Thread: The "New" Defender,.....When?

Originally Posted by Pickles2

Well, I wouldn't mind 510HP in a Defender, but no worries, when it comes, I'd better not offer you a drive!!
But seriously, yes, if there were other engine options, what size/type/diesel/petrol/power/torque etc would you like to see on offer?
Cheers, Pickles.

My old 4 banger diesel can produce plenty of useable torque/power, along with good economy and reliability. I don't need or desire more. In most states the speed limit is 110 kmh, or 130 kmh on some NT roads, and mine will reach those speed in not many seconds, and will easily exceed them by a large degree. So what price for maybe a few seconds gain?

On a test drive of your imaginary Defender, I might be impressed by the performance, but not of it's practicability. I want to travel long distances in the outback, far from a servo.

As stated I have regularly expressed my opinion on a suitable engine type, when others have suggested the Puma is mana, or like you, the V6 or V8 diesel from a Disco or Rangie. Many have misconstrued my comments as being anti-technology, but in fact I am simply anti small displacement, inefficiency and complexity.

The issue with small displacement is low torque until the turbo produces enough boost. IMHO, between 3 and 3.5 litres, from a modern diesel is plenty. Ford and Mazda have used a larger displacement version of the puma engine Land Rover chose. Land Rover had good reasons for the small engine in Britain, but IMHO their sales would be greater in Australia if they offered a larger displacement engine option.

V6 and V8 engines are not ideal; too complex, too expensive, too many moving parts, too many expensive parts that will need replacing over time, too much space in the engine bay.

An inline engine will always have a stiffer block, and better supported crankshaft, and in a high compression diesel the lower region of the cylinders are not subjected to high loads from adjacent cylinders. 'V' engines don't lend themselves to turbocharging as naturally as an inline engine.

Although an inline 6 cylinder diesel would be smoother and can take good advantage of pulse turbocharging, they are not as efficient as an inline 4 (more friction from extra moving parts) and cost more to manufacture (more parts). I can put up with the reduced smoothness of an inline 4, particularly given all of the advantages. In some states, registration fees increase with number of cylinders.

Summing up, I would like to see Land Rover use an inline 4 cylinder diesel of between 3 and 3.5 litres. An inline 6 of the same displacement would also be a good choice.

I understood JLR and Tarta were working toward a new engine design of their own, and what I have said is well understood, so there is hope.

No worries, for sure I'd like to see the engine you describe installed.
Not much hope though in the "current" Defender though, wouldn't you think, as they're only selling 16000 a year, & a "New" Defender is said to be on the drawing board?
Cheers, Pickles.

If they were going to put a bigger donk in they would have to look at the fuel tank capacity in the 90.... As it is I think I will be carrying a Jerry can whever I venture out past lithgow.

Still has to be better than tracking down LPG anywhere there arent lots of Taxis...

Originally Posted by Bush65

My old 4 banger diesel can produce plenty of useable torque/power, along with good economy and reliability. I don't need or desire more. In most states the speed limit is 110 kmh, or 130 kmh on some NT roads, and mine will reach those speed in not many seconds, and will easily exceed them by a large degree. So what price for maybe a few seconds gain?

On a test drive of your imaginary Defender, I might be impressed by the performance, but not of it's practicability. I want to travel long distances in the outback, far from a servo.

As stated I have regularly expressed my opinion on a suitable engine type, when others have suggested the Puma is mana, or like you, the V6 or V8 diesel from a Disco or Rangie. Many have misconstrued my comments as being anti-technology, but in fact I am simply anti small displacement, inefficiency and complexity.

The issue with small displacement is low torque until the turbo produces enough boost. IMHO, between 3 and 3.5 litres, from a modern diesel is plenty. Ford and Mazda have used a larger displacement version of the puma engine Land Rover chose. Land Rover had good reasons for the small engine in Britain, but IMHO their sales would be greater in Australia if they offered a larger displacement engine option.

V6 and V8 engines are not ideal; too complex, too expensive, too many moving parts, too many expensive parts that will need replacing over time, too much space in the engine bay.

An inline engine will always have a stiffer block, and better supported crankshaft, and in a high compression diesel the lower region of the cylinders are not subjected to high loads from adjacent cylinders. 'V' engines don't lend themselves to turbocharging as naturally as an inline engine.

Although an inline 6 cylinder diesel would be smoother and can take good advantage of pulse turbocharging, they are not as efficient as an inline 4 (more friction from extra moving parts) and cost more to manufacture (more parts). I can put up with the reduced smoothness of an inline 4, particularly given all of the advantages. In some states, registration fees increase with number of cylinders.

Summing up, I would like to see Land Rover use an inline 4 cylinder diesel of between 3 and 3.5 litres. An inline 6 of the same displacement would also be a good choice.

I understood JLR and Tarta were working toward a new engine design of their own, and what I have said is well understood, so there is hope.

I would have agreed with all of that before I bought a 2.2. Bottom end torque is pretty amazing for such a small engine and I think would be more than adequate for everything except perhaps heavy towing where hill starts might still be a problem although I haven't done any of that so I still don't really know. Personally I have no practical reason to desire an engine of any bigger capacity. It seems to me that diesel engine technology has reached that stage where larger capacity isn't that important. If the five cylinder 3.2 engine was offered as an option I would still choose the 2.2 since it would most likely be cheaper to run, and registration on the five cylinder (in Qld at least) would be more expensive.

Originally Posted by JamesB71

I'm happy with the smaller fuel bill without compromising off road ability.

I'm happy with the smaller engine as they are reliable and easy to work on,my V8 cruiser work ute is neither. Pat

Originally Posted by wally

I would have agreed with all of that before I bought a 2.2. Bottom end torque is pretty amazing for such a small engine and I think would be more than adequate for everything except perhaps heavy towing where hill starts might still be a problem although I haven't done any of that so I still don't really know. Personally I have no practical reason to desire an engine of any bigger capacity. It seems to me that diesel engine technology has reached that stage where larger capacity isn't that important. If the five cylinder 3.2 engine was offered as an option I would still choose the 2.2 since it would most likely be cheaper to run, and registration on the five cylinder (in Qld at least) would be more expensive.

Having owned or driven/drive bigger engined vehicles I really don't see a need for me to own one,the 2.4 or 2.2 is mated perfectly with the 6 speed and just does what it needs to do without fuss,It's not all beer and skittles in the Jap camp as many of them are suffering from QC issue's and many people are buying bigger engined vehicles for towing but once they get shocked by the high teens to low twenties per hundred economy they all sit on 80 which is slower than what I can sit on. Pat

Originally Posted by JamesB71

If they were going to put a bigger donk in they would have to look at the fuel tank capacity in the 90.... As it is I think I will be carrying a Jerry can whever I venture out past lithgow.

Still has to be better than tracking down LPG anywhere there arent lots of Taxis...

You will get from Katoomba to Sydney and back on half a tank. That said, I have installed both left and right sill tanks in my D90 to give me a total fuel capacitly of about 135 litres which equates to a range of about 1000 km.

Cheers
KarlB

I commute daily to Penrith so will be keen to see what sort of mileage I get coming down the hill every day. The 2003 V6 hilux on petrol is expensive to run, but I tend to run it on LPG and stop to fill it up every second day...