Jump to content

Thoughts and musings on the new defender


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

The changes were reasonably significant though. Sure they still "looked" similar and some parts might have been backwards compatible. But really the 90/110 is a long way different from the Series.

What was a big change though? Permanent 4WD/CVs being one I can think of. Even then, its still not a massive change from what was before, its only really some small components that changed. The body was still built in the same way. Suspension obviously went from leaves to coils, but again that's not made it really a new vehicle given how similar the rest of it is. Still got very similar in design axles on the whole, still live etc, just different spring/location. IMO there were not enough significant changes in the whole car to compare it like the new defender is compared to the old.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought some or all of the very first Defenders 110's were RWD/4WD like the Series hence the LT230 2WD/FWH kit, also not so very much distance between a Stage 1 V8 109 and the first 110's, given that the Stage 1 had the RR V8 and gearbox & transfer box so full-time 4WD... only a set of Range Rover suspension and a tarted about dashboard really :ph34r:

But as I said many pages ago, the original Defender was a RRC platform with a utilitarian body, and the new one is a RR/Disco platform with a utilitarian body... it's just taken them a few generations of RR/Disco to catch up.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe only the early 90s had the 2286/2wd option and they came out a year after the 110.  Does anyone know if that is correct?

Also, the first Range Rover only added suspension/brakes/steering to the LR, without changing the design intent or utility of the vehicle.  That’s nothing Like the recent re-design, which is effectively a re-purposing of the range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, landroversforever said:

What was a big change though? Permanent 4WD/CVs being one I can think of. Even then, its still not a massive change from what was before, its only really some small components that changed. The body was still built in the same way. Suspension obviously went from leaves to coils, but again that's not made it really a new vehicle given how similar the rest of it is. Still got very similar in design axles on the whole, still live etc, just different spring/location. IMO there were not enough significant changes in the whole car to compare it like the new defender is compared to the old.

The Suspension is a BIG change IMO. Bigger than going from coils to air. As it also alters how the axles are attached to the vehicle. It isn't just a spring upgrade as this change also impacts squat, dive, pitch and roll rates too.

But in terms of changes, pretty much everything changed. The chassis was constructed differently with completely different wheelbases to the Series. The axles are wider, the diffs are a different ratio, it has disc front brakes, different steering (PAS), different front bulkhead, different windscreen, different wipers/washers, different heater, different roof, different doors and door locks, different windows, different seats, different interior, different central bulkhead, different body panels.

And while the 2 1/4 was in some early models (probably in an effort to get the vehicle to market, like the early Disco 4 having the 2.7TDV6). The engine and drive train is completely different to a Series model.

In terms of parts, there really is very little carry over from a Series to a 90/110. Some bits are backwards compatible, but the majority of bits are not transferable without additional modification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe what my points haven't got across is take a look at the Series 3 to 90/110 change and the Old to new Defender change. The former is very much an all round updated version of what went before. The new defender shows nothing like the same similarity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Series to 90/110 change was an evolution.  It maintained/improved the off road and utility use while improving the on road use and comfort. This new one is worse for off road and utility use while only improving on road use and comfort. It was not needed.  They could have modernized the vehicle, making it more comfortable and better on the road while also improving the off road capability and utility.  It could have easily become a world leader in off road capability and utility usage while meeting modern on road expectations.  THAT would have won them new customers and improved sales vastly.  But...their management has no vision and is wearing blinders.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, deep said:

I believe only the early 90s had the 2286/2wd option and they came out a year after the 110.  Does anyone know if that is correct?

Also, the first Range Rover only added suspension/brakes/steering to the LR, without changing the design intent or utility of the vehicle.  That’s nothing Like the recent re-design, which is effectively a re-purposing of the range.

No, the early 110s, deep. The 90 didn't have it.

Mo

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2020 at 9:27 AM, Mo Murphy said:

No, the early 110s, deep. The 90 didn't have it.

Mo

Thanks for that.  Strong indication that my addled brain isn't wrmffing anymore!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I finally got to see one in the flesh last night.  All those photos and videos can't prepare you for the sheet size of this thing.  It's like one of those big fat pig GQ Nissans that used to get jammed on narrow trails when people started using them as cheap off-roaders.  Unlike the GQ though, it did have a sort of Range Rover-esque presence (enhanced by the late evening light as it drove out of the airport carpark).  That's essentially what's wrong with it.  We already have a Range Rover!

Edited by deep
addled brfain
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve seen a few here now on the motorways.  Contrary to what some said, I still think it’s as ugly in the flesh as on screen.  I haven’t seen the interior first hand yet, but that’s the bit I generally don’t mind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall big water ingress problems either side of the windscreen frame on the early ones and well remember a photo in the AWDC mag showing someone holding an umbrella over the front roof of a hardtop 110 as it was peeing down with rain ...which was then peeing in the footwell.

.

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

I’ve seen a few here now on the motorways.  Contrary to what some said, I still think it’s as ugly in the flesh as on screen.  I haven’t seen the interior first hand yet, but that’s the bit I generally don’t mind.

The front is ghastly as seems to be the norm for many large vehicles now - most seem to go down the “aggressive” look. One can only presume that this is what many of the target customers want.

I like the rest of it though, reminiscent of the classic outline and fairly well proportioned. They look better without all the bolt-on tat like gear carriers and ladders, however useful they may be.

2 hours ago, deep said:

 I finally got to see one in the flesh last night.  All those photos and videos can't prepare you for the sheet size of this thing.  It's like one of those big fat pig GQ Nissans that used to get jammed on narrow trails when people started using them as cheap off-roaders.  Unlike the GQ though, it did have a sort of Range Rover-esque presence (enhanced by the late evening light as it drove out of the airport carpark).  That's essentially what's wrong with it.  We already have a Range Rover!

It’s about 9” wider in the body than the old Defender, which I’m told is about the same as an L322. While it will probably cause a few issues on tighter gates and greenlanes the extra space inside is well worth it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too , along with wind noise ( doors ) , transmission vibration ( 90's more than 110's ) and after a short while crunchy 2nd gear selection (LT77) and then a bit further on output shaft on gearbox wearing - hence cross drilled TB gear . 

...A very good friend of mine bought a new HT 90 2.5 petrol (B reg ) and after nearly 2 years of ownership he got a full refund due to continued water ingress and transmission vibration .

34 minutes ago, Happyoldgit said:

I recall big water ingress problems either side of the windscreen frame on the early ones and well remember a photo in the AWDC mag showing someone holding an umbrella over the front roof of a hardtop 110 as it was peeing down with rain ...which was then peeing in the footwell.

.

My early 90 was a Factory V8 TC ( 3 years old C reg when I bought it ) and was fine Trans. wise - front prop at 45deg was out by then and seemed pretty dry . The V8 was nicer to listen to than the wind noise ☺️

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, deep said:

That's essentially what's wrong with it.  We already have a Range Rover!

This.

I have nothing against the new Defender, only that it's not a Defender replacement, but a more rugged looking/behaving Range Rover/Discovery. Like some of the offroad packs with extra plastic bits etc you can get for other 4x4s.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled up next to one in my 110 the other day, pretty sure my 110 made a lurch for it.  It told me later it could definitely smash it in a fight and I have no reason to doubt it.   

Lucky they can run away fast. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Midweek, coming down M4 from a meet with my accountant, doing the typical midday-middle-lane 70MPH 90TD5-amble - a couple of silver New Defenders passed me; sign-written for an estates-management business - one towing a twin-axle flatbed with a Takeuchi minidigger on-board, the other towing an orange Timberwolf log-muncher.

Caught up with them at Reading services - they were in a hurry so only a few words were exchanged but the gist was that they were going down to Shepton Mallett to drop their loads, pick up new loads, expected to be back in Maidenhead by 6PM. They said the new-Defenders were great as towcars, but that after the first year of the lease was up they'd be looking at swapping to the 'commercial' tax-efficient equivalent-model when it appears later this-year/early-2021.

I told them I had a commercial LandCruiser on order, and they were both interested and amused; one of them is already a Mole Farmers member so is eligible for the 16%-off-list-price discount. Perhaps I've tempted him to join the Cruiser cult/

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Naks said:

another update on the TFL saga:
 

 

I watched that last night.  What the heck is wrong with Land Rover?  They can't get the basic car to work, so they build in more and more potential trouble spots with each new model!  Honestly, I've been a Land Rover fan for nearly half a century but it's getting to the point that I'm embarrassed to admit it.  The Freelander 2 is probably the last model I'd want to own, sigh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, deep said:

I watched that last night.  What the heck is wrong with Land Rover?  They can't get the basic car to work, so they build in more and more potential trouble spots with each new model!  Honestly, I've been a Land Rover fan for nearly half a century but it's getting to the point that I'm embarrassed to admit it.  The Freelander 2 is probably the last model I'd want to own, sigh.

Same (without the freelander 2 bit :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Naks said:
Probably the first DIY oil change on a New Defender:
 
 

Hats off to him and I agree that the service intervals are crazy long (especially when it will be in the dealership regularly to have other things fixed....) but I wonder if he has just voided his warranty?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as he uses the Land Rover specified oil and filter there’s no issue. Official services at a garage (not necessarily the dealer) to keep the warranty intact, and the intermediate ones at home.

Modern oil change intervals are more to do with minimising costs in the first 3 years to suit the leasing market than actually prolonging engine life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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