The philosophical 2018 Land Rover Series VI / Defender / 'Icon'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

It won't surprise me if the (L660) next generation utilitarian Land Rover is on a similar platform to the D4 or RRS, but if it is it shouldn't be called Defender.

---

That's probably something like people said when the 110/130 followed the RRC and got coil suspension with disc brakes.

I agree, the new Defender has to be as capable off road as a D4. That means EAS & TR. It won't be as capable if it ends up being an oversized beefed up version of a discovery sport with dual transfer on coils with TR.

LR demonstrated their propensity to release new models based on pre-existing platforms when the Evoque and DIsco Sport followed the Freelander 2. I think I t's likely they will adapt the D4 into a squarer bodied more spartan Defender, with possibly a new motor and box. Just after the all new D5.

It's like waiting for an Apple WWDC.

...a very salient point Tact, I wonder if the 'new' Defender designers have even considered the advantage of flat floors/no footwells! Well said. ...also I doubt the fantastic upright, feet flat on the floor, seating position will be retained.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAT303

A bloke I work with just sold his 79 series and bought a Ranger,he told me this morning he'd catch a bus before owning another one,most costly POS he's ever owned. Pat

---

A mate of mine just traded his Ranger and bought a toymota cruiser dual cab, hates it with a passion, says it could pull a scab of a burst pimple. Noisy, and slow when towing his trailer. Paid close to 7th for it and wants to go back to the Ranger after a week. I think I saw a new 130 at local dealer today we I picked up the Tardis, I thought production ended in march , April?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rar110

That's probably something like people said when the 110/130 followed the RRC and got coil suspension with disc brakes.

I agree, the new Defender has to be as capable off road as a D4. That means EAS & TR. It won't be as capable if it ends up being an oversized beefed up version of a discovery sport with dual transfer on coils with TR.

LR demonstrated their propensity to release new models based on pre-existing platforms when the Evoque and DIsco Sport followed the Freelander 2. I think I t's likely they will adapt the D4 into a squarer bodied more spartan Defender, with possibly a new motor and box. Just after the all new D5.

It's like waiting for an Apple WWDC.

---

Firstly the 110/130 didn't follow the RRc, they followed the SIII Stage 1 and Stage 2 or at least the 90/110 did (and to be more pedantic the 130 followed the coil sprung 120). Range Rover (classic shape) predated the SIII and I know no one who said that about the coil sprung iconic Land Rover shape, and I was there at the time in the LROCS owning both a Series IIa 109 and Range Rover.

IMHO the 90/110 should have followed the Series IIa Land Rover and bypassed the Series III altogether. Rover Co. Ltd/BLMC had all the technology to build the 90/110 in 1971, but they wasted time and their market dominance by building the pathetic by comparison SIII.

So in a nutshell this thread has worked out the following.
#1. D4's are soft roaders driven by try hards with small members
#2. The new defender will be a soft roader driven by try hards with small members (see post #1)
#3. Land Rover is run by idiots who couldn't design a toaster,and have small members
#4. If current model defender owners were any tougher they'd rust,and all have 10'' members.
#5. Too many people on here have too much time on their hands,or they spend too much time playing with their members.
Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAT303

So in a nutshell this thread has worked out the following.
#1. D4's are soft roaders driven by try hards with small members
#2. The new defender will be a soft roader driven by try hards with small members (see post #1)
#3. Land Rover is run by idiots who couldn't design a toaster,and have small members
#4. If current model defender owners were any tougher they'd rust,and all have 10'' members.
#5. Too many people on here have too much time on their hands,or they spend too much time playing with their members.
Pat

---

:Rolling:

#6. If you drive a Landy you'd be better off in a l'cruiser
#7. If you go to a l'cruiser you'll wish you had a Ranger instead

:wallbash::wallbash::lol2:

...or that there's no perceivable difference, character trait, capability or special feeling to be derived from driving different types of Land Rovers? They're all pretty much the same. :Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAT303

So in a nutshell this thread has worked out the following.
#1. D4's are soft roaders driven by try hards with small members
#2. The new defender will be a soft roader driven by try hards with small members (see post #1)
#3. Land Rover is run by idiots who couldn't design a toaster,and have small members
#4. If current model defender owners were any tougher they'd rust,and all have 10'' members.
#5. Too many people on here have too much time on their hands,or they spend too much time playing with their members.
Pat

---

Someone thinks too much about genitals and not Land Rovers me thinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrLandy

...or that there's no perceivable difference, character trait, capability or special feeling to be derived from driving different types of Land Rovers? They're all pretty much the same. :Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:

---

"Upgrade" to a Ranger, do not pass GO and do not get a cruiser first.