New Defender News
- Thread starter blackangie
- Start date
SkiWill
Well-known member
Does the new Defender have both a shock absorber and an air strut and only the shock absorber failed? Without a picture of what failed, it's not at all clear what happened and why the vehicle was not drivable. There's also no mention of what the specific failure point was either.
SkiWill
Well-known member
I answered my own question. The new Defender has magnetorheological dampers which fail where the damper mount has been drilled out to allow the wiring to enter the shock to control fluid viscosity. I know that this technology has been around for a while for sports sedans and the like, but putting it on an off road vehicle? 
Hopefully there's an aftermarket fix for this soon, but it helps explain the $2,700 per unit cost. In reading through some of the other Land Rover forums it would appear that this failure is becoming more than an emerging problem and the shocks cannot easily be replaced with a more traditional damper due to the computer controls and integration with the rest of the suspension/terrain response system. Ugh.
Not that I could order and receive a new Defender or Grenadier any time soon anyway, but definitely evidence that it is worth doing the cooling system maintenance on my LR4 to keep it chugging along for a few more years while these bugs surface and are worked out.
Hopefully there's an aftermarket fix for this soon, but it helps explain the $2,700 per unit cost. In reading through some of the other Land Rover forums it would appear that this failure is becoming more than an emerging problem and the shocks cannot easily be replaced with a more traditional damper due to the computer controls and integration with the rest of the suspension/terrain response system. Ugh.
Not that I could order and receive a new Defender or Grenadier any time soon anyway, but definitely evidence that it is worth doing the cooling system maintenance on my LR4 to keep it chugging along for a few more years while these bugs surface and are worked out.
NorthwestDriver
Active member
That certainly makes the factory coil-over option more appealing — too bad you cannot get ATR2 or the max tow options with the coil-overs.
ChasingOurTrunks
Well-known member
I answered my own question. The new Defender has magnetorheological dampers which fail where the damper mount has been drilled out to allow the wiring to enter the shock to control fluid viscosity. I know that this technology has been around for a while for sports sedans and the like, but putting it on an off road vehicle?
Hopefully there's an aftermarket fix for this soon, but it helps explain the $2,700 per unit cost. In reading through some of the other Land Rover forums it would appear that this failure is becoming more than an emerging problem and the shocks cannot easily be replaced with a more traditional damper due to the computer controls and integration with the rest of the suspension/terrain response system. Ugh.
Not that I could order and receive a new Defender or Grenadier any time soon anyway, but definitely evidence that it is worth doing the cooling system maintenance on my LR4 to keep it chugging along for a few more years while these bugs surface and are worked out.
Yikes.
I dunno what to say other than that. To have something as critical as that be so fragile and complex is a major issue and confirms what a lot of folks feared -- how these things break matters. I LOVE this thing, but the more I learn the more I see it being ruled out of contention for anything other than a DD for me. It's rapidly becoming not the kind of rig I feel comfortable depending on for the health and safety of my family.
Are the shocks any different on the coil sprung suspension?
SkiWill
Well-known member
The subframe lift in theory shouldn't have any impact. It separates the body from the subframe which is where all of the suspension components are mounted. There will be some additional strain on suspension components potentially due to increased leverage of the body, but I would only think this would be an issue if the suspension was bottoming out or the spring rate was being severely stiffened.
From this excellent thread on the Land Rover forums: Shock Failures you can see where the shock mount is hollowed out to allow the wiring to run to provide current to change the viscosity of the fluid in the damper. You can also see where it fails as well as failures of the remote reservoir holding additional fluid in the damper.
It is mentioned in the thread that failures have been observed on stock trucks as well as modified trucks. Obviously JLR will do what they can to deny warranty coverage on the modified trucks. I'm not sure if you'd really have any better luck on a stock truck or not.
Last edited:
SkiWill
Well-known member
Yes. They have solid mounting points as they do not need wiring for adjusting the fluid viscosity in the damper because as seen in the shock failures post: Shock Failures
It should be a more robust system, but currently is not available with all of the off road modes, advanced trailer package, etc. as mentioned above.
SkiWill
Well-known member
I completely agree. I'm not a big fan of the looks of the new Defender, but the interior of my LR4 is extremely useful for hauling people. The new Defender is similar. Now that we have three kids along for adventures I had pretty much narrowed the new vehicles down to the new Defender and Grenadier. Both have advantages and drawbacks with the Land Rover clearly more practical for day to day use, but this may be a deal breaker for me unless it is resolved in the next model year or two. The Grenadier is certainly not the best people hauler, but better than expected. Thanks again for the review and trying out the middle seat in the back at my similar 6' 2" stature!
I can do enough maintenance and maintain confidence in the air suspension on my LR4, but adding this much additional complexity regarding magnetorheological dampers in a first of a kind off road application on a brand new model that essentially has been produced only during COVID disruptions is not something I'm comfortable with. I hope that the Discovery does not become afflicted by this, but given that the technology first debuted on the Evoque and came to the Defender, my guess is that it will be coming across the Land Rover lineup eventually. Clearly it needs to be addressed, and it is disappointing as I was really coming around on the Defender and the option to go for more space with the 130. It could probably be made reliable enough eventually, but I'm definitely not beta testing it with my kids in the middle of nowhere Utah or Wyoming desert with no cell phone service.
Someone would have a video of a fatal accident if it was an old defender. There is zero chance of them living from that given how feeble the upper body structure is on a classic.
the fact it took 6 rolls, a large lamp post and they walked away with minor injuries is a testament to modern car design and how safe the new defender is when you REALLY need to rely on it.
It also nailed the landing as well.
the fact it took 6 rolls, a large lamp post and they walked away with minor injuries is a testament to modern car design and how safe the new defender is when you REALLY need to rely on it.
It also nailed the landing as well.
Highlander
The Strong, Silent Type
No body ever made that claim that the true defender was a safe car. Even the most bonehead fans acknowledge it.
They still could have made a safe relatively simple working truck while retaining it's historical design characteristic.
They chose not to. Blending the Rang Rover style car in that segment was a mistake hence the Grenadier.
Land Rover promised us the return of Sir Sean Connery, but they delivered George Michael.
NorthwestDriver
Active member
Did some off-roading last weekend with a bunch of new 110s, a 90, and several other LR models. The design of the Defender has grown on me a lot in the last year, so I was interested in seeming them up close.
The interiors look good. Having a dog and preschooler, I’m all about easy to clean interiors. The options available on the Defender mean you can have a more utilitarian interior or something more posh, so I appreciate that.
What surprised me is that while the 110s look huge, their interior space is smaller than my LR3. The first two rows of both vehicles are similar, but the cargo space of the 110 is 8” shorter behind the 2nd row. I could have sworn the Defender is longer, but excluding the spare tire, the Defender is 187” long (LR3 is 191”). Eating that cargo space could be tough with the dog and our camping gear, which I religiously keep partitioned from the cabin for safety. The real kicker is the turning circle: 42.9ft for the 110 v. 38.7ft for the LR3. This must be due to the wider track and bigger tires on the 110, but going to a smaller vehicle that’s less maneuverable is a hard sell.
The 90, with a front bench makes a good case against the LR3, so long as the 3 of us remain right sized for a bench seat. Thinking about that brings back fond memories of riding in the center seat of my dad’s old Ford Pickup as kid between him and my mom or older brother. But that doesn’t seem like a good option for more than a few years…
This trip made me appreciate my LR3 all the more. It’s really in a sweet spot between utility, capability, and comfort that is hard to match.
The interiors look good. Having a dog and preschooler, I’m all about easy to clean interiors. The options available on the Defender mean you can have a more utilitarian interior or something more posh, so I appreciate that.
What surprised me is that while the 110s look huge, their interior space is smaller than my LR3. The first two rows of both vehicles are similar, but the cargo space of the 110 is 8” shorter behind the 2nd row. I could have sworn the Defender is longer, but excluding the spare tire, the Defender is 187” long (LR3 is 191”). Eating that cargo space could be tough with the dog and our camping gear, which I religiously keep partitioned from the cabin for safety. The real kicker is the turning circle: 42.9ft for the 110 v. 38.7ft for the LR3. This must be due to the wider track and bigger tires on the 110, but going to a smaller vehicle that’s less maneuverable is a hard sell.
The 90, with a front bench makes a good case against the LR3, so long as the 3 of us remain right sized for a bench seat. Thinking about that brings back fond memories of riding in the center seat of my dad’s old Ford Pickup as kid between him and my mom or older brother. But that doesn’t seem like a good option for more than a few years…
This trip made me appreciate my LR3 all the more. It’s really in a sweet spot between utility, capability, and comfort that is hard to match.
SkiWill
Well-known member
That's pretty much the same conclusion that I came to as well. Hopefully long live my LR4. I wish it was a little less thirsty, but the utility and maneuverability are hard to match.