Thread: 2016 'Defender'

Originally Posted by MrLandy

[...] a new Defender design need not be about mass market presumptions, or the JLR formula, which sees every single vehicle it makes now clearly aimed at the luxury disurbanite.

LR have stated "3 pillars". Range Rover. Discovery. Defender.

They started the revamp with Range Rover. They have just about done the Disco revamp.

Whilst it may be true today, "...every single vehicle it makes now clearly aimed at the luxury disurbanite." - Arguably both the Range Rover and Disco pillars fitted within the "luxury disurbanite" category you coin BEFORE the revamp.

I am with Cuppabillytea in pointing out the logical fallacy in applying the above to the Defender pillar.

Originally Posted by MrLandy

To reconsider the origins of the 90/110/130 designs' success which was always about pragmatic functional capable durable simplicity, rather than merely the trendy 'look' of pragmatic functional capable durable simplicity.

I reckon that just because "everything they make now is aimed at" a certain demographic - doesn't mean this (same demographic target) will apply to the Defender pillar.

It might. It's just a bit "the sky is falling" to dread it right now.

"Pragmatic functional capable durable" is a cat that can be skinned many ways. With or without independent suspension, solid axles, monocoque or ladder chassis...

I also do not think that LR must pander to the hot selling markets with Defender. Given the premium profitable success in the Range Rover and Disco pillars - Defender may even be workable as a "loss leader". I.e. Low volume, unprofitable, but still feeding the legend and branding so a whole lot more wannabes feel like rugged explorers in their expensive profit making Toorak tractors.

Tact! ...Now you're talking my language! 😉👍😎 nice one.

Originally Posted by tact

I also do not think that LR must pander to the hot selling markets with Defender. Given the premium profitable success in the Range Rover and Disco pillars - Defender may even be workable as a "loss leader". I.e. Low volume, unprofitable, but still feeding the legend and branding so a whole lot more wannabes feel like rugged explorers in their expensive profit making Toorak tractors.

Can we compare this to Jeep, we have mass market Cherokee etc and iconic wrangler, they all make money, wrangler provides the legeng

Or
We aremlooking from a 1St world perspective, maybe Tata seems the need for a 2Nd, 3Rd world work horse

[QUOTE=tact;2445851


I also do not think that LR must pander to the hot selling markets with Defender. Given the premium profitable success in the Range Rover and Disco pillars - Defender may even be workable as a "loss leader". I.e. Low volume, unprofitable, but still feeding the legend and branding so a whole lot more wannabes feel like rugged explorers in their expensive profit making Toorak tractors.[/QUOTE]

If that were the case, there would be an argument for continuing the build of current Defenders, perhaps with some upgrades to better "conform" to modern standards. Like the evolution between the Series, Stage 1, 90 / 110 and Defender. Evolve rather than re-invent.

Originally Posted by MrLandy

I just don't see the evidence. I think it will be more like a D4 rebadged.

Where's the evidence to suggest it will be another Disco though? Wouldn't that just cannibalise Disco sales while increasing costs and killing off an important element of their brand? It doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted by Andrew86

Where's the evidence to suggest it will be another Disco though? Wouldn't that just cannibalise Disco sales while increasing costs and killing off an important element of their brand? It doesn't make any sense to me.

If you look at the spy pics of the new D5 and Disco Sport they are clearly cannibalising the Range Rover Sport. Defender will 'look' more like D4 of old, IMHO. This fits with the current Land Rover urban luxury focus.

Originally Posted by Orkney 90

If that were the case, there would be an argument for continuing the build of current Defenders, perhaps with some upgrades to better "conform" to modern standards. Like the evolution between the Series, Stage 1, 90 / 110 and Defender. Evolve rather than re-invent.

Indeed. ...Interesting isn't it? But the evolution of the pop riveted beasty won't fit automated production lines (the real reason for Defender end of production IMO). Plenty of solid ladder frame chassis vehicles have evolved and still meet design regulations, have lots of airbags, etc.

I think we should look to the Wrangler for inspiration. If you put a new Wrangler next to different ones through the years they are clearly evolving and having things added as technology improves. McGovern is on record as saying that the new Defender is going to be designed as if the Series 1 had undergone the natural design evolution over the last 70 years or so. My prediction is the new Defender will sit in the lineup with the current and past Defenders and Series and look like it has evolved.

All this fear about what it will be. Surely we all agree that Land Rover know how to build an off-road vehicle and the new Defender will be great off-road.

Not that I really care I have no intention of buying one as I've got my Defenders and have no intention of selling them in the next 20 years.