RE: 'Hard Top' returns to Land Rover Defender
Discussion
Bill said:
Is your issue just that the new Defender is too much evolution at once? It certainly seems that way.
I don't think it is evolution. As said before, it is revolution. There is no stepping stone from the old model to the new, it is just a completely different type of vehicle. Using your 911 example. Imagine if the 911 today was actually the Panamera. So compare the Panamara to a 964 or older 911. Dynamically the Panamera is faster, corners better, grips better, has a higher top speed, can lap a circuit quicker, etc etc. Rationally there would be no reason not to like the Panamara better than any old air cooled Porsche. It is just a better vehicle.However you know as well as I. It just isn't the thing...
As for the new Defender, the physical vehicle itself I like. Looks a bit frumpy from some angles. But overall I like it. I just don't like the name, it is the wrong name. If it wants to be a Discovery or Defender Sport, I'd have no issue at all with it. But to be a Defender it should be something completely different.
300bhp/ton said:
DoubleD said:
Why should the Defender be something different to what it is?
So you always, without question fully agree with every stance, decision and statement every single company makes? I prefer a little more freewill and freedom of thought.You said that the Defender should be different to how it now is, why should it be different? What's wrong with the new Defender?
300bhp/ton said:
DoubleD said:
Why should the Defender be something different to what it is?
So you always, without question fully agree with every stance, decision and statement every single company makes? I prefer a little more freewill and freedom of thought.M
300bhp/ton said:
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?
So what you are asking is that if we took an old model defender and modified it to fit all the bits the new model has, would it would be as good?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?
two small problems in the real world:
1) That involves a time machine. You couldn't buy say a 2005 defender in 2005 and get the bits from a 2020 one. People who buy new cars have to buy the car on sale at the moment they buy it. So suggesting/asking if it would be as "capable" is ridiculous as it is impossible
2) In order to fit all the same components at the same level of development as the 2020 defender to a 2005 defender you'd basically end up with a 2020 defender. So what you are actually asking is "is a 2020 defender as good as a 2020 defender" which is once again a stupid question.
Anyone seeing a pattern emerging?? ;-) We are talking here about factory standard cars, as they were sold by the factory at the time they were sold, not some fantasy world were you can compare apples to bananas by going back in the time and genetically modifying the apple tree to grow bananas 15 years in the future........
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 2nd July 16:02
DoubleD said:
Ok, I will re word my question.
You said that the Defender should be different to how it now is, why should it be different? What's wrong with the new Defender?
Either the name or everything.You said that the Defender should be different to how it now is, why should it be different? What's wrong with the new Defender?
As said, if it was called 'Defender Sport' or 'Discovery'. I'd have no issues with it at all. Being called a 'Defender' means something to a lot of people. And this new vehicle just doesn't fit that description/expectation. At least for me, and if you look about for quite a few others. Even on PH, but head over to some Land Rover forums or other 4x4 interest sites. And there are quite a few who share similar views.
And ultimately, so did a Mr Ratcliffe I suspect, else another heavily talked about vehicle on here this week, simply wouldn't exist at all.
Bill said:
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.
SERES 1 1948 -> 1958 (10 years)
SII 1958 -> 1961 (3 years)
SIIA 1961 -> 1971 (10 years)
SIII 1971 -> 1983/1984 (12 years)
90/110 1983/84 to 1990 (6 years)
Defender 1990 to 2017 (27 years)
Now who can tell me they are suprised the "evolutionary" jump has been the biggest in replacing the classic Defender with the new Defender........
300bhp/ton said:
As said, if it was called 'Defender Sport' or 'Discovery'. I'd have no issues with it at all. Being called a 'Defender' means something to a lot of people. And this new vehicle just doesn't fit that description/expectation.
Tough... It's not your baby.Start a new thread and moan in there.
M
camel_landy said:
300bhp/ton said:
As said, if it was called 'Defender Sport' or 'Discovery'. I'd have no issues with it at all. Being called a 'Defender' means something to a lot of people. And this new vehicle just doesn't fit that description/expectation.
Tough... It's not your baby.Start a new thread and moan in there.
M
Max_Torque said:
camel_landy said:
300bhp/ton said:
As said, if it was called 'Defender Sport' or 'Discovery'. I'd have no issues with it at all. Being called a 'Defender' means something to a lot of people. And this new vehicle just doesn't fit that description/expectation.
Tough... It's not your baby.Start a new thread and moan in there.
M
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
The 127 was originally sold - and marketed - as the 'One Ten Double Cab', when it was introduced shortly after the debut of the One Ten and before the arrival of the Ninety. For this brief period the 'One Ten' was treated as something of a sub-brand in itself, filling the gap (in both marketing and technical terms) between the Series III and the Range Rover. All 'One Ten Double Cabs/127s' started off as 110-inch chassis cabs, which were cut in two by LR Special Vehicle Operations and had their chassis and other mechanical bits extended and then the bodywork dropped on. So in that sense they were all 'One Ten Double Cabs' - it's just that as part of the conversion they no longer than 110-inch wheelbases. Why did they settle on 127-inch wheelbase? Because they asked Hardy Spicer what the longest propshaft they already made which would accept the existing universal joint sizes at the gearbox end was, used that and when that was fitted and the rear axle moved accordingly the result was a 127-inch wheelbase. As it was they had to use a cut-down version of the HCPU load bed to fit, but modifying that was cheaper than getting in a bespoke longer propshaft.
One the Ninety came along that became increasingly nonsensical so it was renamed as the 127 (presumably because One Two Seven was a bit wordy for the brochures). Then it was rounded up to 130 for the Defender when the standard versions officially became the 90 and the 110 as well.
I dunno what LR were getting at with the whole Ninety/One Ten thing. The Series models had always been the '88' and the '109' - with numerical models, and they didn't even properly commit to it as the front grille badges said 'Land Rover 90' and 'Land Rover 110' on them from the very start. Since 127s started life as One Tens they all 'Land Rover 110' grille badges on them too.
In the run-up to the introduction of the Defender (and after the Discovery launch when 'Land Rover' became a marque rather than a model) the 1990 model year Land Rovers were subtly rebranded with grille badges that just said '90' and '110' on them and the revised Green Oval badge on the grille, plus updated oval logos on the steering wheel and rear tub. At this point the 127-inch chassis were made from scratch rather than cut-and-shut One Tens and these had bespoke '127' grille badging - which existed for one year only before it became the 'Defender 130' with the standarised 'Defender' grille badge.
300bhp/ton said:
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.
It's one of those things were it's both right to say 'there's lot of carried-over parts' and technically wrong. Like, the doors do fit between Series and coil-sprung vehicles but they are different in appearance. They're not exactly the same. A 2.25 petrol engine from an early One Ten is slightly different from the one in a very late Series III. Virtually all Land Rovers use the same basic Rover differential design from the 1930s but you can't just pop a Defender diff in a Series or vice versa - not only are the ratios different but so is the spline count on the halfshafts. It's the same design but they're not the same part. And of course there's almost as big a difference between a 1983 One Ten and a 1990 Defender. The coil-sprung Land Rover was rushed to market by necessity and so there was essentially a seven-year 'rolling launch' between the version launched in 1983 and the arrival, in 1990, of the vehicle the product planners and engineers actually wanted. In that time you had 2.5-litre engines, the turbodiesel, winding windows, interior improvements, new seats, new door trim, re-tuned V8s, improved transmissions and various cosmetic and spec improvements.
I believe that by 2016 only one part fitted to the Defender was literally the same as on a Series vehicle, as in had the same part number on the official LR records and was considered entirely and wholly interchangeable, and it was the cleat for the rear tilt securing rope/bungee that rivetted onto the rear tub on the Soft Top/Truck Cab/Double Cab models. I think it was the filler plug for the front axle swivel housings which was the same part all the way from 1948 to the 2002 Defender facelift when they finally redrew it to use a metric spanner.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 2nd July 16:57
2xChevrons said:
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
The 127 was originally sold - and marketed - as the 'One Ten Double Cab', when it was introduced shortly after the debut of the One Ten and before the arrival of the Ninety. For this brief period the 'One Ten' was treated as something of a sub-brand in itself, filling the gap (in both marketing and technical terms) between the Series III and the Range Rover. All 'One Ten Double Cabs/127s' started off as 110-inch chassis cabs, which were cut in two by LR Special Vehicle Operations and had their chassis and other mechanical bits extended and then the bodywork dropped on. So in that sense they were all 'One Ten Double Cabs' - it's just that as part of the conversion they no longer than 110-inch wheelbases.
One the Ninety came along that became increasingly nonsensical so it was renamed as the 127 (presumably because One Two Seven was a bit wordy for the brochures). Then it was rounded up to 130 for the Defender when the standard versions officially became the 90 and the 110 as well.
I dunno what LR were getting at with the whole Ninety/One Ten thing. The Series models had always been the '88' and the '109' - with numerical models, and they didn't even properly commit to it as the front grille badges said 'Land Rover 90' and 'Land Rover 110' on them from the very start. Since 127s started life as One Tens they all 'Land Rover 110' grille badges on them too.
In the run-up to the introduction of the Defender (and after the Discovery launch when 'Land Rover' became a marque rather than a model) the 1990 model year Land Rovers were subtly rebranded with grille badges that just said '90' and '110' on them and the revised Green Oval badge on the grille, plus updated oval logos on the steering wheel and rear tub. At this point the 127-inch chassis were made from scratch rather than cut-and-shut One Tens and these had bespoke '127' grille badging - which existed for one year only before it became the 'Defender 130' with the standarised 'Defender' grille badge.
300bhp/ton said:
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.
It's one of those things were it's both right to say 'there's lot of carried-over parts' and technically wrong. Like, the doors do fit between Series and coil-sprung vehicles but they are different in appearance. They're not exactly the same. A 2.25 petrol engine from an early One Ten is slightly different from the one in a very late Series III. Virtually all Land Rovers use the same basic Rover differential design from the 1930s but you can't just pop a Defender diff in a Series or vice versa - not only are the ratios different but so is the spline count on the halfshafts. It's the same design but they're not the same part. And of course there's almost as big a difference between a 1983 One Ten and a 1990 Defender. The coil-sprung Land Rover was rushed to market by necessity and so there was essentially a seven-year 'rolling launch' between the version launched in 1983 and the arrival, in 1990, of the vehicle the product planners and engineers actually wanted. In that time you had 2.5-litre engines, the turbodiesel, winding windows, interior improvements, new seats, new door trim, re-tuned V8s, improved transmissions and various cosmetic and spec improvements.
I believe that by 2016 only one part fitted to the Defender was literally the same as on a Series vehicle, as in had the same part number on the official LR records and was considered entirely and wholly interchangeable, and it was the cleat for the rear tilt securing rope/bungee that rivetted onto the rear tub on the Soft Top/Truck Cab/Double Cab models. I think it was the filler plug for the front axle swivel housings which was the same part all the way from 1948 to the 2002 Defender facelift when they finally redrew it to use a metric spanner.
Didn't know about the 110 double cab naming, that's a new one on me. So thanks
Not that you really see all that many 127/130's about and certainly not early ones. 300bhp/ton said:
How exactly was it out of date? What could these old fashioned leaf sprung, live alxe, body on frame Jap pickups do that the Defender could not?
Are you actually some kind of functioning retard? The Defender was less comfortable, less spacious, slower, noisier and just generally less pleasant to run about in than the contemporary Japanese rivals.
300bhp/ton said:
All this shows is, you haven't driven off road much at all.
All this shows is that you inhabit a bizarre fantasy world of your own creation, and probably shouldn’t be let near a computer, let alone normal society.2xChevrons said:
I believe that by 2016 only one part fitted to the Defender was literally the same as on a Series vehicle, as in had the same part number on the official LR records and was considered entirely and wholly interchangeable, and it was the cleat for the rear tilt securing rope/bungee that rivetted onto the rear tub on the Soft Top/Truck Cab/Double Cab models. I think it was the filler plug for the front axle swivel housings which was the same part all the way from 1948 to the 2002 Defender facelift when they finally redrew it to use a metric spanner.
I think there’s a U-section pressing under the rear arch that remained the same from the beginning to the end.Re names, the 90 actually had a 93” wheelbase.
Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 2nd July 17:23
300bhp/ton said:
Not that you really see all that many 127/130's about and certainly not early ones.
A lot of the 127 production became Rapier Carriers for the MoD and fitted with the 3.5V8.Once pensioned off, Foley SV bought a lot of them and used them as base vehicles for their conversions (Big game watching, campers, etc). A lot of the cars they built ended up in Africa.
...but making it relevant to this thread:
I've very keen to see the new 130 when it arrives as that might be a useful base platform for my next overlander (it's either that or a U1300L).
M
300bhp/ton said:
DoubleD said:
Ok, I will re word my question.
You said that the Defender should be different to how it now is, why should it be different? What's wrong with the new Defender?
Either the name or everything.You said that the Defender should be different to how it now is, why should it be different? What's wrong with the new Defender?
As said, if it was called 'Defender Sport' or 'Discovery'. I'd have no issues with it at all. Being called a 'Defender' means something to a lot of people. And this new vehicle just doesn't fit that description/expectation. At least for me, and if you look about for quite a few others. Even on PH, but head over to some Land Rover forums or other 4x4 interest sites. And there are quite a few who share similar views.
And ultimately, so did a Mr Ratcliffe I suspect, else another heavily talked about vehicle on here this week, simply wouldn't exist at all.
What is actually wrong with the car?
NomduJour said:
camel_landy said:
I've very keen to see the new 130 when it arrives as that might be a useful base platform for my next overlander (it's either that or a U1300L).
The extra seats in the 130 are supposedly fitting in via longer rear overhang rather than longer wheelbase.M
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff