RE: 'The toughest, most capable Land Rover ever'

[300bhp/ton]

Hitch said:

Modern one of these please, but one that I can fit my right elbow in without opening the window

On a Serious note, I fully understand what you are saying. But in many ways it is such a sad thing to loose this.

There are two very good reasons for it:

1. It allows seating for 3 in the front (albeit not in the last UK models due to having a cubby box), while retaining a relatively narrow body.

I make good use of this ability often in my LR. And in a pickup (if they offer one), being able to seat 3 people in a regular cab without being a massively wide vehicle certainly has many advantages.

2. Off road, sitting very close to the side of the vehicle and noting that the body work isn't as wide as the vehicle track, i.e. the wheels stick out a little. Allows you to easily lean out while driving and eyeball the front and rear wheel with ease. Something very very useful off road when you are driving close to trees or over large boulders/logs, etc.

Even something like a Discovery 1 is at a disadvantage here, as you sit further away from the door and makes it harder to see the wheels. A D3 or newer is even worse again.

[anonymous-user]

300bhp/ton said:

So basically you are saying you are right and Jeep and Suzuki are wrong.

No, of course not. Jeep and Suzuki are selling a product into a different market segment, and both are only able to sell in that niche segment because they are backed up by massive volume sales in their other segments ! JLR cannot afford to pander to a market <10,000 cars PA!

300bhp/ton said:

As an engineer tell me, would it really have been that difficult or even that expensive to fit a live axle to the platform they are using? i.e. add mounting points for front radius arms and a 4 link rear? The rest of the vehicle could stay the same. And it wouldn't stop them also building an IFS/IRS variant as a higher end model or even a blend with IFS and live rear.

Which engineer told you that? I'd suggest they aren't much of an engineer! No way can you simply take beam axles and stuff them under a IS design. The crash team would happily take you outside and beat you to death with your own radius arms if you even so much as suggested that to them, let alone the body structures, NVH or R&H teams!



I'll say it again, even if JLR had suitably rated beams available (which it doesn't, and hence would have to source from a Teir 1) they wouldn't use them.


Unless we are talking about absolute extremes, then a practical IS system provides more than enough cross axle compliance with so many other benefits that it has become the de-facto choice. If beams were suitable, they'd be using them. They are not

And btw, the suspension architecture, as i've said many times before, is so totally dominated by the cross axle rate requirement for any meaningful road performance that the axle type pales into in-significance. Late model production defenders (with your beloved beams) had poor cross axle travel precisely because of the cross axle rates necessary to stop the body from rolling around the place on anything but the gentlest turn.

ie, here's a late model, STANDARD Ninety, cross axled:



you'll not the lack of travel as a result of the cross axle rates required to attempt to make that vehicle slightly pleasant to drive on the road.....

[300bhp/ton]

akirk said:

those wanting it don't buy new cars

I just don't think that is true.

The ALRC is one of the largest single make owners group. We had our National event a few weekends back. Plenty of new vehicles there as tow vehicles. Many are still LR, but more than ever there were Jap/Ford pickups and SUV's this year. I suspect largely because LR just doesn't offer the right vehicles for these people anymore. So they still buy new, but simply buy elsewhere.

Almost everyone I know who owns a Land Rover actually owns more than one. And in most cases they own an older one, a beat up one and a new/newer one. And I'm not talking about 2 or 3 people. I'm talking about 100's or 1000's of people across the country.

What this translates to in terms of annual sales figures I know not. But I'd have thought such people would still be a significant customer market.

As a family we have owned in the region of 60 Land Rover products. Many have been new or bought from main dealers too.

My Uncle has bought at least 6 brand new Land Rovers over the past 25 years (i.e a new one every 4 years). He still owns 4 of them. The most recent being a 65 plate 90. But he has no real interest in their current line up.

[anonymous-user]

And here's the new one, on IS:




which demonstrates at least similar, but probably more cross axle performance!

(no, it's not got 14 feet of travel, like some extreme trials vehicle, but thanks to the chassis control tech, it can manage to have both more travel off road than the classic defender and yet be about 500 x better on road)

[300bhp/ton]

Max_Torque said:

Which engineer told you that? I'd suggest they aren't much of an engineer! No way can you simply take beam axles and stuff them under a IS design. The crash team would happily take you outside and beat you to death with your own radius arms if you even so much as suggested that to them, let alone the body structures, NVH or R&H teams!

So how do other car makers achieve this then?

Max_Torque said:

I'll say it again, even if JLR had suitably rated beams available (which it doesn't, and hence would have to source from a Teir 1) they wouldn't use them.

Isn't this what Jeep, Dodge, Ford, GM and other do anyway? Why can't LR do this? And weren't they doing this already, Dana had been supplying the classic Rover axle for sometime hadn't they?

Max_Torque said:

. If beams were suitable, they'd be using them. They are not

Why are you so definitive that they aren't suitable when almost EVERY major car maker uses them. You really don't need to be so polarised in your views. It isn't a boolean answer

And again, you seem to miss aiming your comments. FFS how many times must I say it. My gripe is LR already offers a large choice of vehicles with the qualities you desire. I'd just like them to offer something a little bit different to all of their other models and more in-line with the companies heritage and tradition.

Max_Torque said:

And btw, the suspension architecture, as i've said many times before, is so totally dominated by the cross axle rate requirement for any meaningful road performance that the axle type pales into in-significance. Late model production defenders (with your beloved beams) had poor cross axle travel precisely because of the cross axle rates necessary to stop the body from rolling around the place on anything but the gentlest turn.

ie, here's a late model, STANDARD Ninety, cross axled:



you'll not the lack of travel as a result of the cross axle rates required to attempt to make that vehicle slightly pleasant to drive on the road.....

Bravo well done. You must have worked very hard to find that picture. Which is rather misleading as it is downhill, most vehicle unless modified will be lifting a wheel there.

I don't suppose you have a shot of a D4 or D5 in the exact same place do you? Just for comparisons sake? I'm betting no.

And it's good to see you cherry picked a variant with ARB's. Something that not all of the late model Defenders had.


I can play the picture game too.

2015 Defender, as you can, quite a lot of wheel travel:


The wheel travel of a D5 somehow looks a lot less impressive:

[DonkeyApple]

Max_Torque said:

I think it's also important to understand what "off road" actually means:

Despite what people say, it's not either this:





or this




or this





No, going "off road" in 2019 is this:




this



this





and for every single mile of "off road" there will probably be around 500 miles of this:





The only reason to "extreme" off road do it for fun. Anyone who is relying on their vehicle, for work (ie farmers! etc) or to get them somewhere (ie exploring the Outback) actually actively avoids extreme situations because of the excessive risk.

Modern mass produced off roaders are rightly road-biased. They have enough off road capability (which tbh, is almost entirely down to tyre choice and the compromise involved there!) to get along rough, muddy, dusty tracks, and that it. And when they are not driving along those tracks (which for the average owner will be 99% of the time, or more) they are safe, quiet, and comfortable to drive on the road.

If enough people actually wanted a classic defender, you'd still be able to buy one...........

Bingo. 100 mile motorway drive in a safe, comfortable car with great visibility. 20 miles of country roads in a safe, comfortable car with great visibility and then a few miles over very basic off-road terrain that any car could navigate much of the time but something more orientate to the task can handle 99.9% of the time. And all with a nice big load area and tow rating for any kit.

And then for the remaining 350 days of the year is perfectly usable as an every day family wagon and meets all the requirements of a generic car.

That defines 99.9% of the world of off roading for consumers happy to drop £50k on a car.

The remaining 0.1% who want to trade away nearly all of that can pick up the phone to Charlie Fawcett and buy a brand new old Defender, restore a Defender, buy a Landcruiser, Jimny or Wrangler.

The simple reality is that it is car first then off-roader and there is absolutely no viable market for off-roader that can be used in a hugely compromised manner as a road car.

[NomduJour]

300bhp/ton said:

Max_Torque said:

Which engineer told you that? I'd suggest they aren't much of an engineer! No way can you simply take beam axles and stuff them under a IS design. The crash team would happily take you outside and beat you to death with your own radius arms if you even so much as suggested that to them, let alone the body structures, NVH or R&H teams!

So how do other car makers achieve this then?

They don’t, hence why both Wrangler and Jimny drive terribly and are death traps (relatively speaking).

[Tom_Spotley_When]

300bhp/ton said:

Tom_Spotley_When said:

If you start explaining Crawl Control or Magnetic Shocks and lockers, or how having a ladder chassis and beam axles are a benefit when you're crawling through mud, to a lady in a cocktail bar, she isn't going to think you're cool.

Why on Earth would anyone do that. You are either missing the point or being obtuse.

Tom_Spotley_When said:

If you're at a Dinner Party and start explaining the same things to the middle-aged accountant sat next to you who drives an Audi A6, he isn't going to think you're cool. He's going to think you're Kettering's last Cowboy.

You are either missing the point or being obtuse.

Tom_Spotley_When said:

If, however, you say, "I've got one of the new Defenders" they still aren't going to think you're cool, but at least they won't think you're boring.

You are either missing the point or being obtuse.

What, pray tell, is the point I'm missing?

My wife thinks that Defenders are cool. She used to get taken to the pub in the back of her friends' inherited 90 when she was a teenager growing up in the Cotswolds. She would never want to actually own one, because without investing lots of time and money in one, they're noisy, slow, uncomfortable and she wouldn't be able to hear Radio 6 Music when she's driving to the train station at 5:30 in the morning.

She'll likely think the new one is cool and might actually want to own one, precisely because it'll likely be marginally faster, less likely to leak, and she'll actually be able to hear the stereo. The furthest off-road it will need to go is maybe a grassy car-park, a slightly rough track to a dog walk, or on a fishing trip down a lane that it's good, but not essential, to have a 4x4 for.

She hates pick-up trucks and is ambivalent about a Jimny. We saw a lime green one the other day, she thought it was cute but too small. The moral of the story, is that what you think makes one cool and what I think are cool are clearly two separate things. However, I suspect I'm more in-tune with the general paying public, rather than a small percentage of 4x4 die-hards on an internet forum who obsess about the axle and traction control arrangements of a car they'll never buy new.

[A.J.M]

It’s funny how no one has seen this new car properly without disguise etc yet everyone is throwing the hand bags about over it.

At least Land Rover are taking the testing seriously if they have taken it from Moab, to Kenya and other places as well.

The new Defender has to pass crash and emissions regulations for all world markets, something the old one couldn’t do.
It has to take on the Hilux, L200, Wrangler, Ranger etc for the pick up and fleet market for utilities companies.

It HAS to drive better on road. The old one is crap on road, it’s slow, noisy, completely lacking in any comfort and has the structural integrity of a Tunnocks Tea cake.

This is something the Luddite brigade don’t seem to realise, the same stuck in the ways attitude that saw Land Rover get slaughtered worldwide in the markets and cost them dearly, something they never recovered from as the land cruiser did everything it could, but didn’t break down.

Times change, markets change, the clients change.
Trying to convince them the car from 1984 is the answer when everything else is from 2010+ isn’t acceptable any more.

[GroundEffect]

JLR is a company that has been struggling for some time. Struggling companies don't go after "nice to have" projects for niche consumer bases that will probably be a loss or a neutral NPV.

They go after what the customers want, and something that'll make money. This new Defender will be better than the old one for 99% of customers.

It really isn't difficult.

[Hitch]

300bhp/ton said:

Hitch said:

Modern one of these please, but one that I can fit my right elbow in without opening the window

On a Serious note, I fully understand what you are saying. But in many ways it is such a sad thing to loose this.

There are two very good reasons for it:

1. It allows seating for 3 in the front (albeit not in the last UK models due to having a cubby box), while retaining a relatively narrow body.

I make good use of this ability often in my LR. And in a pickup (if they offer one), being able to seat 3 people in a regular cab without being a massively wide vehicle certainly has many advantages.

2. Off road, sitting very close to the side of the vehicle and noting that the body work isn't as wide as the vehicle track, i.e. the wheels stick out a little. Allows you to easily lean out while driving and eyeball the front and rear wheel with ease. Something very very useful off road when you are driving close to trees or over large boulders/logs, etc.

Even something like a Discovery 1 is at a disadvantage here, as you sit further away from the door and makes it harder to see the wheels. A D3 or newer is even worse again.

Again, you're pointing to things that are useful maybe 0.5% of the time.

I never see people three-up in a Defender, ever. When was that seating configuration last even offered?!

Wheel visibility is only needed when doing extreme off-roading as the lines on the bonnet (and your brain) let you know where the wheels are the rest of the time. No doubt there will be a camera system to provide even better visibility in the new model.

I think your beef is that manufacturers aren't selling to a niche specialist market when the reality is that LR cannot afford to be a niche specialist supplier. I'd guess they've run the numbers on that...

[Tom_Spotley_When]

300bhp/ton said:

akirk said:

those wanting it don't buy new cars

I just don't think that is true.

The ALRC is one of the largest single make owners group. We had our National event a few weekends back. Plenty of new vehicles there as tow vehicles. Many are still LR, but more than ever there were Jap/Ford pickups and SUV's this year. I suspect largely because LR just doesn't offer the right vehicles for these people anymore. So they still buy new, but simply buy elsewhere.

Almost everyone I know who owns a Land Rover actually owns more than one. And in most cases they own an older one, a beat up one and a new/newer one. And I'm not talking about 2 or 3 people. I'm talking about 100's or 1000's of people across the country.
[
What this translates to in terms of annual sales figures I know not. But I'd have thought such people would still be a significant customer market.

As a family we have owned in the region of 60 Land Rover products. Many have been new or bought from main dealers too.

My Uncle has bought at least 6 brand new Land Rovers over the past 25 years (i.e a new one every 4 years). He still owns 4 of them. The most recent being a 65 plate 90. But he has no real interest in their current line up.

So based on this. Let's be generous, and say that 2000 people own an older Land Rover, a beat up Land Rover and a new/newer Land Rover and attend one of your ALRC club events.

So that's a potential market of 2000 new cars that will cater to extreme off-road enthusiasts, which is probably a fair assessment of people who join the ALRC. New cars are all that JLR care about selling, because that's what makes them money.

But those people don't buy a new car each year. Based in your Uncle's example, they buy one new car every 4 years. Let's assume that, over time, an equal number buy a new car on equal years, because otherwise the maths are impossible to work out.

Of that 2,000, it seems like there's a potential market for maybe 500 cars/year.

Not really massively viable, is it?

[Cold]

Yeah but beam axles. Leaf springs. Ladder chassis.

[akirk]

300bhp/ton said:

akirk said:

those wanting it don't buy new cars

I just don't think that is true.

The ALRC is one of the largest single make owners group. We had our National event a few weekends back. Plenty of new vehicles there as tow vehicles. Many are still LR, but more than ever there were Jap/Ford pickups and SUV's this year. I suspect largely because LR just doesn't offer the right vehicles for these people anymore. So they still buy new, but simply buy elsewhere.

Almost everyone I know who owns a Land Rover actually owns more than one. And in most cases they own an older one, a beat up one and a new/newer one. And I'm not talking about 2 or 3 people. I'm talking about 100's or 1000's of people across the country.

What this translates to in terms of annual sales figures I know not. But I'd have thought such people would still be a significant customer market.

As a family we have owned in the region of 60 Land Rover products. Many have been new or bought from main dealers too.

My Uncle has bought at least 6 brand new Land Rovers over the past 25 years (i.e a new one every 4 years). He still owns 4 of them. The most recent being a 65 plate 90. But he has no real interest in their current line up.

exactly - the new ones are there as tow vehicles - how many of those new vehicles are being used aggressively off-road?
so, yes - the people with that interest do have money to spend - but the money - needs match is not for the off-road capability

I have owned:

SI LR
SII LR
SIIa LR
Freelander
4-door In Vogue RR
Hard dash LSE RR
Soft Dash LSE RR (still own)
P38 diesel
P38 petrol

so I feel I do have and have had a stake in LR
I also have a lot of friends / family / neighbours / etc. who across the country between them probably currently own 100s of LR products and over time have owned thousands... Estates in the 10s of thousands of acres / farms / down to small 3-5 acres or suburban housing - leisure use to commercial forestry / game-keeping / farming / estate management / etc. - lots of love for the defender, and plenty of defender ownership - but not a single person in all of those who needs a defender to do what you are suggesting... All of those who have serious off-road needs will have other vehicles for that purpose: unimogs / tractors / quad bikes / even helicopters...

so the serious needs off-road are way beyond a defender, and for everything else a different LR product does the job - there is no need for a defender at all, it no longer holds its own niche... other than for those who for leisure modify it and go and do silly things off-road, or for nostalgia. I would agree that 3 across is good - and plenty of people are hanging onto the 12 seaters as a very flexible shoot vehicle, but otherwise...

the vast majority of those people own Disco 3 / 4 as probably the best all-around car ever built by LR - and the majority of those people are not upgrading to the D5 but waiting for the new Defender in the (probably realistic) view that it is the spiritual successor to the D4

[deadtom]

Sorry 300 but I can confirm that it would not be viable to fit live axles to the new defender due to its underpinnings; the hardware just wouldn't fit under / around what is there already.

[Pintofbest]

300bhp/ton said:

2. Off road, sitting very close to the side of the vehicle and noting that the body work isn't as wide as the vehicle track, i.e. the wheels stick out a little. Allows you to easily lean out while driving and eyeball the front and rear wheel with ease. Something very very useful off road when you are driving close to trees or over large boulders/logs, etc.
.

Wouldn't that fail an MOT?

[soxboy]

Reminds me of a tale (not certain if true but sounds it) of when the Met Police wanted manual windows on their Rover SD1s, despite the fact that they were made with electric windows as standard (didn't want any fripperies for their coppers). Rover conceded at first and sold them a few hundred with manual ones, despite the fact that it cost more as the numbers were so small.

When our car is up for renewal in 3 years this will be on the list (new). It will get used rarely off road but to me it looks like it will be cool (in a grown up way).

[DonkeyApple]

Hitch said:

300bhp/ton said:

Hitch said:

Modern one of these please, but one that I can fit my right elbow in without opening the window

On a Serious note, I fully understand what you are saying. But in many ways it is such a sad thing to loose this.

There are two very good reasons for it:

1. It allows seating for 3 in the front (albeit not in the last UK models due to having a cubby box), while retaining a relatively narrow body.

I make good use of this ability often in my LR. And in a pickup (if they offer one), being able to seat 3 people in a regular cab without being a massively wide vehicle certainly has many advantages.

2. Off road, sitting very close to the side of the vehicle and noting that the body work isn't as wide as the vehicle track, i.e. the wheels stick out a little. Allows you to easily lean out while driving and eyeball the front and rear wheel with ease. Something very very useful off road when you are driving close to trees or over large boulders/logs, etc.

Even something like a Discovery 1 is at a disadvantage here, as you sit further away from the door and makes it harder to see the wheels. A D3 or newer is even worse again.

Again, you're pointing to things that are useful maybe 0.5% of the time.

I never see people three-up in a Defender, ever. When was that seating configuration last even offered?!

Wheel visibility is only needed when doing extreme off-roading as the lines on the bonnet (and your brain) let you know where the wheels are the rest of the time. No doubt there will be a camera system to provide even better visibility in the new model.

I think your beef is that manufacturers aren't selling to a niche specialist market when the reality is that LR cannot afford to be a niche specialist supplier. I'd guess they've run the numbers on that...

Indeed.

1. The nanny, the offspring, the livestock, the mother in law all go in the back or boot. The only time it’s acceptable to have three up front is when you’ve got two hookers to transport and then you take the F1 and you’re going to a different type of rodeo anyway.

2. Being able to lean out of a window to look at what is near just one side of the car, even in the best case scenario is only useful precisely half the time! And in reality of no relevance at all as you just slap on through the gap as it won’t be your door mirror coming off but the lower car’s.

There is clearly a niche hobby whereby three navies who all get car sick in the back like to drive down 5’6” wide lanes strewn with the remanants of Armageddon and then need wipe down upholstery after. But I think it is fair to say that beyond the extreme dogging liesure industry the demand is somewhat non existent.

[akirk]

DonkeyApple said:

Indeed.

1. The nanny, the offspring, the livestock, the mother in law all go in the back or boot. The only time it’s acceptable to have three up front is when you’ve got two hookers to transport and then you take the F1 and you’re going to a different type of rodeo anyway.

2. Being able to lean out of a window to look at what is near just one side of the car, even in the best case scenario is only useful precisely half the time! And in reality of no relevance at all as you just slap on through the gap as it won’t be your door mirror coming off but the lower car’s.

There is clearly a niche hobby whereby three navies who all get car sick in the back like to drive down 5’6” wide lanes strewn with the remanants of Armageddon and then need wipe down upholstery after. But I think it is fair to say that beyond the extreme dogging liesure industry the demand is somewhat non existent.

I do sometimes wonder what goes on in your part of the Cotswolds - never that interesting around here

[Fittster]

GroundEffect said:

JLR is a company that has been struggling for some time. Struggling companies don't go after "nice to have" projects for niche consumer bases that will probably be a loss or a neutral NPV. .

Explain the MG SV.

Rover did all kinds of odd things (cheap I guess) near the end.