Doing what people buy them to do. They're about the most capable out-of-the box off-roaders out there, in addition to being comfortable and driveable luxury cars on the pavement. Like I said, if you can afford the maintenance, they're great. Neither of my dad's have ever actually left him stranded.
Toyota Land Cruiser will beat it in every aspect possible, maybe except luxury (unless you are talking about luxury for its money). Our one has 240K on the clock (in all kinds of conditions, including going 150-160 kmh on the Autobahn for hours with +40C outside while already being 10 years old) and no breakdowns except for a fried alternator (and it was caused by a faulty battery), but this is nowhere near the limit for these cars as there is plenty of 600+K specimens for sale.
I'm not saying there are no good alternatives. Reliability is very important to me personally and a Land Rover wouldn't be my first choice for that reason. @ManfredE3 specifically asked about the Land Rover Discovery so I stated my experience with them. I don't think I even gave a particularly shining review. They're good cars, but expensive to maintain. That's it. If you're okay with that, get one. If not, get something else. EDIT: Yes, I did say there was no better car for the job. That was still excluding reliability. If the Discovery was as reliable as a Toyota, it would be my first choice.
I’ll be staying away from them then... I’ve seen a couple for a nice price lately, I guess I know why now. The most off roading I’ll be doing is beaches and light trails, don’t need anything crazy for that.
Well, I saw a Jalopnik comment which indicates that the idiotic specter of the catalytic converter felony may soon die a well-deserved death. Of course, I couldn't find a source, because the website the comment cited (Fox News) has a search function which doesn't seem to like my old computer. If true, though, this is good news. It's not even that I wanted to run catless, but the way the law was set up ensured that almost any exhaust upgrade to a post-cat car would have a crummy stock catalyst as a massive bottleneck in the system (has to be stock in type, number, position, and who knows what else, so if your car came with a crummy type of catalyst or a single-pipe exhaust, you were stuck). However, I also read an article which states that the Trump administration is planning to roll back the EPA's emissions targets to a level even the automakers are uneasy about... and prevent states from setting their own, harsher rules. Now this, I have no trouble saying is petty and obnoxious. Not the rolling back of standards, but the attack on states' rights. Because the thing with emissions standards is that air quality problems tend to be localized in nature. Certain parts of California are just a plain old perfect storm of population, geography, and pollutive local vegetation (not making that last one up), and those areas along with other dense cities have benefited from emissions standards, but the rest of the country shouldn't have to suffer with them. Both areas can't be satisfied under a one-size-fits-all system. I'm fine with rolling the federal minimum standards back a few years (or just gutting them altogether, since a strict-originalist interpretation of the Constitution can't really authorize them even under the Interstate Commerce clause to the best of my knowledge), but the states should be free to set their own harsher targets. Manufacturers just end up building to the harshest state anyway, or building two different versions, one for heavily-regulated states and one for less-regulated states. The real problems are things like oxides of nitrogen and particulates. Frankly, I haven't really looked enough to know how we can fix this while retaining the performance benefits of direct injection (and avoiding 500cc-per-cylinder or, worse, 500cc-per-cylinder turbo genericness), although I'm sure there's a way.
That is what killed the turbine car, it was ready to go into production, but could not meet emissions. Dodge thought the regular Hellcat was getting boring, so they took the engine from the Demon, detuned it slightly(Demon on premium gas is 804, new Hellcat version is 797), added a wide-body and a new hood, and then they call it the Hellcat Redeye.
Huge text wall yet I understood nothing. Did you mean that under Trump's rule, every dumb yokel can cut off their cat? MAKE LUNG CANCER GREAT AGAIN!
Alright, I'm gonna need you, to calm down. First, as I said before, I've had trouble finding that article, so the commenter may have been facetious (of course I can't just ask the guy, because Jalopnik doesn't want to let me log in with my Goolag/YT account).. Second, this may not be part of the same package as the new-car standards, in which case states would be free to set their own laws. This is the ideal. Third, many of the people who are going to decat probably already do. I'm pretty sure that I'm one of the only people in this country who actually realizes it's a federal felony. Fourth, it's an improvement over the current law where replacing it with a better one (or using two so you can upgrade to true dual exhaust, or whatever) is a felony too.
I found this to be an interesting take on public transport. I also think Johnny's overviews on this sort of thing are pretty excellent too, since he does point out the flaws etc unlike so many other journalists. Its essentially an autonomous taxi, with ride sharing functionality. I would expect it will have the aims of trying to take some market share from buses too. Very interesting from a city infrastructure point of view, since it is better than a car in terms of traffic density, but still worse than a bus, bike, or a motorbike. However, what percentage of customers are actually going to rideshare, and perhaps more practically how many people are going to be able to take the same vehicle before it becomes a really long snaking journey. At least it has the advantage of being able to transport people on the return trip, unlike an autonomous car wandering around unoccupied trying to find some parking. I can see it being quite successful from a consumer point of view, but I am not really sure it solves any problems. Other than potentially reducing the cost of transport in city areas.
I don't think many people are going to rideshare due to security concerns. There's no driver or guard or anyone to protect you if you are attacked by another passenger. I assume there would be an emergency stop button, but it takes some time to safely bring a car from 60-80 kmh to a full stop and then open the door. Maybe there could be weapons of self-defense (tazers, for example) near each seat, like there are glass breaking hammers in buses, but I don't think enthusiasts of this technology will be happy about that.
Its not like a bus driver is going to take a knife for you. Its top speed is 50kph, as stated in the video. Adding tazers to the interior would result in 17y/o's tazing each other for fun. I see no reason why anyone would be more likely to attack you in this than anywhere else. In front of a security camera, in a well lit cabin, in a vehicle that you had to give your bank account to use. Its not the smartest of places to commit a mugging.
Not saying that I think you would get attacked, or that putting tasers in a ride sharing car would be a good idea, but in the examples you provided there are generally more people, rather than just you and one other person in a car.
Aye but a taxi rideshare needing bank details and likely rigged with cameras is substantially less anonymous too. Got to be a fool to try it. Rideshares are nothing new
Hooning My current Vic has an open diff, which I hate, and the Yukon has a locker but can't even dream of breaking both of the rear wheels loose on pavement.
Off-Topic: A friend of my family's is doing something and he needs to move his truck so we let him move it into our backyard until he can get it back. So, for the next few days we have a 60's Ford F100 sitting in our backyard.
