Thoughts and musings on the new defender

[Anderzander]

4 hours ago, Happyoldgit said:

I read a bit, noted use of words such as extreme, icon, adventurer etc., then watched watched 3/4 of the video where much of the usual guff is spouted about the Defender, then a cut to shots of Mitsubishi, Suzuki and Daihatsu playing about in the woods before I got bored and went back to dealing with e-mail.

Next?

To accommodate your boredom :

He’s a billionaire pharmaceutical who loves Land Rover Defenders.

He thinks there is still a need for basic, repairable, capable, utility vehicles - as the Classic Land Rover’s came to be 

Hes spoken to JLR and they’ve both acknowledged that JLR don’t.

He believes with clever engineering it can meet modern safety requirements, be made to last, be reasonably priced and be super capable at the same time - and he plans to make them.

 

[Anderzander]

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/ineos-grenadier-prototypes-due-2018-under-new-engineering-deal

[FridgeFreezer]

That Grenadier thing is going to cost shedloads if it ever gets built.

[Chicken Drumstick]

27 minutes ago, Anderzander said:

 

He believes with clever engineering it can meet modern safety requirements, be made to last, be reasonably priced and be super capable at the same time - and he plans to make them.

 

It doesn't need clever engineering to meet safety reqs though. Almost all the big car makers build body on frame trucks and use at least one live axle. The best selling vehicle in the USA is one.

 

Ford F150-650

Ford Ranger

Toyota Tacoma, HiLux

Dodge Ram

Chevy/GM Silverado

VW Amorak

Nissan Nivara

Mitsubishi L200

Suzuki Jimny

Jeep Wrangler

 

to name but a few

[FridgeFreezer]

17 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

It doesn't need clever engineering to meet safety reqs though. Almost all the big car makers build body on frame trucks and use at least one live axle.

Most of them use leaf-springs too, not like these unnecessarily complicated Defenders...

[Bowie69]

2 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

I like Freelanders, but their ability is very dictated to the terrain. On something slippery like snow, sand or wet grass the TCS allows them to be quite effective. Arguably more so than an open diffed non TCS Defender.

But there is an Everest between their off road abilities once you go a little further off road or include any technical off road sections. The lack of ride height, articulation and poor approach, departure and breakover angles make them significantly less capable. The lack of low range also compounds this.

The result of this is, they are forever lifting wheels and feel very unstable. And I daresay far easier to roll over. They get beached easily and end up stuffing their bumpers into the ground, which usually stops them and/or lifts the wheels off the ground. And without low range, you can't crawl over obstacles either. So due to the gearing and general lack of ability you have to attack obstacles at much higher speed to have enough momentum to get through them. This however is potentially damaging to the underside of the vehicle, uncomfortable to be in and has much higher risk of something going wrong and should something go wrong, the higher speeds mean the result of going wrong is likely to be more dangerous and/or damaging.

 

There's a heap of contradiction going on there... lack of ride height, yet they are easier to roll over? Lack or articulation yet the TCS is wonderful.... with wonderful TCS you don't need articulation..... 

It was always clarified by being 'in off road situations that most people will get up to' at the time.

Lack of low range can be overcome by having an automatic version, you also don't drive into situations where bumpers are going to get smashed into things unless you are a luddite, you pick a different line.

I'm not saying FLs are better or worse, just picking up on a few comments that made no little sense in the real world.

[Chicken Drumstick]

4 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

 

There's a heap of contradiction going on there... lack of ride height, yet they are easier to roll over? Lack or articulation yet the TCS is wonderful.... with wonderful TCS you don't need articulation..... 

It was always clarified by being 'in off road situations that most people will get up to' at the time.

Lack of low range can be overcome by having an automatic version, you also don't drive into situations where bumpers are going to get smashed into things unless you are a luddite, you pick a different line.

I'm not saying FLs are better or worse, just picking up on a few comments that made no little sense in the real world.

I see no contradiction at all. Ride height or ground clearance doesn't have to be directly related to CoG or how likely a car can flip over. Lack of stability by picking up wheels high in the air is hardly a sign of stability however and getting beached is a pretty good indication of lack of ground clearance.

TCS is wonderful, however it doesn't negate the need or ability for articulation. TCS heats and wears the brakes, so can only be used for short periods of time and periodically. Hence why all LR Experience vehicles (D3 size onwards) are always equipped with the rear locker.

An automatic gearbox is no substitute for lack of low range. You simply don't have the wheel torque or low speed control. The only thing you have is you don't slip the clutch to buggery to go slow and maintain drive. But not being able to slip the clutch means you have even less wheel torque when required, even accepting the stall characteristics of a torque converter.

As for picking a different line...... that is hardly the point. Sometimes there simply isn't another line to take. And quite often off roading is recreational. So driving the over the obstacles, rather than around them is the entire point.

[Bowie69]

I'm baffled that you apparently think a FL will roll over before a defender style vehicle, completely baffled.... 

The torque multiplication of an auto box torque converter is what gets you the wheel torque you need for obstacle crawling. No need to slip the clutch, the converter is doing that for you, just press harder on the skinny pedal.

Driving recreationally is *NOT* what most people use a 4x4 for these days, so 'quite often' seems a bit of a rogue statement.

 

[Happyoldgit]

1 hour ago, Anderzander said:

To accommodate your boredom :

He’s a billionaire pharmaceutical who loves Land Rover Defenders.

He thinks there is still a need for basic, repairable, capable, utility vehicles - as the Classic Land Rover’s came to be 

Hes spoken to JLR and they’ve both acknowledged that JLR don’t.

He believes with clever engineering it can meet modern safety requirements, be made to last, be reasonably priced and be super capable at the same time - and he plans to make them.

 

 

But, but, but I knew all that. I was hoping for more hard facts not the same stuff I read about yonks ago.

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 minute ago, Bowie69 said:

I'm baffled that you apparently think a FL will roll over before a defender style vehicle, completely baffled.... 

The torque multiplication of an auto box torque converter is what gets you the wheel torque you need for obstacle crawling. No need to slip the clutch, the converter is doing that for you, just press harder on the skinny pedal.

Driving recreationally is *NOT* what most people use a 4x4 for these days, so 'quite often' seems a bit of a rogue statement.

 

Because I've driven Freelanders off road, maybe they just feel less stable than they are. But I'm not convinced. Lifting wheels high in the air, then suddenly flopping over hard onto the opposite wheel has to be recipe for a rollover at some point. It certainly doesn't feel very stable.

I don't have a pic of a Freelander on an RTI ramp, but here is an IFS/IRS vehicle with more wheel travel than a Freelander. Note how high the wheel is in the air. A sudden weight shift in the vehicle or going up the ramp a few inches too far will result in the wheel plummeting to the ground at high speed. And may result in a rollover (I think it did with the Hummer if you look at the pics on Google). And would be very unnerving if you where on the side of a hill while doing this.

While you can still obviously roll a live axle vehicle, it is usually more progressive and as a rule the wheels stay nearer the ground for longer, so when the weight shifts, they don't "land" as hard.

 

This is one of a number of Freelanders I've driven off road. Even driving into a fairly shallow hole resulted in it dramatically lifting the rear wheel off the deck. Hitting the hole at speed or a slightly deeper hole could quite easily cause a roll over IMO. A Defender/Series/D1/D2/RR/p38 won't even lift a wheel on the same spot and again feel a lot more stable.

I know how an autobox works, but if what you say is completely true, why do LR still fit low range to their vehicles, the RR has been auto only since the L322 and the Disco since the D4. Surely they and all other automatic 4x4's are doing it wrong by still offering low range on their models.

 

And I doubt either of us are qualified to answer the last statement. However observationally the off road industry is HUGE with 1000's of aftermarket parts companies making off road goodies for new and almost new vehicles. So somebody must be buying them. YouTube sand similar are also littered with videos of people using their 4x4's recreationally. 

[Anderzander]

4 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

That Grenadier thing is going to cost shedloads if it ever gets built.

 

3 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

It doesn't need clever engineering to meet safety reqs though. Almost all the big car makers build body on frame trucks and use at least one live axle. The best selling vehicle in the USA is one.

 

Ford F150-650

Ford Ranger

Toyota Tacoma, HiLux

Dodge Ram

Chevy/GM Silverado

VW Amorak

Nissan Nivara

Mitsubishi L200

Suzuki Jimny

Jeep Wrangler

 

to name but a few

I think the clever engineering bit was in the context of keeping quality up and costs down..

[Anderzander]

2 hours ago, Happyoldgit said:

 

But, but, but I knew all that. I was hoping for more hard facts not the same stuff I read about yonks ago.

Public service failure on my part then ! 

[deep]

Well said, Mr.(?) Drumstick.

The notion expressed here that ordinary Defenders are not very good off road tends to be made by people who either never use them or limit their opinions to very artificial situations in which traction control is highly favoured.  It actually takes quite an extreme situation to cross axle my 110 - by which stage the lovely little Freelander may have bellied itself anyway.  Or not. There is a reason the Freelander didn't quickly provide the base for a Defender replacement (while the more competent D3/4/RRSport probably will, sigh).

[Bowie69]

Never said the defender was rubbish! Quite the opposite, but the FL gets an unnecessarily bad rap.

For the same reasons rrs, d3, d4, ffrr, ewok etc do.

they are all capable machines.

[Chicken Drumstick]

36 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

Never said the defender was rubbish! Quite the opposite, but the FL gets an unnecessarily bad rap.

For the same reasons rrs, d3, d4, ffrr, ewok etc do.

they are all capable machines.

I think I was pretty fair and said the Freelander is good on certain terrain and cited a few examples. But up the ante and introduce more technical off road situations and they are out of their depth unless you have a completely reckless driving style and care little for vehicle or people around you. 

[Chicken Drumstick]

Here is a good example of what I’m meaning. 1min 44sec in. In less experienced or somewhat more reckless hands I reckon that would have gone all the way over. 

 

[Ex Member]

11 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

That Grenadier thing is going to cost shedloads if it ever gets built.

Not any more that the carp LR will produce.

[Mo Murphy]

Why would anyone take a shopping basket off road ? 😂

Mo

[Eightpot]

4 hours ago, Mo Murphy said:

Why would anyone take a shopping basket off road ? 😂

Mo

To bury it hopefully 😆

[Cynic-al]

It very much comes down to how much offroad you do vs how much on road you do as to what vehicle you need, how many people buy a new car and do a punch hunt, trial, winch challenge, play day or trek across some wild country? Very few, mostly the 4x4 has to get them across a field or down a farm track. Any 4x4 with a decent set of tyres can do that. When that car gets to 5+ years old it might be used for those things but why would the manufacturer be interested in that?

I agree that lifting a wheel can be bad for stability as you have no control over how quickly it comes back down which means you can build a lot of momentum which in the wrong situation might cause you to roll. However, in my opinion dislocating springs are no different to lifting a wheel so unless your going to put springs and shocks that give the articulation then your not much better off, and that usually equates to a much less stable on road vehicle. 

Manufacturers do like to put lots of plastic on cars which gets in the way offroad, but haven't people been taking that off for years and bolting on lumps of steel as well as lifting independent suspension vehicles. OK not as easy but it's been done.  

This is a video of a freelander on facebook so you may or may not be able to see it. It was v6 freelander 1 doing the axle twisters at KORC some years ago. Stock 'old fashioned' land rovers couldn't do this as they lifted a wheel and lost traction. They had to zig zag to try keep the wheels down. The technology on these vehicles is not as up to date as the more modern stuff but it shows it does work and so long as the wheels have some traction keeps it rolling. The biggest problem we face is keeping it working, we could do with night classes like you used to be able to do in motor mechanics years ago. 

The lack of low box did make it hopeless on the bigger climbs though. 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Cynic-al

[Ex Member]

Traction control only goes so far.  There are many situations where it can be beaten and mechanical locking and/or more even ground pressures are needed.  It is very common to get the modern Land Rovers stuck or unable to proceed due to the reliance on TC where even unlocked traditional vehicle that have better wheel travel can get through.

[Cynic-al]

I agree. The TC first response on my D-max was to cut power and you'd loose momentum, usually with the wheel in the bottom of a dip, you'd then have to get the thing going from a stand still. The rodeo I had before had no TC just an LSD in the back and in the same situation it would just roll on. I also find you have to nail TC to get it to cut in whereas with the mechanical systems you can just tickle along so it can get a bit 'exciting' with TC.

However well written TC can work on fast roads, wet roads, icy roads, muddy lanes etc with no input from the driver. Mechanical systems you generally have to engage which is fine when your knowingly heading for a challenge but not so clear cut when your driving down the road. TC is generally cheaper so you can get a more capable vehicle for less. It depends what you want it for.

[Chicken Drumstick]

6 hours ago, Cynic-al said:

It very much comes down to how much offroad you do vs how much on road you do as to what vehicle you need, how many people buy a new car and do a punch hunt, trial, winch challenge, play day or trek across some wild country? Very few, mostly the 4x4 has to get them across a field or down a farm track. Any 4x4 with a decent set of tyres can do that. When that car gets to 5+ years old it might be used for those things but why would the manufacturer be interested in that?

I agree that lifting a wheel can be bad for stability as you have no control over how quickly it comes back down which means you can build a lot of momentum which in the wrong situation might cause you to roll. However, in my opinion dislocating springs are no different to lifting a wheel so unless your going to put springs and shocks that give the articulation then your not much better off, and that usually equates to a much less stable on road vehicle. 

Manufacturers do like to put lots of plastic on cars which gets in the way offroad, but haven't people been taking that off for years and bolting on lumps of steel as well as lifting independent suspension vehicles. OK not as easy but it's been done.  

This is a video of a freelander on facebook so you may or may not be able to see it. It was v6 freelander 1 doing the axle twisters at KORC some years ago. Stock 'old fashioned' land rovers couldn't do this as they lifted a wheel and lost traction. They had to zig zag to try keep the wheels down. The technology on these vehicles is not as up to date as the more modern stuff but it shows it does work and so long as the wheels have some traction keeps it rolling. The biggest problem we face is keeping it working, we could do with night classes like you used to be able to do in motor mechanics years ago. 

The lack of low box did make it hopeless on the bigger climbs though. 

 

2min 12sec is a bit butt clenching!

I guess the flip side is a Disco2 or Td5 onwards Defender would make very light work of the same obstacle. 

[Jamie_grieve]

On 10/15/2018 at 3:18 PM, FridgeFreezer said:

And yes, each vehicle has its weak points but then an FL or D2 or P38 has a lot of strong points over a 90, this isn't about cherry-picking examples where X is better/worse than Y, my POINT is the massive negative conjecture about a vehicle we know almost nothing about, and nay-saying of things like independent suspension with no good reason.

I mean, someone in this thread actually cited the PCD of the wheels as proof it would be totally rubbish, what the hell are people in here smoking?

You can argue with the styling and the complexity of some of LR's stuff certainly but you really can't sensibly argue with how capable it is compared to almost anything else on the market

The reason for the massive negative conjecture about the vehicle we're discussing here is that the next generation of Land Rover Defender (which although not released)  has been confirmed by land rover that this indeed is a 'spy shot' of the next defender, so not something we know nothing about at all. We understand there are 4 of these things now. Any more information since then to further shape discussion?

You say the nay saying of independent suspension with no good reason when it's been very eloquently explained to you the main problems with it by others way better than I did in my first post which you didn't respond to. The picture above with the H1 explains it perfectly. I will try to add a little more to help with your understanding. To have a spring stiffness soft enough in roll to allow enough wheel travel to maintain wheel contact with the ground would result in a very low frequency of response from an independent suspension which would not result in good behaviour at higher speeds on rough roads. With a live axle this can be mitigated by using stiffer springs mounted closer together that will still be soft in roll to allow the wheels to move but stiff enough to avoid damage and maintain ground contact when the wheels hit the ground hard or preventing  dive too much under braking which can also be enhanced by antidive suspension geometry. Thie same situation with live axles with stiff close springs also allows more weight to be carried without the vehicle sitting on the bump stops but also still allowing articulation, likewise under certain circumstances towing trailers (P38 you mentioned was also a good example of this). 
The next problem I haven't seen discussed but possibly I missed it is the dramatic reduction in ground clearance from an independently sprung vehicle both off road on bumps and under braking. A simple dip in the rutted road you're driving on combined with a slight precautionary touch on the brakes will result in the bottom of your vehicle bottoming out in the same situation a live axled vehicle will not. Bottoming out a vehicle in ruts with aluminium suspension arms and chassis will not end well in the long run. The vehicle in the spy shots has particularly low hanging mounting points for the rear arms at the wheels which are no higher than on any conventional passenger car which does not bode well for long term reliable operation in any off highway environment. I welcome your thoughts on these points to further discussion, I accept that it's based on these particular spy shots which is the entire purpose of this post. If the new defender turns out not to be this vehicle we're discussing here then we can talk about that in another post but in the meantime, Land Rover have told us that this is it.

I'm the one who mentioned the pcd. Can you explain to me please why or how the smaller pcd could be considered an improvement over the larger defender one? I'd suggest parts bin raiding being the single and only excuse, not to reduce the cost but to maximise short term profit. Not a bad thing, JLR only exists to satisfy shareholders and a smaller pcd does that in the short term. Doesn't stop me whining about it though.
I can give you an example of when a large manufacturer changed their pcd to enhance reliability however. That was Toyota, they changed from the 6 stud to 5 stud larger pcd with thicker studs for their heavy duty applications of the land cruiser when they moved to coil springs. It cost them time and money to implement but it's also why by constantly improving the product they are the benchmark and everybody else is playing catch up. I'm not sure if you appreciate the stress that wheels and hubs go through in the off highway world? Unfortunately, I'm not sure the current crop of land rover engineers do either. If you damaged a range rover wheel on a kerb I'm sure you could forgive it so to speak, not so a defender, I've seen the test videos of the disco 3 on the tiny kerb strike and ditch crossing but we expect a damned sight more from a defender. I added a picture of a typical defender steel wheel with cracks to give you some idea of how defender wheels weren't up to the job before. I'm disappointed they will be replaced with components subjected to higher stresses which arise by making them smaller. I would expect to see cracks not only on the rims but on the wheel discs and more broken studs and wheel nuts working loose. I haven't seen a steel wheel on the smaller pcd yet but it'll be interesting to see how thick they are. Again, your thoughts please. I added a picture of a bent steel wheel which although misshapen allowed a vehicle carrying an injured casualty to be driven to safety which could not be done with an aluminium wheel which would have broken. A steel wheel with the necessary thicker disc for the smaller pcd may well have broken the studs resulting in the death of the casualty. Then you ask what I'm smoking...? I don't smoke, I don't understand why you would include a personal attack on me in a technical discussion. Please use terms like stress, strain, yield point, psi,  kpa, fatigue etc in your response to keep the thread from getting personal. Please also respond to any points in my first post you disagree with to further discussion. 

We can and are arguing about capability of it in the market, I already stated in the original post that looks were not part of the discussion. Complexity...? Well please tell us your thoughts.

I put forward that for the typical fleet user in mining, agriculture, ngo, UN, military etc how the Land Cruiser 70 series can be bought for half the price the defender is being touted at, can be got with front and rear lockers with a 25 year design life with world wide parts and dealer distribution in a variety of body styles to suit the end user with a proven track record in remote areas. It can be repaired by unskilled personnel without special tools and will have a reliability and whole life cost a fraction of the new defender.
I also argue that for the recreational user that the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon will be a better contender with more options to personalise it at a lower cost and that the recreational user has bought a vehicle with real heritage that isn't going to be in the main dealers for repair as often and that it will be on the whole a less stressful new vehicle ownership experience. I'd also suggest that the live axles will give a better cross country mobility and that the end user could easily optimise the suspension and tyres further than will be possible with the new Defender to suit their requirements for enhanced cross country mobility  or towing or whatever.
I suggest that the new Jimny will be better in certain rural settings for gamekeepers, estate vehicles, for anybody that wants a small light low ground pressure vehicle that's cheap to buy and run for employees that still has a credible degree of off highway capability, that's easy to clean, doesn't depreciate too badly with a proven track record of reliability. I'm sure there's an urban angle as well with it. I accept it's not a direct competitor but in the all terrain vehicle market with so few vehicles that it will compete in some ways. 

I reckon any of the Jap pickups will be as capable towing a trailer, putting a pallet of bricks in the back and venturing as far off road as the new defender, I'd also say they'll do it whilst staying away from the dealers for major repairs.

Your thoughts on the competition too please, this isn't someone being right and anyone else being wrong, it's about discussions of global market and technological trends, past performance and such like. I want someone to explain to me how the new defender uses something that makes it more durable or reliable than current vehicles, I want to know if the ingenium diesels are going to suffer oil dilution or not, that sort of thing. I'm not in vehicle development, surely the combined brains and experience here can put my fears to rest that the next generation defender replacement are actually going to be more than the illusion of a utility vehicle, hence the negative conjecture you refer to. Try to alleviate my fears with facts, figures and evidence to the contrary. I actually do buy new vehicles regularly on behalf of clients, I can't imagine buying a Land Rover now after 8 years since being able to buy one (ROW spec). Where would you even go to find a dealer that understood what you were asking for?  The picture of the road is very typical in many areas of operation the defender replacement would find itself. Many places have thousands of miles of these roads as the only infrastructure. Now can I add three tons of armour to the stock suspension and drivetrain components and get very few failures like a Toyota or Nissan? There is no similar terrain in the uk, we don't drive off road in the proper sense that gives rise to so many issues which is possibly part of land rovers problem being so uk-centric, especially since all of our opencast mines closed down which were a real test. Please keep this in mind with your responses.

 

 

[WesBrooks]

3 hours ago, Jamie_grieve said:

You say the nay saying of independent suspension with no good reason when it's been very eloquently explained to you the main problems with it by others way better than I did in my first post which you didn't respond to.

Likewise you've not responded to my post.