RE: 'Hard Top' returns to Land Rover Defender
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
camel_landy said:
...because everything you say has already been done to death. You are not bring anything new to the conversation.
We're bored of it.
M
So what have you brought to the conversation that is new? It seems you are also only posting the same old moaning at anyone who doesn't like the new Defender and literally berating them for it.We're bored of it.
M
And for the record, I've never once said I don't like the physical vehicle. Nor have I said it isn't capable.
Perhaps a short self-furlough from new Defender topics to help everyone’s sanity?
wst said:
Ed. said:
Any current pickup drivers who see this as a viable option or is this just a marketing exercise to help family car sales?
Seems like it competes for the attention of the pickup users who always leave the truck topper on... which in this climate makes more sense than in Arizona or somewhere.I'm assuming that the Defender will be like the D2/3/4 commercial offerings. That while it has retained its rear doors. It is only a 2 seater (pics posted above of an example). If it had rear seats, I doubt the boot would be sufficiently big enough to be called a load bay, unlike the old 110. Plus at that point, apart from the covered up windows, what difference would it be over the regular 110 model?
e.g. the old 110 van was a 2/3 seater with a massive load bay:
This could be had (or converted) into a pickup or even a full tilt model.
With the introduction of the Puma (or was it late TD5??), LR then offered a 4 door van also.
Although you don't see that many about. These however had the two rows of doors, but would seat 5/6 people. And still have a pretty big load bay. Bigger than the current Defenders boot.
300bhp/ton said:
So what have you brought to the conversation that is new? It seems you are also only posting the same old moaning at anyone who doesn't like the new Defender and literally berating them for it.
I'd suggest it's simply pointing out assumptions, flawed logic and false 'facts'? 
300bhp/ton said:
And for the record, I've never once said I don't like the physical vehicle. Nor have I said it isn't capable.
Maybe so but it's lost in constant belittling language such as:300bhp/ton said:
The new Pretender.
300bhp/ton said:
Reckon a lot of you must be looking at different photos to me.
300bhp/ton said:
These look nothing like the traditional Defender.
M300bhp/ton said:
With the introduction of the Puma (or was it late TD5??), LR then offered a 4 door van also.
Although you don't see that many about. These however had the two rows of doors, but would seat 5/6 people. And still have a pretty big load bay. Bigger than the current Defenders boot.
You have seen how awkward the boot in the previous model was to use? It's narrow and those wheel boxes were a PITA!Although you don't see that many about. These however had the two rows of doors, but would seat 5/6 people. And still have a pretty big load bay. Bigger than the current Defenders boot.
I don't have any dimensions to hand but even if shorter, it's certainly more user friendly.
However, if you want the loadspace length, don't forget there's the '130' version due soon.
M
Mr.Jimbo said:
Why isn't it as good off road? Genuinely interested - unless you're rock crawling in Utah I think 95% of people would get a lot further in a new Defender than a Jeep Rubicon due to the terrain response and the car doing the diff locking/wheel braking for you. It has locking centre/rear and a brake modulated front open diff.
That aside, apart from approach angle, the Defender beats the Rubicon for departure angle and break over too.
For a very skilled off road driver I can see a manual-everything car like the Rubicon or an old Defender modded to have diff locks etc would probably go further, but realistically that's a very small % of people. The best bit about the Rubicon is it comes on proper tyres - better than the Wranglers offered on the Defender I'd wager but I bet a whole lot worse in road manners, which I imagine the Defender is compromised on between peformance and road manners.
I’ve got to agree with this, for all Land Rovers faults there’s no denying they can build very capable off roaders.That aside, apart from approach angle, the Defender beats the Rubicon for departure angle and break over too.
For a very skilled off road driver I can see a manual-everything car like the Rubicon or an old Defender modded to have diff locks etc would probably go further, but realistically that's a very small % of people. The best bit about the Rubicon is it comes on proper tyres - better than the Wranglers offered on the Defender I'd wager but I bet a whole lot worse in road manners, which I imagine the Defender is compromised on between peformance and road manners.
I really like this new Defender, if LR could sort out their quality issues they’d be world beaters.
Well this thread has gone as expected.
I wonder if they get the fizz every time they write 'pretender'.
I can't fathom the mind of someone who makes such a deliberate effort to do that.
Anyway, yet to see anyone who's actually spent some time in it not be impressed. Bob Ives seems to like it too, which says more than the ramblings of some.
I wonder if they get the fizz every time they write 'pretender'.
I can't fathom the mind of someone who makes such a deliberate effort to do that.
Anyway, yet to see anyone who's actually spent some time in it not be impressed. Bob Ives seems to like it too, which says more than the ramblings of some.
Edited by AngryPartsBloke on Tuesday 30th June 13:28
camel_landy said:
AngryPartsBloke said:
Bob Ives seems to like it too, which says more than the ramblings of some.
Bob who... 
M
Won a small scale off roading and camping trip thing. Wasn’t a big deal and they struggled to find people who could be bothered to take part.
You’ll not have heard of him, or the cars and competition.
camel_landy said:
You have seen how awkward the boot in the previous model was to use? It's narrow and those wheel boxes were a PITA!
I don't have any dimensions to hand but even if shorter, it's certainly more user friendly.
However, if you want the loadspace length, don't forget there's the '130' version due soon.
M
The wheel boxes have been the same all the way through, largely dictated by the vehicles track.I don't have any dimensions to hand but even if shorter, it's certainly more user friendly.
However, if you want the loadspace length, don't forget there's the '130' version due soon.
M
However Santana solved this with their PS-10 (based on the 109 and very 110 like). Which could indeed also load a Euro pallet. Which interesting enough is also a requirement and attribute of the new Grenadier.
Walter Sobchak said:
I’ve got to agree with this, for all Land Rovers faults there’s no denying they can build very capable off roaders.
I really like this new Defender, if LR could sort out their quality issues they’d be world beaters.
Only moderately light off roading, but quite a good vid. Makes light work of the terrain, but look closely at the body movement and how it has a bobbing motion up and down when going along.I really like this new Defender, if LR could sort out their quality issues they’d be world beaters.
The anti new Defender comments are becoming tedious and are often poorly informed 
The new Ineos Grenadier is going to be shown to the world tomorrow, so suggest you put a deposit down on one of those if you really miss the older defender that much.
I owned a 300tdi 90 for a number of years and would have one back in a flash, though the new Defender is far more capable out of the box in comparison to a standard old Defender.
I like that the hardtop has removed that odd body panel window thing, that was my main criticism of the new one, but I still prefer a station wagon inside. Maybe in a few years as they are a bit expensive now.
As for the comment of hay in the back, I doubt that, a large portion of the farming community moved to Izuzu / Hilux pickups a long time ago. Which is probably why Land Rover haven’t bothered to develop a pickup as the market is full of them already.
The new Ineos Grenadier is going to be shown to the world tomorrow, so suggest you put a deposit down on one of those if you really miss the older defender that much.
I owned a 300tdi 90 for a number of years and would have one back in a flash, though the new Defender is far more capable out of the box in comparison to a standard old Defender.
I like that the hardtop has removed that odd body panel window thing, that was my main criticism of the new one, but I still prefer a station wagon inside. Maybe in a few years as they are a bit expensive now.
As for the comment of hay in the back, I doubt that, a large portion of the farming community moved to Izuzu / Hilux pickups a long time ago. Which is probably why Land Rover haven’t bothered to develop a pickup as the market is full of them already.
300bhp/ton said:
biggles330d said:
Why can't people just see it for what it is?
Yes why? It is clearly a Discovery in design, concept, ethos and market placement. That they are simply branding as a Defender in the belief it will sell better.It's a simply truth, but one that some fanboys and blinkered folk seem unable to accept. No idea why, this fact hardly detracts from the physical vehicle. I can only presume these people feel all butthurt (Americanism...) that the Defender they desire, just isn't a real one and is a little like fake tan, to which they don't want to admit to.
And again for the record. I'd have one. But not as a Defender replacement, I'd have one instead of a Disco/RR. I'd still own a Defender type vehicle side by side with it.
And I do find it odd, that if they really wanted people to believe it as a spiritual successor to the Defender, why didn't they make it more "Defender" like and less "Discovery looking".
What I struggle with is your almost abrasive aversion to accepting the new Defender as a 'Defender' because of the changes in its platform, drive-line, axles etc. Calling it 'Pretender' is unfortunately, plain silly .
The challenge is, by this measure the Discovery should have been re-named going from D2 to D3 as it took an equally large leap in terms of the previously mentioned hardware changes.
The new Defender is a 'Defender' because it shares a history with the previous model, will appeal to owners of the previous model (i.e me((in a few years when I have the £££)) and crucially its Landrover's discretion as to how they name their models as its their heritage, they are not as you said 'raping' the heritage, vehicle design moves forward this should be celebrated.
Anyway happy days
AG
camel_landy said:
300bhp/ton said:
With the introduction of the Puma (or was it late TD5??), LR then offered a 4 door van also.
Although you don't see that many about. These however had the two rows of doors, but would seat 5/6 people. And still have a pretty big load bay. Bigger than the current Defenders boot.
You have seen how awkward the boot in the previous model was to use? It's narrow and those wheel boxes were a PITA!Although you don't see that many about. These however had the two rows of doors, but would seat 5/6 people. And still have a pretty big load bay. Bigger than the current Defenders boot.
I don't have any dimensions to hand but even if shorter, it's certainly more user friendly.
However, if you want the loadspace length, don't forget there's the '130' version due soon.
M
Aids0G said:
The challenge is, by this measure the Discovery should have been re-named going from D2 to D3 as it took an equally large leap in terms of the previously mentioned hardware changes.
I don't think the Discovery did take such a huge step. The Discovery was always a complimentary vehicle to the Defender rather than an alternative. They fulfilled different roles. i.e. it would not be unusual to find a person/family owning both. There is some crossover in abilities, but there is a clear distinction between them.So even accepting that the underlying chassis/suspension were very similar on both models. The Discovery used a separate body tub mounted on rubber isolating donuts. It's body was not modular or configurable like the Defenders.
NVH played a much bigger role for the Discovery. And indeed they are a refined, comfortable and quiet place to be. Especially if it was a V8. The interior space was also radically different, with much more room per person than a Defender. And a much more substantial interior.
The step from D2 to D3 was in my mind quite evolutionary. In regards to the purpose of the vehicle and its intended use. I admit, the D3 did push it up market a bit more, but that seems a trend across the board, not just with Land Rover. Fundamentally however, the D3 did exactly what the D2 did. Regardless of how it was constructed under the body.
With the Defender the step has been revolutionary. This new model is not designed to fulfil the brief of the past one, nor any variant of the Defender/Series line up since 1948. It is a radically different type of vehicle, aimed at being used for different kinds of things. So in light of your comment below. I just do not see how it shares the Defenders history. It just doesn't. It shares the 1970's Range Rover or the 1989 Discovery's history very well however.
The 'history' of the Land Rover (note the name, it was a Rover car model when introduced. The brand was not Land Rover, that was the model. A Rover for use on the land). The history of this particular model was as a multipurpose, utilitarian, configurable 4x4. The new model simply isn't this, again like the D1 it has some cross over in terms of abilities. But its design focus is clear. And it clearly is not that of its forebears or namesakes.
Aids0G said:
The new Defender is a 'Defender' because it shares a history with the previous model, will appeal to owners of the previous model (i.e me((in a few years when I have the £££)) and crucially its Landrover's discretion as to how they name their models as its their heritage, they are not as you said 'raping' the heritage, vehicle design moves forward this should be celebrated.
Just out of curiosity, would you swap/trade in your current Defender against a new one?jakeb said:
The problem with these is lack of rear seats v a double cab so not entirely useful for the business owner with a family or some friends who wants to save some tax.
You can mess around with these "temporary" seats etc and wait for the VAT inspection or just buy an Amarok/Navara/Ranger/X-Crap and fit 5 people in and a pallet in the boot and save a load of money.
Most farmers (who haven't got a double cab) are running "pool" cars these days, so they just buy the normal ones (almost new with a wadge of notes for maximum discount) and run it through the business on the basis that they don't drive to work.
It also means they can drive their DIscovery at 70mph on a dual carriageway (whilst travelling on farm business obviously) where as the commercial DIscovery/Defender can only do 60mph (or 50mph on an 60mph road) .
the problem with these is that you can't use them as a car (which they aren't) to fiddle the tax, are you fYou can mess around with these "temporary" seats etc and wait for the VAT inspection or just buy an Amarok/Navara/Ranger/X-Crap and fit 5 people in and a pallet in the boot and save a load of money.
Most farmers (who haven't got a double cab) are running "pool" cars these days, so they just buy the normal ones (almost new with a wadge of notes for maximum discount) and run it through the business on the basis that they don't drive to work.
It also means they can drive their DIscovery at 70mph on a dual carriageway (whilst travelling on farm business obviously) where as the commercial DIscovery/Defender can only do 60mph (or 50mph on an 60mph road) .
Edited by jakeb on Tuesday 30th June 06:24
king serious?300bhp/ton said:
With the Defender the step has been revolutionary. This new model is not designed to fulfil the brief of the past one, nor any variant of the Defender/Series line up since 1948. It is a radically different type of vehicle, aimed at being used for different kinds of things. So in light of your comment below. I just do not see how it shares the Defenders history. It just doesn't. It shares the 1970's Range Rover or the 1989 Discovery's history very well however.
The 'history' of the Land Rover (note the name, it was a Rover car model when introduced. The brand was not Land Rover, that was the model. A Rover for use on the land). The history of this particular model was as a multipurpose, utilitarian, configurable 4x4. The new model simply isn't this, again like the D1 it has some cross over in terms of abilities. But its design focus is clear. And it clearly is not that of its forebears or namesakes.
IMO - This is where your thinking goes off the rails...The 'history' of the Land Rover (note the name, it was a Rover car model when introduced. The brand was not Land Rover, that was the model. A Rover for use on the land). The history of this particular model was as a multipurpose, utilitarian, configurable 4x4. The new model simply isn't this, again like the D1 it has some cross over in terms of abilities. But its design focus is clear. And it clearly is not that of its forebears or namesakes.
You are applying YOUR interpretation of what you think it should be. It is not your brand, product, etc... It is JLRs. It's not up to you to decide what parts of the original design brief and what moments in history are important, that's for JLR and JLR alone to decide.
300bhp/ton said:
Just out of curiosity, would you swap/trade in your current Defender against a new one?
FWIW - I wouldn't swap/trade my 110 but that's only coz of its historical significance and the sentimental value I have with it. However, I would buy a new Defender to have as well as my old 110 and to use instead of it...M
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff