RE: 'The toughest, most capable Land Rover ever'
Discussion
skyrover said:
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.
Where’s the line marked “soul” in the accounts ? 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.
Brooking10 said:
skyrover said:
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.
Where’s the line marked “soul” in the accounts ? 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.
See your point but it’s v short termist , we have seen many companies “monitise” dilution of soul to where it is arguably gone , would argue BMW have done that, others leverage it eg Porsche building SUVs while maintaining halo cars alongside
JLR would ideally have such a bare bones 4x4 - it would be considered their GT car range for purist that exemplifies the brand , however that costs money to do well
They don’t have money so they essentially have to run their halo models as a bolt on to the existing range
That’s not such a bad thing in some ways their cars are already fine off road so it’s a good base, but making sure it’s not too luxurious would be a good idea. Stripping out all the unnecessary electronics and giving it a hose down inside - with no lux spec - would have reduced the dilution effect and still not pushed away buyers
What you don’t want is people buying lux spec defenders in hordes and in 5 years the old defender name is a memory and this will be another lifestyle 4x4 for the school run
skyrover said:
Accounts will have plenty to complain about. The company faces a grim future.
Indeed. But how does one correlate that to not making a cheap utility vehicle that would need to be sold at a loss to consumers who don’t actually exist?Their problem is that the Jaguar brand is a boat anchor that doesn’t support the Range Rober business and that the Range Rover business has had to underwrite both Jaguar and also the Tata Group’s crippling debt obligations and now faces a slow down in demand due to global market forces while also having to invest in the important migration over the coming decade to EV.
Not selling a few thousand historic toys to middle class urban residents for a few k profit is not really featuring on the radar.
The big mistake JLR made was in keeping the LR letters when it was created as the business has been about the RR for 40 years. Keeping the letter L in its name has just served to confuse a handful of people.
skyrover said:
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.
Do you live in an alternate universe? The very last thing they market themselves as is that - and they haven’t done for decades. 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.
The Defender sold 15-20k units a year because it was woefully outclassed in every aspect - as you might expect for a car that was archaic when it got its current name. A tiny number went into the working/commercial market (because there are dozens of more modern, practical and comfortable alternatives, often for less money) and the armed forces want far more specialised vehicles in today’s world. That leaves a market of largely urban-dwellers who put up with its failings because they like the novelty and image.
If someone buys a new Defender and uses it as a farm hack, or to tow for a living, or as search and rescue support vehicle, or whatever, where is your argument? What sort of mental deficiency would you need to decide that you’d rather do those things in something with solid axles, leaf springs etc. which will be demonstrably inferior in every way?
NomduJour said:
If someone buys a new Defender and uses it as a farm hack, or to tow for a living, or as search and rescue support vehicle, or whatever, where is your argument? What sort of mental deficiency would you need to decide that you’d rather do those things in something with solid axles, leaf springs etc. which will be demonstrably inferior in every way?
Clearly you don't spend much time in the countryside, nor to you know many farmers.They care about 1 thing... cost.
The Defender can be kept running for years and years because it's tough, basic, can tow heavy loads and parts are cheap. A major complaint from farmers is the cost/difficulty of repairing modern vehicles.
Even the modern vehicles they choose have ladder chassis and a least a solid rear axle. Of course you didn't even know what a ladder chassis was yesterday, so i'm not really sure why i'm arguing.
skyrover said:
Clearly you don't spend much time in the countryside, nor to you know many farmers.
They care about 1 thing... cost.
The Defender can be kept running for years and years because it's tough, basic, can tow heavy loads and parts are cheap. A major complaint from farmers is the cost/difficulty of repairing modern vehicles.
Even the modern vehicles they choose have ladder chassis and a least a solid rear axle. Of course you didn't even know what a ladder chassis was yesterday, so i'm not really sure why i'm arguing.
A defender is not cheaper to run than a hilux is it? They care about 1 thing... cost.
The Defender can be kept running for years and years because it's tough, basic, can tow heavy loads and parts are cheap. A major complaint from farmers is the cost/difficulty of repairing modern vehicles.
Even the modern vehicles they choose have ladder chassis and a least a solid rear axle. Of course you didn't even know what a ladder chassis was yesterday, so i'm not really sure why i'm arguing.
dvshannow said:
skyrover said:
Clearly you don't spend much time in the countryside, nor to you know many farmers.
They care about 1 thing... cost.
The Defender can be kept running for years and years because it's tough, basic, can tow heavy loads and parts are cheap. A major complaint from farmers is the cost/difficulty of repairing modern vehicles.
Even the modern vehicles they choose have ladder chassis and a least a solid rear axle. Of course you didn't even know what a ladder chassis was yesterday, so i'm not really sure why i'm arguing.
A defender is not cheaper to run than a hilux is it? They care about 1 thing... cost.
The Defender can be kept running for years and years because it's tough, basic, can tow heavy loads and parts are cheap. A major complaint from farmers is the cost/difficulty of repairing modern vehicles.
Even the modern vehicles they choose have ladder chassis and a least a solid rear axle. Of course you didn't even know what a ladder chassis was yesterday, so i'm not really sure why i'm arguing.
Don't get me wrong, the hilux is a fantastic truck, but the the Defender is cheaper to run, or at least it was while Land Rover still built the bloody things.
NomduJour said:
What sort of mental deficiency would you need to decide that you’d rather do those things in something with solid axles, leaf springs etc. which will be demonstrably inferior in every way?
Leaf springs last seen on a Land-Rover in 1984...Independent suspension is better under some off road conditions than beam axles but with more moving parts the whole life maintenance costs will be greater. Also the more compliant ride encourages higher speeds under unfavourable conditions. Ride comfort is improved as are the chances of damaging the vehicle and/or occupants.
skyrover said:
Clearly you don't spend much time in the countryside, nor to you know many farmers.
They care about 1 thing... cost.
The Defender can be kept running for years and years because it's tough, basic, can tow heavy loads and parts are cheap. A major complaint from farmers is the cost/difficulty of repairing modern vehicles.
Even the modern vehicles they choose have ladder chassis and a least a solid rear axle. Of course you didn't even know what a ladder chassis was yesterday, so i'm not really sure why i'm arguing.
You genuinely must live in an alternate universe. We moved from Defenders to pickups, like everyone else did (with few exceptions) - more comfortable, more refined, more useable. As for costs - virtually all are leased, so they’ll be chopped in for another one in two or three years in any case. Nobody wants to be constantly patching up something they need for work. They care about 1 thing... cost.
The Defender can be kept running for years and years because it's tough, basic, can tow heavy loads and parts are cheap. A major complaint from farmers is the cost/difficulty of repairing modern vehicles.
Even the modern vehicles they choose have ladder chassis and a least a solid rear axle. Of course you didn't even know what a ladder chassis was yesterday, so i'm not really sure why i'm arguing.
The only reason the sort of pickups popular in the UK have leaf-sprung solid rear axles and basic ladder chassis is because they’re cheaper to build.
NomduJour said:
The only reason the sort of pickups popular in the UK have leaf-sprung solid rear axles and basic ladder chassis is because they’re cheaper to build.
Cheaper, stronger, longer lasting, better for the job etcThere's only one pickup truck in the world built without a ladder chassis... the Honda ridgeline, which funnily enough is sold as a "lifestyle" vehicle and not a working tool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Ridgeline
Yes, and there will be more of them to come.
“Honda’s chief engineer told me that he’s ‘still looking for a benefit of body-on-frame’”
https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-fra...
“Honda’s chief engineer told me that he’s ‘still looking for a benefit of body-on-frame’”
https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-fra...
skyrover said:
Parts for the Hilux (and most toyota's tbh) are eye-watering, and just try finding a brake caliper for one.
Don't get me wrong, the hilux is a fantastic truck, but the the Defender is cheaper to run, or at least it was while Land Rover still built the bloody things.
Parts for Toyotas are indeed expensive but they don't need replacing anywhere near as often. It's not that well-known but Toyotas are actually quite reliable. Don't get me wrong, the hilux is a fantastic truck, but the the Defender is cheaper to run, or at least it was while Land Rover still built the bloody things.
Go to any 3rd world country and there's a reason why Hiluxes / Landcruisers are the preferred choice.
There might be a very very narrow segment of the market where the LR Defender is the class leader but for 99% of people Toyota is a far better product.
skyrover said:
NomduJour said:
The only reason the sort of pickups popular in the UK have leaf-sprung solid rear axles and basic ladder chassis is because they’re cheaper to build.
Cheaper, stronger, longer lasting, better for the job etcThere's only one pickup truck in the world built without a ladder chassis... the Honda ridgeline, which funnily enough is sold as a "lifestyle" vehicle and not a working tool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Ridgeline
f
king awful at towing and carrying weight though. Slow said:
skyrover said:
NomduJour said:
The only reason the sort of pickups popular in the UK have leaf-sprung solid rear axles and basic ladder chassis is because they’re cheaper to build.
Cheaper, stronger, longer lasting, better for the job etcThere's only one pickup truck in the world built without a ladder chassis... the Honda ridgeline, which funnily enough is sold as a "lifestyle" vehicle and not a working tool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Ridgeline
f
king awful at towing and carrying weight though. skyrover said:
There's only one pickup truck in the world built without a ladder chassis... the Honda ridgeline, which funnily enough is sold as a "lifestyle" vehicle and not a working tool.
No there isn't, there's also things like the Chevrolet Montana/Utility, Nissan NP200, Dacia Dokker and others.JxJ Jr. said:
skyrover said:
There's only one pickup truck in the world built without a ladder chassis... the Honda ridgeline, which funnily enough is sold as a "lifestyle" vehicle and not a working tool.
No there isn't, there's also things like the Chevrolet Montana/Utility, Nissan NP200, Dacia Dokker and others.skyrover said:
JxJ Jr. said:
skyrover said:
There's only one pickup truck in the world built without a ladder chassis... the Honda ridgeline, which funnily enough is sold as a "lifestyle" vehicle and not a working tool.
No there isn't, there's also things like the Chevrolet Montana/Utility, Nissan NP200, Dacia Dokker and others.JxJ Jr. said:
skyrover said:
JxJ Jr. said:
skyrover said:
There's only one pickup truck in the world built without a ladder chassis... the Honda ridgeline, which funnily enough is sold as a "lifestyle" vehicle and not a working tool.
No there isn't, there's also things like the Chevrolet Montana/Utility, Nissan NP200, Dacia Dokker and others.
And those car conversions are incredibly light duty and are trashed after a few years work,
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff