Antichrist
Expedition Leader
There's a lot more to being a suitable platform than being able to load a lot of weight on it.
End of the world
- Thread starter R_Lefebvre
- Start date
Scott-yes, an LR3 can make it, it's just difficult. I suppose I confused what I meant to say on the LR3 frame or platform. Of course I don't think that Land Rover can remove the LR3 body and plop a defender on the frame and drive out the doors of the Solihull factory.
What I meant to say was that the LR3./ RR sport platform can be modified to suit many uses. Obviously the frame/susp/control arms etc will need to be modified to fit the purpose for which they will be used. the beauty of the platform is in the hydro formed chassis design. As I have said before the chassis can be built to suit the purpose. So 90,110 ,130 all can be created from the hydro formed platform. The Lr3 and the sport share a platform yet the Sport has a shorter wheelbase and a more rigid, stronger frame to reduce body roll etc.
the defender chassis for a 90 or even a 110 is not the same as a commercial 130 with a cherry picker on the back. When people say a shared platform it does not mean the same chassis with just a different body on it. And that is not what I have been saying either. And I am sure LR does not mean that either. so shared platform does not mean same with a different body. It means use the technology etc of the existing platform and shape it to fit the PURPOSE of the new product.
What I meant to say was that the LR3./ RR sport platform can be modified to suit many uses. Obviously the frame/susp/control arms etc will need to be modified to fit the purpose for which they will be used. the beauty of the platform is in the hydro formed chassis design. As I have said before the chassis can be built to suit the purpose. So 90,110 ,130 all can be created from the hydro formed platform. The Lr3 and the sport share a platform yet the Sport has a shorter wheelbase and a more rigid, stronger frame to reduce body roll etc.
the defender chassis for a 90 or even a 110 is not the same as a commercial 130 with a cherry picker on the back. When people say a shared platform it does not mean the same chassis with just a different body on it. And that is not what I have been saying either. And I am sure LR does not mean that either. so shared platform does not mean same with a different body. It means use the technology etc of the existing platform and shape it to fit the PURPOSE of the new product.
michaelgroves
Explorer
That's a fair reply. I guesss I don't know enough about the frame of an LR3, but my understanding is that it's a hybrid that requires a monocoque body on it, which would make it unsuitable for (say) mounting a cherry picker on.
Usually the reason for sharing a "platform" across models, is economic. It saves design time and/or shares production resources. In that sense, you are right that the various different Defender models don't really use the same platform (and also explains why they are not cheap to build).
We shall wait with bated breath to see what Tata come up with!
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
But that's the thing. When hear "use the platform" I do think they mean to remove the body, and plop on something else. That is typically what platform sharing means. Very few changes on the underside. Just the front and rear fascias, fenders, interior, etc. It's a big deal if they even go and change the greenhouse.
I totally agree that a hydroformed frame could be designed using the same technology as the LR3, but a completely different design, and make a great truck. I also think that an independent suspension could be designed that would work (look at the original Hummer). But again, I don't think that's what they mean when we're talking about platform sharing.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. With the current state of the auto industry, and LR in particular, I'm not as optimistic as you.
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
IFS/IRS is not suitable for off-road use in a Defender type vehicle without use of electronic aids. It would be a mistake, IMO, to design the Defender's replacement to depend on electronics like that.
Part of the reason for the new LR3 chassis process was so they could get "clever shapes" to better match the body.
One of the advantages of the ladder frames used by Land Rover in the Series and Defender lines was the ability to easily hang options on it. PTO's, hydraulics tanks, air tanks and so on.
Also, the modular nature of the Defender body allows the end user to easily modify the vehicle to suit their needs.
So, if in the Defender replacement Land Rover uses hydro-forming to make a ladder frame, keeps solid axles, keeps a modular body and so on, that is not using the LR3 platform.
On the other hand, if they go with an LR3 type body/frame, IFS/IRS and so on, i.e., the LR3 platform, that vehicle won't be able to fill the role of today's Defender.
Part of the reason for the new LR3 chassis process was so they could get "clever shapes" to better match the body.
One of the advantages of the ladder frames used by Land Rover in the Series and Defender lines was the ability to easily hang options on it. PTO's, hydraulics tanks, air tanks and so on.
Also, the modular nature of the Defender body allows the end user to easily modify the vehicle to suit their needs.
So, if in the Defender replacement Land Rover uses hydro-forming to make a ladder frame, keeps solid axles, keeps a modular body and so on, that is not using the LR3 platform.
On the other hand, if they go with an LR3 type body/frame, IFS/IRS and so on, i.e., the LR3 platform, that vehicle won't be able to fill the role of today's Defender.
michaelgroves
Explorer
My information might well be entirely wrong, but I belive the frame is designed to require a monocoque body on it, to provide the necessary rigidity. It can be a rolling "chassis", but can't support much in the way of point-loading.
I'll try to find more info elsewhere, but if anyone here has a more definite understanding of the body/frame relationship, I'd appreciate some clarification.
Well who knows. ladder frames, point loading, Monocoque it is all too confusing. Besides LR is not going to ask any of us. so I raise the white flag and give in to whatever the prevailing thought is. LR3's suck, I don't know what came over me! I would use one of those big grin smiley faces now but frankly I don't know how.
Thanks for all the new info. It has been fun.
Thanks for all the new info. It has been fun.
Alaska Mike
ExPo Moderator/Eye Candy
I don't think anyone said that. I think it's a matter of using the right tool for the job. A Chevy pickup and Corvette have very different chassis designs, each suited for different purposes. I would say neither is "superior" to the other, just better suited to different uses.
For many of us here, solid axle, bolt-together, body-on-frame design is the pinacle of design. It has its limitations, though.
Horses for courses. I just like having the option for a different type of horse, instead of just a different color horse.
not quoting anyone here regarding the LR3. speaking of horses they were good too, why did we change to cars? four hoof ability, just feed it, when it gets too old just shoot it and get another. Of course many might argue that the mule or the donkey has superior 4 hoof ability. Change, modernity, why do we do it?
Do we really need to rehash this?
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
Thank you! You've made an excellent point!
After 124 years of having automobiles, there are still places where the horse is more appropriate than a car. After only 4 years of the LR3 platform it's not surprising that the current Defender is more appropriate in places.
We all know that the US base Defender is going to be a 2 or 4 door or both models and a big v8. Land Rover is going to add all the electic aids and after market companys is going to jump on this model and produce a lot of gear. :wings: Lets hope that the reliablty jumps from where it is now. Independent suspension is not bad and the Range prove that when flexing.