RE: Land Rover Defender | Frankfurt 2019
Discussion
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Jimbo89 said:
InitialDave said:
One thing I've not been able to see (or I've just missed), that daft coloured square on the side of the upper body, why is it there? I've finally got around to being able to look at the pictures and watch some videos not just on my phone, and I'm not following why that isn't just one big window?
I thought maybe it was a structural part of the shell, but the shell is just open space there:
Purely for looks, think it’s to do with the containers on the side idea. It’s optional on the 90 but standard on the 110.I thought maybe it was a structural part of the shell, but the shell is just open space there:
Anyway, I love it. Interested in buying too.
Think I'll wait out 18 months or so, firstly so they can sort out the reliability (I'd use it for work) and secondly once the special editions start to come out-"landmark edition" or whatnot.
The price of the extras, or specifically the lack of equipment included is a bit s
t.3:45 on this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjOvcG0Uhlg
300bhp/ton said:
He also said Japanese trucks. Which the Navara is. There seems to be a perception that LR sold something like 50 Defenders year on year, while the Jap trucks sold in their tens of thousands. I was just adding some actual figures to show that isn't entirely accurate.
Except your figures weren't entirely accurate. [quote=300bhp/ton
Have Land Rover really achieved the same here? Have they managed to keep all the bits of design and styling they could, but wrap it up in a modern product? I'm yet to be convinced of this.
[/quote]
I know these things are mostly subjective (and you'll probably just redefine the question or pretend you asked a different one...), but I think they have. They haven't kept ALL the design and styling traits, but they've kept a lot of them.
- minimal overhangs (within modern requirements for impact/pedestrian/crash safety)
- prominent and relatively un-blended wheel arch 'eyebrows'
- (largely) flat vertical sides with a simple curved waistline running from tailight to front wing top
- two-step bonnet, reminiscent of old wing top/bonnet style
- circular headlamp/DLR shape, albeit within square-ish lamp units.
- individual rear lamp units
- spare wheel mounted externally on rear door
- rear upper quarter panels with a (near) 90-degree corner from side to rear
- rear door let into rear of roof panel
- roofline consisting of two straight lines - horizontal then sloping to the windscreen over the 'cab'
- 'Alpine' roof windows
To my eyes it looks as much like a linear stylistic evolution of the 1983-2016 Land Rover as that model did to the 1948-1958 Series I - clearly from the same lineage but every single external part is different. If the Land Rover had been updated on a normal model cycle every five-to-seven years it would probably have ended up looking very like the new one anyway. JLR have just skipped the five or six generations in between, and (I think) very successfully.
I'd say this is just as much of a stylistic 'carry over' as there is between a Mini and a MINI, a Beetle or a New Beetle or a Fiat 500 and a Fiat 500. Or even an L405 Range Rover and an original 2-door RR. Did they slaveishly carry over every single design element when they reimagined those cars? No. But to say that don't, in the big picture, is absurd.
Have Land Rover really achieved the same here? Have they managed to keep all the bits of design and styling they could, but wrap it up in a modern product? I'm yet to be convinced of this.
[/quote]
I know these things are mostly subjective (and you'll probably just redefine the question or pretend you asked a different one...), but I think they have. They haven't kept ALL the design and styling traits, but they've kept a lot of them.
- minimal overhangs (within modern requirements for impact/pedestrian/crash safety)
- prominent and relatively un-blended wheel arch 'eyebrows'
- (largely) flat vertical sides with a simple curved waistline running from tailight to front wing top
- two-step bonnet, reminiscent of old wing top/bonnet style
- circular headlamp/DLR shape, albeit within square-ish lamp units.
- individual rear lamp units
- spare wheel mounted externally on rear door
- rear upper quarter panels with a (near) 90-degree corner from side to rear
- rear door let into rear of roof panel
- roofline consisting of two straight lines - horizontal then sloping to the windscreen over the 'cab'
- 'Alpine' roof windows
To my eyes it looks as much like a linear stylistic evolution of the 1983-2016 Land Rover as that model did to the 1948-1958 Series I - clearly from the same lineage but every single external part is different. If the Land Rover had been updated on a normal model cycle every five-to-seven years it would probably have ended up looking very like the new one anyway. JLR have just skipped the five or six generations in between, and (I think) very successfully.
I'd say this is just as much of a stylistic 'carry over' as there is between a Mini and a MINI, a Beetle or a New Beetle or a Fiat 500 and a Fiat 500. Or even an L405 Range Rover and an original 2-door RR. Did they slaveishly carry over every single design element when they reimagined those cars? No. But to say that don't, in the big picture, is absurd.
300bhp/ton said:
There seems to be a perception that LR sold something like 50 Defenders year on year, while the Jap trucks sold in their tens of thousands. I was just adding some actual figures to show that isn't entirely accurate.
As we’ve seen, your figures were completely unrepresentative because they weren’t for commercial registrations (which in the UK, at least, is what has fuelled the success of pickups). Toyota made 548,000 Hilux in 2018; in the last year of production, Land Rover made 12,300 Defenders.InitialDave said:
Munter said:
What is "x" that's different to either of the first two options? Because it's not the things it used to be. So what thing(s) is it?
For my part, I think it's the swerve in direction the Discovery took going from 4 to 5. That's what makes a gap for this car.1. Freelander 2 to Discovery Sport
2. FFRR 322 to 405 (hope I have those numbers correct)
3. Range Rover Sport original to current model
4. Discovery 4 to 5
All of the above were a move from square land rovers (aka land rovers my wife likes the look of) to rounded ones (ones that my wife dislikes)
It would be a more consistent change with the rest of the range if the new defender were rounded a bit more compared to the original
oop north said:
I disagree quite strongly with that. My reasoning is:
1. Freelander 2 to Discovery Sport
2. FFRR 322 to 405 (hope I have those numbers correct)
3. Range Rover Sport original to current model
4. Discovery 4 to 5
All of the above were a move from square land rovers (aka land rovers my wife likes the look of) to rounded ones (ones that my wife dislikes)
It would be a more consistent change with the rest of the range if the new defender were rounded a bit more compared to the original
But a lot of people were complaining the D5 wasn't what they wanted as a replacement to to the D4. I think the new Defender provides that.1. Freelander 2 to Discovery Sport
2. FFRR 322 to 405 (hope I have those numbers correct)
3. Range Rover Sport original to current model
4. Discovery 4 to 5
All of the above were a move from square land rovers (aka land rovers my wife likes the look of) to rounded ones (ones that my wife dislikes)
It would be a more consistent change with the rest of the range if the new defender were rounded a bit more compared to the original
C70R said:
Ah... we're into multi-quote and 'debating the definition of words' territory.
This is a classic 300 thread. One for the ages.
Defenders, British Leyland engineering, modern vehicles, off-roading, it's one negative comment about american cars short of a full house of 300bhp triggersThis is a classic 300 thread. One for the ages.
300bhp/ton said:
Shakermaker said:
300bhp/ton said:
AngryPartsBloke said:
This is what i don't get. Based on the comments there appears to be more people defending them than actually bought the damned things, certinley drived them.
Defender's are terrible, noisy, leakey, uncomfortable things and people stopped buying them because they could get all they needed to do done in a Japanese pick-up in far more comfort. LR tired to make the Defender more "Up-market" years ago
I know were you are coming from, but looking at some stats, the numbers don't fully stack up to support this conclusion.Defender's are terrible, noisy, leakey, uncomfortable things and people stopped buying them because they could get all they needed to do done in a Japanese pick-up in far more comfort. LR tired to make the Defender more "Up-market" years ago
EU Sales:
| Year | Defender | Navara |
|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 8089 | 1915 |
| 2007 | 8137 | 3078 |
| 2006 | 8663 | 3249 |
| 2005 | 8584 | 2813 |
| 2004 | 9006 | 2018 |
AngryPartsBloke said:
This is what i don't get. Based on the comments there appears to be more people defending them than actually bought the damned things, certinley drived them.
Defender's are terrible, noisy, leakey, uncomfortable things and people stopped buying them because they could get all they needed to do done in a Japanese pick-up in far more comfort. LR tired to make the Defender more "Up-market" years ago. Ford sold more Rangers per month than LR sold Defenders a year.
Defender's are terrible, noisy, leakey, uncomfortable things and people stopped buying them because they could get all they needed to do done in a Japanese pick-up in far more comfort. LR tired to make the Defender more "Up-market" years ago. Ford sold more Rangers per month than LR sold Defenders a year.
InitialDave said:
But a lot of people were complaining the D5 wasn't what they wanted as a replacement to to the D4. I think the new Defender provides that.
... and yet, the Discovery changes were supposedly a result of customer feedback (“the utilitarian Discovery 3 proved quite polarizing, but the mid-life facelift that turned it into Discovery 4 (with a posher Range Sport interior and no more black plastic body cladding) was much more popular with customers”). With three model lines there’s bound to be repositioning - McGovern: “People will graduate to this Defender who had a Discovery 4, we suspect, and we are planning for that”.
NomduJour said:
Good example, because if you compare a 992 with (say) a 1989 last-of-line 911 - with the exception of the engine being roughly at the same end - they might as well be from different universes.
The FJ Cruiser is a sorry pastiche stuck on top of existing mechanicals (a bit like the “new” Beetle) - it’s everything you’re complaining about.
NomduJour said:
... and yet, the Discovery changes were supposedly a result of customer feedback (“the utilitarian Discovery 3 proved quite polarizing, but the mid-life facelift that turned it into Discovery 4 (with a posher Range Sport interior and no more black plastic body cladding) was much more popular with customers”).
With three model lines there’s bound to be repositioning - McGovern: “People will graduate to this Defender who had a Discovery 4, we suspect, and we are planning for that”.
I don't really understand how that doesn't correlate with what I posted.With three model lines there’s bound to be repositioning - McGovern: “People will graduate to this Defender who had a Discovery 4, we suspect, and we are planning for that”.
NomduJour said:
Some people want glitz, some people don’t (supposedly).
I don't think anyone was that upset about the development of the Discovery in terms of how "nice" it was? More that when it went to the D5 it lost its boxy practicality and they didn't have a model in the lineup that covered that.300bhp/ton said:
Simply not true at all. I have repeatedly said I do not dislike this new vehicle. And I like many of the other vehicles produced by LR in recent times.
I think I see what 300 is getting at. The new defender could have gone in a different direction. It could have has a solid front axle, could have had bolt on panels etc., could have had real chequer plate, i.e. something more like a wrangler or a jimny. However, it seems obvious that they would have sold far fewer of those than the Defender thats actually being produced. They're out to make money and I think they will.
Jimbo89 said:
Sporky said:
That's hilarious.
Basically, the Defender outsold the Navara eleven years ago, as long as you didn't count most of the Navaras.
The 2018 figure is 63,912. I think the trend shows a definite move by 'traditional' Defender buyers to a more modern vehicle design.Basically, the Defender outsold the Navara eleven years ago, as long as you didn't count most of the Navaras.
techguyone said:
unsprung said:
Had a go with the configuration thingee on the US website for Land Rover.
There, you can have the 110 HSE with the 6 cylinder petrol engine on the road for the equivalent of £56,000.
I added no optional equipment, apart from the engine. I used a sales tax of 8 percent (greater than that of most US jurisdictions).
Is this the US equivalent of VAT?There, you can have the 110 HSE with the 6 cylinder petrol engine on the road for the equivalent of £56,000.
I added no optional equipment, apart from the engine. I used a sales tax of 8 percent (greater than that of most US jurisdictions).
Surely there's some other tax too, we pay 20%!
There is no VAT in the US. Most, but not all, US states have a sales tax that is added to the purchase price. Some counties or jurisdictions within said states may add a percent or two on top. I used a figure of 8 percent -- which is greater than the total sales tax of the majority of US jurisdictions.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff