New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[Todd780]

Frankly, a Defender doesn't need to look like anything. A Defender needs to PERFORM. In that regard, the new Defender is a Defender. If you're concerned about the appearance and believe that this car shouldn't exist then you've missed the entire point of the Defender's existence. It's a tool first, fashion statement last.

Okay, but in that regard a Porsche 911 is built to perform. If the next 911 was turned into a mid-engine Ferrari looking thing, I'm guessing the 911 fans would be upset. Even if the new car out performed the old. They'd say...hey. It's a great car. But, call it a... Carrera GT or something. Not a 911. I think that is the same sentiment a lot of folk have with the new Defender.

 

[mpinco]

Disagree. This is nowhere near as radical as what occurred with the Pathfinder. The Pathfinder went from being a RWD based body-on-frame design to a FWD based unibody construction with zero capability. Again, stock for stock, a new Defender will walk all over the old one in terms of sheer capability. You talk a whole lot about character, but you fail to recognize that the character of the Defender is secondary to the primary purpose. The Defender was never meant to be a design statement; it merely became one over time. You're feeding into the stigma that a Defender needs to look a certain way. Frankly, a Defender doesn't need to look like anything. A Defender needs to PERFORM. In that regard, the new Defender is a Defender. If you're concerned about the appearance and believe that this car shouldn't exist then you've missed the entire point of the Defender's existence. It's a tool first, fashion statement last.

You also fell into a trap. How is it a perfect Defender if it is not utilitarian and cannot be field repairable, relying on SOTA for 'field' when there is spotty to no cell service? The new Defender is highly dependent on urban communications infrastructure. The new Defender is like my nephew who came to Colorado and then complained that his cell phone no longer worked in the high country and had to return by the same highway that took him to his pre-booked 'excursion', not able to read a paper map. When he asked "What should I do?" I told him to take his cell phone and toss it in the back seat and learn how to read. Is that why Home Depot realized the younger generation didn't know tools and started a Saturday morning 'Learn to use a hammer' class?

Oh, and let's stop the comparison to the old Defender that had ZERO investment since basically 1983 ................ Most of today's SUV's could follow the old Defender down 90% of trails.

 

[Pilat]

If you want "utilitarian" over "capability" you can get a used old one. Or get the Wrangler. Or just about any old-school pickup. I think that the new Defender is way more utilitarian than people give it credit for. And, just as you know, people in Europe aren't allowed to ride around on the road with ultra high lifts and huge wheels and that sort of shenanigans. It's something I don't mind, as it makes for safer roads for everyone.
I am not sure what it is about the old one that makes it more "utilitarian" apart from the above two things. How many modified their old Defenders to make them different? A little lift, bigger tyres, and that ************ looking diamond plate people of a certain persuasion tended to plaster them in?
What else made the old one more "utilitarian"? No-one actually hosed them out (it would quickly rust away if you did that), and the new one is also available with plastic mats.

What exactly made the old more "utilitarian"? The almost non-functioning tail lights?

 

[Pilat]

Oh, and let's stop the comparison to the old Defender that had ZERO investment since basically 1983 ................ Most of today's SUV's could follow the old Defender down 90% of trails.

Yes, you're right!.(not sarcasm!). Most of todays SUVs could follow the old Defender down 90% of trails. Absolutely right. And they can do this because technology and materials have advanced. This new one makes use of that technological advance to make the most of it. The old one got left behind decades ago.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Disagree. This is nowhere near as radical as what occurred with the Pathfinder. The Pathfinder went from being a RWD based body-on-frame design to a FWD based unibody construction with zero capability. Again, stock for stock, a new Defender will walk all over the old one in terms of sheer capability. You talk a whole lot about character, but you fail to recognize that the character of the Defender is secondary to the primary purpose. The Defender was never meant to be a design statement; it merely became one over time. You're feeding into the stigma that a Defender needs to look a certain way. Frankly, a Defender doesn't need to look like anything. A Defender needs to PERFORM. In that regard, the new Defender is a Defender. If you're concerned about the appearance and believe that this car shouldn't exist then you've missed the entire point of the Defender's existence. It's a tool first, fashion statement last.

Sure, let's set aside character and appearance, even though many people prefer to enjoy their vehicle too. The luxury Defender is not a tool, unless your Makita comes in an Urban pack. Visit a few construction sites. The people buying "tool" vehicles are buying trucks, utility vans, Jeeps, and UTVs with various implements. These are tools:

 

[EricTyrrell]

If you want "utilitarian" over "capability" you can get a used old one. Or get the Wrangler.

What do you get if you want "utilitarian" and "capability", but not a crappy Chrysler toy?

 

[Pilat]

What do you get if you want "utilitarian" and "capability", but not a ************ Chrysler product?

Well, if you do, you need to embrace the advancement of technology. As mPinco said, most modern SUVs can follow down 90 % of the trails of the old defender. It doesn't take much to outdo it with modern tech (including suspension etc.).
But if you think that you can somehow match that with solid axles - even on the front - yeah, not many choices out there for that particular kind of retro grouch solution.

 

[mpinco]

Yes, you're right!.(not sarcasm!). Most of todays SUVs could follow the old Defender down 90% of trails. Absolutely right. And they can do this because technology and materials have advanced. This new one makes use of that technological advance to make the most of it. The old one got left behind decades ago.

That's 7 five-year development cycles that were neglected by LR. Not missed, neglected. That's 7 Defender models not realized. That's 7 Defender generations that likely could have evolved and continued to be marketed worldwide, to include the US.

I would also say that a majority of today's SUV's could follow the new modernist Defender down 90% of trails. Most would have "traction control", AWD/4WD, sufficient ground clearance, maybe even air suspension, etc. Some would be IS, some solid axle. Nearly all would be running infotainment/engine management by QNX.

Getting really hard to differentiate in today's market. Geesh, I wonder what that LR Defender differentiator list might look like compared to today's 'commodity' SUV?

/S

 

[Pilat]

Sure, let's set aside character and appearance, even though many people prefer to enjoy their vehicle too. The luxury Defender is not a tool, unless your Makita comes in an Urban pack. Visit a few construction sites. The people buying "tool" vehicles are buying trucks, utility vans, Jeeps, and UTVs with various implements. These are tools:

Big trucks, Vans, military vehicles being dropped by helicopters, and UTVs. Eyah, those things really show that the Defender can't be much use as a tool, doesn't it?

There are many kinds of tools. Even evidenced by your collage of vehicles.
If you want it to be a van, you might want a van. Nothing matters if it's a military vehicle. And I'm pretty sure you can helicopter the new Defender too if so inclined. If you want that heavy duty truck (a dually, I think) with a steel frame, you get that dually, and on and on.

However, you also show a toyota land cruiser (I think) - the top left one parked on a field. I don't know what you mean by that? That the New Defender can't be parked in a field?

 

[EricTyrrell]

Yes, you're right!.(not sarcasm!). Most of todays SUVs could follow the old Defender down 90% of trails. Absolutely right.

Yes, most any vehicle can drive down a dirt road. How are you going to get today's softroaders down a real trail?

And they can do this because technology and materials have advanced.

Hmm..

 

[Pilat]

That's 7 five-year development cycles that were neglected by LR. Not missed, neglected. That's 7 Defender models not realized. That's 7 Defender generations that likely could have evolved and continued to be marketed worldwide, to include the US.

A) Yes it is 7 five-year dev cycles. That means it fell behind their other offeringsquite quickly. As I said, solid axles and so on left it behind LRs more modern offerings.
B) You should be pleased it is finally here - finally up to modern standards, outperforming LRs other offerings. Seriously, though, the reason I mention the old one is that most of the new-defender detractors do that comparison in that they want it to be more like the old one. Personally, I am glad there is once again an offroader that outperforms Land Rover's other offerings. It's doing it's name proud.

[EDITt]
Around the same time the Old Defender was more or less abandoned, IS front and back began to become much more prevalent. I don't think that is a coincidence.
[/EDIT]

I would also say that a majority of today's SUV's could follow the new modernist Defender down 90% of trails.

I agree. I have not only mentioned this a couple of times, I even referred to it in another post.

Most would have "traction control", AWD/4WD, sufficient ground clearance, maybe even air suspension, etc. Some would be IS, some solid axle. Nearly all would be running infotainment/engine management by QNX.

Yup. And the new Defender will be even better than those SUVs. And much, much, much better than the old one.

 

[Blaise]

Sure, let's set aside character and appearance, even though many people prefer to enjoy their vehicle too. The luxury Defender is not a tool, unless your Makita comes in an Urban pack. Visit a few construction sites. The people buying "tool" vehicles are buying trucks, utility vans, Jeeps, and UTVs with various implements. These are tools:

HOW DARE YOU POST A UNIBODY, FRONT WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE AMONGST TRUCKS?!?!?!?!?!?!?


Oh - right. Things progress.

 

[Pilat]

Yes, most any vehicle can drive down a dirt road. How are you going to get today's softroaders down a real trail?



Hmm..

LOL; and we're back to attempted rock crawling. Frigging hilarious.

 

[EricTyrrell]

HOW DARE YOU POST A UNIBODY, FRONT WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE AMONGST TRUCKS?!?!?!?!?!?!?


Oh - right. Things progress.

You might want to lookup a RAM 3500.

 

[Blaise]

^ That's a unibody Fiat Ducato. Sold as RAM promaster, and it is a front wheel drive, unibody vehicle. It's everything everyone here is arguing against - "tradition"

cannot be field repairable, relying on SOTA for 'field' when there is spotty to no cell service? The new Defender is highly dependent on urban communications infrastructure.

Why do people keep misunderstanding this? Being able to update modules over the air in no way means you can't repair your car if you're out of service.

You guys own smartphones right? If you go out of service, your phone doesn't cease to operate (from a local perspective). You just can't download new software to it...