Thoughts and musings on the new defender

[Bowie69]

How about trying not to be so aggressive full stop?

There's no competition on here, we should all be behaving like mates down a pub, not someone trying to score points off one another.

Everyone else seems to manage it, why not you?

[Ex Member]

15 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

Everyone else seems to manage it...

That is not a factual statement.  

I'm only aggressive to others who act in that way.

[Ozzy50]

1 hour ago, Red90 said:

It was passive aggressive.

Errr no , no it wasn’t but whatever , I’m not interested in having arguments with people I’ll never meet over a social media platform , that’s why I quit Instagram!

[Ozzy50]

28 minutes ago, Red90 said:

Are you suggesting I'm being passive aggressive?  Hopefully not.  I try to be only aggressive-aggressive.  There is nothing worse than people being confrontational and acting like they are meaning to be nice.

If that is supposed to be me then you’re very wrong but as I said , whatever 🥱

[HampshireHog]

Right if we're in a pub , mine a Guinness and Red your in the chair  

[deep]

22 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

And of course the Suzuki Jimny. A brilliant update on another classic model. 100% modern, yet still 100% true to its heritage and a proper 4x4. Which again world wide seems to be selling very well and is a desirably commodity. 

The thing that amazes me about the Jimny is that it, essentially, uses 1948 Land Rover suspension!  Nothing new could be further from the new Defender and it utterly proves it is possible to make a basic, true utility vehicle, even in today's repressive world.

[deep]

13 hours ago, ThreePointFive said:

 

If we actually look at the market for pickups and utilities, we all know it is tiny. Look at how many manufacturers deem the segment so important that they take an L200 and replace the badges. Mercedes are doing this right now and not because the L200 is anywhere near a good platform, the margins just don't support the R&D for a new model.

But I'm not arguing for the new Defender, either.

Um..... isn't the world's best selling vehicle a Ford pickup?  Ahem.  Around here, crew cab pickups sell like absolute hotcakes and half the telly advertising is aimed at that market.

[Jamie_grieve]

5 hours ago, Ozzy50 said:

Thing is , if u don’t like the new one or can’t afford it , buy an old model , simple 

That's of no use to those of us who want a utility vehicle for commercial purposes. We all have no choice now but to buy 70 series Toyotas because JLR decided they wouldn't make one and put all their eggs in the dainty and fragile hands of the urban yuppie brigade.The new defender commercial (if they ever do decide to get out of bed one day and make them) will still be of no use because you can't buy tyres anywhere in the entire world for it, especially when the fancy independent suspension flogs them out every other month and the even fancier engines can't handle some dodgy fuel.

Assuming Toyota only makes10,000 70 series per month, that's still a huge profit for basically an old tractor with a roof that's been around almost unchanged since 1985. There is a market, it's huge, it's just that JLR chose to ignore it. There was nothing other than poor management stopped them developing the defender into something useful. They were tools, hammer technology hasn't changed in hundreds of years yet there's still a healthy market for people buying hammers (Estwing anyone?). Now to use the same analogy, we have the new defender trying to do with lasers and sensors and batteries and electronics what your grandad did with a piece of string to get a straight line. 
Now they don't have a utility platform, they really are screwed if there's a recession. Let's be honest, there's no business model or economic sense to buy a defender over anything else. Sales are only going to come from fragile and unpredictable disposable income. That's surely a risky strategy?

[Ex Member]

10 minutes ago, deep said:

The thing that amazes me about the Jimny is that it, essentially, uses 1948 Land Rover suspension!

The new Jimny has coil sprung suspension. Radius arms with panhard rods. Live axles with both diffs offset to the right.

[Anderzander]

1 hour ago, Red90 said:

Are you suggesting I'm being passive aggressive?  Hopefully not.  I try to be only aggressive-aggressive.  There is nothing worse than people being confrontational and acting like they are meaning to be nice.

You’re more persistent-aggressive I’d say. So don’t worry about looking passive 👍🏻

[ThreePointFive]

37 minutes ago, deep said:

Um..... isn't the world's best selling vehicle a Ford pickup?  Ahem.  Around here, crew cab pickups sell like absolute hotcakes and half the telly advertising is aimed at that market.

Good point well made,  it is, but I should have said for the UK market where pickups are a small share of overall sales. Besides a few premium exceptions, there seems to be a market cap on how much an average pickup will cost, which may be shifting over time. However,  LR don't have the finances nor facilities to take a risk producing a vehicle that doesn't sell by making very expensive utility vehicles and need to cater for markets that exist now, hence they have played it safe... and in so doing have produced five (?) that are all competing for the same market share.

Edited March 2, 2020 by ThreePointFive

[Ex Member]

Keep in mind that they can't sell a pickup in the USA without building it there.  That, in itself, kills a lot of market.

[Bowie69]

1 hour ago, deep said:

The thing that amazes me about the Jimny is that it, essentially, uses 1948 Land Rover suspension!  Nothing new could be further from the new Defender and it utterly proves it is possible to make a basic, true utility vehicle, even in today's repressive world.

Not really, even the last generation was coil spring (1998 -2018), which was at least a little better than the cart springs on previous models!

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 hours ago, deep said:

The thing that amazes me about the Jimny is that it, essentially, uses 1948 Land Rover suspension!  Nothing new could be further from the new Defender and it utterly proves it is possible to make a basic, true utility vehicle, even in today's repressive world.

The Jimny has similar dimensions to an 88” Series one. But uses radius arm coil springs on the current and previous versions. Think front Defender setup all round. Works very well I can tell you. Done about 900 miles in 2 and a bit weeks in my new one. It is comfortable, rides well, very fun in the corners. Yet still retains the feel and ability of a 4x4. 
 

Land Rover really should have made something similar, just a bit bigger with a 100” wheelbase. 
 

btw the Jimny hails from the 1970 LJ. It is the models 50th anniversary this year. And you can guess where the J comes from. The Jimny, like the Defender has roots all the way back to the Willis. 
 

A Gen 1 LJ20:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1979_Suzuki_Jimny.jpg

You can clearly see the lineage in the current model. 
 

edit: why do images sometimes not display???? Arrrgh!

Edited March 2, 2020 by Chicken Drumstick

[Chicken Drumstick]

23 hours ago, Bowie69 said:

I suppose a huge problem LR has was no suitable platform.

Totally hamstrung small manufacturer is not going to invest in a completely new chassis for one vehicle.

Are they that small really? And if they are, should that allow them a great agility in the market place. Either way I struggle to see it as a real reason. Even Morgan have developed an entire new platform.

And looking back a few years, LR could have had access to the Hydroformed F-Series truck chassis from Ford. I don't know what relationship still exists between the companies, but maybe there would have been scope to buy or co-develop something. Even more so considering Ford are bringing back the Bronco.

[Chicken Drumstick]

14 hours ago, Bowie69 said:

There's massive component sharing between the LR models, even between model generations. As with most manufacturers.

For anything of 'more traditional construction' the investment would be massive because of this.

Think about it.... Just one aspect: most of the suspension design would need to be binned. All the millions of hours of design, knowledge, testing, FEA would need to be started again.

For this model, they just needed up a few suspension arms here and there, added an option of a spring seat, and added a gusset to a subframe.

Hardly the same as making an entirely new platform.

Jeep have had a *modern* solid axle in production for decades, same with Toyota, LR haven't. And no, a late 60s chassis design, no matter how good, is not modern.

LR aren't doing what everyone else is doing, they have made an SUV, not a UV. Jeep has just made a UV, the gladiator, Toyota still make the 70 series, and are still investing in it.

 

 

Surely LR already have a platform...... the outgoing Defender. Absolutely nothing wrong with the suspension on them or how they rode or handled. The only bit that was old, was the labour intensive welded chassis. And the multi section mechano body. A Hydroformed chassis to similar specs as a D1/2 or P38 with suspension from any of these (maybe with the option of air for higher end models) and links to live axles. Which would have been easy to solve, just buy Dana 44's like Jeep and others do. I'm lead to believe Dana had been building and supplying the Rover axles to JLR for a long time anyhow, so the relationship was/is already there. So all they'd need is a body tub to fit on it, which could easily have been a mild modification of the D7 platform.

 

Considering other car makers of all sizes are able to build specific platforms, I can see no logical, sane, rational or financial reason why LR couldn't. The only reason I can think of, is purely marking and product placement.

[Chicken Drumstick]

15 hours ago, ThreePointFive said:

But all of the vehicles that are given above have had several all-new platforms during their time and (to a lesser extent some jeep models) are a far shout from their original forms. The problem is we're far more forgiving of updating and modernising for other brands as it's a recognised necessity to stay competitive. 

For the majority of examples in this thread, the only commonality these vehicles kept with their predecessors are the badges. Were they really any more successful in keeping the "spirit" of their family tree, or is it just a case that we expect this evolution from other brands less constrained by their history?

For the last 30 years Land Rover haven't been permitted any significant platform changes for the Defender and what little they have done has been treated like the beginning of the end.

LR are finally doing what everyone else has been for decades, and we wonder why they're still a comparatively small manufacturer.

If we actually look at the market for pickups and utilities, we all know it is tiny. Look at how many manufacturers deem the segment so important that they take an L200 and replace the badges. Mercedes are doing this right now and not because the L200 is anywhere near a good platform, the margins just don't support the R&D for a new model.

But I'm not arguing for the new Defender, either.

But the all new platforms have followed the ethos and design trends of the previous model. And by and large the styling and function.

For instance the 1940's Willis GP1 was a ladder chassis, body on frame, live axle, flat fender top off roader. The current Wrangler JL which has only been out for about 2 years is also a ladder chassis, body on frame, live axle off roader. That still has proper round headlights and flat fender tops. 

You can even lift the roof and doors off it. Even the blooming windscreen folds down, much like the original WW2 era vehicle!! And people love it.

Look at these sales figures for the past 5 years in the USA alone!

2019	228.042
2018	240.032
2017	190.522
2016	191.788
2015	202.702
2014	175.328

 

Let's call that 200,000 per year on average. Now if Land Rover could even generate/take 5% of that (10,000), it would be a huge difference to LR sales. Especially in the US, e.g.

Land Rover All Models	Market Share
2019	94.736	0,55%
2018	92.143	0,53%
2017	74.739	0,43%
2016	73.858	0,42%
2015	70.582	0,40%
2014	51.465	0,31%

 

I have no doubts this new Pretender will indeed sell well over there, but I do suspect (and history will prove me right or wrong in time), that it will be at the cost of Discovery 5, Velar and RRS sales.

 

Just take those numbers in again. Jeep sell 2 - 2 1/2 times more Wranglers in the USA than Land Rover sell of all of their models combined.

[Bowie69]

14 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Are they that small really? And if they are, should that allow them a great agility in the market place. Either way I struggle to see it as a real reason. Even Morgan have developed an entire new platform.

And looking back a few years, LR could have had access to the Hydroformed F-Series truck chassis from Ford. I don't know what relationship still exists between the companies, but maybe there would have been scope to buy or co-develop something. Even more so considering Ford are bringing back the Bronco.

Toyota, for example, had around 8 times the revenue of Land Rover in 2019. 

Morgan make premium, limited production run vehicles, it is hardly the same as being competitive on a global scale in mass produced vehicles.

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

13 hours ago, Escape said:

 

And rightfully so, but a Land Rover was never like an Elise. It was never designed to impress the driver, just to get him (almost) anywhere with whatever he needed to bring. The iconic status only came much later, I'd say LR only started to exploit it with the Puma (which got a lot of stick for using Transit components) and now with the new Defender.

Which brings us back to the original idea behind the Land Rover: to get people and equipment to where they need or want to go. 

Filip

In the off road world the Defender (and Wrangler and Jimny) are akin to the Elises and Caterhams of the car world. Specials machines, more heavily compromised, more rewarding. And much more focused as their primary intended design direction. You are missing the point if you think I'm referring only to the driving aspect. The Elise analogy is exactly that. If you take away everything that makes it an Elise, is it really an Elise?? QED... is it really a Defender.... if you have removed everything that made it one in the first place.

BTW the original idea of the Land Rover was as an alternative to a farm tractor. Wasn't it one of the Wilks that say PTO's everywhere...... Ultimately it was a failed concept, in exactly the same way the AgriJeep from a few years before the Land Rover existed, also failed. Jeep continued to have some military success for a few decades, but ultimately found a place for their vehicle as a Recreational Vehicle for enthusiasts. Something you might own instead of a sports car (or muscle car in the USA). You'd buy one, because you wanted one, you wanted the image and the lifestyle associated with them.

The Land Rover also found a home with military and services and for longer than the Jeep did. However in the smaller and more congested UK with smaller farms and roads. They also found a place in the utility market. Where in the USA bigger pickup trucks already dominated. But as the years rolled by, the Land Rover was also very much a recreational vehicle and lifestyle vehicle too. Hence things like the Association of Land Rover Clubs (formerly the ARC and prior to that the Land Rover Owners Club of 1955). The ALRC has over 10,000 members in the UK over 37 clubs and 10 international clubs from across the globe. People don't just buy a proper a Land Rover to move stuff. This hasn't been the case since the early 1950's.

[Chicken Drumstick]

14 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

Toyota, for example, had around 8 times the revenue of Land Rover in 2019. 

Morgan make premium, limited production run vehicles, it is hardly the same as being competitive on a global scale in mass produced vehicles.

 

Why does Land Rover need to be competitive on a global scales for mass produced vehicles??? Surely good business is simply making money.

 

Newsflash. Not every company can be the biggest or hold the number 1 spot. But this is no reason a company should just give up. They can still be highly successful, even if smaller than some others.

[Bowie69]

They have to be competitive, yes? And are already in a global market?

 

[Jamie_grieve]

7 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

Toyota, for example, had around 8 times the revenue of Land Rover in 2019. 

How much of that was allocated to land cruiser sales or relevant R&D?
What about Lotus? Yet they have three different platforms, are innovative and have world class technologies and low volume construction methods which all yield a profit.
JLR slapped the DC100 body (which was universally hated both by press and public) on a ten year old platform, it somehow took five years to do so and now they're lauding it as a new car after thinking we'd forgotten all about it?
Low volume or not, it's hardly demonstrative of innovation, technology or the thinking of an organisation wishing to engage with a previously loyal customer base.

 

[Bowie69]

I don't get what you are trying to say.

I said making a new platform must have been hard as they are a small manufacturer trying to compete and a world stage with much larger manufacturers, and they are.... Revenue is revenue wherever it comes from, and having multiple platforms and higher revenue is obviously going to allow greater flexibility in creating another one.

This thread is dead, people just spouting stuff that they don't really know anything about and getting cross about it.

 

[Chicken Drumstick]

48 minutes ago, Bowie69 said:

I don't get what you are trying to say.

I said making a new platform must have been hard as they are a small manufacturer trying to compete and a world stage with much larger manufacturers, and they are.... Revenue is revenue wherever it comes from, and having multiple platforms and higher revenue is obviously going to allow greater flexibility in creating another one.

This thread is dead, people just spouting stuff that they don't really know anything about and getting cross about it.

 

Lol your 1st paragraph might be an example of your 2nd

On a serious note. Why do you think Land Rover are a special case and unable to do what EVERY other car maker the globe over does? There bigger, smaller and similar sized automakers out there. LR are not really all that unique. And besides they seem plenty capable enough to churn out plenty of different vehicles already. As well as develop their own engines rather than use someone else’s or co-develop with another car manufacturer. 

[Chicken Drumstick]

9 hours ago, Bowie69 said:

They have to be competitive, yes? And are already in a global market?

 

Isn’t that building and selling cars 101. As in what every single other car maker contends with. Again, what logical rational are you applying that make Land Rover such a unique company and so different and unable to do what everyone else does????