A Flaw in the 70 Series Toyota’s (And a solution)

No, I meant flaw, but I’m happy to accept it is a fault in the vehicle…

My own experience and investigations revealed a number of people complaining about this specific problem and in fact is the reason a company went to the trouble of finding an engineered solution – there is a demand for it…

In fact, there was a 79 Series in the workshop at Geelong with sheered wheel studs having a Tru Tracker modification done whilst mine was down there…

Offset wheels may, or may not be illegal, but I guess the point of thread this is to highlight there is a solution if people are inclined.

Not that I’m a betting man, but if I was my money would be on Toyota not putting spacers on the vehicle such that the wheel is sitting on the studs…

Cheers, Baz – The Landy

I didn't say Toyota was even remotely thinking of spacers.....but if they or another manufacturer ever did spacers, they would be engineered to be as reliable as the setup they replaced..

If there is a demand for the mod, then that's all that matters...

Understand, and "engineered" is the key word...

cheers, Baz - The Landy

Offset rims - yes, they may or may not be legal...

Legalities aside, a large rim offset will load up your wheel bearings which can leads to a failure of a different kind

Hi Pop

No, the GVM issue is that Tru Tracker’s approval is up to the axle limitations of the vehicle which is 3,780kg. Lovell’s GVM upgrade is to 3,900kg, and from my own investigations no-one is sure how it was ever approved, in fact it appears to have been approved in error – good luck getting bureaucrats to acknowledge that.

The offsett problem appears to exist on the vehicle worldwide as Kinetic engineering is exporting the solution to other countries.

Cheers, Baz – The Landy

Baz,

Not about to argue the point about the world wide distribution of the particular V8 diesel model 70 but the bit of checking I have done shows Australian only.

Do you know who Kinetic are exporting to??

Cheers
Pop

The Middle-East is my understanding...but the principal of the company would be the man to ask...

Cheers Baz

Emirates, Dubai and the Saudi's all have the current 70 series although they have a mixture of petrol and diesel options that we dont. Left hand drive also. I've had the pleasure of seeing the vehicles they were doing up for the motor shows over there, six wheel drive, LHD versions of their 'Southern Scorpion'.

The TruTracker is being exported throughout the middle east. Their 6x6 models come with the welded diff solution. I had the welded diff option fitted early this year to replace the Kinetic prototype they made for me in 2011.

Cheers Mick

Many middle eastern countries have models that we don't. Petrol variants of the 70 included. Maybe the wider front track is a feature of the V6 petrol powered versions.

Cheers
Pop

No Pop, Toyota had to widen he front stance to lever the V8 donk into the new VDJ70's. Given their "LEAN" methodology that Toyota have become famous for, they decided that the difference was within tolerances and saved themselves a couple of hundred million dollars in re-tooling costs to cater for the changes in the rear diff and axles.

Given that manufacture of the diffs and axles is probably outsourced, you wouldn't have thought it would not have been that much of an issue when taken as a single small part of the total cost of re-fitment of the production lines back in 07.

Still a formidable outback vehicle though.

Cheers Mick

I think you may find that some Patrols have a different track front to rear as well. not as much as the Toyota VDJ7*.

Maybe a silly question, but doesn't the back wheels only follow the front when you are going straight, and a trailer the same.

cheers Ken

Braggy, you'd hope they would....mind you I had a rear wheel that decided it didn't want to follow the front ;-)

The problems become apparent on outback roads in particular. Drive around on bitumen all day and you'll never have an issue but once your on the dirt stability and rear tracking can be an issue. Naturally this can also be influenced by the manner in which the vehicle is driven but having seen the way in which the vehicles with, standard splits and tyres skip over rough roads or in soft conditions, is often unnerving. The rear tracking is severely affected.

Another issue, and this was one that I found particularly frustrating, is that in ruts, or in off track work, the rear offset is like pushing a third tyre through the surface, increasing drag and decreasing power and fuel economy. Rear tracking is also an issue in the rough as the difference means a much greater chance of picking up a stick in the tyre.

Horses for courses I suppose but as a VDJ79 driver, the difference in stability and handling has been worth the investment.

Cheers Mick

Mick,
with over 180000km on my 2009 79 ute the difference in track has not given me any great issues. early on I was a bit put off when the rear end moved abit on the sides of steep hillls at the farm but sort of got used to it.
I purchased the ute to avoid towing so cannot comment on any ill effects under that scenario
dispite lots of sand (desert not beach) and cross country travel I have never really considered the effect on the fuel usage of the staggered wheel tracking. just happy there is plenty of power available under soft conditions- as long as I come out at the other end I tend to be satisfied.
have you noticed any measurable difference in fuel usage since going wider at the rear.
regards
Howard

In off track work Howard yes I have. Roughly around a 0.75 km per litre depending on the conditions. I used to work my fuel averages on 3-4kpl depending on load/towing and type of country and now find 4-5kpl to be more accurate.

When you have a look at the recently released specs for the 2015 MY Hilux to be on dealer floors later this year, and with a 3.5t towing capacity and payload of some 1250 kg where does this leave the 70 series? 6 speed manual and auto transmissions and 5 star safety rating also.

Cheers
Pop

I think I heard somewhere you can do the same with the current model using a 105 rear axle assembly.

I am with you on this one.
When I was ready to trade my Hilux in for vehicle with a bigger towing capacity I wanted to buy a V8 79 series.
I was told about the difference in the tracking of the cruiser. They had them at work and the boys reckon they were not so good, as did others who owned them.
Sort put me off a bit, and I thought it was a real noticeable problem, but when it was time to buy another vehicle, I did buy a V8 Single cab.
Worried about the roaming all over the place on dirt tracks, I decided to go and find some dirt. The first couple of dirt roads I drove on, I found it no different to any other vehicle I had driven on a simular road surface.
So I thought these are the wrong type, so I went in search of nastier roads, but so far I have not found any that worries me enough to bother about spending $$$,s to fix this problem.
Haven't been in any deep sticky mud as yet.
I am not saying that the rear doesn't wonder about little, but I don't find it any more concerning than my Hilux or any other vehicle I have driven where there are wheel ruts.
May be I will next year on my trip around Oz.

Cheers

Thanks both for your input…

The ultimate arbiter will always be the person behind the wheel of the car when it comes to an assessment of what many consider a “flaw” in an otherwise very capable vehicle. Possibly the other arbiter may well be the “holder of the purse strings” if they are not the one and the same person.

Fortunately Mrs Landy occupies both of those positions; I only get to drive the vehicle!

Our experience has been similar to others which, under certain conditions, has been a fish-tailing effect in the rear end of the vehicle. This may be exaggerated depending on how various vehicles are configured. “The Landy” is fairly heavily loaded.

A simple logic test confirms our experience is not imagined, but noting we are not engineers…

Offsetting the rear wheels of a vehicle sufficiently enough when compared to the front wheels, in the case of these vehicles by 95mm, it is inevitable that tracking and vehicle handling and stability, under certain conditions, will be impacted.

Sand-driving results in the back wheels pushing sand rather than following the front-wheel track and possibly leading to fish-tailing as either rear wheel tries to establish itself in the front-wheel track; rutted roads where you are tracking the front wheels in the rut will almost certainly see the rear wheels trying to “climb” the rut, creating varying levels of instability, add some mud to that and the problem can become more acute. There are many conditions that can be described – again, some will be prepared to accept it, others not.

Many have used wheel-spacers to correct the issue, which may well create its own set of problems putting aside the legality issue. From our perspective we looked for an engineered solution, which means it has been tested under various conditions to ensure the modification is safe to use and gains an ADR approval.

The intent of this thread and accompanying blog is too highlight that a fully engineered solution is now available for those of a similar mindset to ourselves.

Tru-tracker is converting them at the rate of a couple-a-week in addition to supplying the modification kit to others – so seemingly there are many like-minded people out there.

Clearly, it comes down to one’s own assessment of the problem and the extent to which you are willing to pay to have it corrected properly, if at all.

We are not inclined to pretend the problem doesn’t exist as the cost we pay may not be counted in money alone…

Cheers, Baz – The Landy

I too have noticed it in conditions where there are deep wheel tracks and the rear can't alway decide which wheel to follow
I notice it but doesn't overly concern me

I would say that those with dual cabs and carrying a bit of a load would notice it more as your weight is further back creating a bit of a pendulum effect amplifying the situation

Baz on a side note, how does the GVM certificaion process go?
Does the original engineer have to approve the change or does the new engineer have his certificaion seperate to your original GVM certificate or does he do a whole new certificate that makes the original one redundant?

Hi Alby


To the extent the problem manifests will be determined by many factors I suspect, vehicle loading, the actual condition of the surface being driven and speed figuring highly. Some of these factors can be controlled, others not as easily.

Loading is not too much of a problem as we are diligent in how we approach it and consider loading carefully. And whilst it appears we have a big canopy that can be filled, it is never filled “to the brim” but simply provides us with loading options and a lockable canopy for security.

But clearly, all dual cabs will suffer from the rearward effect of the load being carried given most have an over-hang of varying degrees.

MDT Engineering, the Tru-tracker people, actually has an engineered solution for the over-hang and is achieved by extending the chassis by either 200mm or 500mm. Mind you that can create its own problems, including vehicle length and a turning circle like the cruise ship the “Queen Mary”.

But it is worth noting, that modification is more designed to improve handling of the vehicle, the chassis in its original unmodified form is designed and quite capable of taking loaded weights to the rear axle maximum. Mind you, the driven speed for any vehicle should be adjusted to account for the load being carried. Heavier should equate to lower...at least that is what we practice!

To your question on GVM, essentially whenever an engineer looks at your vehicle they have a responsibility that it is presented in a roadworthy condition and meets any State registration requirements at that point of time.

The original certifier does not need to view the Tru-tracker modification, but the engineer’s sign-off for the modification meant they needed to ensure the vehicle as a whole is roadworthy, including the impact of the current modification on previous modifications.

To this point, the GVM upgrade and weight of “The Landy” meant that it was required to have Cat 6 lighting, which in practical terms meant a larger indicator on the front panel. This was not done due to an oversight at the time of the GVM upgrade and I was required to comply prior to certification of the Tru-tracker modification.

As I discussed in an earlier blog, the Lovell GVM upgrade is to a weight of 3,900kg, which is above the combined axle weight for the VDJ79 Dual Cab. The Tru-tacker modification is approved to 3,780kg which is the total of the combined axle weight as it rolls out of the Toyota factory.

To get around this issue I had the GVM amended from 3,900kg to 3,780kg to comply. Noting, I was able to retain an increase in the front axle weight from the original 1,480kg to 1,540kg, but overall GVM still limited to 3,780kg.

This is not an issue for me as the additional GVM capacity I had above 3,780kg was only available on the front axle due to the limitation of the rear axle load limit.

It is worth highlighting that only the Lovell’s GVM upgrade for this vehicle is permitted to 3,900kg and many, including them (apparently), are puzzled how it was ever approved by DOTAR – many believe it was in error.

Cheers, Baz – The Landy

Hi Steve

Therein lies the problem as I see it, Toyota didn't change the rear when they extended the front. The offset between front and rear is fairly large...

My understanding it is unique to this model, not previous ones.

For me, it isn't about trailers being towed, but vehicle handling under certain conditions, and I've taken steps to correct it, for sure at a cost, but the proof in the pudding is the improved handling...

Cheers Baz - The Landy

Why change something that has been proven for thirty odd years, I am guessing the the engineers that design these this for a living thought there wasn't a need to and therefore left it alone.

I followed a twin cab into Jim Jim the other day and he didn't seem to have any trouble driving it like any other 70 series before it.

Don't get me wrong, if you want to change it, it is your money not mine, but it is certainly not a fault or a flaw from Toyota.

Hi Steve

I won’t labour the point other than to highlight I don’t think this has been a problem for 30 years, just since the advent of the TD V8 – longer term owner’s will be sure to correct me or add further in that regard if they are inclined.

On engineers, for sure, I’ve (now) got a Toyota for the very reason that for the most part the vehicles it manufactures are well engineered. However, I suspect the best engineering solutions run afoul of the accountant’s pen, at times!

If the amount of noise around this flaw, as I’m inclined to describe it, is anything to go by, it might be a pointer that the accounting department in Tokyo engineered a coup over the boffins that do all the drawings. After all, the tooling costs to make the changes to the rear axle along with the cost of scrapping the inventory on hand would influence those managing the company’s profit and loss account to a more favourable outcome for the company’s shareholders.

History is littered with those kind of decisions and not just limited to the car manufacturers’.

But to be clear, I’m highlighting a solution from an Australian based engineering firm who have a solution for those inclined, for those not inclined – continue as you were!


Cheers, Baz – The Landy

Steve, if a vehicle is built with a 95mm discrepancy in its track front to rear, it is a design fault, pure & simple!

Shaker you are welcome to your opinion, I however choose to disagree with you. :-)

I'm now driving my fifth Troopy in 18 odd years, so I think I'm reasonably qualified to compare handling characteristics.
All my vehicles have been set up in pretty well the same way, overall weight is about the same.
This current VDJ has a Lovells GVM upgrade which did make an improvement to the ride and handling over the sloppy standard Toyota suspension.

I have not noticed any difference in handling in any conditions encountered in this model compared to the previous that could in anyway be attributed to track difference.
I have done mud, rock, ruts, high country, deserts, black top, dirt roads, pretty well everything with this model, no difference at all.
I point out that I have never seen a set of ruts so tight that they would have forced the rear to climb out compared to the front.

The previous models also had a slight track difference between front and rear, can't quite remember the exact amount but around 25mm each side if my memory serves me?

My understanding is its not uncommon for vehicle manufacturers to have different wheel tracks, it apparently improves handling?
Although from a 4wd perspective I don't dispute it is preferable that front and rear track the same, for no other reason than dodging possible tyre stakes.

The 70 series are a big heavy truck and they don't handle like a sports car, maybe I'm just used to the overall handling in various conditions and accept it as normal?

Hi John

And your view is respected, long-term first hand knowledge counts.

Mind you, there are those using spacers to correct what many think is a problem. They would be better served by seeking an engineered solution or doing nothing, it would be far safer...

Hopefully this thread alerts them to an alternative...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

My point exactly John.

And I do agree with you Baz, the MDT system is an excellent engineering solution, a real credit to a very innovative company.
I visited their premises briefly when Mick O was getting his chassis extension, very impressive mob.

Spacers are not a soloution, if you wish to change the track it's either the True Track or as Mick has done a full axle replacement.

Regardless of whether you think the OEM setup is flawed or not I don't think anyone would dispute that the handling and performance of the vehicle can only be enhanced by increasing the rear track to match the front

The only downside of this mod is the resulting thin wallet

Each to their own Colin, as I highlighted earlier...

Cheers, Baz - The Landy

Agree Colin.
They are a high, heavy vehicle, with obvious high centre of gravity issues.

Drive it accordingly to the conditions and they will serve you very well indeed.

Apologies, correct link follows....

A Case Study WA Police Toyota Troop Carrier

cheers, Baz - The Landy

Oh Baz!

What a great way to keep your thread running! LOL

Love ya work - keep it up!

Cheers

Anthony

Hi Anthony

The thread has long run its course, but hopefully alerted those who are inclined to seek a solution to the tracking issue that a fully engineered solution exists versus installing "spacers".

This case study does highlight that others have a similar view and first hand experience of the issue at hand...

But at the end of the day, nothing right, or wrong in these discussions, and the ultimate arbiter is the person in the driving seat.

What did you think of the article?

Cheer's Baz - The Landy

Hi Baz

I don't like the idea of spacers and would never use them for on road use.

Interesting read - unfortunately one of my mates was one of those rollover statistics mentioned in the case study. Damn lucky to be alive. Although not sure what if they determined the cause.

Although it is only a small sample group (71 vehicle) when looking at the percentage of accidents (12.07% of total units) the figures start to get scary.

It would be interesting to find out the numbers of Hire Company and Mining Company rollover accidents that have been caused by the track variance. How many of these have I seen on the back of Flat tops coming back down the highway to Perth. I had never thought about it the track variance being a possible cause of the accident.

And before all the nay sayers get started about manipulating statistics to suit your own agenda, that is what every statistician does every day. Most of you would have bought something or invested money in something based on this premise.

From personal experience, driving Landcruiser Light Tankers (fire units) in sandy conditions with a full load on the back, you have to work hard. It tries to climb out of the ruts and then tries to drive back in. The only saving grace is the power of the V8. Also the tendency to oversteer can be frightening driving under lights and sirens. Fortunately good driving instruction/training gives you the skill to adjust.

On another note - I was in my mates 4WD shop the other day and a staffer from the Local Toyota Dealership (where I bought my Landcruiser from) came in and purchased a set of aluminium spacers to put on a customers vehicle. Does that make them legal? Does that endorse their safety? I wonder how the insurance company would go in the event of a payout?

And yes, I am a Landcruiser owner - have been since I got my license. I have never been without one and never will be. Up to number 13 at the moment but I wouldn't own one of these.

Cheers

Anthony

I didn't interpret that report/presentation as attributing the rollover incidence to the track width.

Given WAPOL seem to be running more Troopies than other Australian police forces as a percentage of total vehicles I think it's reasonable to see how that influences their stats, but stars can be interpreted in a number of ways.

The major cause of accidents would be high speed on largely poor road surfaces, roof loading and running splits.
Splits have poor handling at the best of times plus they have higher risk of punctures due to sand etc getting between the tyre and the tube rubbing a hole and rapid deflation causing many accidents.

These vehicles do have a high centre of gravity and as I've said earlier they must be driven accordingly, running too fast on a loose surface is an issue in any vehicle but add the HSG to the equation then the risk rises.

My daily driver is an XR6 Turbo and I certainly don't drive my Troopy the same way as I drive my XR :)

Someone famously said once there are 3 different lies, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Well here are some to put in the mix.

Parks Australia in Kakadu have had 35 70 series vehicle per 2 years since the 1980s, since 2007 there fleet has been the new V8 70 series being single cab, duel cab or troopies. the area they cover is 20,000 square kms the vehicles do about 150 to 180 thousand km per vehicle before trade in, so the new fleet this year makes over 90 vehicles since the V8 was introduced.
Since 2007 I know for a fact that not one of those vehicle has been involved in any accident, roll over ect:

Work those statistics out and I think you will find there is nothing wrong with them what so ever.

Steve

I would like to see documented evidence of your stats. At least Baz has provided "published" data. Not something simply he "knows as a fact". You may work in the Parks Industry or live in Kakadu - but that doesn't equate to scientific data. Empirical vs anecdotal - I know which I would believe. So which type of data is yours "lies or damned lies"?

Frankly, I have never known a government department to trade a vehicle with 150 000 to 180 000 km on the clock. But that doesn't make it a fact.

35 vehicles every 2 years since 2007 makes 175 vehicles not 90.
(2007 to 2015 = 8 years. Replacement every 2 years = 4 cycles of 35 vehicles total 140 vehicles plus the 35 they started with in 2007). That is a mathematical fact.

And boy! would I love to employ the Parks Australia drivers of these vehicles - "not one of those vehicle has been involved in any accident, roll over etc". Think of the saving they have made not losing their no claim bonus.

Sorry, but you did put your "statistics" into the mix.

Cheers

Anthony

I was told first hand that the Alice Springs police vehicles struggle in the deep sand in the dry bed of the Todd River & the 'locals' know it full well!

I doubt the Alice coppers would bother dropping tyre pressures since they don't carry compressors, so I have no doubt given they are running splits at road pressures they would certainly struggle in the soft sand of the Todd.

Anthony what a piece of work you are, without so much as a clue who I am or what I know you call me a lair, I have worked on parks cars for years during the wet season, I have set them up for sale, my wife works for parks, I see these car every day so if their was a roll over or and accident I would friggin know about it and to date none.

To be perfectly honest Anthony I don't give a rats arse what you think of my post, or if it contains published data or not, but you have no right to call me a liar.

I stand by my post above.

Firstly, let’s keep the discussion civil, remembering it is quite okay to agree to disagree without the angst!


I actually put the statistics aside, although they were revealing.

What caught my attention was the following commentary;

Under “other factors WAPOL Troopy” the report calls out that the …

“Narrow rear track (95mm less than front) increases sway and poor tracking and induces oversteer at turns. (I’d be interested to undersand what led the report’s author to this conclusion - which is consistent with the experience of many others).

Under “recommended solutions”

“That the rear track (of the Troopy) width be increased…

And under “Troop Carrier Development Project”

“Wider rear track improved stability, handling, response, and significantly improved off-road handling / tracking…”
(The report doesn't say how it achieved the wider wheel track in the development project)

You can choose to accept or reject those notions put forward by the report’s author, but it highlights others have recognised a similar issue in the handling of the post 2007 TDV8 70 Series Toyota’s and been willing to offer those findings to a government agency...

Cheer’s Baz – The Landy

Sorry Steve - your the one who put it out there....

"Someone famously said once there are 3 different lies, there are lies, damned lies and statistics."

If you can't provide statistics, the information you provide must come from the one of the other two classes of information you cite.

If you are going to use a quotation to make a point - make sure it makes your point. Don't just use it to try and be funny.

I don't recall anywhere in my post calling you a liar - I asked you what type of data were you where presenting based on your own quote... "So which type of data is yours "lies or damned lies"?

A little thinned skinned don't you think? If you post on a public forum be prepared to take the responses you evoke. I could have just as easily had a go at you for calling me a liar (or Baz who provided the statistics).

Isn't it amazing that the only thing you haven't had a crack at me about is the number of vehicles you state PA has had since 2007. But then again, you can't argue with mathematics can you?

i rest my case, I don't intend on hijacking this thread or getting into a flame war with you.

Cheers

Anthony

Anthony I apologize, the first thing I saw this morning was your post at 5.30, I am not at my best at this time, my quote was tongue in check and i did portray that well, my mistake.

Seeing your response just now, I see the miss understanding.

The facts however are true as to my post, are they research statistics no, but my observations over many years, except the mathematical discrepancy that was a late night after a long day.

Once again apologies.

Did not portray that well

Mate maybe a little harsh, Baz is certainly not a troll.

Baz has started a very good thread and offered excellent points in the affirmative.
I don't necessarily agree with his viewsand clearly neither due you, but that's ok, we can agree to disagree, still be mates and he can spend his money as he see's fit.

Fair enough John....I will retract the troll comment.....and accept the OP was in good faith

However considering the thousands of these vehicles out there and the number of years since release I doubt most of the supposed issues that drivers have experienced can be attributed to the vehicles difference in track...

I am sure the conditions and driver experience or reaction to conditions would in most cases be the negative. ...not the vehicle
In fact I doubt many owners would ever have known there was a measurement difference unless they had ben told.....and now blame Mr Toyota for any issues they may have experienced or caused.

I still believe modifications are unecessary and is mind over matter.....but each to their own........

Bungarra...


In 10 year of contributing to EO via some 100 blogs, trek notes and commentary in the forums this would be a first for me to be called a “troll”.

I’ve taken the time to relate my experience and if one takes the time to read my opening comments you will see I have indicated it is “my experience” based on the configuration I have my vehicle in.

I’m not in the habit of responding to posts similar to yours as usually it is simply a waste of my time.

But here is the thing, there are many people having similar issues to myself and a simple google search “Toyota 70 Series tracking issue or Toyota 70 Series wheel spacers” will confirm this. I’ve also posted a report on a Case Study done for the WA Police where the rear wheel track is called out as a problem that could lead to rollovers.

Seemingly I’m not the only nut out there…

The purpose of this thread was to highlight that there is a fully engineered solution, developed in Australia, available to those who are inclined and a much better alternative to putting “spacers” on the vehicle. Adding, it would seem unlikely a well-established engineering firm of over 30-years standing would waste its time developing a solution and tooling up for it if there wasn’t a demand for the solution.

Ultimately, as I pointed out a couple of times, the arbiter of whether a problem exists and to what extent one is willing to fork out money to correct it is the person behind the steering wheel. I see my expenditure as a good investment that, in my initial trials, shown a large improvement in vehicle handling.


I can live with others not being of the same view or opinion.


To close off, I come to EO to share my experiences but above all else to learn, in this instance if my post has me labelled as a “troll” rest assured I will wear the title proudly. Hopefully the post highlights a viable alternative to what is potentially an unsafe practice of correction with wheel spacers, seemingly a preferred method of correction by those who recognise a problem in their own vehicles handling…

Baz – The Landy

Baz....it seems my reply may have occurred simultaneously as yours to mine....yours posted first.
Sorry if you took offence and I withdraw the troll remark as I did earlier.....I was wrong in that comment......I confess I took it as being posted by a Landrover owner digging at Toyota but I guess I could have looked further.
We are all entitled to our opinions I retain mine as do many other owners and likewise many share yours so we can agree to disagree ....the forum is always a gealthy place to learn and exchange ideas.....as in this case
Regards

Hi Bungarra

No offence taken and your sentiments are appreciated.

I endeavour to post what I believe are informative topics and people will make of them what they want. Crikey, Mrs Landy disagrees with a lot (most) of what I say, but we’ve remained happily married for 30 plus years, in spite of that. So I reckon I can live with EO reader’s disagreeing with me without too much discomfort…

I did once own three Landrovers, hence the name!

Cheers, Baz – “The Landy”