Thoughts and musings on the new defender

[Retroanaconda]

12 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I thought the Duratracs were a dealer only fit option not factory? And only very recently introduced if at all yet. Certainly in the U.K.  

also the rear recovery points weren’t on the U.K. configurator unless you bought the X model for about £100k. This might have changed. But I did quiz the guys at the Experience Centre and they had no answers at the time. 
 

Although in fairness, traditional Defenders never came with recovery points either.  

Duratracs have been available for months. They’re dealer-fit not factory but that’s no difference as far as the buyer is concerned.

Same for the rear recovery points - they can be specified from the factory as per of some kind of fancy option pack for a silly price, or you can buy them for a £60 and have the dealer fit them for you before delivery for a few hundred quid. Or do it yourself and save the cash, which I will do when I get around to it.

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 minutes ago, Retroanaconda said:

Duratracs have been available for months. They’re dealer-fit not factory but that’s no difference as far as the buyer is concerned.

Same for the rear recovery points - they can be specified from the factory as per of some kind of fancy option pack for a silly price, or you can buy them for a £60 and have the dealer fit them for you before delivery for a few hundred quid. Or do it yourself and save the cash, which I will do when I get around to it.

Thanks. 👍

My info is out of date. But I’d guess when TFL got theirs maybe they couldn’t at the time get the Duratracs or recovery points either?

I must confess I haven’t seen a new Defender in Duratracs in person. Can’t really comment on the rear recovery points as I didn’t see the back of all of them. The hardtop I saw on the white steelies look good. But the tyres were road ones. 

[deep]

11 hours ago, Retroanaconda said:

I’d not necessarily say so. If I wanted a vehicle purely in which to play off road and drive that kind of track then the Wrangler or Bronco are clearly the pick of the bunch, they’re pure recreational off road vehicles. Very capable, and very cool.

If I wanted a good all rounder that could ferry me around for work, tow heavy trailers without breaking a sweat, run 1,200 miles to the south of England and back to visit family, carry five people in comfort and safety, and drive that kind of track if I needed to (with the proper tyres) then the Defender is the obvious choice.

Except they clearly do, hence why they offer an 18” tyre option with as much sidewall as old Defender ever had. Just a shame the factory fit tyres are rubbish, no doubt driven by the drive for improved fuel efficiency and emissions, but that’s at least easy to change. The majority of old Defenders left the factory on road tyres and nobody batted an eyelid. 

Um, if I had to regularly do 1,200 mile journeys I'm not sure I'd want the lottery of driving a new Defender and hoping it doesn't have electronic gremlins.  Assuming the Bronco is big, fat and comfy in the (non-Jeep) American tradition, I'm sure it would be just as good on a long trip.  Neither of us have any idea of how the rear seat passengers would find the Bronco.  The Defender is far from the obvious choice in that scenario!

Second um ... the 18 inch tyre has less sidewall than the old Defender.  Same outside diameter minus bigger inside diameter = thinner sidewalls.  Simple arithmetic!

[Retroanaconda]

You’re right, the sidewalls are slightly shorter. I just measured my 110 and it has a sidewall of 155mm compared to 165mm on the old 90’s tyres. So there’s only 10mm in it - the 18”tyres are not a low profile by any stretch. On paper a 255/70/R18 is 10mm bigger in overall diameter compared to a 235/85/R16, in reality different brands of tyres will be slightly different as we all know. You can fit slightly bigger tyres if you want to, same as on the old one, though how far you can go without further modifications is more limited.

In any case it is not really the depth of the sidewalls causing the issue with the factory Goodyear tyres as much as the complete lack of reinforcement. When I trashed mine it wasn’t pinched on the bead but simply cut on a rock, not helped by the wider track of the new car operating in rust almost exclusively made by old Land Rover sized vehicles.

I’ve no doubt that the Bronco will be comfortable and probably even fairly practical. And to be fair I don’t know what it’s towing capacity is, I know the Jeeps have always been poor in the past but it may well be better in which case it would make it a more useable vehicle.

I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about doing 1,200 miles in a new Defender any more than any other car?

[Chicken Drumstick]

The Jeeps are perfectly comfy on the road. As for towing. They usually have a super low rating. I think this is to prevent them taking sales from pickups in N America. But sadly translated to fairly carp tow ratings here in the U.K.  It is most certainly marketing and political lead. Not a technical limitation. 

[Retroanaconda]

I looked up the Bronco tow rating, it seems to be 3,500lbs or around 1,500kgs.

Other than that the specification list is great. You can have up to 35” tyres, front/rear diff locks, integrated terrain mapping, disconnect-able sway bar - it looks like a great toy. Interestingly I hadn’t realised it had independent front suspension.

[Chicken Drumstick]

I bet the US Ranger has a better tow rating using largely the same platform and hardware. 
 

edit: yep 7500lbs for the Ranger. 

[Snagger]

16 hours ago, Retroanaconda said:

To answer that question you’ll have to ask TFL as they’re the ones who chose the car/spec, or rather accepted the car they were offered when their original one went back.

You can spec on your car from the dealer the rear recovery points (front one is already fitted on all models) and ‘professional off road tyres’ which are Wrangler Duratrac, though my preference would be BFG’s.

They chose the off road package.  The tyres are very tame tread for that, but the sizes are laughable on 20” rims, especially for the US market, and that is a JLR limitation, as is the specification of tyre type and brand in the package, which appears to be a very bad choice by JLR.

As for the front recovery point, that is a joke.  You have to remove the plastic under tray to get to it, and it’s very low down.  How useless is that if you’re beached in soft sand, deep mud or on rocks?  They should have the recovery points below the head lamps as part of the off road package, as well as an easily accessible rear point.  Given the supposed nature of the vehicle, they really ought to be standard across the entire range.

[Retroanaconda]

They have no rear locking diff so didn’t go for the off road pack, they just have chosen the off road tyres option separately like I did. It was also their choice to have a P400 which can’t take the smaller wheels without modifications to the brakes.

Likewise you can specify the front skid plate which exposes the front recovery point if preferred, or just take the trim off before you go off roading. Why make the rear recovery points standard when most people won’t need them, and you can make some extra money charging those who do for them as an option?

[Snagger]

That rather illustrates the point, though, that it is a road car that has to be specifically added to in order to be proficient off-road, especially the big engined model which will always be hobbled by bad tyres and wheels.

The most important element of an off road vehicle is the tyres.  Get those right and you don’t need electronics.  Get it wrong, and even the electronics can’t save you, as happened in that video.

[Mo Murphy]

I'd rather have a Bronco.

Just saying

Mo

[reb78]

1 hour ago, Mo Murphy said:

I'd rather have a Bronco.

Just saying

Mo

Me too but the 'mericans dont want to sell it over here.... I was looking it up the other day and they have no plans to release it in the UK/EU  

[Chicken Drumstick]

5 minutes ago, reb78 said:

Me too but the 'mericans dont want to sell it over here.... I was looking it up the other day and they have no plans to release it in the UK/EU  

Sadly doesn’t meet EU construction regs. And the tiny market here probably doesn’t make it worth the development effort. Not when Ford are likely to struggle to meet USA demand for a few years at any rate. Our only hope is if they decide to sell it in Oz or look for a grey import. 

[reb78]

20 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Sadly doesn’t meet EU construction regs. And the tiny market here probably doesn’t make it worth the development effort. Not when Ford are likely to struggle to meet USA demand for a few years at any rate. Our only hope is if they decide to sell it in Oz or look for a grey import. 

Whats involved with bringing one over? It must be possible looking at the yank stuff you can buy here but is it silly money? They are dead cheap to buy in the US relative to new cars over here, but I guess by the time this tax and that tax and shipping are added it will soon bump costs up

[Mo Murphy]

19 minutes ago, reb78 said:

Whats involved with bringing one over? It must be possible looking at the yank stuff you can buy here but is it silly money? They are dead cheap to buy in the US relative to new cars over here, but I guess by the time this tax and that tax and shipping are added it will soon bump costs up

Too much !

Mo

[Chicken Drumstick]

24 minutes ago, reb78 said:

Whats involved with bringing one over? It must be possible looking at the yank stuff you can buy here but is it silly money? They are dead cheap to buy in the US relative to new cars over here, but I guess by the time this tax and that tax and shipping are added it will soon bump costs up

I’m sure importers are already looking. But they will add extra margin for themselves. Cheapest is probably a RoRo (roll on/roll off) transport or a container you arrange yourself. 
 

You will then have to pay VAT and import duty. It will then need an IVA. Which might take a bit with the Bronco. As the factory fit bonnet tie downs are likely a no no here. And maybe some other bits. 
 

once IVA’d it’ll need registering and away you go. 
 

It will all add up. But should still be feasible. Eg you can get a really good spec Bronco easily for $43,000 which is about £31k currently. I think duty & VAT would come in just under £10k. 
 

Shipping £1500-2000 when I last looked a few years ago. 
 

And IVA + alterations to get it to pass might be another £1k+
 

All in all if you simply swap the $ sign of the US price for a £ sign. That is approx what it’ll likely cost you +- 10%
 

If you get a company to do it all for you or buy from a U.K. importer, then probably add 20-25% more for their margin. 

[elbekko]

On 7/30/2021 at 4:03 PM, Chicken Drumstick said:

with regards to mods. Not 100% sure what you mean. But suspect you are trying to say you feel the Jeep and Ford are modified because they have greater off road focus. But that isn’t really fair. They are bone stock factory vehicles. In the Fords case the Sashqatch package is available on all trims including base and more road luxury variants. The Jeep is a bit different and only the Rubicon gets the lockers like this. But base spec and Sahara can option a rear LSD and off road tyres still. 

No, that wasn't what I was trying to say. They'll still need mods, just fewer.

My main point was about the packages chosen: Rubicon, whatever the off-road package is called on the Bronco, and some road-trim Defender with ATPC and some ATs slapped onto stupidly big wheels (not even the smallest available for that trim). But I was actually pleasantly surprised to see, looking at the Bronco configurator, that it can't be specced with stupidly big wheels. So it has that going for it.

All Defenders can option ATPC and the rear locker, if you want the 6-cylinder mild hybrid, you'll have 19" wheels at the smallest, otherwise 18" wheels (including steel wheels) are available. The fact they don't have that, is because of a series of bad decisions on their part, not Land Rover's fault.

On 7/31/2021 at 7:50 AM, Snagger said:

As for the front recovery point, that is a joke.  You have to remove the plastic under tray to get to it, and it’s very low down.  How useless is that if you’re beached in soft sand, deep mud or on rocks?  They should have the recovery points below the head lamps as part of the off road package, as well as an easily accessible rear point.  Given the supposed nature of the vehicle, they really ought to be standard across the entire range.

Good luck getting that through pedestrian safety testing.

[Ed Poore]

Oh the drama of getting it back down! 

[Jamie_grieve]

1 hour ago, elbekko said:

The fact they don't have that, is because of a series of bad decisions on their part, not Land Rover's fault.

Did you miss the bit where they originally had 18" wheels and a rear locker? The fact that they no longer have that vehicle speaks volumes about how difficult these new defenders are to repair and the poor resources made available by JLR to do so, that is entirely Land Rover's fault and nothing at all to do with the consumer. Regardless of how capable (or not) the new defender is, there's no excuse for intentionally making it almost impossible to diagnose and repair. Tyre sidewall vulnerability clearly wasn't part of the design process as the low rounded kerb strikes in the test marketing videos alluded to. 

 

1 hour ago, elbekko said:

Good luck getting that through pedestrian safety testing.

Any schoolboy or first year graphic design student let alone an experienced engineering team at JLR could have designed something better than the woefully inadequate and potentially dangerous  recovery point provided. Look at literally every other 4x4 or medium duty vehicle in the world for inspiration.
What many people don't realise is that the front recovery point is actually underneath the car at the lowest point on the front of the subframe, not on the front of the car at all. Anybody in this area is completely hidden from the drivers view, you cant even hold a hand on the bonnet to indicate your presence as it's that far down. Being located on the very lowest point of a stuck vehicle also means that there is also a danger of a hand getting put between the recovery eye and the ground to tighten a shackle or feed something through the loop which if there is any movement of the vehicle at all during this time, from people getting in and out of it fro example, well intentioned pushes and rocking from helpers or driver input could well result in injury.
The original DC100 after which the new defender is modelled had very prominent recovery points at the front which are now just plastic recesses on the new defender but they could have chosen to do something clever with modern UHMwPE fibres with an attachment point out of harms way of NCAP punishment.
There's a lot of scope for improvement however as the two front longitudinal members would be stronger than anything on the old defender and well up to the task and also sit about a foot back from the front of the car to allow for an NCAP friendly design. Even a stout crossmember (or armature as JLR call them now, German translation maybe?) like the rear towbar or front winch mount could have recovery points integrated into them. 

I'm sure that the real reason it doesn't have proper recovery points at the front is because it didn't fit with the image that the designer wanted to portray, perhaps he saw them as a sign of weakness rather than practicality. It must have been very frustrating for some of the design team. It wasn't designed by a practical man so I don't suppose we should expect practical features.
Bear also in mind that the new Defender follows the same design strategy as the BMW designed L322 which has a similar layout of subframes on a monocoque, the new Defender's D7 platform was just an update of a BMW design which also had the low central recovery eye. I dare say by then that it was just the norm and the way things had 'always been' by then and didn't get a second thought.
The decision to hide it behind a plastic undertray beggars belief and the fact that they had to acknowledge this and make an optional aluminium one to allow access shows that it was an aesthetic rather than NCAP driven design feature to do so.

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 hours ago, elbekko said:

No, that wasn't what I was trying to say. They'll still need mods, just fewer.

My main point was about the packages chosen: Rubicon, whatever the off-road package is called on the Bronco, and some road-trim Defender with ATPC and some ATs slapped onto stupidly big wheels (not even the smallest available for that trim). But I was actually pleasantly surprised to see, looking at the Bronco configurator, that it can't be specced with stupidly big wheels. So it has that going for it.

All Defenders can option ATPC and the rear locker, if you want the 6-cylinder mild hybrid, you'll have 19" wheels at the smallest, otherwise 18" wheels (including steel wheels) are available. The fact they don't have that, is because of a series of bad decisions on their part, not Land Rover's fault.

Good luck getting that through pedestrian safety testing.

Not sure what mods you'd really need to do to the Bronco or Wrangler? 😁

As for the Defender spec, well none of us were actually there. I'm guessing it was a vehicle from "stock" not a custom factory built order. Which would mean their choice of options would be limited. Yes 19" rims instead of 20" rims are optional, but do we know if they were actually available? And how much difference would 19's offer off road over 20's? I'd guess pretty marginal. But I do agree they don't appear to have specced the 'off road pack' just the off road tyres. Which Land Rover are explicit that they are off road tyres and not All Terrains....

 

 

Re: front recovery points, EU yes, but USA would be fine. You only need to look at what other makers offer in the US market from the factory in terms of recovery points. No reason LR couldn't have offered something over there.

[Snagger]

5 hours ago, elbekko said:

 

Good luck getting that through pedestrian safety testing.

Has it not already passed?   If it’s available as an option, and I thought twin front recovery points in those areas below the headlights were, then I t has to be homogenised already.  The point is that it should be standard on such a vehicle, and the current standard recovery point, like the tyre spec provided by JLR are unfit for purpose, lust like those rear lights.

[Happyoldgit]

Oh God, just seen another one driving through my local town. That's the second I've seen around here, standards are slipping! What a bland looking vehicle.

[deep]

I see very few (if any) new Defenders in my area.  Last week, though, I had to work in an area well south of here which is popular with skiers and tourists (well, was popular before pandemics etc.) and which has become a trendy place for internet-connected city escapees.  My goodness, there are heaps of those Defenders down there!  The well-heeled pseudo-adventurers are gobbling them up - and no Disco 5s anywhere.  Round here, the latter are quite common.  I guess people paying that sort of money are frequently motivated by image, something that clearly fuelled those annoying design decisions.

I did see a lifted and well-modified Disco 3 yesterday.  It looked genuinely usable.  It's only a matter of time before people squeeze their new Defenders through the legal process and we start seeing some of those similarly modified.  That could be a good thing.

[Gazzar]

Spotted Just now Plymouth port, a new design?

[L19MUD]

10 minutes ago, Gazzar said:

Spotted Just now Plymouth port, a new design?

 Defender 130 - I wonder if they will do a DCPU version?