed the latter Land Rover own 200/300 TDI series of engines. A later development of this engine was also rather well accepted in Jeeps Cherokee range.
3. I'm very disappointed in PH for allowing such a low rent write up on their webpages. I thought we were all meant to be motoring enthusiasts?
Such tripe is the reason many of us don't bother buying or reading British motoring magazines. PH - please don't allow this disease to continue.
-A motoring enthusiast.
300bhp/ton said:
This article certainly seems to be written by someone who isn't getting any loving at the moment.
Instead of bashing a vehicle they don't like, maybe they should review their own writing style - it sucks. Blatant sgging off based on inaccurate facts just surmounts to making one look rather stupid.
1. Lamborghini was made famous and a success making these long before making sports cars.
So the LM002 is really not a surprise. And if it was to you, then you really ought to do more research first.
2. The VM diesel engines are fantastic. And if you've even been on a diesel boat (most are) there's a good chance it was a VM. So instead of bashing an engine you evidently have no knowledge of try and grow up.
Also the latter 2.5 VM's used by Land Rover were superb engines and easily outperformed the latter Land Rover own 200/300 TDI series of engines. A later development of this engine was also rather well accepted in Jeeps Cherokee range.
3. I'm very disappointed in PH for allowing such a low rent write up on their webpages. I thought we were all meant to be motoring enthusiasts?
Such tripe is the reason many of us don't bother buying or reading British motoring magazines. PH - please don't allow this disease to continue.
-A motoring enthusiast.
I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced. Instead of bashing a vehicle they don't like, maybe they should review their own writing style - it sucks. Blatant s
gging off based on inaccurate facts just surmounts to making one look rather stupid.1. Lamborghini was made famous and a success making these long before making sports cars.
So the LM002 is really not a surprise. And if it was to you, then you really ought to do more research first.
2. The VM diesel engines are fantastic. And if you've even been on a diesel boat (most are) there's a good chance it was a VM. So instead of bashing an engine you evidently have no knowledge of try and grow up.
Also the latter 2.5 VM's used by Land Rover were superb engines and easily outperformed the latter Land Rover own 200/300 TDI series of engines. A later development of this engine was also rather well accepted in Jeeps Cherokee range.
3. I'm very disappointed in PH for allowing such a low rent write up on their webpages. I thought we were all meant to be motoring enthusiasts?
Such tripe is the reason many of us don't bother buying or reading British motoring magazines. PH - please don't allow this disease to continue.
-A motoring enthusiast.
BLUETHUNDER said:
I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.
Garlick said:
Don't tell anyone, but I think this Lambo is a hero
Get your editing stick out then BLUETHUNDER said:
I would just like to point out that the VM used in the RR Classic(Only LandRover product it was used in)was a dreadful,hateful engine.Underpowered,and couldnt perform at the best of times.Had a tendancy to do head gaskets,and with the stupid design of four individual heads,it made a very expensive repair.The 200 and 300 tdi were a godsend when they were announced.
Which variant of the VM engine are you referring too?The early 2.4 was underpowered compared to the 3.5 RV8 (the only alternative engine at the time). But it marked the first step to a diesel powerplant for the Range Rover.
Even in this guise it was still more powerful than Land Rover's own 2.5 Diesel Turbo as found in the 90/110's of the time.
The latter revised 2.5 VM TD was a very good engine. We had one almost from new for many many years. It was very reliable and a good power plant for the Range Rover. It easily out performed 200 and even 300 TDI's in stock trim (had a number of these too).
The only downer was mpg, it usually managed 24-26 in the Range Rover. Compared to 200/300TDI's that'll do ~28mpg in the same vehicle.
The latter 2.5 VM TD made 121bhp and 209ft lb compared to the 200TDI which only made 111bhp and 195ft lb.
So how exactly is it, as you say - underpowered?
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 16th January 13:00
I love it. In the flesh it's like a real life action-man toy. That just has to cause a little twinge of excitement in any one of us with an ounce of testosterone (those tyres are something else too).
This has to be it's natural successor:
Gibbs Humdinga
This has to be it's natural successor:
Gibbs Humdinga
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff