New Defender Concept
- Thread starter Heady Expedition
- Start date
overlander
Expedition Leader
very interesting...
Snagger
Explorer
I stuill don't see the need to replace the Defender, though a cheaper toy 4x4 like the DC100 is no bad addition to the stable. LR claim the Defender doesn't meet safety regs in many desired markets. Well, here's a thought:add a light internal roll cage as standard and make the front end more pedestrian friendly if required by using deformable panels. Other than that, and new engines to meet emissions rules, leave it alone! The Defender is the most adaptable and most useable vehicle in the world, develloped and evolved in the right way; trendy styling and cost engineering is a backwards step.
AndrewClarke
Adventurer
It probably has to do with Land Rover apparently selling fewer than 20k Defenders per year. That compares with something like 550k Toyota Hiluxes last year, and Jeep selling about 138k Wranglers last year in USA and Canada alone. IIRC they're losing money on Defenders due to their low sales volume and the fact that production is still done to a great extent by hand. Unless Land Rover wants to build Defenders as charity, or believes they're an extremely valueable loss leader for the brand, they need to do something.
Snagger
Explorer
I understand that. They need to make them cheaper, and more importantly, more reliable. I think many commercial users have defected to Japanes products because of LR's poor reliability and construction - almost all of them leak water in and oil out from new and seem to develop faults that need frequent attention, though Toyota seem to be having a lot of issues with reliability recently too. Having plants in India and China could be a way of building them more cheaply and build quality is hardly likely to worsen.
LR Max
Local Oaf
Yeah, I hate to say it but its time to redesign the Defender. I don't know of any other vehicle produced in the last 30 years that doesn't have a "tub" and the door pillars can be unbolted. While awesome to work on, at the same time, do you NEED to unbolt the door pillars? Not really.
I say keep the same chassis, suspension, running gear. Build a new body for it that bolts to the chassis. Keep the same boxy shape but other than that, work on improving driver comfort and "comform" with all these rules. Make changes to ease production. That'll reduce costs, comply, and revamp the name.
I mean, that is what Jeep did. Despite the 4 door JKs catching fire and blowing engines, they can't sell them fast enough.
I say keep the same chassis, suspension, running gear. Build a new body for it that bolts to the chassis. Keep the same boxy shape but other than that, work on improving driver comfort and "comform" with all these rules. Make changes to ease production. That'll reduce costs, comply, and revamp the name.
I mean, that is what Jeep did. Despite the 4 door JKs catching fire and blowing engines, they can't sell them fast enough.
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
You do if you want to keep it as versatile as they currently are. I mean "versatile" in the sense of Land Rovers historically, not how the definition has been changed so it can be applied to the LR4.
But I get your point, few owners need to. Though for repair of older ones it's nice to not have to break out the plasma cutter and welder.
The reality is I'll never be a customer for a new one, I can't imagine them ever producing again anything that isn't dependent on computers.
I might consider one if all the systems were open source and didn't disable the vehicle if they fail, but I don't see either one happening.
David Harris
Expedition Leader
Yeah. If they could keep the computers and also include analog backups like aircraft have so the vehicle could keep going, it would be the best of both worlds.
All for 30k
I'm guessing you wouldn't want to pay the price (in actual $$, size, weight, complexity to repair, etc) to purchase a vehicle that was built to be completely redundant
Snagger
Explorer
What back ups? Airbus are fly-by-wire only, with absolutely no mechanical back up; the sidesticks aren't even set up with feed back motors or any sort of cross connection! I think the 777 and 787 may have some mechanical backup to their FBW, but I'm not certain of that, and I'm pretty sure that they lack any mechanical connection between thrust levers and engines, just like all the post A310 airbusses. The only Boeing with mechanical standby instruments (with only the basics displayed) is the 737, and even the new 73 have an electronic standby main instrument, albeit with independent power and sensing from the primaries. The days of mechanical overides are long gone... That's what I love so much about the 737 - its simple and robust, and few faults spread to other systems, unlike the more "advanced" other aircraft.
Snagger
Explorer
My 109 is losing clutch fluid (found out today), but I can't find the leak yet, and my RRC needs a new front diff. If it was a D3 or RRS, I'd be looking at a fortune in repair charges, but these older vehicles are simple enough that they can be repaired at home or in the field with standard tools. That is why the modern vehicles will always be inferior. The new cars are certainly more comfortable, but they are no more capable than a Defender driven by someone competent in off road techniques. All the fancy suspension and electronics aren't needed by those who can read terrain properly (sadly, that doesn't include me), and aren't wanted by those who regularly travel far afield.
SteveMfr
Supporting Sponsor
I disagree. Modern vehicles are not inferior - they are safer, cleaner, more economical - and more capable. There will be DIYers in the future - the DIYer is going to have to change tools and thinking, but the maintenance and repair of modern, electronic controlled vehicles is becoming cheaper and easier every day. And the electronics are becoming more robust every day as well. At some point ECUs will no longer be hugely expensive magical boxes that make or break an older vehicle but small, disposable highly capable items in line with all modern day electronics. And diagnostics will be available in some form to everyone.
I would have probably agreed with you as far as off road driving goes a few years back - but today I do not believe even this is true anymore. Take HDC as an example: none of us have 4 brains, four feet, or four brake pedals - and even if we did there is no way we'd be near as fast as a computer. The newest systems in the LR4 can outperform even the most capable of drivers because they can process more inputs and control more outputs. Period. You take an experienced driver capable of 'reading the terrain' and he will be able to do things and go places he couldn't have even dreamed of in a 1995 D90.
I have no idea what LR is planning with the new Defender, but the definition of 'versatile' for a vehicle such as the Defender is not anywhere near the same as 65 years ago. You no longer need to ship cars around the world as 'knocked down kits', you can no longer afford to have a vehicle assembled by hand and 'robust' no longer equals no electronics.
I'm sure 100 years ago there were plenty of people who thought that taking a motorized vehicle anywhere remote or using a vehicle for exploration was a pretty silly idea. There will be no way around electronics in the future. It is simply a question of making everything work.
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
Cars will always, in our lifetimes anyway, have mechanical systems, so they won't have to change tools, they will have to add to the list of tools they already carry.
So versatile used to mean that you can take a base vehicle and modify it (install different bodies, lengthen the chassis, swap engines and gearboxes, add multiple PTO's, etc.) to perform an almost unlimited list of duties, but now versatile means you can drive on pavement, drive off-road and fold down the seats to carry a large box and that makes them more versatile?
HDC, ETC, even automatic transmissions, are dumbing down drivers. When you become dependent on technology to do your work people loose the ability to do it for themselves. So when the technology fails, you're done. And don't delude yourself, technology fails. At least any cheap enough to keep a car affordable.
Why know how to hunt or do home canning when you can go to the store and buy a steak and can of peas?
I'm not saying people shouldn't buy a vehicle dependent on electronics for mobility, just that people should weigh the cost/benefit based on your wants/needs and where you want to travel.
Last edited:
While I understand what he is trying to say, I'm not getting Antichrist 'ol-school version of versital. Even with the multitude of body types available, you still had to pick one and deal with that particular versions positives and negatives. I'm not seeing how that is very different than what we have to do now. You choose from CUVs, SUVs, varios sizes and lengths of pick-ups, even specialty trucks of various sorts. Hell, IIRC, we really only got 2 versions of the Defender in the North American market anyways.
Speaking for myself, It would be a non-start regardless how "versital" or "appropriate" a Defender may be. I very likely couldn't get my wife INTO a Defender for a long trip if they are as basic as made out to be. However, I know many do not have that particuar issue.
In any case, I think something slightly smaller and lighter, but built on the now largely paid for LR3/LR4/RRS chassis, would be an excellent and very capable entry level Rover - Regardless of what they call it.
Speaking for myself, It would be a non-start regardless how "versital" or "appropriate" a Defender may be. I very likely couldn't get my wife INTO a Defender for a long trip if they are as basic as made out to be. However, I know many do not have that particuar issue.
In any case, I think something slightly smaller and lighter, but built on the now largely paid for LR3/LR4/RRS chassis, would be an excellent and very capable entry level Rover - Regardless of what they call it.