RE: New Suzuki Jimny leaked
Discussion
Sorry if this has gone way off topic but yes, some time between the early 1990s and the mid noughties they really stiffened Land Rover the suspension up, to the detriment of comfort.
80s coil sprung Land Rovers like the TD model I used to used on a farm job were amazingly comfortable, they literally floated across ruts and other off road obstructions. By contrast the 16 plate 110 I drove last year was really stiffly sprung and quite uncomfortable.
I've done thousands of miles in various jap crew cabs, they aren't quite as compliant as an old coil sprung Landie but much more comfy than a late plate Defender.
80s coil sprung Land Rovers like the TD model I used to used on a farm job were amazingly comfortable, they literally floated across ruts and other off road obstructions. By contrast the 16 plate 110 I drove last year was really stiffly sprung and quite uncomfortable.
I've done thousands of miles in various jap crew cabs, they aren't quite as compliant as an old coil sprung Landie but much more comfy than a late plate Defender.
300bhp/ton said:
Pommy said:
Isn't the nearest rival the new Jeep Wrangled?
No, price gap is too vast. The Wrangler starts at £45k in the UK!!! 
Even in the US the Wrangler is still $27k starting price.
They are similar in many respects, but the difference is as big as saying the MX-5 and and a 911 convertible are nearest rivals.
Ultimately, there is no real rival to the Jimny. But the same is also true for the MX-5 at present (ignoring the Fiat sister).
I went into the local Suzuki dealers yesterday as it's still very much an option for the OH; they had three people confirmed as wanting one, and I'm now on the list for a test drive when they come in next month. Obviously the chances of getting one is slim in the short term given the numbers mentioned but if we like it we can wait.
Ideally a base model, manual and in mid grey.....any idea how good/bad the automatic is likely to be in this model? I'm not sure which box they are using.
Ideally a base model, manual and in mid grey.....any idea how good/bad the automatic is likely to be in this model? I'm not sure which box they are using.
CaptainSensib1e said:
I'd say the Jeep Renegade is a viable alternative, starts form about £19k. Similar boxy styling to the Suzuki too.
tbh I quite like the Renegade, a good Freelander alternative. But not really the same league in ruggedness and off road ability. For purely on-road use, maybe it is an alternative. But I guess it's like comparing an Elise and an SLK, both are open top 2 seaters, so some similarities, but really a world apart in what they are offering and aimed at.CaptainSensib1e said:
300bhp/ton said:
Pommy said:
Isn't the nearest rival the new Jeep Wrangled?
No, price gap is too vast. The Wrangler starts at £45k in the UK!!! Even in the US the Wrangler is still $27k starting price.
They are similar in many respects, but the difference is as big as saying the MX-5 and and a 911 convertible are nearest rivals.
Ultimately, there is no real rival to the Jimny. But the same is also true for the MX-5 at present (ignoring the Fiat sister).
Prof Prolapse said:
I’m not saying 300bhp said this, but I always find it a very strange idea that the Defender could compete with modern metal on or off road. It’s utterly ancient.
There seems to be some some weird generalisation that propagates, that all on road engineering has advanced steadily onwards but off road vehicles peaked with the Defender, about what 40 years ago? Since then apparently engineers all put their feet up.
I love a Defender... But it’s a Dinosaur.
The requirements for off-road driving have not changed. Nor will they ever.There seems to be some some weird generalisation that propagates, that all on road engineering has advanced steadily onwards but off road vehicles peaked with the Defender, about what 40 years ago? Since then apparently engineers all put their feet up.
I love a Defender... But it’s a Dinosaur.
In that respect, the basic architecture of the Defender is as cutting edge as it can be.
Areas it can be improved as in NHV which can be addressed in a similar manner to how the Range Rover was built as it sits on what was essentially a Defender chassis.
The Wrangler and Suzuki Jimmny both use the same setup as a Defender, yet don't hear people complain that they need to be "modernized"
Make no mistake, things have moved on. Beam axles have compromises, as do independent suspension, ladder frames and monocoques.
Pretty much everyone posting here about wanting a Jimny would be better off if it had independent suspension...
And pretty much the only people bemoaning the new Defender's modernisation are those who want a used one late on in life.
Pretty much everyone posting here about wanting a Jimny would be better off if it had independent suspension...
And pretty much the only people bemoaning the new Defender's modernisation are those who want a used one late on in life.
Bill said:
Make no mistake, things have moved on. Beam axles have compromises, as do independent suspension, ladder frames and monocoques.
Pretty much everyone posting here about wanting a Jimny would be better off if it had independent suspension...
Independent suspension is much better for road use, which is frankly where most 4x4s spend nearly all their time, but much less durable in proper off road conditions, where things like rubber cv gaiters are liable to be damaged by rocks or fallen branches.Pretty much everyone posting here about wanting a Jimny would be better off if it had independent suspension...
There is nothing inherently wrong with separate frames, things like farm tractors have actually moved over to this design as they've become bigger and heavier. They're also easier to modify for specially designed vehicles, which was one of the Land Rovers defining usps.
skyrover said:
The Wrangler and Suzuki Jimmny both use the same setup as a Defender, yet don't hear people complain that they need to be "modernized"
Actually you do - that's why both have been modernised substationally with their recent new model releases - much better on road, much better and more technology and more urban appeal = high demandskyrover said:
Prof Prolapse said:
I’m not saying 300bhp said this, but I always find it a very strange idea that the Defender could compete with modern metal on or off road. It’s utterly ancient.
There seems to be some some weird generalisation that propagates, that all on road engineering has advanced steadily onwards but off road vehicles peaked with the Defender, about what 40 years ago? Since then apparently engineers all put their feet up.
I love a Defender... But it’s a Dinosaur.
The requirements for off-road driving have not changed. Nor will they ever.There seems to be some some weird generalisation that propagates, that all on road engineering has advanced steadily onwards but off road vehicles peaked with the Defender, about what 40 years ago? Since then apparently engineers all put their feet up.
I love a Defender... But it’s a Dinosaur.
In that respect, the basic architecture of the Defender is as cutting edge as it can be.
Areas it can be improved as in NHV which can be addressed in a similar manner to how the Range Rover was built as it sits on what was essentially a Defender chassis.
The Wrangler and Suzuki Jimmny both use the same setup as a Defender, yet don't hear people complain that they need to be "modernized"
It clearly has been advanced. Whether or not you personally believe the changes are “significant” is the only thing, and to go down that line of debate would drag us into the classic PH downward spiral of semantics which I won’t engage with.
Prof Prolapse said:
I’m not saying 300bhp said this, but I always find it a very strange idea that the Defender could compete with modern metal on or off road. It’s utterly ancient.
There seems to be some some weird generalisation that propagates, that all on road engineering has advanced steadily onwards but off road vehicles peaked with the Defender, about what 40 years ago? Since then apparently engineers all put their feet up.
I love a Defender... But it’s a Dinosaur.
I hear what you are saying, and yes it is interesting. This is my take on it.There seems to be some some weird generalisation that propagates, that all on road engineering has advanced steadily onwards but off road vehicles peaked with the Defender, about what 40 years ago? Since then apparently engineers all put their feet up.
I love a Defender... But it’s a Dinosaur.
On-Road Review
While modern "on-road" cars generate more grip and more power. Have they really changed all that much in how they remain in contact with the road?
Doesn't the Porsche Boxster still use MacPherson struts, as do many cars. Suspension geometry hasn't really advanced all that much in recent times. Independent suspension has found a home in more fwd hatches, which histrionically would have used a form of live axle (H beam or similar). But what they have changed too isn't really all that new, just more expensive.
Personally I see 3 areas where things have changed on road:
- stiffer platforms
- bigger, wider tyres
- electronic stability control and E-diffs
But as almost any classic car aficionado will tell you, many older cars might grip a lot less, but actually "handle", in terms of feel. Way better than many modern vehicles. But how the actual suspension (suspension being the entire system from springs, dampers, arms, bushed, rods, etc) has changed very little.
Some car makers have made bigger strides and moved from swing arm systems or compromised independent setups like semi-trailing system found on the BMW e30. But many others have been using well sorted suspension setups for many decades, which don't really operate any differently today.
Conclusion
My point here is. While "on road" performance has dramatically changed over the years. Certainly in the past 40 years, very little is really due to radical changes or new discoveries in suspension design.
Off-Road Review
For off road the story is similar, although slightly different.
Off road ability depends on several key factors:
- stability of the vehicle (i.e. being able to keep it's wheels on the ground)
- ability to keep all the wheels rotating
- size and shape of the vehicle
If we examine these one at a time.
Stability
Stability is about keep either all, or as many wheels in contact with the ground as much as possible over various types of terrain. This essentially translates to suspension travel, i.e. flex or articulation.
High levels of wheel travel can easily be achieved with live axles. Independent suspension can achieve this too, but often results in undesirable cambre angle changes, undesirable joint and drive member angles and the requirement to have long A arms. For a mass market production car, these can be challenging to solve and package sensibly.
Lives axles also have a unique property that, because the wheels are directly connected, as one is pushed up, the opposite wheel will push downwards, far more than just the weight transfer. This promotes high stability in off road situations.
e.g.
The advance here comes from electronics, that with an air or hydraulic independent setup, you could program it to simulate the behaviuor of a live axle, i.e. when one wheel is raised, it pushed down with the opposite wheel. And indeed there are purpose built off road and competition vehicles that can do this. But they often require a fair amount of manual input or have very specific terrain and speed envelopes. They are also vastly complex. Many also have many more axles with 6, 8 or more wheels. All in the attempt to promote stability.
Really the closest in a production car is Land Rover's superb independent setup used in the Discovery 3 onwards. It has a concept of cross-linked air bags. Essentially to do it's best to simulate the live axle off road. It is very capable, but only partly successful. Ultimately it still lacks the flex of the live axle system, because on a production car you can't fit long enough Arms and shafts to allow the most travel. And you still end up with undesirable cambre changes. The gain here is 100% on road. The independent suspension allows for a smoother on road ride (and high speed rough terrain ride) as well as more car like handling traits.
Watch any video of a modern Land Rover on any sort of technical off road situation and they will be lifting wheels off the ground far more often than older live axle models. They just don't have the same stability, but the trade off for vehicles now pitched at the luxury on road market 4x4 market, mean it is probably a good trade off for these vehicles and their current market placement.
To give an idea how long the Arms would need to be for a good off road capable independent setup have a look at this vehicle. It is designed to offer comparable wheel travel to a live axle. For a production car there simply isn't room to have such long arms without having a mid mounted engine and no boot.
Traction
This brings us to the next point, keeping the wheels spinning. This is where there have been changes. And largely due to many vehicles switching to independent suspension with the resulting tendency to lift wheels in the air.
A traditional 4wd system will lock the front and rear axles so that the front and rear props rotate at the same speed. The differentials in the axles will allow each will to rotate at different speeds, such as when cornering. However on slippery terrain or technical off road situations if diagonally opposite wheels are lifted in the air or have reduced traction, you will become what is called "cross axled". Where essentially the only wheels rotating are the ones in the air or with no traction and you become stuck. On very slippery surfaces, maybe with an incline you can end up with a similar result and just the wheels on one side of the vehicle spinning, due to having no grip and the others not doing anything.
This is a normal function of how an open differential works. And in such situations vehicles essentially become 2wd as they can only rotate 2 wheels.
Now there are several solutions and ways to tackle this.
1. Firstly if you have a lot of wheel travel and good suspension flex, then it means you should encounter this situation rarely. Live axles help again here, due to them wanting to push down on the opposite wheel. Independent setups will normally cross axle much easier and on less challenging terrain. And thus lift wheels in the air a lot more often.
Watch some videos of things like L200 pickup trucks off road and you will see they often get stopped by quite tame looking terrain. This is due to the independent front suspension lacking flex and a relatively stiff rear leaf sprung setup. They get cross axled very easily. The 3rd Generation Shogun/Pojero is all independent on coil springs and suffers similar.
Historically Land Rover, Jeep and Suzuki opted for good suspension travel to overcome this as a major issue.
2. Limited slip and locking differentials. As said, the operation of an open differential is the cause to not being able to send drive to all of the wheels. Mechanical limited slip diffs or locking differentials can over come this. These are not new devices, although you can buy air activated or even electronically activated (via a solenoid) locking diffs these days. What they are is additional cost however and can cause additional strain on things like driveshafts, UJ's and CV joints. Which may mean axles need to be stronger to cope with running such differentials.
Such diffs are common place in the aftermarket and have often been available as a cost option by the car maker. Interestingly Land Rover has never offer them on the Defender and until recently Jeep also tended not too on their live axle vehicles. This is down to the fact that the good suspension travel and stability often negated the need unless you where doing extreme off roading. The vehicles had more than sufficient capability without the need of locking axle diffs.
Interestingly, many of the pickup trucks with IFS have had these as standard. Usually as an LSD as lockers are more expensive. They have them, purely because they are a lot less capable due to their suspension designs.
3. The real advance in recent years comes from electronic traction systems. These take many different forms. But fall into 2 main types:
-Electronically controlled locking diffs
This system is rarer and more expensive. Essentially the vehicle has mechanically locking differentials or variable locking differentials, just like the older ones. The difference is they can be controlled; locked, unlocked or maybe partly locked. By the vehicle automatically under certain conditions. Jeep used a version of this on the WK Grand Cherokee and it is superbly effective.
Land Rover also employ something similar on vehicles optioned with the rear locking differential (comes with the tow pack in the USA, optioned separately in the UK). And I'm sure other makers also off or have offered similar. The main advantage here is the autonomous nature of the system that requires no user intervention.
-The second type uses the ABS system to essentially simulate a limited slip differential. This is the most common type and is found on the Discovery 3 but also older vehicles such as the p38 Range Rover and Td5 onwards Defenders. This system is very cheap to introduce as it requires no additional components. Just the ABS system and suitable computer control. It is also very simple, when a wheel spins, such as in a cross axle situation, the system will apply the ABS to the spinning wheel. This will generate load on the wheel, which in turn will promote the opposite wheel to rotate.
Advantages are, it is again autonomous and also allows for normal steering (lockers will make steering harder off road and massively increase your turning radius). And offers greater ability than an open differential.
Downsides are, it requires significant slip before it activates and then requires a specific technique to make it work. Backing off the throttle will stop it working. Such systems are not infallible and don't always work the first time you get cross axled, requiring you to back off the throttle and try again to get the system to kick in. Extended use will cause extreme brake wear (hence why all of Land Rover's own Experience vehicles are always equipped with the optional rear locker). Extended use causes high brake temps and may shut down the system for a period of time. This can be annoying in difficult off road situations.
Vehicle shape
The next point was vehicle size. Some off roading occurs in wide open areas, such as in the desert. However much off roading is in confined spaces. A vehicle of compact dimensions will always be an advantage here. The actual shape of a vehicle can also account for a lot too. A square shaped vehicle with relatively flat sides is easy to see and know where the corners and edges are. Rounded and sloping designed with plunging bonnet lines and extended rear bodywork can be difficult to know where the corners are when navigating tight off road terrain. Wide bodywork with inset wheels can also hamper this. A wheel outboard and located at each corner will be the ideal.
There is then also the matter of approach and departure angles. This is really how much vehicle there is in front or behind the axles. Big plastic bumpers and long noses are going to be prone to hitting the ground a lot more than a vehicle with little overhang. Low front bumpers might also be good for aero reasons and on road mpg. But will always be an issue off road.
Short wheel base vehicles will also have massively better breakover angles and are less likely to become beached off road.
Other advances
There have been some other interesting advances in recent times.These mostly centre around advances in electronic control and consist of:
- Hill Decent Control
- Throttle sensitivity control
- Ability to detect when a vehicle is beached and raise suspension to a higher level
- Electronically detachable anti-roll bars
The latest Land Rover's for example, if you go down a steep decent, the vehicle can actually record the speed and where you have driven. If you stop at the bottom and select reverse it will to a certain extent be able to retract it's steps backwards. This is kind of cool, but probably offers very little real world benefit.
The Defender
If we take the Defender and compare it to the criteria above it scores very well on many points.
- Stability - The Defender have very good flex and articulation in standard form. This makes for an incredibly stable platform off road.
- Traction - due to the suspension design, the Defender has very good traction in most off road situations. It only lacks in the area of open differentials. Although from the Td5 model onwsards (1998) an electronic traction control has been available. Making the standard vehicle extremely capable in this regard. There are also many aftermarket limited slip and locking differential options.
- Size - the Defender has very compact dimensions, very little over hang, slab sided and a wheel at each corner. The shortwheel base 90 also has superb breakover angles.
Lets look at some figures for this:
| Approach angle | Ground Clearance | |
|---|---|---|
| Defender | 47 degrees | 12.7" |
| Discovery 5 | 29 degrees | 11.1" |
In the off road world, there is a test called Ramp Travel Index (RTI). This is essentially demonstrates the suspension travel and how stable the vehicle is likely to be off road.
A vehicle drives up a ramp of 'x' angle (normally 20 degrees) until it can't keep all it's wheels in contact with the ground. How far up the ramp it travel combined with the vehicles wheelbase are then used in a calculation to produce it's RTI figure.
For a stock vehicle the Defender scores very well on the RTI ramp:
| RTI Score | |
|---|---|
| Defender* | 580 |
| Discovery 3 | 519 |
*Defender equipped with anti-roll bar for US market. ARB is optional on UK models, without ARB RTI score is around 600
It is easy to claim the Defender as a dinosaur, but you need to look further.
The ladder chassis of the Defender is actually very good, it is a welded C section chassis forming a box frame. This makes it incredibly stiff. Many pickup trucks through the years or other 4x4's used open channel chassis rails which are far less rigid.
e.g.
vs a Defender chassis:
The biggest downside to the Land Rover chassis was the production technique required a lot of manual input. The chassis design is very good. and arguably stronger and better than many of the current pickup trucks on the market. In this regard you could almost call it modern and the others lagging behind.
The suspension is coil all round. There are a few other pickups trucks and 4x4's that have achieved this. But the vast majority have used designs with inferior wheel travel.
Leaf sprung rear ends will not typically have the same wheel travel and will certainly produce a less supple ride quality. And if designed for load carrying, will often perform particularly badly when unladen.
The rear A arm setup of the Defender (very akin to a 4 link rear) performs very good with a massive amount of travel without binding or compromising other suspension angles. Most pickup trucks if leaf sprung are using the Hotchkiss setup, which dates back to 1903! So again, the Defender is far more modern.
The front radius setup of the Defender is also of good design and has good anti dive properties. It doesn't have the same wheel travel as the rear A arm setup, but has much better road manners. And importantly significantly better wheel travel than the torsion bar IFS system employed on many vehicles these days. This is the same setup as used on the Range Rover and very similar to the setups used on the Discovery 2 and p38a Range Rover.
Really the oldest part of the Defender is the modular design of the body panels. They are very old fashioned rather than being a 1 piece main tub. The body also mounts metal to metal on the chassis. This is robust and allows for the easy adaptability, but is the source of the poor NVH and a lot of water ingress leaks.
Under the body the vehicle is actually technically highly competent and a step up from many of the newer alternatives. Ultimately it really isn't the dinosaur it might first appear to be.
A couple of years back, Dodge had a major TV campaign highlighting the fact the new Ram 1500 had coil rear suspension -- i.e. claiming it as a massive improvement and step forward in pickup design. Which to be fair it is. As all the others were on leaf springs. But this was 2008, Land Rover had been doing this since 1983!
Conclusion
The Defender is still highly capable off road, because ultimately it has the right mix of the right types of attributes for this. How this relates to this thread. Well, the Jeep Wrangler and the Jimny both have very similar design to that of the Defender, in terms of;
- small overhangs, slab sided, square shaped
- rigid ladder chassis
- live axles
- good suspension travel
- good off road stability
So they too, will also be excellent off road.
Agree that the TLDR is just f
king rude, regardless of your existing knowledge of the subject.
But yes, I understand and take your point about the fundamentals remaining unchanged and the Defender ticked these boxes, no argument from me. But the point was old versus new, and the rose tinted glasses many have, and I would think the same logic of "fundamentals ticked therefore little advancement", is highly unlikely to hold water in most's eyes. In fact I would argue it's a flimsy rationale in generally, if we look outside off-roading for a moment, and look at any vehicle and compare like with like over the time period, we'll find that improvements born of engineering are almost inevitable. Whilst I appreciate it's not the biggest feather in it's cap, and it's not a like for like analogy, Concorde's famous Olympus Roll's Royce engines, are positively asthmatic compared to modern engineering's attempts.
My point remains when there is a genuine equivalent, and more modern vehicle, then it is highly likely to benefit from decades of existing knowledge of engineering, in a objective manner. I find it extremely difficult to believe, that the Defender measures quite so highly against modern metal as some would have you believe (if there is indeed a fair equivalent), but don't dispute it's abilities overall, or of it's day.
And anyway, yes, the Jimny looks very capable, and the reasons it is are highly likely why I won't buy one, and why many will and then will regret it.
king rude, regardless of your existing knowledge of the subject. 300bhp/ton said:
I hear what you are saying, and yes it is interesting. This is my take on it.
Conclusion
The Defender is still highly capable off road, because ultimately it has the right mix of the right types of attributes for this. How this relates to this thread. Well, the Jeep Wrangler and the Jimny both have very similar design to that of the Defender, in terms of;
So they too, will also be excellent off road.
I make no claims to be an engineer or especially well informed in the subject of off road vehicles, but I do understand what I would with humility call, "the basics". I also would like to refer you back to my previous point, that the discussion risks becoming about semantics as to whether or not something is "significant", rather than anything meaningful. That said, I do think you're understating the impact of the aforementioned technologies. To my mind especially the role played by electronics, but that's for another day.Conclusion
The Defender is still highly capable off road, because ultimately it has the right mix of the right types of attributes for this. How this relates to this thread. Well, the Jeep Wrangler and the Jimny both have very similar design to that of the Defender, in terms of;
- small overhangs, slab sided, square shaped
- rigid ladder chassis
- live axles
- good suspension travel
- good off road stability
So they too, will also be excellent off road.
But yes, I understand and take your point about the fundamentals remaining unchanged and the Defender ticked these boxes, no argument from me. But the point was old versus new, and the rose tinted glasses many have, and I would think the same logic of "fundamentals ticked therefore little advancement", is highly unlikely to hold water in most's eyes. In fact I would argue it's a flimsy rationale in generally, if we look outside off-roading for a moment, and look at any vehicle and compare like with like over the time period, we'll find that improvements born of engineering are almost inevitable. Whilst I appreciate it's not the biggest feather in it's cap, and it's not a like for like analogy, Concorde's famous Olympus Roll's Royce engines, are positively asthmatic compared to modern engineering's attempts.
My point remains when there is a genuine equivalent, and more modern vehicle, then it is highly likely to benefit from decades of existing knowledge of engineering, in a objective manner. I find it extremely difficult to believe, that the Defender measures quite so highly against modern metal as some would have you believe (if there is indeed a fair equivalent), but don't dispute it's abilities overall, or of it's day.
And anyway, yes, the Jimny looks very capable, and the reasons it is are highly likely why I won't buy one, and why many will and then will regret it.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 30th November 14:49
Pommy said:
skyrover said:
The Wrangler and Suzuki Jimmny both use the same setup as a Defender, yet don't hear people complain that they need to be "modernized"
Actually you do - that's why both have been modernised substationally with their recent new model releases - much better on road, much better and more technology and more urban appeal = high demand
I had a test drive in the Jimny this afternoon and was really impressed. It's much more "car like" than I was expecting and was decent enough at 70mph on the A1. I also think it looks brilliant.
I placed an order, and have been flexible on colour but I still think it's a bit of along shot in terms of allocation.
I placed an order, and have been flexible on colour but I still think it's a bit of along shot in terms of allocation.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff