Chicken Drumstick

I guess the other option is don’t lift it. I assume you are doing it for looks. As a stock height Defender is capable of quite extreme off road use.

Good luck with your setup. Keep us posted. Although I suspect 280hp is optimistic. Especially if you want it for road use. Swapping in a 3.0 litre TDV6 would probably be a better bet and possibly cheaper overall too. However if big power is your thing. Check out a Chevy LS1. The 5.7 starts at about 350hp stock and will give about a 100hp more with some mods. They also take to boost well with plenty running 700-900hp reliably in road going vehicles.

I don’t know what you are racing. Nor your setup. If you are winning then props to you for driver skill and a successful setup That all said. There are plenty of twin carb 3.5 RV8’s still about. Not sure beating these really counts. Not saying it is these you are beating. But racing is largely down to driver skill, especially off road. A 4.6 RV8 is good for a fairly easy 280hp n/a. Add some boost and 300-350hp+ is no problem. A 200’ish hp Td5 isn’t going to stick with that power level in equal cars and drivers otherwise.

V8 is probably the way to go if you want speed and power. Tuned diesels are fun (I have one). But a good 4.6 RV8 will walk all over the tuned 4 and 5 pot diesels.

While I don't disagree, I guess it's also a matter of traffic. Is there really enough posters to be worth separating the content out? Or the flip side, what are the issues with grouping them together? And I suppose the same distinction is going to be true for all the model line ups. How similar is a Series 1 80" compared to a Stage 1 or a Series 2b? Or an RRC and an L405 or Velar.

The 4 and 6 year old, are according to the info from the DfT perfectly legal in a side facing seat with no belt and no child seat. I'm not saying it's what you should do or not. Although it is something that was/is done for decades and mostly without issue. 70mph on the motorway at peaks times maybe not such a wise decision. But if it's more local use and 30mph roads, then a risk based approach would say it's fairly low risk. And would at least provide a stop gap solution.

How old are the children? As long as you don't have belts fitted to the side facing seats, most children can legally use them. Might be an option. Here is a reply I got from the Department for Transport: Thank you for your enquiry about your Landrover. For adults in the front and rear, seat belts must be used if available. For children:- in the front: all those up to 135cms in height (or 12 years or over, whichever comes first) must use the correct child seat/booster for their weight with no exceptions. If over 135cm or 12 years and above, they are treated for the purposes of this legislation as adults; in the rear: where seat belts are fitted, than the same rules as for front seats apply but there are a few exceptions. One of those says that if belts are not fitted in the rear, then those 3 years and above may travel unrestrained. However, those under 3 years cannot travel – they must always use the correct baby/child seat for their weight in the front or rear. Beware of sideways facing seats: there is no legal requirement for seat belts to be fitted in sideways facing seats – in an impact, anyone using a belt in a sideways facing seat is at increased risk of serious injury. But if seat belts are installed then they must be used by adults. Please note especially that where seat belts are fitted, children who are legally required to use baby/child seats/boosters cannot travel in sideways facing seats because baby/child seats/boosters legally cannot be used in sideways facing seats. This does not mean that children may use an adult belt instead in these seats – it means that they cannot travel at all in sideways facing seats where belts are fitted. That may have an effect on carrying capacity. If extra seat belts are installed in the rear in order to carry children, they should be installed on forward or rearward facing seats – baby/child seats/boosters can be used in forward and rearward facing seats. Nothing in seat belt wearing legislation prevents the carrying of adults in seats that do not have seat belts installed – even if other seats in the rear have belts fitted. It goes without saying however those seats with seat belts should be used first. Remember that the police can take action if, in the judgement of an officer, passengers are being carried where “the manner in which they are carried is such that the use of the motor vehicle or trailer involves a danger of injury to any person”. The penalties for this offence are notably higher than for a seat belt wearing offence. If you are likely to carry passengers without seat belts, you might consult your insurer about their attitude should there be a claim. And bear in mind that if there is an impact, the body of anyone unrestrained is likely to be a considerable risk to those seated in the front or elsewhere in the rear. I hope this clarifies the position.

I’m not saying they aren’t impressive in their own right. But there are some issues. 1. Many of the vehciles in the vid looked very battered and battle damaged. Hardly a sign of being the best off road if they have to take damage to make progress. 2. One vehicle looked modified. The one featured the most. So not really apples to apples. 3. Quite a bit of footage appeared to still be on road. And the technical off road bits they mostly looked like they were struggling a lot more. Sure they are small and nimble, which off road can count for a lot. But those weren’t the points you were making. 4. You cited the Panda as being good off road because the current D4 and such Land Rovers are independent suspension. Yet the Panda isn’t with a lot of its ability coming from it live rear axle. 5. You also cited that articulation wasn’t important and the Panda was better than a Defender off road, ie due to not flexing. Yet the live rear axle on the Panda actually gives it pretty good articulation. And thus enhances its off road ability. Now don’t get me wrong. The Panda is actually pretty cool. But it’s off road ability is due to its size and sufficient ground clearance for its wheelbase and largely down to its live rear axle.

So what you are saying is they are very good at ON roading then. You claimed axle articulation is not needed and the Panda is better off road. Driving an unpaved road is not off roading How would the Panda fair in locations like this:

I don't think you are actually referencing off road here.... A Panda would be useless in proper technical off road situations.

Doesn't this depend on if the rim is hubcentric or nutcentric? A Defender steel rim centres and sits on the studs. In fact some aftermarket rims the centre bore is large enough to not even touch the hub. Alloys rims are different, they sit and locate on the centre of the hub and the studs/nuts simply hold it in place.

As others have said. Box is a Santana LT85. The Lt77 wasn’t used on these. Btw you don’t have a Defender. You have a Ninety it should have a 4 pin rear diff if nobody has swaped the axle out.

Trouble is other makers modern vehicles aren’t awful. I have my name down for interest in a new Jimny and have signed up for the new Wrangler mailing list. I probably can’t afford a new Wrangler in the U.K. (USA they are pitched cheaper). But the Jimny is a real contender and likely to end up as a daily driver. And if we got things like the F150, Ram or even the Chevy ZR2 over here I’d also be interested. I do rather like the Ford Ranger, but they just don’t quite offer what the US market trucks do.

2min 12sec is a bit butt clenching! I guess the flip side is a Disco2 or Td5 onwards Defender would make very light work of the same obstacle.

Or in the bin Unless you are on a construction site. Do you really need such a thing on a normal road car?

Here is a good example of what I’m meaning. 1min 44sec in. In less experienced or somewhat more reckless hands I reckon that would have gone all the way over.

I think I was pretty fair and said the Freelander is good on certain terrain and cited a few examples. But up the ante and introduce more technical off road situations and they are out of their depth unless you have a completely reckless driving style and care little for vehicle or people around you.

Because I've driven Freelanders off road, maybe they just feel less stable than they are. But I'm not convinced. Lifting wheels high in the air, then suddenly flopping over hard onto the opposite wheel has to be recipe for a rollover at some point. It certainly doesn't feel very stable. I don't have a pic of a Freelander on an RTI ramp, but here is an IFS/IRS vehicle with more wheel travel than a Freelander. Note how high the wheel is in the air. A sudden weight shift in the vehicle or going up the ramp a few inches too far will result in the wheel plummeting to the ground at high speed. And may result in a rollover (I think it did with the Hummer if you look at the pics on Google). And would be very unnerving if you where on the side of a hill while doing this. While you can still obviously roll a live axle vehicle, it is usually more progressive and as a rule the wheels stay nearer the ground for longer, so when the weight shifts, they don't "land" as hard. This is one of a number of Freelanders I've driven off road. Even driving into a fairly shallow hole resulted in it dramatically lifting the rear wheel off the deck. Hitting the hole at speed or a slightly deeper hole could quite easily cause a roll over IMO. A Defender/Series/D1/D2/RR/p38 won't even lift a wheel on the same spot and again feel a lot more stable. I know how an autobox works, but if what you say is completely true, why do LR still fit low range to their vehicles, the RR has been auto only since the L322 and the Disco since the D4. Surely they and all other automatic 4x4's are doing it wrong by still offering low range on their models. And I doubt either of us are qualified to answer the last statement. However observationally the off road industry is HUGE with 1000's of aftermarket parts companies making off road goodies for new and almost new vehicles. So somebody must be buying them. YouTube sand similar are also littered with videos of people using their 4x4's recreationally.

I see no contradiction at all. Ride height or ground clearance doesn't have to be directly related to CoG or how likely a car can flip over. Lack of stability by picking up wheels high in the air is hardly a sign of stability however and getting beached is a pretty good indication of lack of ground clearance. TCS is wonderful, however it doesn't negate the need or ability for articulation. TCS heats and wears the brakes, so can only be used for short periods of time and periodically. Hence why all LR Experience vehicles (D3 size onwards) are always equipped with the rear locker. An automatic gearbox is no substitute for lack of low range. You simply don't have the wheel torque or low speed control. The only thing you have is you don't slip the clutch to buggery to go slow and maintain drive. But not being able to slip the clutch means you have even less wheel torque when required, even accepting the stall characteristics of a torque converter. As for picking a different line...... that is hardly the point. Sometimes there simply isn't another line to take. And quite often off roading is recreational. So driving the over the obstacles, rather than around them is the entire point.

It doesn't need clever engineering to meet safety reqs though. Almost all the big car makers build body on frame trucks and use at least one live axle. The best selling vehicle in the USA is one. Ford F150-650 Ford Ranger Toyota Tacoma, HiLux Dodge Ram Chevy/GM Silverado VW Amorak Nissan Nivara Mitsubishi L200 Suzuki Jimny Jeep Wrangler to name but a few

I like Freelanders, but their ability is very dictated to the terrain. On something slippery like snow, sand or wet grass the TCS allows them to be quite effective. Arguably more so than an open diffed non TCS Defender. But there is an Everest between their off road abilities once you go a little further off road or include any technical off road sections. The lack of ride height, articulation and poor approach, departure and breakover angles make them significantly less capable. The lack of low range also compounds this. The result of this is, they are forever lifting wheels and feel very unstable. And I daresay far easier to roll over. They get beached easily and end up stuffing their bumpers into the ground, which usually stops them and/or lifts the wheels off the ground. And without low range, you can't crawl over obstacles either. So due to the gearing and general lack of ability you have to attack obstacles at much higher speed to have enough momentum to get through them. This however is potentially damaging to the underside of the vehicle, uncomfortable to be in and has much higher risk of something going wrong and should something go wrong, the higher speeds mean the result of going wrong is likely to be more dangerous and/or damaging. As for the new Defender. I think LR have demonstrated that highly complex, expensive cross linked air based IFS/IRS systems can produce quite capable off road machines. Although ultimately probably less capable still than a live axle, as they still lack the stability and travel and wheel camber angles can become less desirable under certain conditions. The sticking point for me is the cost and complexity. I don't want a Defender with expensive, fragile complex cross linked air suspension with a raft of sensors and control units. And if they ditch the cross linked air and go for coil suspension, it really won't be as good off road, for the simple fact the wheels are no longer directly connected. Just watch any videos of 3rd Gen Mitsubishi Shoguns (Pojeros) to get a feel for the capability. They aren't bad, but will generally get stopped where a stock D2 will walk up.

Tough one to call. BAE owned Rover before and set stupid expectations. The company mostly met them, but all the profit was sucked up by the parent company. So you need to look beyond just the base profit and loss figures. At the end of the day Rover sold a lot of cars. And they sold them for more than it cost to build them. So money was being made.... somewhere. Even if the accounts don’t show this in simple black & white format.

I'm not saying you can't have parts interchangeability. It's just the claim of can't build anything unless it shares the platform is a bit of a farce... it's not as if it's just swapping body tubs on pair of chassis rails that you can alter the length of. It's just a cop out excuse that's easy to parade for not doing something else.

In theory yes, reality is most makers usually change bits. A disco2 might share the same engine and gearbox with Defender, but the rest of the drivetrain and suspension is different for instance. Props will be different on an RRS to a D3 due to wheelbase differences.

I'm not sure I believe the platform sharing guff tbh. Lets face it, even shared platforms end up with significant changes and once you have the tooling the actual cost of bending one bit of metal into one shape and another bit of metal into a different shape for another vehicle is likely to be identical. Look at all of the other car makers the world over, any of them that offer a proper 4x4 or utility vehicle do so on a platform that isn't shared with their other range. Even VW built a purpose designed platform for their pickup rather than base it on a Golf platform or a chopped down Touareg. All the other car makers make money and profit, so I don't see why JLR can't do the same.