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

The fact remains that Land Rover is a European (EU) registered company and everything they manufacture needs to meet the required specification regardless of end destination or user...

That said, there is absolutely no chance of a final roll of the dice final edition that will have anything more exiting than different trim level. The 2.2 TDci engine is what it will be to the end (unless they get forced into dropping it even lower before end 2015).

At risk of starting the debate AGAIN... The benefits of remapping the 2.4 and 2.2 is still pretty spectacular. I waited till the car was out of warranty and nicely run in before I took the plunge and when I return the original map for services it feels like I'm driving an old 2.5 non-turbo 90 in comparison!

My Defender (2.4 90) comfortably runs in town and on the open road with the Disco 4's and Rangie Sports fitted with the latest 3.0 diesel engines (obviously not the same consumption figures, but what the heck!) and all the engine indicators on the Scan Gauge shows the engine being happier with the map that without. Driving sensibly I get an easy 10km/liter or 10 liter/100km which ever way you look at it and that beats the old big block guzzlers any day of the week in my mind.

I say buy them now before they're gone forever! My 90 is now finance free and I plan to keep it for a very long time.

Cheers,

Lou

Originally Posted by Loubrey

The fact remains that Land Rover is a European (EU) registered company and everything they manufacture needs to meet the required specification regardless of end destination or user...

That said, there is absolutely no chance of a final roll of the dice final edition that will have anything more exiting than different trim level. The 2.2 TDci engine is what it will be to the end (unless they get forced into dropping it even lower before end 2015).

At risk of starting the debate AGAIN... The benefits of remapping the 2.4 and 2.2 is still pretty spectacular. I waited till the car was out of warranty and nicely run in before I took the plunge and when I return the original map for services it feels like I'm driving an old 2.5 non-turbo 90 in comparison!

My Defender (2.4 90) comfortably runs in town and on the open road with the Disco 4's and Rangie Sports fitted with the latest 3.0 diesel engines (obviously not the same consumption figures, but what the heck!) and all the engine indicators on the Scan Gauge shows the engine being happier with the map that without. Driving sensibly I get an easy 10km/liter or 10 liter/100km which ever way you look at it and that beats the old big block guzzlers any day of the week in my mind.

I say buy them now before they're gone forever! My 90 is now finance free and I plan to keep it for a very long time.

Cheers,

Lou

and BMW got over 1000hp from a 1.5lt turbo........ doesnt mean its ideal for the LR or for longevity in the LR. No matter how hard you tune a 2.2, it wont have the low torque of the 3.2 bigger brother.

I totally agree the 3.2 will never find its way into a Def by LR.

Originally Posted by uninformed

and BMW got over 1000hp from a 1.5lt turbo........ doesnt mean its ideal for the LR or for longevity in the LR. No matter how hard you tune a 2.2, it wont have the low torque of the 3.2 bigger brother.

I totally agree the 3.2 will never find its way into a Def by LR.

Agree with this point.

Beside the wranglers, we are no longer able but manual transmission, 4 coiled suspensions, live-axle, turbo diesel machines after Defenders gone.

why are people so fixed on engine size. the defender has more torque then. 4.2 patrol or cruiser. welcome to 2013.

Originally Posted by beefy

why are people so fixed on engine size. the defender has more torque then. 4.2 patrol or cruiser. welcome to 2013.

Yes lets compare 2013 engines:
Defender 2.2: 90 kw 360 Nm@2200 rpm
Amarok 2.0: 132 kw 420 Nm@1750 rpm
Ford Ranger 3.2: 147 kw 470 Nm@1500 rpm

Even the great wall diesel has more power than the Puny engine...

Of course gear ratios have a big effect on how a vehicle performs too.

A smaller engine with well thought out gear ratios can work just as well as a bigger one.
Of course the 3.2 would be a nice fitment, for the rather cool slightly off beat noise a 5 pot makes...

Defenders will never compete in heavy duty work utes whilst ever there is a v8 land cruiser ute available, the defenders have enough power up to their 3500kg , but hook a trailer over 2.ton on the back and they are seriously lacking in power..where the defenders (130 only) are getting sales, is in value for money and payload, I know of several rural fire authorities and national parks departments that are evaluating 130 dual cabs purely because of their payload, but the ford rangers are almost as good in the payload department whilst offering air bags and stability control...if the land cruisers wernt so overpriced I would probably be driving one, purely for the power when towing.

Originally Posted by beefy

why are people so fixed on engine size. the defender has more torque then. 4.2 patrol or cruiser. welcome to 2013.

Why are some people fixed on turning threads on the "vapour configuration" of the new Defender into threads on current Defender?

Is it simply because they are not capable of associating anything else with the Defender name? But until Land Rover reveal a new name, then .....

Why are people fitting chips to their small diesel engines?

I've posed that question before, and the die hard "small diesel engine is better" fraternity claim they do it because of the EGR. Well go and pull my other leg!

I have no issue with people choosing what suits their need. I would like them to have a choice.

If they are happy with a small economical engine, then that is their choice and it should serve them well in most instances.

IMHO there are equally valid applications for larger engines.

The 110 and 130 are large vehicles, with a large load capacity, and poor aerodynamics in touring configurations with a loaded roof rack. I honestly believe people, who have never had a Land Rover more recent than one with the pathetic underpowered ancestors, will have doubts about its loaded capability with an engine displacement less than 3.0 litre. Perhaps their concerns are unfounded, but valid doubts none the lest, when a new buyer is comparing the offerings in the current market place. The figures for new vehicle sales are a reasonable gauge of their choices.

I have had Land Rovers since the early 70's, and like to see many more having good experiences with Land Rovers. There have been so many instances when I have wanted more performance than what I have had under my right foot that I goon down engine swap path, not to mention the whole drive train upgrade paths.

In my case I know if I stick to normal roads, and easy tracks, I could get by with a small displacement engine, but I don't want those restrictions.

I have been on many trips with others who don't have Land Rovers, and it has been my experience that many of those other vehicles have good points (and poor) compared to Land Rovers. I learn from my own experience and that of others, what works well, or not so well.

I would much prefer to leave the likes of engine, drive train, and suspension stock, but those are my choices, and neither you or any one else has the right to dictate to me what I choose to do, or criticise me for wanting a larger displacement engine.