Jump to content
Jamie_grieve

Thoughts and musings on the new defender

Recommended Posts

At this stage they don’t drive prototypes, they drive test build or very early pre production vehicles. The next will be press cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Eightpot said:

According to the article though, JLR marketing boss says it is a Defender prototype.  Amazing that a photographer was present waiting at the side of the road as the engineering chief exec was taking a prototype out just before the head of marketing was able to give a very rehearsed sounding statement at the Paris motorshow.. 

They'll need to get something out there pretty soon, Tata share price is down due to poor results from JLR.

Looking at it again, it looks like a Disco 4 with the rear chopped off (DCPU) and a hastily constructed truckman-type top on the back, which as you say would be easy to mock up and conveniently timed to generate some publicity to take away from poor results ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pitchfork sharpened and oiled ...

It looks bloody hideous, how any 90 or barge enthusiast could bear to even look at it is beyond me.

A Characterless, souless disposable monstrosity

Bring back St. George, there's a dragon needs slaying

Mo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 12:43 PM, Happyoldgit said:

Please God don't let this end up as a multi page thread of "I've heard it from a reliable source in JLR senior management" type bollox full of conjecture and what ifs the likes of which has been running on another forum since Noah was still counting them out two by two.

Please God no, please...

Tell you what, here's my last comment in one of the new Defender type threads over there, I'll put on my gypsy rings and pop in my gold teeth especially for you...

 

 

Crystal ball.jpg

Is that some aluminium corrosion I can see in that crystal ball Mr HOG sire? :hysterical::stirthepot::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BogMonster said:

Is that some aluminium corrosion I can see in that crystal ball Mr HOG sire? :hysterical::stirthepot::lol:

A bit, along with a a goodly amount of conjecture, guesswork , naysaying, two teaspoons of swooning and several shovel loads of bollox.... :stirthepot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 11:13 PM, Scotts90 said:

Was it not JLRs intention to move away from the very hands-on and Iabour intensive build process of the defender? Platform sharing is the key to major manufacturing in the vehicle industry...a truly bespoke hand built defender replacement with no shared power trains or components would see that £40k price tag rise substantially.

Hopefully there will be some less disguised images to base any real criticism on with regards to its looks and until you can plonk your backside in the seat exactly how good it drives is open to individual opinion. Due in 2020?....my D5 will be ready for a change then :rolleyes:

 

I'm not sure I believe the platform sharing guff tbh. Lets face it, even shared platforms end up with significant changes and once you have the tooling the actual cost of bending one bit of metal into one shape and another bit of metal into a different shape for another vehicle is likely to be identical.

Look at all of the other car makers the world over, any of them that offer a proper 4x4 or utility vehicle do so on a platform that isn't shared with their other range. Even VW built a purpose designed platform for their pickup rather than base it on a Golf platform or a chopped down Touareg. All the other car makers make money and profit, so I don't see why JLR can't do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The platform sharing allows the use of the same suspension and drivetrain parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I'm not sure I believe the platform sharing guff tbh.

Errr... Range Rover Classic / Disco 1 / Defender (to an extent). It worked pretty well there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red90 said:

The platform sharing allows the use of the same suspension and drivetrain parts.

In theory yes, reality is most makers usually change bits. A disco2 might share the same engine and gearbox with Defender, but the rest of the drivetrain and suspension is different for instance.

 

Props will be different on an RRS to a D3 due to wheelbase differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the intensive hand-build process the Defender required - they can turn out a £100k full-fat Range Rover full of luxury and gubbins in less time than a Defender as the Defender was never designed to be built by robots. We did the factory tour and they said there were problems where they were getting some bits made by robots they were then TOO accurate to fit properly half the time due to tolerances on older parts. That and they had to have a team of burly men with crowbars and lump hammers to "adjust" the door fits as they rolled off the line - insanely labour-intensive - it really was a 1950's-style production line.

Shared platform means fewer different parts, which saves a load of extra R&D & separate manufacturing processes and you just have to tell the robot to attach it in a different place, not have a completely new robot with a new parts supply and new program, testing etc... Jeep have just f***ed this up on their 2018 models by failing to weld significant bits of the chassis together, class action lawsuits revving up right now... front axle falling off anyone?:blink:

As Daveturnbull says, Original RR platform basically became LR's entire range for some time (and worked pretty well). It's also the reason we can afford to keep any of them on the road - parts are interchangeable and have relatively long runs, they didn't re-design components every 5 minutes like some of the other marques do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you can't have parts interchangeability. It's just the claim of can't build anything unless it shares the platform is a bit of a farce... it's not as if it's just swapping body tubs on pair of chassis rails that you can alter the length of.

It's just a cop out excuse that's easy to parade for not doing something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That, and it saves loads of cash in order to have a product which is financially viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst this thread is still discussing "why don't they build one like in the olden days", can anyone tell me, prior to the sale of RG to BMW (in 1994?), when did RG make money across their business?

Edited by Peaklander
Meant to write RG not Land Rover
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 6:27 PM, Peaklander said:

Whilst this thread is still discussing "why don't they build one like in the olden days", can anyone tell me, prior to the sale of RG to BMW (in 1994?), when did RG make money across their business?

Tough one to call. BAE owned Rover before and set stupid expectations. The company mostly met them, but all the profit was sucked up by the parent company. So you need to look beyond just the base profit and loss figures. 

At the end of the day Rover sold a lot of cars. And they sold them for more than it cost to build them. So money was being made.... somewhere. Even if the accounts don’t show this in simple black & white format. 

Edited by Chicken Drumstick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't want them like they used to be.  We want an improved version....  Not hard to do, if they wanted, but they don't.  Build a capable dual purpose vehicle for the average person.  Good on road and better than anything on the planet off road.  Durable, easy to repair in the bush, easy to upgrade.  The formula is easy to put together and they would make more money than they would know what to do with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this 2 weeks ago on my way into brum.There were 3 jags, one broken down, and this ‘defender’ all stopped at a roundabout, all in disguise. I thought it was a new discovery variant. Not seen it since on my seemingly endless journeys into Birmingham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to be interested by the new defender but I'd have to say I find the Jimny far more interesting although in balance Suzukis historic efforts on achieving well in European crash and saftey tests appear to be lacking.

Anyhow, at the risk of diverting the subject a little the discussion on roll centres teases my interest. Any recomended reads? Detailed suspension setup seems a black art from brief reads and looks around the  the pirate 4x4 site.

My understanding is height of the roll centre (RC) is half the story as it is acted on by the centre of gravity (CG) causing the body roll. CG above RC results in more body roll away from corner. Other way around and the body will roll in toward the corner. I thought road cars didn't necessarily aim for low RC, but a low seperation between the RC and CG to avoid lots of body movement through rapid chicanes or changes in direction - at least until aero concerns start to come into play. Is this the same for off roaders? Isn't the high RC more about matching the high CG due to ground clearance and tall body etc? If anything independent suspension could be better at keeping the RC closer to the CG with variable height?

 

Edited by WesBrooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engineers ability to optimise roll centre also hampered by the favoured live axle suspension?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only thought to any of this is.

I did a VIP day at gaydon years ago whilst there I saw several jags parked up with chuffing great holes in the bonnet. Poking up through these holes were air suspension towers that were never going to fit any kind of jag. The following year terrain response appeared. 

My point is the body is more than likely a butchered something else, the exhaust is probably fake, the suspension is perhaps freelander because they're actually testing a seat and steering wheel. I won't believe any of it until it looks like a prototype vehicle we haven't seen most of before on other model. Even then it will probably be a fake.

I do want to see the replacement, I am looking forward to it, but I'll never own one so it doesn't matter to me if it's a rebodied freelander with bigger tyres.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Red90 said:

We don't want them like they used to be.  We want an improved version....  Not hard to do, if they wanted, but they don't.  Build a capable dual purpose vehicle for the average person.  Good on road and better than anything on the planet off road.  Durable, easy to repair in the bush, easy to upgrade.  The formula is easy to put together and they would make more money than they would know what to do with.

How do you know that's not exactly what they're doing?

All I can see on this thread is a load of rose-tinted b*ll*cks about how great the Defender was, ignoring the many, many shortcomings / compromises and ALSO ignoring the fact that most stuff they've built since the Defender can run rings around a standard Defender and is far better at everything else to boot. Even the original Freelander can keep with a stock Defender off-road and everyone pooh-poohed that as being "not a proper Land Rover" - likewise the FL2 / Evoque / Disco Sport I'll bet can at least match a stock Defender for 99% of what actual buyers do with it.

As far as I can tell people are just assuming that modern things like independent suspension is junk, despite so much stuff having it these days and it being absolutely fine on things like the current RR and Disco (I mean, have you SEEN the travel on them?) and lots of assumptions about everything else being awful because, um, that makes sense for them to spend millions designing a vehicle that's awful?

I'm sure the purists bitched about coil springs and full-time 4x4 when they moved from Series to Defender but I don't see the moaners here driving TRUE leaf-sprung Land Rovers, just namby-pamby coilers with carpets and stereos :SVAgoaway:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:

How do you know that's not exactly what they're doing?

All I can see on this thread is a load of rose-tinted b*ll*cks about how great the Defender was, ignoring the many, many shortcomings / compromises and ALSO ignoring the fact that most stuff they've built since the Defender can run rings around a standard Defender and is far better at everything else to boot. Even the original Freelander can keep with a stock Defender off-road and everyone pooh-poohed that as being "not a proper Land Rover" - likewise the FL2 / Evoque / Disco Sport I'll bet can at least match a stock Defender for 99% of what actual buyers do with it.

As far as I can tell people are just assuming that modern things like independent suspension is junk, despite so much stuff having it these days and it being absolutely fine on things like the current RR and Disco (I mean, have you SEEN the travel on them?) and lots of assumptions about everything else being awful because, um, that makes sense for them to spend millions designing a vehicle that's awful?

I'm sure the purists bitched about coil springs and full-time 4x4 when they moved from Series to Defender but I don't see the moaners here driving TRUE leaf-sprung Land Rovers, just namby-pamby coilers with carpets and stereos :SVAgoaway:

Well said chap.

 

If anyone on here has ever driven D4 or D7U platformed JLR products off road in anger will agree that they are immensely capable. I'd pitch a standard D4 on road tyres against a defender on muds with a rear locker any day of the week. The much hated electronic wizardry is extremely clever and the E-Diff's work superbly! 

On paper the defender was terrible, In reality the defender was even worse. 

The new one, looks aside (which no-one can judge yet) will be extremely good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, FridgeFreezer said:

Even the original Freelander can keep with a stock Defender off-road

Until you hit the first decent rut or have to straddle a rock or piece of wood more than eight inches high!  Get real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

How do you know that's not exactly what they're doing?

They are building the new Defender on the RRS/D5 platform.  They have stated this and people that have seen it have confirmed.  That does not meet any of my criteria other than being good on the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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