New Defender Concept

[David Harris]

Nearly all military vehicles have been and are purpose built platforms, not mass market vehicles also sold to the military. Some of them were later put into civilian service, though, like the original Jeep or Hummer.

David

 

[plainjaneFJC]

So that's your criteria for purchasing a vehicle in Pittsburgh, PA?

Also, I don't think many militaries or governments are driving around third world conditions in Jeeps...

Look at the J8. A few third worlds have them, plus the U.N.

 

[David Harris]

Look at the J8. A few third worlds have them, plus the U.N.

Other than parts of the basic body shell, the J8 shares almost nothing with the civilian models. Different frame, engine, transmission, axles, suspension, etc.

David

 

[Antichrist]

IMO, when Land Rover can produce a chart like this for the DC100

it will then be worthy of the name "Defender".

 

[AndrewClarke]

IMO, when Land Rover can produce a chart like this for the DC100

it will then be worthy of the name "Defender".

I completely agree. Since the article at http://www.insideline.com/land-rover/defender/future-defender-could-be-land-rovers-best-seller.html says this:

[blah blah blah] if it can successfully develop the concept into a range of vehicles of wide appeal with a low cost base.

So reckons brand boss John Edwards, who says that "we're being encouraged to look at it as a 20-year plan with global potential, a family of vehicles offered on different wheelbases with different bodies."

That family would include a pickup truck, a crew-cab and a versatile, utility SUV, all based on a separate chassis.

Since that is their stated goal, my point is, let's give them a chance to actually DO it. I'd just go one step further and suggest that the name "Defender" only really makes sense to me if the vehicle is at some point marketed and sold to the military. I won't split hairs though.

I'm not saying Land Rover is going to be successful, or that the new "Defender" is going to be awesome. It may completely suck. They may not deliver on their goals. I'm just making the point that there are those here who seem to think that Land Rover is trying to create another Discovery or Range Rover that is non-utilitarian and expensive. Their stated goals are otherwise, so at least acknowledge that fact when dissing a vehicle that hasn't even been developed yet.

Of course the new Land Rover is going to be at some point dependent on computers. New Jeeps, Tacomas, Hiluxes, Gelandewagens, even the 70 series Land Cruiser, all have ECUs and other computers in them. Welcome to the present.

 

[ipgregory]

Of course the new Land Rover is going to be at some point dependent on computers. New Jeeps, Tacomas, Hiluxes, Gelandewagens, even the 70 series Land Cruiser, all have ECUs and other computers in them. Welcome to the present.

There are 3 of them in my 97 D90.....

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

Tom: That chart is awesome!

 

[Green96D1]

Tom: That chart is awesome!

Agree!

 

[maxingout]

Awesome chart. Thanks. Call the new vehicle anything but a Defender, and I will be happy.

The same thing happened when they took the name Hummer from the H1, and they called the H2 and H3 Hummers as well. The H2 and H3 are capable vehicles, but calling them Hummers was a marketing trick that fooled no one.

They can call the new vehicle a Defender if they want, but I am not fooled by their marketing ploy. I have owned six Defenders, and what they have on display is not a Defender - no matter what they call it.

They can market it as an expeditionary vehicle that is good for expeditions to the mall and to the beach. But as an expeditionary vehicle for a trip around the world, it is only suitable for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

 

[Ryanmb21]

Awesome chart. Thanks. Call the new vehicle anything but a Defender, and I will be happy.

They can call the new vehicle a Defender if they want, but I am not fooled by their marketing ploy. I have owned six Defenders, and what they have on display is not a Defender - no matter what they call it.
.

The Offender?

 

[maxingout]

The Offender?

The Offender ranks high on my list of names for this vehicle!

 

[Antichrist]

Their stated goals are otherwise, so at least acknowledge that fact when dissing a vehicle that hasn't even been developed yet.

There's a major disconnect between what they are saying, and what they are doing. They are marketing it as a beach runner.
Looking at the styling of the vehicle, yeah, they may do a pickup version, and I full expect it to look much like Ford Sport Trac, at best. Or, IMO more likely, something like the Subaru Brat.
If they design it to allow removal of the rear body and installation of a camper body (like can be done with actual Defenders), I'll be extremely surprised.
The concept as it stands now just doesn't lend itself to that versatility.

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

WoW! I am so confused.
According to this article that came out today- the DC100 body style has been so "overwhelmingly positive" that they are going to use that body style as an entry level design to come in under the Freelander!!
What? Overwhelmingly positive? Freelander?

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/262062/

 

[DividingCreek]

WoW! I am so confused.
According to this article that came out today- the DC100 body style has been so "overwhelmingly positive" that they are going to use that body style as an entry level design to come in under the Freelander!!
What? Overwhelmingly positive? Freelander?

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/262062/

Sluming on the Rover board Dendy ? Though you swore them off ?

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

No slumming Doug- just hoping the Defender in earnest would come to the States-
Just read this article and now I am confused- however, ... (and it is just my opinion), the DC100 would be a better replacement for the LR2.
But again, just my opinion. D