Next-Generation Defender

[Red90]

I wouldn't say that the JK is built to nearly the standard the Defender is, that's why it is cheaper. The frame, transmission, chain-driven transfer case, even the axles (the Rubicon's are better, but still not full-floating), are not as stout as the Defender.

Bwahahaha... Have you ever actually been wheeling with Jeeps. Ones that are wheeled hard and built hard??? I doubt it. The frame is about the only thing that the current Defender does better and that costs nothing in the scheme of things. Defender built to a high standard....that is the funniest thing I have heard all year.

 

[David Harris]

Bwahahaha... Have you ever actually been wheeling with Jeeps. Ones that are wheeled hard and built hard??? I doubt it. The frame is about the only thing that the current Defender does better and that costs nothing in the scheme of things. Defender built to a high standard....that is the funniest thing I have heard all year.

Uhh. . . Read my posts on this thread before replying . . .

 

[R_Lefebvre]

The only thing the Wrangler still has going for it really is that it still has straight axles.

I disagree. The Rubi has the 4:1 transfer case available, factory lockers, and swaybar disconnects. NOTHING is more capable off-road from the factory than a 2-door Rubi. Let's be fair.

My future-brother-in-law is shopping for Rubis right now. He'll probably leave it stock, but will be every bit as capable as my modified D2.

It's hard to believe someone would pony up the extra cash for a Rubicon and never take it off-road. But then again, a lot of them probably didn't even know what they had. . .

On the other hand, how many kits/components do you see out there for swapping out the LR axles for entirely different units?

There are some, Toy axle conversions for example. And the thing is, we need to do that just to run 35's reliably? I know guys running 37's on the stock Rubi axles.

Is the lack of availability of axle kits for Land Rover's due to lack of necessity, or lack of market? Not only are there few Land Rover's being used off-road (compared to Jeeps), but then few of those are being used with 35+ tires.

Jeeps are built to a price point much lower than LR and it shows. You get what you pay for.

I agree. A Wrangler can't come close to my Disco on interior quality and road comfort. But it is pretty close to a Defender, and Defender costs way more. Why? I don't think the Defender is that much better, but the build is less efficient.

It's hard to believe someone would pony up the extra cash for a Rubicon and never take it off-road. But then again, a lot of them probably didn't even know what they had. . .

It's like that with everything. Jeeps, Land Rover, Porsches, etc.

How many people bought the "track pack" on a 350Z and never went on track? A lot.

Same for yota owners. My girl never engaged 4wd or hi/lo till we went camping. A buddy with a trd taco pre runner thought the rear locker button was to be used when towing

My truck never went in low range until I bought it.

But at least the wiring works on the Jeep, usually.

Again, let's be fair though. There's nothing wrong with modern LR wiring.

What is happening to all the automakers these days?

They're giving the vast majority of customers exactly what they want.

This is the attitude that makes it impossible. They need to step out of the high priced box that they put themselves into. It could be done if they really had the vision to do it.

Does it really make sense anymore? They're selling $120,000 Range Rovers, and they're going to sell a $30,000 utility vehicle beside it? Why? They're better off selling the utility vehicle under the Tata brand in the rest of the world.

Same way that the Smart car is it's own brand, rather than being branded Mercedes. Ditto Mini and BMW.

 

[David Harris]

I disagree. The Rubi has the 4:1 transfer case available, factory lockers, and swaybar disconnects. NOTHING is more capable off-road from the factory than a 2-door Rubi. Let's be fair.

Yes. And if you'll reread my posts, I make exception for the Rubicon. However, as I said, you have to pay quite a bit more than a standard Wrangler for this increased quality. And that still doesn't give you Defender strength in the rest of the vehicle, such as the frame. More dollars equals more performance.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

I dunno. I've been on trail with stock Wranglers, and they articulate about as well as my Disco. Probably better with the swaybar disconnects. The only real hindrance I found was that the powertrain sits low in the chassis, and with the 114"? wheelbase on the 4-door, they drag the belly a lot. But at least they have skidplates, my truck doesn't.

Again, just trying to give credit where credit is due. Both vehicles have pluses and minuses.

Yeah, the Rubicon is an $8000CDN option over the base, but also includes some other luxury features not on the base. So, yeah, it's a lot extra, but it seems worth it to me. At the end of the day, and Rubicon can be had for not a lot of money. You could easily spend that much on a Minivan, or a Forester. (just to put it in perspective).

 

[David Harris]

I dunno. I've been on trail with stock Wranglers, and they articulate about as well as my Disco. Probably better with the swaybar disconnects. The only real hindrance I found was that the powertrain sits low in the chassis, and with the 114"? wheelbase on the 4-door, they drag the belly a lot. But at least they have skidplates, my truck doesn't.

Again, just trying to give credit where credit is due. Both vehicles have pluses and minuses.

Yeah, the Rubicon is an $8000CDN option over the base, but also includes some other luxury features not on the base. So, yeah, it's a lot extra, but it seems worth it to me. At the end of the day, and Rubicon can be had for not a lot of money. You could easily spend that much on a Minivan, or a Forester. (just to put it in perspective).

Yes. Much credit to Jeep for offering a vehicle like the Rubicon in this day and age. To be really fair, we would have to compare a D90 to a Wrangler 2 door, and the four door LR's to the Wrangler Unlimited. Overall, I just think the LR benefits from a smarter design in most ways.

 

[I Leak Oil]

Jeep has done a far better job of modernizing it's product so it's still recognizable. When you look at the orginal Bantam and today's Wrangler, you can see the heritage, military vehicle to recreation vehicle.
The current defender looks nearly identical to the 90/110 that came out in 1983/1984. That's because it hasn't changed a whole lot since then. The current defender also looks extremely similar to the Series I from 1948.
If the rendition of the defender in the first post is accurate, it looks nothing like what LR built it's heritage on, a utility vehicle.

 

[Red90]

Does it really make sense anymore? They're selling $120,000 Range Rovers, and they're going to sell a $30,000 utility vehicle beside it? Why? They're better off selling the utility vehicle under the Tata brand in the rest of the world.

1) It makes them a lot of money.

2) It gives the rest of the range creed. Get them out competing, winning off road event. Show it as the leading expedition vehicle in the world. Living off of 40 year old coattails is dying off to nothing very quickly.

 

[David Harris]

1) It makes them a lot of money.

2) It gives the rest of the range creed. Get them out competing, winning off road event. Show it as the leading expedition vehicle in the world. Living off of 40 year old coattails is dying off to nothing very quickly.

As much as I, and others on this forum, go on about the old school approach to Rovers, and the end of the good old days, etc. I have to say that the new Rovers are very, very good off-road vehicles. They are very complex, high-tech beasts, but they do a much better job of combining top-notch off road performance with top-notch road performance in one package. You just have to have the money to buy and maintain them. The computer controlled four wheel independent suspension on the LR3, and later Rovers is a marvel in the way it combines the advantages of independent wheel control with the ability to mimic straight axle flex and performance. Very innovative stuff. And if all four wheel drives are going to end up this way in the future anyway, and they will, including the Jeep Wrangler, then developing such an approach makes the best sense. These newer vehicles actually have more wheel travel than the older straight axle designs. Given that all the systems could be sealed and waterproofed to a high degree, I don't see why they couldn't survive the original Camel Trophy conditions. The recent post on the 2003 Range Rover traveling 17,700 miles across Africa, including the Sahara, without any troubles to speak of proves, while at the same time coddling it's passengers in climate-controlled comfort underscores their unique capabilities.

 

[Antichrist]

Given that all the systems could be sealed and waterproofed to a high degree, I don't see why they couldn't survive the original Camel Trophy conditions.

I'd be really surprised if current/future models could weather this and keep going.

As for Jeep vs Defender prices, the MSRP on the D90 base model is $31k
On the Wrangler it's $21k, but the base Defender comes with a diesel. So the price points aren't that far apart IMO.

The recent post on the 2003 Range Rover traveling 17,700 miles across Africa, including the Sahara, without any troubles to speak of proves, while at the same time coddling it's passengers in climate-controlled comfort underscores their unique capabilities.

People have been driving Citroens and Renaults across the Sahara for decades. The fact that a Range Rover did it isn't a big deal in my book. Other than the fact that the crank position sensor didn't die, or an air bag blow out, and leave them stranded like happened to the LR3 during a promotional drive in Central America.

 

[AxeAngel]

Blah blah blah.

Bottom line rubicons are capable. Very. Suckitup and admit it.
Yotas with stock rear lockers are also very capable.
Old rovers and new rovers are both very capable too.

Different strokes for different folks. A rear locker equipped lr3 can do some pretty insane things as well.

Unless highly built up a non Rubi jeep won't keep up with me. Stock d2 vs stock non Rubi jeep is a joke. Rubi jeep vs fully loaded lr3 the lr3 wins everywhere except for ground clearance. Traction, comfort, variety of terrain, etc. It wins hands down. Rockcrawling it fails miserably.

I'm glad there are jeeps out there and yotas too. I wouldn't want every idiot and beer swilling backcountry bumpkin to drive a land rover. Let them have their jeeps. They are good and reliable. I would cringe to see some of the local guys driving rovers. Chopped doors multicolored body panels on their commandos and Cherokees.

Chicks dig rovers.
-Sam

 

[David Harris]

I'd be really surprised if current/future models could weather this and keep going.

Yes. That's why I put that very big "Given" in there. Nevertheless it would be damn interesting to try. Anyone got an LR3 we could use as a test vehicle? If it weren't for that damn nice leather interior, harmon kardon sound system, etc. It would almost be tempting to try. That scene in one of the Transporter films comes to mind, where the tow truck pulls the BMW (or was it Audi) out of the water and Jason Statham gets it going right on the spot with a few tools he carries in the trunk.

 

[Red90]

As much as I, and others on this forum, go on about the old school approach to Rovers, and the end of the good old days, etc. I have to say that the new Rovers are very, very good off-road vehicles.

They are "OK". Certainly better than other similar expensive SUVs, but that is not saying much.....

Let me start off by saying that I wheel with brand new RRs, LR4s, LR3s.... These are not only stock, but done up as well as they can be.

They are certainly not "very, very good". The magic traction control does make them look good on certain types of terrain. On other types, the lack of wheel travel and low profile tires get them stuck quicker than a stock Disco 1. If you really feel like discussing the subject, I can bring up many examples, videos, pictures, whatever.

 

[Red90]

Blah blah blah.

Bottom line rubicons are capable. Very. Suckitup and admit it.
Yotas with stock rear lockers are also very capable.
Old rovers and new rovers are both very capable too.

Yes, back on topic.... A new stock Rubicon is on a similar footing to a new stock Defender with regard to off road capabilities. Each has their pluses and minus. Overall it is a wash.

The POINT is that Land Rover needs to maintain or improve on that level of off road capability WHILE modernizing the vehicle so that Joe Average wants to buy it. At the same time get rid of the 1950s build techniques so that the price can come down to be inline with a Rubicon and offer proper off road options like lockers.

It really is not that complicated and is certainly attainable.

 

[David Harris]

They are "OK". Certainly better than other similar expensive SUVs, but that is not saying much.....

Let me start off by saying that I wheel with brand new RRs, LR4s, LR3s.... These are not only stock, but done up as well as they can be.

They are certainly not "very, very good". The magic traction control does make them look good on certain types of terrain. On other types, the lack of wheel travel and low profile tires get them stuck quicker than a stock Disco 1. If you really feel like discussing the subject, I can bring up many examples, videos, pictures, whatever.

On wheel travel, the current LR3/4 and Range Rover have nearly 11 inches of front wheel travel and over 13 inches in the rear, stock, on fully independent suspensions. That is superb. Name some new 4x4's that can better those figures in stock trim. Ground clearance is 9.5 inches. Another good figure. (the Rubicon has 10 inches.) I don't know what you consider very, very good, but this looks pretty good to me:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-yFmnu0sY"]YouTube- ‪Range Rover Sport + Land Rover Discovery 3 / LR3 extreme steep climbing - no fail - funny‬‎[/ame]

David