RE: 2020 Land Rover Defender | The short review

[jack_86]

Correct!

[dxg]

Well, here's someone's collection video, complete with limp mode on the way home from the dealer...

https://youtu.be/gj4xGgYKeFw

You can tell they're an enthusiast because they don't seem bothered...

[Fattyfat]

dxg said:

Well, here's someone's collection video, complete with limp mode on the way home from the dealer...

https://youtu.be/gj4xGgYKeFw

You can tell they're an enthusiast because they don't seem bothered...

That chap has an online accessory store for LR, bought a steering wheel and some trim parts for a D3 years ago from him.

The previous Defender had bucket loads of character but lets face it, pretty flawed.

No doubt the new one will sell well to the lifestyle crowd and make JLR plenty of money which is what its all about. I'd certainly love to buy one in a year or two if reliability stacks up.

[unsprung]

From the FT today:

Rocky start for Land Rover’s new Defender

"Despite being configured online 1.6m times by enthusiasts, only 11,000 customer orders have been placed for the car so far, with a further 11,000 test-drive cars ordered by dealers, according to JLR’s annual results."

To read the article, I suggest googling the headline, above, and clicking the relevant search result. This often allows a one-time read without a subscription.

[300bhp/ton]

jagfan2 said:

Besides the bluff back, short rear overhang, side opening tailgate with spare, roof quarterlights

Sounds more Disco 1 or Shogun than Defender...

jagfan2 said:

raised bonnet

Eh? Only the Puma has a power bulge to clear the tall TDCi engine. 1948 to Td5 Defender didn't. And the new one doesn't have anything remotely similar. Bonnet has no bulge and does not remotely resemble any previous "Land Rover". Well only if you keep your eyes closed.

As posted on another forum. Unless someone told you these cars are related. You'd never guess just by looking at them. Let alone one being touted as the spiritual and direct successor. You'd be hard pressed to even know they both came from the same car maker if you were only going on the visuals....



Also note they didn't even try to keep the wingtops either when opening the bonnet.


vs

jagfan2 said:

round headlights

New one has square things with an outline DRL that isn't actually a circle. Again it has no link to a Defender, at least no more so than a BMW 3 Series does... claiming it as a direct link to a traditional Land Rover, is frankly fooling yourself and fking stupid.

jagfan2 said:

In fact way more design cues in common than say the new mini or supra for that matter?

Supra doesn't really have much of an iconic style or look. Every version has looked radically different. And the one you are referring too was the FORTH (4th) version anyway. So what valid point do you think you are actually making?

The MINI clearly was designed to resemble the original icon. Even people who don't like cars would still be able to ID one easily. The current model has a clear evolution of design from the R50. And still has the styling and look of a Mini.

jagfan2 said:

Agree the jimny probably has more in common, but so much so that LR could sue them for plagiarism ??

eh WTF???

Current Jimny harks back to design clues from 40-50 years ago, as well as their popular 1980s models.

[300bhp/ton]

AW111 said:

As long as they keep the legendary JLR build quality and reliability, it's a proper Defender.

I'm surprised 300 didn't add "random bits falling off" to his list of attributes a proper Defender needs.

For all of the Defenders charm, bits falling off was never really one of them

Squeaks, creaks & leaks - yes. But there really isn't much to fall off. And it is something I'd say happens often at all.

I know people with Series 1, 2, 3's and early Ninety's as well as last of the line TDCi Defenders. Apart from chassis corrosion (which also impacts the front footwells and one some years the top of the bulkhead below the windscreen). They are remarkably robust really. Nearly all the original switch gear works, even on early 1950's examples.

[jagfan2]

300bhp/ton said:

... Some inaccurate subjective opinion and uncalled for abuse

Fair enough, wont lower myself or bother to respond beyond this

Edited by jagfan2 on Wednesday 24th June 16:17

[Cold]

300bhp/ton said:

jagfan2 said:

Besides the bluff back, short rear overhang, side opening tailgate with spare, roof quarterlights

Sounds more Disco 1 or Shogun than Defender...

That's the trouble with young people. No history.
Here's a 1969 11A 109 SW.




The remainder of your nonsense is just as easily dismissed, but I really cannot be bothered. So instead of trying to prove something obscure (and getting it wrong) how about doing some research into Land Rover and their models over the years? You might learn something.

[595Heaven]

This might help...

I do wish the IT bods could fix image rotation issues...

[Mikebentley]

Good effort 595. You’ve managed to park that in the back of the old one. Was it defensive driving?

[595Heaven]

Mikebentley said:

Good effort 595. You’ve managed to park that in the back of the old one. Was it defensive driving?

[anonymous-user]

300bhp/ton said:

As posted on another forum. Unless someone told you these cars are related. You'd never guess just by looking at them. Let alone one being touted as the spiritual and direct successor. You'd be hard pressed to even know they both came from the same car maker if you were only going on the visuals....

I've always suspected you need you eyes tested 300!

Lets compare:

1) Barrel sides: check
2) Straight roof line: check
3) Chunky, rectangular wheel arches: check
4) Square door mirrors on A pillar: check
5) Chunky plastic rectangular door handles: check
6) Short, and angled approach and departure angles on the body: check
7) Rounded quarter window in roof line



All that i can see that is obviously missing is the lack of vents under the windcreen and of course a front that is more modern because it has to pass pedestrian impact. Given those limitations is seems to carry the family lines very clearly to me?

[Andeh1]

Max_Torque said:

300bhp/ton said:

As posted on another forum. Unless someone told you these cars are related. You'd never guess just by looking at them. Let alone one being touted as the spiritual and direct successor. You'd be hard pressed to even know they both came from the same car maker if you were only going on the visuals....

I've always suspected you need you eyes tested 300!

Lets compare:

1) Barrel sides: check
2) Straight roof line: check
3) Chunky, rectangular wheel arches: check
4) Square door mirrors on A pillar: check
5) Chunky plastic rectangular door handles: check
6) Short, and angled approach and departure angles on the body: check
7) Rounded quarter window in roof line


All that i can see that is obviously missing is the lack of vents under the windscreen and of course a front that is more modern because it has to pass pedestrian impact. Given those limitations is seems to carry the family lines very clearly to me?

IF ONLY!!!

Also:

1) Aerodyanamics
2) Thermals
3) Crash safety (+ pedestrian etcs..)
4) Insurance/Thatcham requirements
5) Packaging (carryover engines, components, architecture)
6) Vision systems, parking systems, radar systems (more & more regulations forced)
7) Market research, customer clinics, bench marking


Then all the other odds & sods that you wouldnt always think of, during my time (many moons ago) at JLR I remember people getting hauled over hot coals for failing oddities like snow compaction in the grills and inability to remove (new requirement added for future models, it's why all the LR grills can be removed with little more then the car keys), mud ingress & egress through wading through mud (water runs out, mud got trapped), Sand Dune impact test being failed (but Snow drift apparently passed) ....all the stuff that makes me grumpy when people think JLR only make ''soft'' roaders incapable of anything but the most gentle of grassy slopes.

[camel_landy]

Andeh1 said:

Then all the other odds & sods that you wouldnt always think of, during my time (many moons ago) at JLR I remember people getting hauled over hot coals for failing oddities like snow compaction in the grills and inability to remove (new requirement added for future models, it's why all the LR grills can be removed with little more then the car keys), mud ingress & egress through wading through mud (water runs out, mud got trapped), Sand Dune impact test being failed (but Snow drift apparently passed) ....all the stuff that makes me grumpy when people think JLR only make ''soft'' roaders incapable of anything but the most gentle of grassy slopes.

...and having to spend days driving the same tedious 100m section on the proving ground, the punishment your own body takes on 'Gearbox Hill' or the Developing World track.

Yep, it 'irks' me too.

M

[David87]

Trying to find out this info and can’t see it anywhere - does the 7-seat version have ISOFIX points on the third row seats (for a total of 4) or does it just have them on the outside seats on the second row?

[595Heaven]

Third row doesn't have ISOFIX.

If you need four ISOFIX capable seats, you'd need to look at a Discovery

[Cold]

Gromm said:

It's nice but not £80K nice. YMMV.

Prices start at £40330.

[David87]

595Heaven said:

Third row doesn't have ISOFIX.

If you need four ISOFIX capable seats, you'd need to look at a Discovery

Thank you. Looking at the Discovery is fine as long as you’re not looking at the back.

[595Heaven]

David87 said:

Thank you. Looking at the Discovery is fine as long as you’re not looking at the back.

I loved mine. Brilliant Euro trip machine, and it never felt like we were close to running out of space inside.

[anonymous-user]

Demonstrating that despite the beards saying otherwise, the new Defender in std factory form is significantly better off road than the old one in near std form (despite a lack of beams and hose out interior... ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF8SXafSOrQ


At 14:40 the old car fails a fairly simple climb despite being on aggressive mud tyres, that the new car just walks up on much less aggressive tyres because of a lack of cross axle control. So despite those "high articulation" beam axles (which if course, aren't actually high articulation in a standard 110 designed to be driven on the road, because since about 1995 you can no longer sell a car that uses its door mirrors to corner and turns shiny side down and decapitates its occupants in the event you need to do an emergency high speed swerve) the odl car is inferior to the old one.

Of course, this isn't news to JLR, who of course, know precisely the strengths and limitations of the old defender, and worked extremely hard to ensure the new car was better in every respect. Yes, that takes modern electronic systems to provide a far wider 'bandwidth' of capability than the old car, but the results are clear to see.


Note the quote at the end:

"The only people that don't like the new defender are people who haven't driven it yet"... lol!