Chicken Drumstick

As said, you will get more lock than the alloys. But if you add spacers (only need them at the front). You'll notice a lot more improvement, it will look stock. And is unlikely to cause any real world issues.

Yes they could. The alloys are quite fat and sit quite inboard, so will hit the radius arms quite readily with the tyre if you adjust the steering stops. The Wolf rims should help give you a bit more clearance. As they move the centre line of the rim in relation to the outer edges. Although a narrower tyre would give a more pronounced affect. A 255/85 is right on the limit of the recommended size for a 6.5 rim, but should work. I'd suggest adding a 1" spacer on the front would help a lot. I am running One Ton rims like this on my 88 currently. Albeit with smaller tyres.

You're in CA but using KM's? Is that US gallons or Imperial for the mpg? How are you actually working this out? Either way it seems low. Have you checked for fuel leaks?

The traditional 90 is a pretty good example of what a modern ladder chassis live axle vehicle is capable of. Let's not forget 4 wheel traction control was offered in 1998. That is 22 years ago for those that didn't get the memo. The 90/110 has always had good wheel travel for a stock vehicle. So they are extremely capable with open diffs. TCS enhances them to be extremely capable in stock form. And lets not forget that for moderate money there are lots and lots of LSD or full locker options available too. As for modern comparisons. The Jeep JK and JL Wranglers. Comparable wheel travel stock for stock. Traction control standard, rear LSD optional MOPAR dealer fit on base models and Rubicon comes standard with front/rear lockers.

That is more an example of wheelbase, not suspension..... I do recall your top photo. I don't think I agreed with whatever it was you were saying then either. Not sure why you have singled out 'Puma' either. The suspension is still the same as on other 90's. And not all Puma's have anti-roll bars factory fitted either. Also how do we know how high the wheels went in the air on the D4? The photo is only a snap in time... not saying they went higher. But a photo of this nature doesn't really prove much unless you are trying to misguide people into a false fact about something or other.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn LR won't allow the new model to be compared to the old one off road.

I agree. Average Jo Public probably hasn't got a clue. For example, this image: It's kind of cool. But as an off road enthusiast, it really shows up the limitation of the design. I know fully well that something like a Subaru Forrester could drive that very same section of terrain and would lift a wheel just as much. And it just makes the vehicle look unstable and far inferior to a live axle 4x4 in terms of stability and flex. To many though, they will think WOW isn't this superb....

There is no way of getting around a failing or faulty sensor. Which in my experience is the most common problem and the actual physical hardware is nearly always alright. You could have 2nd sensors to compare too, but increases the cost and complexity. As would diagnostics equipment on the actual sensors. As for control items, I agree. What vehicle use a touch screen to turn the lights on though? That's a new one on me.Volume control is often found on the steering wheel these days too, so that is your physical control button.

Any diagnostics will only report logged problems. To report anything else would require additional sensors and then some sort of logical control analysis on top to make educated guess on the route of the cause. I can't see this happening. OBD2 has generic codes, but also manufacturer ones, so they can report on other items. You fully understand these codes you often need a factory spec diagnostic system. As a generical reader won't know what the code means. I would imagine this is more what they are alluding too. Have the factory diagnostics reader built into the vehicle and user accessible from a touch screen.

In this day and age you can't really not have a touchscreen. Even if it is to plug your phone in and use Apple CarPlay or Android Auto. I want utility, but modern practicality does need to keep up with the times too. It is frivolous additional features it doesn't need. As for on board diagnostics. Well OBDII (On Board Diagnostics 2) has been a mandatory industry standard for decades, and allows anyone with an OBD2 reader to pull and read certain codes and clear them. All ECU's offer up a lot of data by default. I have a £5 bluetooth OBDII reader that will plug into any car made in the past 20+ years. A free app on Android called Torque (Lite) will let you see and clear standard codes, as well as see realtime data such as engine rpm, water temp, if the handbrake is on and loads of other things. Basically all this stuff will be there (and is there in every modern car) already. If they provide a way to view it without buying extra bits, then tbh, it is a very good idea.

Quite interesting. It makes me think of another article I read recently about the Jimny: https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Life/The-Suzuki-Jimny-a-tiny-SUV-with-a-big-cult-following Somewhat different philosophy from Hiroyuki Yonezawa, the Chief Engineer for the Jimny.

Why mention handling? Handling is about feel. Live axles and independent suspension will always feel different —— because they are different. And why does it need to be 100% new. Apart from the manufacturing process (welding as opposed to hydro forming) the Defender chassis is 100% fine. As would a Disco 2 or p38 chassis be. It also probably would take very little to adapt the D4 platform as it has a separate chassis to accept live axles.

I don’t get your point. I’ve seen lots and lots of very positive reviews for the Jimny. Which under the body is very similar to the 3rd Gen model launched 20 years ago. And neither are all that different from a traditional Defender. What exactly are you thinking is so difficult or impossible?????

You can’t be serious can you. Expertise in making live axles work. Wtf do you think Land Rover has been doing for decades. It isn’t exactly a black art or secrete formula either. Just basic engineering with a 100 years worth of history. Next you’ll be claiming they don’t know how to use round wheels either.... 😂

Spring compressors. Depends how long your spring is. Jacking the chassis up and letting the hub drop (with arb detached office present) may give enough room. Or get someone to stand on the hub too.

Personally. You’d be better off buying a 90. You are loosing pretty much everything that makes it a Series. Which begs the question that the only reason you are doing it this way is for MoT/Road Tax exemption? Tdi in a Series is loud and refined. Have done it once and I loved the vehicle. But I’d go V8 next time. Unless you are doing 12,000 miles a year every year. The fuel difference is unlikely to be an issue. Especially when factoring the costs of the work you are planning on.

Not sure what you mean. By and large the USA regs are stricter than EU ones. And LR and Jag have always sold slightly different versions for the EU and N American markets. Usually bumpers and lights related.

Can’t say vids of an average to poor performing off road vehicle on a mild off road section really sells the vehicle to me. ok it got through. But so would a Dacia Duster or Freelander 1. Such a shame it doesn’t have the native off road ability of a proper 4x4.

That is still kinda my point. So little is actually shared between the vehicles. That I simply don’t believe it is a valid reason for LR not being able to produce an actual successor to the Defender. at the end of day, how much of a platform do you really need to retain to claim it is still the same platform? How is anything ever completely new, when every platform ever will use designs, principles and ideas from past and current ones.

It isn’t whatever I think. They just aren’t the SAME. As in they maybe have different pressings, different panels, different sizes. And use different parts. In most other languages you’d be saying they are different. If you are adamant you don’t want to believe me. Try fitting a Freelander 1 bonnet or door to a Rover 200 and see how you get on. Or a rear hub from the Rover to the Freelander.

They might have started out as the same platform. The end results however make them almost completely different. And only really sharing some parts. For example the live axle s197 Mustang (2005) and IRS Jaguar S-Type also share a platform. But the only actual similarities are very small indeed as there was massive divergence.

I think these things go in circles tbh. And not just the car industry. Harmonising and using common parts sounds great in principle or on a balance sheet. But the reality is, sometimes stuff needs to be different and it becomes too much of a compromise. Also you then end up with different versions of a universal platform, because the requirements are different for different vehicles. This you may end up with one platform, but in really just as many bespoke variants that you would have been better off designing from scratch instead and avoid the compromises you had to build in. Look back at some of the BMC/BL cars as an example. The straight 6 used in the Rover 2000/SD1 could have been brilliant. But was blighted by being forced to used common stud patterns and parts with other engines. And ultimately ended up too compromised. In reality you can only standardise so far. And the only constant is ... change! I see it all the time in the software world too.

The new one is capable of high speed cruising just fine. Although I’d say it is better at 60-65mph than 70. The latter is higher in the revs and more wind noise. On a private section of road I’ve seen 90mph on the speedo however and it was still accelerating, albeit slowly by that point. It’s quite rapid up to around 75/80mph though. I also wouldn’t say it feels any more vulnerable than any other small car, eg Pug 106/MGF/MX-5/Smart Fortwo.