deep

Um, if I had to regularly do 1,200 mile journeys I'm not sure I'd want the lottery of driving a new Defender and hoping it doesn't have electronic gremlins. Assuming the Bronco is big, fat and comfy in the (non-Jeep) American tradition, I'm sure it would be just as good on a long trip. Neither of us have any idea of how the rear seat passengers would find the Bronco. The Defender is far from the obvious choice in that scenario! Second um ... the 18 inch tyre has less sidewall than the old Defender. Same outside diameter minus bigger inside diameter = thinner sidewalls. Simple arithmetic!

This is a great video, because they took the cars as they came out of the factory and weren't scared to use them on a testing track. For me, it summarises 149 pages of this thread. As we know, Land Rover "replaced" the Defender with quite a comfortable car. To give it some credibility in the rough, they gave the driver the ability to lift it and threw complicated electronics at it (to maximise the limited amount of traction available from a heavy car with relatively small, low profile tyres). This caused a split amongst us Land Rover fans: those of us who appreciate the comfort and marvel at how well those electronics work, on the rare occasions you need them; and those of us who like practical cars, aren't remotely surprised at the outcome of this video and consider the decision-makers at JLR to be a pack of muppets! We see both aspects in the video. Personally, I think you'd either have to have massive brand loyalty or no intention of ever driving any sort of rough track to pick the Defender over that Bronco...

They regularly put out very helpful "how to" videos on a range of Land Rover (and other) products, including the new Defender. They do a good job of showing the details without being boring. They've definitely helped me in my (so far futile) quest to find where naughty rodents have chewed some wires in my Freelander 2.

I see the powerfuluk people just put up quite a long video on U tube, after they spent a weekend at an event put on by Ineos. It was unusually negative for them (I couldn't disagree more about the handbrake and control labelling!) but does give a pretty detailed look at one of the prototypes. I got to the end and thought that, if I really was in the market for a new vehicle, this would be it. Sorry no direct link but it should be easy to find.

Specifically, they said 45,000 pounds for a two seat commercial version, so most will cost more. I can't imagine they'd hit the Range Rover-esque pricing of a top specced Defender but chuck in the leather seats and some option and I could see a fifty percent premium. It all seems highly academic and reasonable at this stage. The price will mean a lot more once the public start driving them and we can gauge the real value/quality.

There have been a lot imported into New Zealand. Some were fantastic, some were a bit rusty. Mine (sold a few months ago, sob) had an as-new chassis and lots of new stuff but was partly dismantled. The previous owner had ripped out much of the 24v wiring loom and supplied a 12v one which turned out to be out of four cylinder petrol model, which caused some confusion. I never even thought about the glow plugs possibly being 24 volt. They used to take a long time to start glowing (up to 20 seconds on a bench) but worked well enough. The rest of the wiring was bit of a mix, so it just had a normal (old and annoying but easy to fix) fuse box. Can't help with circuit breakers, sorry. I replaced all the normal bulbs, even the dashboard ones, but left the convoy lighting alone (I tested it but never wired the original switch back in). That was easy enough. The voltmeter still read accurately but the temperature gauge always read very high (tested with a thermometer so I wasn't worried). I never worked out where to connect the oil pressure gauge to so left that alone. I fitted a heater easily enough but just ran two rubber hoses out to the side and tied them to the inlet manifold. No metal pipes needed. Six years later, all good. Personally, I think these particular Land Rovers are real gems, as long as you don't want to keep them absolutely original. Some original parts, like the vacuum pump, are tricky to find and 24 volt electrics aren't as easy when you're dealing with bulbs and batteries. On the other hand, you get that lovely, basic four pot diesel with power steering and wind up windows. Quite enough refinement!

Didn't that article say the writing was etched in? Excellent idea. I quite like it overall, though not at all a fan of all that grey and would have found it neater if the big lump in the middle was angled a little. Nothing there that would stop me buying it though. I liked this bit: "the company hasn’t ruled out a short-wheelbase version". A short-wheel base version, maybe with a budget four cylinder engine, would be a great run-around! A lot like the little Series 3 Land Rover parked in my garage...

Not at all! Anyway, you could do an awful lot with a common floorpan/chassis and two or three body options. Rivian are doing that, Ineos promise to, Ford Ranger/Everest does that and there are many examples of modern vehicles that retain a little flexibility. JLR just don't want to do it because they're priced out of market. When did they last make a flat deck Defender, I wonder? I'm not sure I've ever seen a Puma that wasn't a crew cab or a station wagon.

The Series heritage slowly modified over time but essentially the same thing. Basic, functional, modular, flexible, serviceable in the field with a basic toolkit, endlessly repairable etc. etc. etc. Most of that came from having a chassis with bolt-on body parts. That four-wheel drive big family station wagon, with approximately seven forward facing seats, was the role of the Discovery. It was differentiated from the Freelander by a proper four wheel drive system and real ground clearance, as well as the size, and from the Range Rover by less and less as time went on, other than having more seats and more space. It never really mattered if the construction was body on chassis or monocoque because it was always a station wagon. So yes, there have always been Series/Defender station wagons but the line was not limited to them and, even so, they were never the family or luxury versions of the concept. Put all that together and the new Defender is, to all intents and purposes, another version of a Discovery.

That's a heck of a generalisation! I've had 60,000 miles out of BFG MT KMs and they were still legal. Some mud terrains are much worse than that but the same applies with many all terrains. Don't forget mud terrains generally start with a deeper tread. All terrains that don't impact road noise or m.p.g. compared to a road tyre tend to be little more than a dressed-up road tyre and perform like that when you ask the Land Rover question off road...

For breaking the bead in the bush, using a Hi Lift jack and the weight of the vehicle allows the force to be concentrated exactly where it's needed. Well done for learning that skill! 255/85 BFG muds are my favourite tyre. I used the All Terrains when I explored Australia and found they were prone to getting cut up on sharp stones and dug in too easily in sand. You'd think mud terrains would dig more but, in sand, they're better, due to the strange physics that applies (fewer but bigger spades).

Maybe not but, to be fair, it was only brushes, not a whole starter motor! Plus, they were far easier to swap over than in the old days. Actually, the modern Mercedes is very much like the modern Land Rover - fiendishly complicated and not entirely sorted before going to market. I fully agree with your other post. There is virtually no functional difference between a Discovery and a Defender these days. It's really just the projected image (for what that's worth).

I should add that I just sold a sub 60,000 mile Mercedes SLK. A beautiful car in so many ways but anything electronic was a complete 'mare to deal with, followed closely by brittle plastics that aged terribly.

Um ... I seriously considered getting one of these a few months ago (there's a lot of car for the money, second hand). Then I read about the silly little things that go wrong and the cost of fixing them and just bought a low mileage Freelander 2. It's already broken down (starter brushes turned to dust at only 55,000 miles. Very easy to fix and not expensive either)! Still, I wouldn't choose between the two brands based on which is less likely to give trouble!

Fair call but, if you're old truck is still working, that's actually a blessing and much cheaper than getting a new one. I reckon, based on where they are with testing, that they're probably only a year away now. It might seem like a very long time when the big C has been to visit - on the other hand I'd have thought, in the circumstances, that the brand of car you drove would be of very trivial importance? I had my own scare nine years ago and I know it rearranged my perspectives a bit.