Defender for daily drive?

[vcm]

why not under warrenty? local main dealer was adament that driving instructions, as per handbook, (who still reads them?)were not followed. handbook states that if amber warning light comes on, you must proceed to drive at a fairly constant speed, 40/50+ i think, until light goes out. if not, re-generation will not happen, and light goes red. when red, limp mode cuts in, and no amount of normal driving cures it. so when you're in a stop/start situation,what do you do? amber to red happened within an hour of running, but this might be exceptional.i havn't got handbook to hand, so can't be precise on procedure at the moment. to be fair, i know the local dealer quite well, and purposely didn't give too many details on the phone about circumstances, as i wanted to explore all options first. if assist hadn't managed to sort it, i would have pushed the 'not fit for purpose' argument. but the dealer was adament about the probable outcome and the probable costs. obviously not a problem on the 2.4 or TD5.

[Davel]

I think that stinks!

It's unreasonable of them to expect you to do that in a normal driving scenario unless you're prehaps on a motorway.

Maybe it's just as well that mine's a 2.4 version without a dpf.

[abbotsmike]

vcm said:

why not under warrenty? local main dealer was adament that driving instructions, as per handbook, (who still reads them?)were not followed. handbook states that if amber warning light comes on, you must proceed to drive at a fairly constant speed, 40/50+ i think, until light goes out. if not, re-generation will not happen, and light goes red. when red, limp mode cuts in, and no amount of normal driving cures it. so when you're in a stop/start situation,what do you do? amber to red happened within an hour of running, but this might be exceptional.i havn't got handbook to hand, so can't be precise on procedure at the moment. to be fair, i know the local dealer quite well, and purposely didn't give too many details on the phone about circumstances, as i wanted to explore all options first. if assist hadn't managed to sort it, i would have pushed the 'not fit for purpose' argument. but the dealer was adament about the probable outcome and the probable costs. obviously not a problem on the 2.4 or TD5.

The amber to Red within an hour sounds bizarre, but it should say in the manual (not reading it isn't really a defence, the information was there) that a pattern of short commutes doesn't suit a car with a DPF fitted. It is partially the sales folks problem, as they are selling these cars.

[chappj]

Seriously considering replacing a 2005 D3 with a new 110 XS. We're happy with the utility ride etc, however safety is high up on the list of concerns.

So... How unsafe are modern day defenders? What mods do people recommend for using one daily? Is there any preference for the 2.4 vs 2.2 TDCi? (we aren't interested in tuning).

[Davel]

I wouldn't say that they are unsafe.

[anonymous-user]

chappj said:

So... How unsafe are modern day defenders?

It's not what you drive, it's how you drive it.
But since you ask, consider adding a roll bar as the upper body on a Defender is largely weatherproofing for the driver although you have to being driving it like a complete tit to turn one over on normal roads.
And whilst they may not be laden with as many airbags as an Audi, German saloons don't have RSJs for bumpers.
You can't just get in a Defender and point it at your destination, you really have to drive the thing, which in my book will make you more focused, anticipating of dullards in Audis, defensive and aware of what's going on around you.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 7th January 12:18

[Davel]

^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^

This!

[300bhp/ton]

chappj said:

Seriously considering replacing a 2005 D3 with a new 110 XS. We're happy with the utility ride etc, however safety is high up on the list of concerns.

So... How unsafe are modern day defenders? What mods do people recommend for using one daily? Is there any preference for the 2.4 vs 2.2 TDCi? (we aren't interested in tuning).

There really isn't much between a 2.4 and a 2.2 as far as I know. Neither are tuned high in standard trim, so you don't really lose anything by going 2.2

As for how safe. Well it depends, in a minor crash they are still a tank and not a bad place to be. In something more major then it's probably more pot luck.

This is a few years old, but probably still has some relevance, but according the DfT (Department for Transport) a Defender is statistically the safest car on UK roads.

Of course this depends on the type of accident and how you drive. But I think the stat still has meaning in the same way flying is statistically the safest form of travel, despite the fact should something go wrong your chances then become quite low.

The last Defenders in the US were fitted with an external rollcage to meet roll over protection regs. If you are concerned then something like this would make sense on a new one today. Go for external not internal though, becuase unless you have bucket seats and 5 point harnesses an internal cage just becomes another thing to hit inside during an accident.


If you are wanting something more modern but of similar ilk, seriously take a look at and consider a lwb Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. They are about the same size as a 110 but meet all current world and US safety standards were the Defender does not. The Jeep is also faster, more powerful, better on fuel, better specced, better options list and costs less to buy, yet has quite similar residuals to the Defender.

[chappj]

Really useful info, especially the suggestions regarding fitting an external cage which doesn't seem to detract too much from the iconic shape. Unfortunately I'm on a buy British campaign so the wrangler is out of the question.

If there is no real difference between the 2.2 & 2.4, I'll likely go for a 1 - 2 yr old low mileage XS that has had already taken a bit of a hit on residual.

[billywhizzzzzz]

chappj said:

Seriously considering replacing a 2005 D3 with a new 110 XS. We're happy with the utility ride etc, however safety is high up on the list of concerns.

So... How unsafe are modern day defenders? .

Zero side impact protection. No crumple zones. Handling not fantastic. lots to hit your head on. No airbags...

[Davel]

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

But apart from that, anything on the road that hits you will probably come off worse.

[uk_vette]

billywhizzzzzz said:

chappj said:

Seriously considering replacing a 2005 D3 with a new 110 XS. We're happy with the utility ride etc, however safety is high up on the list of concerns.

So... How unsafe are modern day defenders? .

Zero side impact protection. No crumple zones. Handling not fantastic. lots to hit your head on. No airbags...

.
They provide a feeling of safety, yet in real life situations, they offer very little protection.
If the Defender is going to hit, or be hit with any thing of similar size and weight, then the Defender occupants are in for a shocking blow.

Above the poster suggested a Wrangler, I know which one I would like to be in, in the event of a side-on, head-on, or shunt.
And it's not the L.R.

Same can be said for the Land Cruiser, Rather be in an the Toyota for all the same reasons I mentioned above.
Again, I pick to have my smash in the Land Cruiser, not the Defender.

Both of them, and there are many others also, are just way above "Defender" safety standards.
Who on earth still has side ways facing seats,!!!! nobody except L.R.

.
.

Probably the best reason to be in the Toyota, is the fact, you know you will get home (I will get my coat,,,,,,,,)

vette

Edited by uk_vette on Wednesday 16th January 12:31

[vpr]

I'm not sure that LR still have sideways seats???

[Davel]

Not anymore in the 90 anyway.

[BLUETHUNDER]

billywhizzzzzz said:

Zero side impact protection. No crumple zones. Handling not fantastic. lots to hit your head on. No airbags...

How did we ever get by before all this was incorporated in vehicles!!

[anonymous-user]

billywhizzzzzz said:

chappj said:

Seriously considering replacing a 2005 D3 with a new 110 XS. We're happy with the utility ride etc, however safety is high up on the list of concerns.

So... How unsafe are modern day defenders? .

Zero side impact protection. No crumple zones. Handling not fantastic. lots to hit your head on. No airbags...

Bolleaux.
A Defender's protection is provided by its sheer presence, size and weight. Not many "cars" use the chassis cross members as the point of impact for other vehicles.
Lots to hit your head on? Are you one of those people who go everywhere texting as you go or something?

[uk_vette]

I've never seen any info on Defender crash testing. I presume it has been done, but so many years ago.?
I guess the results just too terrible to show?,

Also is the fact it has not been crash tested, because of the rules of crash testing it only has to be tested again if a cars bulk head is changed in size, ie 90/110 bulkhead is a series one? same bulk head size.
Land Rover are still running the Defenders on the series 1 crash test.
This is why they don't really want to change the defender and why it it will have to be a totally different truck.

Even in a relatively modest roll you usually end up with one side (the side it lands on first) crunched down by 18 inches or so. You really, really don't want to roll one

vette

[anonymous-user]

uk_vette said:

I've never seen any info on Defender crash testing. I presume it has been done, but so many years ago.?
I guess the results just too terrible to show?,

Also is the fact it has not been crash tested, because of the rules of crash testing it only has to be tested again if a cars bulk head is changed in size, ie 90/110 bulkhead is a series one? same bulk head size.
Land Rover are still running the Defenders on the series 1 crash test.
This is why they don't really want to change the defender and why it it will have to be a totally different truck.

Where do you get your info from?
A Defender has a Series 1 bulkhead? Really? Really really?

[The Wookie]

uk_vette said:

Even in a relatively modest roll you usually end up with one side (the side it lands on first) crunched down by 18 inches or so. You really, really don't want to roll one

vette

To be fair looking at some of the shots on the internet they're no better or worse than a lot of cars you'd expect to be stronger. Also strangely enough I can't find a shot of a 90 that's been rolled on the road, they all seem to be 110's

I once saw a Disco 2 that had flipped on the M25, anecdotally I certainly wouldn't rate it's roll over protection as dramatically better than a Defender.

[abbotsmike]

uk_vette said:

I've never seen any info on Defender crash testing. I presume it has been done, but so many years ago.?
I guess the results just too terrible to show?,

Also is the fact it has not been crash tested, because of the rules of crash testing it only has to be tested again if a cars bulk head is changed in size, ie 90/110 bulkhead is a series one? same bulk head size.
Land Rover are still running the Defenders on the series 1 crash test.
This is why they don't really want to change the defender and why it it will have to be a totally different truck.

Even in a relatively modest roll you usually end up with one side (the side it lands on first) crunched down by 18 inches or so. You really, really don't want to roll one

vette

Erm, is this stuff you know or just a copy paste of what someone else has said?

http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=2292

Found when searching "land rover defender crash test"...