defender replacement: the benchmark (IMHO)

[scrambler]

With all the Defender replacement threads, I thought I might post what I believe is the vehicle closest to what the Defender should be.

Like the Defender it is a lineal descendent of the WW2 Jeep. Like the Defender replacement it was a ground-up redesign. Like generations of Land Rovers it is a military vehicle.

The Jeep J8

Military Jeep J8 road test (http://www.jeepolog.com/UserFiles/english_pages/jeep%20j8%20road%20test.htm)

[solmanic]

Rest assured if they cock up the new Deefer I'll be looking for a way to secure one of these instead.

[isuzurover]

I hope VM diesels have improved???

Looks good, but I would take a g-wagen Professional over that.

G-wagen has lockers, coil rear and a 3L engine...

However the Jeep does have rear discs.

[Blknight.aus]

the perentie.

[jakeslouw]

The issue with the GW Pro is the price: over here they go for USD$100,000.

For that price I can buy two Puma Defenders.

Jeep J8 looks good, I just hope the control arms are stronger than stock.

[rijidij]

............However the Jeep does have rear discs.

......and rear leaf springs :eek:

[jakeslouw]

Rear leaf springs are better for load carrying than coils.

[JDNSW]

Rear leaf springs are better for load carrying than coils.

It is not clear to me that this is the case. The only reason would be that the coil carries the load at one point on the chassis where the leaf spring carries it at two, but surely any advantage for one or the other depends on the chassis design. On the other hand, the coil has no load concentration on a moving joint as the leaf spring does at the eyes.

The other primary difference, that the coil separates the location, torque reaction, and damping functions from the support function seems to me to be independent of load.

You can argue that unloaded/loaded springing can easily be arranged with leaf springs by having a separate overload pack, but you can do the same sort of thing with coils as well, for example with concentric springs or tapered springs.

John

[roverrescue]

Sounds like the ideal tourer to me:

"We find that the suspension is flexible when crawling, and the high spring rates work great when running fast, but it feels really bad in medium driving speeds on the washboard roads. The semi-elliptic leaf spring setup is simply too hard when not fully loaded."

Just how do you fit a tonne of gear to settle the rear end when all you have a is a poxy little dog box behind the rear seats??? Maybe youll need to ute-efy one.
I wonder if the ne european VM still has four leaky head gaskets or if they have economised and now only have one leaky gasket???

The solution to LR destroying the new defender is to just keep an old one.

S

[VladTepes]

The Merc Professional is over $150K here, projected price, what a scam.

The Jeep does not have the same interior / cargo room as the Defender.


Rear leaf springs are better for load carrying than coils.

Hmm
Coil Sprung Defender - load rating 1 tonne.
Leaf Sprug Land cruiser - load rating 750 kg.

[jakeslouw]

Guys, don't confuse the spring rating with load carrying capability.

Coils (whether linear or progressive) eventually bind when compressed too far (ask anybody who has found it necessary to fit airbags helper kits to the coil vehicles).

Leaf springs can take a huge amount of punishment compared to coils before they over-extend and collapse. I have personally loaded a one-ton leaf-spring ute with more than a ton and had no issues. You can't do that with coils.

Leaf springs also spread the load across two points on the chassis: having a single point of force can cause a chassis to break at that pivot point.

But again this is a very emotional subject.

[isuzurover]

Guys, don't confuse the spring rating with load carrying capability.

Coils (whether linear or progressive) eventually bind when compressed too far (ask anybody who has found it necessary to fit airbags helper kits to the coil vehicles).

Leaf springs can take a huge amount of punishment compared to coils before they over-extend and collapse. I have personally loaded a one-ton leaf-spring ute with more than a ton and had no issues. You can't do that with coils.

Leaf springs also spread the load across two points on the chassis: having a single point of force can cause a chassis to break at that pivot point.

But again this is a very emotional subject.

Coil suspension should hit the bump stops before the coils bind - otherwise the suspension has been incorrectly designed. Just as leaf springs should hit the bump stops before the spring inverts too far.

I too have loaded both leaf-sprung and coil-spring landies beyond the GVM - but I am not sure what your point there is?

The only (relevant) argument here about load carrying ability is that Leaves distribute the load over 2 points and coils 1 point. However that isn't a major issue that cannot be overcome by a properly designed chassis.

The harshness of many leaf-spring suspensions probably induces a lot of stress on the chassis.

I have owned both, and used both for load carrying, and I will take coil or air springs and a properly designed chassis over leaves.

[jakeslouw]

Like I said, this is a very 50/50 subject. Personally I like leafs. And I've also load both up beyond GVM ratings.

[isuzurover]

Like I said, this is a very 50/50 subject. Personally I like leafs. And I've also load both up beyond GVM ratings.

Exactly. It is more personal preference than a solid argument either way.

Most heavy vehicles seem to have switched (or are switching) from leafs to air-springs.

[jakeslouw]

:D OK, I unconditionally retract my previous statement......leafs are not necessarily better.

[VladTepes]

Maybe what you mean is "Leaf Sprung Landies are more FUN".

[tempestv8]

Not sure if this has been posted elsehwere but here's the likely Defender replacement, a new Defender in 2015! :)

Pictures can be found here:

Revealed: New Defender | Land Rover (http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/revealed-new-defender-20110831-1jl13.html)

I think the front end needs a bit more work... :angel:

[JDNSW]

.....

I think the front end needs a bit more work... :angel:
Who cares about looks? This tells us nothing about the important things - chassis design, mechanicals, hose out floors, body types, that sort of thing. One thing for sure - that particular version will not sell many to Defender owners - how many 90s get sold? And the windscreen is raked too far and is not flat - can you imagine how hot it will be after being parked in the sun for a while?

John

[muddys1]

i hope that landrover read these threads, cos this is where the truth is going to come from, sorry boys, your not even close to the mark with this one, all i can say is my defenders just shot up in value and so has everyother defender in the world.
looks like a face lifted freelander, and i'm not sure you could ''DEFEND'' a country with one of these.
''rubbish'' thats my thought on it

muddys1

[pannawonica]

Looks like a Gaylander !

[Loubrey]

Not keen on it either to be honest. Looks like a Hyundai Getz that had some sort of radioactive accident...

Just in reply to JDNSW regarding how many 90's are sold. Australia is the only country in the world where they don't outsell 110's and 130's.

British farmers love them in the pickup version (honestly can't tell you why as the loadbox is the size of a wheel barrow!), the extreme crowd doing Trialling loves them for obvious reasons and they are loved in cities around the world because you can drive a Defender that has a smaller footprint than a Ford Focus.

IMO a short wheelbase creature like that will sell if they fix the looks. Landrover like all car companies is only interrested in sales and they'll build what sells, even at the expense of their loyal Defender customer base.

[NCF 110]

This is what the new defender will look like .

BBC News - Land Rover confirms new version of its Defender model (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14726189)

Nice eh !

[JDNSW]

Just in reply to JDNSW regarding how many 90's are sold. Australia is the only country in the world where they don't outsell 110's and 130's.
.....
IMO a short wheelbase creature like that will sell if they fix the looks. Landrover like all car companies is only interrested in sales and they'll build what sells, even at the expense of their loyal Defender customer base.

You might be right - but it is not just Landrover - all manufacturers of four wheel drives in Australia struggle to sell short wheelbase variants.

Australian farmers will rarely buy something that does not have a tray you can put a couple of pallet loads of chemicals or similar on with a forklift. The major part of the use they used to make of swb four wheel drives, as a farm runabout, is now done by four wheel motorbikes.

By the way, I agree that they need the swb for the world market, although not for Australia, where lwb is needed - and almost certainly for the USA market, although they could do well with both there.

John

[Loubrey]

Having had all night to stare at it.:eek: You would have wonder how a long-wheel base and pick up version would look. Accepted that it's only a concept an you only have to look at the differences between the Range Stormer and the eventual Range Rover Sport not to panic too much.

I managed to attend a talk at Gaydon, Warwickshire a couple years ago when they started thinking of the Defender replacement. Their brief was clear to have a "modular" concept so that, like a current Defender everything up to the back of the driver seat remains the same on all models and the different configurations then start from there. Looking at those two carefully posed picktures, there appears to be 2 seams or joints front and aft of the D-pillar that might allow for different configurations?