Correct as usual.

[zimm]

Well, ASPW's dream of cheap stripper is a bit out there, and not because INEOS couldn't strip it. It's because INEOS made the mistake of contracting Styer to design an Econo-G, and it CAN'T be built cheaply for the volume and construction they are looking at. They HAVE to sell a ton of goodies with the car to turn a profit. I also think he's a bit off on the roof console. not his irritation with it, mind you, but the primary reason why its there. The Tesla 3 with the center control minimizes wiring loom differences between left and right drive, and thats the manufacturing they wanted to imitate. The Tesla however uses a large screen for everything, and thats not exactly the look of work machine. INEOS needed buttons and switches, but they still wanted to simplify the line with one loom, and the "cool" upper controls was the idea. the center console seems a tad open, but if everything was moved down it would definitely be overcrowded. It's a neat solution if not entirely practical. An original Defender had a ton more dash compromises than this, and it didn't affect loyalty.

I do agree with the seats, but only partially. Yes they should have put in cheap seats, but GOOD cheap seats. They dont have to be bad. It actually doesnt cost a ton of money to make a comfortable seat. it just needs to curved and cushioned correctly. Uncomfortable base seats, sell upmarket 4 figure trim packages. I bought a passat wagon in 2000 that was a stripper as I could find, and with that car I discovered cheap seats can be comfortable. They were the nicest seats I had to date.

 

[GetOutThere]

I agree with his points on price, and off road accessories, mostly.

Everything else felt a bit "old man yells at cloud". There are a couple obvious reasons from a business perspective for some of the things he thinks are ridiculous, which zimm covered. Now, as a consumer, do I like those things? No. But without (high) accessory pricing, trim levels, and just enough "special" inside to justify the insane price, these things likely wouldn't exist at all.

I can understand that without liking it, even when it means I can't justify buying one.

 

[zimm]

He misses the mark on solid front axle.... yes they can be modified easily but that is not the selling feature, Guys with any Ford, GMC, Dodge 150 series modify that iFS all the time.

I've had F250s since 1979. MJs, CJs, YJs, TJs and after several modified suspensions I am back to a full factory TJ Rubicon. I love it for the same reason the original Land Rover owners loved the solid front axle..... ballistic simplicity.

While everything today get modified, the inspiration for the Ineos Ladder Frame and Solid Axle was the STOCK Land Rover.... not a modified Land Rover. 40 years ago NOTHING was lifted to fit floatation light truck tires.... Heck floatation light truck tires barely existed 40 years ago.... Had not even been marketed 50 years ago.

The solid axle has zero to do with lifted suspensions.... Bin there dun that, the solid axle is bullet proof especially if left completely stock, unlifted, with original size tires.

There is no inherent reason IFS should be more fragile than a solid axle. That's an engineering issue, not a material issue. Old dodges with undersized crappy dana solid front axles failed all the time. The manufacturer just has to WANT to make the parts sturdy enough, and people have to WANT to spend the extra 1000 bucks at the checkout line. I've lifted both solid and ifs, and solid most certainly is cheaper and easier to alter, but the question is, to what extent and do you need it? For rigs used for travel and not just recreation wheeling in the 35 inch tire category, to me, what little gains that are had with articulation for solid axle do not offset the ride and control of IFS. I can easily work around a couple inches of flex shortcomming on a trail, but I cant think my way out of crappy behavior of huge unsprung weight and steering side affects inherent with a solid axle. I drive super capable campers, not rock crawlers or buggies. For "overlanding" I don't really see it as a real discussion.

My current rig is an fj60, Due to perfect size, looks, cheap, and the ease with which I was able to get the crawl ratio to 250:1. I wish it had the IFS of my LX470.

This guy must be right, since he agrees with me.

 

[zimm]

Another thing. If you ever watch White's videos, he'll frequently discuses the cars load capasity and how it should sit. It's one of his OCD issues. He's always looking for the perfect spring rate and hight. (rabbit hole; just suck it up and realize youre likly to over spring your rig by a couple hundred pounds) But he is right that the typical rig sags when used at proper capacity, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. His comments about the topic would just be another box ticked... except... I did notice OJ made a big deal of this Africa trip being minimalist. I.E. a concious decision was made with INEOS to NOT demonstrate how well it packs equipment one would likely have on such a trip. Which... is kinda weird. Who buys a big gas sucking utility vehicle for overlanding, but then packs like bike packing trip? How does one demonstrate a truck by only using what fits on a Yamaha Tenere? It's the opposite of showing off the capabilities, assuming one was inclined to actually demonstrate it's capabilities.

 

[SkiWill]

Another thing. If you ever watch White's videos, he'll frequently discuses the cars load capasity and how it should sit. It's one of his OCD issues. He's always looking for the perfect spring rate and hight. (rabbit hole; just suck it up and realize youre likly to over spring your rig by a couple hundred pounds) But he is right that the typical rig sags when used at proper capacity, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. His comments about the topic would just be another box ticked... except... I did notice OJ made a big deal of this Africa trip being minimalist. I.E. a concious decision was made with INEOS to NOT demonstrate how well it packs equipment one would likely have on such a trip. Which... is kinda weird. Who buys a big gas sucking utility vehicle for overlanding, but then packs like bike packing trip? How does one demonstrate a truck by only using what fits on a Yamaha Tenere? It's the opposite of showing off the capabilities, assuming one was inclined to actually demonstrate it's capabilities.

I agree. It's an interesting approach since Kingsley Holgate's Land Rover new Defender expedition from South Africa up through Egypt (same route) and then on to Europe up to Norway (tacking on quite a bit more) took the opposite approach. I know that Land Rover was heavily involved in the sponsorship, but those vehicles were loaded to the hilt and some had to be above GVWR given how much stuff was bolted on and crammed in. So what's the "real" Defender? I don't have a preference. I'm fine with either vehicle even with dramatic different approaches as long as they work. I hope both trips are successful and they have a lot of fun. They're both kind of entertainment value only for me though. Neither one put down their own money to buy one of these (or the Holgate set of Defenders) and run the trip, so I take that into consideration on all the reports from the completed Holgate trip and the upcoming Grenadier trip. Curious though that the Land Rover trip was excessively loaded and the Grenadier trip is more light and fast. The second suits me personally, but curious decision for this type of vehicle from a "see what it can do" perspective.

 

[Idaho Savage]

There is no inherent reason IFS should be more fragile than a solid axle. That's an engineering issue, not a material issue. Old dodges with undersized crappy dana solid front axles failed all the time. The manufacturer just has to WANT to make the parts sturdy enough, and people have to WANT to spend the extra 1000 bucks at the checkout line. I've lifted both solid and ifs, and solid most certainly is cheaper and easier to alter, but the question is, to what extent and do you need it? For rigs used for travel and not just recreation wheeling in the 35 inch tire category, to me, what little gains that are had with articulation for solid axle do not offset the ride and control of IFS. I can easily work around a couple inches of flex shortcomming on a trail, but I cant think my way out of crappy behavior of huge unsprung weight and steering side affects inherent with a solid axle. I drive super capable campers, not rock crawlers or buggies. For "overlanding" I don't really see it as a real discussion.

My current rig is an fj60, Due to perfect size, looks, cheap, and the ease with which I was able to get the crawl ratio to 250:1. I wish it had the IFS of my LX470.

This guy must be right, since he agrees with me.

I don't agree. It's as simple as more moving parts means more to wear and/or fail. All you have to do is count the number of bushings on an IFS axle to know.

I own a 200 series--they have arguably the most stout IFS axles in all the land, perhaps second to GMC HD trucks. But they still don't hold up like a 60 or 80 series. Mine already squeak and groan at 25k and I'm not surprised. My 60 series with 80 series axles haven't had an issue in 100k of tough living.

Solid axles are bomb proof because there are next to no moving parts.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

 

[zimm]

I don't agree. It's as simple as more moving parts means more to wear and/or fail. All you have to do is count the number of bushings on an IFS axle to know.

I own a 200 series--they have arguably the most stout IFS axles in all the land, perhaps second to GMC HD trucks. But they still don't hold up like a 60 or 80 series. Mine already squeak and groan at 25k and I'm not surprised. My 60 series with 80 series axles haven't had an issue in 100k of tough living.

Solid axles are bomb proof because there are next to no moving parts.

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

"...more moving parts means more to wear and/or fail" is a non sequitur.


One part doesn't affect the other part. If there are 4 CV's, three don't affect what the 4th does. What affects failure is design parameters, and quality control. The front end on my 100 didn't have clicking CV's until about 175000 miles. that's after 100,000 on 35's and years of heavy abusive wheeling. As an experiment, I put in the cheap aftermarket stuff and they lasted 5000 miles. What affected the results? The fact I up sized the tire diameter and weight well beyond the engineered parameters, then used low quality parts, or the amount of moving parts?

If I flip a quarter 7 times, and the first 6 are heads, are the odds the 7th will be a head, 50% or 1.5625%?

A diesel 4bt cummins has about 200 moving parts. An electric motor has about.... 1. The electric motor will last longer, but does the electric motor last 200 times as long? Does the motors duration have to do with the inherent design, where the forces always move in one direction and are balanced, whereas the Ice engine has all parts moving in reciprocal motions and develops NVH?

Part count affects...

design
quality control
assembly time

... by adding cost to each, but part count in and of itself has no affect on reliability or durability.

If it were that simple, I could make an easy example based argument part count INCREASES reliability and durability.

How? Compare a '58 live axle RWD 3 speed automatic caddy sedan with a new '23 AWD 10 speed.... Which one has more parts? Which one lasts 5 times as long in all possible respects?

But increased part count adding complexity really isn't the reason the new caddy is in a different league , is it? Could it be...... Design and QC/QA?

Fortunately for us, the physical world isn't reliant upon your agreement, and we keep getting better and better products foisted upon us.

 

[plh]

"...more moving parts means more to wear and/or fail" is a non sequitur.


One part doesn't affect the other part. If there are 4 CV's, three don't affect what the 4th does. What affects failure is design parameters, and quality control. The front end on my 100 didn't have clicking CV's until about 175000 miles. that's after 100,000 on 35's and years of heavy abusive wheeling. As an experiment, I put in the cheap aftermarket stuff and they lasted 5000 miles. What affected the results? The fact I up sized the tire diameter and weight well beyond the engineered parameters, then used low quality parts, or the amount of moving parts?

If I flip a quarter 7 times, and the first 6 are heads, is the odds the 7th will be a head, 50% or 1.5625%?

A diesel 4bt cummins has about 200 moving parts. An electric motor has about.... 1. The electric motor will last longer, but does the electric motor last 200 times as long? Does the motors duration have to do with the inherent design, where the forces always move in one direction and are balanced, whereas the Ice engine has all parts moving in reciprocal motions and develops NVH?

Part count affects...

design
quality control
assembly time

... by adding cost to each, but part count in and of itself has no affect on reliability or durability.

If it were that simple, I could make an easy example based argument part count INCREASES reliability and durability.

How? Compare a '58 live axle RWD 3 speed automatic caddy sedan with a new '23 AWD 10 speed.... Which one has more parts? Which one lasts 5 times as long in all possible respects?

But increased part count adding complexity really isn't the reason the new caddy is in a different league , is it? Could it be...... Design and QC/QA?

Fortunately for us, the physical world isn't reliant upon your agreement, and we keep getting better and better products foisted upon us.

You have some good arguments here. One point missed is that an increased parts count makes for more opportunities for manufacturing errors whether it is in the making of the individual component(s) or in the assembly of the multiple components.

 

[zimm]

You have some good arguments here. One point missed is that an increased parts count makes for more opportunities for manufacturing errors whether it is in the making of the individual component(s) or in the assembly of the multiple components.

Errors fall under QA/QC

 

[plh]

Errors fall under QA/QC

yes and no. Can easily be tooling design, manufacturing cell design, error proofing etc... I've seen a lot of root causes in over 30 years as an automotive tier 1 quality & reliability professional.

 

[gdaut]

I am not a mechanic, but I am a statistician. While one part may not affect what the other parts do, if each part has an X% probability of failure, then having four parts means the probability that at least one of them will fail is 4X%. If you flip a coin 7 times, and the first 6 come up heads, the probability that the 7th flip will be a tail is 50%. But, if you flip a coin seven times the probability that at least one of the flips will come up tails is pretty much 100%.

 

[zimm]

yes and no. Can easily be tooling design, manufacturing cell design, error proofing etc... I've seen a lot of root causes in over 30 years as an automotive tier 1 quality & reliability professional.

None of which have any thing to do with the very first sentence in post 5. It is a material/design question. More parts have nothing to do with it. Would not all of that fall under process and procedure (QA)?

Also, how does any of that differentiate one style from the other. Cannot all other process issues you enumerate occur while making a solid axle? or any part or system for that matter? If so, that's a difference without a distinction, and not inherent to either one of the designs.

Circling back to my original statement. My fj60 axle has 2 cv's. my fzj100 has 4 cv's. assuming all are made of the same material, and the engineers made them the proper size for the angles and stresses, they are all wearing at the same rate and both systems will last about the same. The IFS just doesn't "fail" because it's IFS. As a matter of fact, the ONLY part I ever had fail on either Axle was the ring and pinion, which is common to both. Maybe earlier on, in the 80's, the designs were undersized, or angles bad due to short A arms, but that's not an IFS issue, it's a design/application issue thats long been sorted out. Theses discussions remind me of the 70's when it was assumed all diesels were under powered, slow, stinky, and unreliable, because GM made the failure 6.2.

In a modern mid sized truck, the mere existance of a solid front axle "statistically" isn't providing any more assurance against failure, either from durability or reliability than an independent front axle. Independent v Solid in and of itself is not an indicator of anything. That is wholly dependent on the engineers, mechanical and industrial, and all quality assurance and quality control people doing their jobs. Do people screw up? Sure they do. I caught a fella putting returns back in stock without sending them thru QC because, "they weren't installed, I can tell, they came back in the packaging we shipped them in with tape". But errors happen everywhere, and cancel out in the comparison.

 

[plh]

None of which have any thing to do with the very first sentence in post 5. It is a material/design question. More parts have nothing to do with it.

assume you mean this: "...more moving parts means more to wear and/or fail" is a non sequitur.

This is entirely not a true statement.

For instance... nothing is 100% reliable

Systems in a transmission from you example above. In modern days components making up a transmission would be tested, as an example after test the modules making up a 10 speed transmission were found to have the following reliability:
Shift solenoid 1 - 99%
Shift solenoid 2 - 99%
SS3 - 99%
SS4 - 99%
SS5 - 96%
SS6 - 99%
SS7 - 99%
SS8 - 99%
SS9 - 99%
SS10 - 99%
Clutch pack system - 95%
Valve body - 98%
Torque converter - 93%

All things being equal:

Assembled system reliability prediction would be (.99 x .99 x .99 x .99 x .96 x.99 x .99 x .99 x.99 x .99 x .95 x .98 x .98) =Rs80%

now ditch SS4 through SS10 to be a 3 speed - all other things equal (.99 x .99 x .99 x .95 x .98 x .98) =Rs88.5%

The big difference between the '58 3 speed and the '23 10 speed is that the components reliability has increased due to better materials, design and manufacturing methods.

 

[zimm]

Since were talking reliability and durability, lets look at the affect each system has on the unit as whole.

Controlling all that unsprung weight, and changes in camber and castor on both wheels when one hits an obstacle, cause a whole bunch of NVH that needs abated in a solid axle not present in an independent system, and does that not affect the durability and reliability of the rest of the car? Why would we only be worried about the axle, when it's just one part of the product? Is driver comfort the only reason for the shift away from solid axles, or is there more to it?

 

[zimm]

assume you mean this: "...more moving parts means more to wear and/or fail" is a non sequitur.

This is entirely not a true statement.

For instance... nothing is 100% reliable

Systems in a transmission from you example above. In modern days components making up a transmission would be tested, as an example after test the modules making up a 10 speed transmission were found to have the following reliability:
Shift solenoid 1 - 99%
Shift solenoid 2 - 99%
SS3 - 99%
SS4 - 99%
SS5 - 96%
SS6 - 99%
SS7 - 99%
SS8 - 99%
SS9 - 99%
SS10 - 99%
Clutch pack system - 95%
Valve body - 98%
Torque converter - 93%

All things being equal:

Assembled system reliability prediction would be (.99 x .99 x .99 x .99 x .96 x.99 x .99 x .99 x.99 x .99 x .95 x .98 x .98) =Rs80%

now ditch SS4 through SS10 to be a 3 speed - all other things equal (.99 x .99 x .99 x .95 x .98 x .98) =Rs88.5%

The big difference between the '58 3 speed and the '23 10 speed is that the components reliability has increased due to better materials, design and manufacturing methods.

"But increased part count adding complexity really isn't the reason the new caddy is in a different league , is it? Could it be...... Design and QC/QA?"

That's my Quote from above. I guess you... agree.

Ok.. But for examples lets not use stats that "clip" the bar graph. As you can see when you drive past a ford dealer, 1 in five new auto broncos aren't failing to pull out of the lot, are they? .99 seems like a bit of a sucky number. Maybe use .9999 or .99999 to come up with a more realistic representation of parts actually being pushed out the door. Then we get 99.99% vs 99.96% and we ask if the .06% is statistically relevant enough to choose a 3 speed over a 10 speed?

Then lets look at the major moving components of a solid axle vs a independent. 2 cv's vs 4, at something representative like 99.99%.

We get 99.98 vs 99.96... .02% between them, but still both seem like ridiculously high rates of failure to me. I must be buying black market chinese parts.

so... hell... lets keep it unrealistic for ya, and use only 99% reliability for something as simple as a CV

And we end up with Pieces of "poop" assemblies either way at 98% and 96%

So, it makes sense for customers to choose Solid over Independent solely on this level of utter statistical irrelevance?

Yea. Its a non sequitur.