Jump to content

Thoughts and musings on the new defender


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bowie69 said:

Doubtful bait, but certainly an opinion that echos many of the alt-right brand of Land Rover brandism  ;)

 

(For those intent on taking offence, this is a JOKE! :) )

I consider that this viewpoint is so alt-right that's it's approaching the alt-left, after all, running a series is massively anti late-stage capitalism; no debt, no planned obsolescence, self-reliant, classless. 

Oh, it's making me dizzy. I think I'll go tidy the workshop.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gazzar said:

I consider that this viewpoint is so alt-right that's it's approaching the alt-left, after all, running a series is massively anti late-stage capitalism; no debt, no planned obsolescence, self-reliant, classless. 

Oh, it's making me dizzy. I think I'll go tidy the workshop.

A bit like Bliars politics? Trying to be so left he hit the far right and 'accidentally' stumbled on capitalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, reb78 said:

A bit like Bliars politics? Trying to be so left he hit the far right and 'accidentally' stumbled on capitalism?

It's a continuum, or a condominium, or a consortium? What a conundrum!

Politically, I'm am orphan, I think. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2021 at 2:01 PM, Snagger said:

It comes back to the point that this is really Discovery 6 or another new Discovery range product, not a Defender.

Without being too artsy fartsy or ethereal, what is a Defender to folks like us on this forum? Reliability? Go-anywhere capabilities? Utilitarianism? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tricky. Different people have different requirements and expectations.

I see criticisms of the new Ford Bronco - probably by Jeep Wrangler owners (or wannabe owners who can't afford it). 

No mass manufacturer can win everyone over; they have to think of markets, statistics, legislation, environmental and stir it all into the saucepan of compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, paime said:

Without being too artsy fartsy or ethereal, what is a Defender to folks like us on this forum? Reliability? Go-anywhere capabilities? Utilitarianism? 

The Series heritage slowly modified over time but essentially the same thing.  Basic, functional, modular, flexible, serviceable in the field with a basic toolkit, endlessly repairable etc. etc. etc.  Most of that came from having a chassis with bolt-on body parts.

That four-wheel drive big family station wagon, with approximately seven forward facing seats, was the role of the Discovery.  It was differentiated from the Freelander by a proper four wheel drive system and real ground clearance, as well as the size, and from the Range Rover by less and less as time went on, other than having more seats and more space.  It never really mattered if the construction was body on chassis or monocoque because it was always a station wagon.

So yes, there have always been Series/Defender station wagons but the line was not limited to them and, even so, they were never the family or luxury versions of the concept.

Put all that together and the new Defender is, to all intents and purposes, another version of a Discovery.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, deep said:

The Series heritage slowly modified over time but essentially the same thing.  Basic, functional, modular, flexible, serviceable in the field with a basic toolkit, endlessly repairable etc. etc. etc.  Most of that came from having a chassis with bolt-on body parts.

That four-wheel drive big family station wagon, with approximately seven forward facing seats, was the role of the Discovery.  It was differentiated from the Freelander by a proper four wheel drive system and real ground clearance, as well as the size, and from the Range Rover by less and less as time went on, other than having more seats and more space.  It never really mattered if the construction was body on chassis or monocoque because it was always a station wagon.

So yes, there have always been Series/Defender station wagons but the line was not limited to them and, even so, they were never the family or luxury versions of the concept.

Put all that together and the new Defender is, to all intents and purposes, another version of a Discovery.

Common platform construction is necessary in modern manufacturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...LR had a common utility platform .

The new pretender is purely a marketing choice in business direction , the OTR price for an option packed "110" bears no relationship to utility and is firmly aligned with fashionable lifestyle .

Less gear oil and more beard oil.....

Steve

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, missingsid said:

Common platform construction is necessary in modern manufacturing.

To some extent yes. But most car makers still have a variety of platforms that they use.

Pretty much any other car maker in the world who sells and markets a "4x4" has at least one model as a body on frame vehicle, usually with at least 1 live axle, e.g.

Mercedes, Toyota, Dodge, Chevrolet, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Jeep, GMC, Ford, Suzuki, Isuzu, Lada, UAZ, Daihatsu, VW, etc.

I think Honda, BMW and Land Rover are the only ones that don't. And Honda and BMW are very much "on" road focused with their vehicles.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, missingsid said:

Common platform construction is necessary in modern manufacturing.

Not at all!  Anyway, you could do an awful lot with a common floorpan/chassis and two or three body options.  Rivian are doing that, Ineos promise to, Ford Ranger/Everest does that and there are many examples of modern vehicles that retain a little flexibility.  JLR just don't want to do it because they're priced out of market.  When did they last make a flat deck Defender, I wonder?  I'm not sure I've ever seen a Puma that wasn't a crew cab or a station wagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deep said:

Ford Everest

Never heard of it. Just looked it up. Another decent looking motor that hasnt made it to the UK market!

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I love my S1 but also my D3. Don't forget the D3/4 are body on chassis as well (D5 is new RR Sport I assume?) so the only difference from some of the vehicles mentionef is the solid rear axle which TBH is stupidly old hat and only good for commercial goods wagons IMHO.

Racers and trialers gave them up years ago arent they proper offroaders!

Some of the arguments are getting conficted and a bit Luddite. But they're just differing opinions wich we all have so interesting none the less.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, in truth, the world has moved on. When the Landrover was designed, roads in the UK were considerably worse than today, and today, even in the less urbanised parts of the world, roads are much better, less fords, less untracked land. 

 

So the need for the core Landrover skills has passed: leaf springs, crude body work, ladder chassis, simple mechanicals, not really needed.

I think what I struggle with is the name and branding, the defender rightly inherited the role and heritage of the Landrover, and shone in that role, but this vehicle doesn't.  No doubt it will be a fine vehicle once it hits it's stride, but it's not a vehicle that relishes it's crudeness and openness.

I'd buy one as a car, if I could justify the cost. As a utility that needs off tarmac ability? New? I think I'd get a DMax, or a transit AWD. Used? A Landrover, or a defender.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, deep said:

Not at all!  Anyway, you could do an awful lot with a common floorpan/chassis and two or three body options.  Rivian are doing that, Ineos promise to, Ford Ranger/Everest does that and there are many examples of modern vehicles that retain a little flexibility.  JLR just don't want to do it because they're priced out of market.  When did they last make a flat deck Defender, I wonder?  I'm not sure I've ever seen a Puma that wasn't a crew cab or a station wagon.

I guess what amazes me is. Even with 'common' shared platforms. The differences are often vast between the models. So much so, that they often share very little. I suspect in many or even most cases, a 'shared' platform actually means each variant is almost completely different. But has a few compromised areas that must meet the same bolt pattern. But things like shape & dimension and location of parts are often very different.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, missingsid said:

Look I love my S1 but also my D3. Don't forget the D3/4 are body on chassis as well (D5 is new RR Sport I assume?) so the only difference from some of the vehicles mentionef is the solid rear axle which TBH is stupidly old hat and only good for commercial goods wagons IMHO.

Racers and trialers gave them up years ago arent they proper offroaders!

Some of the arguments are getting conficted and a bit Luddite. But they're just differing opinions wich we all have so interesting none the less.

 

I can't really see how liking live axles is a luddite view. 🙄

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actively looking for a replacement 4x4 but still not inspired or tempted enough to book a test drive of the new model which to me is just a bit samey, just another urban pose wagon. As far as I'm concerned what few JLR dealers there are left in East Anglia are apathetic toward customers who have purchased new vehicles from them in the past, I've had 0 contact, 0, nothing, nada. The new model is notable by its absence around here, I think I caught a glimpse of the backend of one disappearing around a corner in the local town last week but that is the sum total so far. I doubt I will be splashing out what I feel is an unreasonable amount of money on something that just makes me feel - a bit 'meh'.

14 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I can't really see how liking live axles is a luddite view. 🙄

It's his view, respect it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Live axles deliver. If you need to move stuff, reliably, you can't beat live axles. 

It's not wrong to like a successful technology.

Nothing luddite about that.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's why this whole thing became a bit cyclical somewhere around page 3. It's a Disco, not a Defender, it's not different enough from the current range to mark it out as a new model, it's lacking the character of the old model. All valid, all fine.

But these things about live axles, suspension travel, difflocks and the like being the essential traits for any vehicle to be good off-road.... it seems no one told the new Defender that. So if it's as good (if not better) thany anyone could have expected of it off road - and I think anyone that denies it is a bit of a monster in that area is being willfully stubborn - are we just upset that it's also good on road? Rather than a perfect mix, it seems we'd want it hobbled in some way.  Its like having a road tyre that outperforms a set of Simex... "yeah, but its' not a real off road tyre"...

Looking at it as a working tool, if I needed to get four adults across challenging terrain, to arrive in relative comfort with enough room for dry kit to then do a job, would I pick the old or the new model? If you were looking at journeys from the point of minimising view of cost (fuel, tolls, ferries, etc) then the new model is inarguably a better way to get across large distances more economically. That's not something we might consider when a maximum of two-up in a convoy of 3-4 vehicles on our way to the local pay and play, coming from a leisure perspective.

It just seems that we're not entirely sure what it is we're after, so how could LR have ever met our expectations?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ThreePointFive said:

For me it's why this whole thing became a bit cyclical somewhere around page 3. It's a Disco, not a Defender, it's not different enough from the current range to mark it out as a new model, it's lacking the character of the old model. All valid, all fine.

But these things about live axles, suspension travel, difflocks and the like being the essential traits for any vehicle to be good off-road.... it seems no one told the new Defender that. So if it's as good (if not better) thany anyone could have expected of it off road - and I think anyone that denies it is a bit of a monster in that area is being willfully stubborn - are we just upset that it's also good on road? Rather than a perfect mix, it seems we'd want it hobbled in some way.  Its like having a road tyre that outperforms a set of Simex... "yeah, but its' not a real off road tyre"...

Looking at it as a working tool, if I needed to get four adults across challenging terrain, to arrive in relative comfort with enough room for dry kit to then do a job, would I pick the old or the new model? If you were looking at journeys from the point of minimising view of cost (fuel, tolls, ferries, etc) then the new model is inarguably a better way to get across large distances more economically. That's not something we might consider when a maximum of two-up in a convoy of 3-4 vehicles on our way to the local pay and play, coming from a leisure perspective.

It just seems that we're not entirely sure what it is we're after, so how could LR have ever met our expectations?

The new Defender, just like the the D5 and the current FFRR and RRS are all good off road. But only because of the traction aids. Not because the base design is natively suited or even purposely designed for off road use. Is this good or bad?

Not really sure. And it may not matter at all.

Off road, so long as you don't topple over too easily, don't ground out too easily. And have the ability to make all 4 wheels turn. You can cover difficult terrain. Weather or not they all make good off roaders is probably a different topic however :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Transfer this discussion to the 911 forum and you have the whole air cooled vs water cooled and 911 vs Cayman argument.

911 is a fat bloater that only goes around corners by computer control (not necessarily a bad thing as modern fighters are the same). Cayman is the same size as the air cooled 911 and the engine is in the correct place.

Most people now accept that a hot Cayman GT4 is much better than a 911.

But it's not a 911 and there is the crux of the argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 4:16 PM, missingsid said:

Transfer this discussion to the 911 forum and you have the whole air cooled vs water cooled and 911 vs Cayman argument.

911 is a fat bloater that only goes around corners by computer control (not necessarily a bad thing as modern fighters are the same). Cayman is the same size as the air cooled 911 and the engine is in the correct place.

Most people now accept that a hot Cayman GT4 is much better than a 911.

But it's not a 911 and there is the crux of the argument.

 

And real drivers get a Lotus instead of a flattened beetle. 😁

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
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