World's best land rover

[Turbocharger]

I think we need to define the user requirements before we can start speccing turbos and centre diffs.

How many of them go offroad, tow 3500kg or carry a pallet? Are any of these mutually exclusive? Which are univerally important?

I think there's a lot they could take from the Elise construction, especially if a strong box could form the chassis, (flat) load floor and seat box, and bring the base chassis weight down to sub 1000kg. Then there's no need for huge diesels and mega horsepower and plenty of room for batteries / supercapacitors for the hybrid bit that nobody's mentioned but we'll probably need if we're selling into a £1+/litre market.

[sparg]

I think we need to define the user requirements before we can start speccing turbos and centre diffs.

How many of them go offroad, tow 3500kg or carry a pallet? Are any of these mutually exclusive? Which are univerally important?

I think there's a lot they could take from the Elise construction, especially if a strong box could form the chassis, (flat) load floor and seat box, and bring the base chassis weight down to sub 1000kg. Then there's no need for huge diesels and mega horsepower and plenty of room for batteries / supercapacitors for the hybrid bit that nobody's mentioned but we'll probably need if we're selling into a £1+/litre market.

Exactly, - I think the original user requirement was broad, very broad. Is it still the same? - I suppose I'm sort of asking what it is that makes people still love their land rovers in spite of the fact that they're noisy, bouncy, steer strangely, have poor fuel economy, rust, break down,... what is it?

maybe an offroad sports car is really a different beast from a carthorse - or is it that the land rover can be made to be either (though not necessarily both)...

[Drillerjoskin]

Exactly, - I think the original user requirement was broad, very broad. Is it still the same? - I suppose I'm sort of asking what it is that makes people still love their land rovers in spite of the fact that they're noisy, bouncy, steer strangely, have poor fuel economy, rust, break down,... what is it?

maybe an offroad sports car is really a different beast from a carthorse - or is it that the land rover can be made to be either (though not necessarily both)...

^^^^^ What he said !!! hit the nail on the head, i dont think the origional user requirment ever included "looking good on the school run" or "making it easier to park in Chelsea". It was a working vehicle and had it evovled in that vain many of its current customer base wouldn't look twice at it. Make the chassis and drivetrain bulletproof and you have the base for a vehicle that can be anything to anybody, as long as it has the Landie front light set up and flaps under the windscreen that is

[sparg]

We seem to be saying that the enduring charm of the Land Rover has less to do with technical sophistication, or even absolutely solid engineering, and more to do with the fact that it's a sort of Lego car kit..?

[plasticbadger]

I agree, sort of - any new Land Rover shouldn't bow to the current fashion of Chelsea tractors. I don't like to lego kit idea though. A new model needs to be a proper mondern build, for safety as well as quality.

The littlest model should be a good farm truck or off road play thing, the middle size should take on the crew cab pick up market and the 'proper' 4x4 estates - Nissan Patrol and Toyota Landcruiser. And I think the biggest should be 140 inch wheel base with 275 + hp to take on the American pick up market. I'd by a TDV8 140 inch crew cab pick up!

[FridgeFreezer]

Also, are we ignoring existing LR models - f'rexample the Freebie is a good little runabout, the Disco is a good family car, the RR is great for dealing drugs

It also depends whether we're going for the entirely practical outlook or something more experimental.

Practically speaking, keep it as it is, sort out some of the arse-from-elbow design flaws, drop in a decent engine or two, some axles that aren't made by cadbury, galvanise the f**ing chassis and bulkhead and then make the rest of it out of plastic (like FL front wings). Saves weight, is cheap, and takes knocks well. Stop trying to make it more car-like to own, rip half the trim & carpet out, and trade on the unique selling point of a basic, solid car that just gets you from A to B no matter what is in the way.

[GKP]

It'd be nice if the next generation drove better on the road. It's relatively easy to make a new vehicle with good off road capabilities, but that normally comes with terrible on road behaviour. I've never understood the point in having a vehicle that can climb Snowdon on tickover, but has to be trailered there.

Portals, MTs, and 3 inch lifts are great once you've reached your favourite bomb hole, but having a bruised elbow, shattered ear drums and empty wallet due to the slow journey there is just not acceptable these days.

Breadth of ability is key, without being too focussed in one area. If the end user wishes to concentrate on developing a certain aspect of their car, then full factory support (and 'bolt on' parts) should be available.

Having an aluminium Elise style chassis as mentioned above would also bring some compromises. Lack of repairabilty is one. Some of the early cars (the Elise was launched in '96) are nowadays being written off due to very light chassis damage after a minor altercation with a kerb, which results in wishbones being torn from their mounts. Due to the nature of the chassis construction, this area is irrepairable.

Seperate steel front and rear subframes such as the newly announced Evora wears will no doubt help relieve the underwriters pain, but maybe overkill and too expensive on a Defender type vehicle.

I agree that it would be good to distance the next car away from Chelsea Tractordom, but you have to be realistic. Core values and 60 years of mud plugging are well and good, but the product needs to sell. The Range Rover Sport has been the best seller since the Freelander.

[Chris123]

Having an aluminium Elise style chassis as mentioned above would also bring some compromises. Lack of repairabilty is one. Some of the early cars (the Elise was launched in '96) are nowadays being written off due to very light chassis damage after a minor altercation with a kerb, which results in wishbones being torn from their mounts. Due to the nature of the chassis construction, this area is irrepairable.

Seperate steel front and rear subframes such as the newly announced Evora wears will no doubt help relieve the underwriters pain, but maybe overkill and too expensive on a Defender type vehicle.

I was in a presentation by a couple of lotus chaps the other day, and the evora is definately something quite clever. It's designed so that the entire crumple zone is almost a bolt on, bolt off component, and that the main chassis of the car is as solid as possible. This means that in a crash the front end can easily be replaced whilst the rest of the car remains in tact.

They've already tested this by letting NCAP get a hold of it, rebuild it in less than 5 hours (I acknowledge lotus will have a fancy workshop), and then let NCAP crash it again. The same car passed well both times.

I think this idea could be incorporated in a landy, possibly have a front subframe which is completely replaceable off the shelf, and have the rest of the car ladderframe for the rigity and bolt-on bolt-off bodywork that we all love. Defenders are all the same in front of the bulkhead, surely something clever can be done to the chassis here if need be, whilst the rear section remains easy to work on and change panels etc..

[sparg]

ah - this is a good point - crumple zones. I think one of the reasons for the forthcoming demise of the defender is that it would be too expensive to adapt the existing design to upcoming safety legislation.

Now, jeep manage airbags, and, for that matter, I think even the front legs of the ladder chassis are bolt-on replaceable (so a light-ish front end smack doesn't necessitate a whole chassis job)

The inside with it's hard edges was fine when they topped out at 45 lie my old 1956 model did, but now they're capable of 70-ish they should protect the occupants a bit better.

I think this highlights a problem: that agricultural machinery was exempt from some of the legislation that applied to cars. But since various machines have sneaked in that classification whilst being capable of 125mph+ thn I think that loophole will eventually be closed up - which brings us back round to why the defender is for the chop.

So maybe a combination of a rethink about the basic design of the ladder chassis, and a look at the airbag situation, are basic prerequisites for this mythical model?

[Retroanaconda]

To be honest I think if you take away the ladder-frame chassis, live axles, and bolt-on bodywork model...you're going to lose pretty much everthing that is great about the Defender

[nicks90]

hmm - too many specifics being designed into the 'new models' outlined in previous posts.

it really needs to be more of a 'catch all' type design.

I think i would say something based on an Ibex type design. But NOT an ibex cos i think they`re ugly.

chassis

start off with a lightweight galvanised tube/box chassis - but to give it the rigidity of a heavy duty box ladder chassis, add a galv roll cage built into the body structure with the grp panels riveted to the cage for easy replacement (in other words like an ibex) This makes it strong and light and prevents rust. Adds loads of inbuilt protection and strength as well.

Body

Shape loosely based on a defender - but with a different rear door design to take a standard pallet.

2 wheelbases - 100" and 120"

100" gives more passenger cell space for better seating positions + on/offroad stability, 120" gives again better passenger cell room for the front and second row of seats if its a csw, or for a load lugging hard top a simillar load space to a normal 110 but with less rear overhang.

Axles

no excuse for rubbish axles when toyota, nissan and ford have been producing decent axles cheaply for 40 years! Just slap a set of ford hi9" jobbies under there and be done with it. Anti roll bars with electric in cab operated disconnects as well as traction control and ABS.

33" tyres as standard as well please - with the dealer option of 35" rubber being fitted without the need to chop stuff about or put lifts on. Oh and add F+R lockers as an option.

Drivetrain

Again, no excuse for rubbish gearboxes built to a penny pinching budget when the japs have being doing reliable strong stuff for years.

Standard 5 speed manual or 4 speed auto with a selectable 2x hi, 4x hi, 4x low tranny box.

Engine

I really like the td5 and with sensible thought to electrics it can be made reliable in more severe offroad situations - but why only 2.5l? If they could do a td5 in about 3l and offer 2 states of tune (3rd world + EU/USA) then you could be getting a reliable and easy 220bhp in EU spec and 150bhp in countries where the fuel is rubbish.

Suppose they better do a petrol version for people with too much money to burn.

Interior

3 trim levels,

basic jetwash friendly spec (early defender with vinyl seats and plastic door cards with no leccy windows etc). Nice spec for all CSW models with some mod cons (late td5 with leccy windows, central locking, half leather). Lux spec for those who dont intend to use it offroad much but need the vehicle for towing and carry stuff about (we're talking mitsi warrior, nissan twincab levels of trim)

price point would have to be in line with l200, ford ranger, nissan twin cab sort of territory.

[sparg]

To be honest I think if you take away the ladder-frame chassis, live axles, and bolt-on bodywork model...you're going to lose pretty much everthing that is great about the Defender

agree, and, as another poster pointed out, there are other models iin theLR range. I personally think they could still add one at the tiny end of things - sort of like a suzuki (but without the relibaility, obviously )

So, if everyone agrees what the core features are, then we seem to have something remarkably like the defender!

In which case, we could prioritise the features of a defender we like, or would like.

1) chassis for bolting stuff on

2) body bits that bolt on and off easily

3) accessibiity to 'everything'

4) ready supply of inexpensive bits

5)rugged - in design and in quality of components

5) reliable (as above)

6)maintainable without specialist tools, diagnostic gear etc

7)fixable 'in the wild' for 'get you home'

8) unburstable engines with sufficient torque

9) gearbox, transfer box, diffs and all other drive components as unbreakable as possible

10)reliable and durable electrics

that list is really about the hardware, and could easily be extended, but it's largely about the original design concept of an agricultural vehicle, plus it's predicated on the idea of the vehicle rarely visiting the dealer, and indeed, it could be hundreds or thousands of miles away from one (outback, or similar). now, if one visited each of these component categories with a clear view of the underlying design philosophy, what decisions would come out of that? I suppose, for instance, - the debate on LC axles got me thinking - would we just subcontract the manufature of axles to Toyota?

what about engines-and-gearboxes? (and do we have to have loads of electronics in the engine, really?)

Chassis - is there someone out there who makes a better job of these than LR do?

Now, you could go on to have other lists, like:

1) a vehicle the evokes camaraderie (and not just 'cos you have to stiop and help each other with breakdowns)

2) a vehicle that does not conform to others' 'status trees'

3) vehicle with that indefinable 'character', yet inspiring confidence in terms of rugged performance

4)... and so on

then, in respect of how you'd use it;

1) Comfy enough for reasonable road use, even if not explicitly designed primarily for motorway use

2) safe enough for reasonable road use, and future-proof enough in respect of potential legislation changes in the foreseeable

3) capable, in standard form, of being used on fields, in fords, in snow, all those things

4) potentially adaptable to extreme off-road activities (whilst retaining some on-road capability? - bolt-on/off road bits?)

5) economical enough to be used as a road vehicle for (?) % of it's time

Now, with a few exceptions, all this sounds remarkably like a defender! if so, the only issues are less to do with a radical redesign, and more to do with getting rid of poor quality issues. In which case, they're talking about scrapping a model that has a proven market, a strong fan base, and a particular set of functions, simply because it doesn't 'fit' the business plan. So, someone earlier asked what we might see if the Bean-counters got their way - well, it would look llike the railways after Beeching, or worse - which in fact, is what's going to happen.

So, why don't they sell the entire model and associated rights to someone who could and would build it?

[protoprincess]

It should be PINK!

[sparg]

I think pink should be an option...

I like Nicks90's suggestions about the chassis. - how about 3 chassis models - an 80-odd as well as the other two - this is the equivalent of the little suzukis

Engines: there are some fairly extreme suggestions over on the engineporn thread, but the discussion on power/weight ratio of engines is particularly interesting

Whole drivetrain: just buy it from the japanese?

[Paul Humphreys]

Whole drivetrain: just buy it from the japanese?

Toyota do a 2.4, 3.0 and a 4.2 all with/without turbos. They also do a nice v8 petrol.

Paul

[GBMUD]

To be honest I think if you take away the ladder-frame chassis, live axles, and bolt-on bodywork model...you're going to lose pretty much everthing that is great about the Defender

No, I think that you will remove most of the reasons that many of 'us' like them/consider them great. Most of 'us' have never bought and may well never buy a new Defender for the reasons you suggest, we just buy them second hand and repair/modfy them.

Landrover only care about selling new cars, and new cars are predominantly bought based on price, reliability, comfort, economy (bottom line and fuel/servicing) and fitness for purpose. That is one reason why Japanese 4x4s have been so popular - they are just more car-like in day to day use.

Chris

[sparg]

No, I think that you will remove most of the reasons that many of 'us' like them/consider them great. Most of 'us' have never bought and may well never buy a new Defender for the reasons you suggest, we just buy them second hand and repair/modfy them.

Landrover only care about selling new cars, and new cars are predominantly bought based on price, reliability, comfort, economy (bottom line and fuel/servicing) and fitness for purpose. That is one reason why Japanese 4x4s have been so popular - they are just more car-like in day to day use.

Chris

yeah, but, though I'm not a motor industry analyst, and so don't know the figures, the parts market is fairly lucrative if treated with respect. of course, that means the more numbers of a model out there, and the longer they live, the more parts you'll sell.

[Raumer]

Engine wise it is going to have to have a load of electronics on it to be able to pass the upcoming emissions legislation. It will also probably have common rail. If it was going for a complete money no object etc.... then the option I would go for is to get one of the truck companies to build a small diesel. A 4 or 5 litre engine from the likes of DAF or Volvo would really suit the landrover. Lots of torque everywhere and built to last without performance or emissions changing. The existing truck engines have a life of 1,000,000 miles and the new ones now have to hold a certain level of performance at the end of that. I am biased as I do development work on the new fuel injection systems for trucks!

[FridgeFreezer]

While you're getting Volvo to do the engine, get 'em to do the axles as well

[GKP]

And the styling. Oh, er, hang on....

[Turbocharger]

Speaking as someone who deals with the results of Volvo's truck engines every day, I don't consider a sleeved 12-litre engine as an effective way to deliver a 9-litre unit.

[sparg]

think we've got some good engine suggestions over on diesel engine porn thread. more suggestions on gearboxes and axles needed.

What about chassis - built-in rollover bar(s)? anything vaguely crumple-zone-ish?

[Lara]

My ideal Landy

Light 2.8 litre Diesel engine Variable Vane Turbo,

Loads of torque,

Auto box,

Torque biasing diffs and Traction Control,

Centre diff lock and stronger, lower Low range gears,

Mega strong drive shafts and Ashcroft CV,s

100+ litre fuel capacity,

Rust free chassis coating,

35 inch tyres,

Full length skid plate,

HID Head lights,

LED other Lights all round,

30+ miles to the gallon

Only got one of those missing!

Guess which

[sparg]

My ideal Landy

Light 2.8 litre Diesel engine Variable Vane Turbo,

Loads of torque,

Auto box,

Torque biasing diffs and Traction Control,

Centre diff lock and stronger, lower Low range gears,

Mega strong drive shafts and Ashcroft CV,s

100+ litre fuel capacity,

Rust free chassis coating,

35 inch tyres,

Full length skid plate,

HID Head lights,

LED other Lights all round,

30+ miles to the gallon

Only got one of those missing!

Guess which

you doing too much uphill work; stick to downhill runs and the economy should improve...

Is it any good for nipping to the shops?

[Lara]

you doing too much uphill work; stick to downhill runs and the economy should improve...

Is it any good for nipping to the shops?

you are right, but we ain't got many hills here in this part of Belgium

It would be good for the shops but it is kept locked in my workshop behind two sets of gates, so can't be bothered

Lara