RE: 'Hard Top' returns to Land Rover Defender

RE: 'Hard Top' returns to Land Rover Defender

Author
Discussion

jonnyyacht

5 posts

28 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
definitely better looking without that silly little square floating around. id have one tomorrow if they fitted rear seats . solid rear panels should be a no cost option on all the versions !

300bhp/ton

38,603 posts

145 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
Am i being clear?
No. Because once again you have spectacularly misread what was being discussed. But have a nice day anyway. smile

Jimmy Recard

16,735 posts

134 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
i was going to put some thought into a reply about how it'll be interesting to see more of the new Defender around when this new model is available, but I won't bother as the thread is already beyond repair

camel_landy

3,057 posts

138 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
No. Because once again you have spectacularly misread what was being discussed. But have a nice day anyway. smile
I think you are the one who has "misread" the situation:

ENOUGH - We are sick and tired of you ruining EVERY thread on the New Defender.

^^^ Is THAT clear enough?

M

595Heaven

891 posts

33 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
I'm pretty sure this is the exact market that the original Discovery was targeted at. Sadly I can't get Google to bring up any old (1989-1990) Discovery ads.

The Defender was about having the ability to ford every river and cross every mountain.
Here you go:



No yoga studios in sight, but I did spot mountains and a river...


Edited by 595Heaven on Tuesday 30th June 18:09

MK1RS Bruce

307 posts

93 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
A lot of the defender / series heritage shown was borne out of need rather than want but technology has moved on.

For example no one is going to use a landrover to power a wood chipper when they can have a several 100HP unimog doing the same task but 10x as fast or with 10x bigger logs.

Same with the dozer blade on the series one, yeah that is great but can you imagine actually using that with no power steering, no one would choose to do that if they didn't have to these days and luckily we don't have to as we have other tools for that job.

The one good thing about the new defender that I haven't seen mentioned is the ability to tow 3.5 Tonnes, very few of the modern pick ups have this ability and that is what farmers and builders need and will look for in a vehicle.

I also don't think that if one is bought by the "dead sheep in the back" brigade they are going to care that its nice and shiney and clean in the back, the dead sheep is going in regardless, lets face it did any farmers actually ever get round to power washing out the old one despite claims you could do it?? I have a previous 110 defender and 2 x series 3s none of them have ever been power washed out in the 10-15 years I have had them and all of them have had sheep in the back biglaugh

I personally think the new Defender looks great and I would / will buy one one day.

Blown2CV

23,720 posts

158 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
if it's a new car with new customers and totally new market, why not call it something else? The reason we are all arguing is because JLR is clearly trying to convince us that this Defender is a continuation of the line; which has credibility and ruggedness, genuine workhorse capabilities at its core. Why would JLR not just face up and say that because they are a volume manufacturer with no farmers left in the customer base, here is a new model which yes is at the most rugged end of their range but is still a school run chariot for blondes or a jet ski tow car for dheads.

DoubleD

12,721 posts

63 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
Why should they call it something else?

camel_landy

3,057 posts

138 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
Defender is a continuation of the line...
Don't forget the "Defender" name is quite recent (IIRC - 1991) and was brought about to distinguish it from the new kid on the block... The Discovery.

Blown2CV said:
Here is a new model which yes is at the most rugged end of their range but is still a school run chariot for blondes or a jet ski tow car for dheads.
In this context, we're discussing the new commercial variant, which is unlikely to be used as a "School Run Chariot". However, there is a certain irony to your statement given the popularity of the old model for that very task. wink

M

fieldmau5

148 posts

123 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
This thread is such a good example of how users should be able to block having to see 300bhp's posts.

No having to scroll through multiple pages of arguments. Just BAMO. Block and move on.

alorotom

7,976 posts

142 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
OK, lets try this just one more time.

THE NEW MODEL DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING OF THE SORT.


Just like the new ford fiesta isn't a ModelT, the new Merc SLR isn't a pagoda, the new BMW isn't a 507 and in fact any new modern cars isn't an old car.


For some reason, Defender fanboys seem to think they own the brand, and that somehow, buying a single car gives them some say in the matter. It doesn't.. JLR own the defender name, they make they car, they can do anything they like with it, including reaslising that the old car was for a market that no-longer exists, and had 60 years of bagage (yes, like those old rear body internal box arches, making for an impactical load area, which were simply like that because the series 1 model, made 60 years before, had to use only folded panels and not pressed ones, because they couldn't afford the press tools in the post war recession.


The new car is the first proper, clean sheet design and ALL THE BETTER FOR IT. It now suits its target market (and no that isn't anyone who does "serious offroading" in a car thats 20 years old and cost £3k) it's a FAR better real world compromise, with JLR realsising that in the world today, for every "serious" off road mile driven, the car and occupants needs to be able to drive 10,000 road and gravel track type miles. This is precisely where the old defender fell down, and the reason everybody bought a toyota. Driving slowly, 20 miles down the road on 35" mud tyres and then playing in a small quarry just outside banbury for 3 hours until your roll upside down into a lake is NOT the offroading that the vast majority of owners of modern cars, and certainly not >£45k ones at that, actually do. They want to drive comfortably, reliably, without stress for large distances along tarmac'd roads mostly, sometimes along gravel roads, and they want to get where they are going (not break down on the way) and they want to be able to hear the radio, to have somewhere to put their right arm, and yes even to be able to walk away from an RTA when karen drives into them because she's too busy texting.



Am i being clear?



THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING.........
Similar to the Nissan Pulsar ‘reboot’ - good point well made

A.J.M

6,609 posts

141 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
For some personal viewing.

Yesterday I sat in the car park of the vets my gf uses for her Labrador.
It’s next to Lanark farmers market, one of the larger markets for farmers, both machinery and livestock.

It was sheep day yesterday, so plenty of farmers coming with sheep trailers.

We saw 2 tdci 90s, both hardbacks, both enter spec. No 35” tyres, no snorkel, no larger wheel arches.
There were 4 Ranger Wildtracks, 3 D Max’s, 3 Navaras, 2 Hiluxes and 1 Amaroc.

All bar the 2 90s, were 2012 and younger.

Farmers moved on, they want comfort and space for their money as well as the rest of the ability.

I see no reason why the 2 90 owners couldn’t upgrade to the new 90 hardback.

595Heaven

891 posts

33 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all


For anyone interested, just measured the tailgate on my 110 5-seater

Min width (at the tailgate latch) is 37”, height at the centre is just under 36”. The tailgate opens to 90 degrees, and doesn't intrude into this aperture.

The fabric thing on the floor is the load space cover. Switches are to adjust ride height level, tow hitch deploy / stow and trailer lamp test. Mine also has the domestic 240v plug socket just out of sight on the right hand side.

It could do with a wash!

If nyone wants any other dimensions, please let me know. Obviously I can't and won't share anything Hard Top specific...

Edited by 595Heaven on Tuesday 30th June 18:59

thiscocks

2,244 posts

150 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
drpep said:
AngryPartsBloke said:
drpep said:
The reality is, it's not as capable an off-roader,
Have you got any objective evidence for that?
Honestly, no I don't. Just going on general merits and drawbacks of their relative suspension setups. I'm sure the defender does just fine for most situations, which is probably why they went with an independent setup rather than solid axles. As above, this was an interesting read on IFS vs Solid:

https://www.theengineblock.com/off-road-suspension...
Well I can assure you it's an extremely capable offroader and much more so than any of its immediate rivals. Apparently it was alot better than the desert than the landcruisers and Shoguns (among others , I forget..) it was tested with in Namibia. The designers have had a chance to refine the L405 set up on it and has resulted in a very capable off roader as I have been told by those in the know...

Sixpackpert

4,072 posts

169 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
595Heaven said:


For anyone interested, just measured the tailgate on my 110 5-seater

Min width (at the tailgate latch) is 37”, height at the centre is just under 36”. The tailgate opens to 90 degrees, and doesn't intrude into this aperture.

The fabric thing on the floor is the load space cover. Switches are to adjust ride height level, tow hitch deploy / stow and trailer lamp test. Mine also has the domestic 240v plug socket just out of sight on the right hand side.

It could do with a wash!

If nyone wants any other dimensions, please let me know. Obviously I can't and won't share anything Hard Top specific...

Edited by 595Heaven on Tuesday 30th June 18:59
So will easily take a Euro Pallet then, despite the naysayers.

Max_Torque

15,176 posts

172 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
if it's a new car with new customers and totally new market, why not call it something else? The reason we are all arguing is because JLR is clearly trying to convince us that this Defender is a continuation of the line; which has credibility and ruggedness, genuine workhorse capabilities at its core. .
I'm not sure how old you are, but i'm old enough to remember people saying EXACTLY THIS ^^^^ in 1983 when Land Rover replaced the series cars with the coilers! Not rugged enough, to namby pamby, not a properly Land rover, too much tech, too fancy. And they were as wrong back then as you are today........


I personally see no reason to think the new defender is any less rugged than the coily one introduced in 1983. And in fact, thanks to it's unibody, and much better more rigerous design and development (which had access to a budget and skill set far exceeding the mild rewarming off the model for the 1983 re-launch) i think it'll prove to be MORE rugged in reality. Drive an old defender for a day on washboard roads at any speeds and the thing, and it's occupants fell apart,it was awful. Wobby body, wobbyl axles, wobbly, well ,everything.
I actually drove a 110 around Landrovers own "rough road" at Gaydon, a total distance of (iirc) 7.5 miles on a simulated mid african washboard road, and when we got back to the control tower, it failed to restart because the battery had shaken loose and the terminals fallen off! (and the battery was busy trying to weld itself to the under seat metal lid...!!!!). I mean, if a LR product can't even make it round the manufacturers own test track, what chance does it have in the real world?

That certainly would not have been tollerated at Toyota, and today, i'm pleased to say, its no longer tollerated at Land rover. The new defender is a far better vehicle than the last and i think it'll be more reliable, more rugged, more useful, and in 30 years, we'll have the same old people on the same old forums moaning that "it's not like it used to be" when it eventually itself gets replaced by a new model............


Blown2CV

23,720 posts

158 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
Max_Torque said:
Blown2CV said:
if it's a new car with new customers and totally new market, why not call it something else? The reason we are all arguing is because JLR is clearly trying to convince us that this Defender is a continuation of the line; which has credibility and ruggedness, genuine workhorse capabilities at its core. .
I'm not sure how old you are, but i'm old enough to remember people saying EXACTLY THIS ^^^^ in 1983 when Land Rover replaced the series cars with the coilers! Not rugged enough, to namby pamby, not a properly Land rover, too much tech, too fancy. And they were as wrong back then as you are today........


I personally see no reason to think the new defender is any less rugged than the coily one introduced in 1983. And in fact, thanks to it's unibody, and much better more rigerous design and development (which had access to a budget and skill set far exceeding the mild rewarming off the model for the 1983 re-launch) i think it'll prove to be MORE rugged in reality. Drive an old defender for a day on washboard roads at any speeds and the thing, and it's occupants fell apart,it was awful. Wobby body, wobbyl axles, wobbly, well ,everything.
I actually drove a 110 around Landrovers own "rough road" at Gaydon, a total distance of (iirc) 7.5 miles on a simulated mid african washboard road, and when we got back to the control tower, it failed to restart because the battery had shaken loose and the terminals fallen off! (and the battery was busy trying to weld itself to the under seat metal lid...!!!!). I mean, if a LR product can't even make it round the manufacturers own test track, what chance does it have in the real world?

That certainly would not have been tollerated at Toyota, and today, i'm pleased to say, its no longer tollerated at Land rover. The new defender is a far better vehicle than the last and i think it'll be more reliable, more rugged, more useful, and in 30 years, we'll have the same old people on the same old forums moaning that "it's not like it used to be" when it eventually itself gets replaced by a new model............
yes I do remember that. Difference is mate, that you can still repair a 1983 land rover with a hammer and a soldering iron, whereas the light cluster from the 2020 version is some £1000 LED sealed unit and the dashboard is all fking touch screens which are expensive, heavily integrated and ultimately JLR supplied so probably total and utter st. A 1983 defender is probably still around now. These things will be outlived by them.

DoubleD

12,721 posts

63 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
Blown2CV said:
yes I do remember that. Difference is mate, that you can still repair a 1983 land rover with a hammer and a soldering iron, whereas the light cluster from the 2020 version is some £1000 LED sealed unit and the dashboard is all fking touch screens which are expensive, heavily integrated and ultimately JLR supplied so probably total and utter st. A 1983 defender is probably still around now. These things will be outlived by them.
So buy a 1983 defender then if you dont like new cars.

2xChevrons

875 posts

35 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
biggles330d said:
So in summary, for all the love of the original Defender and that it is everything the new one isn't... actually the commercial version of it was pretty useless for what appeared to be its core purpose. Sounds like the new one has some of that fixed.
Have to say, capacity for a pallet in the back, flat floor, split tailgate, lash down points, off road capability, not too posh but excellent mile muncher and effortless with heavy trailers.... all things the Disco 4 commercial does very well.
That's a bit strong. I did plenty of 'proper Land Rover' things with all my SWBs - I towed cars and boats on trailers, carried mountain bikes (had to take the wheels off to get them inside though, until I got a roof rack), lugged paving slabs and bags of cement, compost etc., transported inflatable dinghies and outboard motors along a beach, toolboxes and spare batteries across fields to resurrect dead tractors, took wet/muddy dogs to the woods, sherpa'd surveying and digging equipment around Wales and the West Country for archaeology digs (I used the big flat bonnet as a heated drawing table too...). My Series III and Ninety Station Wagons carried half a dozen people on and off-road. I did greenlaning and some quarry pay-and-play days and punch-card trials and stuff with all of them too.

All of that is good utilitarian stuff. But there's no reason why the new Defender couldn't do all of those things and, equally, there's no reason why a Japanese double-cab pick-up couldn't have done all of those jobs in greater comfort and - sometimes - greater utility. I had Land Rovers because I like them, warts and all. I am an enthusiast of them. But I would never want to have to rely on or use one as a working tool, day in day out. Just as I love my 2CV but I don't think Citroen should still be making them instead of the C1. Incidentally, I've remembered that the two loads that simply wouldn't fit in my 90's load bay were a portable garage air compressor and a petrol rotovator - both ended up being lashed into the back of the 2CV which has the benefit of a flatter floor, a taller rear hatch, a lower loading height and the ability to be driven legally with the boot open.

The old Defender's awkward load bay shape/size is just one of the more stand-out symptoms of the fact that, for all its mechanical changes, the basic Land Rover concept was never updated and remained rooted in the 1940s as the competition rose and then overtook it. The original 80-inch was supposed to be a tractor/utility car combo, the modern equivalent of which would be one of those Kawasaki Mule/JD Gator side-by-side UTVs. They were a motorised pack horse, designed for off-road agility and durability over everything else. Hence why they had a short wheelbase and such small load beds. As mentioned in other posts, the big full-length wheel boxes were to simplify production of the body tub since they didn't have to be pressed or stamped - the sheet of metal which made up the floor simply had to be folded in three right angles on each side. Not very capacious, but enough to carry a farmer, a collie, a packed lunch, a tool box and a couple of hay bales...and of course the required dead sheep.

And, for various reasons, it never evolved beyond that. Yes, the dimensions expanded a bit and the LWB options came along, but they were all just evolutions of that original design. When the modern pallet sizes were standardised in the late 50s/early 60s, the Land Rover's bodywork was not adapted to accept them (something which wouldn't happen until 1982, and then only by introducing a specific bodystyle). Lash-down eyes or points were never fitted to any Series or Defender from the factory - the single-skin aluminium body wasn't strong enough and even the aftermarket ones need huge reinforcement pads to spread the weight.

The vehicle stuck to its conceptual roots with a seperate chassis, beam axles at both ends and a bolt-together modular body, even when the majority of its competitors left that blueprint far behind.

It seems that the new Defender has - finally - addressed a lot of these rather basic utilitarian issues. What will be interesting to see tomorrow is whether the Ineos Grenadier has also addressed them while remaining closer to the old Defender design.

DonkeyApple

37,398 posts

124 months

Tuesday 30th June
quotequote all
300bhp/ton said:
The Defender was about having the ability to ford every river and cross every mountain.
You’re getting confused with the Wrangler. That’s the one musical lovers like.