RE: G-Wagen vs Defender: PH Blog
Discussion
dtmpower said:
Why can't JLR build a new defender in the same vane as a Toyota FJ Cruiser ?
Economies of scale etc. JLR is a company that builds a modest number of very high margin, luxury vehicles.
Toyota are a company that build a vast number of low end vehicles.
The two are structured very differently. So a firm like Toyota could allocate a portion of production capacity to a luxury vehicle as the higher margins would compensate to a degree the much lower volume sales. But, JLR couldn't built a low margin, cheap utility vehicle as it would need more capacity than it has for all the cars it builds now and wouldn't make enough margin to cover the costs. And obviously wouldn't be building any Jags or Tangr Robers so go bust in a week.
There is also the fact that a JLR dealership is positioned and styled to sell premium products. So to sell a utility vehicle in vast numbers you'd need to not only open new dealerships downtown but also in completely different markets.
The reason the G Wagon is still made is that Mercedes invested in keeping it more up to date and that means it still gets the Govt contracts but also as a by product it has allowed it to go Uber upmarket in the retail space and so fit a big margin to a low volume product.
LR neglected development of the Landy to the point that JLR have no choice but to switch it off. JLR is operating at factory capacity so why build a Defender which has just a few grand margin in it when instead that factory space can be used to build a Range Rover with a few tens of thousands margin in it. Same with the utility vehicle, why build something you can't sell in enough numbers to be profitable when you can build a big margin, prestige car instead.
If JLR do come back with the Landy it will be with the understanding that it doesn't need to be able to climb up a mountain or fixed in a ditch but need to just be able to drive across basic terrain and not need fixing. And if it does come back it will be a far better car than the G Wagon because it will be built from a road perspective which is what 99.99% of JLR customers use their product for.
DonkeyApple said:
LR neglected development of the Landy to the point that JLR have no choice but to switch it off. JLR is operating at factory capacity so why build a Defender which has just a few grand margin in it when instead that factory space can be used to build a Range Rover with a few tens of thousands margin in it. Same with the utility vehicle, why build something you can't sell in enough numbers to be profitable when you can build a big margin, prestige car instead.
Because that barely profitable relic is what gives the LR brand credibility and allows it to claim "ultimate off-roader"Nothing else in the LR stable comes close to the Defender's suitability for off-road environments.
As I have said previously... remove the Defender without a like for like replacement and you may as well rename the brand "mall-roamer"
skyrover said:
DonkeyApple said:
LR neglected development of the Landy to the point that JLR have no choice but to switch it off. JLR is operating at factory capacity so why build a Defender which has just a few grand margin in it when instead that factory space can be used to build a Range Rover with a few tens of thousands margin in it. Same with the utility vehicle, why build something you can't sell in enough numbers to be profitable when you can build a big margin, prestige car instead.
Because that barely profitable relic is what gives the LR brand credibility and allows it to claim "ultimate off-roader"Nothing else in the LR stable comes close to the Defender's suitability for off-road environments.
As I have said previously... remove the Defender without a like for like replacement and you may as well rename the brand "mall-roamer"
And as for nothing in the JLR coming close that's complete tosh. The most basic JLR product can do all the off roading needs that anyone normal will ever, ever need.
No one needs a car to climb a mountain or cross a gorge, they need it to move about on tarmac or tracks.
And frankly, when you look at the rise of the new world, having a peasant farmers car in the showroom next to your bling 'look how wealthy I am now' products is going to scare away the new money brigade who are desperate to hide the fact that their parents were peasant farmers.
DonkeyApple said:
skyrover said:
DonkeyApple said:
LR neglected development of the Landy to the point that JLR have no choice but to switch it off. JLR is operating at factory capacity so why build a Defender which has just a few grand margin in it when instead that factory space can be used to build a Range Rover with a few tens of thousands margin in it. Same with the utility vehicle, why build something you can't sell in enough numbers to be profitable when you can build a big margin, prestige car instead.
Because that barely profitable relic is what gives the LR brand credibility and allows it to claim "ultimate off-roader"Nothing else in the LR stable comes close to the Defender's suitability for off-road environments.
As I have said previously... remove the Defender without a like for like replacement and you may as well rename the brand "mall-roamer"
And as for nothing in the JLR coming close that's complete tosh. The most basic JLR product can do all the off roading needs that anyone normal will ever, ever need.
No one needs a car to climb a mountain or cross a gorge, they need it to move about on tarmac or tracks.
skyrover said:
DonkeyApple said:
skyrover said:
DonkeyApple said:
LR neglected development of the Landy to the point that JLR have no choice but to switch it off. JLR is operating at factory capacity so why build a Defender which has just a few grand margin in it when instead that factory space can be used to build a Range Rover with a few tens of thousands margin in it. Same with the utility vehicle, why build something you can't sell in enough numbers to be profitable when you can build a big margin, prestige car instead.
Because that barely profitable relic is what gives the LR brand credibility and allows it to claim "ultimate off-roader"Nothing else in the LR stable comes close to the Defender's suitability for off-road environments.
As I have said previously... remove the Defender without a like for like replacement and you may as well rename the brand "mall-roamer"
And as for nothing in the JLR coming close that's complete tosh. The most basic JLR product can do all the off roading needs that anyone normal will ever, ever need.
No one needs a car to climb a mountain or cross a gorge, they need it to move about on tarmac or tracks.
When JLR stop making the Defender they won't be collecting up all the ones they've made and crushing them. For decades to come Defenders will still be plodding around, you'll still be able to buy them and people will still mod them.
They will still be out their promoting JLR for another 50 years.
And the best out of the box off roader Lamd Rober ever made was the Rangey anyway.
The pictures were just random images of bad roads from google image search, it's simply a way of life for some unfortunate folk, we are spoiled in the developed world.
Thankfully Land Rover will continue production outside of the EU and it's nonsense legislation.
So I agree... spare parts should be plentiful for quite some time
As to the Rangey being the best?
In 2003, competitors representing sixteen nations helped Land Rover fill that gap. Surprisingly, the inaugural Land Rover G4 Challenge contained many of the elements of Camel Trophy 1998, which Land Rover had reportedly been disappointed with. The "ultimate global adventure" was a test of skill, stamina and mental agility in four separate stages, each in a different time zone. The prize: a top-of-the-range Freelander or Range Rover. In true Camel Trophy style, the winner Rudi Thoelen, declined a Range Rover, and opted for two Defenders instead.
Thankfully Land Rover will continue production outside of the EU and it's nonsense legislation.
So I agree... spare parts should be plentiful for quite some time
As to the Rangey being the best?
In 2003, competitors representing sixteen nations helped Land Rover fill that gap. Surprisingly, the inaugural Land Rover G4 Challenge contained many of the elements of Camel Trophy 1998, which Land Rover had reportedly been disappointed with. The "ultimate global adventure" was a test of skill, stamina and mental agility in four separate stages, each in a different time zone. The prize: a top-of-the-range Freelander or Range Rover. In true Camel Trophy style, the winner Rudi Thoelen, declined a Range Rover, and opted for two Defenders instead.
jason61c said:
The British army wanted to use G wagen's as they were quite a bit better during all the tests, however it was considered 'un-British' to use superior German stuff at the time!
Is that why they then went On to replace all the shedfords with crap German man trucks that fall apart chassis split and generally are not war proof one little bit and paid through the nose for them at the same time ? The current RR/Disco is incredibly capable off road, with active air suspension, and active cross axle difflocks, leaving the normal defender looking really quite out dated when the going gets tough.
BUT.
When the going gets tough, to the point where you actually need a diff lock, one wrong move or unlucky slip is going to do several thousand pounds worth of damage to the underside (and the top side!) of a RR/Disco. On a defender, you collect dents, and knock the end of the bumper straight with a sledgehammer, and off you go again. Try that in £100k worth of RR...........
BUT.
When the going gets tough, to the point where you actually need a diff lock, one wrong move or unlucky slip is going to do several thousand pounds worth of damage to the underside (and the top side!) of a RR/Disco. On a defender, you collect dents, and knock the end of the bumper straight with a sledgehammer, and off you go again. Try that in £100k worth of RR...........
Max_Torque said:
and active cross axle difflocks, ...........
Do you not mean traction control? Which needs slippage to activate and then you have tyre filled with soil and/or the sharp edges removed. The trick off road/on snow is often is never allowing the tyre to slip and so you have empty treads with sharp edges to grip.. as soon as it slips a revolution you have a smooth traction free tyre. Real Diff locks work.. I have a couple of traction control cars and it is one of those good enough for most of the time devices. Oh well G and 'mog works, ML not so much. At least once the G was the only car on a closed road as I could lock the front axle but leave the rear open so it acted as a Front wheel drive 4x4. In 4x4 with locked diffs it would drift sideways up hills.. 1" ice with 3" of slush on top.skyrover said:
Thankfully Land Rover will continue production outside of the EU and it's nonsense legislation.
Unfortunately all that legislation makes its way around the world eventually. It's that same legislation that's killed off the Defender in its current form, namely pedestrian safety.skyrover said:
The pictures were just random images of bad roads from google image search, it's simply a way of life for some unfortunate folk, we are spoiled in the developed world.
Thankfully Land Rover will continue production outside of the EU and it's nonsense legislation.
So I agree... spare parts should be plentiful for quite some time
As to the Rangey being the best?
In 2003, competitors representing sixteen nations helped Land Rover fill that gap. Surprisingly, the inaugural Land Rover G4 Challenge contained many of the elements of Camel Trophy 1998, which Land Rover had reportedly been disappointed with. The "ultimate global adventure" was a test of skill, stamina and mental agility in four separate stages, each in a different time zone. The prize: a top-of-the-range Freelander or Range Rover. In true Camel Trophy style, the winner Rudi Thoelen, declined a Range Rover, and opted for two Defenders instead.
Again this is all anomalous. Thankfully Land Rover will continue production outside of the EU and it's nonsense legislation.
So I agree... spare parts should be plentiful for quite some time
As to the Rangey being the best?
In 2003, competitors representing sixteen nations helped Land Rover fill that gap. Surprisingly, the inaugural Land Rover G4 Challenge contained many of the elements of Camel Trophy 1998, which Land Rover had reportedly been disappointed with. The "ultimate global adventure" was a test of skill, stamina and mental agility in four separate stages, each in a different time zone. The prize: a top-of-the-range Freelander or Range Rover. In true Camel Trophy style, the winner Rudi Thoelen, declined a Range Rover, and opted for two Defenders instead.
Where is the sense in making an expensive product for a minority of people who cannot afford to build a road? It's nonsensical. You need third world labour and land costs to build products for third world buyers.
And I was referring to the original Rangie which from the day it rolled out of the factory was the superior Land Rover offroad product.
MonkeySpanker said:
Unfortunately all that legislation makes its way around the world eventually. It's that same legislation that's killed off the Defender in its current form, namely pedestrian safety.
Sadly, it's not the legislation that's killed it off but Land Rover's 6 decade striving to do the absolute bare minimum to keep it legal and viable. It is unfortunately more a tale of classic British manufacturing rather than EU legislature. The responsibility of the death of the Land Rover lies 100% at the hands of the people who have run Land Rober over the decades. That is why the G Wagon is still being built and the Defender is being killed off.
Failire to invest, failure to adapt, fear of change.
skyrover said:
The pictures were just random images of bad roads from google image search, it's simply a way of life for some unfortunate folk, we are spoiled in the developed world.
True, although more and more of the world now has metalled roads, at least on the major routes.In most cases where there are rough/dirt roads, though, a reliable Japanese 4x4 pickup or minibus is adequate for the task, rather than a temperamental relic.
DonkeyApple said:
Sadly, it's not the legislation that's killed it off but Land Rover's 6 decade striving to do the absolute bare minimum to keep it legal and viable. It is unfortunately more a tale of classic British manufacturing rather than EU legislature.
The responsibility of the death of the Land Rover lies 100% at the hands of the people who have run Land Rober over the decades. That is why the G Wagon is still being built and the Defender is being killed off.
Failire to invest, failure to adapt, fear of change.
Re your comment it is worth noting the many changes in the ownership/management structure responsible for Land Rover over the past 60 years. Starting with the original Rover company there followed the Leyland Motors takeover, then the Wilson inspired BLMC merger, then the Benn inspired post Ryder British Leyland, the Edwardes BL regime (when for the first and only? time Land Rover was set up as a separate business subsidiary dedicated to Land Rover and Range Rovers), the Day era which ended that arrangement, followed by successive sales to British Aerospace, to BMW, to Ford, and now to Tata. This is not exactly a good recipe for continuity. But with the BMW and Ford acquisitions there were significant injections of new capital, which has been amplified since the Tata acquisition.The responsibility of the death of the Land Rover lies 100% at the hands of the people who have run Land Rober over the decades. That is why the G Wagon is still being built and the Defender is being killed off.
Failire to invest, failure to adapt, fear of change.
During that period all the volume growth and most of the development was devoted to the Range Rover (4 doors, push up market, launch in USA, Range Rover Sport and Evoque), the Discovery positioned between the Land Rover and Range Rover, and the Freelander. There was a simple reason for that. That is where the markets and volumes were and are. In its early years c30,000 Land Rovers were sold annually. That increased to c50,000 units annually in late 1960s onward when Rover acquired some second hand factories in and around Birmingham. Note that the Rover company were not allowed to develop the space available at Solihull as the redirection of industry to the further reaches of the UK was government policy back in those days. About one third of those sales were to the military/security markets. About 80% were to what was then called third world markets - which ran out of money in the early 1980s. Land Rover had no choice but to look elsewhere for its markets. This is exactly what it did - and successfully too.
I would not call the Land Rover dead, only that its replacement is long overdue. It needs reinvention to build on and widen its appeal. That presents JLR with a design and engineering challenge. Based on the success of the latest crop of products, I see no reason why the team responsible for reinventing the Land Rover should be written off as failures before we have seen the results of their efforts. I am optimistic they will get it right.
MC Bodge said:
skyrover said:
The pictures were just random images of bad roads from google image search, it's simply a way of life for some unfortunate folk, we are spoiled in the developed world.
True, although more and more of the world now has metalled roads, at least on the major routes.In most cases where there are rough/dirt roads, though, a reliable Japanese 4x4 pickup or minibus is adequate for the task, rather than a temperamental relic.
The drive train has always been the land rover's Achilles heel (typical British that'l do attitude)
oldtimer2 said:
DonkeyApple said:
Sadly, it's not the legislation that's killed it off but Land Rover's 6 decade striving to do the absolute bare minimum to keep it legal and viable. It is unfortunately more a tale of classic British manufacturing rather than EU legislature.
The responsibility of the death of the Land Rover lies 100% at the hands of the people who have run Land Rober over the decades. That is why the G Wagon is still being built and the Defender is being killed off.
Failire to invest, failure to adapt, fear of change.
Re your comment it is worth noting the many changes in the ownership/management structure responsible for Land Rover over the past 60 years. Starting with the original Rover company there followed the Leyland Motors takeover, then the Wilson inspired BLMC merger, then the Benn inspired post Ryder British Leyland, the Edwardes BL regime (when for the first and only? time Land Rover was set up as a separate business subsidiary dedicated to Land Rover and Range Rovers), the Day era which ended that arrangement, followed by successive sales to British Aerospace, to BMW, to Ford, and now to Tata. This is not exactly a good recipe for continuity. But with the BMW and Ford acquisitions there were significant injections of new capital, which has been amplified since the Tata acquisition.The responsibility of the death of the Land Rover lies 100% at the hands of the people who have run Land Rober over the decades. That is why the G Wagon is still being built and the Defender is being killed off.
Failire to invest, failure to adapt, fear of change.
During that period all the volume growth and most of the development was devoted to the Range Rover (4 doors, push up market, launch in USA, Range Rover Sport and Evoque), the Discovery positioned between the Land Rover and Range Rover, and the Freelander. There was a simple reason for that. That is where the markets and volumes were and are. In its early years c30,000 Land Rovers were sold annually. That increased to c50,000 units annually in late 1960s onward when Rover acquired some second hand factories in and around Birmingham. Note that the Rover company were not allowed to develop the space available at Solihull as the redirection of industry to the further reaches of the UK was government policy back in those days. About one third of those sales were to the military/security markets. About 80% were to what was then called third world markets - which ran out of money in the early 1980s. Land Rover had no choice but to look elsewhere for its markets. This is exactly what it did - and successfully too.
I would not call the Land Rover dead, only that its replacement is long overdue. It needs reinvention to build on and widen its appeal. That presents JLR with a design and engineering challenge. Based on the success of the latest crop of products, I see no reason why the team responsible for reinventing the Land Rover should be written off as failures before we have seen the results of their efforts. I am optimistic they will get it right.
Original sales volumes started falling as the Empire began being dismantled and the overseas markets for Landies became free to buy from people other than the British. This hardly happened overnight and everyone saw it coming and while some chose to adapt, other firms chose to keep their heads in the sand. Then, come the 80s the next slump in sales was as a result of privatisation of the utilities. The moment all the telecom, gas, water and oil utilities became answerable to shareholders and not the State they had to justify spend and naturally migrated at pace away from Land Rovet to the Japanese to save money.
By the 90s Land Rover had two customers left, the MOD and Geoff who runs a nice little tourism business somewhere in England and Tobin, his brother a solicitor in London. After the sales surge of Bosnia the disaster of IEDs and the Govts failire to respond quickly enough led them to as usual lay the blame elsewhere and it fell on Land Rover and the MOD ceased buying, leaving just private buyers for fun.
I really liked that concept they threw around Santa Monica the other year as it showed they understood who the buyers of this sort of product have become and have been for some time. But I do think that the one defining element of the Land Rover is not its unecassary level of offroad ability but it's Mecano status and how you can chop and change it. In my eyes it is this that must be retained in any replacement and I think it will make it stand alone in the market to be able to buy one car and then chop and change everything behind the driver cell from flatbed, minicab, surf wagon, hearse, you name it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff