RE: 'The toughest, most capable Land Rover ever'
Discussion
BFleming said:
spikyone said:
Seems a few people disagree with me. I really struggle to tell a Velar from a RRS. And the RRS looks like the FFRR.
FFRR:
RRS:
Velar:
Evoque:
Disco Sport:
OK, the Disco has (slightly) different headlights. Otherwise, a different air vent here, a slight tweak to the bumper there, but in isolation I would not be able to tell from a photo which one I was looking at. The LR/RR range ten years ago had cars with a common styling feel, but individual looks. It might be easy to tell them apart in the flesh because one is bigger than the other, but after the Mk1 Evoque they've spent about 2 minutes on styling.
And yes, I agree that Audi, Merc, and BMW have all gone down that route. It's lazy when they do it, too.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my Dad in the late 1970's, when he asked me why a door from a Fiat 131 wouldn't fit a Fiat 124. I looked at him with the most confused face I could muster & eventually (& politely) said 'they're completely different cars'. As I've said previously, I'm no LR/RR expert, but even I can tell the difference between any of those JLR products above - even when squinting from distance. How a Velar can be mistaken for literally anything else is beyond me.FFRR:
RRS:
Velar:
Evoque:
Disco Sport:
OK, the Disco has (slightly) different headlights. Otherwise, a different air vent here, a slight tweak to the bumper there, but in isolation I would not be able to tell from a photo which one I was looking at. The LR/RR range ten years ago had cars with a common styling feel, but individual looks. It might be easy to tell them apart in the flesh because one is bigger than the other, but after the Mk1 Evoque they've spent about 2 minutes on styling.
And yes, I agree that Audi, Merc, and BMW have all gone down that route. It's lazy when they do it, too.
To me, the Velar just looks like a RRS with a slightly squashed roof and a different bodykit. I have no idea which bit of it anyone could possibly think is distinctive, compared to the rest of the RR range. Same lights, same grille, similar general RR shape. Different bumpers and air vents - but not different enough to mark it out as an obviously different model. I can see there are differences in those photos, but they're not huge differences and if one drove past me in the street I might know it's a RR, but wouldn't immediately be able to say "that's definitely a Velar".
300bhp/ton said:
Andeh1 said:
Because Ford Produce 6 million cars a year & JLR barely make 500k? JLR doesn't have the economies of scale to build em cheap & sell em wide.
How do you know they don't have the economies of scale and how do you know Ford do? I think life is not really an educational text book and things aren't just black and white or Boolean.1) Maybe all the other pickup and 4x4 makers should give up if companies like Ford are so big??
Andeh1 said:
They stopped building the defender because it was unsafe, inefficient, killed pedestrians by merely looking at them, noisy & was only appreciated by a niche market. They had to kill it off because they couldn't make it meet current automotive regulations - otherwise they'd have kept churning them out until a replacement came along.
Sorry but this isn't true and I'm sure you will struggle to find real proof to back it up.2) JLR stopped production because the Defender was labour intensive to build and they could get much bigger profit margins building a different type of vehicle and require a much lesser headcount to do so.
Andeh1 said:
The only way JLR can bring back the name plate is modernizing it & utilising its existing architectures & production capabilities - none of which are capable of making a profit off a ''bare bones basics'' for farmers & men who get far too excited playing in the mud with each other.
3) How do you know this? Are you a JLR insider and privy to confidential and sensitive information or do you have a crystal ball? Or are you just making it up?Andeh1 said:
The Wrangler only exists because American are too stupid to realise how unsafe they are
4) Wow that is a rude and arrogant statement. Do you really talk to people like this!!!! 
Andeh1 said:
Why are you so obtuse on this subject!? 
I'm not, but your above comments would seem to tar you with that very brush.Edited by Andeh1 on Tuesday 30th April 12:43
2) They stopped Defender for a vast number of reasons. Labour intensive was one of them i'm sure (along with all my stated reasons). But...again you prove my point. Labour intensive because they built it so differently to their existing volumes. Look at the way VW, BMW, etc are all going - common architectures they can use for a suite of vehicles. JLR need to do the same. They can't afford to bespoke build some low rent Defender to sell to the Jimny crowd because that makes NO USE of their existing platforms. There is a reason everyone is building ''modular'' / ''parts bin'' vehicles - all the way up to Bentley & Rolls Royce. JLR are *not* in the Market to build cheap cars and sell in high numbers. They need to make use of their luxury brand & not dismantle it by suddenly churning out NCAP 2.0, gas gussling, cheapie vehicles.
3) I am a consultant within the Automotive Industry - I worked with JLR 10 years in the late 90s, but have since kept an eye on them as I enjoyed my time there.
4) As below:
Gandahar said:
You say that JLR had to kill the Defender because how unsafe it was, but then say in the next breath Jeep can still sell an unsafe 2019 car, suggesting due to the stupidity of Americans.
Maybe a rethink on that point? It might be xenophobic and wide of the mark at the same time.
I listed several reasons why Defender needed to be killed off. Seeing as you are focusing on a single one: The jeep has 1 NCAP star - that's more then the 2016 Defender would have had - it was never tested for a good reason. For a start it doesn't have any airbags, or seat belt pretensions, its front end is brutal towards pedestrians (worse then the jeep) and it has zero crumble zones designed in. It had the bare minimum of safety aids & rolling one would have been nigh on sudden death for the occupants (as would a side impact) as there is nothing around your head except metal & glass.Maybe a rethink on that point? It might be xenophobic and wide of the mark at the same time.
The fact that the Wrangler is so popular, despite probably being one of (if not THE) least safe *new* vehicle on the roads - and sold as a family car.... that's stupid. It's a matter of fact no matter what your Make up. The fact the American's lap it up & Jeep are happy to keep peddling it based off ''style'' is laughably stupid. My comments still stand. It is stupid, for stupid people. Anyone who buys a 1 star NCAP car, new, for £30-40k++ is an idiot.
NomduJour said:
300bhp/tonne said:
We know that can't be true as the same engines and gearboxes are used in the Ranger and Transit.
It is true, and is down to the different packaging requirements of the emissions equipment in a Defender. 2xChevrons said:
300bhp/ton said:
There are probably more parts than you think and certainly enough that you can't just dismiss them and claim they are totally different vehicles. Yes some of the bits are "evolution" of a part, but the underlying item is often of the same basic design.
For example, diffs are fully interchangeable albeit with different ratios. At least until they went to 24 spline. But you can still fit a 2016 2.4 Puma diff in the rear axles of a 1958 Series II if you so wish.
I see, so my experience doesn't count for anything, then. .....For example, diffs are fully interchangeable albeit with different ratios. At least until they went to 24 spline. But you can still fit a 2016 2.4 Puma diff in the rear axles of a 1958 Series II if you so wish.
I actually thought when I wrote this "shall I mention the final drives, which are mechanically interchangeable but have different ratios, so they are not strictly like-for-like?" and I decided not to because it was unneccesarily pedantic. Learnt my lesson, there.
so there was no need to mention them.
camel_landy said:
300bhp/ton said:
But a D3/4 is still a long way behind a Defender 90 off road in terms of raw ability and off road durability.
Here we go again... M
The D4 has worse:
-Departure angle
-Approach angle
-Breakover angle
-Ground clearance
-Wheel travel
-Suspension Flex
-RTI score
It is also:
-a lot heavier
-a lot bigger
-very limited choice of off road tyre sizes
-usually low profile tyres
-lack of steel rim options
-far more prone to body damage
-exposed sills
-vulnerable bumpers
-vulnerable plastic trim
-remote seating position
-a lot wider
-far more complex suspension and drivetrain, ultimately meaning it is less durable and dependable off road
-a lot more vulnerable electronics and sensors which can disable or seriously hamper the vehicle if they fail
The biggest redeeming feature is it has a very good electronic traction system that allows it to keep all 4 wheels spinning most of the time. Although this is no superior to the traction control systems offered by other car makers. It does auto program other features like throttle sensitivity and the like. All nice to haves, but hardly essential or required for off road use.
HDC is also a nice to have.
Optional locking rear diff (which almost no UK spec examples have).
The traction control on the Puma Defenders is on par with the Terrain Response in the D4, just with less options, but is just as effective and capable at keeping the wheels turning.
The only thing the Defender hasn't had from the factory or dealer fit is the option of locking axle diffs. But is well catered for in the aftermarket.
The only trump stat the D4 has over the Defender off road is "offical" wading depth. The Defenders is very low, but this is only down to the door seals being crap and letting water in (which is actually good). So LR keep the published figure low to encourage people not to get the interior wet.
The reality is, with very little prep work a Defender can wade with water up over the bonnet. Something which could potentially write off a D4 if the wiring loom gets wet and fries itself.
300bhp/ton said:
NomduJour said:
Seriously? Do you actually read the things you write?
Yes I do, I'm not sure that others always do however.NomduJour said:
Ford, VW, Toyota etc have funding, manufacturing facilities, market access, parts and dealer networks and the rest the likes of which JLR could never compete with.
I understand there are bigger companies, but what has that to do with being unable to compete? JLR only need to sell enough to make profit and grow. They don't have to try and crush other companies or send them out of business.Ford, at least certain parts of Ford have struggled with cashflow many times. As I'm sure others have also. Big companies also means big waste as a rule.
And besides all of the above co-develop with others. The Ford Ranger is a Mazda for instance!
I really do not comprehend how you think JLR have no ability to build and sell cars????
Do you honestly think they only have 2 sheds in the Midlands and a handful of guys assembling cars with hand tools?? JLR might not be the size of some other companies. But nor are they the smallest either.
Also your logic is baffling. You say they can't afford to make or build or sell something like a Defender. Yet the same company seems quite able to sell niche product sports and luxury cars, which require dealer network and manufacturing. Despite companies like Mercedes and BMW being much bigger.
NomduJour said:
I understand the Defender was finally killed off because it was financially unviable to make it Euro 6 compliant
We know that can't be true as the same engines and gearboxes are used in the Ranger and Transit.Stop. Please
You understand the engineering but have absolutely zero sense of why economically LR can’t build the vehicle you want.
No amount of saying the same thing over and over again is going to change that.
All it does is expose your lack of knowledge of how the business was works vs the mechanics.
Trusty Steed said:
Defender in name only, I'm afraid, and if its released on air suspension, they, JLR really have lost the plot.....
The trouble is, this is a double edged sword.With independent suspension you really need Land Rover's air system. It uses a cross linked setup, this essentially tries to mimic a live axle. What is does is, when one wheel is raised, the air is used to push the opposite wheel down, just like a live axle would.
This actually works very well, although is still a long way off the performance of a good live axle. With coil independent suspension it will behave more like a Freelander 2/Disco Sport off road, very unstable and picking wheels up off the ground all of the time.
The main issue is, the air suspension adds greatly to the cost and complexity of the vehicle for it attain comparable (if being polite
) axle flex to the old version. And also adds in a high decree of fragility too.Andeh1 said:
The fact that the Wrangler is so popular, despite probably being one of (if not THE) least safe *new* vehicle on the roadsot.
Are you seriously trying to say a new Wrangler is less safe than this for example?.jpg)
And on this note, your entire rational seems to be, if there is someone bigger selling something don't bother. Is your advice to Caterham (and Morgan and many others) to jack it in, because Mazda can build the MX-5 cheaper and still make good profit?
As this seems to be your only real point.
300bhp/ton said:
Can you provide proof please. Otherwise that is utter tosh. The only difference in packaging would be the location of the exhaust/cat. And there is loads of room on the Landy, so arguably better packaged than in the other vehicles.
Do your own homework. It needed an SCR system and a DPF to meet Euro 6 requirements, neither of which was viable to engineer.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-2...
GroundEffect said:
You would not do durability testing at the 'ring. Ride, handling and thermal performance, sure, but not durability.
‘You can develop a car at the Nürburgring or for the Nürburgring,’ says Phil Talboys, who runs Jaguar Land Rover’s test facility at the track. Most JLR cars being developed at the Ring are cooking models. They’re there not for dynamic tuning but for durability (each mile of the Ring is reckoned to be the equivalent of 12 road miles)’300bhp/ton said:
Well please explain in detail how and why a D4 or D5 are superior off road vehicles to the Defender then? That was your basic stance wasn't it?
Again - your particular definition of "off road" appears to change depending on the spurious aims of your "arguments" - on the one hand, a Wrangler is the product of higher beings because rock-crawling, articulation and "flex" are what's important. but only and until it's shown that live axles aren't a requirement for that ability. Then we move onto physical size, cost of repair and a load of other paper-thin attempts to justify some pointless position or other.NomduJour said:
300bhp/ton said:
Can you provide proof please. Otherwise that is utter tosh. The only difference in packaging would be the location of the exhaust/cat. And there is loads of room on the Landy, so arguably better packaged than in the other vehicles.
Do your own homework. It needed an SCR system and a DPF to meet Euro 6 requirements, neither of which was viable to engineer.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-2...
jhonn said:
What you say is correct, however that is unlikely to matter to the majority of new buyers - it will not affect sales. Indeed, it's improved on-road performance and ergonomics is likely to make it more appealing.
For anyone who's going to spend circa 40k on a new vehicle it's off-road ability will be more than sufficient.
You are probably correct. Although as some have mentioned, maybe LR are indeed lacking the halo model. The one that helps get people into the showroom and interested in the brand. I'm not sure just another SUV will be this.For anyone who's going to spend circa 40k on a new vehicle it's off-road ability will be more than sufficient.
The RR does this for the top end luxury sector and has been very desirable. Indeed there are probably loads of Evoque owners who purchased largely based on being interested in the top tier Range Rover, but not able to afford one.
As an "off road" maker, LR do seriously lack a proper off roader in their range.
NomduJour said:
Do your own homework. It needed an SCR system and a DPF to meet Euro 6 requirements, neither of which was viable to engineer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-2...
Thanks for link.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-2...
Although it is quite clear in the quoted comment in the article. It says "won't" meet emissions. Not "can't" meet. All this means is it currently didn't and they weren't going to do anything to make it.
Adding the required bits to meet Euro 6 quite literally was peanuts, as all the R&D had already been done for the other vehicles using the same engine. The Defenders engine bay is vast and there is plenty of space underneath. This was far more strategic and tactical than an engineering limitation.
300bhp/ton said:
NomduJour said:
Manufacturers do durability testing at the 'Ring because it's very tough on a car - not necessarily about handling.
They do it because it's good publicity. Really a race track is a race track, they could have used any and simply done more laps to cover the required distance.The 'Ring might be a motoring enthusiasts mecca. But it doesn't do anything special that can't be done elsewhere, apart from the media attention.
You may well not be an idiot, but you DO NOT know everything there is about everything. You profess your opinion as fact. It's not. It's opinion that in some cases is wrong, no matter how much you think it isn't. If you perhaps were a little less pig headed, you may appreciate that you don't know everything.
NomduJour said:
300bhp/ton said:
Well please explain in detail how and why a D4 or D5 are superior off road vehicles to the Defender then? That was your basic stance wasn't it?
Again - your particular definition of "off road" appears to change depending on the spurious aims of your "arguments" - on the one hand, a Wrangler is the product of higher beings because rock-crawling, articulation and "flex" are what's important. but only and until it's shown that live axles aren't a requirement for that ability. Then we move onto physical size, cost of repair and a load of other paper-thin attempts to justify some pointless position or other.I'm more than happy to have a good discussion/chat about the model, even some good natured banter
But you know exactly what you've done and why.
GroundEffect said:
NomduJour said:
Manufacturers do durability testing at the 'Ring because it's very tough on a car - not necessarily about handling.
You would not do durability testing at the 'ring. Ride, handling and thermal performance, sure, but not durability.
And before anyone says it's a customer car, the placard with 2010 in the rear window is the access placard for Industry Pool.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff