Thread: Rumour 2.2

perhaps they will restart the series 2 engine abssembly line.

Originally Posted by eksjay

Can the car be improved without necessitating a blank sheet of paper scenario?

-Can driver side and pax airbags be fitted? Surely they can?
-Can other safety features be added?
-Can the driver's seating be improved?
-What is wrong with the current undercarriage? Why change it?

There's nothing "Wrong" with the current undercarriage but it could be better. I find that it's a tough call between the Defender & Disco for off-road ability. Take the best bits of both (Defender body & Disco ability) and you could have something amazing off-road... and, it would probably have some decent on-road manners too.

Originally Posted by eksjay

-Why move away from an aluminium outer shell?

Who said anything about moving away from an ally shell??

Originally Posted by eksjay

-Can an appropriate Euro5 compliant engine [with a bit of guts] be sourced and matched to a suitable tranny?

If LR can come up with an improved on-road version like Chrysler did with the current Jeep Wrangler design [putting the many quality issues aside], without sacrificing the off road capability, would you all be happy with that?

You mean like sticking a Defender body on a Discovery chassis??

Originally Posted by eksjay

If it still looked like a Defender, but a little more contemporary, would that secure the brand for another quarter century perhaps? Note that Chrysler kept the Dana live axles unlike what the reports are saying about LR ditching live axles....

Without having seen the product, I can't comment, but I am sure there are plenty of purists in this forum.

Purist... Or is that just another name for someone that is blinkered and stuck in their ways???

M

Originally Posted by Bush65

Of the many reasons why Land Rovers sell pitiful numbers of vehicles in rural Australia, an important one is the small engine size. Doesn't matter how well the puma performs, they are ruled out sight unseen.

...or in other words... Ruled out through ignorance.

M

Face it guys they stopped making real Land Rovers years ago.

Originally Posted by Bush65

Of the many reasons why Land Rovers sell pitiful numbers of vehicles in rural Australia, an important one is the small engine size. Doesn't matter how well the puma performs, they are ruled out sight unseen.

Originally Posted by camel_landy

...or in other words... Ruled out through ignorance. M

Makes not one bit of difference if you or anyone else call it ignorance, to feel righteous (or dream up another excuse for Land Rover marketing incompetence) - it is fact.

Toyota probably sell more 4wd vehicles in Australia in 1 to 2 weeks than Land Rover annually. Though there are more reasons than engine size, it is an important factor.

Last time I looked at the sales figures for 4wd vehicle sales in Australia, Land Rover couldn't even get into the top 20 list - pathetic!

Who said the customer is always right, or something to that effect!

As fuel prices go up the smaller engines will come into favour, that and the taxes as they work on CO2 per km.

The towing capacity is one thing that keeps them in the market.

Size (cubic capacity) seems to be a fixation here.

I think that performance might be a better yard stick because it takes into account torque and power in useful engine rev ranges and fuel consumption for the work done.

Cow cockies might prefer a larger engine but at what cost for fuel.

The reality (and I agree with the arguments) is that if you live out of town then having a relatively local servicing agent or being able to do the servicing yourself is the prime consideration in the choice of vehicle.

I'm afraid that no modern diesel comfortably sits in the self service category. So you are left with the answer...you buy a Toyota because they are local and spend the money on fuel.

Originally Posted by one_iota

Size (cubic capacity) seems to be a fixation here.
...

Because it was fixed by the thread title

I also believe the thread poster had set out to fish for these responses

I agree performance is a better yardstick. But it also has the same problems as clearly seen by some of the posts above.

'X' kW power and 'Y' Nm torque are also seem to be a common fixation, but they fall far short of a reasonable performance yardstick.

Small diesels can be made to give very high maximum power and maximum torque figures. This is partly due to advanced technology (particularly with fuel injection), and partly due to methods to get the small engine to burn similar amounts of fuel to a larger displacement engine.

All of the engines we are discussing convert the chemical energy in fuel to mechanical energy that rotates the wheels.

Small 4 cylinder engines have lower internal friction losses than larger engines with more cylinders. But the difference between engines with the same number of cylinders and moderate difference in displacement is not particularly significant.

Two otherwise similar (no of cylinders and technology) engines of moderately different displacement will need to burn much the same quantity of fuel to produce the same power and torque.

To burn the same amount of fuel, the minimum amount of air that different size engines have to be able to pump is practically the same. To pump the same quantity of air, a smaller engine has to run at higher revs and/or increase the charge density (e.g. higher turbo boost pressure, more efficient intercooler).

As revs go up, inertial loads increase exponentially.

Smaller engine have much lower thermal mass and less ability to transfer heat away from hot spots. This generally means they can not operate at high specific loads for very long, compared to a larger engine.

Power is load times speed. So two vehicles with different engine size but otherwise identical, will produce identical power for the same load and speed.

The smaller engine is more dependent on the turbo and intercooler than the larger engine. This is not much of an issue at highway speeds, but is more likely an issue for offroad drive ability.

I have on several desert trips compared different vehicles including several Land Rover 300Tdi's (manual and auto discos and 110 defenders), several old technology n/a diesel Landcruiser 80 series, old and newer technology diesel Patrols.

Steep dunes were most difficult for the 300Tdi - on cross country side trips the 3.0 litre Patrol could easily drive over dunes that defeated the 300Tdi (small engine with turbo that is out of its range syndrome). The 300Tdi's had to be driven many km's further to find a spot where they could cross.

Of these only the 300Tdi and the 3.0 litre Patrol were direct injection, which is significantly more efficient and so it is to expected that they should use less fuel.

As far as trip fuel consumption on these trips, there was not a lot in it $ wise. If it had been possible to compare different size engines that were otherwise similar technology, I can't believe that the small engine would come out ahead on fuel consumption, but would have worked much harder and not be as good to drive.

IMHO the trend for smaller engines is inevitable, but it is driven by European legislation, for their conditions and for environmental reasons, disregarding practically every other consideration.