The "New" Defender,.....When?

[Pickles2]

There's lots of talk about the "new" Defender,...what it will be....when it will be released etc etc.
What do forum members think about the "timeframe" here?....in other words, does anyone have an opinion as to when the "New" Defender will be announced...how long will we have to wait?
In view of this, I'd say that L.R. may produce a "Final Edition" Defender, which would surely be something special?
Cheers, Pickles.

[Loubrey]

Hi Pickles,

Just back from a couple weeks in the UK and chatting to some mates who work for JLR about the same topic.

Big secrets in terms of marketing timing etc, but Australia is unlikely to see anything interesting before the MY16 run out and that might be optimistic and the MY17 might be more realistic. The Disco 5 is meant to have a "toughened" up version for work and touring with a reduced price tag to take up the void.

The big concern is that with stability control and airbag laws coming into force soon in Australia, we might not even see the last of the Defenders as we know them. I'm sure someone would know the exact date, but there is a firm cut off beyond which no new vehicle without stability control may be sold (traction control don't count) in Australia and airbags are soon to follow. This is likely to be before the end of Defender...

Cheers,

Lou

[Landy Smurf]

^ If that was the case could you still import a new defender yourself?

[Loubrey]

There must be someone on here who knows how the rules work in regards to cut off dates on compulsory equipment...

I can only imagine that there will be rules that say the import would have to be built before a specific date. You might therefore be able to bring an older one in?

The US have got a whole black market trade going on in fake registrations on Defenders to presumably make them "older" than the cut off date.

Cheers,

Lou

[JamesB71]

I guess I had better look after mine so it will last......? how long?

[rangietragic]

Would love to get my hands on the last ever defender model.Would be worth a bit after a few years.:)Hope they put a bigger engine and all the good gear on it ,not just a different paint job.But i suppose we ARE talking about land rover here.:(

[Pickles2]

A Defender with a Range Rover Sport engine (5L 375HP S/C of course)....How good would that be?
Cheers, Pickles.

[Bush65]

A Defender with a Range Rover Sport engine (5L 375HP S/C of course)....How good would that be?
Cheers, Pickles.
:censored:

I have been vocal in the past about the small displacement engines land Rover have shackled Defenders with.

But what you suggest is far worse.

In the good old days the 110 had optional engines, and I still don't know what was wrong with having an option or two.

[JamesB71]

I'm happy with the smaller fuel bill without compromising off road ability.

[spudboy]

A Defender with a Range Rover Sport engine (5L 375HP S/C of course)....How good would that be?
Cheers, Pickles.

Pretty good, until you let the clutch out :D

[Pickles2]

:censored:

I have been vocal in the past about the small displacement engines land Rover have shackled Defenders with.

But what you suggest is far worse.

In the good old days the 110 had optional engines, and I still don't know what was wrong with having an option or two.
Well, I wouldn't mind 510HP in a Defender, but no worries, when it comes, I'd better not offer you a drive!!
But seriously, yes, if there were other engine options, what size/type/diesel/petrol/power/torque etc would you like to see on offer?
Cheers, Pickles.

[Bush65]

Well, I wouldn't mind 510HP in a Defender, but no worries, when it comes, I'd better not offer you a drive!!
But seriously, yes, if there were other engine options, what size/type/diesel/petrol/power/torque etc would you like to see on offer?
Cheers, Pickles.
My old 4 banger diesel can produce plenty of useable torque/power, along with good economy and reliability. I don't need or desire more. In most states the speed limit is 110 kmh, or 130 kmh on some NT roads, and mine will reach those speed in not many seconds, and will easily exceed them by a large degree. So what price for maybe a few seconds gain?

On a test drive of your imaginary Defender, I might be impressed by the performance, but not of it's practicability. I want to travel long distances in the outback, far from a servo.

As stated I have regularly expressed my opinion on a suitable engine type, when others have suggested the Puma is mana, or like you, the V6 or V8 diesel from a Disco or Rangie. Many have misconstrued my comments as being anti-technology, but in fact I am simply anti small displacement, inefficiency and complexity.

The issue with small displacement is low torque until the turbo produces enough boost. IMHO, between 3 and 3.5 litres, from a modern diesel is plenty. Ford and Mazda have used a larger displacement version of the puma engine Land Rover chose. Land Rover had good reasons for the small engine in Britain, but IMHO their sales would be greater in Australia if they offered a larger displacement engine option.

V6 and V8 engines are not ideal; too complex, too expensive, too many moving parts, too many expensive parts that will need replacing over time, too much space in the engine bay.

An inline engine will always have a stiffer block, and better supported crankshaft, and in a high compression diesel the lower region of the cylinders are not subjected to high loads from adjacent cylinders. 'V' engines don't lend themselves to turbocharging as naturally as an inline engine.

Although an inline 6 cylinder diesel would be smoother and can take good advantage of pulse turbocharging, they are not as efficient as an inline 4 (more friction from extra moving parts) and cost more to manufacture (more parts). I can put up with the reduced smoothness of an inline 4, particularly given all of the advantages. In some states, registration fees increase with number of cylinders.

Summing up, I would like to see Land Rover use an inline 4 cylinder diesel of between 3 and 3.5 litres. An inline 6 of the same displacement would also be a good choice.

I understood JLR and Tarta were working toward a new engine design of their own, and what I have said is well understood, so there is hope.

[Pickles2]

No worries, for sure I'd like to see the engine you describe installed.
Not much hope though in the "current" Defender though, wouldn't you think, as they're only selling 16000 a year, & a "New" Defender is said to be on the drawing board?
Cheers, Pickles.

[JamesB71]

If they were going to put a bigger donk in they would have to look at the fuel tank capacity in the 90.... As it is I think I will be carrying a Jerry can whever I venture out past lithgow.

Still has to be better than tracking down LPG anywhere there arent lots of Taxis...

[wally]

My old 4 banger diesel can produce plenty of useable torque/power, along with good economy and reliability. I don't need or desire more. In most states the speed limit is 110 kmh, or 130 kmh on some NT roads, and mine will reach those speed in not many seconds, and will easily exceed them by a large degree. So what price for maybe a few seconds gain?

On a test drive of your imaginary Defender, I might be impressed by the performance, but not of it's practicability. I want to travel long distances in the outback, far from a servo.

As stated I have regularly expressed my opinion on a suitable engine type, when others have suggested the Puma is mana, or like you, the V6 or V8 diesel from a Disco or Rangie. Many have misconstrued my comments as being anti-technology, but in fact I am simply anti small displacement, inefficiency and complexity.

The issue with small displacement is low torque until the turbo produces enough boost. IMHO, between 3 and 3.5 litres, from a modern diesel is plenty. Ford and Mazda have used a larger displacement version of the puma engine Land Rover chose. Land Rover had good reasons for the small engine in Britain, but IMHO their sales would be greater in Australia if they offered a larger displacement engine option.

V6 and V8 engines are not ideal; too complex, too expensive, too many moving parts, too many expensive parts that will need replacing over time, too much space in the engine bay.

An inline engine will always have a stiffer block, and better supported crankshaft, and in a high compression diesel the lower region of the cylinders are not subjected to high loads from adjacent cylinders. 'V' engines don't lend themselves to turbocharging as naturally as an inline engine.

Although an inline 6 cylinder diesel would be smoother and can take good advantage of pulse turbocharging, they are not as efficient as an inline 4 (more friction from extra moving parts) and cost more to manufacture (more parts). I can put up with the reduced smoothness of an inline 4, particularly given all of the advantages. In some states, registration fees increase with number of cylinders.

Summing up, I would like to see Land Rover use an inline 4 cylinder diesel of between 3 and 3.5 litres. An inline 6 of the same displacement would also be a good choice.

I understood JLR and Tarta were working toward a new engine design of their own, and what I have said is well understood, so there is hope.

I would have agreed with all of that before I bought a 2.2. Bottom end torque is pretty amazing for such a small engine and I think would be more than adequate for everything except perhaps heavy towing where hill starts might still be a problem although I haven't done any of that so I still don't really know. Personally I have no practical reason to desire an engine of any bigger capacity. It seems to me that diesel engine technology has reached that stage where larger capacity isn't that important. If the five cylinder 3.2 engine was offered as an option I would still choose the 2.2 since it would most likely be cheaper to run, and registration on the five cylinder (in Qld at least) would be more expensive.

[PAT303]

I'm happy with the smaller fuel bill without compromising off road ability.

I'm happy with the smaller engine as they are reliable and easy to work on,my V8 cruiser work ute is neither. Pat

[PAT303]

I would have agreed with all of that before I bought a 2.2. Bottom end torque is pretty amazing for such a small engine and I think would be more than adequate for everything except perhaps heavy towing where hill starts might still be a problem although I haven't done any of that so I still don't really know. Personally I have no practical reason to desire an engine of any bigger capacity. It seems to me that diesel engine technology has reached that stage where larger capacity isn't that important. If the five cylinder 3.2 engine was offered as an option I would still choose the 2.2 since it would most likely be cheaper to run, and registration on the five cylinder (in Qld at least) would be more expensive.

Having owned or driven/drive bigger engined vehicles I really don't see a need for me to own one,the 2.4 or 2.2 is mated perfectly with the 6 speed and just does what it needs to do without fuss,It's not all beer and skittles in the Jap camp as many of them are suffering from QC issue's and many people are buying bigger engined vehicles for towing but once they get shocked by the high teens to low twenties per hundred economy they all sit on 80 which is slower than what I can sit on. Pat

[KarlB]

If they were going to put a bigger donk in they would have to look at the fuel tank capacity in the 90.... As it is I think I will be carrying a Jerry can whever I venture out past lithgow.

Still has to be better than tracking down LPG anywhere there arent lots of Taxis...


You will get from Katoomba to Sydney and back on half a tank. That said, I have installed both left and right sill tanks in my D90 to give me a total fuel capacitly of about 135 litres which equates to a range of about 1000 km.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[JamesB71]

I commute daily to Penrith so will be keen to see what sort of mileage I get coming down the hill every day. The 2003 V6 hilux on petrol is expensive to run, but I tend to run it on LPG and stop to fill it up every second day...

[Samblers]

One of the 4WD mags describes the (puma) defender engine as “adequately powerful”. I subscribe to this. Its powerful enough for what it needs to do.

Also a single engine variant means we’re all dealing with the same beast and keeps the development costs down for LR… which means they carry on manufacturing (for now).

So a win I think.

And its not petrol. Another win.

[Bush65]

Further to my comments, and now recalling similar responses in the past. None can deny that many are happy with their small engines, but many also rush out to get them chipped, and I've never seen a mention of anyone taking out a chip because it was better with less torque/power.

Perceptions play a big part in sales, Land Rover don't sell many Defenders in Australia, because many buyers perceive the engines are too small, which they are for those who do need to pull a load. I would love to see sales numbers increase, that would be the biggest win!

When you need to pull a load, there is no good reason why the fuel consumption is going to be better from a smaller displacement engine, given similar technology, that has to struggle. Rather the reverse is usually the case.

[DasLandRoverMan]

Nene Overland now offer the 3.2 litre 5 cylinder as a conversion in the Defender.
I can't find anything useful for torque figures, but they claim 265bhp, as opposed to 120bhp and 360nm from the 2.2, although the standard figures for the Transit seem to be 200bhp and 470nm, which reads pretty well.

From what I've read the conversion uses the internals from the 3.2 transit gearbox (a stronger version of the Defender one) and is pretty much a bolt in conversion, with Bell Auto Services sorting out the electronics.

It's all new components, but the cost of the conversion is near £20k, on top of your Defender.
Reviews from the motoring press seem pretty encouraging, and I suspect it would sell pretty well if Land Rover could offer them for sale at a competitive price.
I'd rather have a 130 HiCap with a 3.2 Than a HiLux, L200, Navara or an Amarok as a working truck. The money involved however is somewhat off putting.

[PAT303]

Further to my comments, and now recalling similar responses in the past. None can deny that many are happy with their small engines, but many also rush out to get them chipped, and I've never seen a mention of anyone taking out a chip because it was better with less torque/power.

Perceptions play a big part in sales, Land Rover don't sell many Defenders in Australia, because many buyers perceive the engines are too small, which they are for those who do need to pull a load. I would love to see sales numbers increase, that would be the biggest win!

When you need to pull a load, there is no good reason why the fuel consumption is going to be better from a smaller displacement engine, given similar technology, that has to struggle. Rather the reverse is usually the case.

Many people de-cat and chip modern small engines simply because the pollution gear strangles the engine and causes them to use more fuel.Like every vehicle people only see the motor,I have both the TDCi and D4D and the bigger engine has more power but the gearbox does not match it,one minute it's lugging off boost and the next minute it's run off the cam,nothing more than a bigger Tdi,try almost any of the modern vehicles,especially the auto's and they will pull away from the last generation of engines. Pat

[isuzurover]

...try almost any of the modern vehicles,especially the auto's and they will pull away from the last generation of engines. Pat

I don't think John was talking about acceleration when he mentioned low down torque.

The 2.4 goes well, but even with the low first gear it can't match the low down torque of a larger engine.

[Dougal]

Landrover appear to limit the defender to under 100kw. From there it looks like they picked the smallest engine psa had with that number.

[jasonedu]

When you need to pull a load, there is no good reason why the fuel consumption is going to be better from a smaller displacement engine, given similar technology, that has to struggle. Rather the reverse is usually the case.

I have heard this a few times but not something I have experienced. My worst economy in my 2.4 was towing a fully loaded troopy that was towing a camprite trailer. My fuel consumption was about then same as his when he is not towing anything.

[PAT303]

I don't think John was talking about acceleration when he mentioned low down torque.

The 2.4 goes well, but even with the low first gear it can't match the low down torque of a larger engine.

Beg to differ,the low first will pull were's an LC needs a clutch slip,how many times have you towed with modern vehicles?,an Isuzu,TD42,1HT-FTE will all be left behind by any one of the modern small capacity diesel engines while towing,it's the old narrow minded type that carry on with BS about electrics leaving you stranded or ''will it do 500,000k's'' crap that holds back the very good drivelines we have today. Pat

[Dougal]

Beg to differ,the low first will pull were's an LC needs a clutch slip,how many times have you towed with modern vehicles?,an Isuzu,TD42,1HT-FTE will all be left behind by any one of the modern small capacity diesel engines while towing,it's the old narrow minded type that carry on with BS about electrics leaving you stranded or ''will it do 500,000k's'' crap that holds back the very good drivelines we have today. Pat

Those examples you've got Pat are a 4 litre 4 cyl 25 year old truck engine, an indirect injection 6 cyl and a direct injection 6 cyl.

If you hook a load onto an Isuzu powered disco/rrc/110 and again with a 200/300tdi of the same era, the Isuzu will use less fuel at the same speed.
Unloaded if you slow down the 200/300tdi will use less fuel. But if you want to maintain a reasonable pace the consumption will be pretty much identical.
But this is an extreme case of 2.5L vs 3.9L.

The TD42 isn't worth mentioning here. It's not an efficient engine. The 1HD-FTE is an efficient engine when working hard, but working it hard drinks a lot of fuel. This is why pretty much no-one is making 6 cyl engines now.

What we should be comparing is 2L vs 3L diesels. I'd be very interested in fuel consumption tests in a range of different conditions on the Ford Ranger and the VW Amarok.
I recently suggested a ZD30 (3 litre direct injection 4 valve 4 cyl engine) as the type of engine that could ideally be fitted to a P38. It wasn't a popular suggestion, but some did agree with me.
The ZD30 is an example of an excellent engine with a terrible factory tune.

[Loubrey]

I think we've all read this discussion 20 times over...:D

We all drive what we prefer and its safe to say that Land Rover will never revert to engines that can't meet EU emission laws (inside or outside the UK, Globally Environmentally Responsible after all), so its purely academic to wish them to do so...

Bigger engines still won't give you airbags and stability control which will both cause the death of new Defenders in Australia before the engine debate and final versions gets anywhere!:(

Cheers,

Lou

[Dougal]

I think we've all read this discussion 20 times over...:D

We all drive what we prefer and its safe to say that Land Rover will never revert to engines that can't meet EU emission laws (inside or outside the UK, Globally Environmentally Responsible after all), so its purely academic to wish them to do so...

Larger diesels still meet all EU emissions laws. I don't see your point.

Stability control is only electronic control away. All the hardware required is already there. How hard can airbags be?

[Pickles2]

G'Day Lou.
"Airbags & Stability Control".....yes very true. I suppose the big question is "When". I tried to google this when I first learned of this, but couldn't find anything really specific, particularly with respect to timeframe.
So, do you know when these new "laws", which will affect Defender, will happen?
Cheers, Pickles.

[Loubrey]

Hi Dougal,

I don't disagree with you at all. The modern engines like the variants of the Puma and Lion engines all do, but the horse has bolted on spending money on Defender (as we know it) development. There is also no way they'll spend money on developing stability control based on the Defender's TC and believe me, the airbags is a HUGE issue. Defenders with crush cans and crumple zones will just never happen...

Pickles2,

I'm not in the motoring industry, but we manage fleets of light vehicles in our business and while there doesn't appear to be a fixed date all the manufactures have stepped up to the mark (those are the ones able to do so). We have stopped buying 70 or 76 Series LC's (think that's what they are called?) and are now just leasing them as they will be out the door as well when it happens.

Cheers,

Lou

[Dougal]

Hi Dougal,

I don't disagree with you at all. The modern engines like the variants of the Puma and Lion engines all do, but the horse has bolted on spending money on Defender (as we know it) development. There is also no way they'll spend money on developing stability control based on the Defender's TC and believe me, the airbags is a HUGE issue. Defenders with crush cans and crumple zones will just never happen...

The Eu5 engines are already there for the defender, so nothing extra to spend. It's literally parts bin stuff.
Stability control doesn't need developed, it's literally fitting and tuning. All the interfaces (4 channel abs and electronic throttle) are already in the defenders.

Is airbags the issue or crash standards? These while related are not the same thing.
If airbags are legally required, then how hard can it be to fit them? You can guarantee the last interior facelift had airbag functionality in the spec. Crumple zones and crash cans are not airbags. Airbags are triggered off inertia sensors.

What is the legislation calling for?

[PAT303]

Lets not forget pedestrian friendly front ends :confused:,something the defender doesn't have and shouldn't have considering we don't drive on the footpath. Pat

[DasLandRoverMan]

Heh, pedestrian safety...

Having recently been (deliberately) hit with a modern 'pedestrian friendly' car at about 10mph I can tell you it still ****ing hurt, whilst there's a reasonable chance a Disco or 110 would have done me less damage, and given me a better landing area.

Anything over 15-20mph it's fairly obvious the car isn't gonna come off worse, no matter how friendly it is.

[Spencer72]

What happens to existing Defenders when the law on stability control and airbags is implemented?

[Dougal]

What happens to existing Defenders when the law on stability control and airbags is implemented?

They explode in a ball of fire. Taking out a bus of Nuns in the process.

This may take some time to affect all defenders as the supply of Nun's is limited.

[Pickles2]

Nothing will happen to existing Defenders with any new laws, because if they were retrospective, hundreds of thousands of vehicles of all descriptions would simply be unable to be driven....so that ain't gonna happen.
Cheers, Pickles.

[dfendr]

Quote From Fifth Gear the Tv Show

If the world were to end tomorrow 2 things would survive
Cockroaches
and
Landrover Defenders

[Pickles2]

Hello, when ours finally arrives, we will treat you to a "Guest Showing"!!
Cheers, Pickles (& Wifey!)

[the_preacher1973]

What happens to existing Defenders when the law on stability control and airbags is implemented?

I can't speak for everyone's but I'm pretty sure mine will continue to leak oil and recover dual cab utes out of sand dunes.

[airman08]

My head is turning every time when a Defender drives past me. I have to say, I love driving my Land Rover, but there is always something missing.

The simpler the better, I think its the best description for the Defenders.

However, there must be reasons why these brilliant defenders were beaten by L/C & Patrols in terms of sales numbers, reliability, cost of running etc etc...

I am not really a technical person. But I do think that in the context of Australia, where the environmental conditions are harsh, as a consumer, I would not want to drive a 2.2L diesel Defender with spare 180L fuel and a tonne of supplies in the outback.

You see, that's the thing I don't quite understand the LR philosophy, you built a such brilliant truck but equip it with a 2.2L engine. Again, a 2.2L diesel can never be a 4.2L diesel. Many occasions we need the torque at the rev before the turbo starts working, so max output at higher rev then seems irrelevant.
Under the same condition, it is much easier to replace the Defender with a L/C or Patrol which is one size bigger to do the same task.

Personally, I think it is very unlikely that the JLR will refresh the Defender with a bigger diesel engine, because it think there are not many competition in this class. 76 series is more expensive, G-Wagon is not really easy to get and also expensive, wrangler is more like a weekend car to me. So why change when there is not much competitions?

It is very sad to see Defender to go.

[inside]

I am not really a technical person. But I do think that in the context of Australia, where the environmental conditions are harsh, as a consumer, I would not want to drive a 2.2L diesel Defender with spare 180L fuel and a tonne of supplies in the outback.
Yet while you're sitting there thinking about it people are out there doing it. Who's the one missing out?

[airman08]

Yet while you're sitting there thinking about it people are out there doing it. Who's the one missing out?

What makes you think I didnt:)

[Bush65]

Yet while you're sitting there thinking about it people are out there doing it. Who's the one missing out?
Yes, but mostly it is only rusted on Land Rover nuts who know the real capabilities, and many more can't comprehend.

But as said, many many more are doing it in Toyota, Nissan, etc. and who is missing out? Land Rover that's who, and as a result Australian Land Rover owners through, for example, the poor distribution of Land Rover support in our "outback" regions.

IMHO, if they offered a larger displacement engine (at least 3.0 litre, but maybe 3.2) as an option , and a better distributor network, more Australian buyers would be tempted.

Edit: the 2.2 litre engine in land rovers is basically a Mazda engine with updated fuel injection system. But Mazda don't use it in their 4x4 vehicles here, they are smart enough to use a larger displacement engine that would be better suited to our current Defenders.

[Dougal]

Part of me wonders why Landrover have only ever installed around 90kw of diesel power in the defender?
Is it stability, potentially driving faster than the tyres speed rating or something else.

It does appear they take 90kw and 300Nm then look for the smallest engine in their range that'll deliver those figures.

Hopefully with a new chassis they'll consider 140-150kw.

[uninformed]

Part of me wonders why Landrover have only ever installed around 90kw of diesel power in the defender?
Is it stability, potentially driving faster than the tyres speed rating or something else.

It does appear they take 90kw and 300Nm then look for the smallest engine in their range that'll deliver those figures.

Hopefully with a new chassis they'll consider 140-150kw.

Dougal, surely you have read in the past that the limiting factor has been the import tax on engiens over 2.5lt in some europian countries that keeps the LR Def at that or under. This has been going on for years. Yet they are to short sited to offer another engine option.

reasons for not offering another engine:

LR feel the limit has been reached for sales, so why bother.
LR feel that, say, using the 3.2 duratorq, would require re engineering of components to handle new power. Not worth it to them.

[Pickles2]

The Puma does have 360NM, which is a reasonable torque figure.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Dougal]

Dougal, surely you have read in the past that the limiting factor has been the import tax on engiens over 2.5lt in some europian countries that keeps the LR Def at that or under. This has been going on for years. Yet they are to short sited to offer another engine option.

reasons for not offering another engine:

LR feel the limit has been reached for sales, so why bother.
LR feel that, say, using the 3.2 duratorq, would require re engineering of components to handle new power. Not worth it to them.

The tax on engine displacement went a long time ago. They tax on CO2 emissions now so thirstier engines pay more regardless of engine capacity.

[uninformed]

The Puma does have 360NM, which is a reasonable torque figure.
Cheers, Pickles.

IMO, not when you take into acount: weight, aerodynamics, driveline power consumption, towing capacity, todays roads and average speeds of traffic etc

[Pickles2]

IMO, not when you take into acount: weight, aerodynamics, driveline power consumption, towing capacity, todays roads and average speeds of traffic etc
Gotta agree with you there.
And, for sure sure, a nice 3/3.5L Turbo diesel would be nice, but it ain't gonna happen now is it, so I guess that's why I've put "extra "power" out of my mind, & tried to focus on "positive" statements made by many Puma owners who comment on the towing ability of their vehicle.
I'd love to expect that as a "Final Edition" L.R. would put a "bigger" engine in, but as another has said, with all the R & D/ Engineering costs etc, no such luck.
Cheers, Pickles.

[Loubrey]

The fact remains that Land Rover is a European (EU) registered company and everything they manufacture needs to meet the required specification regardless of end destination or user...

That said, there is absolutely no chance of a final roll of the dice final edition that will have anything more exiting than different trim level. The 2.2 TDci engine is what it will be to the end (unless they get forced into dropping it even lower before end 2015).

At risk of starting the debate AGAIN... The benefits of remapping the 2.4 and 2.2 is still pretty spectacular. I waited till the car was out of warranty and nicely run in before I took the plunge and when I return the original map for services it feels like I'm driving an old 2.5 non-turbo 90 in comparison!

My Defender (2.4 90) comfortably runs in town and on the open road with the Disco 4's and Rangie Sports fitted with the latest 3.0 diesel engines (obviously not the same consumption figures, but what the heck!:twisted:) and all the engine indicators on the Scan Gauge shows the engine being happier with the map that without. Driving sensibly I get an easy 10km/liter or 10 liter/100km which ever way you look at it and that beats the old big block guzzlers any day of the week in my mind.

I say buy them now before they're gone forever! My 90 is now finance free and I plan to keep it for a very long time.

Cheers,

Lou

[uninformed]

The fact remains that Land Rover is a European (EU) registered company and everything they manufacture needs to meet the required specification regardless of end destination or user...

That said, there is absolutely no chance of a final roll of the dice final edition that will have anything more exiting than different trim level. The 2.2 TDci engine is what it will be to the end (unless they get forced into dropping it even lower before end 2015).

At risk of starting the debate AGAIN... The benefits of remapping the 2.4 and 2.2 is still pretty spectacular. I waited till the car was out of warranty and nicely run in before I took the plunge and when I return the original map for services it feels like I'm driving an old 2.5 non-turbo 90 in comparison!

My Defender (2.4 90) comfortably runs in town and on the open road with the Disco 4's and Rangie Sports fitted with the latest 3.0 diesel engines (obviously not the same consumption figures, but what the heck!:twisted:) and all the engine indicators on the Scan Gauge shows the engine being happier with the map that without. Driving sensibly I get an easy 10km/liter or 10 liter/100km which ever way you look at it and that beats the old big block guzzlers any day of the week in my mind.

I say buy them now before they're gone forever! My 90 is now finance free and I plan to keep it for a very long time.

Cheers,

Lou

and BMW got over 1000hp from a 1.5lt turbo........ doesnt mean its ideal for the LR or for longevity in the LR. No matter how hard you tune a 2.2, it wont have the low torque of the 3.2 bigger brother. :)

I totally agree the 3.2 will never find its way into a Def by LR.

[airman08]

and BMW got over 1000hp from a 1.5lt turbo........ doesnt mean its ideal for the LR or for longevity in the LR. No matter how hard you tune a 2.2, it wont have the low torque of the 3.2 bigger brother. :)

I totally agree the 3.2 will never find its way into a Def by LR.

Agree with this point.

Beside the wranglers, we are no longer able but manual transmission, 4 coiled suspensions, live-axle, turbo diesel machines after Defenders gone.

[beefy]

why are people so fixed on engine size. the defender has more torque then. 4.2 patrol or cruiser. welcome to 2013.

[isuzurover]

why are people so fixed on engine size. the defender has more torque then. 4.2 patrol or cruiser. welcome to 2013.

Yes lets compare 2013 engines:
Defender 2.2: 90 kw 360 Nm@2200 rpm
Amarok 2.0: 132 kw 420 Nm@1750 rpm
Ford Ranger 3.2: 147 kw 470 Nm@1500 rpm

Even the great wall diesel has more power than the Puny engine... :D

[DasLandRoverMan]

Of course gear ratios have a big effect on how a vehicle performs too.

A smaller engine with well thought out gear ratios can work just as well as a bigger one.
Of course the 3.2 would be a nice fitment, for the rather cool slightly off beat noise a 5 pot makes...

[Summiitt]

Defenders will never compete in heavy duty work utes whilst ever there is a v8 land cruiser ute available, the defenders have enough power up to their 3500kg , but hook a trailer over 2.ton on the back and they are seriously lacking in power..where the defenders (130 only) are getting sales, is in value for money and payload, I know of several rural fire authorities and national parks departments that are evaluating 130 dual cabs purely because of their payload, but the ford rangers are almost as good in the payload department whilst offering air bags and stability control...if the land cruisers wernt so overpriced I would probably be driving one, purely for the power when towing.

[Bush65]

why are people so fixed on engine size. the defender has more torque then. 4.2 patrol or cruiser. welcome to 2013.
Why are some people fixed on turning threads on the "vapour configuration" of the new Defender into threads on current Defender?

Is it simply because they are not capable of associating anything else with the Defender name? But until Land Rover reveal a new name, then .....

Why are people fitting chips to their small diesel engines?

I've posed that question before, and the die hard "small diesel engine is better" fraternity claim they do it because of the EGR. Well go and pull my other leg!

I have no issue with people choosing what suits their need. I would like them to have a choice.

If they are happy with a small economical engine, then that is their choice and it should serve them well in most instances.

IMHO there are equally valid applications for larger engines.

The 110 and 130 are large vehicles, with a large load capacity, and poor aerodynamics in touring configurations with a loaded roof rack. I honestly believe people, who have never had a Land Rover more recent than one with the pathetic underpowered ancestors, will have doubts about its loaded capability with an engine displacement less than 3.0 litre. Perhaps their concerns are unfounded, but valid doubts none the lest, when a new buyer is comparing the offerings in the current market place. The figures for new vehicle sales are a reasonable gauge of their choices.

I have had Land Rovers since the early 70's, and like to see many more having good experiences with Land Rovers. There have been so many instances when I have wanted more performance than what I have had under my right foot that I goon down engine swap path, not to mention the whole drive train upgrade paths.

In my case I know if I stick to normal roads, and easy tracks, I could get by with a small displacement engine, but I don't want those restrictions.

I have been on many trips with others who don't have Land Rovers, and it has been my experience that many of those other vehicles have good points (and poor) compared to Land Rovers. I learn from my own experience and that of others, what works well, or not so well.

I would much prefer to leave the likes of engine, drive train, and suspension stock, but those are my choices, and neither you or any one else has the right to dictate to me what I choose to do, or criticise me for wanting a larger displacement engine.

[Pickles2]

G'Day Bush 65.
Well. I'm of the "old school"..."no substitute for cubic inches", as we used to say.
We should have our first Defender (a new 90) in about a month, but as there was no engine "choice", the engine was not a consideration.......but it would have been, ...had there been a choice.
I'm sure we'll have no problems with the 2.2, as most are happy with it, however, had there been an engine option of something, "gruntier/bigger", then we would have ticked that option box.
Cheers, Pickles.

[rar110]

Lets face it the current Defender format is a limited market. A bigger engine and new redesigned drive chain to match would push up the price. Also this change is unlikely to tempt tradies and family buyers from other car makers. An auto option might tempt a few with maybe a bigger dealer support network.

Land Rover seem pretty content with the generally city driving Rangy Disco Freelander buyers.

The size of the Defender market, and buyer tendency to keep their vehicles much longer, would make it economically unattractive.

The challenge for Land Rover is to come up with an economically viable format that doesn't steal buyers from existing models, uses some identical components & robotic manufacturing (which might see a v6 diesel/auto option), satisfies future safety/emissions, maintains some of the nostalgic Land Rover appearance, doesn't last forever, has at least off road capability of a Disco, and at least the same payload as the existing Defender. It will be interesting to see if Land Rover bother with the commercial market. I'm not expecting a 130 version initially. The new Defender will probably not appeal to a lot of current owners. But if they do some reasonable research the format/price bracket should appeal to most and a reasonable share of buyers who they have lost or never had.

[Loubrey]

... and we're off on the engine debate... again... :D

Everybody to his own choices as we'll never convince each other that any one of the engines is or would be better for a Defender. As crazy as it sounds, the 3.2 liter engine would have been very unpopular in Europe for more reasons than anyone would believe -road tax, vehicle licensing, fuel consumption, engine capacity (CC loading), Co2 emissions etc...

Fact remains that if your car is newer than 2007 you have to "suffer the indignity" of added luxury and comfort... It all reminds me of the discussions in the early 80's when Land Rover "ruined the brand" by sticking coil springs in...! :D

Lets just enjoy them for what they are and be proud that we own vehicles referred to as a "legend", an "icon" and "one of the best pieces of industrial design the world has yet seen".

Should you buy one of the last Land Rovers? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/motoring/8147/should-you-buy-one-of-the-last-land-rovers.html)

Cheers,

Lou

[Bush65]

... "one of the best pieces of industrial design the world has yet seen".

...
I nearly vomited when I saw that.

That statement is among the all time greatest loads of clap trap the world has yet seen, and I dare say will remain so, well into the future.

[isuzurover]

...As crazy as it sounds, the 3.2 liter engine would have been very unpopular in Europe for more reasons than anyone would believe -road tax, vehicle licensing, fuel consumption, engine capacity (CC loading), Co2 emissions etc...

Sure, but most manufacturers offer engines appropriate to the market. Try buying an Audi A8 in Australia with the 2.5L TD that is most commonly fitted in europe...

[Loubrey]

Sure, but most manufacturers offer engines appropriate to the market. Try buying an Audi A8 in Australia with the 2.5L TD that is most commonly fitted in europe...

I don't disagree at all, but its bean counters that rule roost in all companies these days and if you compare Audi, Ford, Volkswagen, Opel/Vauxhaul/Holden/Chevrolet etc' sales compared to Land Rover's it is clear that its highly unlikely we'll ever see country specific Land Rover engine options. Australia is such a niche market for Land Rover (compared to the rest of the world) that I'd be very surprised if our wishes or requirements feature at all in their development plans (130's, long range tanks etc).

Who knows, maybe they nail it with the Project Icon Defender 2 (what ever they call it) and it turns out to be something at least 50% of the current owners and a large portion of new owners want and likes.

I appreciate the remaining 50% of County/ Defender owners will forever reject modern technology and smaller economical engines in a Defender and or its replacement, but I suppose that is what vintage car owner clubs are about...:D

I'll be keeping my current Defender for a long long time, but I'm not naive enough to fail to see what a modern car manufacturer has to do to stay alive.

As marque enthusiasts all we can do is accept the inevitable and hope for the best.

Cheers,

Lou

[Dougal]

... and we're off on the engine debate... again... :D

Everybody to his own choices as we'll never convince each other that any one of the engines is or would be better for a Defender. As crazy as it sounds, the 3.2 liter engine would have been very unpopular in Europe for more reasons than anyone would believe -road tax, vehicle licensing, fuel consumption, engine capacity (CC loading), Co2 emissions etc...

It is my understanding that vehicle excise tax in europe is done from CO2 ratings (i.e. fuel consumption) and not engine size. There is still however a strong correlation between engine capacity and fuel consumption (hence CO2) in the standard test cycles.


Sure, but most manufacturers offer engines appropriate to the market. Try buying an Audi A8 in Australia with the 2.5L TD that is most commonly fitted in europe...

You mean the 2.5tdi that hasn't been offered in a new car since about 2004?:D
That was a very average engine, high on fuel consumption but not on power. The current 2.0tdi 4 cyl's beat that V6 for fuel consumption and power.
The current VAG 3.0tdi V6's beat the old 2.5's for everything. But they do use more fuel than the 4's.

[isuzurover]

...

You mean the 2.5tdi that hasn't been offered in a new car since about 2004?:



I drove a near new company Audi sedan in mid 2012 in Germany. I was a 2.X L diesel. I recall is was an A8 variant but could be wrong. I remember googling the equivalent Australian model at the time and the smallest diesel was 3.X L

[Dougal]

I drove a near new company Audi sedan in mid 2012 in Germany. I was a 2.X L diesel. I recall is was an A8 variant but could be wrong. I remember googling the equivalent Australian model at the time and the smallest diesel was 3.X L

I was looking for a 4wd tdi station wagon last year (showed the wife a defender, she didn't say no, I did :D) and the used A6 allroads were all off the menu because of that awful 2.5tdi. It was a VP44 injection pump.

There are rumours of a 2.7v6 tdi, but I can't seem to find anything concrete on it. Certainly not sold in NZ and I think we get the same spec cars as Aussie.

Here's the current audi.de A8 diesel choices, nothing to complain about there, 190 or 283kw:
Benzin (http://www.audi.de/content/de/brand/de/neuwagen/a8/a8/motor/benzin.html#page=/de/brand/de/neuwagen/a8/a8/motor/diesel.html)
Looks like the A6 gets the 4 cyl 2.0tdi option, one of those perhaps?:
Benzin (http://www.audi.de/de/brand/de/neuwagen/a6/a6-limousine/motor/benzin.html#page=/de/brand/de/neuwagen/a6/a6-limousine/motor/diesel.html)

Interestingly the eco-tune 150kw 3.0tdi v6 (which we don't get) has fuel consumption not much higher than the 4 cyl. You could also get the A4 with an eco-tune 110kw 2.0tdi's in europe which we didn't get here. They have stunning fuel economy.

If only Germany was RHD.

But getting back to landrover. We all know they'd be silly to not offer the 3.0 sdv6 option. But if they do, it'll be bought for traffic light racing, not working.

[uninformed]

... and we're off on the engine debate... again... :D

Everybody to his own choices as we'll never convince each other that any one of the engines is or would be better for a Defender. As crazy as it sounds, the 3.2 liter engine would have been very unpopular in Europe for more reasons than anyone would believe -road tax, vehicle licensing, fuel consumption, engine capacity (CC loading), Co2 emissions etc...

Fact remains that if your car is newer than 2007 you have to "suffer the indignity" of added luxury and comfort... It all reminds me of the discussions in the early 80's when Land Rover "ruined the brand" by sticking coil springs in...! :D

Lets just enjoy them for what they are and be proud that we own vehicles referred to as a "legend", an "icon" and "one of the best pieces of industrial design the world has yet seen".

Should you buy one of the last Land Rovers? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/motoring/8147/should-you-buy-one-of-the-last-land-rovers.html)

Cheers,

Lou

yep since you decided to throw you hat into the ring :p

Now you say it would not be popular. Since when is popular = best?? And since the reason is most likely $$$ and that put on top by the government, how does that make the larger engine a worse choice for the LR and the work its ment to able to do easily!

I guess by numbers the Toyota suspension design on their landcrusiers superior to Nissans and more so than Land Rovers because they are more popular....

No matter if the 3.2 drinks a bit more than the 2.2 on paper, I doubt it would fully loaded at 100km/h in summer here.

Isuzurover showed 3 different engines, and that also pointed out the state of tune of the VW. It probably has a better turbo set up as well, but do you think that little 2.0 is going have the life of the 3.2? Thats a hard question as we dont know if one is much better designed and employing better materials and machining than the other. But given they are both being mass produced and trying to make a profit, I would doubt one twice the quality than the other...

As for dougals comment, I would go and buy a LR right now if it came with a 3.2 ford or the 3.0 v6 from other LR. And it would be for work not for traffic light racing.

[Bush65]

...

I appreciate the remaining 50% of County/ Defender owners will forever reject modern technology and smaller economical engines in a Defender and or its replacement, but I suppose that is what vintage car owner clubs are about...:D

I'll be keeping my current Defender for a long long time, but I'm not naive enough to fail to see what a modern car manufacturer has to do to stay alive.

As marque enthusiasts all we can do is accept the inevitable and hope for the best.

Cheers,

Lou
If you were to read the technical papers from Sir Harry Ricardo, you should come to realise that what you think is "modern technology" is anything but modern. Sir Harry has passed on, but the company he formed is a world leader in the field, and consultant to major vehicle and engine designers.

Amen to your other comments.

[uninformed]

If you were to read the technical papers from Sir Harry Ricardo, you should come to realise that what you think is "modern technology" is anything but modern. Sir Harry has passed on, but the company he formed is a world leader in the field, and consultant to major vehicle and engine designers.

Amen to your other comments.

any links to said papers?

[rar110]

I forgot to say I'm tipping the Defender to have IFS and maybe rack/pinion (or maybe electric) steering to tidy up on road manners.

It may have features decided for the Disco 5.

So the 2014 defender will be an attractive option for many.

[Loubrey]

As for dougals comment, I would go and buy a LR right now if it came with a 3.2 ford or the 3.0 v6 from other LR. And it would be for work not for traffic light racing.

Yep, so would I as it would be a great idea for the Australian and African market.

The Europeans are however an "interesting" bunch and the "unpopular" comments were specifically aimed at that market. They have spectacular road tax on (depending on Country) emissions and or displacement. Diesel costs the equivalent of $2.65 per liter and only commercial and agricultural users get subsidized fuel. A small percentage of well to-do people just about make up Land Rover's entire European market.

Cheers,

Lou

[Dougal]

As for dougals comment, I would go and buy a LR right now if it came with a 3.2 ford or the 3.0 v6 from other LR. And it would be for work not for traffic light racing.

But you know you'd be outnumbered hugely by the ones that only ever tow jetskis.

[uninformed]

But you know you'd be outnumbered hugely by the ones that only ever tow jetskis.

I thought it was the meek who were going to get ahead, instead its all the cashed up bogans working in the mines :D None of them would be caught dead in a LAnd Rover though, which is a shame, becasue a big sales increase for the Def could maybe make some difference.

[Dougal]

I thought it was the meek who were going to get ahead, instead its all the cashed up bogans working in the mines :D None of them would be caught dead in a LAnd Rover though, which is a shame, becasue a big sales increase for the Def could maybe make some difference.

I wouldn't be so sure. I happen to know some people who fit the jet-ski, BMW X6, golf on weekends stereotype to a T.

They were amazed to hear they were still making landrovers. They thought that all these ones they saw on the roads were series landrovers with new paint-jobs.:D
These same people go all gooey over the rangerover sports, if they knew there was a new tough landrover with decent power available then they'd be out taking a look.

[Bush65]

any links to said papers?
Sorry can't help there. He was born in 1885, died 1974, his great book "The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine" was first published in 1932.

The following quote is from a racing forum:


Secrets

1. Study Sir Harry Ricardo's work, The High Speed Internal Combustion Engine (multiple editions)
and you will find it's unlikely you will do anything that's new, and if you don't read it you will probably
do everything wrong.
2. Study Charles Fayette Taylor's two volume The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and
Practice (M.I.T. Press) and realize for a second time you don't know what you are doing.
3. ...




Also regarding so called modern technology, read what Maxwell and Tesla had to say so many years ago.

Science is not an art that can be re-written by newbs, no matter how clever they are.

What we are seeing in modern vehicles is not necessarily a result of manufacturers developing what the consumer wants. It is more likely imposed upon them and done reluctantly.

Land Rover is notorious for disregarding factual criticism; for example the problem with brakes was raised by the Snowy Mountains Hydro Authority was dismissed as Aussies don't know how to drive (or similar). No doubt you have read posts in this forum and seen that their clones are alive and well here.

[Dougal]

Science is not an art that can be re-written by newbs, no matter how clever they are.

Oh man, soo many uses for that quote.:D


What we are seeing in modern vehicles is not necessarily a result of manufacturers developing what the consumer wants. It is more likely imposed upon them and done reluctantly.

We are also seeing systems that were dreamt up a century or so ago but weren't feasible then due to to material and control limitations. Common-Rail was one of the first injection methods tried. But injectors and valves in the 1900's weren't up to it and the abacus wasn't quick enough to work out the real time calculations.

[Naks]

More news: Land Rover Defender range to grow | Auto Express (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/land-rover/defender/66363/land-rover-defender-range-grow)


The all-new Land Rover Defender is set to play a major part in Land Rover’s expansion over the next few years. And like the revamped Discovery family, it will spawn a range of bodystyles to satisfy a wide range of buyers.

Former brand director John Edwards – now in charge of the bespoke Engineered to Order Division at Land Rover – spoke to us about his plans for replacing the icon. And now that the Range Rover, Range Rover Sport and Range Rover Evoque have completed the ‘luxury’ pillar of the business, he told us: “Our focus is on chapter two and three, which is the leisure pillar and the dual-purpose pillar.”

In plain English, the ‘dual-purpose’ pillar refers to the Defender, with the brand keen to move the new model– previewed by the DC100 and DC100 Sport concepts back in 2011 – away from the traditional utilitarian image.

Edwards added: “The current Defender is probably too rooted in off-road – it needs to be more civilised in the future. That’s why it’s dual purpose.”

But he was quick to reassure buyers that “we are not abandoning off-road capability; we are talking about
a breadth of abilities instead”.

Production of the current Defender will end in December 2015, but we were told there will be a gap before the new version arrives in mid-2016. Edwards promised a variety of body types, too, telling us: “If you look at the range at the moment, there are 17 types. We won’t do that many next time round, but we want to satisfy as many customers as we can.”

However, when we asked about the possibility of a baby SUV to sit below the Evoque or the baby Discover, he said: "In the next five to seven years, we have no plans to go below the Evoque and Freelander. It’s not because I’m concerned about the brand; I think the brand is elastic enough to live beneath those cars."

Finally, Edwards promised that Land Rover would launch a new or heavily revised model every year. “We are ambitious to grow,” he said. “For me, momentum is important. Put it this way, we’ll be keeping you busy.”

[BilboBoggles]

I bet we will see a rebadged Freelander - base or ultra base model - being sold as a Defender. Maybe they will add some wheelbase options but still it will smell and look like a Freelander... my 5 cents

[the_preacher1973]

I bet we will see a rebadged Freelander - base or ultra base model - being sold as a Defender. Maybe they will add some wheelbase options but still it will smell and look like a Freelander... my 5 cents

I REALLY hope yuor wrong.

Every Land Rover I've driven (RR Clasic, P38. D1, D2, D3, 110) all FEEL like a Landrover. They feel like you could drive them through a wall and barely notice.

Except the Freelander 2. It feels like a Rav4 with upgraded trim.

[Dougal]

I bet we will see a rebadged Freelander - base or ultra base model - being sold as a Defender. Maybe they will add some wheelbase options but still it will smell and look like a Freelander... my 5 cents

Journalist got it wrong. The freelander is to become part of the disco family. Not defender.

[jimr1]

I believe that Defenders are made in batches , ie. left hand drive for a market somewhere to meet that country's regs . right hand drive to meet another country's reg . Say our adr's they do this so as to move them all together , for shipment . It would have been nice if there was an option on engine sizes , In the ford dura range they do a 3.0lt. that goes in the big twin wheel transit . I don't know what the difference in cost would have been , but surely It would not have been too much more than the 2.2 . there are many markets that are outside Europe , South America , Africa ,Russia, and Australia ,plus parts Asia .But alas It was or will never happen ...

[Pickles2]

I believe that Defenders are made in batches , ie. left hand drive for a market somewhere to meet that country's regs . right hand drive to meet another country's reg . Say our adr's they do this so as to move them all together , for shipment . It would have been nice if there was an option on engine sizes , In the ford dura range they do a 3.0lt. that goes in the big twin wheel transit . I don't know what the difference in cost would have been , but surely It would not have been too much more than the 2.2 . there are many markets that are outside Europe , South America , Africa ,Russia, and Australia ,plus parts Asia .But alas It was or will never happen ...
I agree that a bigger engine option would have been popular, & would have increased the appeal of the Defender to many potential buyers.
Cheers, Pickles.

[2stroke]

I agree that a bigger engine option would have been popular, & would have increased the appeal of the Defender to many potential buyers.
Cheers, Pickles.
The way I see it Landrovers only ever came with two options... buy it or buy something else. Australians have always complained that Landies are underpowered and the axles are made of toffee and back at Solihull it was a case of "I say old boy, when will these colonials ever learn just who knows best?". That's why so many Aussies bought Toyotas and Nissans in the first place.
A shame to think what might have been. I think Santana in Spain addressed most of the issues and if they were available here Rover would have had to take notice?

[frantic]

Landrover never learnt from a decade called the 80's sales where increased over the 70's declines, we had 3 engine options 3.9 petrol or diesels and the old 2.5 that they stopped importing as they could not be given away.
Now they give us the 2.2 puma built in the same plant as the Ford rangers TD5 PUMA 3.2, as has been stated how many sales have been lost and if they put in an auto from Fords massive parts list or even the old 4spd from the D2 they could have sold 30-50% more again.
We can but hope they have a more serious go in the future and not a series of borderline patches.

[JamesB71]

I believe that Defenders are made in batches , ie. left hand drive for a market somewhere to meet that country's regs . right hand drive to meet another country's reg . Say our adr's they do this so as to move them all together , for shipment . It would have been nice if there was an option on engine sizes , In the ford dura range they do a 3.0lt. that goes in the big twin wheel transit . I don't know what the difference in cost would have been , but surely It would not have been too much more than the 2.2 . there are many markets that are outside Europe , South America , Africa ,Russia, and Australia ,plus parts Asia .But alas It was or will never happen ...

You may very well be right from a marketing perspective, and I probably would have gotten the bigger one if there was a choice, but having done 5000 ks in mine Im really suprised at the power. Its way quick between 0 and 120. I dont really go faster than that, and it pulls like a train.

Im also loving the 10.48 L/100kms im getting.

[Pickles2]

You may very well be right from a marketing perspective, and I probably would have gotten the bigger one if there was a choice, but having done 5000 ks in mine Im really suprised at the power. Its way quick between 0 and 120. I dont really go faster than that, and it pulls like a train.

Im also loving the 10.48 L/100kms im getting.
I was wondering about you,.....Are you ok in the fires up your way?
Cheers, Pickles.

[VladTepes]

To resurrect this thread slightly....

The progress of the Land Rover marketing approach seesm to indicate a place for the Deefender style of vehicle in its line up. (not to mention a potential shape change for the Disco line)

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/land-rover/84634/2015-land-rover-family-set-grow





I don't know whether this has been posted before... it is actually a photoshop image from years ago when the 2007 Defender was being touted... anyway I'd be interested in people's comments on THIS type of styling....

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/287.jpg

[ugu80]

Yuk. :spudnikhurler:

[pibby]

Yuk. :spudnikhurler:

come on, do you like it or not? :)

[Dougal]

Certainly yuk. But does anyone else see shades of L405 in there? I think it's the lack of bumpers.

[Wolfman_TWP]

Yuk, I still like the Classic look..

[VladTepes]

I don't like the pic, mostly, BUT it's a hell of a lot better than that horrible LR100 concept.

[Dockstrada]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/287.jpg


http://clubs.rfu.com/Clubs/portals/BishopsStortfordRFC/Media/Image/bsrfc5ths/vomiting.jpg

[wally]

A Land Rover for blind people.

[VladTepes]

but do you like it more than the LR100 or DC100 or whatever the hell it was called...

[Pickles2]

Yes!.
Pickles.

[Dougal]

but do you like it more than the LR100 or DC100 or whatever the hell it was called...

No I don't.
The DC100 someone photoshopped normal wheels/tyres onto and it looked quite good.
It also looked more like a defender than the above photo does.

[Psimpson7]

agree with Dougal.

I like the DC100 concept far more than the above pos.

[VladTepes]

Really? Hmmm.

Personally I hope the new one looks nothing like either....

I'd prefer it looked like, well, a Defender !

[VladTepes]

I find it sad you prefer this thing which looks like a gay cross between a Skoda Yeti and a Mini.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/32.jpg

but that doesnt make the other one good, of course.

[VladTepes]

OK so I dug up these various photoshop efforts and interested in people's thoughts...

1.
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4549033054572029&pid=1.7http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4549033054572029&pid=1.7


2.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4820663959095896&pid=1.7


3.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/29.jpg


4.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/30.jpg


5.
http://static.blogo.it/eurocarblog/land-rover-defender-dc100-concept-pick-up-rendering/big_Land_Rover_Defender_DC100_pickup_rendering.jpg


6.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tjTqKBNGr8Q/SwrV-q-nXaI/AAAAAAAADyw/FS_fzzKLX4M/s1600/land+rover+defender.bmp


7.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/01/31.jpg


8.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/492.jpg

Personally I think the main problem with the DC100 (one of many, but the main one..) - is the dodgy curved back front end. It's horrible, but probably the result of stupid Euro pedestrian collision specs. The red tape H&S brigade over there seem to think you shoudl be able to design a car that can run into a pedestrian at autobahn speeds and they'll just softly bounce of and walk on their way.....

Anyway I've numebered the above so you can refer to them easily. Discuss.

[rangietragic]

4 and 6 for me.As i've said before it must have some defender styling cues.

[Pickles2]

No. 6. BUT, appearance is one thing, what is going to be under the bonnet?
Pickles.

[JDNSW]

No. 6. BUT, appearance is one thing, what is going to be under the bonnet?
Pickles.

What disturbs me is that the only thing everyone is worrying about is the styling! Far more important is the construction and mechanical details.

John

[camel_landy]

Airbags... Why can't they fit them?

I can't be arsed reading through all the "Land rover must do this... blah... blah..", "Why can't Land Rover do that... Blah... Blah...", so apologies if it has already been mentioned.

If you fit airbags, you're also going to have to fit a bonded windscreen. Without that, the windscreen will pop due to the displacement of air inside the car, when the airbag deploys (That's why the 300TDi Disco & soft dash classic went to a bonded screen).

To fit a bonded screen, it's going to need a redesign of the bulkhead. Redesign the bulkhead & where do you stop. You're also going to have to jump through all of the crash test, conformance, blah, blah...

IMHO - It just opens one big can of worms!!! :(

M

[VladTepes]

To me #1 looks like a LR roof put on a Mahindra.....

[Wicks89]

Gentlemen,

Styling is one thing, like JD says, but what defender stands for is capability.
I want a solid axle, long-travel suspension, powerful, rugged, pussy magnet that I can fill with tools, sheep, children, women, spoils of war etc that runs on ****ing diesel that I can drive into and out of a swamp and still be able to operate the windows.

If it did all that from factory I'd be happy to buy one. I have faith in land rover, they usually get it fairly right, IMO

[Dougal]

Airbags... Why can't they fit them?

I can't be arsed reading through all the "Land rover must do this... blah... blah..", "Why can't Land Rover do that... Blah... Blah...", so apologies if it has already been mentioned.

If you fit airbags, you're also going to have to fit a bonded windscreen. Without that, the windscreen will pop due to the displacement of air inside the car, when the airbag deploys (That's why the 300TDi Disco & soft dash classic went to a bonded screen).

To fit a bonded screen, it's going to need a redesign of the bulkhead. Redesign the bulkhead & where do you stop. You're also going to have to jump through all of the crash test, conformance, blah, blah...

IMHO - It just opens one big can of worms!!! :(

M


I don't beleive it's a "can't" thing. It's more the sane limit of add-ons you can apply to a design that never allowed for them. The bonded windscreen is only the start.

It wouldn't be that hard to fit airbags and stability control. But at some point there needs to be a clean start and a redesign. Instead of tying up all your design and engineering staff trying to incorporate fixes and updates into the old design, get them cranking on the new design that will more easily deal with all of the future challenges.

[DasLandRoverMan]

The Disco II incorporated all the required tech into a solid platform,and it could be translated into heavier chassis quite easily, and clothed in something resembling the current vehicle to produce a pretty neat vehicle.

Whether or not Land Rover could sell something like that and make money on it is the big question.
Looking at the photoshop images below, I quite like the LWB DC100 in picture 4, but to me the back end looks rather short and ruins the proportions some.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Next Land Rover Defender will 'have to wash its face' to gain broader appeal (http://www.autoblog.com/2014/02/09/land-rover-defender-redesign/) https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/904.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/) https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/905.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264488/)https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/906.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264486/)https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/907.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264487/)https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/908.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264485/)https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/909.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264489/)https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/910.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264491/)https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/911.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264492/)https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/912.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2013-land-rover-defender/#photo-1264480/)




Land Rover (http://www.autoblog.com/land+rover/) design director Gerry McGovern said in an interview with English newspaper the Shropshire Star that the next-generation Defender (http://www.autoblog.com/land+rover/defender/) will need to achieve a five-fold sales increase in order to support its business case. Getting from 20,000 annual sales to 100,000 means "we have to broaden its appeal," to make it "more relevant to the modern world, lighter, more aerodynamic and more cost effective." Or, as he sums it up, "the new model will have to wash its face."

McGovern says the Defender "has never sold on its design," which is true and false. The farmers, international NGO workers and game park wardens, those who toil in the hinterlands and drive off into the wild blue yonder, are less concerned about the Defender's aesthetics than the fact that it can be rebuilt in the field with a couple of wrenches and some electrical tape. But the lifestyle buyers, the ones cruising London and Paris and paying $90,000 or more in the US to import a 25-year-old model, they're buying it for its design as much for what it stands for - you know, the cred it earned thanks to those other buyers.

Not that it matters, because the whole lot of them still aren't buying nearly enough to justify a new one. A Defender that makes more friends will necessarily be a kinder-looking truck - McGovern characterizes it as less "overtly functional" and "more sophisticated." The only saving grace for fans of the current vehicle is that it will take so long to figure out the new vehicle that won't be here until "at least two years or more from now."

[Dougal]

I'm still not convinced McGovern is the lead designer we need on this one.

What he says is perfectly true about the sales, being lighter, more aerodynamic and more cost effective.
But if he loses the toughness and the ability to be configured into a work truck then the icon is lost.

[Pickles2]

I'm still not convinced McGovern is the lead designer we need on this one.

What he says is perfectly true about the sales, being lighter, more aerodynamic and more cost effective.
But if he loses the toughness and the ability to be configured into a work truck then the icon is lost.
Yes, & I believe the "iconic" nature of the Defender is what would have generated many of the 16-20000 or whatever sales last year, which number however is clearly not enough for any real business case.
I don't know what they'll do,...something more modern, more "rounded", lighter, more user friendly.
I also have a feeling that with the massive success of Evoque, and the popularity of Disco, Range Rover, the fact that JLR is going to build new engines etc etc etc, Defender is not going to be a top priority for JLR as they so many other successful profit making, sales generating, projects on the go.
Cheers, Pickles.

[DasLandRoverMan]

They could build twice the number they currently do and sell them all without issue, order a new one and it's a 6-8 month wait before you see your car.

There's also a fairly high percentage of sales are affluent persons buying it as a 3rd or 4th car for whatever reason, fashion or otherwise.
The fact that the production line is almost entirely Manual, compared to the like of Rangie and Disco production that's almost entirely mechanised.

It's these factors that are killing the Defender as we know it, and those at the top are happy to cash in on the lifestyle image that comes from its reputation as it will sell vehicles and make money.

[2 rocks]

I like # 8.
Familiar "square rigged" styling although updated, but with the "family" face, well certainly connecting with the Disco's & RRS. Be nice to see some other views of it though.
I think it's a contemporary reworking of the shape and from a corporate perspective provides a solid link to the other products in the stable. Which in theory :p should keep traditionalists and the marketing department appeased, if not actually happy! :angel:
...but then, I like the Startech 3.1 - so I must be on crack :p
Cheers
Mike

[Dougal]

Defender is not going to be a top priority for JLR as they so many other successful profit making, sales generating, projects on the go.
Cheers, Pickles.

The one saving grace there is Tata. They bought landrover because they like landrovers. Tata builds military trucks.
So likely exactly the boss McGovern needs to keep him on track.

[Didge]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/492.jpgThis is the only concept I've seen that looks like a proper evolution of the Defender, undeniably LR but still a distant cousin of the Discos - as someone else stated and an observation I also independently made, the DC100 looks like a trumped up Mini wagon - yuk!

[Dougal]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/492.jpgThis is the only concept I've seen that looks like a proper evolution of the Defender, undeniably LR but still a distant cousin of the Discos - as someone else stated and an observation I also independently made, the DC100 looks like a trumped up Mini wagon - yuk!

Isn't the same thing with a different grille doing the rounds as a ford bronco concept?

Why yes it is:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/490.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/491.jpg

Undeniably landrover huh?

[Scouse]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/492.jpgIt's Dougal's Bronco with LM/L322 headlights & grille photochopped in.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Isn't the same thing with a different grille doing the rounds as a ford bronco concept?

Why yes it is:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/490.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/02/491.jpg

Undeniably landrover huh?Ah yes but the Bronco is the size of a small house while the Land Rover variant is the size of a regular Land Rover.

IMHO it looks like a new generation of the International (Harvester) Scout.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[Dougal]

Ah yes but the Bronco is the size of a small house while the Land Rover variant is the size of a regular Land Rover.

IMHO it looks like a new generation of the International (Harvester) Scout.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

The point was it isn't a landrover concept. It's a photochop of a ford concept.

As for US vehicles all kind of looking the same.........

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The point was it isn't a landrover concept. It's a photochop of a ford concept.

As for US vehicles all kind of looking the same.........And my point was that even if it was an artists impression, if Ford built the same design it would be the size of a building and a Land Rover one would be something you could actually use.

Whats the gripe????? :confused:

[wrinklearthur]

I hope the Defender don't change shape too much, as that is what the Defender buyer wants with an utility style vehicle for the longer term, not an updated model every year with a new shape.

Maybe that's where our local vehicle manufacturer have gone wrong, by pandering to the new car buyer that only interested in style, then the buyer trades it in on another after the car's twelve months are up.

The secondhand purchaser is mostly looking for a practical vehicle for the longer term, then look elsewhere after they find a car that's only twelve months old that has say, seats that have barely lasted the first year of it's life and can't fit the groceries in the boot.
.

[VladTepes]

Manufacturers don't have any reason to care about how a vehicle suits SECOND HAND buyers.....

[JDNSW]

Manufacturers don't have any reason to care about how a vehicle suits SECOND HAND buyers.....

Actually, they do to at least some extent - how well it suits second hand buyers affects the depreciation as it affects the first buyer, so influencing sales of new vehicles. Also, the second hand buyer is going to be the one spending more on parts. If a car has a life of, let's say twelve years, and the first buyer only owns it for one year, by far the majority of parts will be sold to second hand buyers (or their insurers - the biggest market for genuine parts is probably accident repairs!).

The manufacturer's margin on parts is a lot higher than on new cars.

But the car still has to be attractive to new buyers, so the second hand buyer's wants are only a secondary consideration, but it is still a consideration.

John

[Didge]

Ah yes but the Bronco is the size of a small house while the Land Rover variant is the size of a regular Land Rover.

IMHO it looks like a new generation of the International (Harvester) Scout.

http://averagetoelite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1152362908_093cc3e067.jpg

Oh no, I hadn't seen the other photos. Now I feel like I've been bent over a fence and shafted :(

[Clammy]

I think I prefer this what-makes-a-defender-iconic (http://funrover.com/featured/what-makes-a-defender-iconic)

[frantic]

Manufacturers don't have any reason to care about how a vehicle suits SECOND HAND buyers.....

Actually they do and the new car buyer does as well because of a little word called depreciation.
If a company leases a lot of cars, are they going to be happy as a business owner that certain models get back 65-70% on their 3 year resale where others, because they either did not think about the 2nd buyer or discount it stupidly or just fall apart, are only returning 30%?
What happens is companies run away from the cars they will lose money on like say ****subishi magna. Another reason why toymota holds such good resale is the image it built of reliability, that has been tarnished lately, but still commands a premium on used models.
Build a car people want for more than a minute and it will get better resale and make both the original buyer happy as they get more of their $$$ back and the second buyer will want to keep it so buy the parts, not bodgey it up or scrap it.

[nick_e]

They should change as little as possible to meet the requirements of new safety legislation.

Surely its not that hard to get air bags in defender...

[dullbird]

They should change as little as possible to meet the requirements of new safety legislation.


Surely its not that hard to get air bags in defender...

You serious you know how long it took to add integrated air-con and a decent CD player:D:D

[Bess]

74611
So what do we think, apologies if we have all seen these but I hadn't till now.

[Bess]

74612
Or this? Not to my taste but maybe to others!

[Didge]

Eerrgghh, yuk! that blue one looks like a stock deefer with bad taste plastic add ons attached to it. I hate those little strip led lights. Proportions are all out of whack and the second one looks like a Merc G wagen with maybe a Deefer bonnet and disco 3/4 lights.
Whoever is coming up with these drawings/ photo montages needs to start taking better drugs in order to create something worth considering - hopefully these aren't real leaked concepts. I don't believe they are as LR have been boasting it will keep the traditionalists happy as well as draw in a new generation of defender devotees. :)

[Bess]

Yep I have to agree Didge but I personally thought the blue one had the most potential of what I have seen so far. Lots of styling cues from the older models & still recognisable of a Defender. Tone down the silly 10" flares.
It will be interesting to see what we finally get. I worry that we won't get a proper replacement at all! Not enough market share?
Regards Chris

[Didge]

Yes Bess unfortunately the market demands that LR tow the same design line Nissan and Toyota did years ago and produce a variety of softer road models rather than utilitarian models. I should apologise in that my previous comment was obviously a personal opinion and beauty is in the eye of the beholder :)

[Dougal]

74612
Or this? Not to my taste but maybe to others!

Where did you source that picture? It's either a mockup on a current defender chassis or a photoshop of one.

[Bess]

G'day Dougal
I just did a new Defender replacement search then images & troulled through to see what came up.

To be honest I am just curious if what we end up getting was ever leaked out before hand. I have to agree with Didge that the demands of the masses will circumvent anything like what we currently have ever being made again.[bawl]

The current thinking appears to be fifty internal airbags, self parking, crush zones to make a coke can look strong & a pillow for any idiot that walks out in front of you.:wallbash:

God forbid you might fit a bulbar cause we all no that a 2/14 tonne vehicle travelling at 60kp/h will only kill you if that's fitted to it.:soapbox:

Oh we'll time will tell.
Regards Chris

[Bess]

74635
SPY SHOT!!!! New Defender being transported for extreme weather testing.
:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling:
Sorry people, couldn't help myself! [bigwhistle]

[Rick Fischer]

Hi Guys

Reckon yous all need to look at BMW Mini and Toyota LJ?? "cruiser".

Then look at RRC and the BMW RR.

BMW and Toyota didn't make them that way because they really wanted to; or the "stylists " reckoned they were better that way.

They are made the way they are because they have to "comply"

Adding the weight of "compliance" bits like airbags, side intrusion bars, pre-determined crumple rates etc etc and the list goes on ............... Oh and there is "survivable space". means more strength = weight to carry it all around; more motor, more gear box/s more brakes to stop it all ; and even more weight ................................and more and more compromises.

For those not in the know (mine) old Cooper S weighed 9cwt, ie 990 lbs. Wonder what a new "retro" Cooper weighs?

Would reckon a new "Landie" will possibly just keep sliding right. Making it to satisfy both you guys (me too) and the regulators may be just too hard.

Cheers

RF

[Dougal]

Hi Guys

Reckon yous all need to look at BMW Mini and Toyota LJ?? "cruiser".

Then look at RRC and the BMW RR.

BMW and Toyota didn't make them that way because they really wanted to; or the "stylists " reckoned they were better that way.

They are made the way they are because they have to "comply"

Adding the weight of "compliance" bits like airbags, side intrusion bars, pre-determined crumple rates etc etc and the list goes on ............... Oh and there is "survivable space". means more strength = weight to carry it all around; more motor, more gear box/s more brakes to stop it all ; and even more weight ................................and more and more compromises.

For those not in the know (mine) old Cooper S weighed 9cwt, ie 990 lbs. Wonder what a new "retro" Cooper weighs?

Would reckon a new "Landie" will possibly just keep sliding right. Making it to satisfy both you guys (me too) and the regulators may be just too hard.

Cheers

RF

L405 has lost weight compared to the last RRC's. The horrible toyota FJ cruiser is just a marketing exercise. It's a petrol prado with different panels.

[Dougal]

G'day Dougal
I just did a new Defender replacement search then images & troulled through to see what came up.

To be honest I am just curious if what we end up getting was ever leaked out before hand. I have to agree with Didge that the demands of the masses will circumvent anything like what we currently have ever being made again.[bawl]

The current thinking appears to be fifty internal airbags, self parking, crush zones to make a coke can look strong & a pillow for any idiot that walks out in front of you.:wallbash:

God forbid you might fit a bulbar cause we all no that a 2/14 tonne vehicle travelling at 60kp/h will only kill you if that's fitted to it.:soapbox:

Oh we'll time will tell.
Regards Chris

Cheers I found it here from 2006: Ny Defender? - Defender Forum - LRforum (http://www.lrforum.com/forum/index.php'showtopic=14950&page=1)
Translation from Norwegian:
.. visited the island rover in place and stumble across this picture .... supposedly from France, and maybe photoshop, but ...... a little funny anyway ..?

New Defender?

[Didge]

I for one would be happy if the new Defender
1) didn't leak;
2) wasn't noisy
3) could accelerate like a D3/ 4
4) more more ergonomically suitable/ sensible - ie I don't have to lean forward to see out the side window and it was a lot easier to get in and out
5) had some airbags
6) still maintained the character we all love
7) oh, didn't leak oil as much as they do now
8) came with proper off road rubber instead of the silly road tyres D4's & RR wear.
9) had some built in recovery points and off road options like hidden snorkel built into a pillar, a winch mount (front and rear would be nice), side steps, some sort of bullbar, etc.
Not asking much eh?

[Tombie]

actually it sounds like you just described a D4 with a couple of light mods :)

[Didge]

You can relax a bit, I found a picture of it :) Better buy a ladder as well
Someone on Defender2.net called this "the defender of my dreams"

[DasLandRoverMan]

Proof -if any were needed- that money certainly can not buy taste.

[Dougal]

You can relax a bit, I found a picture of it :) Better buy a ladder as well
Someone on Defender2.net called this "the defender of my dreams"

Looks like it was magnetised and driven through a farm gate factory.

[Didge]

Looks like it was magnetised and driven through a farm gate factory.

Hahaha - yes, looks pretty ugly eh?

[Rick Fischer]

Is there a Landie under there?

[Rick Fischer]

L405 has lost weight compared to the last RRC's. The horrible toyota FJ cruiser is just a marketing exercise. It's a petrol prado with different panels.

Go back to First 2 door and first 4 door RRC ...... and yes the LJ is a marketing exercise, but if they could have built one like the old one they would have; Defender reason.

Did speak to LR engineer involved with Pirente, now a few years ago, they would have loved to build RRC replicas as they came in what?? 83 84 with modern fuel efficient engines, sell like hot cakes. Just can't!

Cheers

RF

[Dougal]

Go back to First 2 door and first 4 door RRC ...... and yes the LJ is a marketing exercise, but if they could have built one like the old one they would have; Defender reason.

Did speak to LR engineer involved with Pirente, now a few years ago, they would have loved to build RRC replicas as they came in what?? 83 84 with modern fuel efficient engines, sell like hot cakes. Just can't!

Cheers

RF

The first 2 doors were quite light, but the first 4 doors were hitting 2 ton. My 93 is 2.1t completely stock. My 85 is 2.3t with 4BD1T and strong gearbox. Why do you think an early 80's 4wd would sell at all, let alone like hot-cakes?

Toyota couldn't build a true to form FJ for development cost. It would also sell terribly.
The market for vehicles you need earmuffs in at 100km/h is quite small.