New Defender in the Wild

[Osinjak]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

Osinjak said:

With my pedantic hat on the Army didn't buy the Defender either but a variant of it called the Wolf. Spent many an hour trying to sleep in the back of one.

Pretty sure they had both. IIRC The wolf was 300tdi and 24v. I'm fairly sure they bought and used some standard td5s as well.

Aye, they did but not in bulk like the Wolf which was predominantly used as TUL/TUM. There are quite a few variants on the Defender platform in the military, be interesting to list them all.

[yellowjack]

Osinjak said:

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

Osinjak said:

With my pedantic hat on the Army didn't buy the Defender either but a variant of it called the Wolf. Spent many an hour trying to sleep in the back of one.

Pretty sure they had both. IIRC The wolf was 300tdi and 24v. I'm fairly sure they bought and used some standard td5s as well.

Aye, they did but not in bulk like the Wolf which was predominantly used as TUL/TUM. There are quite a few variants on the Defender platform in the military, be interesting to list them all.

Defender was in use long before Wolf. Wolf was an improved version, and meant to simplify the logistics support system. It had a 24 volt electrical system instead of Defender's 12 volt system, and a different engine. It is visually different mainly in that Wolf has the spare wheel side-mounted, as it was too heavy to safely be stowed on the bonnet (where Defender mainly carried it's spare) or the back door. Lots of other differences, chassis, jerrycan stowage, etc. The plan was to then ditch the 12 volt land Rover fleet, meaning light bulbs, fuses, etc in the stores system could be slimmed down to 24 volt only, matching trucks and armour. In practice many second and third line units, and especially training units, had to keep their Defenders running alongside the Wolf fleet.

When Wolf was introduced, it was considered to be sufficiently different to Defender, especially in terms of performance, that Regimental MT Officers required users to have undertaken "familiarisation training" on the type, and it was entered onto the FMT600 (MOD driving permit) as a separate vehicle type to Defender. So, even though you can legally drive one on a car licence, the army said you had to have extra training to drive one on their behalf. I seem to recall a number of occasions where "watch this!" moments went wrong in the early days of Wolf getting to units. There were lots of RTAs, including some fatalities, which drew attention to the need for type-specific training. It was also one way the MT guys kept the better, newer Wolf to themselves - they simply "hogged" all the familiarisation training, so that they could fob you off with a knackered Defender 110 when you wanted a self-drive Land Rover, as you wouldn't have "TUM/TUL (HS)" on your FMT600. My job back then was Squadron draughtsman/librarian in HQ, working for the OC direct in barracks, and on exercise/ops I was his CV driver (FV436). At his insistence I was one of the first to get familiarised onto Wolf outside of the 'Driver' trades, because the OC obviously didn't want to be driven around in a knackered 12v Defender when there were shiny new Wolf variants sitting idle outside the MT section...

Edited by yellowjack on Wednesday 4th March 11:40

[anonymous-user]

unrepentant said:

XIII said:

100SRV said:

Friend of mine said that Land-Rover should have used a model name other than Defender.

That doesnt make sense...at all.

It supposed to look like the old one, so why wouldnt it be called it?

The last separate , standalone name Land Rover did was the Freelander so it was hardly going to be called something new.

Apart from Evoque, which has sold close to 1,000,000 units now...…

Defender is absolutely the right name for this car. It's the third pillar of the brand and a name that harks back to the origins of it all while looking forward.

No, the Evoque is a Range Rover, that's not a separate standalone name, is it?

There's only been the Freelandr which has had its own line.

There's just been variations of Discovery, Range Rover and the original LR/Defender.

[unrepentant]

XIII said:

unrepentant said:

XIII said:

100SRV said:

Friend of mine said that Land-Rover should have used a model name other than Defender.

That doesnt make sense...at all.

It supposed to look like the old one, so why wouldnt it be called it?

The last separate , standalone name Land Rover did was the Freelander so it was hardly going to be called something new.

Apart from Evoque, which has sold close to 1,000,000 units now...…

Defender is absolutely the right name for this car. It's the third pillar of the brand and a name that harks back to the origins of it all while looking forward.

No, the Evoque is a Range Rover, that's not a separate standalone name, is it?

There's only been the Freelandr which has had its own line.

There's just been variations of Discovery, Range Rover and the original LR/Defender.

Ah, OK I see what you mean. Fair point, Evoque is very much a Range Rover.

[anonymous-user]

unrepentant said:

Ah, OK I see what you mean. Fair point, Evoque is very much a Range Rover.

Yeah, right. Styling advice from Victoria Beckham wasn’t it?
CSK would love that.

[camel_landy]

Crossflow Kid said:

Yeah, right. Styling advice from Victoria Beckham wasn’t it?

<YAWN>

Think of it more as 'product placement'.

M

[Rudolph Hart]

unrepentant said:

Good vid here from one of the other guys who was at the Palm Springs launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-hxWVrsLg

There’s a perfect demonstration at 5.14 in the video of the shortcomings of independent front suspension in a supposedly‘ ‘off road’ capable vehicle. The Jeep Wrangler need fear no competition from this.

[Osinjak]

Rudolph Hart said:

unrepentant said:

Good vid here from one of the other guys who was at the Palm Springs launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-hxWVrsLg

There’s a perfect demonstration at 5.14 in the video of the shortcomings of independent front suspension in a supposedly‘ ‘off road’ capable vehicle. The Jeep Wrangler need fear no competition from this.

[camel_landy]

Rudolph Hart said:

unrepentant said:

Good vid here from one of the other guys who was at the Palm Springs launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-hxWVrsLg

There’s a perfect demonstration at 5.14 in the video of the shortcomings of independent front suspension in a supposedly‘ ‘off road’ capable vehicle. The Jeep Wrangler need fear no competition from this.

<YAWN>

M

[Cold]

Osinjak said:

Rudolph Hart said:

unrepentant said:

Good vid here from one of the other guys who was at the Palm Springs launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-hxWVrsLg

There’s a perfect demonstration at 5.14 in the video of the shortcomings of independent front suspension in a supposedly‘ ‘off road’ capable vehicle. The Jeep Wrangler need fear no competition from this.

All I see there is the car being deliberately placed so it could be pivoted between two diagonally opposed wheels, after which it drove off with no drama or fuss. Not sure it shows anything other than that.

[Osinjak]

camel_landy said:

<YAWN>

M

Priceless, isn't it? The car is so self-evidently off road that it seems churlish to even mention it and yet Captain Adenoids decides to deride its off road capability through the medium of air quotation marks despite the evidence sitting squarely in front of his disgusted face. As for the Jeep Wrangler nonsense, I wonder what car he drives. No don't tell me...

[unrepentant]

Cold said:

Osinjak said:

Rudolph Hart said:

unrepentant said:

Good vid here from one of the other guys who was at the Palm Springs launch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf-hxWVrsLg

There’s a perfect demonstration at 5.14 in the video of the shortcomings of independent front suspension in a supposedly‘ ‘off road’ capable vehicle. The Jeep Wrangler need fear no competition from this.

All I see there is the car being deliberately placed so it could be pivoted between two diagonally opposed wheels, after which it drove off with no drama or fuss. Not sure it shows anything other than that.

That's exactly what it is.

This is the most capable Land Rover ever. And the people who really matter, the buyers, are voting with their cheque books. I sometimes wonder what motivates some of the posters on here. They obviously have an axe to grind but why? This is a great product from a great British company. You would think that British car enthusiasts would be proud, I know I am.

[Throttle Body]

I must say that I would buy a new Defender if it was right for my general usage. It looks great to my eyes.

[Rudolph Hart]

Cold said:

All I see there is the car being deliberately placed so it could be pivoted between two diagonally opposed wheels, after which it drove off with no drama or fuss. Not sure it shows anything other than that.

What it demonstrates is the limited articulation that you get from IFS.

[Cold]

Rudolph Hart said:

What it demonstrates is the limited articulation that you get from IFS.

So, and indeed, what?

[Rudolph Hart]

Cold said:

So, and indeed, what?

I’m not going. to explain the basics of 4 wheel drive systems to you.

[skwdenyer]

Cold said:

Rudolph Hart said:

What it demonstrates is the limited articulation that you get from IFS.

So, and indeed, what?

There are a variety of competing theories about what is best.

Limited articulation in an analogue world was a real problem, mitigation available only from mechanical diff locks.

Digital controls add a huge new dimension. Many have suggested they can make a more stiffly-suspended perform at least as well as a more flexible analogue system.

Perhaps watching the inimitable Andrew St Pierre White on Baboons Pass in a Discovery 4 might provide some insight: https://youtu.be/JIlQtB4tbNQ

It is true that the new Defender may not so readily be converted into a serious rock crawler as the old one was, but will that hurt sales? Or will the new one in fact be a better all-round tool?

Frankly I’d like a new one to compliment my 1987 V8 110, and perhaps a Grenadier down the line if that proves to be at all handy. As ever YMMV.

[Osinjak]

Quick, somebody call Land Rover! There's a random punter on the internet who knows everything about four wheel drive but isn't going to tell, no siree. Imagine the chaos in LR HQ, papers flying everywhere, phones constantly ringing, secretaries crying and Gerry McGovern on his knees wailing at the heavens.

Or not.

[Rudolph Hart]

Osinjak said:

Quick, somebody call Land Rover! There's a random punter on the internet who knows everything about four wheel drive but isn't going to tell, no siree. Imagine the chaos in LR HQ, papers flying everywhere, phones constantly ringing, secretaries crying and Gerry McGovern on his knees wailing at the heavens.

Or not.

Well frankly it’s boring and insulting to most people here to have to explain such basic things.

[Rudolph Hart]

Osinjak said:

Quick, somebody call Land Rover! There's a random punter on the internet who knows everything about four wheel drive but isn't going to tell, no siree. Imagine the chaos in LR HQ, papers flying everywhere, phones constantly ringing, secretaries crying and Gerry McGovern on his knees wailing at the heavens.

Or not.

Well frankly it’s boring and insulting to most people here to have to explain such basic things.