deep

Pounds per square inch is the standard measurement where I live, even though the country warmly welcomed the metric system decades ago. I haven't welcomed it yet though. Soulless and boring system. Now that landroversforever has enlightened me (thank you), I can see that the bar unit makes sense and is not boring. Note that tyre manufacturers still work in inches. And millimetres. At the same time...

I'll have to look up how big a "bar" is but looks like around a third of road pressure, so ta for that. There's definitely a trade-off between unsprung weight and the flexibility of a deep sidewall. It's interesting how the Series Land Rovers in the background of the dune clip look to be going so well. Skinny tyres at low pressure plus a light vehicle all come together, as I know from experience. I enjoyed all those videos, thanks again.

It did look like the D5 was a smidgeon further off the deck. Just out of curiosity, what sort of pressures can you get away with on those very low profile tyres?

1st video: 1) Nice to see it getting muddy. 2) Looked like you had fun. 3) This really is the new Land Rover. A line of expensive station wagons driving slowly over a carefully modified flat paddock. That makes me sad. 3rd video: 1) So, so much better! Good on you for tackling that. 2) That steering lock is impressive. 3) Defenders are still better (ducks for cover) but that Series One looked the most fun... 4) Love that South Africa market 2.8 six cylinder. Yum. 5) Great location!

So, to summarise the last few pages: The first Land Rovers were quite basic and people who bought them fully expected to have to set points and tappets etc. and use grease nipples frequently. They weren't concerned if oil seeped out here and there and a few drips of water seeped in. The odd broken half shaft or gearbox which popped out of gear weren't surprising and easily dealt with. Move forward a few decades and points, tappets and grease nipples were no longer so important but otherwise little changed with the cars - but the owners were becoming far less tolerant. Move forward a little more and cost-cutting didn't help reliability. Further, there was now a second layer of complexity/unreliability imposed by electronics, with few remaining car owners having any tolerance for things going wrong, no matter how easy the fix. By this stage, the "opening" of the furthest reaches of the world, which Land Rovers had spearheaded, had near enough finished. The rough stuff had been largely replaced by formed tracks and pretty much any four-wheel drive would get there. The market for an ultra-basic, easy to fix utility vehicle had shrunk massively (and Land Rovers were no longer ultra-basic anyway). Not to mention the loss of a military market, which no longer accepted driving over land mines with no real occupant protection! There was more profit to be made by appeasing the prevalent hunger for toys, gizmos, gimmicks and bragging rights, which came about through the boredom of modern society, trapped in cities and dreaming of adventure rather than living it. So a vastly more complex Land Rover was born, which the handful of remaining purists are aghast at and the modern gimmick-lovers will mortgage their lives for. What have I missed?

This is confusing. If this had been the Discovery 5 (instead of that odd thing that bears the name), it would have been pretty decent. But it's going to have a Defender badge instead. It's actually as much a Defender as a BMW Mini is a real Mini or a front-wheel-drive Beetle is a real Beetle. Just take the name and put it on an entirely different vehicle - and hope the name generates some sales! The new Mini and Beetle actually had appeal of their own, so weren't epic failures at all. Hopefully, the so-called "Defender" will do okay. At least the wheels look a bit bigger in the latest photos...

Interesting!

What I've seen of a D3 (etc.) off road is a sequence of tripods as the car rocks from wheel to wheel. What did I miss? Anyhow, all that aside, my observation is the 1970 onwards design (minus anti-roll/sway bars) gave each wheel the best chance of carrying it's weight, which achieved stellar off-road performance, albeit limited when traction become extremely asymmetrical or articulation requirements went past the (pretty decent) limit. Later designs clearly don't do that but get further in many scenarios via traction control. It would have been nice to see a definitive off-road equipped vehicle which took the best of both systems. However, that vehicle wouldn't have made for that impressive Nurburgring footage, which makes me a little sad but I promise not to cry.

I've always enjoyed punting an old Land Rover down a winding road but this (pretty cool) video confirms my worst fears. That thing corners way too flat! In truth, it's a road car, which gets extra ground clearance for off-road use by making the suspension stiffer and LESS supple - then fixes everything using electronics and brakes. We all knew that was going to happen though. As the argument on the previous pages shows... Ah well, I'm not the target market anyway. Too poor.

That's been on the cards for a few years now. I guess that is to keep costs down but wonder how that will affect the price: unaffordable instead of really, really unaffordable? For those who can afford that sort of thing (not just the up-front cost but the inevitable depreciation), at least the lines look tidy and practical, within the constraints of modern design requirements. Thin little tyres are worrying though...

I had something similar after my rebuild. Could be air in the system. I believe the solution is to jack up both front wheels, make sure centre diff is open and rear wheels chocked. Start the engine. Then, at a fast idle, work the steering lock to lock about six times. Worked for me. Another possibility is a slightly loose or worn belt, which slips a little under load. Worth re-checking?

That torque at low revs is wonderful. You have to love how those petrol fours just hang on!

Yes and no. Whenever you are in a situation where the revs drop, you drop off the torque curve more suddenly in the Tdi. Because you have more grunt at higher revs, it's likely you were in a higher gear, so you absolutely feel it. I learnt how this works one day when I led a trip through some dune country. At one stage, there was a soft climb with a short approach. I popped up easily in my old Series 3 petrol but the bloke behind me tried and tried and tried with his 200Tdi. The problem was, if he got speed up in a higher gear, the engine died half way up as the torque vanished. If he held a lower gear, he didn't have enough speed. An auto might have helped, of course! But the petrol Land Rovers had no problem, rev the heart out at the bottom and just let the revs drop as you climb. No problem. And I'm very sure my 18J is doing much better at a few hundred r.p.m. too, though you will struggle to build up speed to start with...

The graphs suggest the 12J produces more torque under 1,400 r.p.m. than all the other Land Rover diesels.

And yet, when the Tdi loses revs and goes off steam, the engine goes clunk, while the 18J (presumably 12J is the same) goes chug chug chuuuug....