Jump to content

Jamie_grieve

Settled In
  • Content Count

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Jamie_grieve last won the day on June 1

Jamie_grieve had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About Jamie_grieve

  • Rank
    Old Hand

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    jamie_grieve@hotmail.com
  • Skype
    jamie_grieve

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Lanarkshire

Previous Fields

  • Interests
    Making noise and mess with off highway toys, trucks and machines.
    Making noise with fiddle, flute and whistle.
    Gold panning and travel.

Recent Profile Visitors

771 profile views
  1. Without losing sight of the fact that we're discussing the defender replacement, not the discovery replacement, which user group requires a top speed in excess of 90mph let alone 117mph in a utility vehicle (even an urban utility vehicle)? The current availability of 18"-22" off road tyres in 90% of the world is zero, wouldn't it have made more sense to fit tyres we can actually buy and be fit for purpose at the same time by having a measurable sidewall? A dodge ram or any other full size pickup can tow three times what the defender can and also fit 16" rims, why couldn't the JLR engineers do likewise? If they'd wanted to push the envelope they could have fitted oil immersed brakes and actually given the defender at least one mechanical off road attribute. Most reviews of defenders compliment the brakes, aftermarket parts are the main reasons for sub-par braking performance. I think only supplying urban oriented wheel / tyre combos in virtually impossible to find sizes contributes to alienating a huge chunk of potential customers, especially when you consider the greatly reduced tyre life on independent suspension. I also realise that there's no point in me crying over spilled milk. The illusion of a rough tough utility vehicle only needs the illusion of rough tough tyres so 18' or even 22" is fine, especially with some sidewall tread graphics.
  2. I disagree with the idea that the large rims are a byproduct of the towing limit. I'd suggest it's a byproduct of maintaining a realistic duty cycle of the traction control in the absence of locking diffs. The rear diff is just a hydraulic clutch pack and not actually a locker. I wonder how long they'll last? No front locker at all was a surprise and a disappointment and kinda puts it in a field of 'also rans', like it'll never be a 'real' off roader without them regardless of the capabilities of it. How many G wagon or Jeep Rubicon owners actually use them for anything other than pub top trumps? Not having the option of locking diffs is likely to do with the small half shafts used. I have trouble understanding why they couldn't have invested some of the funds allocated to this project to a better drivetrain which, despite the 'durable" hype doesn't seem to actually have any particularly durable components. I get the whole marketing thing and it isn't a utility etc but it's like buying a 100m waterproof watch that's only splash proof. The knock on effects of the large rims unsuitable for proper off road tyres and the resulting lack of capability isn't going to help the image or reputation of the new car.
  3. Meh, I’m not getting caught up in the marketing hype. I agree with everything I wrote on the first post last year, 51 pages ago. The best part of the whole new defender for me seems to be the non spill dog water bowl. The fake stick on chequer plate, the dc100 recovery eyes replaced with mere plastic adornments, the vulnerable front wing valences....snorkel is just a visual aid which has nothing to do with increasing the wading depth? Is it actually sealed against water ingress and they are covering their backs because there are exposed electronics ? I listened to all that design drivel at the unveiling where not a single practical word was spoken. It’s a lovely car but it’s not a tool to take to work.
  4. I raised the same question a few pages ago too. I think calling them 100's after the 102" wheelbase for the short ones and 120 for the longer ones after the 119" wheelbase kinda works and we'll address the 130 issue when it gets launched
  5. I wasn't going to comment on the eternal looks until the launch fearing it was a hoax but it doesn't look like that is the case now. I'm struggling to find complimentary things to say about it from a perspective that isn't purely urban and also failing miserably to find a single design cue from the past 70ish years of (proper) land rovers.. I think the look has more in common with early Y61 Nissan Patrols, sharing a similar waist line, almost identical glass and various body lines. By the same token, it has aspects similar to the Toyota land cruiser too. It’s like the designers have taken their cues from various successful Japanese 4x4’s rather than any from the defender or previous generations thereof. If it was a Discovery, it would be awesome and amazing. I hope it sells and does JLR proud but as a durable workhorse, I think the vulnerable and fragile looking front wings, no bumper or place to jack from and the low hanging doors and sills speak volumes about it's intended role. I think it's safe to say the Defender is very dead. Long live the impostor.
  6. Can anybody in the know expand on this rather interesting quote? It also confirms that it is indeed just a tweaked discovery underneath, slapping some bigger ball joints on an ancient platform which was obviously found lacking in strength hardly inspires confidence. Despite everyone telling us how much more travel and how better something is in their opinion, can anybody actually show a picture to support their views that the D7U platform has more articulation than a live axle setup? The spring medium is of almost no consequence, I believe it's the tiny short arms and half shafts which will be the limiting factor. The lack of pictures thus far speaks volumes I think. That's the most concise writeup I've seen to explain the wheelbases. Why not just call them 100's and 120's to differentiate them from the originals and give them a chance to prove themselves in their own right? I flat out don't believe the testing has been on real rough ground or there's no way the exhaust could possibly have passed muster being the most exposed and vulnerable component hanging down under the rear subframe just waiting to get crushed. Most of our crossmembers have dents and axles have no paint underneath from hitting the ground, how could anybody think this was a good idea to have an exhaust here? It's literally between a rock and a hard thing!! It wouldn't get dented on a 6 axis tester I suppose, where are the videos or test results of it boulder bashing across some rivers? I also disagree with the statement that defenders were durable because they were uncomfortable to drive fast over rough terrain, that's nonsense, they were, and are durable because by virtue of their fairly unique construction they can and could be repaired easily by unskilled labour without special tools. I think the definition of rough terrain needs expanded into actually defining something like the 100m of offset foot high blocks like the Russians use in which case I doubt very much the replacement would fair significantly better. Despite my negative conjecture thus far, I think the new vehicle will be awesome in the SUV role and will undoubtedly help define the branding structure and bring profit in a way the defender never did.
  7. Yet again you show how little you actually read and understand peoples posts. I'm dyslexic and really struggle with reading sometimes. I hope you have a similar excuse. How do you propose to deal with the misaligned prop flanges with the wedges you suggest? We don't know the shackle length so wedges will cause a vibration from the propshaft hence the request for pictures. You of all people should know better.
  8. Can you take some pictures before you put the lowering blocks on so we can see what's going on please? You definitely have some unresolved issues that reconditioning components or changing the gearbox won't resolve. The lowering blocks will greatly compromise your off road capability and will severely restrict axle travel on the front as well as giving an uncomfortable ride. It sounds like a lot of trouble when all that was needed was a different front propshaft.
  9. You'll be fine if you just apply some mechanical sympathy to whichever method you choose. A pry bar on the ring gear can apply a huge amount of torque. If it's been sat for a long time pull the injectors out after loosening the two nuts on each side and pour oil into the bores. Don't put the injectors back in at this point!! Don't turn the engine without lubricating the bores. If it turns OK then use the starter to blow any remaining oil out before putting the injectors back in. Disconnect the fuel pipes from the lift pump too and have fresh diesel handy for starting it. Do not attempt to start it with the old filters connected as you may cause irreparable damage to the fuel system components. It'll probably have old CAV filters. What application is the engine for? Here's some manuals which are worth a look. http://www.moteur-perkins.com/uploads/catalogue/lettre/notice/manuel-perkins-ld-4-236.pdf http://www.endeavourowners.com/dscsn/info/manuals/4236M Workshop Manual.pdf Have fun and good luck with your project!!
  10. This image has been all over social media for days now. Apparently it was returning from the Goodwood festival of speed. I thought I might as well stick it up here for more conjecture.and whining about it too. There were a few positive comments along the lines of at least they're testing it. I think it's interesting for a number of reasons. 1. It's sitting up on wheel skates so it's probably safe to assume that the wheels can't easily be turned. Is that most likely to be a diff, transfer or gearbox issue? Electric handbrake? 2. If it can't be towed for whatever reason, how common will the fault be as I can't imagine much in the drivetrain design is going to change before a launch in September. Not being able to tow it could be an inconvenience. Would they be willing to do last minute changes to major components if testing showed a number of failures or would that just be passed onto warranty claims and extra spare parts made available? 3. What's hanging down underneath? I never thought about it before but there are no drive flanges as with a defender which can be quickly and easily pulled off to allow towing if a diff has a problem or for a suspended tow and it doesn't have enough ground clearance to safely crawl under and take off a propshaft. I wonder how easily the transfer case can be put in neutral with dead electrics for towing with the wheels on the ground? Will there be a mechanical or electrical only solution?
  11. I would keep the original width of the axles and move the wheels to suit as that will reduce the scrub radius and hopefully eliminate any need to trim the bumper or footwells. The slightly wider stance will add stability and effective articulation too. The only downside is keeping the original look but some cleverly folded up wheel arches along the top of the wing and wheelboxes will hardly take away from that and I think it looks better with the wider stance anyway.
  12. I would not suggest to use lowering blocks at all, especially if you use it off road. The reason you can't find any is it's the opposite of what most with a 4x4 would do as it will greatly restrict the already limited front axle travel. Instead, a better solution than lowering blocks would be a wide angle propshaft from Gwyn Lewis or somewhere. Firstly you need to identify which dampers and shackles you have as this will help determine the current castor angle possibilities and maximum suspension droop you have. You also don't want the suspension running 'topped out' all the time as it will quickly destroy your dampers so maybe the spring rate you picked might be a bit high? Are they a 'heavy duty' spring? Normal series dampers wouldn't allow the prop UJ's to bind regardless of spring type fitted so I guess there's something else going on.. It could also be you have an aftermarket or wrong front prop shaft. Check that your UJ's move to 27º. If not, get a new (preferably wide angle) propshaft. Also check everything including the clearance between the crossmember and the propshaft when the axle is hanging down by lifting off the bumper or chassis and the dampers are fully extended and don't do any of it at ride height which is irrelevant as your propshaft, UJ's etc have to operate throughout the whole suspension cycle. I'd also suggest that lowering blocks are a suspension modification which you'll need to advise your insurance about, a new propshaft isn't. Some pictures might be helpful too.
  13. While I'm being grumpy about people not paying attention and generally being unpopular: The Subaru and land cruiser which both look stock and on road tyres both get up the hill I was referring to. Please see the screenshots and be amazed in wonderment at their achievement The Range Rover fails twice. Maybe it got up when nobody was filming? The point I was trying to make is that there's nothing special about the Range Rover making it any more capable in this scenario. Maybe fording deep water or driving up lots of steps in China would show it in a better light? Maybe you thought I was referring to the really steep slippery hill that nobody was ever driving up but the range rover still managed to leave the front splitter on the ground? Yeah, that was just an embarrassment, but no, not that one. I will be the first to accept that this proves nothing, other than there's very little difference in all of the various independently sprung platforms with their own geometry and handling optimisation and their own versions of traction control. The Range Rover driver at this point maybe wasn't approaching it how you or I might but the point remains the same. I would argue that the g wagon even on road tyres would easily drive up there as its' basic configuration of long travel soft suspension with good essential angles (and differential locks) would allow it to do so. I'm sure a standard defender with open axle diffs would have got up that one too. The land cruiser here does have a solid rear axle too. Still on the topic of that video, I thought that when they were all driving down that hill waving their rear wheels in the air that I would be far more comfortable in a vehicle with live axles which could keep all 4 wheels on the ground. My god, we're having a debate concerning off highway prowess and there's a subaru forester being used as an example!! Maybe there's something wrong with the world?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy