R_Lefebvre said:
The way I see it, many of the mechanical systems have been perfected, and the risk lies with the new computerized systems. I think a lot of the anti-new car sentiment stems from people who want to stick with what they know. Which is fine. Some of the rest of us young guys never knew the old stuff. I'm only 30, and most of my cars have been fuel injected. I couldn't fix a carb or distributor system if my life depended on it. However, I have no problem with the computer systems.
I think you're reading this wrong. I don't think there is an 'anti-new car sentiment' here at all, I think it's a matter or purpose at this point. Guys are saying the LR3 is a great truck, just not an ideal choice for an overlanding vehicle when there are other, more proven platforms out there. And most of that stems from the lack of user-serviceability in the field.
And for that matter, I think saying that the mechanical workings of a vehicle have been
perfected is a bit of an overstatement. This is why car makers still offer warranties. Parts break down and need repair, simple as that.
I'm sure you are great with computers, and if you have a testbook along for the trip then you'd be just fine in an LR3, or any other predominantly computer controller vehicle for that matter. Those computer systems are proprietary though which is why they can ask twelve grand for a testbook and get it.
At the end of the day though, people who are building trucks to head off into the unknown for weeks at a time and the vehicle is their lifeline need it to perform, and when it doesn't they need to know they can fix the problem and press. This is where basic understanding of what makes vehicles run comes into play. You still need fuel, spark, and timing, regardless of how many computers there are ... it's just a lot easier to fix these things with hand tools than it is if they are controlled by a handful of computers.