RE: Land Rover Defender | Frankfurt 2019
Discussion
NomduJour said:
I KNEW the pictures were coming.
300bhp, why weren’t you chief engineer on the Defender project? Could they not afford your expertise? Or is it perhaps because you think a P38A drives as well as an L322?
You clearly didn't read what I said. Nor bothered to take not of the flag:300bhp, why weren’t you chief engineer on the Defender project? Could they not afford your expertise? Or is it perhaps because you think a P38A drives as well as an L322?
I can't confess to having driven one, but I think the big difference between this and a workhorse will be how refined it is - which is another counter argument against live axles, the ride and NVH from them is generally crap compared to modern multi-link suspension. I get the feeling that this Defender will go just as far if not further off road as a standard wrangler, L200, etc (probably further with Land Rovers off road tech) - I don't understand how old defenders with £10k of new suspension, tyres, bumpers etc get compared to a bog standard new car (yes I get the price difference - but spend the same amount on tyres and mods for the new one and it'd be even more impressive.
Everyone harping on about classic defenders being better off road, this new one will wade 900mm out of the box, that's a few hundred quid in axle breathers, snorkels etc which may(?) affect your warranty if you still had one on and old Defender which as someone pointed out earlier was 300mm wade standard? The argument that you can just open the door to let the silt and fish out doesn't hold true because the new one won't let any water in at 900mm.
As someone pointed out earlier I too work at JLR and can honestly say I'm genuinely excited about this car, launches are always a nice thing to read about and watch but this one feels genuinely special.
Everyone harping on about classic defenders being better off road, this new one will wade 900mm out of the box, that's a few hundred quid in axle breathers, snorkels etc which may(?) affect your warranty if you still had one on and old Defender which as someone pointed out earlier was 300mm wade standard? The argument that you can just open the door to let the silt and fish out doesn't hold true because the new one won't let any water in at 900mm.
As someone pointed out earlier I too work at JLR and can honestly say I'm genuinely excited about this car, launches are always a nice thing to read about and watch but this one feels genuinely special.
300bhp/ton said:
I know Max has answered with his typical I'm an engineer approach and that Land Rover are the only car company in the world to understand off road cars.
But I think it is a little more complex.
Suzuki introduced a new Jimny last year, aimed predominately at off road performance.
Jeep also introduced a new model the JL Wrangler, with a similar remit.
Dodge also introduced a new off road biased pickup.
Toyota in markets outside Europe still produce and sell vehicles aimed at being used off road.
The one thing in common, all of them use live axles. So one has to ask the question, are all these other companies, designers and engineers all imbeciles. Or have they deliberately selected live axles for a reason? I'll leave that one for you to ponder.
The following is my thoughts and opinion on the matter.
Live axles just work off road for the fact they, when coupled to compliant long travel suspension. Allow very good stability on rough terrain, especially at low speeds, which are usually the norm off road. This stability is inherent due to the fact then when one wheel is pushed up, the opposite wheel is pushed down. Thus helping to keep the wheels on the ground more of the time.
Independent suspension is capable of fairly good wheel travel up and down and can be comparable to many stock live axle setups. Although to achieve this you need to have long arms and CV's capable of extreme angles. On many IFS pickup trucks once modified they often suffer with very high failure rate of front driveline components. If you are running them lifted or trying to increase the travel.
Wide arms also generally make for a wider vehicle. Less of an issue these days as many vehicles are bigger, but the result is, it is harder to achieve on a smaller vehicle and keep the track width narrow for a mass market vehicle.
The Ford Raptor is significantly wider than the regular truck, partly due to having longer suspension arms for more travel.
However the biggest limiting factor with most independent setups is stability. As a wheel gets push up, instead of pushing the opposite wheel down, it will tend to lift the vehicle more so, cause a weight shift and lift wheels off the ground, often with dramatic results as a vehicle balances on 3 wheels, then suddenly lifts a 3rd wheel and rocks over violently.
Now Land Rover were very very clever here. Vehicles such as the D3 use 'cross-linked' air springs. This means when a wheel is pushed up, the air from one spring is then use to push the opposite wheel down. It is essentially trying to mimic the behaviour of a live axle. And arguably to very good effect. This system is truly impressive and something that generally separates Land Rover's off road from the rest of the field that use also use independent suspension.
The system on the new Defender is just a development of this technology and likely works in exactly the same way.
The downside, while it does an admirable job to simulate a live axle, it still isn't one. And I suspect if you put a new Wrangler Rubicon and a new Defender on some purpose made off road sections to demonstrate their suspension. The Wrangler would still be the more stable. But this is only at the extreme end of off roading. For normal use the air setup is more than capable.
It is however, exceedingly more complex and expensive. Making the initial cost and long term maintenance higher. And ultimately less durable. The Land Rover suspension fully relies on a host of sensors and computing power. Should something fail, it quite literally can bring the entire vehicle crashing down to it's bump stops.
And if you look at pretty much any form of competitive off road use that requires stability and wheel travel, it is almost exclusively live axle. There are very few independent suspension vehicles. Maybe 1-2% or less. If you are interested in this, watch some Rock bouncing on Youtube. Generally two classes, purpose built V8 live axle machines. And smaller UTV based independent ones, also custom built. As a rule the UTV class tend to roll a lot more and you can see it is often down to the stability or comparative lack, compared to the live axle vehicles.
This isn't the entire picture though. If you are travelling at speed over rough terrain, then the answer is somewhat reversed. Generally independent suspension will give a more compliant and forgiving ride when travelling quickly off road. Which is why most off road race vehicles run at least independent suspension at the front.
There are some other things to consider. Ground clearance, independent should have more initial clearance as a rule, due to the diff being mounted on the vehicle frame/supporting structure. But as the suspension compresses it will reduce. The H1 Hummer (or it's military HMMWV counterpart) addresses this by having huge long suspension arms and placing the diffs up really high. The result is a very wide vehicle however. And it still looses clearance under compression. But has more than enough to not worry.
Many road going mass market vehicles fair less well and if you watch any off road vids on YouTube of things like the Ford Ranger, Toyota Hilux or other IFS equipped vehicles, you'll see they often beach or hit the underside. Partly this is due to wheelbase, but you can see that as the front suspension is compressed, they end up grounding near the front of the vehicle, rather than the live axle rear.
Wheel geometry is also radically impacted with long travel independent setups. Mostly this is fine, but can look odd.
For me, it's the feel of the vehicle off road too though. The body will generally stay quite flat with a live axle.
vs
It can also be quite unpleasant too.
But in fairness, thanks to the clever cross linked air setup of the Land Rover's, most of these potential issues are avoided. But it does remain a complex answer to a simple question. And the only reason they opted for this, was to try and make the vehicles more car like on road. Which I personally am not a huge fan of. I rather like a 4x4 to drive like a 4x4 on the road, it is one of the things that appeal. But I suspect I'm in the minority, at least on PistonHeads.
Live axle vehicles really aren't all that bad on road either. My Range Rover is more comfortable and rides better than my all independent suspension Subaru was. And it handles perfectly fine and is in no way a chore to drive. Or to put it this way, jumping from a D4 or L322 into my p38, you don't actually think. I wish this had independent suspension instead of live axles. It's just a non-issue. And if anything the p38 is slightly more compliant.
For the market/price point and intended customer of the new Defender I think their clever air sprung system is a good answer. I suspect the base coil 90 will be less useful however (just look at how poor a Gen 3 Shogun is off road vs a Gen 2). But only time will tell on this. For a true successor to the Defender, i.e. something more akin to the original and more aligned to the Wrangler. Then live axles, would IMO be the way to go for such a vehicle.
Good video showing how the D3's suspension works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVFkW7GIA
But I think it is a little more complex.
Suzuki introduced a new Jimny last year, aimed predominately at off road performance.
Jeep also introduced a new model the JL Wrangler, with a similar remit.
Dodge also introduced a new off road biased pickup.
Toyota in markets outside Europe still produce and sell vehicles aimed at being used off road.
The one thing in common, all of them use live axles. So one has to ask the question, are all these other companies, designers and engineers all imbeciles. Or have they deliberately selected live axles for a reason? I'll leave that one for you to ponder.
The following is my thoughts and opinion on the matter.
Live axles just work off road for the fact they, when coupled to compliant long travel suspension. Allow very good stability on rough terrain, especially at low speeds, which are usually the norm off road. This stability is inherent due to the fact then when one wheel is pushed up, the opposite wheel is pushed down. Thus helping to keep the wheels on the ground more of the time.
Independent suspension is capable of fairly good wheel travel up and down and can be comparable to many stock live axle setups. Although to achieve this you need to have long arms and CV's capable of extreme angles. On many IFS pickup trucks once modified they often suffer with very high failure rate of front driveline components. If you are running them lifted or trying to increase the travel.
Wide arms also generally make for a wider vehicle. Less of an issue these days as many vehicles are bigger, but the result is, it is harder to achieve on a smaller vehicle and keep the track width narrow for a mass market vehicle.
The Ford Raptor is significantly wider than the regular truck, partly due to having longer suspension arms for more travel.
However the biggest limiting factor with most independent setups is stability. As a wheel gets push up, instead of pushing the opposite wheel down, it will tend to lift the vehicle more so, cause a weight shift and lift wheels off the ground, often with dramatic results as a vehicle balances on 3 wheels, then suddenly lifts a 3rd wheel and rocks over violently.
Now Land Rover were very very clever here. Vehicles such as the D3 use 'cross-linked' air springs. This means when a wheel is pushed up, the air from one spring is then use to push the opposite wheel down. It is essentially trying to mimic the behaviour of a live axle. And arguably to very good effect. This system is truly impressive and something that generally separates Land Rover's off road from the rest of the field that use also use independent suspension.
The system on the new Defender is just a development of this technology and likely works in exactly the same way.
The downside, while it does an admirable job to simulate a live axle, it still isn't one. And I suspect if you put a new Wrangler Rubicon and a new Defender on some purpose made off road sections to demonstrate their suspension. The Wrangler would still be the more stable. But this is only at the extreme end of off roading. For normal use the air setup is more than capable.
It is however, exceedingly more complex and expensive. Making the initial cost and long term maintenance higher. And ultimately less durable. The Land Rover suspension fully relies on a host of sensors and computing power. Should something fail, it quite literally can bring the entire vehicle crashing down to it's bump stops.
And if you look at pretty much any form of competitive off road use that requires stability and wheel travel, it is almost exclusively live axle. There are very few independent suspension vehicles. Maybe 1-2% or less. If you are interested in this, watch some Rock bouncing on Youtube. Generally two classes, purpose built V8 live axle machines. And smaller UTV based independent ones, also custom built. As a rule the UTV class tend to roll a lot more and you can see it is often down to the stability or comparative lack, compared to the live axle vehicles.
This isn't the entire picture though. If you are travelling at speed over rough terrain, then the answer is somewhat reversed. Generally independent suspension will give a more compliant and forgiving ride when travelling quickly off road. Which is why most off road race vehicles run at least independent suspension at the front.
There are some other things to consider. Ground clearance, independent should have more initial clearance as a rule, due to the diff being mounted on the vehicle frame/supporting structure. But as the suspension compresses it will reduce. The H1 Hummer (or it's military HMMWV counterpart) addresses this by having huge long suspension arms and placing the diffs up really high. The result is a very wide vehicle however. And it still looses clearance under compression. But has more than enough to not worry.
Many road going mass market vehicles fair less well and if you watch any off road vids on YouTube of things like the Ford Ranger, Toyota Hilux or other IFS equipped vehicles, you'll see they often beach or hit the underside. Partly this is due to wheelbase, but you can see that as the front suspension is compressed, they end up grounding near the front of the vehicle, rather than the live axle rear.
Wheel geometry is also radically impacted with long travel independent setups. Mostly this is fine, but can look odd.
For me, it's the feel of the vehicle off road too though. The body will generally stay quite flat with a live axle.
vs
It can also be quite unpleasant too.
But in fairness, thanks to the clever cross linked air setup of the Land Rover's, most of these potential issues are avoided. But it does remain a complex answer to a simple question. And the only reason they opted for this, was to try and make the vehicles more car like on road. Which I personally am not a huge fan of. I rather like a 4x4 to drive like a 4x4 on the road, it is one of the things that appeal. But I suspect I'm in the minority, at least on PistonHeads.
Live axle vehicles really aren't all that bad on road either. My Range Rover is more comfortable and rides better than my all independent suspension Subaru was. And it handles perfectly fine and is in no way a chore to drive. Or to put it this way, jumping from a D4 or L322 into my p38, you don't actually think. I wish this had independent suspension instead of live axles. It's just a non-issue. And if anything the p38 is slightly more compliant.
For the market/price point and intended customer of the new Defender I think their clever air sprung system is a good answer. I suspect the base coil 90 will be less useful however (just look at how poor a Gen 3 Shogun is off road vs a Gen 2). But only time will tell on this. For a true successor to the Defender, i.e. something more akin to the original and more aligned to the Wrangler. Then live axles, would IMO be the way to go for such a vehicle.
Good video showing how the D3's suspension works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVFkW7GIA
Cold said:
300bhp/ton said:
So one has to ask the question, are all these other companies, designers and engineers all imbeciles. Or have they deliberately selected live axles for a reason? I'll leave that one for you to ponder.
Yes. Cost. There, I've condensed your rambling and somewhat nonsensical diatribe into a succinct and accurate summary.
This will not do. Go and stand in the corner.
300bhp/ton said:
I suspect 200hp is fine in such a vehicle personally. The D3 TDV6 was only 193hp and irrc weighed a bit more. I'd still opt for the petrol myself though. Mpg looks more than acceptable and while it might lack the initial low end grunt of a diesel. 8 speeds and a lot more poke would make it a lot quicker I feel. Price for the petrol engine didn't seem too bad either unless I read it wrong.
I concur, though if it were my money (it won't be, I'm poor) I would be holding out for the 6 cylinder 300 bhp dieselNomduJour said:
I KNEW the pictures were coming.
300bhp, why weren’t you chief engineer on the Defender project? Could they not afford your expertise? Or is it perhaps because you think a P38A drives as well as an L322?
That and generally trying to argue with the laws of physics wrt "Unsprung Mass".300bhp, why weren’t you chief engineer on the Defender project? Could they not afford your expertise? Or is it perhaps because you think a P38A drives as well as an L322?
<sigh>
Anyway, for the umpteenth time 300... This is a thread about the new Defender, please keep it on topic.
M
Mr.Jimbo said:
I get the feeling that this Defender will go just as far if not further off road as a standard wrangler, L200
Not really fair to group the Wrangler with an L200 in terms of off road ability. They are in different leagues.Mr.Jimbo said:
I don't understand how old defenders with £10k of new suspension, tyres, bumpers etc get compared to a bog standard new car (yes I get the price difference - but spend the same amount on tyres and mods for the new one and it'd be even more impressive.
While I'm sure it would be easy to blow £10k on aftermarket parts on a modern LR, either this new one (once there are bits) or for a D3/4. But here lies part of the problem. It is very difficult to really modify such a vehicle as this to improve it's off road ability significantly. Bumpers and things do not increase the off road ability of a traditional Land Rover to any great extent. Most aftermarket bits for modern Land Rover's are urban trim accessories or overlanding orientated.So capable as it is out of the box (the new one). It will restrict future owners in wanting to enhance it's off road attributes. Conversely the Wrangler (and Jimny) are extremely easy to modify and fit bigger tyres too. Mopar, aka Jeeps tuning arm offer lift kits that your dealer will fit for you.
And it's also worth noting, that you don't actually need to do anything to a traditional Land Rover to make it exceedingly capable off road. They tend to perform better without anti-roll bars, and many did not come with them as standard, even right up until the end of production.
Mr.Jimbo said:
Everyone harping on about classic defenders being better off road, this new one will wade 900mm out of the box, that's a few hundred quid in axle breathers, snorkels etc which may(?) affect your warranty if you still had one on and old Defender which as someone pointed out earlier was 300mm wade standard? The argument that you can just open the door to let the silt and fish out doesn't hold true because the new one won't let any water in at 900mm.
The old Defender had an 'official' low wading depth, because they leak water in. Which is actually good in deep water as it helps prevent the vehicle floating. But is very very bad if you are dealer and have people returning vehicles due to massive water ingress in the carpets of latter models. The stock location of the ECU was also in a place that could be reached by water wading, which of course wasn't an issue on the V8 or Tdi models.A stock Ninety/Defender will happily wade in deep water with no prep at all and no additional equipment.
Has anyone managed to spec one without the silver lower front and rear bumpers yet? They seem to be a darker grey colour on the X model but the Black Exterior Pack doesn't solve it in the other cars. The silver contrast looks plain weird on a black car. Annoying that the X is the only version available with the larger petrol option too.. hopefully this will change (in the US it's more widely available in other trim levels). I'm still tempted by the smaller 2.0 petrol engine over the two diesels.. is it already in any other JLR cars and what is it like?
DonkeyApple said:
300bhp/ton said:
I know Max has answered with his typical I'm an engineer approach and that Land Rover are the only car company in the world to understand off road cars.
But I think it is a little more complex.
Suzuki introduced a new Jimny last year, aimed predominately at off road performance.
Jeep also introduced a new model the JL Wrangler, with a similar remit.
Dodge also introduced a new off road biased pickup.
Toyota in markets outside Europe still produce and sell vehicles aimed at being used off road.
The one thing in common, all of them use live axles. So one has to ask the question, are all these other companies, designers and engineers all imbeciles. Or have they deliberately selected live axles for a reason? I'll leave that one for you to ponder.
The following is my thoughts and opinion on the matter.
Live axles just work off road for the fact they, when coupled to compliant long travel suspension. Allow very good stability on rough terrain, especially at low speeds, which are usually the norm off road. This stability is inherent due to the fact then when one wheel is pushed up, the opposite wheel is pushed down. Thus helping to keep the wheels on the ground more of the time.
Independent suspension is capable of fairly good wheel travel up and down and can be comparable to many stock live axle setups. Although to achieve this you need to have long arms and CV's capable of extreme angles. On many IFS pickup trucks once modified they often suffer with very high failure rate of front driveline components. If you are running them lifted or trying to increase the travel.
Wide arms also generally make for a wider vehicle. Less of an issue these days as many vehicles are bigger, but the result is, it is harder to achieve on a smaller vehicle and keep the track width narrow for a mass market vehicle.
The Ford Raptor is significantly wider than the regular truck, partly due to having longer suspension arms for more travel.
However the biggest limiting factor with most independent setups is stability. As a wheel gets push up, instead of pushing the opposite wheel down, it will tend to lift the vehicle more so, cause a weight shift and lift wheels off the ground, often with dramatic results as a vehicle balances on 3 wheels, then suddenly lifts a 3rd wheel and rocks over violently.
Now Land Rover were very very clever here. Vehicles such as the D3 use 'cross-linked' air springs. This means when a wheel is pushed up, the air from one spring is then use to push the opposite wheel down. It is essentially trying to mimic the behaviour of a live axle. And arguably to very good effect. This system is truly impressive and something that generally separates Land Rover's off road from the rest of the field that use also use independent suspension.
The system on the new Defender is just a development of this technology and likely works in exactly the same way.
The downside, while it does an admirable job to simulate a live axle, it still isn't one. And I suspect if you put a new Wrangler Rubicon and a new Defender on some purpose made off road sections to demonstrate their suspension. The Wrangler would still be the more stable. But this is only at the extreme end of off roading. For normal use the air setup is more than capable.
It is however, exceedingly more complex and expensive. Making the initial cost and long term maintenance higher. And ultimately less durable. The Land Rover suspension fully relies on a host of sensors and computing power. Should something fail, it quite literally can bring the entire vehicle crashing down to it's bump stops.
And if you look at pretty much any form of competitive off road use that requires stability and wheel travel, it is almost exclusively live axle. There are very few independent suspension vehicles. Maybe 1-2% or less. If you are interested in this, watch some Rock bouncing on Youtube. Generally two classes, purpose built V8 live axle machines. And smaller UTV based independent ones, also custom built. As a rule the UTV class tend to roll a lot more and you can see it is often down to the stability or comparative lack, compared to the live axle vehicles.
This isn't the entire picture though. If you are travelling at speed over rough terrain, then the answer is somewhat reversed. Generally independent suspension will give a more compliant and forgiving ride when travelling quickly off road. Which is why most off road race vehicles run at least independent suspension at the front.
There are some other things to consider. Ground clearance, independent should have more initial clearance as a rule, due to the diff being mounted on the vehicle frame/supporting structure. But as the suspension compresses it will reduce. The H1 Hummer (or it's military HMMWV counterpart) addresses this by having huge long suspension arms and placing the diffs up really high. The result is a very wide vehicle however. And it still looses clearance under compression. But has more than enough to not worry.
Many road going mass market vehicles fair less well and if you watch any off road vids on YouTube of things like the Ford Ranger, Toyota Hilux or other IFS equipped vehicles, you'll see they often beach or hit the underside. Partly this is due to wheelbase, but you can see that as the front suspension is compressed, they end up grounding near the front of the vehicle, rather than the live axle rear.
Wheel geometry is also radically impacted with long travel independent setups. Mostly this is fine, but can look odd.
For me, it's the feel of the vehicle off road too though. The body will generally stay quite flat with a live axle.
vs
It can also be quite unpleasant too.
But in fairness, thanks to the clever cross linked air setup of the Land Rover's, most of these potential issues are avoided. But it does remain a complex answer to a simple question. And the only reason they opted for this, was to try and make the vehicles more car like on road. Which I personally am not a huge fan of. I rather like a 4x4 to drive like a 4x4 on the road, it is one of the things that appeal. But I suspect I'm in the minority, at least on PistonHeads.
Live axle vehicles really aren't all that bad on road either. My Range Rover is more comfortable and rides better than my all independent suspension Subaru was. And it handles perfectly fine and is in no way a chore to drive. Or to put it this way, jumping from a D4 or L322 into my p38, you don't actually think. I wish this had independent suspension instead of live axles. It's just a non-issue. And if anything the p38 is slightly more compliant.
For the market/price point and intended customer of the new Defender I think their clever air sprung system is a good answer. I suspect the base coil 90 will be less useful however (just look at how poor a Gen 3 Shogun is off road vs a Gen 2). But only time will tell on this. For a true successor to the Defender, i.e. something more akin to the original and more aligned to the Wrangler. Then live axles, would IMO be the way to go for such a vehicle.
Good video showing how the D3's suspension works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVFkW7GIA
[Img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ae/df/5a/aedf5a4c80c4c985e6c6614c8ad1b15e.jpg[/thumb] But I think it is a little more complex.
Suzuki introduced a new Jimny last year, aimed predominately at off road performance.
Jeep also introduced a new model the JL Wrangler, with a similar remit.
Dodge also introduced a new off road biased pickup.
Toyota in markets outside Europe still produce and sell vehicles aimed at being used off road.
The one thing in common, all of them use live axles. So one has to ask the question, are all these other companies, designers and engineers all imbeciles. Or have they deliberately selected live axles for a reason? I'll leave that one for you to ponder.
The following is my thoughts and opinion on the matter.
Live axles just work off road for the fact they, when coupled to compliant long travel suspension. Allow very good stability on rough terrain, especially at low speeds, which are usually the norm off road. This stability is inherent due to the fact then when one wheel is pushed up, the opposite wheel is pushed down. Thus helping to keep the wheels on the ground more of the time.
Independent suspension is capable of fairly good wheel travel up and down and can be comparable to many stock live axle setups. Although to achieve this you need to have long arms and CV's capable of extreme angles. On many IFS pickup trucks once modified they often suffer with very high failure rate of front driveline components. If you are running them lifted or trying to increase the travel.
Wide arms also generally make for a wider vehicle. Less of an issue these days as many vehicles are bigger, but the result is, it is harder to achieve on a smaller vehicle and keep the track width narrow for a mass market vehicle.
The Ford Raptor is significantly wider than the regular truck, partly due to having longer suspension arms for more travel.
However the biggest limiting factor with most independent setups is stability. As a wheel gets push up, instead of pushing the opposite wheel down, it will tend to lift the vehicle more so, cause a weight shift and lift wheels off the ground, often with dramatic results as a vehicle balances on 3 wheels, then suddenly lifts a 3rd wheel and rocks over violently.
Now Land Rover were very very clever here. Vehicles such as the D3 use 'cross-linked' air springs. This means when a wheel is pushed up, the air from one spring is then use to push the opposite wheel down. It is essentially trying to mimic the behaviour of a live axle. And arguably to very good effect. This system is truly impressive and something that generally separates Land Rover's off road from the rest of the field that use also use independent suspension.
The system on the new Defender is just a development of this technology and likely works in exactly the same way.
The downside, while it does an admirable job to simulate a live axle, it still isn't one. And I suspect if you put a new Wrangler Rubicon and a new Defender on some purpose made off road sections to demonstrate their suspension. The Wrangler would still be the more stable. But this is only at the extreme end of off roading. For normal use the air setup is more than capable.
It is however, exceedingly more complex and expensive. Making the initial cost and long term maintenance higher. And ultimately less durable. The Land Rover suspension fully relies on a host of sensors and computing power. Should something fail, it quite literally can bring the entire vehicle crashing down to it's bump stops.
And if you look at pretty much any form of competitive off road use that requires stability and wheel travel, it is almost exclusively live axle. There are very few independent suspension vehicles. Maybe 1-2% or less. If you are interested in this, watch some Rock bouncing on Youtube. Generally two classes, purpose built V8 live axle machines. And smaller UTV based independent ones, also custom built. As a rule the UTV class tend to roll a lot more and you can see it is often down to the stability or comparative lack, compared to the live axle vehicles.
This isn't the entire picture though. If you are travelling at speed over rough terrain, then the answer is somewhat reversed. Generally independent suspension will give a more compliant and forgiving ride when travelling quickly off road. Which is why most off road race vehicles run at least independent suspension at the front.
There are some other things to consider. Ground clearance, independent should have more initial clearance as a rule, due to the diff being mounted on the vehicle frame/supporting structure. But as the suspension compresses it will reduce. The H1 Hummer (or it's military HMMWV counterpart) addresses this by having huge long suspension arms and placing the diffs up really high. The result is a very wide vehicle however. And it still looses clearance under compression. But has more than enough to not worry.
Many road going mass market vehicles fair less well and if you watch any off road vids on YouTube of things like the Ford Ranger, Toyota Hilux or other IFS equipped vehicles, you'll see they often beach or hit the underside. Partly this is due to wheelbase, but you can see that as the front suspension is compressed, they end up grounding near the front of the vehicle, rather than the live axle rear.
Wheel geometry is also radically impacted with long travel independent setups. Mostly this is fine, but can look odd.
For me, it's the feel of the vehicle off road too though. The body will generally stay quite flat with a live axle.
vs
It can also be quite unpleasant too.
But in fairness, thanks to the clever cross linked air setup of the Land Rover's, most of these potential issues are avoided. But it does remain a complex answer to a simple question. And the only reason they opted for this, was to try and make the vehicles more car like on road. Which I personally am not a huge fan of. I rather like a 4x4 to drive like a 4x4 on the road, it is one of the things that appeal. But I suspect I'm in the minority, at least on PistonHeads.
Live axle vehicles really aren't all that bad on road either. My Range Rover is more comfortable and rides better than my all independent suspension Subaru was. And it handles perfectly fine and is in no way a chore to drive. Or to put it this way, jumping from a D4 or L322 into my p38, you don't actually think. I wish this had independent suspension instead of live axles. It's just a non-issue. And if anything the p38 is slightly more compliant.
For the market/price point and intended customer of the new Defender I think their clever air sprung system is a good answer. I suspect the base coil 90 will be less useful however (just look at how poor a Gen 3 Shogun is off road vs a Gen 2). But only time will tell on this. For a true successor to the Defender, i.e. something more akin to the original and more aligned to the Wrangler. Then live axles, would IMO be the way to go for such a vehicle.
Good video showing how the D3's suspension works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDqVFkW7GIA
6/10 for technical discussion of suspension components that 95% of the people who buy a Defender brand new don't care about
4/10 for pictures of heavily modified 20 year old Land-Rovers being used as an example of what ordinary brand nrew Land Rovers do on an apparently regular basis.
8/10 for pictures of one car doing one thing and claiming it as the norm, what with all those Freelander 2s you see getting cross axled on the way to Sainsbury's.
10/10 for diagrams drawn in paint that are subsequently used as "proof" of a claim based purely on anecdotal evidence and random photos from Google
7/10 for the self-awareness to recognise that not many people want a 4x4 to drive like one and would prefer a car-like drive instead
0/10 for a lack of rant about how it's not a Defender.
2/10 for a lack of comparison to American cars purchased to drive around towns in the Mid-West that are so prevalent in the UK we are literally tripping up over doorless and roofless £50k Jeep Wranglers, such is the size of the market Land Rover is missing out on.
47/70. 67%. B overall. Not quite vintage, 300.
Needs more work on naming conventions and comparisons to American cars to access the higher marks.
NomduJour said:
I KNEW the pictures were coming.
300bhp, why weren’t you chief engineer on the Defender project? Could they not afford your expertise? Or is it perhaps because you think a P38A drives as well as an L322?
Do you think he has that live axle demonstration picture saved on his desktop for easy access?300bhp, why weren’t you chief engineer on the Defender project? Could they not afford your expertise? Or is it perhaps because you think a P38A drives as well as an L322?
300bhp/ton said:
Sporky said:
A serious question - sorry - are live axles really all that off-road?
I only do unmade roads, building sites, and forest fire tracks. I appreciate that serious off-roading is a different prospect.
I know Max has answered with his typical I'm an engineer approach and that Land Rover are the only car company in the world to understand off road cars.I only do unmade roads, building sites, and forest fire tracks. I appreciate that serious off-roading is a different prospect.
But I think it is a little more complex.
- *lots of stuff taken from wikipedia, and conversations on internet forums***
Yours on the other hand falls into the same sort of trap that people who believe 911 conspiracies fall into (also an example of the Dunning Kreuger effect) which is to understand a small amount about something, relate it to a point that you believe is true, and misinterpret/misunderstand/miss the critical detail of the things that matter. In principal the things you've quoted are broadly correct, but miss the critical detail which means that the point you're trying to prove is not correct. The diagram of solid beam vs independent suspension highlights this perfectly, as it assumes an independent system to be a simple single beam, when reality it's far more complicated and requires a better understanding of anti dive, anti squat and camber compensating geometry (something which Range Rovers/Land Rovers have had for around 8 years) to name but a few.
It's crazy that we live in a world where people will argue blind with people who are genuine experts in the very topic they are discussing. Rather than learning they assume the expert to be blatantly wrong/lying/incorrect or purposefully misleading.
300bhp/ton said:
Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Not even close. The image I pasted is the current cut and paste nose of all other LR/RR models. The second one is a completely different design language.
I suspect that might be different language if you mean someone from Sheffield speaks a different language to someone from Manchester.... else it's all much of the same and very similar.Bravo for it being different.
Quite a nice-looking machine but with a luxury-spec interior and auto-only drivetrain, it's a million miles from the rugged brief of the original. In thirty years' time, will we see battered but utterly dependable examples of this in every remote corner and inhospitable terrain around the world? Can it be mended and then mended again by any spanner- and hammer-wielding "mechanic" anywhere on the planet? People's livelihoods depend on these characteristics of the original versions.
I suspect the answers to the above are clearly not, and that the design brief didn't care about it, because that's not where profitable sales volumes come from. That's not a criticism, just a reality. LR runs a business not a human rights charity, and Chelsea is a more fruitful sales target area than the Sahara.
But the move upmarket leaves an obvious opportunity for a much more basic, stripped-out, rugged version - which should come with a manual gearbox and non-electronic diffs.
Unrelated to the vehicle itself but I am amazed that in official press release photos they have used (or photo-shopped on) the same registration on two clearly different cars. (Look at front bumper, wheel arches and rear lights, not just different wheels). Is there a significance to PBS534 which has escaped me?
I suspect the answers to the above are clearly not, and that the design brief didn't care about it, because that's not where profitable sales volumes come from. That's not a criticism, just a reality. LR runs a business not a human rights charity, and Chelsea is a more fruitful sales target area than the Sahara.
But the move upmarket leaves an obvious opportunity for a much more basic, stripped-out, rugged version - which should come with a manual gearbox and non-electronic diffs.
Unrelated to the vehicle itself but I am amazed that in official press release photos they have used (or photo-shopped on) the same registration on two clearly different cars. (Look at front bumper, wheel arches and rear lights, not just different wheels). Is there a significance to PBS534 which has escaped me?
Frog02 said:
Unrelated to the vehicle itself but I am amazed that in official press release photos they have used (or photo-shopped on) the same registration on two clearly different cars. (Look at front bumper, wheel arches and rear lights, not just different wheels). Is there a significance to PBS534 which has escaped me?
No, its probably the same vehicle with different bits bolted on for testing purposes as well as photo purposes, given the fact they've used a couple of other registrations elsewhere they haven't just stuck with the same oneRacerMike said:
It's actually not more complex than what Max said. There's a reason why he's a vehicle engineer....he has a degree in engineering, and has worked in the automotive industry for a long time I believe. I think he's also worked a lot on vehicle dynamics, although I'm probably assuming things there. Either way, his explanation shows a very sound understanding of vehicle dynamics.
Yours on the other hand falls into the same sort of trap that people who believe 911 conspiracies fall into (also an example of the Dunning Kreuger effect) which is to understand a small amount about something, relate it to a point that you believe is true, and misinterpret/misunderstand/miss the critical detail of the things that matter. In principal the things you've quoted are broadly correct, but miss the critical detail which means that the point you're trying to prove is not correct. The diagram of solid beam vs independent suspension highlights this perfectly, as it assumes an independent system to be a simple single beam, when reality it's far more complicated and requires a better understanding of anti dive, anti squat and camber compensating geometry (something which Range Rovers/Land Rovers have had for around 8 years) to name but a few.
It's crazy that we live in a world where people will argue blind with people who are genuine experts in the very topic they are discussing. Rather than learning they assume the expert to be blatantly wrong/lying/incorrect or purposefully misleading.
+1...Yours on the other hand falls into the same sort of trap that people who believe 911 conspiracies fall into (also an example of the Dunning Kreuger effect) which is to understand a small amount about something, relate it to a point that you believe is true, and misinterpret/misunderstand/miss the critical detail of the things that matter. In principal the things you've quoted are broadly correct, but miss the critical detail which means that the point you're trying to prove is not correct. The diagram of solid beam vs independent suspension highlights this perfectly, as it assumes an independent system to be a simple single beam, when reality it's far more complicated and requires a better understanding of anti dive, anti squat and camber compensating geometry (something which Range Rovers/Land Rovers have had for around 8 years) to name but a few.
It's crazy that we live in a world where people will argue blind with people who are genuine experts in the very topic they are discussing. Rather than learning they assume the expert to be blatantly wrong/lying/incorrect or purposefully misleading.
M
Looks good id like one, even more so as it has an occasional 6th seat something I've always wanted , but pickups dont have them in this contry!
Might be a bit too much for me and hold its value too well
Still fair play to them
Whatever they released would have had the trainspotters up in arms
Might be a bit too much for me and hold its value too well
Still fair play to them
Whatever they released would have had the trainspotters up in arms
Do you get a kick our of trying to be a bully? Or is that what you were like at school?
Tom_Spotley_When said:
10/10 for missing the point of both how the new Defender will be used by 99% of buyers
Didn't once mention how it would be used.Tom_Spotley_When said:
4/10 for pictures of heavily modified 20 year old Land-Rovers being used as an example of what ordinary brand nrew Land Rovers do on an apparently regular basis.
Only Land Rover posted was a stock Freelander. The others are not Land Rover ffs RacerMike said:
It's actually not more complex than what Max said. There's a reason why he's a vehicle engineer....he has a degree in engineering, and has worked in the automotive industry for a long time I believe. I think he's also worked a lot on vehicle dynamics, although I'm probably assuming things there. Either way, his explanation shows a very sound understanding of vehicle dynamics.
Yours on the other hand falls into the same sort of trap that people who believe 911 conspiracies fall into (also an example of the Dunning Kreuger effect) which is to understand a small amount about something, relate it to a point that you believe is true, and misinterpret/misunderstand/miss the critical detail of the things that matter. In principal the things you've quoted are broadly correct, but miss the critical detail which means that the point you're trying to prove is not correct. The diagram of solid beam vs independent suspension highlights this perfectly, as it assumes an independent system to be a simple single beam, when reality it's far more complicated and requires a better understanding of anti dive, anti squat and camber compensating geometry (something which Range Rovers/Land Rovers have had for around 8 years) to name but a few.
It's crazy that we live in a world where people will argue blind with people who are genuine experts in the very topic they are discussing. Rather than learning they assume the expert to be blatantly wrong/lying/incorrect or purposefully misleading.
Did you actually read any of the content? Based on your nonsense above, it would appear not. Try again............Yours on the other hand falls into the same sort of trap that people who believe 911 conspiracies fall into (also an example of the Dunning Kreuger effect) which is to understand a small amount about something, relate it to a point that you believe is true, and misinterpret/misunderstand/miss the critical detail of the things that matter. In principal the things you've quoted are broadly correct, but miss the critical detail which means that the point you're trying to prove is not correct. The diagram of solid beam vs independent suspension highlights this perfectly, as it assumes an independent system to be a simple single beam, when reality it's far more complicated and requires a better understanding of anti dive, anti squat and camber compensating geometry (something which Range Rovers/Land Rovers have had for around 8 years) to name but a few.
It's crazy that we live in a world where people will argue blind with people who are genuine experts in the very topic they are discussing. Rather than learning they assume the expert to be blatantly wrong/lying/incorrect or purposefully misleading.
Hint: You couldn't have got it more wrong --- your interpretation of what you "think" I said vs what I actually said. It's bit like me saying 2+2 =4 and you coming along with a load of drivel saying no no no it equals 4!!!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff