I just posted this in a LR fan page and feel like sharing my thoughts on my wall. Regarding Land Rover: in my opinion Land Rover fell from grace with the introduction of the Range Rover Classic. Why? Because the RRC set the stage for all future Rovers: luxury over practicality. Rovers before the RRC where robust, more reliable, less computers and pure utilitarian: practical vehicles. As much as I like fancy computers and air suspension, I admit neither are practical for a working truck nor are they useful while off-roading. When LR realized the demand for upscale luxury vehicles they changed their direction and focused on producing new vehicles aimed not at the farmers, not at the hard working class, but the high end rich class of people. Followed by their inability to manage their assets and keep their company together, consequently the Rover was sold, bought, sold and bought again. They neglected quality control and cut to many corners which is most apparent in the first 2 generations of the Discovery models where they used cheap plastics from the pars bin and an old defective Rover V8 that was already outdated and the tooling for the engine old. Today I strongly believe that Land Rover has completely abandoned the its roots. In another 10-15 years their probably will not be any practical modern off-road worthy 4x4's. Land Rover cares more about celebrities and politicians than they do off-road enthusiasts and utility vehicles.

I think Land Rover Range Rover should split into two completely separate vehicle manufacturing companies. "Range Rover" for the upscale luxury market and "Land Rover" for the utilitarian offroad 4x4 capable nitch. I also think that someone in the UK should buy back "Land Rover" and revive the old principles set in stone by the founders, let India and China have their way with RR. Bring back he Defender and continue progress on a new updated model that remains true and loyal to the iconic design and practicality. Scrap all the new Discovery models and reboot the Disco with a new more utilitarian design.

Ive become so found of the older Land Rovers and Im proud to advertise the company logo on my truck, but when I think of all the new Rovers, I feel a strong lack of interest. New Land Rover seems like a very foreign company. Not the company I remember.

 

That's not an understanding of the truth about Range Rover at all. The Range Rover was introduced in 1970 and had no fuel injection, no ABS, no air suspension, and nothing that could be considered more of a computer than what the Series I had. The Range Rover acquired all of those things later. It didn't get air suspension until 20 years after its introduction. An airbag SRS and all the gizmos that control it came 25 years after the Range Rover was introduced. In other words, what happened to the Range Rover and Land Rover as a company was an evolution that occurred over many decades, and not with a single model introduction. What's more, it happened because of a changing market. Even now, the sales figures bear record that Land Rover has followed the demand in the market.

I don't agree at all. Fancy computers that run the most sophisticated diesels in the world are the backbone of the working truck fleets the world over. Not only are they the chief means to achieve unprecedented efficiency, they're also the only practical means to provide intelligence that spans more than one owner's fleeting dedication to a hobby interest. But the computer's usefulness goes far beyond the interests of those who manage working trucks. They provide invaluable data and aids to drivers. Just look in the cockpit of a Trophy Truck and tell me that computers are not useful while offroading. Land Rover, more than anyone, has applied sophisticated electronic aids for the benefit of individual driver/owners of leisure vehicles, which is exactly what you're actually interested in, seeing as you do not drive a Land Rover for a living, nor do you drive offroad professionally.

Furthermore, air springs and active suspension are ideal for both working trucks and offroading. The only real drawbacks are the high cost and the long term dependability. Still, plenty of over-the-road trucks use air springs, and Land Rover has demonstrated for decades that they work wonderfully for leisure vehicles and Arnott offers terrific aftermarket solutions to some of the issues with OE.

There was no more demand from farmers. Farming itself changed, rather dramatically. What demand there was that the Series filled was during a transitional period following the war. Once agriculture got reorganized, it moved beyond the Series. Even the smallest scale farmers today wouldn't consider anything without a fifth-wheel to be more than a toy. For the most part, they use tractors and trucks that come near to dwarfing a B17 bomber. There simply wasn't anything like a JD9620R when the Series was introduced. Times changed.

As for the working class, they generally don't afford a leisure vehicle, especially not a new one. If they even have a car because they're in the US or some other outlandishly wealthy nation, they probably have a commuter car or a company work truck. If they ever manage to afford a leisure vehicle, they'll get a 10 or 15 year old one like you and I. Land Rover nor anyone else is interested in them because they don't buy new cars. They may buy a new UTV because with financing, they're as affordable as the only other leisure vehicle most working class people can afford: clunkers like ours.

The Rover V8 was one of the greatest engines of the 20th century. It was introduced in the early 60's and wasn't outdated until the late 90's. People could say that the Discovery II as a whole was outdated in it's day. It was a stop-gap measure to prolong the existing Discovery model until a completely new platform could be introduced. It prolonged the Discovery model that had been introduced in the 80's so that it lasted until 2004. Yeah, it had some outdated features by that time. But in other respects, it preserved a few things that otherwise would have been lost earlier, and they were certainly lost afterward.

That does appear to be the likes of it. There's hasn't been any indication that Land Rover cares about their roots or offroading beyond a pretense for about 15 or 20 years now. For practical and modern off-road worthy 4x4's you will almost certainly have to look at SxS's and what they evolve into in the next 10-15 years. Legislation will prevent road cars from having anything you're looking for. The direction road cars must practically go in order to advance is incompatible with what you desire for offroad use. Road cars will almost certainly have to evolve toward network-controlled transportation pods that travel at increased speeds with the most sophisticated technology to ensure the safety, and efficiency. Old body on frame trucks with solid axles, steel bumpers and mechanical steering won't remain much longer. At least they won't be permitted on the roads. I'm sure some more "progressive" society will ban them first, but the US will follow. Either way, it would be foolish for JLR to go on like nothing has changed since the 50's and that they could somehow sell 50,000 offroad vehicles a year. I did read that UTV sales are approaching 400,000 a year though, with Polaris dominating most of the pie. Polaris is whipping JLR in offroad sales, and their units sell for about what you'd think is fair for an offroad utility vehicle (not the $50k+ that a luxo-SUV sells for).

Utilitarian like a Discovery 4? or like a Polaris Ranger? JLR has less expensive models like the Discovery Sport, and they have the Range Rover Supercharged Autobiography Black. The way they see it, they have the whole spectrum covered -- except for sports cars. That is exactly what their director is talking about. He said Porsche and Bentley got into SUV's, and there's no reason Land Rover couldn't do the reverse. He said that no it's not Jaguar territory, that there's enough room in that market for several other options. But I have a feeling you're thinking about something more like the price and function of a Polaris Ranger. The price point is simply so low that there's no margin there for JLR to work with given their manufacturing costs and the costs of their distribution network. The Discovery Sport is about as low as they can go and still make a profit. Tata motors, on the other hand, could certainly consider building something utilitarian. I just don't think they have the people that understand the UTV market in the US. But an Indian-made UTV could totally rock if they got it figured out.

I haven't seen the slightest indication of any influence from India and China on JLR, other than the growing demand for Range Rovers from those country's growing wealthy population. As far as I know, JLR is run out of England. BMW and Ford had far more effect on the products we're seeing now than Tata. The effect Tata's appears to have had is to reverse JLR from the brink of another bankruptcy into a cash-cow status, simply by investing wads of cash to a product line they've hardly touched.

But also consider that you've never been to the UK, at least I don't think you have. I suspect you have a very American perspective on who Land Rover is or was. The old principles of Rover might very well shock you if you were to actually understand them.

Personally, I would rather like to see what India or China could do.

It's not JLR that terminated the Defender, but the government. It would not be legally possible to bring it back in its old form. Land Rover's director has said the new Defender is already decided upon and that it does not resemble the DC100 concept at all. We're all waiting to see what it is. We've been told it will disappoint the people that just want the old one, but its been said that its so good that many people will forget what they had in the past. That does make some sense. Continuing to live off the past isn't a practical way forward. They really do need something new. The Defender has already been effectively banned from the roads (for new sales) and that is not in JLR's power. They need a new product that satisfies the demand by doing more than just prolonging the Defender's death. They need something that is so good that a rational person will stop pining for the old days. Land Rover has emphasized the new Defender will be "durable." We'll have to wait and see what their interpretation of that is.

When you talk about Discovery, and utilitarian, you have to consider that the Discovery was introduced to compete against lower-cost Japanese SUV's that were far more practical than a Range Rover. In the late 80's and early 90's Japan was starting to produce comparatively low-cost SUV's that were seriously interesting to people looking for "utilitarian." They did not care about "iconic design." They did not reminisce in the glory of a logo or brand, nor did they try to maintain the pretense of being on a safari or something or that they were a duke of something or other. An Isuzu Trooper was a perfectly good way to get what they needed done. The point being, the Discovery didn't invent something new. It came about to fill a gap that was being filled by others. To a certain degree, it continues to do just that. But the whole group of SUV's has evolved into softroaders that would put a RRC to shame with their comfort features. What does continue to provide the same utility as a 1988 Trooper, is a 1988 Trooper. I'll likely never want for the utility of an old-school Land Rover, because there's plenty of them, and they're not likely to be forgotten unless something better comes along, and then I'll forget them too.

 

"Not the company I remember."


How old are you and how many "Land Rover" memories of the old days do you really have?
You've owned a couple of DI's and DII's and are now an authority on not only the history but the business direction of the company?


"Regarding Land Rover: in my opinion Land Rover fell from grace with the introduction of the Range Rover Classic. Why? Because the RRC set the stage for all future Rovers: luxury over practicality. Rovers before the RRC where robust, more reliable, less computers and pure utilitarian: practical vehicles."


The first Range Rovers were hardly rolling cruise ships outfitted with in the height of luxury. They came will rubber mats on the floors, no a/c, roll up windows and an overall spartan level of "luxury." However, they did introduce a number of innovative items like coil springs on all four wheels, four wheel disc brakes and articulation that made the Series Rover look positively arthritic. On top of that, the Range Rover got the 3.5L carburetted V8 enabling it to get out of its own way on the road as well as off road. Granted, output may have been in the anemic 125-135hp range but it was a lot better than the 65-72hp range of the SIIa 109.

For crying out loud why not single out the horrible NADA 6 cylinder 109 introduced for Americans craving speed, as the turning point for Land Rover. From that point on, in an attempt that failed to give the Series a bit more power, it was all downhill. Or how about going after those awful Series III County models with decals on every body panel in an effort to make the glorified tractor more likeable to a broader segment of the market?

Sorry about your misguided views regarding the Range Rover but it was the natural progression for a company looking to expand its market. The Range Rover was a groundbreaking improvement over the Series Rover in every way imaginable. It was more capable off road than the leaf sprung Series and was able to tow significantly more with its V8 in comparison to the weak 2.25L 4 cylinder all the while keeping its inhabitants safer and more comfortable.


"As much as I like fancy computers and air suspension, I admit neither are practical for a working truck nor are they useful while off-roading."


Do you realize that most tractor trailers riding on our highways use air suspension and that that air suspension is controlled with computers. You do also realize that Opportunity, the mobile vehicle operating on Mars for over ten years is controlled by fancy computers in an environment far more difficult than you'll likely see anywhere here on earth.


"When LR realized the demand for upscale luxury vehicles they changed their direction and focused on producing new vehicles aimed not at the farmers, not at the hard working class, but the high end rich class of people."


You do realize that only a used Defender is typically within the reach of a working class family (in other parts of the world). I also hope you realize that a Defender would most certainly be at the bottom of the list of any working class family searching for reliable, efficient transportation.

I think the introduction of the Discovery Sport like the LR2, Freelander and original Discovery were all created in an effort to provide a more cost effective Land Rover to a broader market. Land Rover sold almost as many DI's in 1994/95 than it had Classics from 1987-1995 in the US market (it's biggest at the time). Clearly, Land Rover had found an economic sweet spot for its products.

Now, I'd be willing to bet that research into what type of 4x4 the "hard working class" looks to purchase would reveal an awful lot of Hyundai's, Kia's and maybe even a few Rav4's or CRV's but, seriously, you expect a company like Land Rover to compete against these companies? Talk about having to make compromises.


"Followed by their inability to manage their assets and keep their company together, consequently the Rover was sold, bought, sold and bought again."


From the time Land Rover was brought into the BMC fold, they have always made money. They have also seen the money and technology they developed for their parent corporation syphoned off to help other divisions of that corporation. The same thing happened with British Leyland. British Aeronautics bought them from the state for nothing and as soon as they were making money, sold them to BMW. There are plenty of people who will argue that the only reason BMW bought Rover was to steal their latest 4x4 technology for the X5 regardless, all BMW did was further alienate management from the workers. Ford dabbled with Rover for a few years and actually improved quality ratings (as they did with Jaguar) but always backed away from the significant investment needed to comfortably usher them into the 21st century. As the high end market crumbled along with their ideas of a Premium Auto Group, they held a fire sale to get rid of Rover. Now, with Tata providing real money to help develop new models for wider markets, Rover has found something of a benevolent father and you're crying foul?

Rover is a corporation. I think you need to grasp the meaning of that. They are not a club or a group of guys looking to have fun. As a corporation they have a responsibility to their shareholders. They need to make money. If in the process, they can produce quality 4x4's then all the better. Today, the currently lineup of Rover vehicles would likely eat alive the old Series Rovers you pine for. And they'll do it with a higher level of comfort and, most likely, a higher degree of reliability.


"They neglected quality control and cut to many corners which is most apparent in the first 2 generations of the Discovery models where they used cheap plastics from the pars bin and an old defective Rover V8 that was already outdated and the tooling for the engine old. "


Quality control? Take a look at the millions and millions of cars that are under recall. It would appear as though no one is making quality control an important issue anymore. It's all about the dollars. This could get me spiralling down a rabbit hole about corporation pathological behavior but I'll contain myself.

You're driving a Rover that is 11 years old. I'm driving several Rovers that range in age from 21 years to 16 years. I think that says an awful lot about vehicles you seem quick to dismiss in favor of a vehicle, the Series Rover, that was actually fabricated out of parts from the Wilkes brothers old ******. The original Series Rover prototype sat on a ****** chassis. Aluminum was used for no other reason than it's availability thanks to all the decommissioned airplanes scattered around England after the war. It was built as simply and cheaply not because of the immense foresight of the brothers but rather because materiel was not available for anything more sophisticated and there was a suffocating need to generate cash. Hence the export market.

Now, you talk about the Rover V8 as though it was the worst vehicle ever conceived but have no understanding of the incredible impact it had on all manner of British car from the 1960's to the present day. Meanwhile, you really want to extol the virtues of the 2.25L petrol engine used in the Series Rover for what seemed like forever? Better yet, how about that dynamo of an engine, the diesel 2.25L, a miserable engine if there ever was one. Oh, and lets not forget that marvel of dis-engineering, the 2.6L used in 1967 in an effort to turn the Series into a muscle car. Were the 2.5L NA diesel or 2.5L petrol five main significantly better? Hardly. In fact, it wasn't until the 200TDi and 300 TDi outfitted for the Discovery and Defender, that Rover diesels were worth anything at all.

Meanwhile, the Rover V8 just kept on improving. From the days of modest output and miserable fuel economy, it moved, as the displacement increased, to see dramatic power increases with modest fuel economy improvements as well. Keep in mind that an increase in mileage from 12 to 15 mpg is a whopping 25%. That is not a small increment! Couple that with output rising to well over 200 HP, a close to 100% improvement and you have a remarkably flexible engine. Factor in increasing regulations for emissions, fuel economy and the like and what Rover achieved was nothing short of amazing. So, please, keep your V8 bashing to yourself. For a block designed in the 1950's it managed to provide the goods for a lot longer than most engines could.

If you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at the various companies that owned Rover over the years for not providing them the cash needed to do the necessary improvements for these engines. BL did nothing, BAE did nothing. It wasn't until the very end with BMW and the introduction of the L322 that an engine change was made and the BMW 4.4L was chosen. Ford opted for the Jaguar V8 because it killed them to buy an engine from BMW. We're going on 12 years since the engine you hate was used in a Range Rover and 11 years since it was used in any Rover product at all. It's time to let go of that argument.


"Today I strongly believe that Land Rover has completely abandoned the its roots. In another 10-15 years their probably will not be any practical modern off-road worthy 4x4's."


And Ford no longer makes the Model T.

In another 10-15 years a significant number of vehicles sold will be self driving. By that time the number of people who consider "off roading" as a sport will have dwindled to a fraction of what it is today. It's already significantly smaller than when I used to off road in the 1990's.
You want a large, multinational corporation to cater to a market that is shrinking while ignoring markets that are exploding. It makes no sense.


"I think Land Rover Range Rover should split into two completely separate vehicle manufacturing companies. "Range Rover" for the upscale luxury market and "Land Rover" for the utilitarian offroad 4x4 capable nitch."


I can't even grasp a shred of business logic behind this statement.

"I also think that someone in the UK should buy back "Land Rover" and revive the old principles set in stone by the founders, let India and China have their way with RR. "

A tad bit racist don't you think.

Revive the old principles set in stone by the founders??? On one hand you dismiss the Range Rover (ever hear of Spencer King) and embrace a level a practicality borne out of the devastation of WWII. Please, with citations, state the "old principles set in stone by the founders." They begged and borrowed from everywhere and anywhere just to get a vehicle cobbled together for export sale in the post war era. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?


"Bring back the Defender and continue progress on a new updated model that remains true and loyal to the iconic design and practicality. Scrap all the new Discovery models and reboot the Disco with a new more utilitarian design."


Bring back a vehicle that was selling a few thousand copies a year as an overpriced, under performing, glorified tractor? Meanwhile, gut the meat of the Land Rover business, the Discovery and LR4 models? Have you any business sense whatsoever? Can you post up your market research indicating the demand for a design that harkens back to 1947 over that of a modern, safe, efficient and capable vehicle like the Discovery Sport or LR4?


"Ive become so found of the older Land Rovers and Im proud to advertise the company logo on my truck, but when I think of all the new Rovers, I feel a strong lack of interest. New Land Rover seems like a very foreign company. Not the company I remember."


This brings me back, full circle. I'll say it again, what company do you remember? Rose colored glasses can create an amazing view but one that's detached from reality. Sorry but your post is nothing more than the ravings of a disenchanted fanboy lacking facts or a fundamental understanding of business.

 

You are one grumpy old man Paul

Keep in mind this thread is just my opinion of Land Rover, and you know what they say about opinions? " Opinions are like **** holes, everyones got one and they all stink"!

As for the RRC, I dont care when LR decided to add all the luxury gadgets to the model, nevertheless it was still the first model to come with sunroof, leather, mobile phone, heated windshield, heated seats, power everything, air suspension etc. I dare bet that the RRC was also the first Land Rover model to sell for a ridiculous price tag. Im aware that early RRC models were more primitive in the luxury department but I also believe most of those fancy features were added for US market RRC's.

Admittedly Im no expert on economics or business management. I look at the company from the standpoint of a young adult with a small wallet.

Im mixed about luxury items on vehicles. On one hand I like the ride comfort and height adjustability offered with air suspension. Of course air suspension has uses during offorading such as raising the ground clearance. BUT I read an article that talked about the air suspension system on the LR3 and RR. Supposedly if the air strouts should fail or spring a air leak then the body sinks down forcing the wheel to far up in the wheel well and you cannot drive the vehicle... dont remember the article off hand but thinking about what they said I can only imagine the horrors if the air suspension system failed while you were a couple hundred miles from home or out on the trails. I cant help but think that coil springs are more reliable. As for the electronics well yes Im sure they can make a big difference while you driving on slippery roads or offroading because they can help optimise the systems on the vehicle, however should any of those computer systems get wet they are screwed and thus the vehicle is screwed because the vehicle relies to heavily on the computers to function. Also Land Rover always seemed to have issues with their electronics and computers. When it comes to servicing these heavily computerized vehicles nowadays you need more than simple tools to repair the vehicles. Now you need the internet and expensive computer diagnostic tools to make the repairs. For example the air suspension struts on the LR3. Once you replace the strut you still have to use the diagnostic tools to reset the electronics for the air system otherwise the error messages and warning lights will remain on the dash and may prevent you from operating the vehicle. If the world goes to **** are you really going to trust these computer driven vehicles over say a simple Series III? I know I would not!

Just my opinion of things.

 

Young adults grow into old men, and there's a better chance you'll end up being one with some money than of the world going to **** and all the computers failing so that only preppers who thought to buy a Series III won't be regretting it. Your opinion will change as soon as your wallet does.

A Land Rover official, when the Discovery was introduced, trying to explain the relative positions of the two models, said the Discovery was for yuppies, whereas the Range Rover was for those who had already made it. At the time, the term had not taken on the derogatory sense it acquired soon after. It simply meant a young up-and-comer (young upwardly-mobile professional).

The Discovery and Range Rover are still positioned that way. The payments on an LR4 are entirely practical for a upwardly mobile professional that isn't debt-averse. The Range Rover is likewise suitable for the made guy that is going to pay cash and replace it with a new one before the warranty expires.

But you are the kid that only graduated high school and got some odd jobs that pay an hourly wage. So you resent Land Rover for making cars for the guys you envy. The ones that are somehow better off than you. You think they should sell new cars that glorify you instead of those "rich" guys. But if you got a little money, your story would change right away. You'd be down at the dealership, and those old clunkers would be nothing but a bad memory. But that wouldn't stop you from using your experience as if it went back to the early days, and your long history with Land Rovers lent you some type of credibility as a Land Rover client of the genuine sort, not like all these spoiled punks that only just started buying them.

 

IMO if LR didn't move on from the old Series trucks it wouldn't exist today it would be like this https://www.google.fr/search?q=traba...2&ved=0CD8QsAQ

Having owned and driven nearly all regularly available LR's there has been enormous progression and the new LR's are both very capable and comfortable. The market for the farmer and hobby offroader is tiny compared to the sales to the rich and money making family man. Fact is today most LR's never see any offroad or even dirt they are a commercial status symbol. Owning an LR isn't cheap to buy or run since the advent of the Range Rover (now known as Classic) which was a magnificent machine in it's era but again only the rich could afford one new. I owned a nearly new 1982 RRC in 1982 and the original receipt was still with the docs, it cost £15,600 back then, mega bucks. The old ex Buick 3.5 NA engine did it's job admirably.

Most LR's are now priced out of the range of everyday people the same as many new vehicles, take a look at the medium and luxury vehicle brochures and Mr Average cannot afford them new. The point being is that Mr Average does not need a 4x4 and most are exceptional vehicles employing state of the art technology without which coupled with progression we would still have a Trabby as an aspirational car. I drive an RRS also and apart from all the eco cr@p which has been loaded into it the truck is great, when was there many vehicles you can drive for 500-1000 miles in 12-24 hours and not feel at all stressed or tired. The modern LR3 and LR4, RRS, RR are fantastic ............. provided you can afford to buy them and more importantly, run them.

Toyota, Nissan, Mazda all make suitable pickup trucks for the working farmer, builder etc so the market has almost disappeared for the old type LR's and even the modern pickup trucks are now expensive and look futuristic. Who's fault is it, the man with a few bucks to spend or a good cedit line. In many cases materialism rules and everyone wants the things they cannot really afford be it a new mobile phone, tablet, luxury car or even hard drugs.

 

I completely get what you are saying here but regarding me personally I have to disagree with a couple things. For one thing even if I did have alot more money in my pocket, I still would not buy a new car of any sort, not even a new Land Rover. Im not money hungry. My ideal fantasy involves an old small english cottage with a thatched roof, a stone fireplace, a garage, a British wife, a couple goats cats and chickens, a racoon and 3 Rovers:

1: Series III 109 0r Defender 130
2: 2004 Discovery 2
3: 2008 Discovery 3

Nothing else nothing more. Me wanting a LR3 is of course contradicting yes but it stems from the side of me that does desire "some luxury". Its modern and probably much safer vs the D2 or the Defender/Series so it would be the ideal family car. The D2 would be my balance between comfort and utility off road 4x4 and the Series III/Defender would be on a 130 platform and decked out completely for long range expeditions.

I have no need for the biggest and the best of the best. Im very particular about what I want. But I agree that if I had more money my opinions would certainly change as they will with age.

Right now Im about to undertake a adventure across the country and up into Alaska. Living the dream by my terms and taking risk's along the way. But already Im thinking about my next Rover. I do want 3 after all. For awhile Ive been thinking about a LR3 but now Im starting to lean towards the Series III 109. Ideally I would prefer a Defender 110 or 130 but theres no way I can afford one. So the next best thing would be a Series 3. I have alot to learn about the Series trucks as Ive never taken a serious interest until now but its certainly got to be the Series 3 model.

 

lol... hahaha... now that's some fantasy....

 

TRIARS wish is my command

Résultats Google Recherche d'images correspondant à http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Chocolate_Box_cottage,_Ashton_under_Hill_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1482850.jpg

The problem is these days the ideal will set you back a couple of million £££ and the chances of being burgled is pretty good. Sadly the UK isn't what it used to be. Everyone has a dream or fantasy for their ideal and without that little dream or fantasy there is nothing much to strive for. I like someone who wants to achieve what they dream of as it makes the world go round.

Everywhere has it's trials and tribulations as witnessed in Paris this week where there was another unwarranted atrocity ............ and for what? Paris is only 4 hours drive but seemed a thousand miles away.

 

Oh, I'm all for dreaming and having fantasies Offroad, I just think a couple of goats, cats, chickens and a raccoon could make things a little, erm.. how should I put this.. uncomfortable? The stone house, British wife and 3 Rovers, on the other hand, are completely doable

You're slipping on me Offroad.. tut tut..