Jump to content
Jamie_grieve

Thoughts and musings on the new defender

Recommended Posts

Good thread, it's about time there was a decent conversation about the few hints and photos of the presumed old Defender replacement to blow the cobwebs out of the corners here.

I still fail to see that there is much information to be gleaned from what snippets have come from JLR thus far plus masses of Chinese whispers, press and online blather with a few photos of a camouflaged mule which looks to have temporary bits added and taped over  to confuse the final shape.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 11:18 AM, FridgeFreezer said:

Ah, I see two completely standard defenders in that picture... :rolleyes:

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 only mod to either Defender that is relevant to traction is changing the tyres. No diff locks or other traction aids. The rest of the mods are underbody protection, roof rack, winch etc. The two FL2 also had their tyres changed to the largest and most aggressive that we could find to be more suited the conditions, so that would basically be 1:1 :P

Can't argue with the PCD comment being a bit spurious though....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Toyota still make a basic land cruiser for places like Africa. 

I don't think Land Rover will make a version that can compete with pickups for commercial use, they aren't interested in such low value products. I wouldn't say they are UK centred though, I believe they have their eye on places like China and Dubai etc who have big money for big bling. I think you have to expect the new defender to be an Evoque with a more practical body. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, the new one will do what it's designed for and no-one here is going to buy it they'll just carry on grumbling from the sidelines about how awful everything modern is :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it don't run on steam, no-one will like it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jamie_grieve said:

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.

 


 

 

 

 

I can't help agree with most of what you said.  It is an inescapable fact that LR has turned its back on the utility and commercial market like it did some time ago the military market.  All they want to make is identi-kit Chelsea tractors.  Yes, those vehicles are very capable off road considering they're dsigned to have such good road comfort and manners, but they are hobbled by their mechanical attributes and rely almost entirely on electronics to cope.  That renders them unsuitable for what Land Rovers are meant to be used for - off road in remote, harsh environments.  They don't seem to care that their credibility lies in their past, and by diverging completely from it, their image of tough, dependable and versatile vehicles will wane.

Smaller PCD can only have a negative effect on hub and wheel strength.  The Discovery II had HD steel wheels with their reduced PCD, and I haven't heard of any issues with them, but yes, it's a cost saving measure rather than one of quality engineering.

What little has been revealed about the new vehicle makes it hard to form a solid opinion, but I don't expect anything as easily reparable, competent or adaptable as he old Defender.  I have absolutely no interest in any of their modern vehicles, and a lot of others feel that way.  We may be wrong about what we suspect will come to fruition with the new Defender, we may even come to like it, but nobody has the right to attack others for an opinion in either direction - everyone is entitled to their view, and while Defender specific information might be scarce, the company has clearly signposted its direction, and we are all entitled to a view on that, positive or negative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Meh, the new one will do what it's designed for and no-one here is going to buy it they'll just carry on grumbling from the sidelines about how awful everything modern is :rolleyes:

Trouble is other makers modern vehicles aren’t awful. I have my name down for interest in a new Jimny and have signed up for the new Wrangler mailing list. 

I probably can’t afford a new Wrangler in the U.K. (USA they are pitched cheaper). But the Jimny is a real contender and likely to end up as a daily driver. 

And if we got things like the F150, Ram or even the Chevy ZR2 over here I’d also be interested. I do rather like the Ford Ranger, but they just don’t quite offer what the US market trucks do. 

Share this post


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

Trouble is other makers modern vehicles aren’t awful. I have my name down for interest in a new Jimny and have signed up for the new Wrangler mailing list. 

I probably can’t afford a new Wrangler in the U.K. (USA they are pitched cheaper). But the Jimny is a real contender and likely to end up as a daily driver. 

And if we got things like the F150, Ram or even the Chevy ZR2 over here I’d also be interested. I do rather like the Ford Ranger, but they just don’t quite offer what the US market trucks do. 

Agree on the last paragraph. I would love an F150. Also agree on the US market bits - the v8 petrol in the f150 is brilliant. I had 30 miles to the imperial gallon out of the one i used in the US. Thats a massive 7mpg better than my tdi acheives. I can live with that!

Edited by reb78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise you've not responded to my post.

Apologies for not noticing a response was required from my side, a quote would have made it easier to notice or respond to. I was also wondering what folks would say on this hence my original question.

On 10/13/2018 at 7:18 AM, WesBrooks said:

'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?

 

 

I'm not an expert but to at least answer you as best I can:
I don't have any recommended reads but I would say that most information on the net concerning roll centres is focused on cars with tiny amounts of (very stiff) suspension travel compared to what we're discussing here so my suggestion is to make sure whatever you're reading is relevant to 4x4's with large wheel movements, soft spring rates and relatively low frequency of response from the wheels.

Having the RC coincident with the CoG is the very worst case scenario which would give the worst handling and is normally avoided at all costs on road vehicles but on an off roader would it be so bad? I think it would still be bad as it would be unpredictable. The reason is that if they were entirely coincident, any lateral loads are going through the suspension links in an uncontrolled fashion rather than in a controlled fashion through springs and dampers. Normally most cars have a roll centre below the centre of gravity. The problem with a high roll centre is that any vertical movement from the suspension is also translated into a horizontal movement which will be applied at the height of the roll centre. this isn't a good thing as the inertia of the vehicle will resist this, large unpredictable forces are generated and it's an unstable situation at speed as well. A mix of controlled amounts of roll stiffness with springs, dampers and antiroll bars to deal with inputs from the CoG via the roll centre positioning will result in the desired handling characteristics.

 

On 10/13/2018 at 7:29 AM, WesBrooks said:

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

Quite the opposite, it's way easier to get exactly the height of roll centre you want with a live axle, it's the middle of the Watts link, the A-frame ball joint, the instant centre of your four link, more or less the middle of a panhard, etc The roll axis can be easily tuned to suit by variations of the two. On a McPherson strut suspension (as it looks to have on the new defender replacement) the roll centre moves about lots due to the large changes in the angles of the lower arms / wishbone. Optimising the position of the lower arms is where I see the problem with this platform sharing and it's why I asked the question but nobody has answered me. I believe that in an attempt to secure better on road handling and to avoid having the lower arms pointing up from the body to the hub carrier they have instead lowered the outer end of the arms down to favour on road handling instead of ground clearance and better cross country capability. Would the on road handling have been significantly compromised by having a higher mount on the hub carrier? I don't know exactly but I doubt it.

Edited by Jamie_grieve
I'm stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're hoping for a revised version of a 90 that was a revised version of a series 3 that was a revised version of a 1948 design, with a bit more elbow room, a rustproof corssmember, doors that don't flap and rot like a shiplap shed door, pig iron bumpers and a heater, there will be dissapointment all round.  The 'Land Rover' is finished.

The new car they are making will fill a niche, but it's not going to be military or utility, and it will be closer to a freelander than a series car for sure.    It's going to be called a Defender as that name will sell a load of cars,  like they used the Velar name.  Will be interesting to see how it's styled, and there may be some interesting features - I have a slight suspicion the hubs for example may be electric motors - imagine 4 x individual powered hubs off road..  

The marketing team at LR are doing a pretty poor job of keeping interest levels at anything above sheer boredom.  Makes Brexit look interesting.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Meh, the new one will do what it's designed for and no-one here is going to buy it they'll just carry on grumbling from the sidelines about how awful everything modern is :rolleyes:

Actually I will quite likely buy it if they get it right. The odds of that happening aren't that good, based on the last few ideas rolled out of how to 'upgrade' a previously successful model, but I am both genuinely interested in how it turns out, and in a position to consider buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BogMonster said:

Actually I will quite likely buy it if they get it right. The odds of that happening aren't that good, based on the last few ideas rolled out of how to 'upgrade' a previously successful model, but I am both genuinely interested in how it turns out, and in a position to consider buying it.

I'm in the same position: my TD5 90 is showing its age [I was underneath today, despite historic application of copious Waxoyl there's signs of crumbly-chassis-syndrome in places].

Concerns for me about a '2019 Defender' - I'd want a Petrol engine and a manual-transmission, but still keeping all the modern air-suspension/terrain-response/ABS/ATC electronic goodies.

What's more important for me is that it's still classed as a 'commercial' vehicle so I can escape the "costs-more-than-£40K-so-you-have-to-pay-a-swingeing-initial-purchase-tax-and-inflated-VED-for-the-next-4-years" luxury-car tax, and that it also comes into the £250-a-year commercial VED classification rather than something-over-£500-a-year which large-engined cars have to pay.

Make it fit those criteria and I'd seriously consider one.  Cash-in-offshore-account is waiting; come on JLR - tempt me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BogMonster said:

Actually I will quite likely buy it if they get it right. The odds of that happening aren't that good, based on the last few ideas rolled out of how to 'upgrade' a previously successful model, but I am both genuinely interested in how it turns out, and in a position to consider buying it.

Me too and like any sensible mortal will reserve judgement whether or not to buy if and when they eventually start rolling off the production line.

Of course a big deciding factor will be whether fellow owners will wave at each other like the old days ...no really :stirthepot:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My crystal ball predicts that it will be positioned as a 'lifestyle' vehicle somewhere size / cost wise between the Disco Sport and the Disco 5. 

If you look at the D5, it's nearly as posh as a RR inside, and apparently has lost the massive load areas that the D3/4 had. It's hardly the working vehicle that it used to be. They also cost a bomb. DIsco sport is a 'posh family SUV'. 

Not sure if there will be a SWB / LWB type offering, but I reckon there will be a county type version, and a pick up or DCPU at least. The DCPU may be a 1.5 cab type thing like is popular with the americans.

I wouldn't really see it as a 'working' vehicle in the same way the old one was - the pick up will be similar to the new Merc pick up - a bit too posh to fill full of rubble, pitched at the site foreman who wants to be seen as a bit above the workers, but not give the impression that he's too good for a 'working' vehicle... Both versions will come with an assortment of LR Branded lifestyle accessories - bike rack, surf board rack, wicker picnic hamper with matching LR etched crystal champagne glasses etc for the man about town who obviously needs such a vehicle to advertise his exciting ourdoorsy weekend activities ;) 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much ? It was a good job I’d had my 1st can of cider when I read that . For a brief second I thought it said £600 but I must have read it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not 600, it is 600 plus Vat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed the plus vat bit , glad I’d had a few more Thatchers when you told me that bit Bowie69  , I wonder how many people have brought one ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a company advertising on Facebook selling those number plate adaptors for £1200 fitted! 🤑

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've grown quite accustomed to the rear off centre plate, hopefully the new defender will have the same design cue and that'll be another nail in its hypothetical coffin :popcorn-and-drink-smiley-emotic

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one of those mules t'other day. Funny looking thing, a sort of hybrid type affair, most odd with those long, long ears.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one yesterday with its black and white.

Can't say it excited me, just looked like the other LR offerings.

Mo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind the lengths they go to to disguise the shape, this one (at about 30 sec) shows what goes on:

 

Share this post


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