RE: New Defender Concept From Land Rover

[300bhp/ton]

Tuvra said:

FFS try taking the spectacles off now and again. The Defender is absolutley fking awful on the road for what ever reason.

The reason is important, because "fixing" the bit that ain't broken will only fk up the design and compromise it's ability for no reason.

Tuvra said:

The brand new one I took out wouldn't do 80mph!!

Boo hoo.

Although I'm sure it would, although all standard ones are electronic speed limited (82mpg IIRC). That said does it really need to go quicker in a country with a 70mph speed limit?

Tuvra said:

That's your example? Really? Whats the weight on that? 2,400kg?

It was just an example of something recent that I'd had first hand experience with. No need to be a cocky tt about.

Tuvra said:

I work with plant and machinery and live in the Welsh Valleys, I tow 3,500kg up and down hills for a living, that load looks like nothing, people "playing 4x4's"!

Tuvra said:

As for off roading, I regularly have to access beaches and sand dunes and yes, with BF Goodriches the Isuzu is as good as a Defender with the same mods - tyres and that's it.

Right - so a very specific type of off roading, one that is often level or a soft surface, so lifting a wheel is rare. However is not indicative of all, or even most other off road situations.

A MK1 Rav4 would actually be very capable on dunes, does this then mean your Trooper is a bit poo?

Tuvra said:

[b]Lets cut the bullst here, you drive a load of old cars, you are not someone Land Rover are going to miss, you would never purchase a new £25k Land Rover because (through your adenoids) "It hasn't got X axles and it cant climb over a 20 foot bolder like a 20 year old (heavily modified) Defender can".

Ignoring the childish insults. All the pictures I've posted here have been of STOCK STANDARD Defenders. Just running MT's, but still of the standard tyre size.

Tuvra said:

If Land Rover were sacking off the Defender, fair enough, they're not though and whos to say it won't be brilliant (on &) off road?[/b]

Maybe you missed the points earlier.

But to be good off road (in all types of off roading) you need very good axle travel and flex. LR know this due to their superb cross linked air suspension on certain models.

The debate is, that in order to make a new Defender IFS/IRS it would need this expensive and complex air suspension to make it capable off road, otherwise it'd be a bit st.

But as a 'cheaper' entry model and one maybe designed for more rugged use, would an expensive and complex air suspension really be the best option?

It still has compromises in a rigged off roader + cost + complexity

Live axles would offer all the off road ability it would need and on a revised vehicle can ride and handle perfectly fine (see Jeep JK or RRC/p38a for reference). They would also be cheaper to produce.

Tuvra said:

The pictures being posted here are absolute bks, I was born and raised on a farm and work with plant and machinery, never in my days have I ever encountered anything like this in an everyday scenario:

People "playing off roading" and actually doing off roading are two very different things

Edited by Tuvra on Thursday 6th June 09:14

Wow you are a bit narrow minded and sited aren't you.

1. This picture was an example of how suspensions react differently.

2. Off road playing in an off road vehicle is perfectly normal and expected and is the market the current Defender and Wrangler target. Wanting people not to do it (because it's not manly enough for you ) is complete stupidity.

3. Some farms have different terrain. I know of several locally that have some challenging terrain in places. Sure you don't have to drive there, but sometimes it's handed or needed too.

4. Not all LR's are used on farms or for plant work. If it's forestry, then you might need to do something as simple as drive over a fallen tree or a large tree stump. Things that can stop any 4x4 with ease, but lesser ones more so.

[RussH91]

Love Landys always have after Dad had his, first car I drove in the field, Dad towed everything in sight with it and drove it everywhere.

But I need a truck for work now and I'm sorry I'm not going to buy a Land Rover, I want something that seats 5 in relevant comfort and have some where to dump crap in the back. I'm not going to tow much, will hardly ever verge on 3.5 tonne, so I'll probably end up with some Jap pick up. I know there's a 110 crew cab but I don't see the appeal of sitting in one for hours on end, I know some will say that about a jap pick up but I want a tool which I can also use as a car. Amarok would be ideal but a few years off one of them.

The market has moved on as much as farmers want something to go round the fields they also want something that they can drive the wife to pub on a evening. hence why discos still fetch good money.

Until LR build a defender which has an option of a crew cab which can tow 3.5 tonne has a variety interior spec, Farmer, Lifestyler, business tax claimers, WAGS, etc while retaining the offroad capabilities, they will keep falling behind in this market and will loose the core which started the company off.

I quite like this rendering.

[300bhp/ton]

DonkeyApple said:

But I really think you need to understand yourself and that your views are often at odds with society at large.

This maybe true, however I am also a strong believer in finding out what the problem is, rather than just fixing something that likely isn't the problem. If you know what I mean.

DonkeyApple said:

The Defender is not suitable for modern roads in comparison to modern trucks.

The Defender is not comfortable in comparison to modern trucks.

These, plus NVH, comfort, ride and so on all need addressing I agree. Although I'm not fully convinced the Jap trucks are really that much superior. The US ones yes. But an L200 really is more bling than actual better ability. Good at fooling the average observer into believing it's all modern and shiny. But in truth doing almost nothing better than the LR does. And some things worse.

DonkeyApple said:

The Defender is not reliable in comparison to modern trucks.

I'd have to debate this. The Defender likes regular planned maintenance and can be labour intensive. But this is not related to reliability. Reliability is failing unexpectedly. In this regard I think LR's in general the the Defender specifically are very good.

I do speak with some experience here. I currently own 3 Land Rovers, by brother has a Defender, my Uncle has 5 Defenders (including a Tdci 2.2) and a Disco 2, my Godfather has a D4 and SIII (has had a D2 & 3) also, my Mum is on her 2nd Freelander (and has owned 3 other LR's), my cousin has a Freelander and my other cousin has just swapped their Hulix Surf for a D2 as the Hilux kept breaking down and is now dumped in a field as they don't want to spend anymore on it.

DonkeyApple said:

It is also important to note that it is not good business to cater directly for different markets. The cost of managing the production line splits and the demand from micro markets is crippling. You must have one uniform product where only superficial elements are changed.

Landy fans always claim that the Defender is the brand icon but it isn't. It's been the Range Rover for over two decades.

Once you see that the Tange Rover is the iconic brand for 21st C JLR then it's easy to see that the Defender will probably be a huge success in its new guise and that the old Defender will still plug away on roads and fields promoting JLR's heritage and off road qualities.

These are all valid points. But I suspect this depends on what financial stand point you are from. A Range Rover at £70k+ is not an affordable vehicle for most and a lot less so than the RRC used to be. People buying new RR's today are unlikely to care so much about the Defender.

For those on a more modest budget I think the Defender is still the LR icon. Even in the USA were it wasn't really sold. I know this as I have a friend who exports early Ninety's to the US as the guys over there will pay 3 or 4 times their UK market value for them.

[Tuvra]

300bhp/ton said:

Wow you are a bit narrow minded and sited aren't you.

1. This picture was an example of how suspensions react differently.

2. Off road playing in an off road vehicle is perfectly normal and expected and is the market the current Defender and Wrangler target. Wanting people not to do it (because it's not manly enough for you ) is complete stupidity.

3. Some farms have different terrain. I know of several locally that have some challenging terrain in places. Sure you don't have to drive there, but sometimes it's handed or needed too.

4. Not all LR's are used on farms or for plant work. If it's forestry, then you might need to do something as simple as drive over a fallen tree or a large tree stump. Things that can stop any 4x4 with ease, but lesser ones more so.

1. I was stating that Suspension REALLY doesn't have to be that extreme, in fact you can avoid situations like that photo by using common fking sense!!

2. Who the fk crashes about an abandoned quarry or a swamp trying to get stuck in shiny new £25k 4x4's be it a Defender or Wrangler.

3. If farmers have to drive to any extreme location, they would use an ATV or more commonly a Tractor.

4. Drive over a tree stump/fallen tree? I assume your talking about Forestry work? The Forestry Commission have moved to Ford Maverick's down these parts and the harvesting boys are in L200's. On contracts where I have to maintain roads and pathways, I usually have to cut up and remove the fallen tree or "dispose" of the nasty stumps for H&S reasons, driving over it would be a) Stupid b)Dangerous c) Leaving the problem for the next person/vehicle. You would have to be a mong to drive over a tree rather than remove it.

skyrover said:

"The Jeep Wrangler is credited with adding to Chrysler Group LLC's success. The Wrangler is especially popular overseas"

"one model Chrysler is struggling to build enough of is the Wrangler. Mr. Henneman said the production line cannot be further sped up, but there have been discussions about how to build more Wranglers this year. "

I take it all back in that case. Overseas? I bet they are referring to the middle east and Australia more than the UK.

Actually Ford may be missing a trick, they should be selling the F150 Raptor's and V8 Mustang's in the UK side by side with 1.0 Eco Boost Focus' and KA's. Hell, Chevrolet should be selling Corvette's and Silverado's because obviously they make money too. You may have cottoned on to something that a billion pound industry may have missed here, you may have turned the entire car industry on its head, the car industry must be full of morons to think that different countries and regions have different buying patterns

[DonkeyApple]

300bhp/ton said:

DonkeyApple said:

But I really think you need to understand yourself and that your views are often at odds with society at large.

This maybe true, however I am also a strong believer in finding out what the problem is, rather than just fixing something that likely isn't the problem. If you know what I mean.

DonkeyApple said:

The Defender is not suitable for modern roads in comparison to modern trucks.

The Defender is not comfortable in comparison to modern trucks.

These, plus NVH, comfort, ride and so on all need addressing I agree. Although I'm not fully convinced the Jap trucks are really that much superior. The US ones yes. But an L200 really is more bling than actual better ability. Good at fooling the average observer into believing it's all modern and shiny. But in truth doing almost nothing better than the LR does. And some things worse.

DonkeyApple said:

The Defender is not reliable in comparison to modern trucks.

I'd have to debate this. The Defender likes regular planned maintenance and can be labour intensive. But this is not related to reliability. Reliability is failing unexpectedly. In this regard I think LR's in general the the Defender specifically are very good.

I do speak with some experience here. I currently own 3 Land Rovers, by brother has a Defender, my Uncle has 5 Defenders (including a Tdci 2.2) and a Disco 2, my Godfather has a D4 and SIII (has had a D2 & 3) also, my Mum is on her 2nd Freelander (and has owned 3 other LR's), my cousin has a Freelander and my other cousin has just swapped their Hulix Surf for a D2 as the Hilux kept breaking down and is now dumped in a field as they don't want to spend anymore on it.

DonkeyApple said:

It is also important to note that it is not good business to cater directly for different markets. The cost of managing the production line splits and the demand from micro markets is crippling. You must have one uniform product where only superficial elements are changed.

Landy fans always claim that the Defender is the brand icon but it isn't. It's been the Range Rover for over two decades.

Once you see that the Tange Rover is the iconic brand for 21st C JLR then it's easy to see that the Defender will probably be a huge success in its new guise and that the old Defender will still plug away on roads and fields promoting JLR's heritage and off road qualities.

These are all valid points. But I suspect this depends on what financial stand point you are from. A Range Rover at £70k+ is not an affordable vehicle for most and a lot less so than the RRC used to be. People buying new RR's today are unlikely to care so much about the Defender.

For those on a more modest budget I think the Defender is still the LR icon. Even in the USA were it wasn't really sold. I know this as I have a friend who exports early Ninety's to the US as the guys over there will pay 3 or 4 times their UK market value for them.

I tend to agree with most points but I am looking at this from a commercial perspective for a relatively small global producer of luxury, high margin products.

I agree that we need to isolate the problem before it can be fixed. I believe the problem is that JLR need to free up the production capacity of a low selling, under pressure, low margin product for one that addresses all these issues.

I firmly believe the whole 'off-road' element to be a total red herring. The number of people who genuinely need anything with more off-road ability than a Disco or other JLR product is tiny. In contrast, the number of potential clients who want a road car with SUV capabilities, fun, fast road and competant off-road is huge.

Running a business around purely 'off-road' vehicles cannot be done at JLR's level. A much bigger company in a local market where demand for off-road is 10 to 20 times higher and land and labour for construction noteably lower is one thing, or a niche player of much smaller size another, so we have Chrysler at one end and maybe someone like Bowler at the other. JLR is fundamentally a luxury SUV builder with a funny and much loved, but little bought, anachronistic side product as a legacy.

Those Navarra and Warrior things are very good cars. And that is the crux, they are work horses that also work perfectly as cars. They can cross a field or work site while aslo tool along at 90 on the motorway while being spacious inside with all modcons.

Land Rover missed the boat when the Japanese started out selling them in Asia and Africa 30 years ago. If they had genuinely addressed the issue then it may be different but I have no idea how they could have done. Japan was in economic accendency and Land Rover was a cash strapped, struggling subsiduary being sucked dry by its parent.

Now, when looking at the market for people with 'modest budgets' this is where the big economics come in. Low price tag, or rather competitive price tag means low margins so you must have high volumes to be financially stable. Defender volumes are low and cannot grow due to increasing legislation. At the same time the factory space could be used to make more luxury vehicles which have a much larger margin and forward income stream. It's just a no brainer to ditch the product when you cut away the nostalgia and just be ruthlessly commercial.

[DonkeyApple]

Bill said:

So a country with 5 times the population (and the space to use it) buys 10 times as many cars. It's not the most compelling argument for a ground up redesign of your lowest selling vehicle.

And don't forget that land is dirt cheap and labour costs lower so a multi national can afford to allocate space and resources to a low margin product.

[NomduJour]

DonkeyApple said:

I firmly believe the whole 'off-road' element to be a total red herring. The number of people who genuinely need anything with more off-road ability than a Disco or other JLR product is tiny. In contrast, the number of potential clients who want a road car with SUV capabilities, fun, fast road and competant off-road is huge

A Discovery will go pretty much anywhere with the right tyres. A Land Rover without the off-road ability isn't a Land Rover, whether that ability will ever be used or not.

[DonkeyApple]

skyrover said:

Tuvra said:

Simple body? No simpler than the Defender Concept. Lightweight? Who's to say the Defender won't be lighter. Solid Folding axles - Normal people don't care. Folding Windscreen? No. Removable doors - st idea, so no again.

If people did not care... than why would jeep continue to make a car with solid axles... recently redesigned in the last 5 years?

Perhaps it's because it's a fundamental part of what makes it a dedicated off roader.

Tuvra said:

So how many Wranglers are sold outside of America and how much profit is JEEP making? Preferably JEEP Europe if its run sperate. Those figures would matter here not the totally pointless Chrysler/American sales figures.

The sales figures are not pointless... this is a global market

http://www.toledoblade.com/Automotive/2013/01/31/I...

"The Jeep Wrangler is credited with adding to Chrysler Group LLC's success. The Wrangler is especially popular overseas"

"one model Chrysler is struggling to build enough of is the Wrangler. Mr. Henneman said the production line cannot be further sped up, but there have been discussions about how to build more Wranglers this year. "

Edited by skyrover on Thursday 6th June 09:43

First of all that is PR from the company rather than independent views etc.

Secondly, it does not consider the conditions of the govt bail out.

Thirdly, 'selling well overseas'. It's an unclarified statement. Chrysler in the markets is well known to have the problem that it struggles to sell its products overseas (one of the reasons the bailout was needed when local demand halted). a 16% increase in overseas Wrangler sales in 2012. But from what base?

However, it does show up a couple of interesting and very crucial points. The average price of a Chrysler product is $30k. This means that across their whole range the margin gulf between the Wrangler and other products is tiny and maybe even non existant.

Now, contrast this to JLR where the average unit cost is probably in the region closer to $60,000. You can see straight away an enormous margin gulf between the Defender and the Range Rover, or even the Evoque.

It is probable that sales of the New Defender in the first year and just the US market will dwarf total annual sales of the Defender and with a profit margin of several multiples.

[DonkeyApple]

NomduJour said:

A Discovery will go pretty much anywhere with the right tyres. A Land Rover without the off-road ability isn't a Land Rover, whether that ability will ever be used or not.

A Land Rover without off road ability is a Jaguar

As an side, in the Cotswolds the locals all drive old Discos as they are hugely practical inside for all your chores and will plug through 99.9% of conceivable conditions. At the same time the Defenders out there are parked during the week on the driveways of homes owned by Londoners.

Generally speaking, Defenders are for fun, old Discos are getting things done.

[NomduJour]

DonkeyApple said:

A Land Rover without off road ability is a Jaguar

If only the people at Land Rover understood this.

Our Discovery 3 gets used as a van (seats always folded, full-length load liner) and really is a useful thing.

[CraigyMc]

NomduJour said:

DonkeyApple said:

A Land Rover without off road ability is a Jaguar

If only the people at Land Rover understood this.

Our Discovery 3 gets used as a van (seats always folded, full-length load liner) and really is a useful thing.

I hope you're aware that JLR are developing a Jaguar SUV at the moment.

In other words, a Jaguar with off-road ability.

C

[DonkeyApple]

CraigyMc said:

NomduJour said:

DonkeyApple said:

A Land Rover without off road ability is a Jaguar

If only the people at Land Rover understood this.

Our Discovery 3 gets used as a van (seats always folded, full-length load liner) and really is a useful thing.

I hope you're aware that JLR are developing a Jaguar SUV at the moment.

In other words, a Jaguar with off-road ability.

C

Or, a Jaguar with SUV ability.

[300bhp/ton]

NomduJour said:

I do more than most (if not as much as I used to), but I'm not one of those One Life people who go to quarries every weekend to try to get stuck if that's what you mean. My off-road driving has been fairly representative of what a vehicle like this is actually used for when it has to work for a living, not just to brag about articulation scores and "flex" like I'm on the Rubicon.

The trouble is - you are only looking at the vehicle for your sole use and no other.

The LR Defender is not just a work vehicle - in fact all intents show a trend away from this and more to a lifestyle & recreation vehicle. So it is perfectly valid to expect it to perform.

Also there are many many different types of off roading - even when used as works vehicles.

NomduJour said:

No I am not. To continue your tedious analogy, compare a Defender with a Discovery I (we had a Special Vehicles 300 Tdi van, so reasonably close in concept to a Defender) - similar underneath, bigger on top, more refined but still a crude device to drive and travel in by modern standards. What was good fifteen or twenty years ago isn't necessarily so now.

So what today are you comparing too? I have no delusions that a Jap Navara or L200 is like Rolls inside. They too are crude vehicles by comparison. The LR does no worse.

NomduJour said:

Yes, I hate them. The majority of my miles are done in either a Range Rover or a Discovery at the moment

Which are totally different vehicles for a totally different market and purpose to what a Defender is aimed at. Comparing the ride quality of the two is pretty much insanity. And at the very least totally missing the point of the vehicles.

NomduJour said:

Again, you display your complete lack of understanding, as on every other thread where you try to justify your American heaps. Yes, it has disc brakes, just like a Ferrari 458 does. That doesn't make it a Ferrari 458. Point is a Defender is ancient, and feels it to drive.

What point are you making?? A good Defender has better brakes than my Impreza does. There is nothing wrong with them. Seriously please describe in detail that is wrong with the brakes on a Defender.

NomduJour said:

If they're not the best solution, what are you arguing about?

I believe they are the best solution for Defender, it's intended use and market placement - in whatever guise the Defender may come.

I would rather sacrifice the almost undetectable steering difference IFS would offer and accept far better off road ability. On tall 85 profile tyres IFS vs live is a pointless debate, I doubt even the driving greats could really tell the difference on otherwise equally setup vehicles.


But as said, I don't object to the clever cross linked air suspension - but this will cost and adds an unneeded complexity to a vehicle that really doesn't need it.

NomduJour said:

If you seriously cannot see that a live axle is not an ideal solution for anything other than articulation and drag racing, there's little point continuing. Why has every manufacturer (including Land Rover) moved away from live axles to more expensive independent suspension? Are they just trying to reduce their profit margins? Maybe you should get a job as a vehicle dynamics consultant and show them the error of their ways.

It's not even worth my effort to reply tbh. You are blinkered and won't change your mind, yet all you do is blame something that isn't actually the cause.

NomduJour said:

300bhp/ton said:

you find them too cramped because you want them to be like a Discovery inside, but are too blind to realise that if you want a Discovery sized vehicle - then Land Rover sell a Discovery sized vehicle. N.B. It's called a "Discovery".

A Defender should be a lot smaller and if you've ever off roaded one properly you'd understand why.

You really are an idiot of the highest order - a Defender is ridiculously cramped inside by modern standards

Great insult, do you talk your friends and family like this too, or only when hiding behind a keyboard?


Oh and please give me a list of these "modern standards" you talk about. I'd love to know...

Although I still don't understand how a live axle has anything to do with interior space - which seems to be your rather odd point.

NomduJour said:

Land Rover should replace it with something worthy of the name.

Isn't this what we've been discussing?

And basically you seem to want something Discovery sized, Range Rover plush, with Ferrari brakes, luxury car interior and no off road ability.

The only thing I can be certain of at this point, is that you evidently have no clue what a Land Rover Defender is. I can provide a picture if it would help as a reference guide?

[300bhp/ton]

RussH91 said:

But I need a truck for work now and I'm sorry I'm not going to buy a Land Rover, I want something that seats 5 in relevant comfort and have some where to dump crap in the back. I'm not going to tow much, will hardly ever verge on 3.5 tonne, so I'll probably end up with some Jap pick up. I know there's a 110 crew cab but I don't see the appeal of sitting in one for hours on end, I know some will say that about a jap pick up but I want a tool which I can also use as a car. Amarok would be ideal but a few years off one of them.

Does your work require off road ability? If not, then a Defender was never the right choice regardless of any of the other points you've mentioned.

One thing to consider about LR's though, is how much they retain there value. While a Jap truck will plummet in value, a 110 wouldn't.

[skyrover]

so basically we are stalemated with these points.

1. It is admitted that there is a market for a vehicle with the Defenders attributes, however Land Rover/Jaguar do not have the ability/resources to invest in such a platform and make it a success.

2. The UK is probably/possibly not that market anymore

3. Land Rover needs the US/Chinese market to succeed

4. The DC100 will probably be built and succeed... however it will not be a Defender replacement

5. It was always a jeep underneath anyway, so it's only right Jeep reclaim the off-road crown

[300bhp/ton]

Tuvra said:

1. I was stating that Suspension REALLY doesn't have to be that extreme, in fact you can avoid situations like that photo by using common fking sense!!

Very narrow minded... sometimes you can't avoid certain terrain. And at the end of the day, if it's a 4x4 and sold as a lifestyle pleasure vehicle, why should you have to avoid off road situations???

Kind of misses the point in off roading....

Tuvra said:

2. Who the fk crashes about an abandoned quarry or a swamp trying to get stuck in shiny new £25k 4x4's be it a Defender or Wrangler.

So are you telling me I won't find a single picture of new LR or Jeep being used off road for fun and recreation? Do you really want to take me up on this wager????

Tuvra said:

3. If farmers have to drive to any extreme location, they would use an ATV or more commonly a Tractor.

I grew up on a farm and my uncle still runs the farm today. I can categorically say that you are completely wrong. The farm doesn't even have an ATV, well it does - it's called a Land Rover.

Tuvra said:

4. Drive over a tree stump/fallen tree? I assume your talking about Forestry work? The Forestry Commission have moved to Ford Maverick's down these parts and the harvesting boys are in L200's. On contracts where I have to maintain roads and pathways, I usually have to cut up and remove the fallen tree or "dispose" of the nasty stumps for H&S reasons, driving over it would be a) Stupid b)Dangerous c) Leaving the problem for the next person/vehicle. You would have to be a mong to drive over a tree rather than remove it.

So where you live and work represents the entire world market, all countries and every use then?

[CraigyMc]

DonkeyApple said:

CraigyMc said:

NomduJour said:

DonkeyApple said:

A Land Rover without off road ability is a Jaguar

If only the people at Land Rover understood this.

Our Discovery 3 gets used as a van (seats always folded, full-length load liner) and really is a useful thing.

I hope you're aware that JLR are developing a Jaguar SUV at the moment.

In other words, a Jaguar with off-road ability.

C

Or, a Jaguar with SUV ability.

Quite - anything's possible.

I just can't see the JLR design guys in Whitley building anything that looks like an offroader which cannot offroad (although a road-baised thing along the lines of an X5 is probably what they should be shooting for, I can't see them taking it to that extreme and ending up with something that can't mudplug)

C

[DonkeyApple]

CraigyMc said:

Quite - anything's possible.

I just can't see the JLR design guys in Whitley building anything that looks like an offroader which cannot offroad (although a road-baised thing along the lines of an X5 is probably what they should be shooting for, I can't see them taking it to that extreme and ending up with something that can't mudplug)

C

It's an interesting debate. Porsche and others take no real credence for any kind of off-roading and this kind of shows Jaguar one way in which they can move. I would have thought that any Jaguar SUV will be 100% fast road and luxury orientated as that is what the brand is about. It would make perfect sense to take RR's chassis and much of the running gear but I would have thought it logical to strip out all the actual serious offroad gizmos and just run the 4x4 system.

I even suspect if the SUV does happen there will be a 2wd version.

[300bhp/ton]

DonkeyApple said:

(some good points)

...low margin product...

Agree with most of what you said. Curious, do you have any figures on the margin for Defenders? I don't know them, but I have a nagging thought of reading in Autocar/LRO or something about them being quite high margin vehicle and quite lucrative. This thought does extent to something I read 3-5 years ago though. I'd love to know some actual figures.

[Krikkit]

DonkeyApple said:

CraigyMc said:

Quite - anything's possible.

I just can't see the JLR design guys in Whitley building anything that looks like an offroader which cannot offroad (although a road-baised thing along the lines of an X5 is probably what they should be shooting for, I can't see them taking it to that extreme and ending up with something that can't mudplug)

C

It's an interesting debate. Porsche and others take no real credence for any kind of off-roading and this kind of shows Jaguar one way in which they can move. I would have thought that any Jaguar SUV will be 100% fast road and luxury orientated as that is what the brand is about. It would make perfect sense to take RR's chassis and much of the running gear but I would have thought it logical to strip out all the actual serious offroad gizmos and just run the 4x4 system.

I even suspect if the SUV does happen there will be a 2wd version.

IMO they might do the opposite - ditch the low-range box and simplify the drivetrain etc, but stick with clever suspension that might appear on the Disco/FFRR, giving it a more road-orientated bias. That way you've at least got the potential to have the car do well when presented with unruly terrain, but sacrifice ultimate mud-plugging ability for reduced weight to give it a bit more sportyness.