RE: 'Hard Top' returns to Land Rover Defender
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
Bill said:
It's not aimed at the military and utilities markets because that boat has long sailed. But that's not the whole Defender market. It is a completely different vehicle, one that's better in every way.
So you admit it is a completely different vehicle. AKA not a true successor to the Series/Defender name. 
300bhp/ton said:
MK1RS Bruce said:
I think the point is that monocoque chassis are inherently better at absorbing impacts and protecting passengers than ladder frame chassis type vehicles.
Maybe, but why does every major car maker build brand new ladder chassis vehicles if they are so bad?M
300bhp/ton said:
NomduJour said:
I will wager - from experience of Land Rovers old and new - that it’s far more capable in pretty much every situation you’re likely to find yourself in.
All this shows is, you haven't driven off road much at all.All Land Rovers are tested here, and they have a range of "standard" features. On like for like tyres, the most capable car they make, the one that can get the furthest across the hardest features was their most expensive model the Range Rover. This is because it has the biggest range of systems that allow it to adapt to every environment.
Unfortunately, whilst the RR is the best off roader they make in terms of making it to the other side of a feature, it also was the most likely to damage itself off road,because it has the least concesion to withstanding off road damage. From what i hear from the new defender team, the new 90, with the diff lock option ticked is now by some margin, not only the best vehicle they have tested in the landrover family, it is also one of the best across all vehicles they have tested from any manufacturer (they obviously have a significant competitor evaluation fleet). it also has enough concesion to minor damage resistance that it can handle a bit of rough without ripping off that many expensive pieces. The new defender is also easily the most tested car JLR have ever made, it's genesis has been tough, really tough, with more miles of hard off road testing that ever before
The old defender, whilst being pretty damage resistant cosmetically speaking, had a weak powertrain (diffs, UJ's, and gearboxes could easily be broken on the more extreme features), and it had a 1 st generation traction control on it's basic beam axles (less wheel speed sensor resolution, and simpler ABS modulator) and it didn't come with mechanically locking diffs, so it actually fails to get across some of the features the more expensive "soft core" models now waltz across (see pic above!)
The fundamental reason most people consider the old Defender to be good off road is actually simply because it is much more likely to be fitted with suitable tyres. On like-for-like tyre the new model is better everywhere (the old car also gets hung up on it's front diff and especially the low hanging track rod that catches on EVERYTHING!)
300bhp/ton said:
NomduJour said:
I will wager - from experience of Land Rovers old and new - that it’s far more capable in pretty much every situation you’re likely to find yourself in.
All this shows is, you haven't driven off road much at all.L405 capabilities in a Defender package... I'm with NomduJoir on this one.
M
Max_Torque said:
Have you ever done the Land Rover Gaydon proving ground tour?
Thing is, he's still wanting to argue the toss with people who work (or have worked) on the Gaydon proving ground.Ricky Gervais said:
Remember, when you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It is only painful for others.
The same applies when you are stupid.
MThe same applies when you are stupid.
Max_Torque said:
Have you ever done the Land Rover Gaydon proving ground tour?
All Land Rovers are tested here, and they have a range of "standard" features. On like for like tyres, the most capable car they make, the one that can get the furthest across the hardest features was their most expensive model the Range Rover. This is because it has the biggest range of systems that allow it to adapt to every environment.
Unfortunately, whilst the RR is the best off roader they make in terms of making it to the other side of a feature, it also was the most likely to damage itself off road,because it has the least concesion to withstanding off road damage. From what i hear from the new defender team, the new 90, with the diff lock option ticked is now by some margin, not only the best vehicle they have tested in the landrover family, it is also one of the best across all vehicles they have tested from any manufacturer (they obviously have a significant competitor evaluation fleet). it also has enough concesion to minor damage resistance that it can handle a bit of rough without ripping off that many expensive pieces. The new defender is also easily the most tested car JLR have ever made, it's genesis has been tough, really tough, with more miles of hard off road testing that ever before
The old defender, whilst being pretty damage resistant cosmetically speaking, had a weak powertrain (diffs, UJ's, and gearboxes could easily be broken on the more extreme features), and it had a 1 st generation traction control on it's basic beam axles (less wheel speed sensor resolution, and simpler ABS modulator) and it didn't come with mechanically locking diffs, so it actually fails to get across some of the features the more expensive "soft core" models now waltz across (see pic above!)
The fundamental reason most people consider the old Defender to be good off road is actually simply because it is much more likely to be fitted with suitable tyres. On like-for-like tyre the new model is better everywhere (the old car also gets hung up on it's front diff and especially the low hanging track rod that catches on EVERYTHING!)
Great post, very interesting, thanks All Land Rovers are tested here, and they have a range of "standard" features. On like for like tyres, the most capable car they make, the one that can get the furthest across the hardest features was their most expensive model the Range Rover. This is because it has the biggest range of systems that allow it to adapt to every environment.
Unfortunately, whilst the RR is the best off roader they make in terms of making it to the other side of a feature, it also was the most likely to damage itself off road,because it has the least concesion to withstanding off road damage. From what i hear from the new defender team, the new 90, with the diff lock option ticked is now by some margin, not only the best vehicle they have tested in the landrover family, it is also one of the best across all vehicles they have tested from any manufacturer (they obviously have a significant competitor evaluation fleet). it also has enough concesion to minor damage resistance that it can handle a bit of rough without ripping off that many expensive pieces. The new defender is also easily the most tested car JLR have ever made, it's genesis has been tough, really tough, with more miles of hard off road testing that ever before
The old defender, whilst being pretty damage resistant cosmetically speaking, had a weak powertrain (diffs, UJ's, and gearboxes could easily be broken on the more extreme features), and it had a 1 st generation traction control on it's basic beam axles (less wheel speed sensor resolution, and simpler ABS modulator) and it didn't come with mechanically locking diffs, so it actually fails to get across some of the features the more expensive "soft core" models now waltz across (see pic above!)
The fundamental reason most people consider the old Defender to be good off road is actually simply because it is much more likely to be fitted with suitable tyres. On like-for-like tyre the new model is better everywhere (the old car also gets hung up on it's front diff and especially the low hanging track rod that catches on EVERYTHING!)
This is the British version of the PT cruiser. Much like the Harley Davidson Tri Glide mobility scooter it appeals to older people. As much as you loath the Americans making an MPV in the style of a 1940s Town & Country and failing as their demographic bought a Honda CRV. This Landi has that eye on the past in the same way.
No one is buying this to drive across a desert. It is being pitched at urban use.
I am ordering electric Sprinter vans or VW EVs this year for the company as we have solar panels on our warehouse and want to be quiet in town
No one is buying this to drive across a desert. It is being pitched at urban use.
I am ordering electric Sprinter vans or VW EVs this year for the company as we have solar panels on our warehouse and want to be quiet in town
Max_Torque said:
Unfortunately, whilst the RR is the best off roader they make in terms of making it to the other side of a feature, it also was the most likely to damage itself off road,because it has the least concesion to withstanding off road damage. From what i hear from the new defender team, the new 90, with the diff lock option ticked is now by some margin, not only the best vehicle they have tested in the landrover family, it is also one of the best across all vehicles they have tested from any manufacturer (they obviously have a significant competitor evaluation fleet). it also has enough concesion to minor damage resistance that it can handle a bit of rough without ripping off that many expensive pieces. The new defender is also easily the most tested car JLR have ever made, it's genesis has been tough, really tough, with more miles of hard off road testing that ever before
The old defender, whilst being pretty damage resistant cosmetically speaking, had a weak powertrain (diffs, UJ's, and gearboxes could easily be broken on the more extreme features), and it had a 1 st generation traction control on it's basic beam axles (less wheel speed sensor resolution, and simpler ABS modulator) and it didn't come with mechanically locking diffs, so it actually fails to get across some of the features the more expensive "soft core" models now waltz across (see pic above!)
The fundamental reason most people consider the old Defender to be good off road is actually simply because it is much more likely to be fitted with suitable tyres. On like-for-like tyre the new model is better everywhere (the old car also gets hung up on it's front diff and especially the low hanging track rod that catches on EVERYTHING!)
Bingo... The old defender, whilst being pretty damage resistant cosmetically speaking, had a weak powertrain (diffs, UJ's, and gearboxes could easily be broken on the more extreme features), and it had a 1 st generation traction control on it's basic beam axles (less wheel speed sensor resolution, and simpler ABS modulator) and it didn't come with mechanically locking diffs, so it actually fails to get across some of the features the more expensive "soft core" models now waltz across (see pic above!)
The fundamental reason most people consider the old Defender to be good off road is actually simply because it is much more likely to be fitted with suitable tyres. On like-for-like tyre the new model is better everywhere (the old car also gets hung up on it's front diff and especially the low hanging track rod that catches on EVERYTHING!)
M
DonkeyApple said:
The Grenadier looks fun. It’s just looking really expensive for a toy homage to the 20th century. If they can bang it out for £20k then I reckon it’ll find a lot of buyers
£20k, you aren't living in the real world if you think it will be that sort of money. You can spend more than that on a Fiesta!e.g.
An X-Trail starts at nearly £27k
300bhp/ton said:
thiscocks said:
The new Defender is not an SUV nor is it marketed as one.
cough coughAnyway, the Defender is marketed as a 4X4, not an SUV. You won't find "SUV" in any of LR's literature about the Defender.
You can claim you know better than the manufacturer about their own car again if you want, but we all know how daft that makes you look.
Bill said:
The Defender was completely different to the Series, no? Capable of the same job, better, but not a single part* carried over.
*I'll admit I'm guessing...
Well the Defender wasn't a Defender in the beginning, just One Ten, Ninety and 127 (why the latter isn't words I don't know). Although I admit it is easier to refer to all of the as Defendser *I'll admit I'm guessing...
But they where still aimed at the same market and intended use. Just better. It wasn't trying to be pitched as a Range Rover replacement. Also don't forget that it didn't go directly Series --> Defender. There was the Stage 1 also, which was really the stepping stone to the Defender range. Land Rover saw what people were doing in the aftermarket, such as fitting the Rover V8 to Series vehicles (there was even a dealership modified version in the USA - Land Rover Golden Rod).
As for parts. Yes lots and even more in evolutionary form such as the diff centres. The first Defenders even used Series 2.25 petrol engines. The doors fit both vehicles and lots of other parts.
camel_landy said:
300bhp/ton said:
MK1RS Bruce said:
I think the point is that monocoque chassis are inherently better at absorbing impacts and protecting passengers than ladder frame chassis type vehicles.
Maybe, but why does every major car maker build brand new ladder chassis vehicles if they are so bad?M
Max_Torque said:
The old defender, whilst being pretty damage resistant cosmetically speaking, had a weak powertrain (diffs, UJ's, and gearboxes could easily be broken on the more extreme features), and it had a 1 st generation traction control on it's basic beam axles (less wheel speed sensor resolution, and simpler ABS modulator) and it didn't come with mechanically locking diffs, so it actually fails to get across some of the features the more expensive "soft core" models now waltz across (see pic above!)
Drivetrain I agree. Although on standard size tyres and sensible driving it isn't too bad.As for the other aspects, they could all be fitted to the older Defender. And indeed you see them on things like the Jeep Wrangler JK and JL models. Why LR never offer lockers or an LSD (apart from in the USA in the Series) beggars belief. But none of these things are IFS/IRS exclusive. Just technology advancements like moving from points to electronic ignition. So of course an older car is not going to out technology a brand spanking new one.
But that isn't really the debate here is it.
Let's hypothesise. "If" JLR still manufactured the old Defender, say for a 3rd world market.... and they fitted it the same TCS/ABS modulator as the Range Rover above. Even without a rear axle diff locker. Are you still saying it wouldn't perform very well off road compared to the new Defender?
300bhp/ton said:
Well the Defender wasn't a Defender in the beginning, just One Ten, Ninety and 127 (why the latter isn't words I don't know). Although I admit it is easier to refer to all of the as Defendser
But they where still aimed at the same market and intended use. Just better. It wasn't trying to be pitched as a Range Rover replacement. Also don't forget that it didn't go directly Series --> Defender. There was the Stage 1 also, which was really the stepping stone to the Defender range. Land Rover saw what people were doing in the aftermarket, such as fitting the Rover V8 to Series vehicles (there was even a dealership modified version in the USA - Land Rover Golden Rod).
As for parts. Yes lots and even more in evolutionary form such as the diff centres. The first Defenders even used Series 2.25 petrol engines. The doors fit both vehicles and lots of other parts.
Is your issue just that the new Defender is too much evolution at once? It certainly seems that way.But they where still aimed at the same market and intended use. Just better. It wasn't trying to be pitched as a Range Rover replacement. Also don't forget that it didn't go directly Series --> Defender. There was the Stage 1 also, which was really the stepping stone to the Defender range. Land Rover saw what people were doing in the aftermarket, such as fitting the Rover V8 to Series vehicles (there was even a dealership modified version in the USA - Land Rover Golden Rod).
As for parts. Yes lots and even more in evolutionary form such as the diff centres. The first Defenders even used Series 2.25 petrol engines. The doors fit both vehicles and lots of other parts.
300bhp/ton said:
DonkeyApple said:
The Grenadier looks fun. It’s just looking really expensive for a toy homage to the 20th century. If they can bang it out for £20k then I reckon it’ll find a lot of buyers
£20k, you aren't living in the real world if you think it will be that sort of money. You can spend more than that on a Fiesta!e.g.
An X-Trail starts at nearly £27k
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff