New Defender Rage/Hate Thread
- Thread starter DieselRanger
- Start date
Yup, the LR3/4 are good vehicles. Just wish we could have had a diesel option in the US. Twenty-five years down the road the diesel LR3/4 will be a popular import.
The more I read about the new Luxo Defender the more I think I will upgrade my LR4. The cargo space is smaller in the Defender while the current powertrain options are a no-go. LR may solve that years down the road but by the time the depreciation curve is applied I'm out 5 years at least.
EricTyrrell
Expo God
I95 at a steady 80 mph cruise? Every modern solid axle vehicle does this. A solid axle 2004 D2 does it. A modern solid axle Defender would be no different.
EricTyrrell
Expo God
That's a newer thread. Most people on that forum hate the luxury Defender with a passion. The original thread got so bad they moved it to the mud pit. It was an epic long ********-show.
lumpskie
Independent Thinker
I'll concede your point on an older defender but not solid axles. I drove my 80 series 80mph to work this morning, just as I have done for the last 60,000 miles I've owned it. No drama at all.
EricTyrrell
Expo God
The guy is sponsored by Land Rover.
Yeah, it have nothing to do with the LR brand being all over the news, so more people at least considered a LR. Nah, that can't be it.
I care more about capabilities than about being "different" for the sake of being different. The old Defender was "different" in that it was not taking advantage of modern tech, and as such was lacking in the capability-department.
LR has been on a significant marketing and discounting push since they posted a $4 billion loss for 4Q18. Despite that push D5 sales sunk to 451 US sales per month for October 19, prior to the announcement of the new Defender. The DII sold at triple that monthly rate.
I suspect that as the new Luxo Defender was announced those holding off on a decision looked at the Defender and decided to move forward with a Discovery. We may now see the Discovery sales decline again.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
@Pilat You need to get out a bit more I think and stop philosophizing about all the garbage you read somewhere on the internet. You got a lot of angst built up and some fresh air will probably do you good. Your arguments have many, many flaws in them with broad assumptions and disregard for a host of variables. It makes most of your statements either entirely false, or only minimally accurate at best because of all the other factors you ignore. You can theorize all you want on the benefits of IFS vs solid axle. The fact is there are limitations to both (you know, because of physics). But a wholesale dismissal of a solid axle because you *think* IFS is superior is ignorant. IFS can definitely be preferable in some situations. Solid axles can still outperform IFS setups in a number of areas BESIDES rock-crawling. I'm not even going to put rockcrawling into the discussion since there is a general consensus on the matter. But the only one with a disconnect from reality in this discussion is you I'm afraid.
I have owned many Solid Axle and IFS vehicles that I've used extensively offroad in nearly every scenario possibly encountered. I've raced in the Baja 1000 in an IFS Toyota Land Cruiser, and currently drive a 80 series solid axle Land Cruiser. I've owned a Land Rover in the past as well (Discovery). I feel like I can speak with a reasonable degree of first hand experience and not merely physics textbook calculations. Physics are a real thing, but in real world scenarios those same laws of physics, while constant, respond differently to different variables. Or should I say, vehicles employ a number of variable to manipulate the laws of physics to work in their favor. Simply saying that IFS is superior, period, is idiotic.
My current vehicle is a prime example of what you would describe as a worst case scenario. Solid front axle. Lifted. Big tires (37's). Factory sized brakes. I would invite you (genuinely) to join me on one of my typical offroad trips (not rockcrawling) but covering a lot of ground and fairly high speeds over a variety of terrain. Please bring your ideal setup, IFS, not lifted, standard size tires as the engineers intended (albeit any type of tire you want) and I'm confident you will not keep up. I'm also confident it can be done with better ride and comfort than you'll experience. Heck I'll even put the roof top tent on top of my too tall Cruiser and be at camp hours before you get there. The capability you seem so confident in will have a day of humility I think. Honestly. If you're able and willing to come to Utah, I'd love for you to join me. I'll show you some neat places.
You mentioned suspension travel being only a real factor for rockcrawling. It seems to me you have not experienced the benefit of ample wheel travel on simple dirt roads.
Here's one example of where wheel travel is a plus outside of rockcrawling. It doesn't have to be RTI ramp poser amounts of wheel travel, but a well set up 12" of useable travel. I've done this with a unlifted IFS vehicle as well and I'd be happy to demonstrate with you in the vehicle which setup is preferred. Hint, the lifted solid axle one every time. Typical IFS vehicles, even modified ones will struggle to have 12" of front wheel travel unless you start looking at race setups.
IMG_8007 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
IMG_8009 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
IMG_8010 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
Now, for the record, I'll repeat a point I started with. IFS *can be* superior in some situations and a modified IFS suspension *Can* outperform a modified Solid axle but it all comes down to components, and a bunch of variable you refuse to recognize.
I have owned many Solid Axle and IFS vehicles that I've used extensively offroad in nearly every scenario possibly encountered. I've raced in the Baja 1000 in an IFS Toyota Land Cruiser, and currently drive a 80 series solid axle Land Cruiser. I've owned a Land Rover in the past as well (Discovery). I feel like I can speak with a reasonable degree of first hand experience and not merely physics textbook calculations. Physics are a real thing, but in real world scenarios those same laws of physics, while constant, respond differently to different variables. Or should I say, vehicles employ a number of variable to manipulate the laws of physics to work in their favor. Simply saying that IFS is superior, period, is idiotic.
My current vehicle is a prime example of what you would describe as a worst case scenario. Solid front axle. Lifted. Big tires (37's). Factory sized brakes. I would invite you (genuinely) to join me on one of my typical offroad trips (not rockcrawling) but covering a lot of ground and fairly high speeds over a variety of terrain. Please bring your ideal setup, IFS, not lifted, standard size tires as the engineers intended (albeit any type of tire you want) and I'm confident you will not keep up. I'm also confident it can be done with better ride and comfort than you'll experience. Heck I'll even put the roof top tent on top of my too tall Cruiser and be at camp hours before you get there. The capability you seem so confident in will have a day of humility I think. Honestly. If you're able and willing to come to Utah, I'd love for you to join me. I'll show you some neat places.
You mentioned suspension travel being only a real factor for rockcrawling. It seems to me you have not experienced the benefit of ample wheel travel on simple dirt roads.
Here's one example of where wheel travel is a plus outside of rockcrawling. It doesn't have to be RTI ramp poser amounts of wheel travel, but a well set up 12" of useable travel. I've done this with a unlifted IFS vehicle as well and I'd be happy to demonstrate with you in the vehicle which setup is preferred. Hint, the lifted solid axle one every time. Typical IFS vehicles, even modified ones will struggle to have 12" of front wheel travel unless you start looking at race setups.
IMG_8007 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
IMG_8009 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
IMG_8010 by Adam Tolman, on FlickrNow, for the record, I'll repeat a point I started with. IFS *can be* superior in some situations and a modified IFS suspension *Can* outperform a modified Solid axle but it all comes down to components, and a bunch of variable you refuse to recognize.
Last edited:
Many of those 'capabilities' are broadly available across the industry. They are not differentiators which was my point about technology. The Defender can differentiate on off-road capability and presence, as it should. Each person has their own expectations.
@Pilat You need to get out a bit more I think and stop philosophizing about all the garbage you read somewhere on the internet. You got a lot of angst built up and some fresh air will probably do you good. Your arguments have many, many flaws in them with broad assumptions and disregard for a host of variables. It makes most of your statements either entirely false, or only minimally accurate at best because of all the other factors you ignore. You can theorize all you want on the benefits of IFS vs solid axle. The fact is there are limitations to both (you know, because of physics). But a wholesale dismissal of a solid axle because you *think* IFS is superior is ignorant. IFS can definitely be preferable in some situations. Solid axles can still outperform IFS setups in a number of areas BESIDES rock-crawling. I'm not even going to put rockcrawling into the discussion since there is a general consensus on the matter. But the only one with a disconnect from reality in this discussion is you I'm afraid.
I have owned many Solid Axle and IFS vehicles that I've used extensively offroad in nearly every scenario possibly encountered. I've raced in the Baja 1000 in an IFS Toyota Land Cruiser, and currently drive a 80 series solid axle Land Cruiser. I've owned a Land Rover in the past as well (Discovery). I feel like I can speak with a reasonable degree of first hand experience and not merely physics textbook calculations. Physics are a real thing, but in real world scenarios those same laws of physics, while constant, respond differently to different variables. Or should I say, vehicles employ a number of variable to manipulate the laws of physics to work in their favor. Simply saying that IFS is superior, period, is idiotic.
My current vehicle is a prime example of what you would describe as a worst case scenario. Solid front axle. Lifted. Big tires (37's). Factory sized brakes. I would invite you (genuinely) to join me on one of my typical offroad trips (not rockcrawling) but covering a lot of ground and fairly high speeds over a variety of terrain. Please bring your ideal setup, IFS, not lifted, standard size tires as the engineers intended (albeit any type of tire you want) and I'm confident you will not keep up. I'm also confident it can be done with better ride and comfort than you'll experience. Heck I'll even put the roof top tent on top of my too tall Cruiser and be at camp hours before you get there. The capability you seem so confident in will have a day of humility I think. Honestly. If you're able and willing to come to Utah, I'd love for you to join me. I'll show you some neat places.
You mentioned suspension travel being only a real factor for rockcrawling. It seems to me you have not experienced the benefit of ample wheel travel on simple dirt roads.
Here's one example of where wheel travel is a plus outside of rockcrawling. It doesn't have to be RTI ramp poser amounts of wheel travel, but a well set up 12" of useable travel. I've done this with a unlifted IFS vehicle as well and I'd be happy to demonstrate with you in the vehicle which setup is preferred. Hint, the lifted solid axle one every time. Typical IFS vehicles, even modified ones will struggle to have 12" of front wheel travel unless you start looking at race setups.
Now, for the record, I'll repeat a point I started with. IFS *can be* superior in some situations and a modified IFS suspension *Can* outperform a modified Solid axle but it all comes down to components, and a bunch of variable you refuse to recognize.
LOL, what a load of unsubstantiated claims and accusations. And to prove how little you know about IS, you show a series of pictures with a vehicle getting airborne thinking that that somehow proves the idiotic point that IS doesn't provide more grip and handles better due to the fact the wheels are not connected and less unsprung weight. Seriously, that is just about as ignorant as it gets.
Before you say that other people's arguments are flawed, perhaps you should actually study suspension a bit more. Of course a solid axle vehicle can go fast. It just doesn't handle as well as IS over anything faster than crawling speed.
If you seriously think that jumps somehow proves what you're claiming, watch this:
Also, look up "droop" on a rally car suspension. Droop is about how much the chassis can rise/how much the wheels can drop. Not the same as lifting your solid axle to get "travel". In fact, it is much better system specifically because the wheels are not connected and because of less unsprung weight. It allows each wheel to drop faster and if one wheel hit something, the other isn't jolted.
I would also like you to notice how little bounce there is when they land, and how the front wheels don't jolt as a solid axle would.
Last edited:
A trolling comment, not intended for any meaningful discussion. Same as 'rock crawling' when the rocks are the size of pebbles.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
LOL, you seem like a fun guy to hang out with. We can continue to one-up each other with pics of cars getting more are than the last. That is not the point. Although I have also owned a Mitsubishi Evo (which is the car in the thumbnail of that video) and have been in the air with it also.
As I said before, bring your IFS vehicle and lets go for a drive. I promise my solid axle cruiser will handle far better than what you bring. Proof is in the proving, not in the talking.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
:crickets: