RE: 2020 Land Rover Defender - first sighting!
Discussion
Fire99 said:
What great wizardry is the MLA platform?
Modular Longitudinal Architecture, I think it's the platform that will replace the d7a and d7u platforms that the current Land Rovers are built on.Think the current platforms weren't really designed for an electric power plant (JLR caught napping), thus the need for a brand new platform to base electric vehicles off.
CTE said:
Why don`t they make a proper utility pick up version...that would differentiate it and given the numbers on the roads round here, they are extremely popular.
Their big problem is that nobody who actually needs a proper utility pick up is ever going to move away from Toyota and definitely not to LR. Why the hell would they?WonkeyDonkey said:
Modular Longitudinal Architecture, I think it's the platform that will replace the d7a and d7u platforms that the current Land Rovers are built on.
Think the current platforms weren't really designed for an electric power plant (JLR caught napping), thus the need for a brand new platform to base electric vehicles off.
It's on a modified D7u, the next gen FFRR will be the first vehicle on MLAThink the current platforms weren't really designed for an electric power plant (JLR caught napping), thus the need for a brand new platform to base electric vehicles off.
I really like the new Defender, I don't need one but I want one
kurt535 said:
Toyota must be laughing their socks off
Indeed. They have been for a very long time. I think LR do win top prize for something (aside from consistently being near the bottom of reliability tables) - their advertising tag line of best 4x4xfar must be the greatest product misrepresentation of all time! Meanwhile, Toyota et al are far too busy building vehicles that are fit for purpose and work. It’s tragic really. CTE said:
Why don`t they make a proper utility pick up version...that would differentiate it and given the numbers on the roads round here, they are extremely popular.
The answer lies in looking at who does make that product and how their factory and labour costs compare to JLR. JLR has a small set of factories built on very expensive land. And they use very expensive labour. That is the cost of manufacturing in the U.K.
At the same time, JLR has a smaller balance sheet that the utility truck manufacturers so cannot invest the same level of R&D to make a product as reliable.
In addition to that, this smaller balance sheet means that they cannot fund sales at anywhere near the costs of the typical utility truck firm. The likes of Toyota, Ford, Nissan etc own their own global banks, issue their own bonds and command some of the cheapest financing costs in the market place. That means they can hugely outcompete in consumer financing. JLR doesn’t own a bank and it’s parent company is as f
ked as the entertainment at a footballer’s birthday party. So, JLR can’t built a truck as cheaply as the big global players and nor can they finance it as competitively. In a market where volumes are massive and margins tiny that means JLR would have no margins from selling such a product.
And then there is the volume aspect. JLR has tiny factories that simply cannot product the numbers needed to make a high volume/low margin product work.
And finally, how would JLR sell these low end trucks? All their showrooms are in the wrong locations to sell at that end of the market. They have been specifically located to target premium consumers. And their staff are all ‘trained’ to sell to premium consumers.
So, for JLR to genuinely compete in the arse end truck market they need the following:
A balance sheet up to ten times larger.
A bank.
A parent that is more than barely solvent.
New factories in globally cheap land and labour locations.
New showrooms in new locations.
New staff.
As much as I think most of us would love to see this kind of product again just a cursory look at the two business model types shows that JLR’s model is about as far away as is humanely possible from the high volume, low margin, reliable and cheap model.
And this is why the firm will sell any new Defender to the premium sector because it is only in that sector that the margins can swallow s
t financing and high production costs. WonkeyDonkey said:
Modular Longitudinal Architecture, I think it's the platform that will replace the d7a and d7u platforms that the current Land Rovers are built on.
Think the current platforms weren't really designed for an electric power plant (JLR caught napping), thus the need for a brand new platform to base electric vehicles off.
Thank mate.. Just chewing the breeze here but since the platform will form the basis of a number of new cars & allow hybrid options, it would add weight to one of the big reasons for not having a ladder frame and beam axles is because a Defender of that spec would need its own unique platform and assembly line, and wouldn't be 'friendly' to electrification / hybrid tech installations?Think the current platforms weren't really designed for an electric power plant (JLR caught napping), thus the need for a brand new platform to base electric vehicles off.
Edited by Fire99 on Thursday 6th December 10:08
DonkeyApple said:
The answer lies in looking at who does make that product and how their factory and labour costs compare to JLR.
JLR has a small set of factories built on very expensive land. And they use very expensive labour. That is the cost of manufacturing in the U.K.
At the same time, JLR has a smaller balance sheet that the utility truck manufacturers so cannot invest the same level of R&D to make a product as reliable.
In addition to that, this smaller balance sheet means that they cannot fund sales at anywhere near the costs of the typical utility truck firm. The likes of Toyota, Ford, Nissan etc own their own global banks, issue their own bonds and command some of the cheapest financing costs in the market place. That means they can hugely outcompete in consumer financing. JLR doesn’t own a bank and it’s parent company is as fked as the entertainment at a footballer’s birthday party.
So, JLR can’t built a truck as cheaply as the big global players and nor can they finance it as competitively. In a market where volumes are massive and margins tiny that means JLR would have no margins from selling such a product.
And then there is the volume aspect. JLR has tiny factories that simply cannot product the numbers needed to make a high volume/low margin product work.
And finally, how would JLR sell these low end trucks? All their showrooms are in the wrong locations to sell at that end of the market. They have been specifically located to target premium consumers. And their staff are all ‘trained’ to sell to premium consumers.
So, for JLR to genuinely compete in the arse end truck market they need the following:
A balance sheet up to ten times larger.
A bank.
A parent that is more than barely solvent.
New factories in globally cheap land and labour locations.
New showrooms in new locations.
New staff.
As much as I think most of us would love to see this kind of product again just a cursory look at the two business model types shows that JLR’s model is about as far away as is humanely possible from the high volume, low margin, reliable and cheap model.
And this is why the firm will sell any new Defender to the premium sector because it is only in that sector that the margins can swallow st financing and high production costs.
^^ This. All moaning about reputations, beards, spotlights, and live axles is moot, it's never going to happen because it cannot happen.JLR has a small set of factories built on very expensive land. And they use very expensive labour. That is the cost of manufacturing in the U.K.
At the same time, JLR has a smaller balance sheet that the utility truck manufacturers so cannot invest the same level of R&D to make a product as reliable.
In addition to that, this smaller balance sheet means that they cannot fund sales at anywhere near the costs of the typical utility truck firm. The likes of Toyota, Ford, Nissan etc own their own global banks, issue their own bonds and command some of the cheapest financing costs in the market place. That means they can hugely outcompete in consumer financing. JLR doesn’t own a bank and it’s parent company is as f
ked as the entertainment at a footballer’s birthday party. So, JLR can’t built a truck as cheaply as the big global players and nor can they finance it as competitively. In a market where volumes are massive and margins tiny that means JLR would have no margins from selling such a product.
And then there is the volume aspect. JLR has tiny factories that simply cannot product the numbers needed to make a high volume/low margin product work.
And finally, how would JLR sell these low end trucks? All their showrooms are in the wrong locations to sell at that end of the market. They have been specifically located to target premium consumers. And their staff are all ‘trained’ to sell to premium consumers.
So, for JLR to genuinely compete in the arse end truck market they need the following:
A balance sheet up to ten times larger.
A bank.
A parent that is more than barely solvent.
New factories in globally cheap land and labour locations.
New showrooms in new locations.
New staff.
As much as I think most of us would love to see this kind of product again just a cursory look at the two business model types shows that JLR’s model is about as far away as is humanely possible from the high volume, low margin, reliable and cheap model.
And this is why the firm will sell any new Defender to the premium sector because it is only in that sector that the margins can swallow s
t financing and high production costs. Fire99 said:
it would add weight to one of the big reasons for not having a ladder frame and beam axles is because a Defender of that spec would need its own unique platform and assembly line, and wouldn't be 'friendly' to electrification / hybrid tech installations?
The MLA platform is designed for hybrid and EV, but the reason the Defender won’t have a ladder frame and solid axles and a steering box is because it would be a worse car with them. By most accounts the Jimny is rubbish as a road car because of them, and the new Wrangler isn’t much better. troika said:
Meanwhile, Toyota et al are far too busy building vehicles that are fit for purpose and work. It’s tragic really.
The Defender was an anachronism, in the same way the 70 Series Land Cruiser is, despite being developed in a way the Defender wasn’t - hence why it’s about to die and not be replaced. The 150 Land Cruisers we get in Europe are effectively Discovery rivals, and they are crude old lorries by comparison (as are the 200s - the reason why nobody bought them over here); the utility side of things is where the Hilux comes in - and the bottom end of that market is something JLR are never going to be part of nowadays.NomduJour said:
The MLA platform is designed for hybrid and EV, but the reason the Defender won’t have a ladder frame and solid axles and a steering box is because it would be a worse car with them. By most accounts the Jimny is rubbish as a road car because of them, and the new Wrangler isn’t much better.
And this is where our views would differ. I think there is a place for ladder frame / solid axle vehicles.. (Clearly the likes of Suzuki etc aren't mad) and the Defender has an iconic role in a similar vein to the Jimny. Clearly a design that dates back to 1948 can be improved upon (not unlike Jimny has improved on its 1970 model) but I don't think the Defender needs to be an amazing road car. Just better than it was...Many will disagree but for me the Defender should 'hold its nerve' and remain closer to the ethos of the original. However, I would say that JLR are not in the financial / environmental shape to be able to achieve that with a new vehicle.
The defender was never a Jimny competitor, much more a jeep wrangler competitor.
And lets be clear, the Jeep now starts from £45k in the UK, for a ladder chassis and all the compromises that goes with it. The defender will likely be just as capable off-road (probably more, given the extra articulation and under-axle ground clearance independent suspension gives), way more capable on road, and not kill all its occupants in a small crash, for about the same money.
Please stop banging on about the bloody Jimny.....
And lets be clear, the Jeep now starts from £45k in the UK, for a ladder chassis and all the compromises that goes with it. The defender will likely be just as capable off-road (probably more, given the extra articulation and under-axle ground clearance independent suspension gives), way more capable on road, and not kill all its occupants in a small crash, for about the same money.
Please stop banging on about the bloody Jimny.....
NomduJour said:
The Defender was an anachronism, in the same way the 70 Series Land Cruiser is, despite being developed in a way the Defender wasn’t - hence why it’s about to die and not be replaced. The 150 Land Cruisers we get in Europe are effectively Discovery rivals, and they are crude old lorries by comparison (as are the 200s - the reason why nobody bought them over here); the utility side of things is where the Hilux comes in - and the bottom end of that market is something JLR are never going to be part of nowadays.
LC’s may be ‘crude’ compared to a Disco / RR, but the key difference is that they work. My LC120 didn’t fail once in 160K miles. Neither has anyone else’s LC or HiLux that I know. Let’s face it, people only buy LR for the perceived image, sponsor the rugby etc etc. I’d take a 150/200 over any of them. LR will never compete with Toyota because they can’t build a reliable vehicle, at any price.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff