[Marco911]

Originally Posted by 1983 Z28

Neither is extreme garbage, and you know it. Lotus is, was, and probably always be considered the last word on handling, and Land Rover is, was, and definitely always will be the last word on off-road capable. And actually you can fit a baby seat quite easily. I wouldn't fit it to mine, since it's from 1973 and thus has absolutely no safety equipment, but there's plenty of Defenders with baby seats.

And plenty of people actually do own both an SUV and a sports car. Like me. 1973 Land Rover, 1995 Range Rover, 1974 Jaguar XJ-12, and a 1968 MG Midget. In fact, with the current crop of Range Rovers being so successful, I've met plenty of fellows with grade-A sports cars for fun, and Rovers for practicality.

As for the SUV's general notions of uselessness, I'd probably agree. The modern Cayenne/X3/X5/Q7/Explorer/Santa-Fe/LR3/Range Rover Sport set are useless, bloated sedans that have overgrown their practicality. But Land Rover Defenders and Series trucks cannot be considered alongside those vehicles. There's only a few hunderd of them in the country, and as such, they attract a different set of buyer. I have yet to see someone use a Defender poorly. They're built to go places nothing else will go, and pretty much all the local Defenders and Series trucks are use off-road extensively. When was the last time you were trapped behind a Land Rover Defender or Series vehicle?

Point is both are extreme ends of the scale and averaging their driving characteristics does not give you the best of both worlds. There is no car that mixes driving pleasure of a sports car and daily drivability better than a Porsche 911.