Search results

Or a completely biased opinion on unbased assumptions..? Why can’t you accept that this truck is what it is? A well equipped SUV, but not a defender? No need to answer, I got it already that for some, no matter what, it’s not the dancer’s fault, but a broken floor. Sent from my iPhone...

AT tries, on 19” I’ve been off road with friends driving Disco 3/4, it seems that their TC works different (much better).

The closing phrase of the video is: “We lost some parts.. but we managed to get it up..” [emoji1750]

Yes, It’s mush steeper, but the old one made it with not trouble. Even in remote Turing, you can be challenged by short sections like this. In the Namibia promotion they traversed something that resembles this one, but downhill..

I don’t think this specific terrain represent the natural environment the new Defender SUV is aimed for, but the video does present the difference between the original capabilities vs the venerability of the new on. It will probably outshine the old one in every terrain that is not like this...

The driver is no novice to off road or LR. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Old (original?)VS New Defender

O.k.. Now it’s much more clear, and logic. First of all, I can only wish I would have so much time for my passion- seams like you played it right. We have different criteria for what we call “owned or use”.

By rough estimation you change cars almost every 6 month if you started at age of 17. That’s not the way to actually learn about relayability or what the true nature of a truck in such short time. If you held to some more then the others, then They’re the relevant experience, not all. No one...

Owned 50 vehicles? You’re 200 years old? When did you even had time to actually drive any of them, let alone maintain them, between buying and selling?

You count Toyota 70’ series as an SUV? You got it all wrong. You competed the transition of the landcruiser to the current shift in the defender, and it’s not comparable because Toyota did not quit the work truck line (70’ series). It would have, If LR continued the evolution of the basic...

No.. They still have the 70’..

LR Defender chief engineer titled it as an SUV, not the original Defender goals, what more can be said?

End of discussion. Dun deal. The last person, please turn the lights off.

So that’s your method? You post something wrong, get corrected, so you add different criteria to your previous post? What’s next? Limiting the comparison to only specific vehicle from a specific year model?

No.. Unimogs had coil spring way before. And before you jump.. 1948++ LR were agricultural/working products, including PTO What’s your point? How is it relevant to the new LR SUV?

Nonsens.. No leaf truck from that era had decadent flex or supple ride. They were all post WWII work platforms.

the leaf sprung LR wasn’t known for having a “Flex” or supple suspension, far from that. The defender got a massive improvement in flex and comfort when the coil springs came in, only in the 90’.

That’s not the issue. The guy used the 200 example as a justification for the use of “Defender” name for the new LR SUV. That’s not the correct comparison, because LR doesn’t really have a branching as Toyota does. Unless you count the 90/100/110/130/6x6/military HD as branching. And if so...

No.. But referring to the 200 as the 40’ line is like referring to the Discovery as a preceding of the series II /Defender branch. And who claim such, only emphasis its lack of knowledge in product lines. And when he use it as an example.. well, what can I say more?