RE: 'The toughest, most capable Land Rover ever'
Discussion
JLR are simply reusing the Defender name and taking advantage of the fact that it had a huge cult following. The only resemblance to the old defender I see is the rear. Otherwise it simply looks like another discovery model.
Look at the Jeep Wrangler, they kept a very similar design throughout the many generations of the Wrangler/CJ. The very same grill, circular lights, removable doors, removable roof, fold down windshield. They adapted to the market by adding luxuries in the later JK and JL models such as the four door version, A/C, heated seats and heated steering etc.
Jeep managed to adapt their vehicle to the luxury 4x4 market while keeping the iconic design. While JLR have had a complete redesign to adapt their vehicle to the market.
Look at the Jeep Wrangler, they kept a very similar design throughout the many generations of the Wrangler/CJ. The very same grill, circular lights, removable doors, removable roof, fold down windshield. They adapted to the market by adding luxuries in the later JK and JL models such as the four door version, A/C, heated seats and heated steering etc.
Jeep managed to adapt their vehicle to the luxury 4x4 market while keeping the iconic design. While JLR have had a complete redesign to adapt their vehicle to the market.
That latest photo with Prince Harry has made me feel a lot better about the looks. I think it'll look grand actually, from the front end shape that I can visualise. I think i can also see what looks like a snorkel in the drivers side A pillar?!
I'm confident the new Defender will be superior to the old one off-road due to much better traction, better power delivery and more outright grunt. Let's face it Land Rover products will always be class leading off-road.
So...all that's left is to find out if real world practicality will be built into the production version, and most importantly whether they've sorted out build quality/reliability. It will be these factors that ultimately determine of it can compete with the LandCruiser in Africa, the Middle East and Australia.
I'm hoping they have thought about things like tyre size, underbody protection, long range fuel tanks, bullbar and winch mounting, raised air suspension speed limits, poor diesel fuel supplies etc. These are typically factors driving the real world buyer in Australia at least to go the Toyota route.
I'm confident the new Defender will be superior to the old one off-road due to much better traction, better power delivery and more outright grunt. Let's face it Land Rover products will always be class leading off-road.
So...all that's left is to find out if real world practicality will be built into the production version, and most importantly whether they've sorted out build quality/reliability. It will be these factors that ultimately determine of it can compete with the LandCruiser in Africa, the Middle East and Australia.
I'm hoping they have thought about things like tyre size, underbody protection, long range fuel tanks, bullbar and winch mounting, raised air suspension speed limits, poor diesel fuel supplies etc. These are typically factors driving the real world buyer in Australia at least to go the Toyota route.
NomduJour said:
JeepWrangler2018 said:
Jeep managed to adapt their vehicle to the luxury 4x4 market
Our old yard tractor has as much claim to be in the luxury 4x4 market as a Wrangler.The claims of LR's sellout are somewhat over exaggerated.
NomduJour said:
It isn’t - if the body wasn’t a traditional monocoque, it would need to be far more substantial.
It's a lot beefier than most older stuff that's separate chassis. The fully boxed chassis members of the traditional Land Rover chassis are actually unusually beefy when compared to equivalent things like older US Jeeps or half and three quarter ton pickups, for example, which are often just open C sections for the main rails.While I suspect the modern Disco 3/4 style chassis aren't quite as strong in absolute terms as an older Defender one, they aren't just a subframe.
InitialDave said:
It's a lot beefier than most older stuff that's separate chassis. The fully boxed chassis members of the traditional Land Rover chassis are actually unusually beefy when compared to equivalent things like older US Jeeps or half and three quarter ton pickups, for example, which are often just open C sections for the main rails.
Yes, if you look at, say, older US cars, the chassis is often nothing like a substantial as a Defender’s - point is that the Discovery 3’s was designed from the outset in conjunction with what it’s bolted to. If it was a standalone separate chassis, it wouldn’t be like it is.InitialDave said:
How would it be designed, then?
Because the argument that it doesn't count as a separate chassis due to the design of the bodyshell that goes on it would be no less valid for the original Range Rover and Discovery 1&2.
Can confirm a disco 1 folds if you make a pickup without extra support. Couldn’t open the rear doors due to it bending.Because the argument that it doesn't count as a separate chassis due to the design of the bodyshell that goes on it would be no less valid for the original Range Rover and Discovery 1&2.
Will try find the picture.
Edit - found it, notice the gap at rear door, got worse over time. Obviously wasn’t a brand new fresh chassis which would of lasted longer.
Edited by Slow on Saturday 11th May 17:46
InitialDave said:
Because the argument that it doesn't count as a separate chassis due to the design of the bodyshell that goes on it would be no less valid for the original Range Rover and Discovery 1&2.
Eh? A RR Classic/Discovery I/II is very clearly a traditional, heavy box-section separate chassis with a fairly flimsy body plonked on top. The Discovery 3 is a monocoque with an attached chassis which provides mounting points for the transmission and suspension. It can’t be anything less than completely obvious to the most committed idiot that if the Discovery 3 was designed as an old fashioned body-on-frame design, neither its body nor its frame would be designed like they are.
Those "fairly flimsy" old Range Rover and Disco bodies are built about as substantially as most monocoque bodyshells. Arguably more so.
The D3/4 has a steel box section chassis that carries the power train and suspension components, it is effectively a unit in and of itself when built up like this, and the body mounts onto it. It meets pretty much every criteria most people would think of when describing a separate chassis design, and the fact that the bodyshell mounted onto it adds strength/stiffness to the vehicle as a whole does not negate this, it is true of many other separate chassis vehicles.
I think you are inventing your own criteria by which it doesn't get to be called a separate chassis, because you've backed you self into a corner with your approach to the discussion.
The D3/4 has a steel box section chassis that carries the power train and suspension components, it is effectively a unit in and of itself when built up like this, and the body mounts onto it. It meets pretty much every criteria most people would think of when describing a separate chassis design, and the fact that the bodyshell mounted onto it adds strength/stiffness to the vehicle as a whole does not negate this, it is true of many other separate chassis vehicles.
I think you are inventing your own criteria by which it doesn't get to be called a separate chassis, because you've backed you self into a corner with your approach to the discussion.
Have you seen one which has rolled over? There is nothing like the strength in the body a modern car has (which is hardly surprising given it’s essentially a ‘60s design).
It’s patently clear that, whilst it might have a chassis, the construction of a Discovery 3 is very different from a Discovery I. If not, why aren’t people sticking different bodies on the Discovery 3 chassis?
It’s patently clear that, whilst it might have a chassis, the construction of a Discovery 3 is very different from a Discovery I. If not, why aren’t people sticking different bodies on the Discovery 3 chassis?
NomduJour said:
It’s patently clear that, whilst it might have a separate chassis, the construction of a Discovery 3 is very different from a Discovery I. If not, why aren’t people sticking different bodies on the Discovery 3 chassis?
Just messin'.
It's not the same construction as a Classic or early Disco. It's one of the reasons the D3 and RRS weigh so frikkin' much.
Look chaps if you need a 4x4 there is plenty of choice from a jimny to a 70 series land cruiser , if you just want a 4x4 there are all sorts of things from landrover and other so called premium brands ... the school run will go on, the gym car park populated, and drugs will still be sold so don't worry about LRs not having a ladder chassis ...
So far as I'm concerned, there's two obvious ways they could have gone with this.
I'd have understood if the new Defender had been a "proper" body on frame with lockers job, with the hope that actually there is still a market for that sort of thing and also we quite like our contract with the MOD, thank you very much. I'd also have understood, but been a bit sad, if they'd basically made it a retro styling exercise based on an existing chassis. Pitch it right and something like that could possibly sell very well.
What's interesting, though, is that it seems like what we're getting isn't going to be either. Which begs the question: what exactly is the new Defender?
I'm not into SUVs of any sort, so I'd never have bought one regardless of which way they went with it. But nonetheless, I'm intrigued.
I'd have understood if the new Defender had been a "proper" body on frame with lockers job, with the hope that actually there is still a market for that sort of thing and also we quite like our contract with the MOD, thank you very much. I'd also have understood, but been a bit sad, if they'd basically made it a retro styling exercise based on an existing chassis. Pitch it right and something like that could possibly sell very well.
What's interesting, though, is that it seems like what we're getting isn't going to be either. Which begs the question: what exactly is the new Defender?
I'm not into SUVs of any sort, so I'd never have bought one regardless of which way they went with it. But nonetheless, I'm intrigued.
powerstroke said:
Look chaps if you need a 4x4 there is plenty of choice from a jimny to a 70 series land cruiser , if you just want a 4x4 there are all sorts of things from landrover and other so called premium brands ... the school run will go on, the gym car park populated, and drugs will still be sold so don't worry about LRs not having a ladder chassis ...
And there will always be someone around to make d
head comments with the same old hilarious cliches on LR themed threads .... .. dunnoreally said:
What's interesting, though, is that it seems like what we're getting isn't going to be either. Which begs the question: what exactly is the new Defender?
.
Well this is the big problem..
It will inevitably be stepping on the toes of the other offerings and walking away from the very market which defined the company.
Some people might say "yes, but Lamborghini used to make tractors" which is true.
But Land Rover clearly markets itself as building the best go anywhere, do anything toughest trucks on the market, which they very clearly do not.
By removing the only serious working vehicle in the lineup, they are basically a brand without a soul. They may as well sell stick to selling tupperware to the Chinese.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff