Rover bust in NC??? - Page 4 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old March 26th, 2013, 11:39 PM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
To answer your edit, if those parts are to original spec (except the frame section with the ID) then I think you would have a valid case to fight denial of import. Didnít Barry post up an example of somebody who fought successfully on that basis recently and won?

The point about the ID (and I agree with you to some extent here) is more grey. Legally you can 'theoretically' replace the frame (JUST the frame) and it doesnít contravene UK laws so would retain its original ID in the UK. However I understand the US position because without that original stamp how can they prove itís the original vehicle and not some collection of parts put together by some toe rag in an arch in Basingstoke? So the US it seems have deemed an original chassis to be a requirement so as to enable them to prove the vehicles ID I am sure. No doubt they have realized the one on the brake tower is just a few bolts away from wandering between different vehicles.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #62  
Old March 26th, 2013, 11:40 PM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by founD90 View Post

Ron, funny because I had an exchange on FB with Mike @ ECR about this exact issue. He said they've never had an issue with galvi frames not having VINs....think that's going to change? Do you think ECR has immunity in this legal fight?
I don't know. Maine is very lax so I doubt he has state law issues. Some states make you restamp the VIN. Some states make you have a VIN. It gets interesting because you can do some things in one state that would not be kosher in another (some states stamping a VIN is a crime, some it is not, some require paperwork to do it etc. but the laws that I have read all seem to account in one way or another for replacement of VIN stamped parts for purposes of repair and at least some exempt owners who just want to remove a VIN on their own car). There seems to be some room for legal arbitrage -- ie take the truck to a state where you can do what you want (stamp a replacement VIN, remove a VIN from a donor vehicle etc.) and then take it back to your home state. I don't see a situation where such drastic action is necessary, but it is possible.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old March 26th, 2013, 11:46 PM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
To clarify my position here I am just interpreting the rules as written. I didnít write them but they seem very clear to me.

If it breaks and you replace it with a part that matches original spec to the broken part then I donít see you have an issue (as long as it doesnít have the VIN stamped on it ). If you 'upgrade' it to a part of newer spec then you lose its originality in the eyes of the way the US import law is written and you lose the ability to import it. Does that maybe make the law unfair? Possibly but it is what it is.

Jason to answer your question, do what you want to it over here and enjoy. But donít do it overseas and expect to bring it in. We had that luxury for a while but due to the over the top and blatant bending and breaking of the rules by a few up to this point we've lost that flexibility. Whining about it now is pointless.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #64  
Old March 26th, 2013, 11:57 PM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
To answer your edit, if those parts are to original spec (except the frame section with the ID) then I think you would have a valid case to fight denial of import. Didn’t Barry post up an example of somebody who fought successfully on that basis recently and won?

The point about the ID (and I agree with you to some extent here) is more grey. Legally you can 'theoretically' replace the frame (JUST the frame) and it doesn’t contravene UK laws so would retain its original ID in the UK. However I understand the US position because without that original stamp how can they prove it’s the original vehicle and not some collection of parts put together by some toe rag in an arch in Basingstoke? So the US it seems have deemed an original chassis to be a requirement so as to enable them to prove the vehicles ID I am sure. No doubt they have realized the one on the brake tower is just a few bolts away from wandering between different vehicles.
I totally understand that and understand that to be the .gov position, but I don't see a basis for that in the regulations which is why I asked for a citation to the regs or law or something. I just don't see the regs as clear. If the US had something akin to the UK points system it would be easy.

Also, I don't see anything that would limit this to imports. The DOT regs apply to things rebuilt in the US with equal force. It cannot be the case that anything that gets a new frame (or any component that had a VIN) means it is an illegal rebuild. When i was a the dealer, we did an insurance job where replaced the frame on a disco II. Was that a rebuild that ran afoul of DOT? What about other parts with a VIN? A bulkhead or T piece replacement would qualify as a rebuild and therefore subject to 2013 safety regs. The federal VIN tampering statute does not seem to consider this to be the case.

The only reason that this is an issue is that 90/110 basically have not changed much in 30 years. In fact, I can take the doors off my 1959 SII (original one piece Canadian spec restored with new bottom frames thank you very much) and they will bolt right up to a new 2013 puma -- or vice versa. So whereas the past crackdowns (skylines) there was no way to say your whatever year was the same as whatever years they got the ok for was the same spec because the body shell was materially different, not so clear in land rover world where the chassis have been the same other than engine mounts and details like the mounting tabs on the rear crossmember for 30 years.

PS I will concede that I have seen pictures of some trucks imported that were clear VIN swaps.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:05 AM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
There are also two different questions in play here. 1. What can you do to it overseas and still import it and 2. What can you do to it once it’s here? They are two different subjects with 2 different sets of rules and answers. You can’t blur them together.

The issue here is that due to the blatant infractions of a few both here and abroad the US authorities are now clamping down and refusing the entry of anything that doesn’t comply to the rules as written. That will now affect any of us that want to bring in a vehicle. Can we still legally import a 25yr old truck? Yes but it’s going to be scrutinized much more than previously and many legal trucks are going to get held up and cause the importers some pain. That sucks but it’s something that has been coming for a while and for which we can blame the few unscrupulous characters that have made their money selling pumas and TD5 engined trucks at a steep markup and run. I hope CBP goes after them as their names are hopefully on the import docs and they can be tracked down.

Is Dr. Aaron one of those? I have no idea, but they certainly must think they have some case against him to take the actions they have. If it turns out he is one of those that have been bending the rules then I have no sympathy for him and the pain that those of us that choose to import trucks from now on will in some way be attributable partially to him and those like him.

If he's innocent then it will come out and he will be back here to show us he was above board and not part of the problem. I hope that is the case and we see and hear from him soon.

Edit - We need to stop typing at the same time Ron.. I hear you on the situation once it here in the US. We do have the Theseus rules but I have never seen a way to apply them. For importation (separate subject) I still say it’s very clear. unfair maybe, but clear.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:15 AM
nathanwind's Avatar
nathanwind
Status: Online
Jason Lavender
88-90-127-LR3
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Saratoga NY
Posts: 8,743
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post

For importation (separate subject) I still say it’s very clear. unfair maybe, but clear.
I agree with Ron, it's not all that clear. BUT hypothetically speaking, if you had a 1987 Land Rover that left the factory with a Salisbury rear axle with drum brakes, and that axle blew up. Said axle was replaced with a current available Sals at the time - but with disc brakes. Then you try to import said vehicle, that customs should seize it at the port (assuming everything else was original) and that's "ok"?
__________________
Jason Lavender
'71 Series IIA
'88 127 #F96 DKN
'94 90 NAS #324
'06 LR3 HSE

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(10% discount for DSource members, use coupon code "D90")

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:17 AM
Jpayne's Avatar
Jpayne
Status: Offline
Jeff Payne
'83 110 3 Door
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,393
Registry
I want a Salisbury with discs.


How about one for the front and one for the rear
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:21 AM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
I agree with you Jeff to a point. There is nothing to say that you as the owner of 2 different trucks shouldn’t be able to combine the parts from those 2 trucks to make a good one. The difficulty is how do you prove (on the dock at import in another country) that you owned both those trucks when the identity of one of them is gone as part of the combination?

That’s not primarily what’s being done here though is it? They are taking the ID form one that is legal for entry and applying it to another that isn’t. In other words they are blurring the ID of a vehicle for financial or similar gain. Why is that not illegal in the same way as selling 5 cut up Honda's as one good one?

There is a HUGE issue with stolen LRs overseas and the US market has no doubt become one of the places to 'launder' them. Confirming the ‘Clear’ original identity of the truck and the majority of the vehicle makes sense in that light does it not?

While I agree there are a (very) few guys doing nothing wrong, the vast majority are and now they are closing them down.

------ Follow up post added March 26th, 2013 09:23 PM ------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanwind View Post
I agree with Ron, it's not all that clear. BUT hypothetically speaking, if you had a 1987 Lamd Rover that left the factory with a Salisbury rear axle with drum brakes, and that axle blew up. Said axle was replaced with a current available Sals at the time - but with disc brakes. Then you try to import said vehicle, that customs should seize it at the port (assuming everything else was original) and that's "ok"?
Nope, its unfair but its also a strict interpretation of the rules as written. For which we have the toe rags to blame as i've said.

I still dont see why that makes the rules unclear? Did it leave the factory with a Salisbury Disc rear axle? No? Then it shouldn't have one when it turns up on the docks for import under the 25yr rule. Simple. Thats pretty clear to me. If you want rear discs, buy and have an axle shipped over and fit it here.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:32 AM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
I agree with you Jeff to a point. There is nothing to say that you as the owner of 2 different trucks shouldn’t be able to combine the parts from those 2 trucks to make a good one. The difficulty is how do you prove (on the dock at import in another country) that you owned both those trucks when the identity of one of them is gone as part of the combination?

That’s not primarily what’s being done here though is it? They are taking the ID form one that is legal for entry and applying it to another that isn’t. In other words they are blurring the ID of a vehicle for financial or similar gain. Why is that not illegal in the same way as selling 5 cut up Honda's as one good one?

There is a HUGE issue with stolen LRs overseas and the US market has no doubt become one of the places to 'launder' them. Confirming the ‘Clear’ original identity of the truck and the majority of the vehicle makes sense in that light does it not?

While I agree there are a (very) few guys doing nothing wrong, the vast majority are and now they are closing them down.

------ Follow up post added March 26th, 2013 09:23 PM ------

Nope, its unfair but its also a strict interpretation of the rules as written. For which we have the toe rags to blame as i've said.
I still don't think it is clear and if you look at the opinion letters I dug up, the Feds oked some pretty substantial changes (even with land rovers).

http://www.defendersource.com/forum/...0&postcount=83

This one in particular:

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23894.ztv.html
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:38 AM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilfij View Post
I still don't think it is clear and if you look at the opinion letters I dug up, the Feds oked some pretty substantial changes (even with land rovers).
Ron,

You're 1st link doesnít work anymore.

Both of the other 2 including the one above refer to somebody who wants to take an original truck and 'modernize' it basically. 1st one had a bunch of newer more modern parts on the truck, the 2nd wanted to take an early chassis and put a 200x body on it. Where does that meet 'matches original spec'? I still say itís very clear. Whatís not clear is why everybody still wants to 'blur' the line. The inability to do so is what you are complaining about, not the rules as they stand.

Edit - OK I misread the 2nd one the first time. They said he could put a new body on it and bring it in. I presume that was because the newer body was the same as the original in their interpretation. So in other word they said it matched original spec and he could do it. So somebody today could fight the same battle and have a chance of winning as long as the changes they made did not differ from the factory spec of the vehicle. I still say thatís clear.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:41 AM
nathanwind's Avatar
nathanwind
Status: Online
Jason Lavender
88-90-127-LR3
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Saratoga NY
Posts: 8,743
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilfij View Post
Wow that's almost hard to believe. Shall we all pitch in and buy Mr. Womack a case of Genny Cream Ale and call it a day? Does this import/letter hold any weight from a precedence standpoint?
__________________
Jason Lavender
'71 Series IIA
'88 127 #F96 DKN
'94 90 NAS #324
'06 LR3 HSE

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(10% discount for DSource members, use coupon code "D90")

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:46 AM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
No 1st link in that post Jeff. Comes up with a 404 error for me.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:50 AM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
Ron,

You're 1st link doesn’t work anymore.

Both of the other 2 including the one above refer to somebody who wants to take an original truck and 'modernize' it basically. 1st one had a bunch of newer more modern parts on the truck, the 2nd wanted to take an early chassis and put a 200x body on it. Where does that meet 'matches original spec'? I still say it’s very clear. What’s not clear is why everybody still wants to 'blur' the line. The inability to do so is what you are complaining about, not the rules as they stand.[/QUOTE]

The second one (Williams letter 2/22/01) the guy says I want to put a "new" body on an old land rover chassis and Feds say under a long line of interpretations (note a long line) it is still ok under the 25 year old rule.

That is not "original spec" (which I don't recall in the regs if you have a citation, post it) It also notes that:

We contrast this with the situation where refurbishment of a 1967-75 chassis occurs before importation. The substitution of new chassis parts for the original ones may reach a point where, in combination with the newer vehicle body, the overall vehicle itself could be regarded as newly manufactured, rather than one manufactured in 1967-75.

So they are saying at some point you are "newly manufactured" but dont explain at what point that is, but are clear that a whole new body is NOT. That does not seem the same as "original spec" as you say the law is clear on and nothing about "newly manufactured" is limited to imports regs it applies with equal force to stuff done once here in the US (other letters confirm this) so here or there does not legally matter technically speaking although I concede that the .gov makes that technical lack of distinction a big practical distinction.

------ Follow up post added March 27th, 2013 12:51 AM ------

Greg and I keep typing at the same time :-)


Also, it is clear from the ford f-250 letter that the body can be different.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:52 AM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
That 2nd link is pretty stunning. I would love to see somebody apply that and pull it off today. More than my risk tollrence would allow though to try it.

I am sure they would overturn that interpretation now. But I can see why Ron thinks it may be a bit grey in the way they are interpreting the rules sometimes. I am sure that there are also some sketchy interpretations being done at the ports by the guys on the doc as well.

I don’t see it making the rules unclear, just how they have or are been interpreted occasionally. That is Ron’s bread and butter here no doubt..

To me if you are trying that then you are pushing the envelope and it wouldn’t be worth the risk if you lost.

Edit - Yup, same time again... I think it comes under the Theseus rules that nobody has been able to clearly define to my understanding. I agree with you that the UK points system is pretty clear whereas the US Theseus system is anything but. On the import side I think it’s pretty clear (with some interesting interpretations) but on the ‘once it’s here in the US’ side I think it’s a morass waiting to catch us out in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old March 27th, 2013, 12:53 AM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
One last thing, if you can point me to where you are getting the "original spec" language that would really help me.

------ Follow up post added March 27th, 2013 12:54 AM ------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
That 2nd link is pretty stunning. I would love to see somebody apply that and pull it off today. More than my risk tollrence would allow though to try it.

I am sure they would overturn that interpretation now. But I can see why Ron thinks it may be a bit grey in the way they are interpreting the rules sometimes. I am sure that there are also some sketchy interpretations being done at the ports by the guys on the doc as well.

I don’t see it making the rules unclear, just how they have or are been interpreted occasionally. That is Ron’s bread and butter here no doubt..

To me if you are trying that then you are pushing the envelope and it wouldn’t be worth the risk if you lost.
This is why I said it was unclear all along! Back in 07ish when I had a bunch of time I read through a ton of stuff and I came to the conclusion that it is ..... "unclear" as I pointed out in that thread.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:06 AM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
I am not a lawyer Ron (which is why I am very stupid to be debating with one I agree), but I apply common sense rules to my interpretation. So to 'me' it’s clear whereas I am sure you are looking at it from a legal standpoint and how you can challenge them possibly?

To me it’s simple, if it left the factory like that its original spec, even if the part was replaced with a newer one that matches (same part # type thing). If the newer part is different in some way (discs instead of drums for example) then it no longer matches original spec and is 'upgraded' or whatever term you want to use. If I am importing a vehicle that is how I would interpret the rules and attempt to limit my risk of refused entry.

If I wanted to 'test' or 'push' the rules than I can see how such simple language may seem unclear in that respect. It limited in its definition possibly?

Not sure if I explained that very well and it wasnt meant as a negative to you as a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:18 AM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
I am not a lawyer Ron (which is why I am very stupid to be debating with one I agree), but I apply common sense rules to my interpretation. So to 'me' it’s clear whereas I am sure you are looking at it from a legal standpoint and how you can challenge them possibly?

To me it’s simple, if it left the factory like that its original spec, even if the part was replaced with a newer one that matches (same part # type thing). If the newer part is different in some way (discs instead of drums for example) then it no longer matches original spec and is 'upgraded' or whatever term you want to use. If I am importing a vehicle that is how I would interpret the rules and attempt to limit my risk of refused entry.

If I wanted to 'test' or 'push' the rules than I can see how such simple language may seem unclear in that respect. It limited in its definition possibly?

Not sure if I explained that very well and it wasnt meant as a negative to you as a lawyer.
That is fair Greg. I took no offense at all. Like i said i am doing this for sport not as a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I just wanted to see where original spec language came from. I think the standard is whether it can be regarded as "newly manufactured" or alternatively "not restored" but it is as clear as mud to me.

BTW here is the new link to the letter database that is dead in the old post. Nothing new specific to rover that I saw.

http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/search.htm

I don't see why you couldn't find something you wanted to buy and send a letter asking for an interpretation before you attempt to bring it in. Since all I am after is a donor 110 V8 SW I am not too keen on spending the time, but I had, until this most recent development, thought about bringing one in with a galvy chassis or bulkhead to get some money back on the parts I don't need.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:35 AM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
I think this is where not having something like the points system lets us down. The Theseus system on the surface supposedly covers this but I havenít yet been able to find a definition of where the 'line' is? When does the vehicle constitute a 'remanufactured' verses 'refurbished' one? Thatís why I think itís a problem waiting to happen for many trucks over here 'IF' they ever get to the point of going down that path. I agree the Chip Foose's and so forth may also then have to be taken into account and I am not sure they would go that far.

Just read something on another forum where somebody correctly pointed out that itís OK for somebody like Foose to re-body and re-engine an old vehicle here and call it a hot road or such but if you take a body off a 110 and put another one on then you get 'funny looks'. Double standards no doubt.

But again to my laymanís interpretation of the import laws it doesnít change them on the basis of bringing them in. 25 yrs old and to the same specification as it left the factory. Anything else and you're asking for trouble or risking refusal of entry because now they are clamping down. What you can do with them once they are here is a whole different murky, grey morass of untested waters.

If they applying Theseus type of interpretation to refurbished trucks that otherwise are to original spec at the ports (and I donít know that or if they are) then weíre in the shit basically I think.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:43 AM
nathanwind's Avatar
nathanwind
Status: Online
Jason Lavender
88-90-127-LR3
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Saratoga NY
Posts: 8,743
Registry
I plan to pull all of my money out of the stock market and dump it into drum brake axles, 3.5L V8s, and lap belts. Should net me a small fortune for resale.
__________________
Jason Lavender
'71 Series IIA
'88 127 #F96 DKN
'94 90 NAS #324
'06 LR3 HSE

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

(10% discount for DSource members, use coupon code "D90")

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old March 27th, 2013, 01:48 AM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanwind View Post
I plan to pull all of my money out of the stock market and dump it into drum brake axles, 3.5L V8s, and lap belts. Should net me a small fortune for resale.
The sad thing is (up until now) I was one of the few people who actually preferred the old stuff like 3.5v8, LT95s, two tone paint etc.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2000 Range Rover 4.6 HSE for sale or trade for Defender treydub For Sale - Vehicles 6 February 28th, 2005 10:57 AM
1995 Range Rover 4.0 SE ember For Sale - Vehicles 2 January 24th, 2005 12:40 AM
Range Rover Sport on UK Website boshea Misc. Chit-Chat 1 December 27th, 2004 08:21 AM
The Greatest Rover Shop Ever Buckon37s Misc. Chit-Chat 2 December 22nd, 2004 01:00 PM
Land Rover Safari Rack! TwisteD90 For Sale - Parts 8 October 4th, 2003 07:48 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Copyright