New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[lumpskie]

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?

Are you saying that lifts and larger tires make a vehicle categorically less safe?

Are you saying that the "utilitarian" Wrangler has less "capability" than the new defender?

 

[Pilat]

Are you saying that lifts and larger tires make a vehicle categorically less safe?

It increases braking distance and lifts the centre of gravity, as well as changing the steering geometry. You be the judge.

Are you saying that the "utilitarian" Wrangler has less "capability" than the new defender?

Yes, at any speeds over crawling (as in rock crawling) as it has solid axles. It also can't tow or carry anywhere near the Defender.

Edit: There's a reason independent front suspension was invented in 1922 and becoming common in cars about ten years later.

 

[Todd780]

The next one very well may be electric. And all 911s are turbos, but the Turbo is still the Pinnacle of automotive performance. Oh, and remember when they went to a liquid-cooled engine?

The new 911, side by side, looks nothing like the original, except in a vague line drawing profile.

You all are arguing that the 911 should still look exactly like it did in 1963.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

Not exactly. But a strong resemblance. The way a Wrangler is easily identifiable, G-wagon, Fiat 500, VW Beetle, The 911, the Challenger to name a couple off the top of my head.
A couple automotive designs are iconic. I think the design of the Defender is iconic as well. I think they just ventured a little too far away from the original for my liking. Just my 2 cents.

 

[lumpskie]

It increases braking distance and lifts the centre of gravity. You be the judge.


Yes, at any speeds over crawling (as in rock crawling) as it has solid axles. It also can't tow or carry anywhere near the Defender.

Edit: There's a reason independent front suspension was invented in 1922 and becoming common in cars about ten years later.

Sweeping statements don't due this kind of subject justice.

1. Brakes are commonly (and easily) modified to accompanies larger tires. Larger tires do not make a vehicle categorically more unsafe than smaller tires. (this is why the new defender, JL and JT have larger tires than predecessor vehicles)

2. There is a reason that independent front suspension was invented... on-road handling. Offroad, it has a long history of catastrophic failures both in the axles (due to the angles that IFS must operate at) as well as differentials (which are typically smaller than a solid axle differential. Beyond that, independant suspension (in the form seen for production vehicles) lack the articulation of the solid axle. This is a deficiency when navigating large obstacles or low traction obstacles... in addition to high speed undulating terrain. A standard arm IFS will suffer from either having a stiff suspension or bottoming out when driving at speed because it lacks the travel that the solid axle has. It's the simple physics of the acceleration and distance.

 

[mpinco]

Not exactly. But a strong resemblance. The way a Wrangler is easily identifiable, G-wagon, Fiat 500, VW Beetle, The 911, the Challenger to name a couple off the top of my head.
A couple automotive designs are iconic. I think the design of the Defender is iconic as well. I think they just ventured a little too far away from the original for my liking. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed. Gerry McGovern's design language is lost in a sea of SUV's, all looking virtually the same. My conversation with the local dealer was that they all look the same now, just different sizes of the same. There was a time you would recognize a LR from a distance, no longer.

 

[soflorovers]

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.

Well, lets use your logic. The "old" Defender as we know it today was built in 1983. In 1983, the 911 was in 930 guise. I'd argue that the difference in design between a 930 and a 992 is on par, if not greater than the design evolution from the old Defender to the new Defender. I couldn't find a photo of a 930 next to a 992, but here's a photo of it next to a 991.2. Also, I'd argue that you're exaggerating immensely. The evolution of the Defender isn't a fundamental shift in the layout of the vehicle (mid-engine Ferrari thing). If anything, Porsche has essentially made the 992 that vehicle that you describe in their endless pursuit to continuously move the engine further towards the cabin.

 

[Pilat]

Sweeping statements don't due this kind of subject justice.

1. Brakes are commonly (and easily) modified to accompanies larger tires.

There's a limit to this unless the rim is also bigger.

Larger tires do not make a vehicle categorically more unsafe than smaller tires.

Unless you add bigger brakes, the leverage when braking is higher, resulting in longer braking distances. It is also why it accelerates slower.

(this is why the new defender, JL and JT have larger tires than predecessor vehicles)

They have bigger brakes and bigger rims because of it. It is not simply "bigger tyres".

2. There is a reason that independent front suspension was invented... on-road handling.

Nope. Off road - apart from slow-as-molasses crawling speeds - independent suspension rules. Look up the shortcomings of solid axles: Two wheels are connected, meaning that when one wheel hits something, the other wheel is jolted too, and it has more unsprung weight, so it takes longer for it to get grip again. That is not something that only happens on the road. To claim so is ridiculous.
The rest of your post is the same nonsense not based in reality.

 

[Todd780]

Well, lets use your logic. The "old" Defender as we know it today was built in 1983. In 1983, the 911 was in 930 guise. I'd argue that the difference in design between a 930 and a 992 is on par, if not greater than the design evolution from the old Defender to the new Defender. I couldn't find a photo of a 930 next to a 992, but here's a photo of it next to a 991.2. Also, I'd argue that you're exaggerating immensely. The evolution of the Defender isn't a fundamental shift in the layout of the vehicle (mid-engine Ferrari thing). If anything, Porsche has essentially made the 992 that vehicle that you describe in their endless pursuit to continuously move the engine further towards the cabin.

View attachment 554371View attachment 554372

I would disagree with immensely exaggerated. I think the photos you posted actually prove my point. Look at the profile and front end of the 911's compared to the Land Rovers.

Agree to disagree I guess? And that's okay. We're both entitled to have our opinion.






Bear in mind this is an evolution over the course of what? 50 years?

 

[mpinco]

...........Bear in mind this is an evolution over the course of what? 50 years?

Yup, roughly 10 design to product release cycles (assuming 5 year cycle). The Defender received zero attention for 37 years. Amazing on one hand, horrendous on the other.

 

[Pilat]

Yup, roughly 10 design to product release cycles (assuming 5 year cycle). The Defender received zero attention for 37 years. Amazing on one hand, horrendous on the other.

So it was about time it got updated thoroughly. Which is what LR has done.

 

[lumpskie]

There's a limit to this unless the rim is also bigger.

Unless you add bigger brakes, the leverage when braking is higher, resulting in longer braking distances. It is also why it accelerates slower.


They have bigger brakes and bigger rims because of it. It is not simply "bigger tyres".


Nope. Off road - apart from slow-as-molasses crawling speeds, independent suspension rules. Look up the shortcomings of solid axles: Two wheels are connected, meaning that when one wheel hits something, the other wheel is jolted too, and it has more unsprung weight, so it takes longer for it to get grip again. That is not something that only happens on the road. To claim so is ridiculous.
The rest of your post is the same nonsense not based in reality.

You are assuming that someone upgrading brakes (caliper, rotor, pad and, in some cases brake booster), isn't going to change the wheel size accordingly? That's ridiculous. No, they will move to a bigger wheel. Stopping distance is also simple physics. You are turning kinetic energy into heat as quickly as possible, within the stability triangle. It is simple and people do this effectively everyday.

Again, effective high speed suspension is much easier to create with solid axle. Accounting for the unsprung weight in the spring/shock is very easy and is done everyday. IFS is so seriously limited in wheel travel that that you won't see speeds where unsprung weight and connected wheels will be a limitation. Because the differential does not move with the axle, the tulip joints in the CV axle have to account for the extension of the suspension. The position of that joint is out of line and at its weakest when the suspension is extended. This limits the available travel of IFS, without seriously modifying the suspension geometry with longer, trussed control arms. That's not nonsense... that's reality.

 

[mpinco]

So it was about time it got updated thoroughly. Which is what LR has done.

The Defender should have been updated 7 times, many times before McGovern touched it. It should also have never left the US.

 

[mpinco]

In other news RR/LR news ................

No Time to Die trailer

'Maybe' there was a new Luxo Defender in the trailer but there are Aston Martin's and RRC's.

 

[Pilat]

You are assuming that someone upgrading brakes (caliper, rotor, pad and, in some cases brake booster), isn't going to change the wheel size accordingly? That's ridiculous. No, they will move to a bigger wheel. Stopping distance is also simple physics. You are turning kinetic energy into heat as quickly as possible, within the stability triangle. It is simple and people do this effectively everyday.

Most people who simply put on bigger tyres does not swap the brakes out for bigger and more powerful ones. Secondly, it also lifts the centre of gravity and when adding a lift, you even change the geometry. I'm sorry, but if you have a problem with the notion that having the contact patch further from the centre of the wheel increases the power needed to stop, I don't know what to say, other than you're purposely trying to troll. You say it is "simple physics". I agree, it is. It amazes me you can't see that yourself.

Again, effective high speed suspension is much easier to create with solid axle.

Independent suspension is a mature technology. I guess for solid axle rednecks loathe to look at physics will have an easier time dealing with solid axles.

Accounting for the unsprung weight in the spring/shock is very easy and is done everyday.

No it's not. Not when we're talking solid axles. Using stronger/higher spring rate coils/shocks doesn't actually "account" for it, as the unsprung weight is because the two frigging wheels are connected!
How do you solve the problems of unsprung weight of a solid axle setup and how do you solve the problem of them being connected? You separate them: Inde-frigging-pendent suspension.

IFS is so seriously limited in wheel travel

I'm done trying to educate rock crawlers who thinks that because it works at walking pace it must work at any speed.

that that you won't see speeds where unsprung weight and connected wheels will be a limitation.

Another ignorant statement. It works even on small ruts, craks, and woops. It works because they are not connected and has less unsprung weight.
But I know you won't recognise this, as you seem to think you can somehow setup a solid axle rig with the right shock/spring rate to compensate for the unsprung weight and the fact the wheels are connected. At that point, you have shown yourself to be wilfully ignorant of physics and therefore reality.

Because the differential does not move with the axle, the tulip joints in the CV axle have to account for the extension of the suspension. The position of that joint is out of line and at its weakest when the suspension is extended. This limits the available travel of IFS,

I am not talking about "extreme" travel. Obviously, in a rock crawling rig, you may need that extra travel. But having less unsprung weight and not having the two connected resulting in better grip at above rock crawling speeds have nothing to do with which system can better rock crawl. When I mentioend off road grip I specifically exclude rock crawling and I specifically said "at any speed above rock crawling speed". More travel doesn't help at in this situation.

without seriously modifying the suspension geometry with longer, trussed control arms. That's not nonsense... that's reality.

Nope. Still purposely trying to equate rock crawling travel with "better grip at any speed above rock crawling pace" is ignorant at best.

 

[Pilat]

The Defender should have been updated 7 times, many times before McGovern touched it. It should also have never left the US.

"should have". But we're past that now, aren't we. We can't go back and have a sequence of updates at this point. We live in the "now", and it is now available. Finally.

In other words: At this stage, we have already waited for that long, but we are now here where an updated version can be bought. To me, reading that they "should have updated it" by now just sounds like bitterness. I can't see what use it is at this point where a new one actually is available.