New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[Blaise]

I agree. However, the issue is that the luxury Defender, by definition is an oxymoron.

How would you compare a YJ to a JL in terms of luxury?

I don't think it's far from the last Defender vs 2020.

 

[mpinco]

Seems people like to highlight the extreme to make their point vs acknowleging the realities. Road 21 has both easy and hard, on the same stretch. Pick what you want. Interstatephobia was an example. Sure you can drive a civic down most roads, maybe even road 21. Subaru's are very capable on many roads. Why do you need a Jeep or a Land Rover? You sure don't need a old or new Defender. As I highlighted pages back the dealer sponsored weekend event which was attended by a variety of LR's and a variety of driver capabilities and was 'easy'. We all stopped for a break and there was a hill of broken down granite/shale that many attempted. The open diff's/locked center failed early. The TC equiped with locked center diff went further up but failed. The old school defender with front and rear lockers walked right up. Was that 'rock climbing'? Hell no. Not even close. It was a simple demonstration of the capabilities and limitations of the various 4WD systems. Did all drivers benefit? Sure they did. They learned the limitations of their vehicles such that they were better equipped to make a choice in the future. Did a group of Jeeps later tackle the same hill? I'm sure they did. Were the take-aways the same? I'm sure they were. Did some of the Jeep owners then retrofit some ARB lockers as part of their hobby? Well again, I'm sure a percent did. Can a LR owner retrofit lockers to their new LR's? Ah, well no. And that is fine as long as they realize the limitations and choose accordingly.

It really is simple.

 

[Pilat]

I agree. However, the issue is that the luxury Defender, by definition is an oxymoron.

You realise that term is entirely made up by you and others who do not like the new Defender, right?

It isn't actually called "Luxury Defender".

It's a modern off road vehicle taking advantage of modern tech.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Yeah, you lost me when you tried to claim the Defender wasn't a pickup and therefore bad. Now, you add that a pickup or utilitarian SUV using old tech and old production methods (remember, you used to bring forth the Wrangler as a great of this), is somehow "better built".

Here's an example.. While the YJ and Defender co-existed and appeared very similar in form and function, the Defender frame and axles were stronger, allowing higher towing and payload capacity as well as increased work-horse durability.
Another... The TJ moved to a very similar suspension design with coils springs and control arms, however a quick examination would reveal the Defender's forged control arms were vastly more durable.

Yes, if you mod it for obstacle courses. Going down a path fast? Not so much. Doing anything above crawling speeds - even on a dry, flat dirt road, and the solid axles is detrimental to the handling (loads and loads of unsprung weight).

No, going anywhere, at a reasonable pace. Fast isn't the purpose. What you looking for is a Ford Raptor.

But, yeah, if you want a toy you can trailer to various places and have fun, it's great. But in that case (and in these times), I think I'd prefer an electric (yes!) trials bike.

The stock D1, D2, and certainly the P38 with it's innovations such as fiber-composite control arms, had a very comfortable ride and were not toys.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

This is like watching a literary game of ping pong.

 

[Pilat]

Here's an example.. While the YJ and Defender co-existed and appeared very similar in form and function, the Defender frame and axles were stronger, allowing higher towing and payload capacity as well as increased work-horse durability.
Another... The TJ moved to a very similar suspension design with coils springs and control arms, however a quick examination would reveal the Defender's forged control arms were vastly more durable.

And, yet, the new one without solid axles can tow and carry more than the old Defender. And a hell of a lot more than the "towable" Wrangler.

No, going anywhere, at a reasonable pace. Fast isn't the purpose. What you looking for is a Ford Raptor.

I said "faster". If I wanted to go really fast, an actual rally car would be faster than the Raptor. And it would be s... at rock crawling.

The stock D1, D2, and certainly the P38 with it's innovations such as fiber-composite control arms, had a very comfortable ride and were not toys.

I did say Wrangler. But whatever.
Again, the series 1 Land Rover was also capable. For its time. Time changes and technology makes for more capability.
Seriously, this has become a joke. You guys (well, mPinco even more) are all over the place with your arguments. You want modern. But you want everything done as in the old days. You want a rock crawler and an easily modified vehicle because that will apparently sell. Yet, it didn't when LR stopped production of the old one. You claim you don't care about image, while you talk about the people who you see drive a certain vehicle as if that's a bad thing, and on and on.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Yes, I get it. You want it to "be different" than modern vehicles. You want it to be a Wrangler, using old tech, old engineering, old everything. You don't want it to take advantage of modern anything. All so it can "differentiate" itself. Not because it would make it a more capable vehicle, but so it can be "different".

You don't seem to get it. Try asking yourself why the vast majority of utilitarian vehicles use some combination of leaf springs, coil springs, solid axles, airbags as helpers, and/or body-on-frame construction? Because they work, engineers know they work, and buyers know they work. Then, doesn't that make them modern, or at least contemporary, being so common among brand new vehicles? They don't have to be used. A Range Rover probably shouldn't since it strives for a different compromise, but they have strengths along with weaknesses, just like other tech.

Of course it is not always necessary. But you're using rock crawling arguments, so I gave a response to that. And, yes, anyone can modify their toy vehicle as they see fit (unless you actually want to legally use it on the road, going places. If so, most places have rules on how much you can modify and what). That is not the point. You can still have and modify your wrangler. Hell, you can buy an old Defender and do the same.

Just stop conflating rock crawling with "offroad". Although Offroad includes Rock Crawling (barely - it's more a closed obstacle course), Rock Crawling does not mean that nothing else is "off road".

I never mentioned rock-crawling. You stated the Defender was surpassed in capability, so which competitor surpassed it? Regardless of terrain, the only competitor I consider to have surpassed it was the JK and JL, but you seem to consider Wrangler a synonym for rock-crawling. Other models made strides, but are either out of production or were turned into cross-overs.

 

[Pilat]

You don't seem to get it. Try asking yourself why the vast majority of utilitarian vehicles use some combination of leaf springs, coil springs, solid axles, airbags as helpers, and/or body-on-frame construction? Because they work, engineers know they work, and buyers know they work. Then, doesn't that make them modern, or at least contemporary, being so common among brand new vehicles? They don't have to be used. A Range Rover probably shouldn't since it strives for a different compromise, but they have strengths along with weaknesses, just like other tech.

Because it's the cheapest way to add strength. And a lorry (or tractor truck for you Americans) receives very little benefit from removing unsprung weight.

I never mentioned rock-crawling. You stated the Defender was surpassed in capability, so which competitor surpassed it?

Almost any of LRs more modern offerings.

Regardless of terrain, the only competitor I consider to have surpassed it was the JK and JL, but you seem to consider Wrangler a synonym for rock-crawling. Other models made strides, but are either out of production or were turned into cross-overs.

You really shouldn't accuse others of "not getting it". I specifically talked about being surpassed "by technology", and I mentioned how the new Defender is once again the best offroader LR can build.
Those JK and JL jeeps, I don't know if they are better than the old Defender. I really don't care, and that wasn't what I was saying. It's like asking me about two century old bicycles about which is better, when you can buy something even two decades old that are vastly better in every measurable way.

 

[EricTyrrell]

And, yet, the new one without solid axles can tow and carry more than the old Defender. And a hell of a lot more than the "towable" Wrangler.



I said "faster". If I wanted to go really fast, an actual rally car would be faster than the Raptor. And it would be s... at rock crawling.



I did say Wrangler. But whatever.
Again, the series 1 Land Rover was also capable. For its time. Time changes and technology makes for more capability.
Seriously, this has become a joke. You guys (well, mPinco even more) are all over the place with your arguments. You want modern. But you want everything done as in the old days. You want a rock crawler and an easily modified vehicle because that will apparently sell. Yet, it didn't when LR stopped production of the old one. You claim you don't care about image, while you talk about the people who you see drive a certain vehicle as if that's a bad thing, and on and on.

Yes, this discussion is fractured. Let's refocus. Solid axles and IS can both be engineered to carry any amount of payload, but with different compromises involved. The Defender, by definition (which we should understand by now) is supposed to choose the contemporary, simple, easily maintained, familiar, economical option which is solid axles, just like nearly every other brand new utility vehicle. There is going to be some compromise in high-speed handling and comfort, but that's the compromise one makes when purchasing a utility vehicle, and people are doing it more now than ever. You may claim that a different set of compromises could be made that include comfort, but cost and complexity are the flip-side of the compromise coin. Those are not the correct choice for the Defender. They are correct for other vehicles.

 

[Blaise]

The Defender, by definition (which we should understand by now) is supposed to

Nope, there is no such definition. This is just as made up as the Luxury-Defender moniker.

And since when is independent suspension contemporary? The wrangler is the only vehicle left with solid axles on both ends.

 

[Pilat]

The Defender, by definition (which we should understand by now) is supposed to choose the contemporary, simple, easily maintained, familiar, economical option which is solid axles, just like nearly every other brand new utility vehicle.

No, that's the frigging point! To me, the Defender is supposed to be "the most capable offroader (and onroad, because I have to be able to drive it) LR can build". It doesn't matter how they get there. But independent suspension shouldn't be controversial. It's a proven fact that at anything other than slow-as-mollasses speeds, more unsprung weight means less grip and poorer handling. It is not that difficult to comprehend.

 

[EricTyrrell]

To me, the Defender is supposed to be "the most capable offroader (and onroad, because I have to be able to drive it) LR can build". It doesn't matter how they get there.

It does matter. It can be accomplished in many ways and all of them have consequences to the buyer, and are either fitting to purpose, or not.

But independent suspension shouldn't be controversial. It's a proven fact that at anything other than slow-as-mollasses speeds more unsprung weight means less grip and poorer handling. It is not that difficult to comprehend.

It's not controversial. It's either the correct compromise, that matches the vehicle's purpose, or it's not.

As slow as possible, as fast as necessary. Off-road speeds that necessitate IS are very rare, and that threshold where it's necessary is much higher than molasses.

 

[Pilat]

It does matter. It can be accomplished in many ways and all of them have consequences to the buyer, and are either fitting to purpose, or not.

No it doesn't. It only matters to people who make up weird "definitions" due to nostalgia.

It's not controversial. It's either the correct compromise, that matches the vehicle's purpose, or it's not.

As most people travel at more than crawling speeds, independent suspension IS the right choice.

As slow as possible, as fast as necessary. Off-road speeds that necessitate IS are very rare, and that threshold where it's necessary is much higher than molasses.

Any other motivational poster insights you'd like to share?
No, it is not "rare". Look up "unsprung" weight. You don't have to be racing or have your foot down to get better grip by independent suspension. Seriously, you need to stop making up a reality that doesn't exist. Not only the "definition" of a Defender, or the "Luxury Defender" monicker, now you also make unsubstantiated claims that you don't get more grip by independent suspension unless you go really fast. Seriously, that is so out of touch with reality it is unbelievable.

 

[TrekkerOutdoors]

As most people travel at more than crawling speeds, independent suspension IS the right choice.

This is an Overlanding forum after all, not rock crawling. We've all got places to go and lots of gear to bring with us.

 

[Blaise]

I passed a lot of Jeeps on the alpine loop. They were doing 5mph and looked like they were being thrown around quite a bit.

N=1 but it happened every day for days on end in that area... and as far as slow/fast driving goes, 99% of our driving is on pavement, no matter how hardcore you are. Cmon.