Jump to content
Jamie_grieve

Thoughts and musings on the new defender

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cackshifter said:

How were they ever going to do a pickup with a monocoque shell? 

Lots of car based pickups about.

On a side note, this was a monocoque too. Personally still think its a shame LR didn't continue with this train of thought for the new Defender.

9._lcv2_in_action_hsaimg089.jpg?itok=IzM

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soutie said:

Have a read of this. 

 

https://jalopnik.com/mid-size-trucks-dont-need-frames-1785674405

Then make up your mind, 

What that does not cover though is the fact you cannot sell a 'chassis cab' if it is a unibody design. Now I know people are going to say that Land Rover are not aiming for the commercial market but ......

Fitting cherry pickers/Workshop bodies (thinking Quadtek)/Tipping bodies/Dropsides is going to be impossible so that market is gone. UKPN and a lot of the other utilities companies had big fleets of Defenders. I don't think you will see them buying any new ones

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

photos of th engine bay:

attachment.php?attachmentid=545287&stc=1

attachment.php?attachmentid=545288&stc=1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a standard engine bay surely?

Aluminium catch can with AN fittings, and cable ties?

Surely not...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get none chassis based pickups although generally lighter, half tonne ones or whatever. Skoda made the funcy one with the sliding rear window which gave you a 2 or 4 seater and Fiat sill make one. I guess it's like making a convertible, all the strength has to go through the floor. Atleast with the pickup the extra weight is over the back axle and you can have high sides around the bed and the roof over the doors for strength. They put cherry pickers on vans with no chassis, I guess the designer needs to be a bit more switched on than with a chassis where they just bolt it on. 

I think LR just realised they could make more money per vehicle down the line making posh stuff for China and the middle east than trying to compete with £15k pickups which can have a cherry picker fitted or whatever. I believe there is the prestige thing that if you have a European car rather than a Chinese car your outwardly more successful. I think they've hit harder times due to China slowing down and people getting edgy about diesel engines. If the new platform is going to offer fashionable alternative energy sources and the new defender is going to be more mass market appeal then I think it will sell, just have to see how the PCP deals compare to things like Nissan x-trails I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, the defender is now an alternative to the x-trail.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot of the press about an hour ago, still must be testing as i got sent this from one of the boys in the MR team he's going over Tomintoul to Aviemore.

I'd wager it had a trailer as ive seen them testing camouflaged Jaguars hauling trailers with a couple of IBC's on them before around that area.

IMG-20191025-WA0004.thumb.jpg.d847a201fedb2dd248f87a0ae31924f4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would *want* a 21st-century pickup/van to have a unibody [featuring lots of lightweight carbon-fibre/foamed-metal/stressed-composite goodies] over an old-style heavy-metal chassis.  Why? For a given weight it's a vastly better way to handle everyday stress/strain loads - and totally outclasses old rigid-chassis stuff when it comes to collapsing and sacrificing itself in a crash so you don't die.

I feel that a lot of the "Old LR" stalwarts here are stuck in the mindset of pre-WWII railway-carriage designers, where 'heavy' was good. Me? I'm happy to embrace what's been developed in the last decade and deployed in F1 cars, military and civil-aviation. "Light" doesn't mean flimsy - properly implemented it gives spectacular strength along with predictable, controlled and energy-absorbing collapse when the occasion arises.

It also doesn't rot as quickly as a Defender chassis!

Edited by Tanuki
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 6:50 AM, Tanuki said:

.

It also doesn't rot as quickly as a Defender chassis!

It had better not!  No hope at all of replacing it - and not just if it corrodes.  Even a mild shunt could see your car written off.  (Of course you are right about the other advantages.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 6:50 PM, Tanuki said:

Personally, I would *want* a 21st-century pickup/van to have a unibody [featuring lots of lightweight carbon-fibre/foamed-metal/stressed-composite goodies] over an old-style heavy-metal chassis.  Why? For a given weight it's a vastly better way to handle everyday stress/strain loads - and totally outclasses old rigid-chassis stuff when it comes to collapsing and sacrificing itself in a crash so you don't die.

I feel that a lot of the "Old LR" stalwarts here are stuck in the mindset of pre-WWII railway-carriage designers, where 'heavy' was good. Me? I'm happy to embrace what's been developed in the last decade and deployed in F1 cars, military and civil-aviation. "Light" doesn't mean flimsy - properly implemented it gives spectacular strength along with predictable, controlled and energy-absorbing collapse when the occasion arises.

It also doesn't rot as quickly as a Defender chassis!

^ This is so on the money.

Fun experiment: Get a Defender properly cross-axled and then try opening/shutting the doors - you'll hit problems because the whole thing twists (I've seen a window explode when someone slammed a door once!).

Now try it with a Freelander - it will handle it no problem and it weighs half a ton less.

Mind you, the whole unibody thing has only been in production cars since 1934 so it's probably a bit too modern for these parts :lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FridgeFreezer said:

^ This is so on the money.

Fun experiment: Get a Defender properly cross-axled and then try opening/shutting the doors - you'll hit problems because the whole thing twists (I've seen a window explode when someone slammed a door once!).

Now try it with a Freelander - it will handle it no problem and it weighs half a ton less.

Mind you, the whole unibody thing has only been in production cars since 1934 so it's probably a bit too modern for these parts :lol:

I’d say the opposite. I have regularly got in or out of many LR’s when axle twisted over the past 20-30 years. Never once notice an issue with twisting so that doors wouldn’t open or close  

Unibody/monocoque cars on the other hand. Have opened many a door when jacked up only to find it won’t close again until you drop the car down. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’d say the opposite. I have regularly got in or out of many LR’s when axle twisted over the past 20-30 years. Never once notice an issue with twisting so that doors wouldn’t open or close  

Unibody/monocoque cars on the other hand. Have opened many a door when jacked up only to find it won’t close again until you drop the car down. 

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? My experience is the opposite: sometimes even putting the 90 on a lift to change wheels results in not being able to shut/open doors.

But I've had my previous D4 and now RRS in mind-boggling axle twisters with wheels high up in the air and still everything opens and shuts with a solid thunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Naks said:

Really? My experience is the opposite: sometimes even putting the 90 on a lift to change wheels results in not being able to shut/open doors.

But I've had my previous D4 and now RRS in mind-boggling axle twisters with wheels high up in the air and still everything opens and shuts with a solid thunk.

There is something seriously wrong with that 90!  If that was common with Land Rovers, people wouldn't be able to get out any time they got cross-axled, which is patently far from what normally happens.  I suggest you carefully check the bulkhead to chassis bolts first, then work your way around and see what isn't put together properly.  That just isn't right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is something seriously wrong with that 90!  If that was common with Land Rovers, people wouldn't be able to get out any time they got cross-axled, which is patently far from what normally happens.  I suggest you carefully check the bulkhead to chassis bolts first, then work your way around and see what isn't put together properly.  That just isn't right.

 

No, nothing wrong with it - seen this on 110s, 130s, etc. Speak to any workshop and they will tell you that unless the vehicle is on the ground, the doors don't really close properly.

Modern LRs have extremely stiff unibody - way more than Jap/Yank ones, you will not see a single D3/D4/RR/RRS that suffers from this issue.

this is exactly what @FridgeFreezer was saying a few posts back.

Edited by Naks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the issue wasn’t modernisation - but was instead that they had elected to build a luxury SUV rather than a UV?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Naks said:

 

No, nothing wrong with it - seen this on 110s, 130s, etc. Speak to any workshop and they will tell you that unless the vehicle is on the ground, the doors don't really close properly.

Modern LRs have extremely stiff unibody - way more than Jap/Yank ones, you will not see a single D3/D4/RR/RRS that suffers from this issue.

this is exactly what @FridgeFreezer was saying a few posts back.

Not being mean, but the D3/4 & RRS (L320) all have a separate chassis too, so getting this wrong makes me doubt your claims somewhat. Where are you lifting the Defenders from to cause such issues? If you are putting it on a 2 poster lift and lifting on the body outriggers then maybe I can believe what you are saying. If you are placing them under the main chassis rails I find it very unlikely.

Lets face it, you can mount a lifting crane or high lift onto a Land Rover chassis, if it is as flexible as you claim, this would not be legal or safe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Not being mean, but the D3/4 & RRS (L320) all have a separate chassis too, so getting this wrong makes me doubt your claims somewhat. Where are you lifting the Defenders from to cause such issues? If you are putting it on a 2 poster lift and lifting on the body outriggers then maybe I can believe what you are saying. If you are placing them under the main chassis rails I find it very unlikely.

Lets face it, you can mount a lifting crane or high lift onto a Land Rover chassis, if it is as flexible as you claim, this would not be legal or safe.

 

Yes, the D3/D4 & L320 have a separate chassis, but also a massively rigid monocoque body on top, so unlike the Defender, the body part doesn't actually twist/deform.

Admittedly, it is mostly on 2-poster lifts that you see this for Defenders.

Just walk into a workshop and ask them about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you be opening and shutting doors whilst up on a two poster ? 😨

Wasn't at one of your previous independent workshops was it ? 😉

Mo

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mo Murphy said:

Why would you be opening and shutting doors whilst up on a two poster ? 😨

Wasn't at one of your previous independent workshops was it ? 😉

Mo

If you try hard enough, you can "prove" your point!

You would expect an essentially two-dimensional ladder chassis to twist more easily than a three-dimensional box chassis (really what a monocoque is) but Naks is exaggerating this considerably.  Clearly he/she has had some experience of a dodgy vehicle and can't see beyond it.  In fact, the Land Rover chassis is much deeper and less prone to flex than some well-regarded Japanese chassis, for example.  Back in the seventies, the chassis flex of a Land Cruiser was touted as a positive feature, allowing a little more articulation!

To summarise - the old Defender (history has shown) was easily stiff enough, in torsional terms, and the new one is even stiffer.  Whoop-dee-doo.  Ironically, one driver for the change was that the old one was TOO stiff in a frontal impact situation...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Anderzander said:

I thought the issue wasn’t modernisation - but was instead that they had elected to build a luxury SUV rather than a UV?

So true!  If they had had the balls to make something simpler and more practical, there'd have been much less resentment.  They could have made a utility vehicle that was neither uncomfortable nor noisy without having all the endless gimmicks.  A switch on the dash for difflock(s).  An on/off switch for traction control.  Coil suspension set at a decent height.  You wouldn't need much more than that but it seems that would be too risky to make.  As is pick-up option for the workers.  Sigh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naks, for all the faults of the old (real) Defenders, chassis stiffness was not one.  Given how your past garage stuffed your rear diff and appeared to have bent an axle (if I understood other comments correctly you had a bent axle that you attributed to LR, but I doubt they sent it out like that), do you not think that any chassis sag or buckling your vehicle may have had in their care was not because of a design issue but because they dropped it off a lift, likely buckling that axle at the same time?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

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