Defender production line move.

[studmuffin]

Just been reading my monthly mags and from what LR are intimating, at the end of 2015, the Defender production line will be moved to somewhere outside Europe where the labour costs are lower.

Am I missing something?

The reason Land Rover are ceasing production is because the costs of meeting EU safety/emission standards are prohibitive.

So they ship the line to a third world country with lower labour costs and lower environmental and safety standards!

So, Land Rover ---Is that actually ethical? Is it OK for Johnny Foreigner to suffer more injuries from RTAs and breath in increased levels of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide than us Europeans??

Land Rover ---- You cannot have it both ways, ------ but I bet you will.

Just a thought

Barry

[Mo Murphy]

Never let ethics get in the way of profit.

Mo

[missingsid]

A little harsh? Do UK LR meet US laws I doubt it, would you be happy with a slower car because US regs prohibit it on emmissions?

If there is a market with lower rules why not,do you think China would give a damn?

[Guest]

Rumour has been for a while that it will all be going to India, given the state of their roads, the lack of driving ability and the state of 80% of the cars on the road the Defender would be a big improvement.

I don't really think it is unethical of JLR the EU is first world where we get nannied, bring down the cost of production will mean it will become available to poorer markets where EU5 emissions are only a dream and pedestrian safety would probably start to be considered when they add pavements to roads and ban 5 people on a moped.

Jason

[deep]

I'd rather live somewhere where the safety standards were lower. It's got ridiculous. I certainly don't advocate polluting engines either but there is a quantity/quality thing here. If we drove far fewer vehicles we'd have a far smaller problem. It's not a handful of Defenders causing the problem but an out of control mass of commuters and and an indulgent market shipping all sorts of stuff all over the place, rather than keeping local. Making Defenders closer to the market is a good thing.

[Maverik]

From another point of view, its maybe giving JLR a bit of breathing space? there's obviously a fair amount of revenue still held in the Defender brand, I'd prefer JLR to keep a hold of it and manage that rather than selling it to a two bit company that take it on then I think you'll start hitting some moral barriers with safety and quality. By taking the model out the EU might allow time/inclination for fitting a more modern engine which I can't see it being all that difficult - road safety is a difficult one, but I recon like previously stated where ever it ends up, it will still be an improvement on what's in place already?

[need4speed]

..So, Land Rover ---Is that actually ethical?

Absolutely not. But how many UK communities have been turned into ghost towns by large manufacturing/engineering companies uprooting and doing exactly the same thing?

Edit: I always knew LR would do something along these lines because they just can't make defenders quick enough. They sell like hot cakes..

[BogMonster]

If it keeps the Defender as we know it, I'm all for it. In this part of the world there is no substitute for Defender as an off-road vehicle, and that includes all the plastic carp they build now with fancy traction control systems. The best thing they could do is resurrect the last of the ROW spec 300Tdi, same as my 2006, give it a bit of an update with a variable vane turbo, and start building those again. The Puma has had loads of engine issues and if you are over 6 foot you need to saw your legs off to get into any of the models with a bulkhead.

[Cynic-al]

I was told it was going to turkey. It would be a good place for it, it's where the transit is made which means it's near the engine and there is already an established supply / distribution chain.

With regard to ethics. It's a modern engine so the emissions will no doubt be much improved over what the target countries have now. With regard to performance the target countries will not have driving like ours, ie over congested nd high speed. So audi performance is not required for a vehicle to be safe.

If it's a car which is able to be affordable and maintainable to help sustain or improve the lives of the people then I'm sure it would be a good thing. You can't go from nothing to being completely up to date in one step. That's why at the kyoto and subsequent agreements developing countries were allowed to join with no improvement targets in pollution, the average developed country agreed to something like 8% and new labour whom didn't want manufacturing to be part of the UK make up volentarily signed us up to something like 50%.

[miketomcat]

God no not turkey oysters produced 3 hundred plus foot yachts in turkey 4 years ago. The yard I used to work for have only just finished completely rebuilding them they were so bad I wasn't allowed to have a look onboard the first one when launched as at the time I worked for one of the UK builders. They don't build oysters anywhere but the UK now.

Mike

[Nigelw]

Of course its not ethical to do it, but just like Ford, who pulled out of Ghent, Belgium to completely scratch build a manufacturing plant down in Spain, it all came down to Spanish gov doing tax break deals, ok Spain needed the work but Belgium didn't need to have 15,000people unemployed.

Anyone who actually bought into the "end of production" sham, well shame on you!!

1) marketing ploy.

2) good airing of excuses to stop European built vehicles.

3) yet more hype and column inches as enthusiasts speculate as to a potential successor.

I thought abou the successor a fair bit, it will be just another soft roader with heaps of electronics and an ecu for everything.

But I can well see there being an import market for the off shore built vehicles, be near as dammit same price as now though.

[Chicken Drumstick]

Just been reading my monthly mags and from what LR are intimating, at the end of 2015, the Defender production line will be moved to somewhere outside Europe where the labour costs are lower.

Am I missing something?

The reason Land Rover are ceasing production is because the costs of meeting EU safety/emission standards are prohibitive.

So they ship the line to a third world country with lower labour costs and lower environmental and safety standards!

So, Land Rover ---Is that actually ethical? Is it OK for Johnny Foreigner to suffer more injuries from RTAs and breath in increased levels of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide than us Europeans??

Land Rover ---- You cannot have it both ways, ------ but I bet you will.

Just a thought

Barry

What an absurd point of view.

Do you think all 3rd World countries should immediately stop work and production completely and close down every factory, simply because they don't meet "our" safety standards. As that is essentially what you are claiming.

Maybe you should also have a look around your home and consider which of the items in it aren't made in a 3rd World countries. You'll probably be surprised.

[wanger]

JLR are owned by TATA...an Indian company.

LR produce knocked down kits already for Non EU countries. Good old 300's

Why wouldn't they send it all east and keep on going. Keep us lot in parts for years

[BrainH]

The option of moving the Defender to India would be a rational decision by TATA, it clearly free's up production space in the midlands and could offer TATA a viable income stream using the (not necessarily ) cheaper labour there. India as a whole has developed it's economy by manufacturing and selling the cast off products of the U.K. Royal Enfield to name just one. Indian industries are not followers of fashions or have a need to put in multiple electric motors and if it sells they will continue to make products. If you visit India you will recognise a number of former models, both cars and lorries once made in Britain by Leyland, Ford, Vauxhall, all built using local content but with more efficient engines and to a good quality.

As there are already a large amount of components being manufactured in India and being sold here on the secondary market having the option to continue to access quality components made with the backing of Land Rover would be good for the long term survival of the marque.

[FridgeFreezer]

As said above, the Defender would be a pretty decent motor for a lot of the "rest-of-world" bearing in mind they're still churning out clones of postwar stuff in many places - like the VW Beetle & Camper in Mexico, Uaz jeeps (still made, make a Series 1 look quite modern), etc. etc. and if Tata can move the production line to somewhere labour is 10-100x cheaper they could do really well, and as said keep us all in spare parts for a few decades longer!

Grumbling about Euro NCAP safety ratings or emissions standards in areas where the majority of the population hare round with the wife + kids + pig on a Honda C90 with only flip-flops for protection is a bit much. A defender is a flippin' rolls-royce by comparison.

[Snagger]

I've been saying the same thing for a while - the LR "Genuine Excuses" for shutting down Defender are lies. The main claim of engine emissions makes no sense - if the engine is clean enough for Transits, why not Defenders? As for safety, if they can sell the Jeep Wrangler, the G Wizz and the Smart Car, then they can sell Defenders. It is a purely commercial decision based on the comparatively low profit margins of the hand built Defender versus the higher margins of the robot assembled other models. Ship the assembly abroad and the cost issue disappears.

Then you get a PR issue - shift the production of such an icon overseas just for increased profit and it'll hurt the image of what is marketed as a very British company. Announce the end of the line and then resurrect it elsewhere and they get seen as the saviour of the Defender, listening to the customers and saving an icon, which is a PR win. It's all pretty transparent.

[Chicken Drumstick]

I've been saying the same thing for a while - the LR "Genuine Excuses" for shutting down Defender are lies. The main claim of engine emissions makes no sense - if the engine is clean enough for Transits, why not Defenders?

As for safety, if they can sell the Jeep Wrangler, the G Wizz and the Smart Car, then they can sell Defenders.

I'm not disputing your other points about the lies.

But the current JK Wrangler was a clean sheet redesign in 2005 and is miles ahead of the Defender on every front.

The smart cars too, use some rather clever Tridion design, nothing akin to the Defender. Although the design principle of the smart cars would be ideal for a Defender replacement IMO.

It is a purely commercial decision based on the comparatively low profit margins of the hand built Defender versus the higher margins of the robot assembled other models. Ship the assembly abroad and the cost issue disappears.

Then you get a PR issue - shift the production of such an icon overseas just for increased profit and it'll hurt the image of what is marketed as a very British company. Announce the end of the line and then resurrect it elsewhere and they get seen as the saviour of the Defender, listening to the customers and saving an icon, which is a PR win. It's all pretty transparent.

[Snagger]

The Smart car has a very robust cab due to clever design, but it has no mass and no crumple zones, and there lies its safety problem. But Defender could easily be made safer by beefing up the door pillars and windscreen frame, or even just adding a modified MoD-spec roll over hoop. Yes, there is more cost, but not enormous and Defender buyers would accept that.

I can't help feeling that McGovern has the ear of the senior management and has persuaded them that Defender is too working class and an embarrassment rather than the backbone of the brand's credibility. That view is reinforced by the pile of **** he came up with - DC100. Classic McGovern style over substance. I think he's the problem.

[Cynic-al]

You can build the same factory anywhere in the world, it's a building with machines in it. If quality raw materials are sourced and appropriate controls are put in place there is no reason why a quality product can't be produced.

The problem is this costs money and by the time you've added your shipping, the cost of management and dislocating staff and the difficulties of planning when you have a 12 week lead time is that the cost saving is negligible.

Therefore, in particular with China, someone draws a part and sends it off to a factory to be made with a nieve belief that they will be in some way honourable with every order. The reality with China is that you visit their bsi accredited up to date factory which the first batch comes out of, then every subsequent batch they try to cheapen by using low quality materials, not packing them, moving production to a cheaper facility etc etc and as you've paid up front if you complain it's tough. All you get is the next batch will be better. ..

[FridgeFreezer]

Where do I collect my tin-foil hat (or should that be birmabright beanie?)

Yes, it's all a big conspiracy to get rid of the Defender and nothing whatsoever to do with it being far more expensive to drag a 50-year-old design of car up to (the barest minimum of) modern standards than to start again from scratch and sort all the problems out properly.

The fact they have a team of men with hammers on the production line just to try and stop the rain coming in might suggest the substance needs a little attention, not just the style... it's 2015 FFS.

[Chicken Drumstick]

I can't help feeling that McGovern has the ear of the senior management and has persuaded them that Defender is too working class and an embarrassment rather than the backbone of the brand's credibility. That view is reinforced by the pile of **** he came up with - DC100. Classic McGovern style over substance. I think he's the problem.

Honestly, I quite liked the look of the DC100. Not necessarily as a direct replacement for a utility vehicle. But it looked nice and if it was matched with some good off road ability and used live axles, then I think it would be a welcome addition.

And lets not forget, while we in Blighty have very strong feelings over the Defender, it's largely forgotten or ignored in many parts of the world. e.g. not being sold in the USA (apart from a tiny number of NAS models). And missing from other major markets for some time across the globe.

[Happyoldgit]

Usual wind and widdle from the monthly mags, I'll wait for some facts from JLR thanks.

[Team Idris]

I think it will do very well outside the EU. It always did.

It is a very good 3rd world country vehicle. I'd rather see it move to somewhere that folk need it than just finish.

I can't quite see why having two massive chassis rails is bad for a 4x4 and fine for a Mitsubishi Canter though? Hardly the first time a viable design got mullered by legislation. Why would LR or Tata spend money on the design when they know it's got a gov legislation axe hanging over it. It's boring cycle of "we need UK industry" followed by a letterbox full of reasons not to keep trading.

[Retroanaconda]

To be fair there are men with hammers on the Range Rover line as well, there was some spirited bashing going on when I was on the factory tour back in the summer on both lines.

I presume those who consider it unethical to sell a vehicle considered unsafe in EU markets further abroad will of course cease driving their death trap Defenders immediately upon cessation of production?

As mooted above I wouldn't trust anything published by anyone other than Land Rover themselves, and even then with a pinch of salt.

[miketomcat]

The dc100 was purely to put us all off the scent and gauge reaction at the same time. The rumors I've heard are range rover sport chassis base but without ecu's and it's already being tested but hey that's just rumor. As to production having seen the line and knowing it's already moved around the solihull site several times. It would make sense to move it to India and would be easy to box up and post as it were. Lets face it the market is still there just not in Europe any more. Just take look at the current trend for glorifying defenders in Europe not using them as they were intended.

Mike