Land Rover design changes

[AaronLean]

Hi everyone. I'm new onto this forum so hello!

Loving some of the threads on here so far.

I wanted to ask people what their most loved Land Rover design is? And what do we all think will be the future of the designs as they seem to be getting more 'urban' over the years.

Cheers guys!!!

[Lewis]

Bot? Spammer? Marketing employee maybe?

[o_teunico]

IMHO best Land Rover design ever is the Santana 1300. Nearly 100% common spares with the regular 109" LR but with 1.3 Tonne payload and 3m+ bed. Van/Bus bodies were also available.

Unfortunatelly Land Rover UK´s LLAMA project was unsuccessfull, but it could have been a great car

[Blanco]

+1 for the LLAMA;

Otherwise has to be the Series 1 80".

As for the modern stuff, I would buy a VW Tuareg!

[Jamie_grieve]

The text on the first post has been copied and pasted as it's in a different font, How many different sites has it been posted to?

AaronLean are you a real person with a real interest or a spambot wasting our time?

We could spend hours on here telling you some of the really bad examples of specific pieces of Land Rover engineering if that would be of more benefit?

The designs are getting more urban but so is the world. All modern Land Rovers are for the Urban market. Why would that change now? I doubt very much Land Rover would be capable of producing a robust and SIMPLE vehicle now due to emissions and crash legislation's and as they are not interested in the commercial sector I cant see much hope for something durable with a 20 year (at least) lifespan. You can't buy a Land Rover to operate in developing countries or remote areas since the end of the ROW spec in 2007.

The Land Rover brand will stay alive I'm sure in North America and Europe with good marketing but in Africa, every country South of the Equator and East of Prague, West of Anchorage the average person will probably not even know the name in ten years. I expect they will be badged as Tata in India. By doing what Ford did with the Mazda B2500 and Nissan Patrol / Terrano to get into the 4x4 sector outwith America maybe Land Rover could contract another manufacturer to make an industrial type vehicle to compete with the 70 series Toyota with a Land Rover badge to maintain the credibility of the more prestigious models.

[Mo Murphy]

Is all rather amusing, isn't it

Which threads are you loving in particular ?

Are you Cliff Richard ?

Mo

[Maverik]

Same post:

http://www.landyzone.co.uk/lz/f16/land-rover-design-changes-248761.html#post2937508

Same post:

http://landroverforums.com/forum/discovery-ii-18/land-rover-design-changes-65031/?styleid=2

... bored now.

[bill van snorkle]

Didn't know that the Llama went away from the 101's 6 stud hubs and back to the tradition LR 5 stud !

I assume they also had smaller halfshafts too. From an opinion piece I read some years ago, the Llama was seen to be a half baked attempt(Lt77 box, 2.5 NA engine etc ) to meet the military's specifications and was unsuccessful during evaluation trials. Anyone here disagree and can elaborate ?

[miketomcat]

Didn't know that the Llama went away from the 101's 6 stud hubs and back to the tradition LR 5 stud !

I assume they also had smaller halfshafts too. From an opinion piece I read some years ago, the Llama was seen to be a half baked attempt(Lt77 box, 2.5 NA engine etc ) to meet the military's specifications and was unsuccessful during evaluation trials. Anyone here disagree and can elaborate ?

Bill I think the comments on the llama project are more based on looks and concept. I have seen one in the flesh and I like it too, however as they never really made it past initial prototype it is difficult to gauge the mechanics so to speak. I believe there has been one built using factory left overs though I think it had a tdi.

Mike

[Snagger]

Welcome, Aaron.

I'm much more into the classic stuff generally, not just LRs, so I have a penchant for the RR Classic, all the leaf sprung stuff and the Defenders before the TD5. Which is may favourite between a really tidy 80", a Camel Trophy 110 and a soft dash RRC, is a tough one, but given that I have the latter, I suppose I'll settle for that.

As for LR's future, they seem to be turning their back on the rugged or adaptable commercial vehicles, seemingly embarrassed by them, and going over to the side of drug dealer and footballer piles of bling (the L322 was a smart looking car, but what were they thinking of with the new L405 and RRS? ). There's more money in it, but no credibility.

You didn't say what your favourite is!

[o_teunico]

I simply think that the forward control concept is far superior to "bonnet" design. It doe not waste space in front of the windscreen and full loaded has a nearly 50/50 load share.

VW made a forward control with the beetle and it was much, much more successfull than the bonnet type.

Aussies were clever enough and used the Isuzu 4BD engine. Land Rover UK could have contacted CAT, Perkins, Deutz or any other reputable diesel engine manufacturer. LT230 + big ZF manual box and Sal´s with D60 internals, 1.5" halfshaft and lockers, ant the army could have had a super HD vehicle.

[bill van snorkle]

I simply think that the forward control concept is far superior to "bonnet" design. It doe not waste space in front of the windscreen and full loaded has a nearly 50/50 load share.

VW made a forward control with the beetle and it was much, much more successfull than the bonnet type.

Aussies were clever enough and used the Isuzu 4BD engine. Land Rover UK could have contacted CAT, Perkins, Deutz or any other reputable diesel engine manufacturer. LT230 + big ZF manual box and Sal´s with D60 internals, 1.5" halfshaft and lockers, ant the army could have had a super HD vehicle.

Forward control 4x4's can be very unstable in certain cross country situations. 101's are well known for performing diagonal front wheel hand stands on steepish off camber down slopes

[Jamie_grieve]

The hand stand thing could be designed out and loaded isn't a problem. They do the same going up hill too. I'd say crash legislation would be the big one. It's hard to make a vehicle safe with 1mm of steel or aluminium between you and impending doom. Making and selling them or finding a class where the legislation doesn't apply would require input and interest I doubt anyone in Land Rover would have.

[bill van snorkle]

The hand stand thing could be designed out and loaded isn't a problem. They do the same going up hill too. I'd say crash legislation would be the big one. It's hard to make a vehicle safe with 1mm of steel or aluminium between you and impending doom. Making and selling them or finding a class where the legislation doesn't apply would require input and interest I doubt anyone in Land Rover would have.

But surely a forward control landrover wouldn't legally be required to exceed the crash worthy standards expected of any forward control commercial vehicle, and may be exempted from some, as Defender style LR's have been in some markets due to their multi purpose nature. For example, I can't see how the soggy cardboard box like structure of a standard Defender body could possibly have met any of the standards for crash worthiness re side impact and rollover protection that regular passenger vehicles are required to

meet. They have been exempted at least over here, because they are classed as multi purpose commercial vehicles, which for some obscure reason means that the occupants of these vehicles are seen as lesser beings with less right to survive accidents than occupants of conventional vehicles.

[Jamie_grieve]

They have been exempted at least over here, because they are classed as multi purpose commercial vehicles, which for some obscure reason means that the occupants of these vehicles are seen as lesser beings with less right to survive accidents than occupants of conventional vehicles.

Lol, you're dead right there. Same applies in the UK. I think this is what must be changing to put them off the road. My argument would be I'm happy to take the risk of no padded dash, airbag, ABS and traction control to own and operate a vehicle I can repair myself and have some chance of longevity. I see no reason why a Defender type vehicle can't be built to modern crashworthyness standards with a solid occupant cell designed to resist crushing. The smart car into the concrete wall at 70mph shows how good modern construction can be. A Lotus Elise type chassis construction would work well in an off roader.

Other than the chassis construction, getting rid of diffs designed for a 1600 cc car in the forties would be good too and a drive train strong enough for diff locks because traction control doesn't work in the real world.

[discomikey]

a drive train strong enough for diff locks because traction control doesn't work in the real world.

i agree about the super weak axles, but have you ever driven a modern LR off road? even on road tyres our D4 is unstoppable would love to see what one can do on a decent set of muds!

[Jamie_grieve]

Yes, used traction control all the time, try using it in an opencast or the desert and see how long your brakes last. In fact, try driving up a sand dune in Dubai with your vehicle putting the brakes on and the land Cruiser next to you putting his lockers in.

It's a great no cost fitment to any modern vehicle with ABS but it's in no way a substitute for locking diffs. It requires slippage to work, towing something on wet grass is all it takes to break the surface and sink that with lockers doesn't happen. With traction control you always have equal torque in the half shafts and unequal torque at the tyres in proportion to an algorithm. With difflocks you get as much grip as you're going to get.

I agree with you the modern vehicles are great but far too heavy on too small a wheel for serious off roading in soft conditions which is the majority on the UK.

[bill van snorkle]

I have been impressed by the ability of later traction control systems on D4 on short trials courses, but agree with Jamie that they burn themselves out on longer distance extreme terrain. I'm not sure I like the principal of TC either. A differential when one wheel is braked suddenly becomes a 200% overdrive powering the other wheel at half the available torque it could receive if the differential was locked. The sudden increase in wheel speed could be enough to break traction, or the 50% reduction in wheel torque could be enough to stall the engine on a manual transmission vehicle under certain circumstances where diagonally opposed wheels are off the ground.

[western]

might be another 1 post wonder.

[Happyoldgit]

might be another 1 post wonder.

Quite possibly but at least it's prompted a bit of discussion.

[Nigelw]

Seen a lot of this stuff lately and tons of marketing surveys about "branding image" and the likes.

I think they are either trying to use marketing surveys and posts such as this to find the way forward for the new vehicle ranges.

They will never move forward with ideas put forward here or in a lot of other forums either due to the fact that the vehicles we want are

a) cheap to buy.

Affordable to even those on less than £30,000 pa.

b) easily DIY maintained.

Minimum amounts of electronics, back to a vehicle that can be fixed in a field with minimal tooling and no diagnostics or at least the essentials are there but require plug in for security related items.

c) reliable.

Minimalist approach to electronics will help as will coil springs as EAS is good but can be problematic with age and also only adds cost, no TC although ABS will most likely be fitted diffs need selectable lockers, air/electric/vacuum or cable is plenty to choose from, greater drive train strength and H/D manual and optional auto transmissions, suspension can be independent but beams stay with strong traditions.

d) have reall off road ability without compromize.

Strength and design will bring a vehicle with a low curb weight but a high GVW and towing capacity.

All of my above points would bring forth the new commercial vehicle of choice for commercial operators and maybe they would hold attraction with the army and peace organisations too?

This is a vehicle with a step back to reality and real commercial vehicle sales.

Basically, they will never build it because it would actually serve a purpose.

[Jamie_grieve]

^^^^^^

Well put, good summary.

At least the OP had the decency to reply on the other forums.