he doesn't own a new Defender yet.
It's the tried and true "I may get one"...not who JLR is targeting.
Like has been said before....if they had stuck coil springs on it and minimized the tech as much as possible, you'd have a cheaper, more dependable, more reliable, more robust, longer lasting vehicle that would better represent the spirt of the 'Defender' name.
For the life of me I can't figure out why they added cost and complexity to this vehicle when they already make half a dozen unreliable, leader of depreciation, complicated, expensive SUV/Crossovers.
I'd argue that I'm EXACTLY who Land Rover is targeting. You're misinformed if you don't think I'm the core demographic. This isn't a matter of "I may get one..." as you state. I'm also far from the dinosaurs you see on this forum who insist a proper Land Rover has to be coil sprung and on an independent chassis;
@Carson G will be more than happy to confirm that I'm an air suspension evangelist and I've owned (2) LR3's and an L494 Range Rover V8 Supercharged. The only reasons I haven't pursued a new Defender are as follows : 1) Inflated pricing at the moment due to low supply/high demand; 2) Severe teething problems; & 3) Currently leasing a Jaguar F-Type. If comments from people such as myself are invalid, then
who is allowed to critique?
To address your other points: You can get the 90 with coil springs. Tech doesn't make a vehicle worse - again, have owned multiple modern LRs and now I have a D2; the D2 has far more charm but is a far worse vehicle than the other's I've owned in terms of on-road and off-road manners. Say whatever you like, it's a worse overall package. Full stop. Depreciation on these vehicles is directly correlated to perceived reliability. People such as yourself do nothing to help that stigma, and the reality is that there are plenty of LR3's on this forum with over 300k miles. "bUT ItS a FoRddd DeSIgN". Guess what, I'm seeing plenty of Tata L405's on auto trader right now with 150k+ miles on them and that car only came out in 2013. Any car will have it's flaws (and that's my beef with the New Defender), but to call these unreliable is an unfair assessment - stop promoting that stigma.
As a final point, what old Defender have you been looking at that you can (with a straight face) call robust and reliable? I've got a friend with an NAS90 with under 10k miles and that thing still needed a brand new transfer case, door latches, and top end gaskets. They're agricultural, primitive, unsophisticated, uncivilized, expensive to maintain and downright unpleasant to drive above 50 mph. They're great cars when you consider they can trace their roots back to the 40's (realistically 80's with the introduction of the coil sprung 110), but they get absolutely destroyed in every measurable category when compared with their modern successor and rivals. I'll never understand people that insisted Land Rover continue making a 40 year old design. Get with the times...the ND is a proper 21's century successor to the original Defender.