FridgeFreezer Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 People build far uglier (and heavier) Defenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sparkes Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think if they tapered the top of the vehicle towards the roof - much like the difference between a S1 hard top and a S2, it would look much better. I think you will find that the top of a Series 2 does not 'taper towards the roof'. Rather, the side profile difference between a S1 and S2 is that the S2 has what is termed a 'barrel roll' towards the top of the body sides, just below the capping line. The lower body is wider than that of a Series 1. I do agree though. that this feature would improve this Airfix kit, not least because it could be used to get rid of the totally ridiculous flared arches. These, in my view, are always the first sign that a body design is past it's sell-by date. To equip a new vehicle with them just shows the designer has got the design wrong. If the width of the axle plus wheels is too wide for the body, then make the body wider. The vehicle is taking up a certain footprint, why not give that space to the occupants? Whether the space is used for elbow room, side intrusion beams, body armour, electric windows or door pockets, is another decision entirely. Leaving the space wasted on the outside of the door panels is just pointless. IMHO, of course. All will be irrelevant when we see the prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think simon mean above the waistline, the side panels tape up to the slightly narrower roof, like on this: It would improve the looks, but not do much for practicality, which in this kind of vehicle is probably #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
need4speed Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 People build far uglier (and heavier) Defenders. True, but at least defenders arent ugly to start with. Unlike this. Though i guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbekko Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Smoke and mirrors, too many fancy graphics I like to see working machines. +1. There is nothing that indicates this thing has ever been built, just a whole lot of renderings. I don't think it looks all that bad, but I'm wondering what kind of worthwile powerplant they'll manage to fit in there the wrong way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mo Murphy Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 The more I look at it, the more I like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmgemini Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I like this version http://www.mikeno.de/?special-versions,225 Plenty of load space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I don't think it looks all that bad, but I'm wondering what kind of worthwile powerplant they'll manage to fit in there the wrong way. Power plant is 163BHP, 350NM CRTDI, in a truck that is 500Kg less than an empty defender that should relatively fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
need4speed Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Actually, now that im able to open the link and see different views/models, it is kinda growing on me a bit too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonr Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think simon mean above the waistline, the side panels tape up to the slightly narrower roof, like on this: That is indeed what Simon meant. Si Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_grieve Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I really like the look of it too. Looks like something out of a Land Rover design studio right down to the oval badge, lights, grille and roof profile. I think they missed a trick with the length and angle of the A arms and it only has a 3200kg towing capacity although with a kerb weight of 1307kg it's a bit light for heavy towing anyway. Everything looks nice and light, I think it would be fairer to compare it to a Suzuki than a Defender despite the looks. The 4x4 system is more like a light car.The torque limitations of the gearboxes are marginal at best and why even offer two different clutches? If everything about it was scaled up 1.5 times to make it a bit heavier with a 6 cylinder engine it might replace Land Cruisers in places. The modular parts would be great for large fleet users. I could imagine using large fleets of these with NGO's if the price was right and spares were available and a version with dumbed down engines and electrical systems were available. Some portal hubs on there and flatten and lengthen the A arms and it could be the basis of a mini hummer suitable for up armouring. If I was an upcoming dictator, planning to dominate parts of Africa or even just intent on a bit of social upheaval I would look at these instead of a Land Cruiser. It would look right at home with a .50 cal or a recoiless rifle on the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's wider, longer, and has a larger load carrying capacity than a Defender, will most likely do more to the gallon, more creature comforts yet still has the ability to pop panels on and off with ease. As for two different clutches, well LR do it so why not? A 90 clutch is different to the 130HCPU for sure, and there are HD versions of that available too. It is 3.5t towing capacity depending on model. The 4x4 system may mimic a light car, but this is only because 4x4's have been stuck in the rut of "it must have a layout like a land rover to be any good" rut. With modern engineering a transverse layout can be every bit as reliable and strong as the more popular route. Think people need to think outside the box a bit, you don't need an inline 6 cylinder diesel, beam axles and for it to look exactly like a defender to be a good vehicle. As above, watch out, the Germans are coming... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sparkes Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I think simon mean above the waistline, the side panels tape up to the slightly narrower roof, like on this: That is indeed what Simon meant. Si OK, I sit corrected :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smego Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I like that. Wish I understood the fuel consumption figures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbekko Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I like that. Wish I understood the fuel consumption figures? Probably city/highway/combined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smego Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 No as in the silly l/100m the foreigners use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_grieve Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 . It is 3.5t towing capacity depending on model. All the literature and downloads I see are for 3200Kg, where does it say 3500kg? Remember this is all CGI / virtual, I don't know if there's a prototype? I'm sure with modern engineering things can be made differently and cheaper than things of old but don't forget that many years of real world experience has shown us things that work. Aside from the H1 I can't think of another utility vehicle with rear A arms that has proved itself commercially? The relative size of wishbones, ball joints, bushes, crownwheels and angles of CV joints are important and haven't changed in the short time since this was designed. It's all very well designing something to the 'n'th degree on a computer but if the basic parameters aren't right then it won't work. How is a (nearly) two ton payload going to affect the ground clearance without having a harsh unladen ride when empty and at the same time allowing decent wheel travel? The huge difference in weight between the loaded and unloaded vehicle and the short suspension travel is a compromise that isn't new. I'd like to see more info on that. Some things don't bother me like the deletion of a transfer gearbox. On a normal 4x4 low box only really offers two additional ratios with third low being similar to first high. The provision of a PTO for hydraulics or a winch would be nice to see. A 68Ah battery doesn't leave much to run accessories but you can see how things have been thought about. Beam axles offer a simple durable package with well documented advantages and disadvantages. Thinking outside the box is a good thing if you're a musician or an artist maybe but selling utility vehicles to conservatively minded practical people might take a bit more convincing. I still think the whole thing is a bit light regardless of the dimensions. Litres / 100Km's is the normal way of describing fuel consumption outside of the UK and America. 8.3l/100km is about 34mpg, 6.5 is 43mpg and 9.5 is about 30mpg. This concept is definitely on the right track though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 RH column of this page, under the GVM: http://www.mikeno.de/index.php?vehicle-data,223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
need4speed Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Aside from the H1 I can't think of another utility vehicle with rear A arms that has proved itself commercially? The relative size of wishbones, ball joints, bushes, crownwheels and angles of CV joints are important and haven't changed in the short time since this was designed. To be honest, this is more through cost of design/production rather than operational effectiveness. The same way as mass-produced cars went in favour of macpherson strut rather than double wishbones. It wasnt because macpherson was better. Far from it. It was because its cheap. If anyone had driven a car with fully independent double wishbones you will know how superior they are... I know design parameters are different on a 4x4, but that aside the advantages are just the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FridgeFreezer Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I'd rather this than the DC100 any day......maybe Land Rover should take note Am I missing something here? This thing basically IS a (fugly) DC100 - the DC100 re-uses the (generally pretty good) FL2/Evoque platform which is FWD, transverse engine with haldex clutch to engage the rear wheels as required, independent suspension, much lighter than a Defender (minus the extra soft furnishings), smaller & more efficient modern diesel, etc. etc... So when LR suggest it they're a bunch of know-nothing heathens who are ruining all that is sacred, some muppet with a CAD package renders a gopping ugly concept picture and it's a great idea! right back at ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowie69 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I don't think anyone knows what will replace the Defender, but it is NOT the DC100, all the latest news articles on it are from nearly 2 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmgemini Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 What ever comes out of Land Rover. 1 I won't be able to afford to buy it. 2 I won't be able to maintain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyoldgit Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Promising but I'll reserve judgement until we see one built and in use s opposed to a load of computer generated images. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dailysleaze Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 From the website: MIKENO  is not producing his vehicles by themselves, also there is no MIKENO owned factory. Currently MIKENO is in the last talks with two possible partnerships that are experienced in producing small series vehicles in the 4x4 segment. We will inform you on this page in the next week about our decision for the production partner http://www.mikeno.de/?production,259 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill van snorkle Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Why do we here on LR4x4 even care about this vehicle ? If it ever gets built, which is doubtful, it is just another foreign (German) 4x4, of which there are many fine proven brands to choose from. If flat. angular styling and simple engineering is the criteria, such a vehicle already exists. I would much rather sort out a JK jeep Rubicon, with all its aftermarket support than something like this with bloody Indy suspension. Without the black Magic of traction control, no one I'm aware of has been able to make IFS/IRS work for true offroad conditions. Just check out the results of the recent King Of The hammers Race to see that teams that have thrown cubic dollars at independent suspension design are still to get it right, and at any rate, the present state of the art designs, being excessively wide and lacking a true differential aren't suitable for adaptation to production vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.