The article in the previous post compares the Austin Gipsy and the Landrover. Really interesting and it made me look into Landrovers some more. It seemed to me the Series one is the one to go for, so when a nice 1954 Series one was advertised I decided to try it and see if I they would make a nice pair.
The first thing that struck me was how small the Landrover seemed compared to the Gipsy. Was the Gipsy aimed at the series one or the series two? Or was the series two Landrover a response to the larger Gipsy? I was always under the impression that Rover was hardly worried by the Gipsy and never feared it's competition.
But looking at the series one Landrover and comparing it to the Gipsy one could think otherwise.
Off course the Gipsy has a steel body and the Landrover's "Birmabright" fixes some of the ugly rust problems, but looking at various Landrovers I would think rust still is a big problem, although not as visible. Worse, as I have only seen one holed chassisframe on a leaf sprung Gipsy and never on a Flexi, the Landrover-owners I spoke to seemed to think nothing of changing outriggers and rear members and all Landrovers I saw had repairs to the chassis. Also fixing the bulkhead seems to be a regular issue.
The ride of the series one was really harsh compared to the Flexi and mechanical noise was also much more obvious too. The Landrover is clearly an older concept compared to the independent and rubber setup on the Gipsy. The steel body on the Gipsy is more like a car and feels stiffer and rattles less. Changing gears on the Gipsy is also smoother, though engaging 4wd on the Landrover seems more refined with that smooth yellow knob to push. The Gipsy feels like a heavier car and the Landrover is definitely bouncier.
Articulation, well that is much better on the Landrover where the Gipsy lifts a wheel as soon as there's a ridge to cross. The turning radius on the Landrover is also a pleasant surprise compared to my Flexitor Gipsy(and later series Landrovers too..). The later leaf sprung Gipsies have the same great articulation as the Landrover and the turning radius has also been improved beyond the Landrover's. But really the Gipsy is all about that crazy independent suspension, so changing that to a leaf sprung setup seems to chane it into something other than a Gipsy.But really I can't choose. They are both great vehicles aimed at the same market by two very different companies. If only the Gipsy would have had better articulation and that little thing with the wheels would have been sorted before production I think the Gipsy could have given the Landrover some real competition, before the Japanese rode into town.
Yes, trying out an old landrover was very useful in learning to appreciate the innovations of the Gipsy, though the craving to add a series one Landrover has not yet dulled....
What can I say? A couple of weeks later I was driving this Landrover home to park it in my shed. Right next to my faithful Gipsy. What a way to solve a dilemma!