RE: 'The toughest, most capable Land Rover ever'
Discussion
NomduJour said:
cuda said:
Complete cop out - better buy a G Wagon - never thought I'd say that...
New G seems entirely cynical to me - there’s not a single valid reason why it still has a separate chassis or live rear axle.NomduJour said:
Précis of that article - they’re cheaper. No valid reason for the G Class to have either a live rear axle or a separate chassis.
Did you read the article?"Ladder chassis are heavy, usually made from steel and are exceptionally strong. The steel mix is a great absorber of shocks, delivering a more forgiving ride over rocks and ruts. A ladder chassis is far easier to mend if you damage it, too, and that’s essential for long-serving workhorses."
"One factor that can drive a serious off-road driver crazy is body twist. When you’ve got one or more wheels in the air the chassis tries to bend, taking the bodywork with it. On a properly-built ladder chassis, for example on the Land Rover Discovery 4, there’s near-zero flex even under full axle articulation with two wheels airborne. We’ve read and heard anecdotal evidence suggesting that some modern monocoques flex so much in those scenarios that owners sometimes can’t even open and/or shut the doors to check the ground beneath their tilted car."
"Using a ladder chassis has further advantages for longevity. Since the body is simply bolted to the ladder along with everything else, parts and even whole sections can be replaced relatively easily. Accidentally dropped a small wrecking ball on your Jeep Wrangler? New parts will have it back to normal in no time. Broken chassis? Weld that sucker up (properly) and carry on. You can even swap the entire body if you want to without affecting the principal function of the car."
"Simplicity is on ladder chassis’ side. It makes them cheaper to design and mass-produce. That’s handy if, like Suzuki, you want to keep the price low, or if, like Land Rover, you want to spend the money on quality suspension and robust mechanicals instead."
"Chassis type is all about horses for courses. Road cars are undoubtedly better off using a monocoque for its light weight, better handling properties and improved packaging options. For vehicles where height isn’t an issue, where robustness and repairability are paramount and where simplicity is an advantage that might be the difference between getting you home and leaving you stranded in bear country with no mobile signal, there’s simply nothing better than a ladder chassis."
NomduJour said:
No valid reason for the G Class to have either a live rear axle or a separate chassis.
Because the GLE/GLS platforms weren't felt suitable and a new monocoque wasn't feasible?Because moving away from a ladder frame would involve retooling the line?
Because it might be the basis for a Mercedes pickup?
Because it allows flexibility for military/commercial/municipal/etc applications that the W463 was, and is, used for?
Dr Interceptor said:
I thought these were interesting pics; nice contoured bonnet perhaps even with a bit of checker plate on it from some angles, high prominent hip with a high window line. The bit that concerns me is the very low bulbous treatment of the front end which carries on to the wheel arches. I'd have thought less is more would have been a better look but both the Velar and new Evoque have similarly round features.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff