RE: 'The toughest, most capable Land Rover ever'
Discussion
2xChevrons said:
Having owned (and worked on...far too much) a string of Series and 90/110 LRs I can say that there very few interchangeable parts between them. Some bits of the body, then little industry-standard things like light units, switches and other electric bits, plus a very few of the ancillary mechanical parts (most of which are from the Lucas/CAV catalogue anyway). They are very similar, and working on a 90/110 after years of Series ownership everything seems very 'familiar' but the amount of directly interchangeable parts is tiny, especially once you get out of the first couple of years of coil-spring production when they used 2.25-litre engines and sliding windows. After that the engines, transmissions, axles, suspension, bodywork and interior are all entirely different.
There are probably more parts than you think and certainly enough that you can't just dismiss them and claim they are totally different vehicles. Yes some of the bits are "evolution" of a part, but the underlying item is often of the same basic design.For example, diffs are fully interchangeable albeit with different ratios. At least until they went to 24 spline. But you can still fit a 2016 2.4 Puma diff in the rear axles of a 1958 Series II if you so wish.
2xChevrons said:
And while the coil springs may not have literally been 'new fangled' they were certainly treated as such. When I got properly into the 'Land Rover scene' in the mid-2000s there were still people who genuinely looked down on 90/110/Defenders as 'modern s
t' that was 'too complicated' and 'soft' They were still trundling around in battered SIIAs and SIIIs and called the later stuff 'Zebedees' as an insult. They had 'Leaf-Sprung Dirt Technique' stickers in their rear windows.
I think this must have been very specific to a couple of people you knew. I've been around Land Rovers all my life and involved in farming and trialling and I don't recall this at all. Maybe in the mid 1980's it would have been rare to see a 90 at a trial, but mostly due to cost and newness. But mid 2000's??? Nope, the vast majority of trials vehicles in the Land Rover world were 90's by then.t' that was 'too complicated' and 'soft' They were still trundling around in battered SIIAs and SIIIs and called the later stuff 'Zebedees' as an insult. They had 'Leaf-Sprung Dirt Technique' stickers in their rear windows. NomduJour said:
How many bare-bones, plastic-matted pickups do you ever see over here? Maybe the odd estate vehicle, local authority groundsmen etc, but the majority are tarted-up VAT-eligible twin-cabs, with big shiny wheels, leather seats, sat nav and all the other things £40k+ cars come with.
I doubt either of us are qualified to claim one way or another on this. Do you have any stats?And as said, if true, then there clearly is a place for a similar priced Defender of utilitarian design.
NomduJour said:
Just checking - is this another thread where people who have never bought a new Land Rover, and who never will, are telling Land Rover that they won’t buy their new car because they won’t be able to pressure wash the dashboard in the Outback?
Yep! one of those. Don't know why i always move to the comments eagerly whenever a new story on this breaks, it's not as if I'll ever be even remotely interested in buying one .
Perhaps the cycle of "it's a Discovery"; "it's a chelsea tractor"; "it needs to have a fixed transversial leaf bobbin, be powered by coal, and include a horse" I think strangely gratifying and relaxing.
if i did have an opinion on this (and i don't really), it would be that there is literally nothing, nothing at all, the JLR can do here and not lose. Any possible direction they take would be met with fury from lots of old grumpy blokes.
Gandahar said:
Yeah, he says he lives in the country but with 30 posts per day, every day for the last 10 years you do worry whether he ever had muddy wellies.
I might work in IT, so on a computer daily, but if you have followed my posts you'd see I'm quite active with LR's and farming.Here is my build thread:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Or have a look at my profile
300bhp/ton said:
I doubt either of us are qualified to claim one way or another on this. Do you have any stats?
And as said, if true, then there clearly is a place for a similar priced Defender of utilitarian design.
The Ford Ranger has been the best-selling pickup in the UK for five years - over 2/3 of them sold across the whole of Europe are the 3.2 litre automatic 4x4 twin-cab version - not the 2.2 manual 4x2, bargain basement, regular cab model you posted.And as said, if true, then there clearly is a place for a similar priced Defender of utilitarian design.
300bhp/ton said:
I doubt either of us are qualified to claim one way or another on this. Do you have any stats?
And as said, if true, then there clearly is a place for a similar priced Defender of utilitarian design.
300 I know you’re a genuine LR enthusiast but you continually fail to grasp that whilst there may well be a market for what you outline it’s simply not a market that for the modern day JLR can viably address.And as said, if true, then there clearly is a place for a similar priced Defender of utilitarian design.
No amount of stats is going to change the fact that today’s JLR is not configured to do that nor change the fact that building and selling lots of cheap cars would actually be a punitively expensive endeavour for them.
skinthespin said:
It comes across like the current Defender is some cheap, throw away work horse.
To some extent they were. Prices have only gone crazy in recent times.My Uncle has a 2012 pickup on the farm, it cost £17k new.
On a farm, especially places like the hill farms, 10 years was about the innings for such a vehicle. Then it would be replaced with a new one.
You don't see it so much these days, as you can't buy new replacement ones. But in and around mid/north Wales you'll still see a lot LR's, often with quite mangled front wings. This is where farmers open and close gates with the vehicle or move bales about with them.
In many ways the UTV's have filled this niche more than Jap pickups.
Andeh1 said:
Because Ford Produce 6 million cars a year & JLR barely make 500k? JLR doesn't have the economies of scale to build em cheap & sell em wide.
How do you know they don't have the economies of scale and how do you know Ford do? I think life is not really an educational text book and things aren't just black and white or Boolean.Maybe all the other pickup and 4x4 makers should give up if companies like Ford are so big??
Andeh1 said:
They stopped building the defender because it was unsafe, inefficient, killed pedestrians by merely looking at them, noisy & was only appreciated by a niche market. They had to kill it off because they couldn't make it meet current automotive regulations - otherwise they'd have kept churning them out until a replacement came along.
Sorry but this isn't true and I'm sure you will struggle to find real proof to back it up.JLR stopped production because the Defender was labour intensive to build and they could get much bigger profit margins building a different type of vehicle and require a much lesser headcount to do so.
Andeh1 said:
The only way JLR can bring back the name plate is modernizing it & utilising its existing architectures & production capabilities - none of which are capable of making a profit off a ''bare bones basics'' for farmers & men who get far too excited playing in the mud with each other.
How do you know this? Are you a JLR insider and privy to confidential and sensitive information or do you have a crystal ball? Or are you just making it up?Andeh1 said:
The Wrangler only exists because American are too stupid to realise how unsafe they are
Wow that is a rude and arrogant statement. Do you really talk to people like this!!!! 
Andeh1 said:
Why are you so obtuse on this subject!? 
I'm not, but your above comments would seem to tar you with that very brush.Edited by Andeh1 on Tuesday 30th April 12:43
So Land Rover are testing the new Defender at the Nurburgring!
Do we read from this that it's simply going to be another hobbled and overweight SUV pretending to be a performance car, sold with a rugged off road led lifestyle marketing campaign designed to appeal to the permanently orange?
Or is it going to be a proper off road work tool - in which case why on earth test at the Nurburgring?
Do we read from this that it's simply going to be another hobbled and overweight SUV pretending to be a performance car, sold with a rugged off road led lifestyle marketing campaign designed to appeal to the permanently orange?
Or is it going to be a proper off road work tool - in which case why on earth test at the Nurburgring?
NomduJour said:
kambites said:
If you spend much time in farming communities, lots!
Not really - none of the people I know with new(er) ones are, the ones we've had haven't been etc. Most of them which can tow 3.5 tonnes are bigger-engined and higher-spec anyway.ETA: In fact presumably that's where the term "bull bars" comes from?
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 30th April 13:42
Probably one of the most emotive 4x4 releases in recent times. Emotions will be high with this one.. 
I'm certainly curious how the final released Defender will 'look', with spec etc. and how it will be received by the public.
Hope it doesn't take too long. It'll be a highly anticipated truck to be tested.
I'm certainly curious how the final released Defender will 'look', with spec etc. and how it will be received by the public.
Hope it doesn't take too long. It'll be a highly anticipated truck to be tested.
300bhp/ton said:
Andeh1 said:
Because Ford Produce 6 million cars a year & JLR barely make 500k? JLR doesn't have the economies of scale to build em cheap & sell em wide.
How do you know they don't have the economies of scale and how do you know Ford do? I think life is not really an educational text book and things aren't just black and white or Boolean.Maybe all the other pickup and 4x4 makers should give up if companies like Ford are so big??
Andeh1 said:
They stopped building the defender because it was unsafe, inefficient, killed pedestrians by merely looking at them, noisy & was only appreciated by a niche market. They had to kill it off because they couldn't make it meet current automotive regulations - otherwise they'd have kept churning them out until a replacement came along.
Sorry but this isn't true and I'm sure you will struggle to find real proof to back it up.JLR stopped production because the Defender was labour intensive to build and they could get much bigger profit margins building a different type of vehicle and require a much lesser headcount to do so.
Andeh1 said:
The only way JLR can bring back the name plate is modernizing it & utilising its existing architectures & production capabilities - none of which are capable of making a profit off a ''bare bones basics'' for farmers & men who get far too excited playing in the mud with each other.
How do you know this? Are you a JLR insider and privy to confidential and sensitive information or do you have a crystal ball? Or are you just making it up?Ford, VW, Toyota etc have funding, manufacturing facilities, market access, parts and dealer networks and the rest the likes of which JLR could never compete with. Even major players like Mercedes have decided it's easier to stick their badges on a Nissan to get into that market. Similarly, the next Ranger will also be the next Amarok - it simply isn't a sector Land Rover can enter in their current form.
I understand the Defender was finally killed off because it was financially unviable to make it Euro 6 compliant - if that wasn't why, then tiny sales, high production costs, being hopelessly outdated, unsafe and completely uncompetitive would have surely been the next reasons.
If JLR were able to make huge sums of money churning out half a million crude pickups a year, they would surely be doing it without needing your sage advice.
NomduJour said:
Manufacturers do durability testing at the 'Ring because it's very tough on a car - not necessarily about handling.
Indeed - it also gets them lots of publicity - the fact that it was tested at the 'ring I'm sure will appeal to some of the their new target demographic, who quite fancy their lifestyle 4x4 to have a bit of a sporting flair about it.The wider the breadth of a vehicle's capabilities, the wider the potential group it will appeal to.
BathyThermo said:
Andy20vt said:
in which case why on earth test at the Nurburgring?
Because even though it's an offroader, it'd be nice if it didn't tip over at 100mph?Despite what the clowns from Top Gear/GT will have you believe, it's a very good place to road test a car.
Andy20vt said:
BathyThermo said:
Andy20vt said:
in which case why on earth test at the Nurburgring?
Because even though it's an offroader, it'd be nice if it didn't tip over at 100mph?Despite what the clowns from Top Gear/GT will have you believe, it's a very good place to road test a car.
jhonn said:
NomduJour said:
Manufacturers do durability testing at the 'Ring because it's very tough on a car - not necessarily about handling.
Indeed - it also gets them lots of publicity - the fact that it was tested at the 'ring I'm sure will appeal to some of the their new target demographic, who quite fancy their lifestyle 4x4 to have a bit of a sporting flair about it.The wider the breadth of a vehicle's capabilities, the wider the potential group it will appeal to.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff