New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[EricTyrrell]

1. Again, what are you basing this on? The Defender is not available yet. I regularly go WAY outside of any repair center range and I'm not anxious.
2. Because the LR is more comfortable? That's why I drive an LR3 instead of a wrangler or T4R, etc. It's nice to be comfortable when doing many miles in the car, off road or not. IFS/IRS and EAS is a wonderful thing!

It's funny how I asked a dozen times for any place you can't drive a stock modern rover in America, and the only answers besides Australia (heh) and a buggy trail in CO has been 'well, well, well, it'll just break down!'

Just admit you're addicted to excess. And excess is fine - but I'm not going to compromise ride quality and comfort for capability I will never use. I think a large portion of people on these boards with heavily modified vehicles are doing so with the fantasy of finding a place they'll actually need it. That's why I when I took a year to drive around North America I got myself a nice lifted Xterra Pro-4X with sliders, 33s", etc.... and DIDN'T NEED IT. I learned my lesson. We are 1000x happier in the more comfortable vehicle.

Since your LR3 (and my old LR3, when it worked) is apparently more capable than my current stock F150 and D90, doesn't that make you the one "addicted to excess"? Take a P38 down a trail, since you seem to have a high risk tolerance for unreliable vehicles; your sensitive body will be just fine,

 

[Blaise]

1. I'm basing it on what any non-delusioned person understand about Land Rovers, and which has been reflected in their resale values, online reviews, personal anecdotes, data, etc since, well as long as memory serves.

2. Stock coil LRs have very comfortable rides, until some ************** swaps in XHD springs. The P38, where LR actually put an ounce of development into solid axles, rode absolutely wonderfully. Solid axles don't have to ride terribly. If LR can make IS emulate a solid axle, an impressive and sophisticated feat, they can figure out how to make a solid axle behave.

1. I've put 25k miles on my rover. I love the low resale value. I couldn't even get a 1998 4runner for what I paid for my LR3. It's broken down exactly zero times. Keep reading the stories, I'm loving the resale value that scares people away.
2. Agreed, dumb to do coil swaps. But I don't understand your obsession with solid axles. Do you just want to see that its solid? It's certainly not a problem with articulation. The LR3 (and defender from what I understand) have 10" of front and 13" of rear travel. Do you have any background in engineering or vehicle dynamics? You may be mislead on why these decisions were made. I personally would be estatic to see an EAS fully independent long travel setup with Magneride...

 

[Blaise]

Since your LR3 (and my old LR3, when it worked) is apparently more capable than my current stock F150 and D90, doesn't that make you the one "addicted to excess"? Take a P38 down a trail, since you seem to have a high risk tolerance for unreliable vehicles; your sensitive body will be just fine,

Nope, because I use the comfort and space. I don't have excess capability that isn't utilized.

I'm all for debate but please refrain from personal attacks about anyone's body.

I'm assuming you're not an engineer, so if you want help understanding the compromises related to design and ride quality for solid axles... I can help. If you want it.

 

[EricTyrrell]

You're basing it on a really poor understanding of suspension you seem to have gleamed from similarly ill-informed people on rock crawling forums.

Tell that to all the solid-axle vehicles currently overlanding the world. I imagine they'd just ignore you and keep moving on.

 

[Pilat]

Tell that to all the solid-axle vehicles currently overlanding the world. I imagine they'd just ignore you and keep moving on.

Again displaying your ignorance. How many of them have solid axle fronts?
Most don't have IS at the back because it is cheaper and the disadvantages aren't as pronounced back there.

 

[Blaise]

Nothing wrong with all the legacy overland vehicles using solid axles, carburetors, or any other old technology.

Nothing wrong with new vehicles with improved designs either.

Lotta hate man. Lots and lots of hate.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Nope, because I use the comfort and space. I don't have excess capability that isn't utilized.

I'm all for debate but please refrain from personal attacks about anyone's body.

I'm assuming you're not an engineer, so if you want help understanding the compromises related to design and ride quality for solid axles... I can help. If you want it.

Get a 4Runner, they're just as ugly, but at least they wont leave you stranded when your luck runs out. I thought the resale values were great too, and that everyone was wrong, until it wasn't, and they were right.

You brought up your sensitivity.

Wax on about unsprung weight, bump-steer, harmonics, etc all you want. The disadvantages don't outweigh their advantages in a highly utilitarian vehicle, which is why they're used in front and rear applications in such vehicles. They matter in a Range Rover. A Defender isn't a Range Rover, it's the exact opposite.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Again displaying your ignorance. How many of them have solid axle fronts?

Hold on. Let me count..

Most don't have IS at the back because it is cheaper and the disadvantages aren't as pronounced back there.

Sound like you're almost thinking like a Defender designer that understands its niche.

 

[Pilat]

Making up new definitions and categories again. What about those pesky pneumatic tyres?

 

[Pilat]

Hold on. Let me count..

Yes, please do. Tractors (as in lorries) doesn't count.

Sound like you're almost thinking like a Defender designer that understands its niche.

I understand the advantages of IS and how it is important - especially at the front. Hence both cheap, cheap cars and über luxury cars using it.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Making up new definitions and categories again. What about those pesky pneumatic tyres?

How am I making up what was established and understood for decades? How would you describe the Defender? What is it, at its core? What function did it serve or mean for people?

Yes, I was going to bring up those tires. They must really bother you, being ancient tech. There's no way to further refine them. Let's dump them whole-sale and switch all tires and bushings to polyurethane (please don't). It's newer.

 

[Blaise]

A similar model year 4runner costs 3x in my market.

You know what I did recently with my friend who bought one? Helped him rebuild his rear axle.

We took my Rover to the parts store when we needed extra tools or parts. We joked about it.

disadvantages don't outweigh their advantages

I'd love to see you in a technical review board meeting with this kind of logic. You can't just repeat yourself over and over to convince yourself of being right.

 

[EricTyrrell]

I understand the advantages of IS and how it is important - especially at the front. Hence both cheap, cheap cars and über luxury cars using it.

You do seem to understand IS, but you can't seem to understand when to use it.

 

[Pilat]

How am I making up what was established and understood for decades? How would you describe the Defender? What is it, at its core? What function did it serve or mean for people?

You define the Land Rover based on your ignorance about suspension, technology, materials, and engineering. And then you use that ignorance to make the argument.

Yes, I was going to bring up those tires. They must really bother you, being ancient tech. There's no way to further refine them. Let's dump them whole-sale and switch all tires and bushings to polyurethane (please don't). It's newer.

Once again showing your ignorance: Pneumatic tyres came after solid tyres. And the first pneumatic tyres were tubed, whereafter the tubeles showed up. You say the following, not realising you're showing your ignorance again:

"There's no way to further refine them"

But you think your solid axles both front and rear cannot be improved upon and that going IS is somehow not better. IS is not new tech at all, but to someone who thinks that technology, materials, and engineering doesn't progress, and who denies even reading a short intro to the disadvantages and advantages of solid axle vs IS, it is once again evident you have no interest in learning anything.

 

[EricTyrrell]

A similar model year 4runner costs 3x in my market.

You know what I did recently with my friend who bought one? Helped him rebuild his rear axle.

We took my Rover to the parts store when we needed extra tools or parts. We joked about it.

I'd love to see you in a technical review board meeting with this kind of logic. You can't just repeat yourself over and over to convince yourself of being right.

I'm guessing the 4Runner has lived a longer life than your LR3.

I'd like to see you in a review board with your single (flawed) data-point presentations.

I don't have to repeat myself. The industry (engineers) keep repeating their use of solid front axles, when appropriate, for me.

You and Pilat have this tool IS, as if it's a hammer, and everywhere you look you see nails. Whereas I have explained countless time where the nails reside, and where they don't.