deep

What do you think they should have done differently? I am curious, especially as you have pursued your assertion that the design was too restrained. Also a bit confused, as the Jimny, GWagon and Range Rover classic you refer to are right in the same mould as the Grenadier, in terms of styling.

I almost couldn't agree with you less! Apart from " It appears to be rooted in teddy being thrown out the pram when they were told they (wouldn't) continue manufacturing the defender." Well, duh, there's never been a secret that that is the motivation. I'm sure they gave the body design a huge amount of thought. You can either go for lots of curves, curved glass, high-speed aerodynamics etc. or you can choose, like they did (and Mitsubishi, Austin, Jeep, Toymota, Datsun/Nissan, Mercedes and a host of others when they built practical off-roaders) to have a shape which is more functional at lower speed in tough conditions. That Grenadier body has clever folds to keep the flat-looking panels strong and light, big, flat glass for good visibility and a very practical box shape to get the maximum interior space for a given size (quite unlike the new Defender with its massively thick sides and roof). Time will tell how well that Grenadier design really is but history suggests it will work. Besides, isn't it more imaginative than the host of near-identical bulbous cars with tiny windows, which a heap of manufacturers put out as "suburban utility vehicles"?? Honestly, the designs are so unimaginative that you have to read the badge on most of them to see who made them!

I believe the in-line six in a Freelander 2 is a Volvo motor. They seem to be immensely durable engines. A car that lasts and lasts has some appeal!

If I had the money, I'd already be sending Ineos a deposit. I wouldn't even care if that made me an inadvertent test-driver because I want to encourage them in every way possible. They have taken on the polar opposites of today's regulation-intense manufacturing climate and the niche market need for a "proper" Land Rover type vehicle and, apparently, made it work in a way that shows the absolute minimum of compromise. Apart from (probably) the wheels, I can't imagine any Defender parts would fit but this IS the true successor to the loooong line of Land Rovers (which are no longer made by the original manufacturer - which doesn't really exist anyway). Even that odd-looking boat in the front makes sense and would serve better than the bulbous nose on the new Defender. This thing has good design, which makes an absolute mockery of that ego-maniac McGovern and all his spouting about "design cues". In fact, JLR should pay Ineos to put the Land Rover name on the front of every Grenadier because, that way, Land Rover would regain some of its reputation! Assuming (with some confidence) that they don't do something idiotic with the ergonomics or electronics, etc., I can see this being the only viable replacement for my 110 amongst any modern vehicle. Was that too strong a statement? Yup, I would support a Grenadier sub-forum too. It's a happy day for Land Rover fans, if a bit left-field.

I'm not sure if the link was posted but this is the one I referred to with the two inch lift and 33" tyres. Bobs around a little but gets the job done.

Having the white sides at the back (and the white wheels) makes it look so much better than the station wagons. As someone mentioned above, a three door would be really good. Then we have to get past the various international oddities so we could have that commercial version with windows in the back, so you can actually see when pulling out of an angle park (or have light if you're using it as a camper). But then you'd end up getting the hideous floaty square panel back in view, which ruins everything again.... aaaarghh!

Is that weird thread a plumber's one? Can't remember how many t.p.i. but I have struck that on cooling systems.

My military 110 has a spot in there for jerry cans to be carried but it just has a flat door. I do wonder if those protruding types were the inspiration for that poor bit of new design though?

I backed over a rock in my boss's Pajero i.o. (less "SUV" than most, with proper four wheel drive and a steel sump protector). It put a small dent in what looks like a protective beam under the transmission. The beam was fine but it cost $1,000 to fix the engine mounts, both the ones attached to the beam (which is actually part of the mounting system) and the ones further forward. My 110 must be nearly a foot higher at that point but it wouldn't matter anyway. I'd say the new Defender would hit middle ground in that respect?

I was looking at an ex Army Stage One (that sold at auction for eye-watering money) last night. It also has a "side pod" but it's below the mirror line so not quite as daft as the parachutes on the new one.

Wouldn't it be easier just to use UNF nuts? Either way, good to see you going for it in the workshop again!

The new Defender is not a facelift, nor would it ever have got here via a series of facelifts. It's a completely different concept to the old Defender and its predecessors. It's not even just the unfortunate move to an aluminium monocoque. It's the outcome of a decision to abandon a modular vehicle (which could be a flat deck, pickup, crewcab, van, station wagon, hard top, soft top or whatever the customer needed), to replace all that with something functionally interchangeable with a Discovery or Range Rover. What it actually looks like is not that relevant. In fact, it's a good thing it looks nothing like the previous Defender because that reduces the illusion that it is actually a replacement for it!

Not afraid to scratch it or drill a hole in the plastic trim! Good on them. The graphics on the mindless square floaty things are inspired.

Spotted! That's the one with a two inch lift and 33 inch tyres. No graunching sounds...