New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[EricTyrrell]

It's probably just the bushings, not the entire control arm....although Im not an expert with the LR3/4's? A jeeps SA suspension arms probably won't last much longer without getting bushing replaced either.

It doesn't have to be mentioned because it's a straw man that does not practically limit a vehicles reliability.

Being DIY friendly is absolutely a concern, but it is on most any new vehicle and is a totally different point. If that's what you want, you need to step back to the 50's....those are much simpler than even a 1990's Defender. I'd agree that I think the 90's rigs, in general, hit the sweet spot between user serviceability and technical advancement, but for most folks that take stuff into a dealer, myself included, I don't care.

Again, Toyota deemed it appropriate for many of the HD landcruisers.....front IFS is much more complex that rear IFS....

It's the whole control arm because the bushing replacement typically labor costs more than the arms, but that's also typical of many repair jobs these days.

I just recently rebuilt front driver side end of a SuperDuty axle. The solid axle made it a relatively simple and enjoyable process.

There are so many 70 series variations it's hard to keep track. I wouldn't be surprised if the later generation Prado went IFS, being it was also coil sprung, unlike its HD variants.

 

[Pilat]

OT, I'm out for the day. It was great today!

Oh, and solid axles suck!

 

[EricTyrrell]

Not really. Not when it comes to the physics of it. Find me some examples of solid axle (on the front) cars currently in production. 10 should do.

There is a reason you can't find them, even though a solid axle front is much, much simpler, and much, much cheaper - especially if you make it out of cast iron.

I am only asking you to give me a list of 10 cars. Solid axles are cheaper, so there should be plenty of examples out there.

There aren't any. Engineers did their jobs well. They understand the ratio between unsprung-weight and overall vehicle weight; very different on cars, where the effects are greatly magnified. They also understand that axle articulation is unimportant in the application, that NVH and handling are more important to the segment, that the towing and payload requirements are low, and that the expense of IFS/IRS is less significant with the aforementioned considerations.

 

[EricTyrrell]

I think the advantages of disc brakes outweigh its shortcomings (getting wet, for instance).

Agreed. However, context is important, and I'm sure there's some context out there where those damn dinosaur drums are appropriate; probably on vehicles which I'm not familiar. It's a minor point, but I'm getting to something larger here..

Just like the advantages of IS outweighs its shortcomings (not easily lifted etc.). The shortcomings of solid axles - especially at the front isn't outweighed by the positives (simple, easily lifted).

I conditionally agree. Conditionally because of lack of context. The context being the vehicle in question and its design intentions. IS certainly "outweighs its shortcomings" in many vehicles, but you seem to be of the opinion that context doesn't matter, that IS is universally superior. I can't agree there.

Edit: I noticed your focus on the physics. Physics are important, but not the only consideration. When considering them, they also depend upon context, which we've gone back and forth about with regard to speed and ratio to vehicle weight.

 

[EricTyrrell]

It also introduces complexity.....

That's OK in this case. If your sway quick-disconnect stops functioning, you're not SOL. I've said it before; where the vehicle's reliability to get you home isn't on the line, go wild with tech, but make it optional (much of it is anyways)! If it's a Range Rover, go wild with tech everywhere!, because in that case, the expectations and assumed risks (context) are completely different.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Yeah, "cross-axle scenarios" and "tip over the threshold" is not "slow as molasses speeds.

Btw, I forgot to adress this:


You're being dishonest again. I never said they had to be restricted. You once again made that up. I said that IS has more constant grip and therefore better handling than solid axles. Mostly due to less unspring weight. And it's NOT just offroad. It also works onroad. Who would have thought that physics applied both places? Amazing, isn't it?
And as for the slow-as-mollasses comment from me. If you go slow enough, the suspension has time to allow traction at all times. Even small bumbs, and even on asphalt/bitumen the same thing applies (Physics, baby!). There's a reason most cars went with it in the front several decades ago - fast and slow cars alike. Now, the same advantage is there in the rear, although it is not quite as pronounced there due to those wheels not steering.

I have a solid understanding the physics involved. All that you've stated is true. We could have a good time discussing the benefits that IS gives track, street, and luxury focused cars.

You seem to recognize the importance of articulation and contact pressure, if only at low speeds.

You know I already am of the opinion that this highly utilitarian vehicle should have been designed around solid axles, just as many other highly utilitarian vehicles are and will likely continue to be. However, I would like to have seen them address the unsprung-weight and NVH issues of solid axles. They partially did it before with the P38's composite control arms and they could have taken it further. We'd have the best of both options, and it would be a lot simpler than making IS emulating a solid axle with sensors, valves, ECUs, wiring, tubing, and air bags. You'd a relatively simple solution that's genuine to what the Defender name has always meant, or in other words, its market niche.

 

[mpinco]

IS with cross-link is genius, but it's not a complete emulation, and it really sucks when it fails, especially when off-road.

Yup, emulation to approximate. When it fails, especially with larger tires which is THE most common initial mod, IS sucks and will likely cause body damage.

 

[Peter_n_Margaret]

Still waiting for somebody to chime in with where they can't go with a modern rover.

The Simpson Desert in Australia is 700km+ via about 1100 sand dunes. At the western end is a pub and workshop that fixes some of the ones which break on the way. Some years ago, that workshop declared that the Range Rover was not a suitable vehicle to drive across the Simpson.
I understand that they can and do drive across, but the choice of wheels and tyres that are available do immeasurable damage to the track. This has subsequently become a serious problem with some other modern 4WDs.
https://youtu.be/tVjhkj6Sm8Q
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

 

[mpinco]

.......Some years ago, that workshop declared that the Range Rover was not a suitable vehicle to drive across the Simpson.
I understand that they can and do drive across, but the choice of wheels and tyres that are available do immeasurable damage to the track.......

What is the issue? Width or TC?

 

[Peter_n_Margaret]

What is the issue? Width or TC?

Tyre profile provided insufficient flotation in sand.
The new Defender would be better with higher profile 16" tyres than the 18" supplied.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

 

[mpinco]

Tyre profile provided insufficient flotation in sand.
The new Defender would be better with higher profile 16" tyres than the 18" supplied.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

Interesting. I have similar concerns with TC.

 

[REDROVER]

There is about negative 30% chance that new doscofender or kiafender will go in history as a great adventure or 4x4 vehicle,
Or to even think it will become a vehicle that someone will approach and talk to when at gas station unlike the old Land Rover defender.
Since it’s hate and rage topic
I can confidently say it’s a another Land Rover junk product,
I can’t wait to trade iPhone 13 to one of those.

Land Rover itself gives u clues by where thy are having it displayed or driven, Coachella.
Those kids lease and trash vehicles every 2 years.

 

[EricTyrrell]

The Simpson Desert in Australia is 700km+ via about 1100 sand dunes. At the western end is a pub and workshop that fixes some of the ones which break on the way. Some years ago, that workshop declared that the Range Rover was not a suitable vehicle to drive across the Simpson.
I understand that they can and do drive across, but the choice of wheels and tyres that are available do immeasurable damage to the track. This has subsequently become a serious problem with some other modern 4WDs.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

How about this one.. an Overland Experts trainer commenting on new “Land Rovers”

A stock LR3/4 and Range Rover are absolutely useless off-road once you introduce some rain in a mildly muddy, flat fields. Introduce some "obstacles" and you have a ******** show. When I facilitated the LR dealer events, the stock trucks with street tires were hard pressed to get very far. On a dry day the "aid" devices worked their magic and all that. But a slightly modified D1/D2/RRC would do far better then a bone stock late model truck in wet terrain. I don't miss doing those events. It was a lot of work to get those stock late model trucks through the course without any damage - let alone just down the trail.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Lol @ comment rage on LR Facebook posts lately

 

[Peter_n_Margaret]

The point being is that the design decisions in regard to the new Defender wheels and tyres show a clear bias AGAINST creating the best off road vehicle that they could achieve, and with little, if any significant benefit elsewhere.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome