New Defender Concept

[greenmeanie]

LR were invited to tender for the UK MoD Wolf and 101 replacements, but refused to enter (hence the Hobson's Prometheus and Tithonus programmes and the Pinzgauer). They have turned their back on the UK, and thus every other, military service. Short sightedness in the extreme.

Your information is wrong.

Land Rover did compete for the 101 replacement. The vehicle they chose to build is called Llama. It failed for a variety of reasons not the least of which was Rover putting a V8 petrol engine in it when the MOD was clearly moving to an all diesel fleet.


The disasterous RB-44 was the winner of the 101 replacement with Pinzgauers suplementing both those and some Defender roles. Pinzgauer procurement (1996) predates that of the TUM (Service entry 1997).


Replacement of the current fleet consisting of Land Rover TUL/TUM, Pinzgauer and RB44 is called OUVS (Operational Utility Vehicle System) which bears some similarities with the US JLTV and German APMV/GEFAS among others. As usual economics and politics is extending this program out into something of a saga. The simple truth is that none of the light 4x4 utility vehicle manufacturers (Land Rover, Steyer Pusch, Toyota etc.) are competing for these because they don't meet the spec. A quick look online shows that all of these programs are looking for much larger, heavy vehicles with an armour package integral to the design of the vehicle. That's just not Land Rover's business.


Hobson's Prometheus and Tithonus are overhaul programmes to free up additional TUM vehicles for use by units in combat. They are nothing to do with replacement of the TUM but istead a cost saving measure to avoid ordering more vehicles. As service requirements have changed LR have been moving away from the military vehicle market for years now. They still show versions of the WOLF at the industry shows but it is really just a cash cow effort.

 

[Rocket Ship]

Bull****. Jeep can do it. Land Rover could do it as well if they had any amount of vision.

Does the JK meet 2015 European pedestrian safety regulations? I don't think it does, but if you know otherwise, please show us where.

As for the rest of the vehicle's capability, I won't be getting into an argument about off-road capability based solely on looking at a concept model that probably has a plywood subframe at this point. It's purely a styling exercise at this time.

 

[Rocket Ship]

Somewhat, but not completely unrelated, it appears Land Rover is going to do away with the alphanumeric naming convention used only in North America.

Hurrah!

http://ca.autoblog.com/2011/09/16/land-rover-dumping-alphanumeric-names/

I'm sure this came about because they couldn't figure out what to call the next generation LR2, since it obviously can't be called the LR3. Something I predicted a few years ago.

 

[nwoods]

Hurrah!

http://ca.autoblog.com/2011/09/16/land-rover-dumping-alphanumeric-names/

I'm sure this came about because they couldn't figure out what to call the next generation LR2, since it obviously can't be called the LR3. Something I predicted a few years ago.

It's a safe bet that the idiot who renamed the NAS Discovery (LR3) has been sacked, and probably the new idiot who renamed the LR4 has also been sacked. Thank goodness. How many millions did that folly cost?

 

[nwoods]

Rumor on the street- Tata's Land Rover Group CEO resigned this past Friday because the polls taken on the Concept DC100 came back at a 96% disapproval rating. The same rumor also states the head designer was given a week to turn in his resignation. The news reports state he resigned due to personal reasons- but the rumbling is it all centered around this cluster debacle of a truck design - wait - is that a truck design?

http://www.roverparts.com/News/Archive/LandRoverCEOResignsDC100DefenderDebuts.cfm

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/idINIndia-59247720110909

Tatas stock hit a 52 week low on Monday as the news spead. We may never see this truck as stated above!
D

Man, that is the best news I've heard about LR in quite a while. Still not sure it's enough though. Have you seen LR's answers to all the Frequently Asked Questions regarding the new concept and the Defenders future:
http://blog.landrover.com/vehicles/...-dc100-concept-–-faqs-2609.html#axzz1XqMpBOsw

One key word missing from all that marketing spiel: Durability. Capability, flexibility, modularity, etc...are all well and good. The LR3 demonstrates that LR can design a heck of a capable vehicle with tremendous flexibility and road-worthy comfort, but durability is not among its traits. If I had to boil all of the comments about what the current Defender's provide, it's simple durability. Let's hope LR remembers this.

 

[nwoods]

Still one of the coolest LR ads ever.

http://www.m-a-d-e.net/backcatalogue/2008/07/land-rover-dam-rover.html

A stunning first film in a campaign for Land Rover. This epic spot was directed by David Garfath and is credited with bringing much needed success to an iconic British brand. With backing by the London Symphony Orchestra playing Eric Coates famous 'Dam Busters' theme, the Land Rover really did winch itself up the incredibly sheer dam face under its own power. No CGI. It was very scary sitting in the cab, but the stunt driver did in order to keep the front wheels in a straight line! Creative team Graham Fink and Jeremy Clark, agency CDP.

 

[clcoyle]

Still one of the coolest LR ads ever.

http://www.m-a-d-e.net/backcatalogue/2008/07/land-rover-dam-rover.html

Great Ad, for sure.

 

[Snagger]

Your information is wrong.

Land Rover did compete for the 101 replacement. The vehicle they chose to build is called Llama. It failed for a variety of reasons not the least of which was Rover putting a V8 petrol engine in it when the MOD was clearly moving to an all diesel fleet.


The disasterous RB-44 was the winner of the 101 replacement with Pinzgauers suplementing both those and some Defender roles. Pinzgauer procurement (1996) predates that of the TUM (Service entry 1997).


Replacement of the current fleet consisting of Land Rover TUL/TUM, Pinzgauer and RB44 is called OUVS (Operational Utility Vehicle System) which bears some similarities with the US JLTV and German APMV/GEFAS among others. As usual economics and politics is extending this program out into something of a saga. The simple truth is that none of the light 4x4 utility vehicle manufacturers (Land Rover, Steyer Pusch, Toyota etc.) are competing for these because they don't meet the spec. A quick look online shows that all of these programs are looking for much larger, heavy vehicles with an armour package integral to the design of the vehicle. That's just not Land Rover's business.


Hobson's Prometheus and Tithonus are overhaul programmes to free up additional TUM vehicles for use by units in combat. They are nothing to do with replacement of the TUM but istead a cost saving measure to avoid ordering more vehicles. As service requirements have changed LR have been moving away from the military vehicle market for years now. They still show versions of the WOLF at the industry shows but it is really just a cash cow effort.

I am not wrong - you are mixing up time lines. The Hobsons programmes are recent; the failed Llama project was in the 80s. Land Rover refused to tender for the 90/110 replacement programme, refused to tender for a Pinz equivalent programme, and refused to build more Wolfs, forcing the MoD into a refurbishment of old vehicles rather than straight replacement with something newer, and many Wolfs that were due for retirement are also being overhauled instead. Like I said, they have turned their back on their biggest customer.

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

The reason for much of this- Royalty. Tata sees Land Rover on the level of Rolls Royce and the rumor in the states it that the next 5 year holds much of the focus going on the very elite Bentley crowd. I was told the other night at the Land Rover event that a very special limited edition 2012 Model Full Body Range Rover is about to be released with only 200 being made weighing in at $189,000.00. They only released 100 in the US- All were sold within a few minutes of being offered to the top 20 dealers- no dealer on the 2nd tier could get them.
This is also why you are seeing them re-division the Land Rover Group into Land Rover and Range Rover.

My estimation is that you will see Tata doing away with any thing that remotely resembles military-esque looking trucks.
It is all about the Yupsters and the Elite now.

See my post here:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/67323-I-have-seen-the-future-of-Land-Rover-...

 

[greenmeanie]

I am not wrong - you are mixing up time lines. The Hobsons programmes are recent; the failed Llama project was in the 80s. Land Rover refused to tender for the 90/110 replacement programme, refused to tender for a Pinz equivalent programme, and refused to build more Wolfs, forcing the MoD into a refurbishment of old vehicles rather than straight replacement with something newer, and many Wolfs that were due for retirement are also being overhauled instead. Like I said, they have turned their back on their biggest customer.

Read your own post. To quote " LR were invited to tender for the UK MoD Wolf and 101 replacements, but refused to enter (hence the Hobson's Prometheus and Tithonus programmes and the Pinzgauer)."

The Llama was the Rover project to replace the 101. It was the Pinzie equivalent and they lost.
Pinzgauer came in, in the 1990's before the TUM was adopted. The Pinzie is not a competitor to TUM, it was bought for TUM (HD).
OUVS is the programme to replace the lot. Its been going for years and has no place for Land Rover, or any of the other equivalent vehicles.
Hobson's programs are merely planned to extend the life of the TUM until the OUVS hardware arrives by replacing it in non combat roles with cheaper overhauled 110s. AS they still offer WOLF at the defense industry shows Land Rover will build new TUMs if the MOD wants to pay the price but that is the problem. They want the OUVS and don't want to buy more TUMs when they can get by with a cheaper alternative.

No mixing of time lines on my part.

 

[Christian P.]

Ray Hyland (our PR/Marketing guru) managed to get the first drive/pictures of the Defender Concept shortly after it arrived in North America (today...)

Read more here:

http://www.expeditionportal.com/com...first-drive-of-land-rovers-dc100-concept.html

 

[DividingCreek]

nice write up. Gives a much better perspective on what's in the designers heads and should allay some of the concerns posted earlier in the thread.

 

[nwoods]

...so the designer did not resign as previously reported?

 

[AmericaOverland]

It's a shame that LR decided to follow the crowd and build just another SUV, last time I checked Jeep still sells plenty of Wranglers.

That's rriiiight! Lots of people jumping ship at LR and other former utilitarian makers to
get into the Jeep, even the TJ/LJ market, which is why the price is holding up well for that particular series. I was one of them, jumping the Honda ship when I saw some problems on my CR-V that I had coming up AND the direction Honda decided to go in. The Jeep and the Scout is where I'm staying.

 

[Pskhaat]

In what direction did Honda go that made you rethink a CRV?