RE: Defender at the Nurburgring!
Discussion
llcoolmac said:
Hmmm they aren't the options though are they? How about this? Build rigged workhorse that is capable off road, simple enough without being archaic and retains elements of classic British styling and hello maintain brand image of creating real proper off road vehicles? You know like Toyota have done with the Prado. Every farmer in Ireland has a land cruiser. I'd imagine it is the same else where. Can't remember the last time I saw a land Rover used for week purposes.
All this will do is cannibalise sales of other land Rovers and lose them the work/utility market entirely. You don't see Toyota wasting their time lapping the Ring in a Land cruiser. If you are telling me there isn't profit in the utility market them you should let Toyota know.
But Land Rover already have 'lost the work/utiltiy market entirely'. They did so in the early 1980s in the period when Ninety/One Ten sales dropped to under 20,000 a year at a time when Toyota alone was selling ten times that number of Land Cruisers and probably the same number of Hiluxes - one Japanese company outselling Land Rover by a ratio of 20 to 1, and that's not accounting for Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki etc. All this will do is cannibalise sales of other land Rovers and lose them the work/utility market entirely. You don't see Toyota wasting their time lapping the Ring in a Land cruiser. If you are telling me there isn't profit in the utility market them you should let Toyota know.
It was way back then that Land Rover explicitly made the call that, as a tiny firm with no real native engineering capacity (they were reliant on Rover and centralised BL engineering capability) and one factory in the West Midlands, they had no hope of competing with the Japanese on an equal footing, so the focus would be on selling the Defender in the UK and to military/governmental buyers who still valued it and seeking sustainable profits by taking the Range Rover massively upmarket to cash in on its unanticipated success as a luxury status-symbol which it was never intended to have and then introducing the Discovery to slot in between the two to get the family/lifestyle/Home Counties market. As part of this LR shut down most of its overseas license-building and sales agencies in sub-Saharan Africa, South America and the Middle East and expanded its presence in western Europe and, crucially, re-entered the USA market to flog profitable Range Rovers to the Yanks.
LR's business model hasn't fundamentally changed in 30+ years - low volume, high-cost, non-utility 4x4s/SUVs are were the money is. The Defender only existed for so long because, with all its development and tooling costs paid off long ago by a corporate entity that no longer exists, it cost virtually nothing to make even if made minimal profits by shuffling 20,000 or so a year out of Solihull's door. The idea that LR risks 'betraying' the Defender's legacy as a 4x4 utility vehicle is pretty laughable because, globally, the Defender has only ever largely been an irrelevance in its own market sector. In its last years it was kept afloat almost entirely by its own heritage and image. Even the military buyers had largely deserted it as it was too small, soft and fragile for what most modern militaries look for in a utility vehicle.
Even if LR wanted to build a Hilux/Land Cruiser/Amarok clone, they don't have the production volume, the financial clout and the global presence (in the right bits of the globe) to compete. They wouldn't be able to build enough of them or sell them at the right price. And in most of the relevant bits of the world the Green Oval is still largely associated with shoddily-made, over-priced products as it has been since the late 1970s.
2xChevrons said:
llcoolmac said:
Hmmm they aren't the options though are they? How about this? Build rigged workhorse that is capable off road, simple enough without being archaic and retains elements of classic British styling and hello maintain brand image of creating real proper off road vehicles? You know like Toyota have done with the Prado. Every farmer in Ireland has a land cruiser. I'd imagine it is the same else where. Can't remember the last time I saw a land Rover used for week purposes.
All this will do is cannibalise sales of other land Rovers and lose them the work/utility market entirely. You don't see Toyota wasting their time lapping the Ring in a Land cruiser. If you are telling me there isn't profit in the utility market them you should let Toyota know.
But Land Rover already have 'lost the work/utiltiy market entirely'. They did so in the early 1980s in the period when Ninety/One Ten sales dropped to under 20,000 a year at a time when Toyota alone was selling ten times that number of Land Cruisers and probably the same number of Hiluxes - one Japanese company outselling Land Rover by a ratio of 20 to 1, and that's not accounting for Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki etc. All this will do is cannibalise sales of other land Rovers and lose them the work/utility market entirely. You don't see Toyota wasting their time lapping the Ring in a Land cruiser. If you are telling me there isn't profit in the utility market them you should let Toyota know.
It was way back then that Land Rover explicitly made the call that, as a tiny firm with no real native engineering capacity (they were reliant on Rover and centralised BL engineering capability) and one factory in the West Midlands, they had no hope of competing with the Japanese on an equal footing, so the focus would be on selling the Defender in the UK and to military/governmental buyers who still valued it and seeking sustainable profits by taking the Range Rover massively upmarket to cash in on its unanticipated success as a luxury status-symbol which it was never intended to have and then introducing the Discovery to slot in between the two to get the family/lifestyle/Home Counties market. As part of this LR shut down most of its overseas license-building and sales agencies in sub-Saharan Africa, South America and the Middle East and expanded its presence in western Europe and, crucially, re-entered the USA market to flog profitable Range Rovers to the Yanks.
LR's business model hasn't fundamentally changed in 30+ years - low volume, high-cost, non-utility 4x4s/SUVs are were the money is. The Defender only existed for so long because, with all its development and tooling costs paid off long ago by a corporate entity that no longer exists, it cost virtually nothing to make even if made minimal profits by shuffling 20,000 or so a year out of Solihull's door. The idea that LR risks 'betraying' the Defender's legacy as a 4x4 utility vehicle is pretty laughable because, globally, the Defender has only ever largely been an irrelevance in its own market sector. In its last years it was kept afloat almost entirely by its own heritage and image. Even the military buyers had largely deserted it as it was too small, soft and fragile for what most modern militaries look for in a utility vehicle.
Even if LR wanted to build a Hilux/Land Cruiser/Amarok clone, they don't have the production volume, the financial clout and the global presence (in the right bits of the globe) to compete. They wouldn't be able to build enough of them or sell them at the right price. And in most of the relevant bits of the world the Green Oval is still largely associated with shoddily-made, over-priced products as it has been since the late 1970s.
Land Rover have proven they can't build a reliable complicated vehicle.
I would suggest they go back to basics and produce a relatively simple vehicle that is utterly reliable.
They need to mend their reputation and the Defender is the perfect vehicle to do that.
Otherwise they are finished as a company.
I would suggest they go back to basics and produce a relatively simple vehicle that is utterly reliable.
They need to mend their reputation and the Defender is the perfect vehicle to do that.
Otherwise they are finished as a company.
skyrover said:
Land Rover have proven they can't build a reliable complicated vehicle.
I would suggest they go back to basics and produce a relatively simple vehicle that is utterly reliable.
They need to mend their reputation and the Defender is the perfect vehicle to do that.
Otherwise they are finished as a company.
TBF they can't build a simple vehicle reliably either. And only the rich in first world countries will put up with the unreliability anyway.I would suggest they go back to basics and produce a relatively simple vehicle that is utterly reliable.
They need to mend their reputation and the Defender is the perfect vehicle to do that.
Otherwise they are finished as a company.
Nobody will put up with unreliability forever. They might give them a chance, but after their 3rd or 4th breakdown/major issue they are usually seeking alternatives.
Land Rover CAN build a simple reliable vehicle if they have the will do so. Toyota, Suzuki, Nissan and Honda have all managed it.
Start by looking at their products and put aside a little pride if it means borrowing some ideas.
Lets take the current Defender for example... what's wrong with it.
Axles are weak and unsuitable for modern drive-trains. Solution, use a proven, reliable axle such as the Dana 44 or Dana 60 which also have pleathoera of aftermarket support.
Suspension... the Defender was always good in this area, no issues. Possibly use a 3 link setup on the front for more articulation.
Propshafts/ujoints.: Undersized, use larger more robust items.
Transfer Box: This was probably the best engineered part of a Defender and is excellent. However it leaks, so address this.
Gearbox: Land Rover gearboxes are made from chocolate. Plenty of stronger items available on the market.
Engines: Undersized, under-powered and generally unreliable. As above, use a proven, internationally widespread engine.
Ladder Chassis: Fine, could be hydro-formed for more strength.
I'm aware there is a lot more that goes into putting a new car into production, but at least get the basics right. The above would solve 80% of the problems with the current Defender, the rest being ergonomic issues.
Land Rover CAN build a simple reliable vehicle if they have the will do so. Toyota, Suzuki, Nissan and Honda have all managed it.
Start by looking at their products and put aside a little pride if it means borrowing some ideas.
Lets take the current Defender for example... what's wrong with it.
Axles are weak and unsuitable for modern drive-trains. Solution, use a proven, reliable axle such as the Dana 44 or Dana 60 which also have pleathoera of aftermarket support.
Suspension... the Defender was always good in this area, no issues. Possibly use a 3 link setup on the front for more articulation.
Propshafts/ujoints.: Undersized, use larger more robust items.
Transfer Box: This was probably the best engineered part of a Defender and is excellent. However it leaks, so address this.
Gearbox: Land Rover gearboxes are made from chocolate. Plenty of stronger items available on the market.
Engines: Undersized, under-powered and generally unreliable. As above, use a proven, internationally widespread engine.
Ladder Chassis: Fine, could be hydro-formed for more strength.
I'm aware there is a lot more that goes into putting a new car into production, but at least get the basics right. The above would solve 80% of the problems with the current Defender, the rest being ergonomic issues.
2xChevrons said:
But Land Rover already have 'lost the work/utiltiy market entirely'. They did so in the early 1980s in the period when Ninety/One Ten sales dropped to under 20,000 a year at a time when Toyota alone was selling ten times that number of Land Cruisers and probably the same number of Hiluxes - one Japanese company outselling Land Rover by a ratio of 20 to 1, and that's not accounting for Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki etc.
It was way back then that Land Rover explicitly made the call that, as a tiny firm with no real native engineering capacity (they were reliant on Rover and centralised BL engineering capability) and one factory in the West Midlands, they had no hope of competing with the Japanese on an equal footing, so the focus would be on selling the Defender in the UK and to military/governmental buyers who still valued it and seeking sustainable profits by taking the Range Rover massively upmarket to cash in on its unanticipated success as a luxury status-symbol which it was never intended to have and then introducing the Discovery to slot in between the two to get the family/lifestyle/Home Counties market. As part of this LR shut down most of its overseas license-building and sales agencies in sub-Saharan Africa, South America and the Middle East and expanded its presence in western Europe and, crucially, re-entered the USA market to flog profitable Range Rovers to the Yanks.
LR's business model hasn't fundamentally changed in 30+ years - low volume, high-cost, non-utility 4x4s/SUVs are were the money is. The Defender only existed for so long because, with all its development and tooling costs paid off long ago by a corporate entity that no longer exists, it cost virtually nothing to make even if made minimal profits by shuffling 20,000 or so a year out of Solihull's door. The idea that LR risks 'betraying' the Defender's legacy as a 4x4 utility vehicle is pretty laughable because, globally, the Defender has only ever largely been an irrelevance in its own market sector. In its last years it was kept afloat almost entirely by its own heritage and image. Even the military buyers had largely deserted it as it was too small, soft and fragile for what most modern militaries look for in a utility vehicle.
Even if LR wanted to build a Hilux/Land Cruiser/Amarok clone, they don't have the production volume, the financial clout and the global presence (in the right bits of the globe) to compete. They wouldn't be able to build enough of them or sell them at the right price. And in most of the relevant bits of the world the Green Oval is still largely associated with shoddily-made, over-priced products as it has been since the late 1970s.
No. No. No. No. No. It was way back then that Land Rover explicitly made the call that, as a tiny firm with no real native engineering capacity (they were reliant on Rover and centralised BL engineering capability) and one factory in the West Midlands, they had no hope of competing with the Japanese on an equal footing, so the focus would be on selling the Defender in the UK and to military/governmental buyers who still valued it and seeking sustainable profits by taking the Range Rover massively upmarket to cash in on its unanticipated success as a luxury status-symbol which it was never intended to have and then introducing the Discovery to slot in between the two to get the family/lifestyle/Home Counties market. As part of this LR shut down most of its overseas license-building and sales agencies in sub-Saharan Africa, South America and the Middle East and expanded its presence in western Europe and, crucially, re-entered the USA market to flog profitable Range Rovers to the Yanks.
LR's business model hasn't fundamentally changed in 30+ years - low volume, high-cost, non-utility 4x4s/SUVs are were the money is. The Defender only existed for so long because, with all its development and tooling costs paid off long ago by a corporate entity that no longer exists, it cost virtually nothing to make even if made minimal profits by shuffling 20,000 or so a year out of Solihull's door. The idea that LR risks 'betraying' the Defender's legacy as a 4x4 utility vehicle is pretty laughable because, globally, the Defender has only ever largely been an irrelevance in its own market sector. In its last years it was kept afloat almost entirely by its own heritage and image. Even the military buyers had largely deserted it as it was too small, soft and fragile for what most modern militaries look for in a utility vehicle.
Even if LR wanted to build a Hilux/Land Cruiser/Amarok clone, they don't have the production volume, the financial clout and the global presence (in the right bits of the globe) to compete. They wouldn't be able to build enough of them or sell them at the right price. And in most of the relevant bits of the world the Green Oval is still largely associated with shoddily-made, over-priced products as it has been since the late 1970s.
The new Defender must be sold at a loss to people who never wanted the old one but were forced to buy them by the Government. It must not be sold to the people who actually want it. Those people are bad people, they probably don’t even like the idea of bringing the Empire back or appreciate the finer qualities of driving at 1mph sitting next to a toothless fat bloke who looks like he’s soiled himself again.
The Disco has been an absolutely massive seller for LR. It hit the sweet spot of understanding that the Empire was over, the world was tarmaced and that humans with money had ever growing expectations of comfort and that with this money came the massive growth in recreation and the demand for a road car that everything could be slung into and taken anywhere.
The Disco 5 has gone a bit upmarket and clearly left a vital gap below it. Not only that, but there is a Millenial market that maybe grandpa’s motobikity Evoke or mad, cat wee Aunt Bess’s Freelander or Disco Sport doesn’t quite cater for. So take the Disco 4 idea, shrink it down a bit, add some British historical pastiche/nostalgia and add some cool lifestyle functionality and you’ve probably got something that will be an enormous hit.
I hope it’s not too rounded on the outside but they seem to have completely hit the nail on the head with regards to lifestyle target etc.
My wife is too young to drive an Evoque or Disco Sport and doesn’t wear make-up which seems to further rule the Evoque out and she doesn’t like horses or cats, nor do we need an enormous Disco 5, FF or Sport for daily chores. The new Defender might be the right sort of size, not silly money for a runabout and a little bit of fun.
I have an inkling that this will be as popular among the younger and less bling as the Evoke has been among the elderly and the Bette Lynch lookalike brigade.
Bill said:
Which is all well and good, but how do you get it to meet safety regs and develop it cheaply enough to make a profit on small volumes Vs the high volume competition.
The "LR as a utility truck" boatsank sailed years ago.
You use proven, widely available off the shelf parts rather than spending a fortune trying to reinvent the wheel.The "LR as a utility truck" boat
Reliable, cost effective axles, gearboxes, engines all exist on the market, but land rover insists on trying to do things its own way, which unfortunately on relatively small volume vehicles means high cost, low reliability.
Bill said:
And the pedestrian safety regs??
They sell in the first world and can't afford to do as the Jimny has and stick two fingers up to NCAP.
Not sure what you are implying with the Jimny and LR???They sell in the first world and can't afford to do as the Jimny has and stick two fingers up to NCAP.
The reality is, if all the pick up trucks in production and 4x4's like the Wrangler and Jimny are 'easily' made legal, then it would be no effort for LR to do the same.
skyrover said:
Bill said:
Which is all well and good, but how do you get it to meet safety regs and develop it cheaply enough to make a profit on small volumes Vs the high volume competition.
The "LR as a utility truck" boatsank sailed years ago.
You use proven, widely available off the shelf parts rather than spending a fortune trying to reinvent the wheel.The "LR as a utility truck" boat
Reliable, cost effective axles, gearboxes, engines all exist on the market, but land rover insists on trying to do things its own way, which unfortunately on relatively small volume vehicles means high cost, low reliability.
Where is the market for such a vehicle? Who is crying out for a chassis-frame, live-axled, modular-body, low-tech workhorse 4x4 who isn't currently served by a vehicle from Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Jeep, Chevrolet, Ford, Mazda, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Mahindra, Tata, Great Wall or UAZ? Why would someone turn away from a vehicle by one of those established, proven manufacturers and buy a LR-made 'bitsa', however good its component parts are? Which dealers are they going to buy it from? How much would it cost? Can LR afford to pad its margins or even loss-lead to win big orders from the UN, the Red Cross, civil engineering firms or oil exploration firms (which is how Toyota broke into the market in the 1960s; and once they had 'tyres on the ground' the quality of their product began to speak for itself - can you be sure that LR's theoretical competitor would do the same?)? Where are LR going to build this? The Defender's production line capacity has already been spoken for and, by all accounts, LR is short of production capacity as it is. Are these utility 4x4s going to be built in the UK, with its high cost base and big shipping distances to the target markets in the southern hemisphere? Or is LR going to build new production capacity overseas?
The Jimny and the Wrangler both exist here because their respective costs are covered by other markets. The UK/Europe market is not what Suzuki were aiming for with the Jimny or what Jeep were aiming for with the Wrangler. Sales they get here are a useful bonus at best and if they fell below the point of viability they'd just pull the product and I suspect it would make very little difference to their financial stats. Suzuki and Jeep have had a continuous and viable presence in the 4x4 utility market for 40+ years. That's very different to Land Rover having to fight into the market from scratch which, regardless of what the marque started out as or what it was up to in the 1960s, is what it would have to do. And that would apply just as much if they had decided to go on the war path in 1985 as it would if they decided to try it with the New Defender in 2020-whatever.
2xChevrons said:
But why should Land Rover do so? LR isn't in the business of buying-in OEM components and lashing together low-volume specialist vehicles. It doesn't fit with anything else in their production arrangements, engineering output, manufacturing setup, cost base, marketing strategy or business model.
But LR and most car makers do do this.Where do you think the gearbox and transfer box come from in the current LR models?? I'll give you a clue, they are no longer Leyland Transmissions.
And as for things like axles. Dana are a big maker of axles, you'll find them on Fords, GM's, Dodges, Jeeps. And interestingly for many years Dana had been producing the Rover axle for the Defender anyhow. So it would be only a small step to start buying some Dana 44 and 60 axles from them for a new model.
2xChevrons said:
Where is the market for such a vehicle? Who is crying out for a chassis-frame, live-axled, modular-body, low-tech workhorse 4x4
Well based on the size and diversity of the market, probably several million people+ each and every year.2xChevrons said:
who isn't currently served by a vehicle from Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Jeep, Chevrolet, Ford, Mazda, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Mahindra, Tata, Great Wall or UAZ?
I don't get this argument. Just because others are doing this, doesn't mean someone else shouldn't.In fact it's usually the other way round. Just look at crossovers and soft roaders. A market that every car makers is getting into, despite other makers already selling into this market.
2xChevrons said:
Why would someone turn away from a vehicle by one of those established, proven manufacturers and buy a LR-made 'bitsa', however good its component parts are?
I think Land Rover is still very well known World over and more than enough proven. To claim not is being rather childish.2xChevrons said:
Which dealers are they going to buy it from?
So where do people go to buy a Mercedes pick up or a Fiat pickup?LR already have a large dealer network. Selling a new vehicle from it would hardly be a difficult proposition.
300bhp/ton said:
Not sure what you are implying with the Jimny and LR???
The reality is, if all the pick up trucks in production and 4x4's like the Wrangler and Jimny are 'easily' made legal, then it would be no effort for LR to do the same.
I don't think I can spell it out any clearer. The Jimmy gets 3 stars and the Wrangler 1. Both are volume sellers in their core markets. They're legal, sure, but not made for the first world so sell a few thousand in Europe.The reality is, if all the pick up trucks in production and 4x4's like the Wrangler and Jimny are 'easily' made legal, then it would be no effort for LR to do the same.
300bhp/ton said:
But LR and most car makers do do this.
Where do you think the gearbox and transfer box come from in the current LR models?? I'll give you a clue, they are no longer Leyland Transmissions.
And as for things like axles. Dana are a big maker of axles, you'll find them on Fords, GM's, Dodges, Jeeps. And interestingly for many years Dana had been producing the Rover axle for the Defender anyhow. So it would be only a small step to start buying some Dana 44 and 60 axles from them for a new model.
True - bad phrasing on my part. I'm not saying that every part of every car a manufacturer makes is proprietary. What I meant was that JLR has spent £millions in recent years getting itself into the state where its range is built on technology, platforms and engines that it has developed and that it owns, and those major technologies/components are scaleable for the range of vehicles that it is producing.Where do you think the gearbox and transfer box come from in the current LR models?? I'll give you a clue, they are no longer Leyland Transmissions.
And as for things like axles. Dana are a big maker of axles, you'll find them on Fords, GM's, Dodges, Jeeps. And interestingly for many years Dana had been producing the Rover axle for the Defender anyhow. So it would be only a small step to start buying some Dana 44 and 60 axles from them for a new model.
300bhp/ton said:
Well based on the size and diversity of the market, probably several million people+ each and every year.
And what part of that market is not currently served by half a dozen very established, much larger and better-thought-of players? LR either has to find a niche that currently isn't being exploited (which it isn't doing), be able to undercut the big players on price (like the Chinese - no hope of LR doing that) or simply muscle its way in with a decent but conventional product backed by £billions and a multinational global presence (like VW and the Amarok, but LR isn't capable of that either). 300bhp/ton said:
I think Land Rover is still very well known World over and more than enough proven. To claim not is being rather childish.
Well-known for making upmarket SUVs with terrible reliability. 'The Land Rover' may be well-known as a historical motoring curiosity but the image and values of 'Land Rover' as a marque relevant to the utility 4x4 sector is not good. If anything it's a hindrance - a genuine clean-sheet newcomer would at least have the benefit of the doubt. Land Rover comes with around five decades proven track record of making under-specced, rattly, unreliable, draughty, leaky vehicles packed with flaky electrics that have mostly been aimed at wealthy Westerners and 'image over substance' suburbanites. 300bhp/ton said:
So where do people go to buy a Mercedes pick up or a Fiat pickup?
LR already have a large dealer network. Selling a new vehicle from it would hardly be a difficult proposition.
Mercedes have a true global presence, including a massive network of commerical vehicle agents/dealerships in the same parts of the world that buy most of the utility 4x4s and pick-ups. Those same agents have experience of selling vehicles to fleet buyers, governments and commercial operators. Land Rover doesn't have anything like the global reach and lacks presence in most of the bits of the world which would be a 'proper Defender's' target market. Those dealers that do exist in places like Australia, South Africa, China, India, the Middle East and Brazil are placed, trained and used to selling Discoverys and Range Rovers to well-off private buyers for predominantly on-road use - not selling pick-up trucks to farmers. As well as designing and producing an entirely off-base vehicle from scratch, LR would have to build up a sales/service presence in entirely new (and hotly-contested markets). LR already have a large dealer network. Selling a new vehicle from it would hardly be a difficult proposition.
Remember, the Jimny/Wranger are here in the UK because they have larger overseas markets nicely sewn up. They're not designed for the UK/Europe market. Without a massive expansion of its sales/service network, LR would be in a 'reverse Jimny' situation, trying to sell a utilitarian 4x4 in exactly the markets which don't really want it, and certainly won't buy it in enough numbers to make its design and set-up costs worth it.
I just don't see how this is a relevant conversation in 2019. The time to have this discussion was in about 1975 when LR's future as a major player in the global 4x4 utility market was in the balance. That decision was pushed off until the 1980s by which time LR deliberated on all the points that have been raised in this thread and decided that it wasn't a viable business strategy. Again - the New Defender being a relatively high-tech, road-going and Western-focussed vehicle isn't some dramatic change of tack or unfathomably turning its back on hundreds of thousands of happy and eager Defender customers worldwide. It's the culmination of policy that's been in place for 30 years or so.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Friday 29th March 13:11
Bill said:
I don't think I can spell it out any clearer. The Jimmy gets 3 stars and the Wrangler 1. Both are volume sellers in their core markets. They're legal, sure, but not made for the first world so sell a few thousand in Europe.
So you're saying the USA isn't a first world country.... 
2xChevrons said:
True - bad phrasing on my part. I'm not saying that every part of every car a manufacturer makes is proprietary. What I meant was that JLR has spent £millions in recent years getting itself into the state where its range is built on technology, platforms and engines that it has developed and that it owns, and those major technologies/components are scaleable for the range of vehicles that it is producing.
So there is no reason they can't use 'their' bits and build something different still, many of the engine and gearbox bits are perfectly good. And they still own all the Defender rights for example. The LT230 is a perfectly fine transfer box and more than up to the task still.2xChevrons said:
And what part of that market is not currently served by half a dozen very established, much larger and better-thought-of players? LR either has to find a niche that currently isn't being exploited (which it isn't doing), be able to undercut the big players on price (like the Chinese - no hope of LR doing that) or simply muscle its way in with a decent but conventional product backed by £billions and a multinational global presence (like VW and the Amarok, but LR isn't capable of that either).
You see I just don't comprehend your logic here.Why does it matter if there are half a dozen other players. There are more than enough customer to go round. Land Rover doesn't have to or even need to dominate the market, just take a likely very small percentage share to be profitable and successful.
VW are a relative new comer to the pickup market (ignoring the 2wd car based Caddy). If they took your advice there was no point or hope in them trying to build and sell a proper ladder chassis 4x4 pickup, because there were already other players. The reality is VW have expanded their product range and their customer base with another profitable vehicle.
On the same basis, why to you think BMW builds small SUV's badged as MINI in a market with loads of other players. Simply put, despite competition, there is a market to build such a vehicle.
2xChevrons said:
Well-known for making upmarket SUVs with terrible reliability. 'The Land Rover' may be well-known as a historical motoring curiosity but the image and values of 'Land Rover' as a marque relevant to the utility 4x4 sector is not good. If anything it's a hindrance - a genuine clean-sheet newcomer would at least have the benefit of the doubt. Land Rover comes with around five decades proven track record of making under-specced, rattly, unreliable, draughty, leaky vehicles packed with flaky electrics that have mostly been aimed at wealthy Westerners and 'image over substance' suburbanites.
I disagree. Land Rover are known the world over as building 4x4's. Today they might be luxury based, but they are still respected for their off road ability.Reliability wise, not sure. I think PH and similar places online make far more fuss than what people really care about. Otherwise RR's and the like simply wouldn't be as popular as their are.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff