Jamie_grieve

"Tip a Discovery onto two diametrically opposed wheels in a transition and it'll creak under structural duress" Total garbage, they don't make a sound, don't twist, doors open and close fine, exactly as they do on every car made this millennium in the same situation. Marketing nonsense. "half-a-metre of suspension articulation" That's actually not much and it's lies and marketing anyway pulled from the disco 5 literature. It clearly doesn't display anything like this amount in real life for reasons well discussed in previous pages in this topic. With the exception of the total lack of versatility of the new defender, the fact that the wheels almost don't move at all is one of the most un-defender like qualities it possesses. Roll on the independent reviews!!

There's no point at all listening to a review from someone who hasn't driven off road before, let alone hasn't done it every day for a living, nor is a user utility vehicles or is even familiar with the old defender. Every single review so far I've seen is basically part of the JLR Namibia marketing exercise. I want to see an American or Australian review, they don't usually sugar coat things. Is there any new footage from the American trip now been released? Anybody who doesn't mention the savage lurching from wheel to wheel on fairly benign terrain isn't doing a review, they're part of the advertising campaign.

Yes, that's exactly who I was thinking of. Cheers.

Has there been even one review yet by someone who has at least driven off road before and doesn't think off road means rally driving? Journalists are the very worst people to review what a Defender should be anyway. Who's that South African Dude who actually knows what he's talking about? He might not be a 'proper' journalist though... He generally gives unbiased and fair reviews, usually from an overlanding perspective.

About time we heard an update and had a defender replacement to look forwards to:

Very interesting, the similarities are endless. I thought this recent interview with Gerry McGovern was quite interesting too. I think most things he's done for land rover have been great (except the rear of the Disco 5), the Evoque design is amazing and his influence on the shape in everything current is clear to see. I just think he was the totally wrong man to lead the defender project and that it should have been lead by an engineer and that form should have been allowed to follow function as far as regulations would have allowed, then he should have got his turn. https://gearpatrol.com/2020/03/09/land-rover-design-boss/

Are you discussing the preparation of soup or something? I can't see any other references to stock, please do stay on topic and try harder to actually read the posts you respond to. This makes no sense at all, if you have a video of your daily driver moving across terrain that defenders couldn't then you definitely get bragging rights but that still doesn't make defenders sh*te off road, it just means your ego wants a massage.

So you're saying the new defender should only be driven on public roads? Wheeny Creek is a public road, I don't understand what your point is? I was trying to demonstrate the difference in suspension types and you're trying to give us a geography lesson? Please stay on topic, this threads bad enough for off topic posts. Oh stop being so dramatic, if you broke down, it's like any other road there where you stay in the car until the hoards of tourists go past then you get out and fix it and carry on. People have been driving there since leaf springs were a fashion accessory. OK, I forgive you for the geography lesson now you're back on topic. Fantastic topic, what modifications does the new defender need to drive difficult ground? My suggestion within the confines of the existing platform is portal hubs to improve the ground clearance, larger air pipes for the suspension and smaller wheels with bigger tyres. Revised and less vulnerable bodywork, potentially sacrificing some of the pedestrian safety would improve it in areas where you're likely to hit a large mammal and get stranded and die.

Here's a video of a well driven 110 daily driver on far more challenging terrain for comparison:

Geez, that thing looks seriously awkward driving on not very challenging terrain. It's like watching your granny and hoping she doesn't fall and break a hip. It just looks so out of place there lurching around from one wheel to the next. As expected, any cross linking of the air suspension has no effect on the articulation whilst moving due to the tiny pipes connecting them. That lurching around is ridiculous in any (supposedly) off road car. Are there no disconnects on the anti roll bars because nobody in the entire design team thought of it or because a bean counter wanted to save a few bob and 99% of target customers aren"t supposed to notice anyway?

That's the part I disagree with. I used lotus as an example of an actually small UK based manufacturer with exactly the same problems as JLR competing on a world stage in a far more niche market yet who are building innovative and modern designs using advanced manufacturing techniques and successfully making a profit. I wholeheartedly disagree that JLR couldn't have developed another platform when the one they have used is already 10 years old and not suited to that of a defender replacement anyway. My point about Toyota was that the part of the business allocated to Land Cruiser 70 series development probably isn't larger than the resources allocated to the development of the new Defender yet still yields a profitable vehicle with a long term vision much more in line with what that market wants. It is in my opinion, what the new Defender should have been aimed at to keep the land Rover brand recognised globally in a manner more like it was in the 60's rather than as a manufacturer of unreliable tarts handbags which seems to be the current direction.

How much of that was allocated to land cruiser sales or relevant R&D? What about Lotus? Yet they have three different platforms, are innovative and have world class technologies and low volume construction methods which all yield a profit. JLR slapped the DC100 body (which was universally hated both by press and public) on a ten year old platform, it somehow took five years to do so and now they're lauding it as a new car after thinking we'd forgotten all about it? Low volume or not, it's hardly demonstrative of innovation, technology or the thinking of an organisation wishing to engage with a previously loyal customer base.

That's of no use to those of us who want a utility vehicle for commercial purposes. We all have no choice now but to buy 70 series Toyotas because JLR decided they wouldn't make one and put all their eggs in the dainty and fragile hands of the urban yuppie brigade.The new defender commercial (if they ever do decide to get out of bed one day and make them) will still be of no use because you can't buy tyres anywhere in the entire world for it, especially when the fancy independent suspension flogs them out every other month and the even fancier engines can't handle some dodgy fuel. Assuming Toyota only makes10,000 70 series per month, that's still a huge profit for basically an old tractor with a roof that's been around almost unchanged since 1985. There is a market, it's huge, it's just that JLR chose to ignore it. There was nothing other than poor management stopped them developing the defender into something useful. They were tools, hammer technology hasn't changed in hundreds of years yet there's still a healthy market for people buying hammers (Estwing anyone?). Now to use the same analogy, we have the new defender trying to do with lasers and sensors and batteries and electronics what your grandad did with a piece of string to get a straight line. Now they don't have a utility platform, they really are screwed if there's a recession. Let's be honest, there's no business model or economic sense to buy a defender over anything else. Sales are only going to come from fragile and unpredictable disposable income. That's surely a risky strategy?

Why not when all they need to do is make a decent vehicle that people want to buy. JLR isn't that small and regardless of size, it could certainly have built a design with expansion in mind. The D7 platform is a light duty passenger car construction which has no heavy duty components at all in it. Every single part is no stronger than any executive saloon. Look at the tiny diffs, CV's and half shafts, despite the tow rating and marketing, none of the components are any more suited to heavy towing than a BMW, Audi or Merc. The same 8 speed ZF box is used in them all anyway now. Why didn't they invest in a new platform? The D7 is 10 years old anyway. A simple go anywhere vehicle shouldn't be expensive to make. When people can remind you that every single utility land cruiser, Nissan patrol or shogun ever made still has larger stronger diffs and shafts than the latest Land Rover maybe it is time to rethink the platform? They could have started with the defender chassis any time in the last 30 years!! Toyota by comparison: There's people passionate about their product, can JLR not do the same? Toyota sold its 10,000,000th land cruiser last year,The 70 series sold around 120,000 units last year, I read earlier in this topic that the Jeep Wrangler sells in similar numbers just in North America alone. I doubt the New Defender will take a single 70 series sale as they're such different vehicles for such different tasks. People forget the Land cruiser heritage, it's now been in production longer than the Defender, has kept closer to its roots and as I said before, ought to be the natural nemesis of the Defender but it just isn't, the defender has turned into a parody of itself. Just to echo @Chicken Drumstick, I think he nailed it i his last posts. The Jeep has heritage by the bucketload which also sells cars. The Suzuki Jimny also has an unbroken heritage going back to the 70's, the G wagon, the same. Clutching at straws for the lineage, whatever happened to the rights of Santana to build and develop land rovers after IVECO took them over? Is Iran still building dodgy copies? Besides the greater similarity to the Yeti than the old defender, the New Defender actually has a lot more in common with the Skoda Yeti a few posts ago than it does with the old defender. Sad but true. I bet if there was a three way competition between the Yeti, the new Defender and the old one in the motoring press, the yeti would place higher than the old defender in almost every category they would use. The Yeti has hill descent control, abs, esp, etc does that mean it could replace an old defender? Unfortunately because of how defenders are marketed nowadays, it probably could for most buyers now. I doubt many aid agencies, mining companies or farmers are lining up to buy a new one despite the staged marketing pictures a few posts ago. Remember no customers have their new defenders yet, anything you see in the press until folks start taking delivery is staged and therefore not impartial. People didn't buy the old one because LR stopped investing in it and it ended up garbage in comparison to the competition. What actually beggars belief is that despite how terrible they were, people did still buy them!! It's those people for whom the Japanese pickups weren't suitable that have just been alienated and dropped like a stone by JLR, that sucks. I still want to buy British (not sure why now), it's time the project grenadier were making some noise. I expect the vehicles to compliment rather than compete with each other.

Nice example and welcome to the forum. I like your interesting choice of tyres.How is access to off road terrain in Turkey? It looks like there is space in your bumper for a winch. What are your plans for your Defender?

In addition to all of the above, some tips. Keep spare shear pins and punch in the handle. Coil the cable up in an old back motorcycle tyre. The thing that normally comes to hold the wire is actually a medieval torture device. Make sure the tirfor will be the right way up when the strain is on. Depending on how the anchor is, you might need an extra shackle to turn it 90º. Leave the tirfor on the anchor after the pull so you can get the cable out easily. Use a single piece handle, the two piece ones get tiring and awkward after a while. Use a longer handle, as long as the shear pins are present there's no problems, it takes a 50kg pull at over a meter for a 3.2 ton pull, longer is less. Always leave the rope release lever forwards / engaged, even with no rope in it for storage. You're meant to clean and oil them!! Gear oil works well.

I agree but remember that now there are two G wagons available. They never stopped production of the one we all like with the live axles and lockers, they just renamed it the G class professional. They never let the formula get diluted like the defender replacement but they did recognise the need for one with independent suspension. All this talk of being a niche low volume manufacturer is nonsense as a justification for building the same vehicle ten different ways. Building a decent range of targeted 4x4's shouldn't be difficult for an entity that has being doing it non stop for 70 years. Same for the Jeep range, Toyota, Suzuki etc. There should be something in the range not actually suitable for soccer moms. I guess an autocratic management with very little effective diversity is at fault and the current field of almost identical offerings reflects their thinking. It must have been incredibly frustrating for some of the engineers there who were pushing the envelope for a more capable vehicle in adverse terrain with an ethos more close to the original. Look at Wrangler sales if you can't see the business model. Tracing the lineage is incredibly important which has been totally lost now.

In a similar vein, there is nowhere at all a highlift jack could be employed to recover from ruts let alone change a tyre on soft ground with the ridiculous factory scissor jack provided in the one I looked at. Interestingly, when I went to look at a new 110 doing the rounds at local dealerships a few months back, it had no provision at all for recovery, not even the towing eye in the lower middle of the front subframe nor a space in the plastic undertray to access it. Nobody amongst the JLR staff present could describe where the recovery points were or where the recovery eye which I found in the boot would go. I guess it was a late prototype and none of the event people had been trained for awkward questions a typical Defender operator might ask. There are provisions for two on the back, one on each side but nothing central to pull in a straight line with. On the front there doesn't seem like anything substantial until way back at the first crossmember. I later asked a designer of the front subframe some questions but unfortunately he didn't respond.

Lol, I thought Nissan Patrol.

Was I the only one thinking how cringe worthy that video was with the entirely contrived super safe scenario on terrain few modern hatch backs, let alone MPV's or SUV's would struggle with? The astonishing lack of wheel travel for a supposed off roader is exactly what many here were discussing 40 - 60 pages ago. There were no surprises there, the lack of a front locking differential is as inexcusable as the exhaust routing and still remains baffling to me. Contrary to popular belief on this forum, that Freelanderesque lurching from side to side is a incredibly bad and dangerous trait in an off road vehicle and is purely a result of a management with no interest in the product it was supposedly replacing. I bet there are engineers at JLR who had very different and more capable alternatives that were dismissed. The massive roll stiffness in the suspension obviously engineered and optimised for on highway prowess could have had disconnecting antiroll bars like other mass manufacturers such as Jeep or Nissan amongst others use to optimise for any given terrain. They could have cross linked the airbags with adequately sized pipes and valves. They had to engineer new subframes anyway, why didn't they put longer control arms in with more clearance and room for an exhaust? The decision to retain the suspension from the Range Rover and Discovery was a really bad long term idea for the Defender replacement in my opinion but I suppose it allowed them to build a 'new' vehicle for very little cost but charge a premium for it by leeching off the icon. I just think if it can't 'walk the walk', it'll never be taken seriously as an off roader, regardless of the fortunes that marketing will throw at it to claim otherwise. I see everything about the defender replacement aimed squarely at the discovery buyer. Not one single piece of off highway orientated technology has been launched with a view to increase off road prowess. The part about opening and closing the doors is pure garbage with reference to being unable to do so on other vehicles, certainly those built nowadays. You could take any modern hatchback and do exactly the same thing. Great salesman in the video, but surely explaining the basics of a traction control system which every vehicle produced must have by law, has been around for 30 years and is in no way peculiar to Land Rover was verging on insulting to a prospective Defender purchaser? His explanation and enthusiasm was good, imagine his speech were it describing something awesome and unique and not just some fancy JLR funded coding for a few of the 85 or so ECU's. I'd wager a 1920's Ford would have driven there. Are we really looking at a century of off highway vehicle development here? Cheers to Naks for getting the thread back on topic.

I agree that is exactly what has happened. Unfortunately putting efficiency so far ahead of capability combined with a desire to appease pedestrian safety to the point of making something entirely unfit for purpose, market forces, the cash constraints of using existing platforms and designers so far removed from the world that defenders previously occupied before they were lifestyle accessories has resulted in a vehicle that certainly ticks a few boxes but is in no way an icon or spiritual successor to the original.

I live in hope that our favourite grumpy old git will unleash the wrath of a moderator and soundly chastise the urban wronguns and send them over to the discovery forum .

Could we try turning the topic of conversation back to the new defender please? Interesting as people's urban commutes are, they surely have zero relevance to the new defender as nobody in their right mind would buy one for that. Would they?

At this point we and quite a few others get to smugly say "we told you so" to all those who wouldn't or couldn't understand that this would be the case. All the words we used, and there was probably more than a thousand, really don't tell it like that picture of articulation. I dare say there's a mode that will eventually allow the air from one airbag to the next via the tiny air pipes if you went slow enough or stopped to pose. I thought I was over how disappointed I am with it but apparently not. I had a look at the local dealer when they had one in. The wobbly door handles, no recovery or external jacking points with vulnerable low hanging components and really plastic front end just didn't do it for me on the one I saw. I do think it's probably the best Discovery ever made and despite not actually being an off roader under the skin I think will make a fantastic tow barge with the right engine. It's definitely got the potential to be useful for many people.

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.