New Defender Concept

[GrayElephant]

The same holds true for other iconic debuts. The manufacturer wants to appeal to the Starbucks yuppie rather than the Offroad enthusiast. They're going after a specific age range and salary range. Sometimes that doesn't always fit into what 'we' deem acceptable. The vast majority of buyers want the ruggedness of the name but want blue tooth, navigation and a great sound system rather than true Offroad capability. That's why for many of us we build our own trucks and search for a great platform like the D90s or 110s rather than buying a showroom model wannabe mobile.

 

[Snagger]

While I understand what he is trying to say, I'm not getting Antichrist 'ol-school version of versital. Even with the multitude of body types available, you still had to pick one and deal with that particular versions positives and negatives. I'm not seeing how that is very different than what we have to do now. You choose from CUVs, SUVs, varios sizes and lengths of pick-ups, even specialty trucks of various sorts. Hell, IIRC, we really only got 2 versions of the Defender in the North American market anyways.

Speaking for myself, It would be a non-start regardless how "versital" or "appropriate" a Defender may be. I very likely couldn't get my wife INTO a Defender for a long trip if they are as basic as made out to be. However, I know many do not have that particuar issue.

In any case, I think something slightly smaller and lighter, but built on the now largely paid for LR3/LR4/RRS chassis, would be an excellent and very capable entry level Rover - Regardless of what they call it.

No, Antichrist is right. It's the utter simplicity of the Defender that makes it so versatile - you can just fit stiffer springs and dampers for heavier vehicles, cut the chassis and extend it if needed, fit weird and wacky bodies, or just fit off-the-shelf or custom accessories to the uniquely flat flat panels (which is an incredibly adaptable platform in itself) all without having to spend millions on new software for the ECUs and their dynamic testing because of mass distribution and length changes. As for DIY repairs or help overseas, all these ECUs make repairs in places like Africa, Asia, South America and even Australasia impossible unless you are in a major city that has a franchised dealer, and overlanders will not be able to carry the vast array of tools and spares required on more complex vehicles unless they take a trailer. Bush mechanics simply aren't going to have the specialist tools and spares that these complicated vehicles will need. That's why LR still sell 300Tdi Defenders in the third world; even they recognise that the TD5 and TDCI Defenders are too complex for that environment.

Defender is not a status symbol or blinged up "lifestyle 4x4", it's a functional tool - its very purpose is the antitheses of the trendy SUV and moving it into the same bracket loses the very point of the vehicle.

 

[Snagger]

The same holds true for other iconic debuts. The manufacturer wants to appeal to the Starbucks yuppie rather than the Offroad enthusiast. They're going after a specific age range and salary range. Sometimes that doesn't always fit into what 'we' deem acceptable. The vast majority of buyers want the ruggedness of the name but want blue tooth, navigation and a great sound system rather than true Offroad capability. That's why for many of us we build our own trucks and search for a great platform like the D90s or 110s rather than buying a showroom model wannabe mobile.

That's fine - they have the rest of the LR product range for that, and something along the lines of the DC100 would be a good addition, but the Defender must remain a basic and sturdy platform, even at the cost of efficiency, performance and comfort, in order to fulfill its purpose. There must be a way of adapting the current Defender design to increase the roof strength and improve comfort, which seem to be the main design issues. Labour costs will be reduced once assembly is moved to India or China, and maybe they can offset that against better assembly quality to get rid of the quality issues while they're at it.

 

[jatibb]

if the taillights stuck out the side it would look like an fj cruiser

 

[SteveMfr]

The manufacturer wants to appeal to the Starbucks yuppie rather than the Offroad enthusiast.

I seriously doubt that in this case. LR knows what they have in the Defender and they know that the LR reputation is based on that. What the manufacturer really wants is a car that conforms to new regulations and safety standards and can actually be built with a profit margin left w/in the intended market segment. All of these items are very marginal in the Defender today.

As for DIY repairs or help overseas, all these ECUs make repairs in places like Africa, Asia, South America and even Australasia impossible unless you are in a major city that has a franchised dealer, and overlanders will not be able to carry the vast array of tools and spares required on more complex vehicles unless they take a trailer. Bush mechanics simply aren't going to have the specialist tools and spares that these complicated vehicles will need.

No. You are applying 80s and 90s thinking to the 20-teens. We are already providing full diagnostics (not just fault read/clear but just about everything IDS/SDD does) to newer LRs with a unit that is half the size of a pack of cigarettes ( http://gap-diagnostic.com ). And this is only the start - the next generation of vehicles will have remote diagnostics built in. Todays vehicle ECUs compared with a smartphone, for instance, are like a covered wagon compared to a moon shot technology-wise. The price of ECUs will come down and they will become disposable - similar to smartphones. Repairs in the future will simply include all electrics and be just as viable in Africa as in New York or London.

Defender is not a status symbol or blinged up "lifestyle 4x4", it's a functional tool - its very purpose is the antitheses of the trendy SUV and moving it into the same bracket loses the very point of the vehicle.

As I said above, I am quite sure that LR is very aware of this - and that they do not want to tarnish this image. But without the modern drivetrain, coil springs, and re-vamped styling - the Defender is going on 65 years old. Is what is coming going to be a all around useable as the Defender? Prob not. But I am going to say that the folks at LR are considering this - they ain't stupid. There is a lot of money riding on this.

 

[overlander]

After driving a 2011 130 in Botswana for 30 days, I'd say if you can make the Puma field fixable, I'd buy that all day long with a bag of chips! that powertrain was sweet!

 

[grimbo]

I'll try and find the article but basically Land Rover ate going back to the drawing board on this. They expect the current Defender to be around for another 5 or so years


http://m.theage.com.au/drive/motor-news/land-rover-backs-down-on-defender-20121212-2b8nm.html

 

[Snagger]

I seriously doubt that in this case. LR knows what they have in the Defender and they know that the LR reputation is based on that. What the manufacturer really wants is a car that conforms to new regulations and safety standards and can actually be built with a profit margin left w/in the intended market segment. All of these items are very marginal in the Defender today.


No. You are applying 80s and 90s thinking to the 20-teens. We are already providing full diagnostics (not just fault read/clear but just about everything IDS/SDD does) to newer LRs with a unit that is half the size of a pack of cigarettes ( http://gap-diagnostic.com ). And this is only the start - the next generation of vehicles will have remote diagnostics built in. Todays vehicle ECUs compared with a smartphone, for instance, are like a covered wagon compared to a moon shot technology-wise. The price of ECUs will come down and they will become disposable - similar to smartphones. Repairs in the future will simply include all electrics and be just as viable in Africa as in New York or London.
As I said above, I am quite sure that LR is very aware of this - and that they do not want to tarnish this image. But without the modern drivetrain, coil springs, and re-vamped styling - the Defender is going on 65 years old. Is what is coming going to be a all around useable as the Defender? Prob not. But I am going to say that the folks at LR are considering this - they ain't stupid. There is a lot of money riding on this.

I think you credit LR, and maybe other big corporations, with too much of a sense of history and forethought. LR don't care about the Defender in the brand's image, and nor do they care about the historic users of the Defender - they turned their back on comercial users and British Forces (and in the same breath other nations' armed forces) years ago - they won't even tender for MoD contracts any more, which is why so many old 90s and 110s had to be rebuild by companies like Hobsons Industries. LR regard the Defender as an embarassement, not an icon or beacon of pride. Too many managers are new-joiners with no appreciation of the history of the vehicles or their users and just want to sell the high profit margin models with seemingly little interest past the short to medium term future and with no interest in maintaining the brands historic identity or credibility. That's true of most businesses these days.

But you're not listening to the key point that farmers, utilities companies, emergency services, armed forces and other users in remote areas, such as aid organisations and overlanders, just don't want vehicles packed with electronics - they are unreliable in those environments and hard to find support for outside of 1st world dealerships, and even that can be a damned nuisance if you break down away from an expert garage or over the weekend. Vehicles of this nature need to be reliable (which is where LR should be focusing their energy on the Defender updates) and simple enough to be repaired in the field without specialist tools. Otherwise, why else would ROW and the UK Wolf spec vehicles have persisted with Tdis instead of TD5s and TDCIs? Even LR got that then, but they are apparently willing to drop all those markets to pursue the leisure market instead. That is the lack of business foresight I was getting at; it could (and should) cost them the credibility of the brand.

 

[proper4wd]

Watch out Snagger, the sky is falling.

Calm down. The mindset at Land Rover corporate is "1948"... ask me how I know. I've heard it enough times.


Companies don't put out ads like this on national television without having a sense of history and pride. You know they still build the best 4WD's in the world, right?

 

[Mbogo]

It's hard to predict exactly what will happen with the brand. Despite the vehement outcry from enthusiasts, Chevy had no problem axing the Camaro for 8 years in 2002 when it became unprofitable. Legacy-based ad campaigns can be a tricky sell. According to head Chevy ad man Jeff Goodby, they are moving away from the "Chevy runs deep" campaign because the market is moving toward new technology, "we will be getting away from the historic campaigns. It will be clear that this is a technology brand, and we'll be working harder to do that." Goodby and Chevy think that the Volt and Cruze have been "good for the brand and brought the brand up." It's clear where the focus is now. They won't entirely abandon the brand's history because as Goodby says, "It can be made to serve us. When all things are equal, it becomes a tie breaker." With this mindset, it remains to be seen how long the Camaro will be profitable to keep as a "tie breaker."

Dodge is also moving away from its roots in their marketing. With the new 2013 Dart "How To Make the Most Hi-Tech Car" and "How to Change Cars Forever" campaigns. Only Ford is bringing up the history of the brand with nostalgia in the marketing for the Lincoln MkZ. Then again, nostalgia may be all they have given that cars such as the BMW 3 series are in that price range of luxury sedans.

Land Rover has only a fraction of the resources that any of these companies possess. Todays market is driven by high tech and luxury, not dirt simple and drafty. Sure, a historic international legacy is a nice sentiment for advertising, but can they afford to actually field a vehicle that is expensive to produce, cannot cheaply meet increasingly stringent safety and emissions requirements, and is more than a little rough around the edges regarding noise vibration and harshness? Modern safety, emissions, and comfort/convenience standards require complex electronics. There is simply no way around this. Of course, despite many of these same drawbacks, Jeep sells every Wrangler they can make. So the question is: is there room enough in the North American market for two?

 

[LtFuzz]

The West is fading and Asia is rising. If you pay close attention you'll see that LR is planning on opening a factory in China. Why worry about satisfying a small North American enthusiast crowd, at great expense, when you can sell another 3,000-10,000 cars per year by expanding Chinese marketshare? That's what Tata Motors will push, I guarantee you. They're not going to try to compete with the Wrangler in North America -- not after spending the last 20 years pushing Land Rover as the only semi-exotic luxury 4x4 available besides the G-wagen.

The LR dealership in southern AZ I recently interacted with had one LR4 on the lot. They weren't going to receive another LR4 until February. The sales manager told me that over the next 6 months only ~1,000 LRs (all models) were scheduled for dealership distribution in the entire US.

 

[SteveMfr]

I think you credit LR, and maybe other big corporations, with too much of a sense of history and forethought. LR don't care about the Defender in the brand's image, and nor do they care about the historic users of the Defender - they turned their back on comercial users and British Forces (and in the same breath other nations' armed forces) years ago - they won't even tender for MoD contracts any more, which is why so many old 90s and 110s had to be rebuild by companies like Hobsons Industries. LR regard the Defender as an embarassement, not an icon or beacon of pride. Too many managers are new-joiners with no appreciation of the history of the vehicles or their users and just want to sell the high profit margin models with seemingly little interest past the short to medium term future and with no interest in maintaining the brands historic identity or credibility. That's true of most businesses these days.

No. Ignoring a brand - especially one as powerful as LR - is completely illogical. And I have seen LR's marketing and the effort put into brand heritage first hand. They know what they are doing.
I have no idea on causes or results regarding LR's MoD contracts - but I will take a guess and say that money played a role?

But you're not listening to the key point that farmers, utilities companies, emergency services, armed forces and other users in remote areas, such as aid organisations and overlanders, just don't want vehicles packed with electronics - they are unreliable in those environments and hard to find support for outside of 1st world dealerships, and even that can be a damned nuisance if you break down away from an expert garage or over the weekend. Vehicles of this nature need to be reliable (which is where LR should be focusing their energy on the Defender updates) and simple enough to be repaired in the field without specialist tools. Otherwise, why else would ROW and the UK Wolf spec vehicles have persisted with Tdis instead of TD5s and TDCIs? Even LR got that then, but they are apparently willing to drop all those markets to pursue the leisure market instead. That is the lack of business foresight I was getting at; it could (and should) cost them the credibility of the brand.

LOL. I get the same feeling - you are not listening. First, you can not escape electronics in today's world. W/o electronics you could not meet emissions standards, fuel consumption standards, safety standards, and even consumer standards no matter how utilitarian the user. Second, LR is continuing to produce the Defender and will for a while despite the fact that the enormous percentage of manual labor required to produce an antiquated design means they earn next to nothing. They want to cater to this market as well. Third, electronics will be repairable in the field just as mechanical components always were. We may not be their quite yet but it is not far off.

It seems to me that many LR aficionados love LR for the brand history but hate LR for capitalizing on it.

 

[proper4wd]

The West is fading and Asia is rising. If you pay close attention you'll see that LR is planning on opening a factory in China. Why worry about satisfying a small North American enthusiast crowd, at great expense, when you can sell another 3,000-10,000 cars per year by expanding Chinese marketshare? That's what Tata Motors will push, I guarantee you. They're not going to try to compete with the Wrangler in North America -- not after spending the last 20 years pushing Land Rover as the only semi-exotic luxury 4x4 available besides the G-wagen.

The LR dealership in southern AZ I recently interacted with had one LR4 on the lot. They weren't going to receive another LR4 until February. The sales manager told me that over the next 6 months only ~1,000 LRs (all models) were scheduled for dealership distribution in the entire US.

You are right about the Chinese market for sure.

I can comment with regards to dealer inventory and pipeline. We are at the model year changeover for the LR4... inventory is low because there was a production gap between model years. I have two 2012 LR4s remaining and have received 4 or 5 2013s with about 12 more scheduled through February. Land Rover allocates vehicles according to dealer volume and market share (obviously); it does not surprise me that a small store in AZ has a thin pipeline.

Overall vehicle supplies this year will be low but will certainly be higher than 1000. The New England region alone sells well over 200 new units per month...

 

[overlander]

I think you credit LR, and maybe other big corporations, with too much of a sense of history and forethought. LR don't care about the Defender in the brand's image, and nor do they care about the historic users of the Defender - they turned their back on comercial users and British Forces (and in the same breath other nations' armed forces) years ago - they won't even tender for MoD contracts any more, which is why so many old 90s and 110s had to be rebuild by companies like Hobsons Industries. LR regard the Defender as an embarassement, not an icon or beacon of pride. Too many managers are new-joiners with no appreciation of the history of the vehicles or their users and just want to sell the high profit margin models with seemingly little interest past the short to medium term future and with no interest in maintaining the brands historic identity or credibility. That's true of most businesses these days.

But you're not listening to the key point that farmers, utilities companies, emergency services, armed forces and other users in remote areas, such as aid organisations and overlanders, just don't want vehicles packed with electronics - they are unreliable in those environments and hard to find support for outside of 1st world dealerships, and even that can be a damned nuisance if you break down away from an expert garage or over the weekend. Vehicles of this nature need to be reliable (which is where LR should be focusing their energy on the Defender updates) and simple enough to be repaired in the field without specialist tools. Otherwise, why else would ROW and the UK Wolf spec vehicles have persisted with Tdis instead of TD5s and TDCIs? Even LR got that then, but they are apparently willing to drop all those markets to pursue the leisure market instead. That is the lack of business foresight I was getting at; it could (and should) cost them the credibility of the brand.

When I was in Botswana in August this year, the Botswana Defense force was busy replacing all their TDI defenders with 2012 Pumas. They had hundreds on hand fresh from factory with many more still pending delivery.