Since Ford, do Land Rovers really not offer (some) replacement parts?

There’s valid reasons they destroy vehicles and engines used for technical training. By the tme they’ve been disassembled and assembled again by the students, and problems have been introduced by the instructors for the students to troubleshoot and find, the vehicles no longer respresent the product of the company. Too much has happened that’s out of the company’s control.

Another reason is tax laws. Once these vehicles have been “written off” by the manufacturer for training purposes, they cannot then be sold. Even as “used”.

Thanks mountainbike. I guess there are some good reasons to destroy some technical training vehicles. In my case…the engines were the only component that was used in training. The rest of the tractors were basically showroom new.

Speaking of “technical training vehicles”, many years ago, GM donated a brand-new Chevy Impala to our high school’s auto shop. The vehicle came with several warning labels stating that it was flood-damaged, and was not to be registered or driven on public roads as a result of the flood damage. All-in-all, this was a win-win for everyone. GM got to write this damaged car off on their corporate tax return as a charitable donation, and the school got a new car for the students to work on.

The upshot of this story is that our auto shop instructor quickly bought a Chevy that was essentially a twin (even down to the paint color and upholstery) of the donated shop car. This instructor was getting older, and had become very accident-prone. By the time that he retired, about 6 years later, it was amazing how many parts of the shop’s donated Chevy had “disappeared” and somehow miraculously re-appeared on the shop teacher’s car. A couple of years later, we called a tow truck to take the stripped hulk away.