New Defender News

[A.J.M]

Just listened to the OJ podcast on it.

a nice balanced review I thought.

A class leading gentleman’s Wrangler seems a fair description of it.

Be interesting to see how the aftermarket takes to it.

 

[naks]

Some good off-roading bits in this review



Sent from my G8441 using Tapatalk

 

[TexasTJ]

I would love you have that as a poster in my office. Three vary cool 4x4.

 

[naks]

 

[DieselRanger]

this is probably the most balanced review that I've read (so far): https://jalopnik.com/2020-land-rover-defender-what-we-learned-over-420-mile-1842433433

"Verdict
...
As for the 2020 Land Rover Defender, yes, it’s a genuinely impressive 4x4. It’s a practical, comfortable vehicle that can also traverse some of the roughest terrain I’ve ever encountered. That’s pretty much what Land Rover wants to be, but it’s also antithetical to what makes a classic Defender so much fun.

An old Land Rover makes short trips to the store feel adventurous because there’s noise, smells, lots of wind, and focus required to keep the thing from wandering off into the wrong lane. The jouncing and rattles make you feel like you’re on the Indiana Jones ride at Disney. There are fewer gauges than a lawn tractor has.

That vehicle’s soul is a byproduct of its primitive nature, and that simply cannot be replicated while also optimizing noise, vibration, and harshness for road comfort. In other words, the new Defender doesn’t suck enough to offer the novelty of archaic technology.

All I’m trying to say is: If you want “an old Defender but with better safety features,” the closest new thing is still going to be a Jeep Wrangler. But if you want a great mix of off-road capability, modern tech features, and comfort that gives you the confidence to set off on an indefinite overland expedition at the drop of a pith helmet, the 2020 Defender’s pretty cool."

Yep, my thoughts exactly. Especially since most well maintained classic Defenders in the US were obtained at great expense after the 25-year import ban expired on their model years, the average owner will use them exactly for making "short trips to the store [or the mega-fitness center or the Cars and Coffee] feel adventurous." Those who can't afford one of those classic Defenders will just buy a Rubicon.

But these reviews won't matter to the purists.

 

[nickw]

[

Great visual....the Wrangler also has a slight advantage due to tire size.

 

[nickw]

this is probably the most balanced review that I've read (so far): https://jalopnik.com/2020-land-rover-defender-what-we-learned-over-420-mile-1842433433

"Verdict
...
As for the 2020 Land Rover Defender, yes, it’s a genuinely impressive 4x4. It’s a practical, comfortable vehicle that can also traverse some of the roughest terrain I’ve ever encountered. That’s pretty much what Land Rover wants to be, but it’s also antithetical to what makes a classic Defender so much fun.

An old Land Rover makes short trips to the store feel adventurous because there’s noise, smells, lots of wind, and focus required to keep the thing from wandering off into the wrong lane. The jouncing and rattles make you feel like you’re on the Indiana Jones ride at Disney. There are fewer gauges than a lawn tractor has.

That vehicle’s soul is a byproduct of its primitive nature, and that simply cannot be replicated while also optimizing noise, vibration, and harshness for road comfort. In other words, the new Defender doesn’t suck enough to offer the novelty of archaic technology.

All I’m trying to say is: If you want “an old Defender but with better safety features,” the closest new thing is still going to be a Jeep Wrangler. But if you want a great mix of off-road capability, modern tech features, and comfort that gives you the confidence to set off on an indefinite overland expedition at the drop of a pith helmet, the 2020 Defender’s pretty cool."

I'm conflicted when I comes to this kind of thing...on one hand I appreciate simple, old, easy to fix rigs that have 'character' are a bit rough around the edges but the pragmatist in me says a vehicle is simply a 'tool', noisy, smelly, rough, tiring are engineering problems we have solved...why put up with it if we don't have too?

If I had a tool in my garage, akin to an older rover, that was hard to handle, worked "most" of the time, was expensive to buy / maintain and was not the best option to perform a task I'd bin it. On the other hand, some of my old beat up, well worn tools that were created for practicality and durability at the expense of looking pretty are some of my most coveted treasures.....#conflicted

 

[JeepColorado]

[

Great visual....the Wrangler also has a slight advantage due to tire size.

I think charts like this should come with an * by the Defender that says it technically has higher ground clearance, but only at the highest off-road setting which come at the costs of articulation and stability. Off-roading air-bagged vehicles on their tippy toes has always been a less than desirable experience to me- not nearly as stable as having the articulation to keep feet on the ground.

 

[Highlander]

I wonder what Scott thinks of the 2.0 gas engine.

 

[JackW]

I wonder what Scott thinks of the 2.0 gas engine.

I don't think there were any on that trip, it seems from reading a few articles that it was a mix of the 3.0 six and 240 hp four cylinder diesel engines in the Namibia trucks. I am particularly interested in driving impressions of the 2.0 gas engine since I have one on order, I'm kind of thinking it might be the sweet spot in the range with enough power (especially for an old guy), significantly less complication, and about $9K cheaper than the MHEV six. Plus according to the published specs, the four cylinder cars have lower final drive gears in the differentials which may make them better for off road crawling.

Three of my four Land Rovers are four cylinders and I know the new P200 Defender will be significantly faster than any of them.

 

[nickw]

I don't think there were any on that trip, it seems from reading a few articles that it was a mix of the 3.0 six and 240 hp four cylinder diesel engines in the Namibia trucks. I am particularly interested in driving impressions of the 2.0 gas engine since I have one on order, I'm kind of thinking it might be the sweet spot in the range with enough power (especially for an old guy), significantly less complication, and about $9K cheaper than the MHEV six. Plus according to the published specs, the four cylinder cars have lower final drive gears in the differentials which may make them better for off road crawling.

Three of my four Land Rovers are four cylinders and I know the new P200 Defender will be significantly faster than any of them.

After driving my 2.3 Ranger for about a year now, hauling, towing, commuting, sand dunes.... I'd have no reservations about 2.0 and would likely be the engine I'd pick too...

 

[Highlander]

[B]JackW[/B]

Yes, prices is what makes it attractive form me. One thing if this engine can carry and tow a good amount of weight. I suspect those class leading towing and carrying numbers are or the bigger engines.
Do you know what is a low range gear ratio of the new deff? (it was around 3.5:1 on the old model wich was one of the best in the class)

 

[DieselRanger]

I think charts like this should come with an * by the Defender that says it technically has higher ground clearance, but only at the highest off-road setting which come at the costs of articulation and stability. Off-roading air-bagged vehicles on their tippy toes has always been a less than desirable experience to me- not nearly as stable as having the articulation to keep feet on the ground.

I don't know if you noticed, but the Defender's airbags are multi-chambered and cross-linked, and the suspension still retains some negative travel even on their highest setting. Lifted solid-axle vehicles also sacrifice stability, especially when you disconnect sway bars to give them the articulation they otherwise must rigorously control to prevent them tipping over.

Solid axles in mud and sand suffer from drag that can actually get them stuck whereas smooth bottomed vehicles don't have that disadvantage. As Scott noted in his article, leave rock crawling to Rubicons with $10,000+ in additional mods. These are overland vehicles that will be equal or superior on 99.9% of trails that anyone will drive them on.

 

[nickw]

[B]JackW[/B]

Yes, prices is what makes it attractive form me. One thing if this engine can carry and tow a good amount of weight. I suspect those class leading towing and carrying numbers are or the bigger engines.
Do you know what is a low range gear ratio of the new deff? (it was around 3.5:1 on the old model wich was one of the best in the class)

But wasn't the high range in those older models also like 1.4:1? The 'effective' reduction was about what a std. rig these days is @ 2.X (I think)....

 

[JeepColorado]

I don't know if you noticed, but the Defender's airbags are multi-chambered and cross-linked, and the suspension still retains some negative travel even on their highest setting. Lifted solid-axle vehicles also sacrifice stability, especially when you disconnect sway bars to give them the articulation they otherwise must rigorously control to prevent them tipping over.

Solid axles in mud and sand suffer from drag that can actually get them stuck whereas smooth bottomed vehicles don't have that disadvantage. As Scott noted in his article, leave rock crawling to Rubicons with $10,000+ in additional mods. These are overland vehicles that will be equal or superior on 99.9% of trails that anyone will drive them on.

I don't think it warrants a comparison to a Rubicon- it can't compete; especially off-road. I think it's competitive with a Jeep Grand Cherokee though.