Jump to content


Settled In
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jamie_grieve

  1. On 10/6/2019 at 4:26 PM, Tanuki said:

    Tyre speed-rating is also an issue in certain markets (Guten Abend, Deutschland?) - I'd be hoping that Defender 3.0 would have a top-speed over 117MPH so that means it needs "VR" rated rubber, which doesn't generally come in the knobblier-profiles.


    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)? 

    On 10/6/2019 at 4:26 PM, Tanuki said:

    It may also be to do with present- and future tyre-availability.

    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?

    On 10/6/2019 at 4:26 PM, Tanuki said:

    Also, big rims let you fit bigger brakes!  I consider the likes of my 90TD5 to be woefully underbraked considering its weight/speed  [front discs/pads have always been an 18,000-mile/18-month replacement item]

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  2. On 9/29/2019 at 7:52 PM, deep said:

    Apart from getting one or two facts wrong, I think he nailed it.  His conclusion nails why there is so much division over this thing, especially the comparison with the iMac Pro!  

    My summary: Land Rover made a much better car but lots of people actually wanted a better truck...

    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. 55 minutes ago, Eightpot said:

    So what are we supposed to be calling this then anyway? 🤔

    They're calling it Defender, plus keeping 90, 110, 130.

    Do we call it a new Defender for ever, does the Defender sub forum change to Old Defender, or is the new one a  Series 2 or are we calling proper ones Defender classics? 



    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 :lol:

  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.

    • Like 1




    It’s a category 4B vehicle

    Which means it’s not just a Discovery underneath. “In our terminology 4B means it’s above any other production car, but below full military vehicle specification. The geometry and hard points are the same, but suspension members, bushes, front ball joints and steering are all more durable and robust,” says Deeks


    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. 



    The leaked document, which appears to be from an internal presentation, reveals that the Defender 110 will be 4,758mm long, 1,916mm tall and 1,999mm wide, while its wheelbase will be 3,022mm (119 inches). Naturally the 90 is more compact, with  an overall length of 4,323mm and a wheelbase of 2,587mm (102 inches). The long-wheelbase 130 model shares its wheelbase with the 110 and its overall length increases to 5,100mm



    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. 


    • Like 1

  7. 7 hours ago, SlickV8 said:

    I received some custom 2" blocks


    2 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

    I think you're exaggerating a bit there Jamie,

    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.

    • Sad 1

  8. 4 hours ago, SlickV8 said:

    and take some pics as i get chance

    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.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?


    Screenshot 2019-07-12 at 01.22.27.png

    • Like 1

  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. On 6/17/2019 at 2:51 PM, FridgeFreezer said:

    You'll have to point out the bit in the Russian video where a stock 4x4 on road tyres gets further up that hill than the RR because I didn't see anyone make it, including the Ladoga Trophy G-Wagen on knobbly mud tyres? Hardly standard!

    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?


    Screenshot 2019-06-18 at 23.32.32.jpg

    Screenshot 2019-06-18 at 23.33.34.jpg

    Screenshot 2019-06-18 at 23.35.59.jpg

    Screenshot 2019-06-18 at 23.36.10.jpg

  14. 23 minutes ago, Happyoldgit said:

    So, does the panel think that the new Defender will have soft touch knobs and switches so as not to cause undue roughening of sensitive fingertips?

    I think that they must have spent the last 5 years of defender replacement doing something, we know now it wasn't suspension, platform or drivetrain development so it could well have been optimising the button textures to look really rough and dangerous but actually make them really nice and velvety to the touch.

  15. 39 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

    who was referring to you making assumptions about @discomikey 's knowledge of the platform and its performance, and how long he has been in the industry. Redlinemike then replied :)

    I give up, does anybody here actually read the f#<>!ng posts that people put up? Not even two pages ago we covered this.
    Then he gave a very good answer.
    Then we moved on a little bit, there was some cherry picking over some awkward questions now we're here.
    I asked him how long he had been in the industry so I could use different analogies in our conversations and would pick ones appropriate to his time.

    Now we're all up to speed (bar those that obviously didn't bother to read the previous posts) can we move on?


    • Confused 1

  16. 2 hours ago, RedLineMike said:

    Can't work out what cryptic nonsense your on about now, 

    Your response about discomikey had zero relevance to the question I asked, which was, for how long he had being doing it for.

    I am very aware of what he does for a living and his signature and our discussions on earlier posts all make it pretty clear.

    2 hours ago, RedLineMike said:

    Definitely prefer a 37/1250/17 over a 37/1250/16 as the sidewall flex / movement is less

     If sidewall flex is undesirable for your application then why not use a larger rim? Maybe use a 20” rim in that scenario?  

    You’re saying that changing low profile tyres is easier in your experience? OK. Not gonna argue with you on that one.

  17. 1 hour ago, Bowie69 said:

    works at Tomcat Motorsports, I believe , and races/prepares/engineers these things.

    I am certain LR will have yaw/other movement sensors that can sense how well something is gripping. They are(have been?) world leaders in this tech, I would think they could solve the problem which you have thought of by just pondering for a few minutes.


    I’m not sure what this is in response to?

    best way is to highlight the text you’re referring to then press “quote selection” and it’ll automatically come up in the answer box.

  18. 3 hours ago, discomikey said:

    but for the extra stability while towing.

    Nope, sorry you’ve lost me here.

    Please use only facts and possibly numbers here to explain to me how a low profile tyre with the resultant smaller variation in dynamic contact patch and much higher frequency of response is more stable on

    1. A corner with severe corrugations.

     2. When it hits a bump in the road it can’t conform over.

    3. A typical unmade rough track with stones and potholes 

    Remember this is the defender replacement we’re discussing so there shall be no talk of asphalt or roads!!

    I’m just not buying into any concept that a low profile tyre is better off road than one with a greater than 75% aspect ratio. Maybe you can prove it with modern magic and show me for the dinosaur I might well be.

    • Like 1

  19. 47 minutes ago, RedLineMike said:

    id suspect long enough involved at this tech level to be able to form an opinion based on experience of the aformentioned platforms in harsh environments

    What tech level and what harsh environments? Let’s keep cryptic answers for the cryptic forums. 

    He’s been a very forthcoming contributor to this topic and one of the very few commenting who actually has some level of technical knowledge which I embrace rather than the blah blah which makes up most of the posts. I would prefer if there was a rule where every post had to have a number or fact in it.

    38 minutes ago, RedLineMike said:

    Maybe you misunderstood the point I was making about sidewall depth which is why I said “up to 33” and your referral to large tyres have no relevance to my point. I’ll try to explain my position on the subject for clarity:

    The ability of a tyre to conform to the contours of an uneven surface is an essential attribute of an off highway tyre. This is more or less completely lost on a 30” tyre with an 18” rim. As the rim size goes up and the overall tyre diameter remains the same at say 30” then progressively less sidewall remains available to allow the tyre conform to contours. A 22” rim with a 30” diameter tyre would be like the worst case scenario but people still do it.

    A taller rim and lower profile tyre means that when you’re actually using a vehicle in a harsher environment than Chelsea or when you gently bump the kerb dropping the kids off at school then you don’t dent the rim. There’s a lot more to a tyres traction on slippery surfaces than just the tread pattern .

    Tell me of any off highway motorsports where low profile tyres are the preferred norm?

    Have you ever personally tried changing a low profile tyre on a rim compared to a standard 85% aspect ratio?

    Which tyre will remain inflated longer with a small spinifex bush type puncture?

    Which tyre will absorb potholes and stones or rough surfaces better?

    which tyre will impart lower forces to the suspension and drivetrain?

    Remember this is a DEFENDER replacement we’re discussing here, if this were a new discovery I would agree with every point that yourself and Mike and Fridge has raised and there would be no topic but the tyres that we have seen thus far in testing are yet another aspect of this vehicle, like the suspension and drivetrain that does not look as though it has been designed and optimised for arduous off highway utility use.

    • Like 1

  20. 46 minutes ago, discomikey said:

    that is completely untrue:


    the transmission takes hundreds if not thousands of factors into account to determine what it should be doing. and it does it bloody well. Now I'm not an auto guy. Much prefer using a manual gearbox but this particular transmission is about as good as they come. 

    Ask  Jeep, Dodge, Audi, Bentley, Toyota, Iveco, etc etc.. the list goes on. 

    Indeed. There are mud tyre options for all land rover wheel sizes. And nothing stops you fitting smaller rims. Granted, you can't currently fit 16's yet but then for what its worth I'd prefer 18"s than 16, not because I use my car as a chelsea tractor, but for the extra stability while towing. and you can still get as far on 18" wheels.

    That wheel and tyre package would be selected for the 99% of the market who want above all else, good road manners and long tyre life. If you're that 1%, there are options. 


    I have also been in a situation in a D4, on a wet grassy slope with a trailer on where I had to uncouple a series, on mud tyres and pull the trailer out. The D4 was on road tyres. 

    we can all find and post as many videos or examples of the old cars winning, or the new cars. The internet is full of both, does it prove anything?


    you could always go and buy a new Jimny if you wanted? 

    Thanks for that brief summary of every auto built in the last 20 years, I'm very familiar with them. The relevance to the traction control in my post is lost however. You can't use engine load from the map or tps or airflow meter or any combination of engine load sensors to know how the wheels are gripping a surface. Only a locking differential supplies the torque to the wheel with the most grip most of the time. 

    If you think you can still get as far on an 18" tyre as you can with a 15" or 16" tyre when you're limited to a 33"-34" overall diameter then I'm afraid that you still have a lot to learn about off road driving. 

  21. 20 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:

    Not exactly apples and apples tough is it? And how much of that is driver error - there appears to be nothing going on other than flooring the RR and hoping it moves, rather than a bit of rocking back/forth or other driving techniques to get out of the situation.

    Most of those VW Synchros rock around on all-terrains, nothing stopping you fitting them to any vehicle.

    And, again, the plural of anecdote is not data.

    It’s exactly apples and apples, two light 4x4’s trying to exit the overland expo.

    The Range Rover driver is clearly modulating the throttle but the point is that in this situation of a completely level hard but slippy grass field the modern design has failed 100% completely and ye olde fashioned technology has not only triumphed but made the electrickery look foolish. How would the defender replacement on the same silly tyres be any different? 

    The syncro with road tyres would still drive through there as the driver could modulate the throttle to find grip in a manner that is almost impossible at slow speeds with current generations of  traction control and auto gearboxes. They need slip to work. Remember they sense speed not torque.

    judging by the Land Rover decals on the Range Rover it’s likely the driver has above average knowledge of the vehicle and where and how they are supposed to drive. I would also suggest in his defence that he doesn’t have the rim and tyre choice available to him to select a decent setup for those conditions.

    You used a similar defence of the blue Range Rover in the Russian video where the driver was clearly experienced but was hampered by his vehicles poor basic prerequisites to climb the hill that most others ended up driving up. All cars looked to be standard with road tyres for that climb.

    Low profile rubber bands with an all terrain pattern and fancy lettering are no substitute for tyres with a decent sidewall and smaller wheels. Anything with an aspect ratio below 80%, maybe 75 at a push if it’s over 34” ought to have no place on anything one would consider using off road within the small range of tyres available for our light 4x4’s. Large agricultural tyres have lower profiles in many cases but they are designed from the outset to be used at low pressures and designed for floatation. These low profile 4x4 tyres aren’t.

    Your defence of electronics in leu of poor mechanical design is commendable but unfortunately for me at least, not convincing.


    • Like 1
  • Create New...

Important Information

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