New Defender or L660?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

There are so many rumour posts discussing the long term replacment for the Defender and likely to be more as time marches on. It is also unlikely that the late 1980s name "Defender" will be applied to the replacement platform.

So should we be talking about "new Defender" or its JLR project name "L660"?

Diana

[V8Ian]

Defender II or Defender Series II. :D

[Slunnie]

Should it also go in the D3/4/RRS section?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

No it's got an "L" in it so it should go in the L322 section? :o

[Sleepy]

L660 sort of looks like LGG0

They could call it the "Leggo":D

http://www.classic-town.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/4212812713_b0257a945c.jpg

[frantic]

I hope that that the l660 will NOT be the new defender:eek:
Maybe Land rover will follow toymota's lead and make a attention grabber like the FJ with that car and build a stronger commercial like the new 79 series landcruiser, that is if tata is serious about re-taking/entering the commercial market that landrover was a major figure in up till the late 70's
Hell if they where really determined make a larger(read wider with airbags and abs tdv6 and stronger axles) defender to go head to head with the series landcruiser and then make a smaller commercial to tackle the hilux/colarado/triton and they could call it a series VIII with both 4x4 and 2x4 coils and single/dual cab.

[loanrangie]

I agree, if LR (tata ) are serious they would put the tdv6 with an auto in the new fender, sort the interior out so it resembles a car and not a tractor and either put the salisbury back in or go IFS with D3/4/ RRS suspension. I love the shape and style and believe they can keep it close to what it is now and still include the modern features that it should have had when the TD5 models were released.

And FJ an attention grabber, FFS it looks like it is - a turd.

[Sleepy]

Spot on loanrangie. A Defender style body with D4 underbits. ( 3 litre please :) )

You can't polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter! :wasntme:

[uninformed]

now normally I would say you guys are idiots, but after offically becoming Australia's biggest idiot I will refrain from my old ways :D

IMO, I believe that what a couple of posters have recommend LR do is actually the wrong thing. LR have the opertunity to grab a market that is now empty and rebuild the companies image from the bottom up.

They need to keep the basic LR as a seperate chassis/body, keep it alloy but address the stupid body issues like leaks and electrolisis. Use a reliable strong drive train. 6 speed, I feel the front and rear diff should be of fabbed steel housing with removable 3rd. front and rear should be the same, all be it with different tooth direction on the R&P. keep the simple but brilliant 4wd system of the lt230...upgrade what needs. Do not use IFS OR IRS, unless stupidly expensive, it has no place on a work truck. live axle coil sprung. Spen king got it right in the begining. Even bring back the load leveler. The engine should have a min of 500nm, with a few options, that is say a 3.0 high tech and maybe a lower tech high cap for 3rd world countries etc.

the vehicle should keep its no nonsense interior as base, totally hose out-able. make it very low on elecs. This base vehcile should be aimed towards, mining, construction, forestry and defense. The can have an uprgraded interior for a civi option but make the base available also. Focus more on the mechanical workings of the truck rather than the prettiness wanky side of things.

by building a good reliable vehicle, that industry embraces, it will put bums on seats and $$$ in LR pockets...and then the branding carries over that new proved image base of reliablilty and capability onto its entire range.....

currently they are holding onto something long gone, mostly forgotten and that latter vehicles of its own have disproved...

[sashadidi]

Rumours out of NZ distributor of Landrover through about 4 different people to me . He went to england before last Xmas and was told thoughts were defender Models for USA like the concept we saw, double cab ute model as its the biggest market and a Defender type model , all underpinned with d3 and 4 bits etc etc big 3 litre desiel and 4.6 v8 petrol depending on the local market.

[Avion8]

It should be a Series V. Lump all the coiled County/Defer's as Series IV & voila, you have a Series V as the new model. Don't forget the Series 1 only became so after the Series II was born, just a Land Rover before that in different wheel base lengths.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It should be a Series V. Lump all the coiled County/Defer's as Series IV & voila, you have a Series V as the new model. Don't forget the Series 1 only became so after the Series II was born, just a Land Rover before that in different wheel base lengths.Except there was the Stage II coil sprung with series body and the 90/110 are different to the Defender models, so it has to be Series VI or Series VII if we don't accept the Stage II as a SIII. :angel:

[JDNSW]

Except there was the Stage II coil sprung with series body and the 90/110 are different to the Defender models, so it has to be Series VI or Series VII if we don't accept the Stage II as a SIII. :angel:

The only difference between a 90/110 and the Defender was the badges and the diesel engine (I think the V8 continued to be available for a year or two). There have been how many engine changes since then?

Think of a number for the Series. You can argue that the changes in Series number represent significant changes in appearance; 1-2 with the "waist", 2-3 with the plastic dash, 3-90/110/Defender with wheel flares, so the new design would on that basis be Series 5.

But the reality is the Series number is simply a marketing label to say "we are now offering something new".

John

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The only difference between a 90/110 and the Defender was the badges and the diesel engine (I think the V8 continued to be available for a year or two). There have been how many engine changes since then?
...Land Rover instituted the Defender name to differentiate the new models from the old ones, the LT85 was not available in the Defender and neither was the 4BD1, which IMHO makes a new model.

[Jeff]

You can argue that the changes in Series number represent significant changes in appearance; 1-2 with the "waist", 2-3 with the plastic dash, 3-90/110/Defender with wheel flares, so the new design would on that basis be Series 5.John


Funny the changes between the 1948 Series 1 and the 1957 Series 1 are considerably more than from Series 2 to 2A, or even from 2A to 3. We could be up to Series 16.

Jeff

:rocket:

[JDNSW]

Land Rover instituted the Defender name to differentiate the new models from the old ones, the LT85 was not available in the Defender and neither was the 4BD1, which IMHO makes a new model.

4BD1 was Australia only, so irrelevant to naming. And I don't think a change of gearbox has ever been an excuse for changing the name.

Defender was introduced simply because with the decision to introduce the new Discovery as a Landrover Discovery, and rename the Rangerover as a Landrover Rangerover, the 90/110, which had previously simply been a Landrover, had to have another name.

Originally of course, it was a Land Rover and a Range Rover, metamorphosing into a Leyland Landrover and a Leyland Rangerover. But by 1989, Leyland had managed to turn both "Leyland" and "Rover" into dirty words, and the incorporation of these into the new name did not make sense - but the compound names, Landrover and Rangerover, were still respected, so the decision was to use the original (Landrover) name as a marque rather than a model.

(I have not distinguished between Landrover and Land Rover - which is right depends on when we are talking about, I think!)

John

[JDNSW]

Funny the changes between the 1948 Series 1 and the 1957 Series 1 are considerably more than from Series 2 to 2A, or even from 2A to 3. We could be up to Series 16.

Jeff

:rocket:

No question - and the changes from 2a suffix A to 2a suffix H are greater than the change from 2 to 2a or 2a to 3.

As I said above, there is no rule about how much of a change justifies a change in Series number - it is simply marketing!

John

[Sleepy]

Land Rover instituted the Defender name to differentiate the new models from the old ones, the LT85 was not available in the Defender and neither was the 4BD1, which IMHO makes a new model.

I understood the Defender name was introduced to differentiate it from the all new Discovery:confused:

[goingbush]

Funny the changes between the 1948 Series 1 and the 1957 Series 1 are considerably more than from Series 2 to 2A, or even from 2A to 3. We could be up to Series 16.

Jeff

:rocket:

No I reckon we are actually up to Series Eight

There is not enough differences in the 110 from 83 to 06 to make a new series, Its the Dashboard on the Puma not the engine that deserves a new series, much like the upgrade from Series 2A to 3

Series One 1948 80"
Series Two 1952 Front springs shackles moved to rear , 2 litter engine, big gauges
Series Three 1954 86"
Series 3A 1956 107"
Series Four 1958 88" / 109"
Series 2 to 2A change too insignificant to have a new series
Series Five 1969 (Headlights moved to mudguards)
Series Six 1971 (Series 3 bought in)
Series Six A 1979 Stage One
Series Seven 1983 110
Series Eight 2007 Puma

[Sleepy]

No I reckon we are actually up to Series Eight

There is not enough differences in the 110 from 83 to 06 to make a new series, Its the Dashboard on the Puma not the engine that deserves a new series, much like the upgrade from Series 2A to 3

Series One 1948 80"
Series Two 1952 Front springs shackles moved to rear , 2 litter engine, big gauges
Series Three 1954 86"
Series 3A 1956 107"
Series Four 1958 88" / 109"
Series 2 to 2A change too insignificant to have a new series
Series Five 1969 (Headlights moved to mudguards)
Series Six 1971 (Series 3 bought in)
Series Six A 1979 Stage One
Series Seven 1983 110
Series Eight 2007 Puma

The Puma get's a Series? What for? A six speed, transit engine and a poofy dashboard. Geez surely the change to 200/300tdi is significant - New engine/Rear Disc's, and what the Td5 doesn't get a mention? Geesh. :no2:

I would say Series 7 - 200tdi
Series 7A - 300tdi
Series 8 - Td5
Series 8A - MY03 Td5
Then back to Series 7 with the Puma cos it was a backwards step.:p

[Jeff]

No I reckon we are actually up to Series Eight

There is not enough differences in the 110 from 83 to 06 to make a new series, Its the Dashboard on the Puma not the engine that deserves a new series, much like the upgrade from Series 2A to 3

Series One 1948 80"
Series Two 1952 Front springs shackles moved to rear , 2 litter engine, big gauges
Series Three 1954 86"
Series 3A 1956 107"
Series Four 1958 88" / 109"
Series 2 to 2A change too insignificant to have a new series
Series Five 1969 (Headlights moved to mudguards)
Series Six 1971 (Series 3 bought in)
Series Six A 1979 Stage One
Series Seven 1983 110
Series Eight 2007 Puma


I was counting the A as a whole series. I also included the introduction of the Six cylinder, with the dash changes, single wiper motor etc. I did count the different Defender engines as different series, but I see your point.

Jeff

:rocket:

[Yorkshire_Jon]

Actually the naming went from 88/90/10/127/130 to Defender 90/110/130 for legal reasons.

You can't trademark a number and therefore protect your corporate branding like you can an alpha-numerical string.

That's also why Audi killed off the 80, 90 & 100 and changed to the A4, A6 & A8

Jon

Sent using Forum Runner