Thoughts and musings on the new defender

[steve b]

Which is why managed "test video's" are largely irrelevant , I think my Forester  would not lift wheels as much .

It won't be until it's been out for a while that we will see comparisons to the Real Defender or indeed other makes like the TLC or Jeeps .

It certainly looks front heavy in most of the slow bits with two front wheels on the ground much more than the rear in the downhill sections , certainly much less wheel travel in either direction than the  proper Defender.

cheers

Steve b

[Naks]

The most comprehensive/detailed review so far: https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-driven/2020-land-rover-defender---the-long-review/42091

warning: it's a long read!

[Jamie_grieve]

5 hours ago, Naks said:

The most comprehensive/detailed review so far: https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-driven/2020-land-rover-defender---the-long-review/42091

warning: it's a long read!

"Tip a Discovery onto two diametrically opposed wheels in a transition and it'll creak under structural duress"
Total garbage, they don't make a sound, don't twist, doors open and close fine, exactly as they do on every car made this millennium in the same situation. Marketing nonsense.

"half-a-metre of suspension articulation" That's actually not much and it's lies and marketing anyway pulled from the disco 5 literature. It clearly doesn't display anything like this amount in real life for reasons well discussed in previous pages in this topic. 
 

With the exception of the total lack of versatility of the new defender, the fact that the wheels almost don't move at all is one of the most un-defender like qualities it possesses.

Roll on the independent reviews!!

[Ex Member]

Land Rover won't let anyone near one unless they agree to give glowing reviews.

[elbekko]

6 hours ago, Naks said:

The most comprehensive/detailed review so far: https://www.pistonheads.com/news/ph-driven/2020-land-rover-defender---the-long-review/42091

warning: it's a long read!

Not a bad read, but honestly less in-depth than the video I linked earlier...

Pretty good example of wheel travel. And the reason you wouldn't see a standard old Defender do this, is because it wouldn't get far enough to do it. It'd have been spinning wheels with both unloaded wheels a few mm off the ground.

[Anderzander]

17 minutes ago, elbekko said:

you wouldn't see a standard old Defender do this, is because it wouldn't get far enough to do it. It'd have been spinning wheels with both unloaded wheels a few mm off the ground.

 

Though to state the obvious; that’s really just about traction control.

Rather than comparing this to the old offering - more in line with the rest of this thread, would be a comparison against what an updated version of the chassis/beam axles platform might be doing. 

[Eightpot]

29 minutes ago, elbekko said:

Not a bad read, but honestly less And the reason you wouldn't see a standard old Defender do this, is because it wouldn't get far enough to do it. It'd have been spinning wheels with both unloaded wheels a few mm off the ground.

An old school Defender/disco wouldn't have the wheels off the floor in the first place is the point.  You need to cross a ditch to do that, not drive slowly over a stone.

[landroversforever]

2 minutes ago, Eightpot said:

An old school Defender/disco wouldn't have the wheels off the floor in the first place is the point.  You need to cross a ditch to do that, not drive slowly over a stone.

@elbekko I'd have to agree with Eightpot.... Especially having seen pictures of the rear in crossaxle situations. I bet the rear wheel directly away from the camera has barely moved into the arch. Get a standard defender twisted up like that and it will bury the rear wheel in the arch.

[elbekko]

Does it really matter that there's a ditch or a hump in the middle? 2 wheels off the ground is 2 wheels off the ground.

And yes, my point supports that "An old school Defender/disco wouldn't have the wheels off the floor in the first place", because it wouldn't get that far. Thus no comparison can be drawn.

[landroversforever]

What I'm saying is that I don't think a standard original defender would have two wheels off the ground in that situation.

[landroversforever]

We must have someone on the forum that has traveled though that area or is nearby?

[landroversforever]

Yes its a model with TC.... but look how much more the rear axle is moving. Particularly how much further up into the arch the rear wheel goes. Add that the 90 above has a much shorter wheelbase than the 110 further up.

[Naks]

27 minutes ago, landroversforever said:

We must have someone on the forum that has traveled though that area or is nearby?

 

I'm probably the closest, it's only 2400 km away. But there's a total lockdown in ZA, so no chance of going 🤣

I'm sure I've shared this photo before, but it's not that difficult to get wheels off the ground in a standard Puma:

 

compared to a D4 at the same spot:

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Naks

[landroversforever]

Of course when all the weight is over the back in that situation. 

[Chicken Drumstick]

2 minutes ago, Naks said:

 

I'm probably the closest, it's only 2400 km away. But there's a total lockdown in ZA, so no chance of going 🤣

I'm sure I've shared this photo before, but it's not that difficult to get wheels off the ground in a standard Puma:

 

compared to a D4 at the same spot:

 

 

 

That is more an example of wheelbase, not suspension.....

I do recall your top photo. I don't think I agreed with whatever it was you were saying then either.

 

Not sure why you have singled out 'Puma' either. The suspension is still the same as on other 90's. And not all Puma's have anti-roll bars factory fitted either.

Also how do we know how high the wheels went in the air on the D4? The photo is only a snap in time... not saying they went higher. But a photo of this nature doesn't really prove much unless you are trying to misguide people into a false fact about something or other.

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 hour ago, elbekko said:

 

 

Pretty good example of wheel travel. And the reason you wouldn't see a standard old Defender do this, is because it wouldn't get far enough to do it. It'd have been spinning wheels with both unloaded wheels a few mm off the ground.

[Ex Member]

 

Bone stock 90

[Chicken Drumstick]

1 hour ago, Anderzander said:

Though to state the obvious; that’s really just about traction control.

Rather than comparing this to the old offering - more in line with the rest of this thread, would be a comparison against what an updated version of the chassis/beam axles platform might be doing. 

The traditional 90 is a pretty good example of what a modern ladder chassis live axle vehicle is capable of. Let's not forget 4 wheel traction control was offered in 1998. That is 22 years ago for those that didn't get the memo.

The 90/110 has always had good wheel travel for a stock vehicle. So they are extremely capable with open diffs. TCS enhances them to be extremely capable in stock form. And lets not forget that for moderate money there are lots and lots of LSD or full locker options available too.

As for modern comparisons. The Jeep JK and JL Wranglers. Comparable wheel travel stock for stock. Traction control standard, rear LSD optional MOPAR dealer fit on base models and Rubicon comes standard with front/rear lockers.

[Chicken Drumstick]

46 minutes ago, elbekko said:

Does it really matter that there's a ditch or a hump in the middle? 2 wheels off the ground is 2 wheels off the ground.

And yes, my point supports that "An old school Defender/disco wouldn't have the wheels off the floor in the first place", because it wouldn't get that far. Thus no comparison can be drawn.

[Anderzander]

4 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

The traditional 90 is a pretty good example of what a modern ladder chassis live axle vehicle is capable of. Let's not forget 4 wheel traction control was offered in 1998. That is 22 years ago for those that didn't get the memo.

The 90/110 has always had good wheel travel for a stock vehicle. So they are extremely capable with open diffs. TCS enhances them to be extremely capable in stock form. And lets not forget that for moderate money there are lots and lots of LSD or full locker options available too.

As for modern comparisons. The Jeep JK and JL Wranglers. Comparable wheel travel stock for stock. Traction control standard, rear LSD optional MOPAR dealer fit on base models and Rubicon comes standard with front/rear lockers.

We’re in agreement (especially Picard) - my point was only that (even aside from at what point we exceed wheel travel) with some standard traction aids it’s an irrelevant point of comparison. 

[Ex Member]

The problem with poor wheel travel even when you have lockers is stability.  The body pitches all over the place and chances of rolling become higher.  If you don't understand this, then you really need the experience.  Arguing about it on the internet is useless.  Get out there and see it. If you have not driven a modern Land Rover side by side at its limit next to a traditional one, then I can't see how you are really going to understand. I do and there are a few reasons why these modern ones are not as good.

- Wheel travel is poor and they require more traction aids and are less stable in rough terrain.

- The computerized control of the traction aids limits what they can do.  There are a few conditions where the system can be beat.  Allowing manual overrides of the lockers would help a lot.

- Ground clearance is a lot worse as they have a flat bottom all at the same height.  Traditional trucks are only low in a few spots.

- The larger rim diameters require a shorter tyre sidewall.  This means you can't lower pressures as far.  Once terrain because difficult, traction is completely related to tyre pressure.

These things will be okay for moderate terrain as long as you have the rear locker option. The larger tyres will make it nicer than a Disco 5.  But take a traditional Defender and install a rear locker and it will beat it every time.

 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Red90

[Naks]

nice podcast by Scott & co from Expedition Portal:

 

 

 

[Cynic-al]

I saw some on the back of a lorry the other day. Was quite disinterested in them up to now but quite fancy one. I cant afford one but I quite fancy one which must mean land rover are on the right track as i have never desired a d5, evoque or current range rover. 

[deep]

3 hours ago, Red90 said:

The problem with poor wheel travel even when you have lockers is stability.  The body pitches all over the place and chances of rolling become higher.  If you don't understand this, then you really need the experience.  Arguing about it on the internet is useless.  Get out there and see it. If you have not driven a modern Land Rover side by side at its limit next to a traditional one, then I can't see how you are really going to understand. I do and there are a few reasons why these modern ones are not as good.

- Wheel travel is poor and they require more traction aids and are less stable in rough terrain.

- The computerized control of the traction aids limits what they can do.  There are a few conditions where the system can be beat.  Allowing manual overrides of the lockers would help a lot.

- Ground clearance is a lot worse as they have a flat bottom all at the same height.  Traditional trucks are only low in a few spots.

- The larger rim diameters require a shorter tyre sidewall.  This means you can't lower pressures as far.  Once terrain because difficult, traction is completely related to tyre pressure.

These things will be okay for moderate terrain as long as you have the rear locker option. The larger tyres will make it nicer than a Disco 5.  But take a traditional Defender and install a rear locker and it will beat it every time.

 

Pretty much bang on!  The other thing that often gets overlooked is that a really supple suspension allows four wheels to push the car for as long as possible, spreading the load in terrain where traction is poor.  Stiffer suspension means one wheel will lose that contact quicker (which also offloads the diagonally opposite wheel) and that significantly loads the traction demands on the remaining wheels.  While modern traction control has done a fantastic control of mitigating that traction loss, the same system fitted to car with supple suspension is going to win every time.  My 110 has no traction control beyond the centre diff lock and it still goes a remarkably long way, like it did when it was new.  A tiny bit of impetus is standard practice on those show-off cross-axle situations and is undramatic and easy.  (Not that I wouldn't mind some fancy differentials...)

The main reason "modern" four wheel drive vehicles are tending towards stiffer suspension with less travel is absolutely not because it makes them better off road!  It's all about making a faster road car, knowing they can compensate for the resultant shortcomings in rough country by throwing increasingly complex technology at it.  To be fair, LR do that quite well.  The other "benefit" of  relying on that technology, as somebody mentioned dozens of pages back, is the brain-dead approach modern society has adopted, wherein you don't learn to use something properly anymore.  Instead, you plough in and hurt yourself and then sue somebody else as if it's his fault that you are stupid.  Manufacturers seem to want to avoid that.

Oh yes, that ground clearance thing.  I took the numbers from the new Defender literature and then got under my old 110 with a tape measure.  Only my diff housings are lower and not by much.  Otherwise, the old vehicle is many inches higher.  I frequently drive over a riverbed with large rocks and I know which one is going to find that easier!

[Anderzander]

When I put a 3 link on the front of my old 90 it was really about testing the open diff / long travel capability for myself. Balancing the travel front to back made is super stable and I was astonished at how far it would go even without momentum - it would just balance evenly across the 4 wheels and find grip.

But we all know these things anyway.

If it was a tyre - we’d say it was 70/30 road bias.