USA Defender Officially Coming?

[proper4wd]

That is correct - no low range is a presumption on my part but one I fully expect to see true.

Standard package will probably be 2.0L "Ingenium" Turbo petrol, 8 speed auto, no low range, 18" wheels, all season tires.

"Off road package" will probably be the above plus low range, locking rear diff, 18"s, and a pseudo-all terrain tire (BFG long trail or similar)

Plus a fat catalog of accessories including light guards, rubber mats, stainless steel pedal covers, the usual junk.

Get ready for the sickening slew of marketing material featuring AA Yellow launch vehicles.

This is speculation on my part after working with the brand for several years and paying close attention to their brand direction.

 

[Haf-E]

Sounds like it will be similar to the Mini Cooper approach - paying homage to the original but not actually being anything similar to it... which is not in some ways bad (I own a 2007 mini cooper) but just don't expect it to be the same vehicle or have the same capabilities.

I suspect mini makes a lot more profit on the additional "stuff" they sell than the base car model. Its also interesting that in Europe, mini offers a 1 liter petrol version (called just a "Mini") which gets higher gas mileage and a diesel version too - both are not sold here in the USA. I wouldn't be surprised if LR does the same - selling a more basic stripped down version in Europe but not in the USA.

 

[99Discovery]

If the rumor is true that they are going solid axles front and rear, than a low range will be standard. Solid axles kill your ride and it is more expensive to produce (for road going, not off-roading purposes). There is only one reason to continue with solid axles and it is that you want to make a truly capable off-road vehicle with decent load capacities.

If they were going to offer a defender "body" with 20" wheels, optional low range, and bling-bling pedal covers, it would have IFS/IRS like every other cross-over out there (and it would match the current Rover lineup).

Solid axles gives me the best hope that the Defender will stay close to its roots, despite how ugly/curvy the body is going to look to meet current crash/mpg regulations..

 

[vasily]

If the rumor is true that they are going solid axles front and rear, than a low range will be standard. Solid axles kill your ride and it is more expensive to produce (for road going, not off-roading purposes). There is only one reason to continue with solid axles and it is that you want to make a truly capable off-road vehicle with decent load capacities.

If they were going to offer a defender "body" with 20" wheels, optional low range, and bling-bling pedal covers, it would have IFS/IRS like every other cross-over out there (and it would match the current Rover lineup).

Solid axles gives me the best hope that the Defender will stay close to its roots, despite how ugly/curvy the body is going to look to meet current crash/mpg regulations..

I think JLR has gone out of their way to prove that they don't need solid axles in order to be good off road.

My bet is that it will have independent suspension front and rear and use electronics instead of locking diffs and cross valves on the air springs to mimic some of how a solid axle behaves off road.

 

[Kmrtnsn]

This is going to be a four door-SUV, think about that.
It is also going to be a Land Rover.
Land Rover builds other four-door SUVs, at different price points.
Land Rover targets a different market than Ford, Chevrolet, Dodge, and everyone else who makes an SUV.
Land Rover sells every four-door SUVs that they export to the U.S., in many cases in advance.
These SUVs are placed/priced and marketed to different earning demographics. The LR4 may look like a Ford Explorer in many ways but does not compete with the Explorer.
These Land Rover SUVs do not compete with each other.

People who think this is going to price in the $40-50,000 dollar range are smoking crack and have no concept of product placement, advertising, or marketing.

Why do I think this? Because, why would Land Rover import an SUV, even a capable one and then price it to compete against its own product line, let alone price it to compete with every other SUV out there? That would be stupid. That would be like giving money away. They can only build and ultimately export to the U.S. a finite amount of vehicles. Pricing them like upmarket Ford Explorers to compete with Ford Explorers and GMC Acadia Denalis would be like handing out money, sure they'd sell every one but they wouldn't make squat on them. This is going to be an $80K vehicle, if not more. Who is going to pay that? Why the same demographic who would drop the same amount on an AEV Filson Edition JKU, that is who, and they're already lining up. People who want and can afford exclusivity and those people will be lining up three deep to pay $80K plus. If you think Land Rover is going to import a vehicle to compete in the marketplace with the JKU, think again, there is no money in that market and to even attempt it would be pure folly. They're going to price the hell out of these, then laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[99Discovery]

I think JLR has gone out of their way to prove that they don't need solid axles in order to be good off road.

My bet is that it will have independent suspension front and rear and use electronics instead of locking diffs and cross valves on the air springs to mimic some of how a solid axle behaves off road.

Agreed, and their cross-linked suspension as even made me a believer.

That said, the MSN article (the latest as-official-word-as-rumors-get) states they are claiming the Defender will maintain solid axles but ride on a unibody. This would indeed make it different from the current evoques, discovery sports, rangies, and Discos. Didn't the CEO of Land Rover tell detractors that the new Discovery Sport "wasn't for them" and that the Discovery "brand" has moved upscale, and that the "defender" brand was going to be the utilitarian arm of the marque?

I do agree (and it scares me as I'm not rich) that Land Rover could decide they want their new Defender to compete with the G-Wagon at $100k+ instead of the JKU.

I do think there is a good chance IFS/IRS survives in the new Defender. If not, then what's the point? How many evoques and discovery sports does a brand need to sell? The Defender *needs* to separate itself from the current offerings.

 

[Kmrtnsn]

O

Agreed, and their cross-linked suspension as even made me a believer.

That said, the MSN article (the latest as-official-word-as-rumors-get) states they are claiming the Defender will maintain solid axles but ride on a unibody. This would indeed make it different from the current evoques, discovery sports, rangies, and Discos. Didn't the CEO of Land Rover tell detractors that the new Discovery Sport "wasn't for them" and that the Discovery "brand"

has moved upscale, and that the "defender" brand was going to be the utilitarian arm of the marque?

I do agree (and it scares me as I'm not rich) that Land Rover could decide they want their new Defender to compete with the G-Wagon at $100k+ instead of the JKU.

I do think there is a good chance IFS/IRS survives in the new Defender. If not, then what's the point? How many evoques and discovery sports does a brand need to sell? The Defender *needs* to separate itself from the current offerings.

One of the articles I read mentioned unibody with subframes. I also read that LRJ anticipates producing 30,000 units annually. That is total production, not the U.S. allocation. Now, if total production is only 30K, what would the U.S. allocation be? 2,000? 1,500? Less? If we get 2,000 vehicles a year spread across 50 States then that leads to a pretty exclusive neighborhood. We're talking some LR dealers only receiving a handful of these every year, others one or none. Imagine the dealer markup. Picture how those are going to outfitted when ordered. $80K is going to be the rare low exception. The new Defender will be seperate in the LR line-up. It's going to be the king, up at the top of the pricing and luxury pinnacle.

 

[greynolds]

I do agree (and it scares me as I'm not rich) that Land Rover could decide they want their new Defender to compete with the G-Wagon at $100k+ instead of the JKU.

There's a big pricing hole right in between the JKU and the G-Wagon where Land Rover could slot the new Defender in. If they get the styling right and include the "right" features, it would be interesting to see if it would take many sales away from the G-Wagon.

In my case, I took delivery of a 2014 Range Rover HSE in December of 2013. There were some things about it that I loved, and others that I hated (the sluggish infotainment system and the need to go multiple levels into menus to do simple things was driving me nuts). Ultimately, the Range Rover wasn't for me, so I traded it in for a 2014 G-Wagon in June of 2014 (and thanks to the supply / demand of the Range Rover, didn't take much of a financial hit in doing so). So far, I'm very happy with my decision and the G-Wagon is probably what I should have gone with in the first place. If Land Rover had a Defender in our market (as a current model) priced in the $60-85k range, it's possible that I would be driving one instead of the G-Wagon. Though I hope to keep the G-Wagon for a while, I'm sure I'll trade it in at some point for something new, so I'm very interested in what Land Rover comes out with here. I just hope it looks much more like the outgoing Defender than the Toyota FJ Cruiser looks like a Land Cruiser FJ-40.

 

[proper4wd]

...

At first I disagreed with your post but you brought it back to center towards the end.

Several of LR's products do compete with one another, btw. Discovery Sport and Evoque most notably.

Land Rover has distinctly promoted this concept of 3 brand pillars: Luxury (Range Rover line), Sporting (Discovery line), and "Utility" (Defender line). Each will likely have it's own subset of 3+ different models, some of which may compete or "steal" sales from each other. However, I challenge your statement that this is "stupid"... it's in fact genius and a well proven go-to-market strategy. If you're only competing with yourself, then you always win!

This is my predicted brand positioning for Land Rover within the next 2-3 years:

Range Rover Line (well established, first one developed beginning in 2013)
Range Rover - $100k-150k
RR Sport - $65k-100k
Evoque - $45k-60k

Discovery Line (mid revamp right now)
Discovery - $55k-80k (next gen will be larger and move upmarket, competing with Mercedes GL class, look for launch late this year)
Discovery Sport - $40k-50k

Defender Line (Look for final concept reveal later this year)
Defender - $50k-$75k (Slot between the JK and G-wagen, tough looks and lifestyle image of the Jeep frat boy who's gotten his masters degree)
Defender Sport -$35k ish (this might be a 2 door soft top version of the Defender, aimed at high school girls a la Freelander SE3)

This leaves room for something at the bottom end of the market - high $20s to low $30s - but I'd say there isnt room for both a Discovery and a Defender there. That will be the toughest product for them to develop, should they choose to.

By the way, it's just about a given that there will be a $100k+ Defender Autobiography aimed directly at the Gwagen. The market for $100k+ Defenders is well proven. LR would be blind not to take a shot at it.

 

[mpinco]

Yup - true off-road hybrid technology likely

Jaguar Land Rover 'to double' Coventry base
BBC

Car giant Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) has announced plans to double the size of its operations at its headquarters in Coventry.

The firm said land bought in Whitley meant it could expand its base from 55 to almost 120 acres.

The site expected to be used for research and advanced engineering, although it is not yet clear how many jobs could be created.

About 4,000 people already work at the Whitley base.

Dr Ralph Speth, chief executive of JLR, said the multi million-pound expansion of the Advanced Engineering and Design Centre, would support development of "ultra-low emission" vehicles.......

......"JLR have a big challenge, like other premium producers, there's a lot of regulations rightly coming out of Europe. They've got a big race on to get their greenhouse emissions down," he said.......

 

[Jwestpro]

Out of curiosity, if tongue weight is holding you back, have you ever though of re-locating the heavy batteries + propane tanks to the rear of the trailer?

2 30lbs tanks plus 2 batteries can weight up to 200 lbs. If you remove 200 lbs off the tongue, you're actually reducing 200 + 200(rear overhang / front overhang) from the trailer due to the fulcrum effect. So if your overhand ratio is 3:2 (axle placed 60% down the trailer), then you're removing 200 + 200(2/3) = 333 lbs off the hitch.

Pain in the *** to re-wire and re-plumb all the gas lines, I know, but a lot easier than re-locating the axles!

Thanks but it's not quite that much weight as you're not removing it from the very tip of the A frame. Also, there might be only one battery and it's not like it's a nice huge AGM that I have under my lr3 hood. Regardless, it doesn't make the design any less bad or lazy.

I'm pretty much over it. When the time is right it's more likely such a large trailer will be one of the Kimberly Kamper models instead.