Jamie_grieve

It's awesome to see the relentless progress on this. The broken mill gears would be a major setback for many that hardly even slowed you down, great stuff!! I don't know if the gently gently approach is the best way forwards to welding that diff head? I would likely do the weld prep, clamp it with a big bolt through the pinion hole, get both halves red hot and fire up the welder whilst it's all still hot by tacking it with numerous small tacks then give it death for the root run so you're welding right through the tacks and pein it afterwards with a blunt chisel and weld, pein, cap and pein again whilst it's all still hot. let it cool and see what shape it is in the morning.

Yes, exactly, I've been saying the same thing too in this thread, it's he only way I can see of being able to turn the D7 platform into something useful off road. It would also lend itself to the addition of CTIS to further enhance the concept of never getting out the vehicle lest your shoes get dirty.

I think the Newtons per metre got me worse than the clear lack of understanding of everything else. I also don't believe a word he says about the handling or body roll or anything else. Is there any chance that this is a coil sprung one?

Front Salisburies come in a few different flavours, some have a 23 spline outer with the AEU2522 CV joints and 24 spline inner which doesn't appear on any Rover axles and is unique to the front Salisbury which is what makes it stronger than standard 32 spline outers or early 10 spline inners. The diff offset is different to a Rover so the shafts are different lengths. Stronger but rarer is a quandary indeed. The Salisbury diff itself is a beast of a thing in comparison to a 2 pin rover diff but the loss in ground clearance as Mike says is a hefty penalty.

As everyone above has said, you cannot use fiddle brakes with any type of LSD, you need an open locker or open diff but definitely not an LSD. Post some pictures too please, we all like pictures.

New TFL video’s out. It’s getting almost 10,000 views per hour just now, that’s still a huge amount of interest in the new defender. has anyone got any sales data yet?

Doh, Naks posted that a few posts ago, you need to scroll more

For less than 2% in laboratory generated fuel savings, I'd rather have a lockable centre diff that I can reliably reverse a trailer in low range on high traction surfaces and not rely on wheel slippage to have the slightest chance of having any torque transfer. The spider gears in the front diff are going to be going like the clappers, I wonder if they actually have bearings. Jap stuff with this setup doesn't actually lock it like this system seems to. Anything with a clutch is going to wear out with use too so are we looking at planned obsolescence? I also wonder if the change to Advantek diffs and shafts, similar to what Jeeps now use is partly because the current tiny (30mm) rear shafts aren't up to the job of only rear wheel drive? That would be one good outcome from it. That said, I do despair when I look at the lack of innovation in the really short front driveshafts, it's like they have totally given up on any chance of it ever possessing any degree of off road prowess beyond that of any other AWD SUV. Hopefully that ridiculous and totally unnecessary system has a manual lock up with a yellow button that doesn't need to go through a touchscreen to access. A defender that you can't manually engage 4x4 really would be the end of an era, Will there be a 4x2 version for the RAF and urban dwellers I wonder? It all seems such a step backwards to 1990's Japanese technology, nothing there makes it better off road. Where are the antiroll bar disconnects, CTIS and front differential locks, Advantek comes with them as standard will JLR opt out of them? Measurable suspension travel would be nice for next year too.

You can thank Ross for the thread revival. It’s a bit of a spoiler to see it further on than where we left off but in some ways it’ll probably make it easier to see where I was trying to go with it. It’s been a fairly tortuous and long drawn out journey thus far. My lack of internet bandwidth and general hopelessness is also an inconvenience to thread updates 😂. i wonder if this will be the last biannual update or will the trend continue..?

Hold my beer!! 🍻

It’s awesome to see the progress on this, I haven’t been following for a while. It’s good to see other ‘portal projects’ on the go. My own has been abandoned for a few years again until recently so it’s good to see you have the tenacity to keep it going.

I'd say there's 5 crossmembers including the rear 'bumper' as they're fully welded and an intrinsic part of the chassis. You're forgetting the rectangular crossmember across the front dumb irons. The front bumper definitely adds some stiffness too. Unimogs have C section chassis rails in common with nearly all trucks which are designed to twist, the Volvos have a box section chassis like a land rover with big flitch plates where the crossmembers are welded on to spread the load and the thick round crossmembers resist twist a lot more than the rectangular land rover ones. There's also a 5mm strip welded along the top and bottom of each rail which gives the surprisingly skinny chassis a good bit of strength. It's obviously never going to be as stiff as a short monocoque like a freelander but it's definitely stiffer and stronger than a defender chassis and can take far larger imposed loads than something like a freelander could without permanent deformation.. Also similar to the defender, the volvo body is solidly mounted although it uses hard plastic spacers rather than metal to metal. The bodies definitely add some rigidity too. The volvo rolling chassis weighs 1220kg stripped like that, I'd say that whole combination is around 2 tons and well within the capabilities of the Duster.

I don't understand your comment even slightly. If you have ever read any of my posts you'll see they are all technical in nature, you have misunderstood my post 100%. I was rather hoping for a discussion on what might be the cause of this. Can you put some technical input into the discussion instead of imaginary agendas please. I've hardly contributed to this topic since the launch so I don't get the axe to grind part. A brake failure caught on camera is an interesting event in my boring little world and is hopefully of interest to others even if not to you. I totally agree on your hilux comment, I haven't bought any since 2010 and have bought Ford Rangers instead where the LC 70 wasn't a viable option.

Fascinating failure of the braking or traction control system caught on camera. Scroll to 50 minutes for the relevant part. Classic failed hillclimb scenario where he hits the brakes to put it into reverse only the brakes don't hold it at all. You can clearly see the brake lights on as it's rolling backwards. Click the subtitles button for a better idea of what's going on.

If it needed a tow from the front, the towing eye in the middle of the front subframe seems covered by the lower portion of the bumper, do you know how to access it? I asked this previously and nobody had any idea. Even small hatchbacks are designed with easily accessible recovery points, it beggars belief that the defender wasn’t.

That’s the best and most comprehensive review I’ve seen anywhere yet. Have you any observations about the speed of the cross linking of the air suspension at all? I’ve noticed that there seems to be more articulation when the vehicle is stationary than when it’s moving. I’ve attributed this to the tiny size of the pipes and valves involved and that the suspension can’t react quickly enough during articulation to reduce the roll stiffness.

This video with the G wagon is an interesting comparison. Note that this is the G wagon with independent suspension on the front, not the G class professional which is cheaper, has more ground clearance and still has a solid axle at the front. The last test with towing up the hill shows perfectly the difference I've been saying all along exists between traction control and diff locks. I know I'll never be able to convince those delusional types who drink the JLR coolade but it's physics, nothing else. there is no substitute for all wheels turning at the same speed finding all available traction. Go to 19min 50seconds if you're on limited bandwidth or don't want to watch the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KL8eWzx-8o&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3Hp_AB3hJi3t0IwY-wj0EQbk6aToJSDt2oxZHl4UCGmRgHOPp_B6yXzmI Edit: How do you post youtube links so the preview appears?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZVYpdoqFow

Given the price structure and crossover, what's the general consensus on the pretender resale values and depreciation compared to its older brothers? It does have a certain type of practicality but no more so than anything else in the range by the time they're all second hand but without the 'prestige' or toys/ luxury..There's no longer any arguments about it being any simpler to maintain or being any more reliable given that so many parts are used across the range. Who are the demographic it will appeal to on the second hand market? Do we expect it to be half of list price after three years similar to other 'premium' brands or will it buck the trend like defenders did?

I think you're confusing the silencer with the exhaust pipe under the rear subframe that I was referring to.. It hangs lower than any other point on the whole car, it's a part that when you drive in ruts will be the first point of contact, even an unmade road with a high crown and potholes would be enough to cause substantial damage. You're incorrect about the fuel tank on older products being more vulnerable than the exhaust on this. I think you've maybe not yet had the chance to have a good crawl around one, (not under it obviously because there simply isn't room to even squeeze an arm, let alone get a head underneath it). Why are we even having this conversation about whether a vehicle with a defender badge can drive on mildly bumpy roads without damaging its ridiculously routed exhaust? It shows how much of a sham and a disappointment it's turned out to be.

I don't understand you, what cars have the fuel tank underneath the rear subframe 6" off the ground? Crushing the soft and vulnerable low hanging exhaust will not only immobilise the vehicle but also result in regular and expensive repair bills and unnecessary downtime.

Is there a school of thought amongst off road vehicle designers that placing the unprotected exhaust as the lowest point of an already low vehicle will somehow add to the capabilities in extremis? Clearly I'm missing something. Even those brand new tyres look bald, everything about this new car just oozes ostentatiousness. There's very little practical about it. Look at the door shut line at the waist line of the second door, what's going on there? Without any protective cappings, those sharp rear corners will surely be scratched and chipped in no time? One of the few things I do like are the rear towing eyes, Why didn't they have them on the front too like the DC100 it's based on? It would be easy to have them comply with pedestrian safety regulations. Just looking at the complexity of this thing shows how impractical it is. I wonder what the component count of this is compared to a series one or even a defender?

Great screengrab! My thoughts on it: The two piece antiroll bar is interesting, I wonder if there's a disconnect not shown in the view? We'd like that. The placement of the steering damper is awful, hanging well below the axle centreline but interesting geometry how it connects directly from the axle housing to the track rod, presumably to eliminate death wobble? I don't like that we can't see pinch bolts or clamps on the track rod ends so wonder if the track rod ends are replaceable or crimped on as part of the track rod? They're very difficult to adjust when they get a bend in them, in fact, bent track rods like that are a pain in the ass to set the tracking on at the best of times, let alone in field conditions when you've just hit something. The LH track rod looks like an expensive to repair /replace part. I guess that the low placement of the nice large looking P38esq steering box implies quite a lot of vertical wheel travel could be possible and with very little bump steer from the long links. The Panhard rod is quite low, as will be the roll centre. Interesting choice as the journalists are surely going to criticise the resulting roll in fast cornering. I like the steering guard mountings that might also serve as winch mounts but the long rear ones look a bit weedy. No substantial front crossmember has been visible in any of the renderings thus far, that's a worry. large 4 bolt king pins and large robust looking swivels seem promising, maybe, just maybe they actually put some decent sized CV's in there? Interesting that the publicly released footage of the steering on a 'UK built' vehicle is LHD. I think they shouldn't push the UK angle anyway, I bet more people will buy it if they think it's German. Using the 6 stud Japanese wheel pattern makes so much sense. The Land Rover one is too far gone now to be useful to anyone. I think the parallel 4 link is a bold choice, fair play to them. Large rubber bushes there should be very durable and give decent flex compared to radius arms. Looks like the brakes go over the hub flange, yay for an easy maintenance component at last. I wonder if it's unit hubs and bearings (boo).

I thought it was an international forum. We ought to be embarrassed at the sh!tty welcome the guy got for his first post. Welcome to the forum! Any progress since you posted? I should imagine that the 202 isn't very expensive and for the sake of a few hours putting it in would be the most guaranteed way of knowing it's going to run well and allows you to have a look at the clutch and flywheel and possibly change the oil seal on the input shaft. I ran a 202 in a 109 in New Zealand for a few years and had heard from the garage I worked at that they were prone to throwing rods, I couldn't get it to throw a rod despite trying. Compared to a land rover engine, the 202 pulled significantly better and used less fuel doing so. Something else to consider is that neither the 186 or 202 is suitable for unleaded petrol. It could be that your 186 has damaged valve seats and guides and that new stem seals just mask the problem for a while.

So an R380 would be stronger in this scenario. No, not at all, an R380 wouldn't last at all behind an Isuzu or any large 4 cylinder engine. The torque spikes and torsional vibration would have it destroyed fairly quickly. Many classic Range Rovers were fitted with Chevrolet V8's, Perkins 4 and 6 cylinder engines back in the day with no ill effects to the gearbox. You only have to take them apart to see the huge difference in the size of the components, The R380 is just an updated LT77, the name says it all, 77mm between main shaft and layshaft vs 95mm. Not only are the gears much larger, they're wider too and in a stiffer housing. They have their weaknesses too as described above but none of that stoped me putting an LQ4 Chev V8 in front of one.