Land Rover is dead... Long live land rover!

[NT5224]

I'll choose my words carefully here...

With the release of this latest vehicle and the backtrack on producing a load carrying version (is that even possible with monocoque and gasbag suspension?), what I've long suspected in the leadup to L663 SUV has come to pass. Land Rover no longer build vehicles that are relevant to my individual needs or lifestyle, and maybe not relevant to anybody who needs a serious off road working vehicle. I will always love Land Rover heritage and my amazing 110 HCPU 'Hector', but I wont be buying another vehicle from them (unless a new 'Series IV' line emerges).

I respect that from a commercial marketing perspective their rationale and current product line may be a shrewd business move, and that the world is now largely urbanised and populated by trendy, cashed up latte drinkers with a penchant for weekend extreme sports (or at least appearing on facebook to do so).

The bit I dont get is how many of the beardy urbanistas that they target with their marketing can afford upwards of 70K for their cafe to cafe runabouts? I will spend upwards of that on my next vehicle. But it wont be a land rover SUV. G Wagen Professionals and Iveco Daly 4x4 are probably the two I like best right now.

I guess the question I now have for the Land Rover brand enthusiast is which model will carry the brand identity forward now that the Land Rover is gone? I've never had a Discovery, but hear they're OK. I liked those boxy ones. So is the Disco or the Range Rover now the flagship of the land rover product range?

Alan

[16PMark]

I'll get the Popcorn..

[RobA]

Total waste of time and effort. I would have thought by now all the spleen venting, hand wringing and tears would have been done to death

When are we ever going to get over all of this and move on.

Rob

[gromit]

Total waste of time and effort. I would have thought by now all the spleen venting, hand wringing and tears would have been done to death

When are we ever going to get over all of this and move on.

Rob

I don't think that was 'spleen venting, hand wringing and tears' just another summary of the change in Land Rover's direction and the final move away from their original market sector.

Sounds like Alan has 'got over it' and has his next vehicle choice narrowed down.

The new 'Defender' makes sense for them in that it needs to meet current market demands and make money for Tata. Making something for the purists won't make them money .......... although, they do manage to sell restored Series I's for some serious coin.

I'm not in their target market but I'm still astounded by all the hype surrounding the new 'Defender' (has there actually been an independent test drive yet ?).


Colin

Colin

[goingbush]

Agreed, I put the new Defender in the same league as the Evoque and RRS , would not touch any of them with a barge pole . I'd rather drive a Great Wall than look like my interpretation of a total ******.

If I did want a car like that I'd buy the Jag version , E-Pace rather than a LandRover wanna be.

I'm not over it and will never move on.

[DiscoDB]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191115/58b1764ca8bbaec69eff8c6827dcfc7b.jpg

As the headstone says - “Land Rovers never die - they come back recycled”.

[JDNSW]

It might be worth taking a look at history. I think it is reasonable to consider the current "Landrover" company as the direct successor to the original Rover company.

Starley and Suttton was the offshoot of a small sewing machine company that had "abandoned its roots" and switched to building bicycles in 1869. Starley and Sutton in 1885 introduced the "Rover Safety Bicycle" that was so successful that "Rover" remains the word for bicycle in several languages, and led to the company changing its name to "Rover".

But by the early 1900s the market was becoming saturated for bicycles, and like some other bicycle companies (notably Morris), Rover "abandoned its roots", and started making motor cycles and cars. (Actually they continued bicycle manufacture alongside cars into the 1920s)

Aiming at the mass market also targeted by Morris and Austin, but lacking their business acumen, Rover built a number of well designed and built but overpriced basic cars (an uncle of mine was driving one in the 1950s) until their banker called a stop in 1928, and put Spencer Wilks in charge (he had just been laid off by Rootes after their takeover of Hillman), and the company "abandoned its roots" giving up building basic cars, and started to build much more expensive cars aimed at the upper middle class urban dweller (sound familiar?). And saved the company.

After WW2, the company had been successful in military work, but faced with government restrictions on the sort of car it had been building, and a government apparently determined to do its best to get rid of the "upper middle class", Rover "abandoned its roots" and started to build very basic utility workhorses. These were very successful, and despite attempts to keep its traditional (since 1928) type of car going, the Landrover became the mainstay of its business.

In 1967, starving for capital (a perennial problem) they merged with Leyland, which might have worked - except Leyland saw this as the start of a campaign to own the whole British car industry - and we know how that ended!

With Leyland's mismanagement, the Landrover was starved of support (it was the only profitable bit of the empire, and so had to support the rest of the whole sorry mess), and what money that was around was used to launch the Rangerover, which became a major success.

By the late eighties, with the Rangerover now a high priced luxury car and Landrover facing severe competition, and the company changing hands every few months, the company "abandoned its roots", and spent money that could have gone into updating the Landrover on a new variant of the original Rangerover aimed at the upper middle class urban dweller, and referred to this as a "Discovery", and saved the company. (which has since spawned a number of variants and generally moved up market to fill the gap left by Rangerover as it has moved even further upmarket)

The original Landrover continued through all this until recently, when the company "abandoned its roots" and, with a rather long gestation, replaced it with a new model aimed at the upper middle class urban dweller.

[wally]

Very well said John.

[blackrangie]

I'll choose my words carefully here...

With the release of this latest vehicle and the backtrack on producing a load carrying version (is that even possible with monocoque and gasbag suspension?), what I've long suspected in the leadup to L663 SUV has come to pass. Land Rover no longer build vehicles that are relevant to my individual needs or lifestyle, and maybe not relevant to anybody who needs a serious off road working vehicle. I will always love Land Rover heritage and my amazing 110 HCPU 'Hector', but I wont be buying another vehicle from them (unless a new 'Series IV' line emerges).

I respect that from a commercial marketing perspective their rationale and current product line may be a shrewd business move, and that the world is now largely urbanised and populated by trendy, cashed up latte drinkers with a penchant for weekend extreme sports (or at least appearing on facebook to do so).

The bit I dont get is how many of the beardy urbanistas that they target with their marketing can afford upwards of 70K for their cafe to cafe runabouts? I will spend upwards of that on my next vehicle. But it wont be a land rover SUV. G Wagen Professionals and Iveco Daly 4x4 are probably the two I like best right now.

I guess the question I now have for the Land Rover brand enthusiast is which model will carry the brand identity forward now that the Land Rover is gone? I've never had a Discovery, but hear they're OK. I liked those boxy ones. So is the Disco or the Range Rover now the flagship of the land rover product range?

AlanThe new defender has been made factually tougher than the last just more pedestrian friendly and comfortable, it will be the brand pillar, that why it still exists, despite the old one that only sold 5k to public and 15k to fleet/business in its dying years.

The old defender is dead, Long live the new one, would be a more fitting title.

I still love the old defender for what it its, it just had it day from a new sales perspective and needed to be updated, future proofed and aimed at a market that's greater than 20k annual sales, watch its sales in the US now.

You also mention 70k+, did you forget the 90, commercial, defender sport. I think there will be options within a few years for people will all sorts of budgets. From 50k-150k.

Gwagon professional is not cheap @ 115k but good bit of kit. Better looking than the luxury version, but for me new defender beats it looks and function wise all things considered for my usage case.

[goingbush]

There needs to be a dislike button.

the new vehicle (which I refuse to call a Defender) is the definition of consumerism out of control. Sometimes I get sucked into looking at a thread with Defender in the title and end up with a sick feeling, Every time I see a picture of one I feel a little bile coming on, hope I never get to see one in the flesh . Doubt I will as I do live a good distance from a city or a JLR service centre and I'm not close to any urban hero destinations.

[gromit]

The old defender is dead, Long live the new one, would be a more fitting title.



Do you think a new 'Defender' will have a long life ?

The high tech features are ideal for people who are not interested in the 'driving experience' but long term how the vehicle be supported ?

How easy is it to repair an aluminium monocoque after an accident ? I don't know the answer but guess it might be harder that straightening out something with a chassis & bolted on panels. (I do understand why they had to move away from this method of construction though).
How many ECU's was it to cause potential problems in the future.....?

For many years cars have been a consumable, early on they were a durable (like Series I to III, Counties and Defenders). The new 'Defender', like most other modern vehicles, will be a consumable.

Yes it's comfortable has all these wizz bang features to take away the driving experience and very much suits the direction Tata/Land Rover are taking the brand.
How it competes with the brands that already have a strong hold in the 4WD market will be interesting to see. I'm sure there will be an initial surge of sales (when they finally become available) but the longer term sales growth will tell if they got it right.......



Colin

[blackrangie]

There needs to be a dislike button.

the new vehicle (which I refuse to call a Defender) is the definition of consumerism out of control. Sometimes I get sucked into looking at a thread with Defender in the title and end up with a sick feeling, Every time I see a picture of one I feel a little bile coming on, hope I never get to see one in the flesh . Doubt I will as I do live a good distance from a city or a JLR service centre and I'm not close to any urban hero destinations.Some could say the same about your series vehicle "sick feeling" but they don't because they know its right for your needs.
Beauty is on the eye of the beholder.

I agree on consumerism, but any vehicle beyond the horse and carriage is imo too far, yours included.

[blackrangie]

Do you think a new 'Defender' will have a long life ?

The high tech features are ideal for people who are not interested in the 'driving experience' but long term how the vehicle be supported ?

How easy is it to repair an aluminium monocoque after an accident ? I don't know the answer but guess it might be harder that straightening out something with a chassis & bolted on panels. (I do understand why they had to move away from this method of construction though).
How many ECU's was it to cause potential problems in the future.....?

For many years cars have been a consumable, early on they were a durable (like Series I to III, Counties and Defenders). The new 'Defender', like most other modern vehicles, will be a consumable.

Yes it's comfortable has all these wizz bang features to take away the driving experience and very much suits the direction Tata/Land Rover are taking the brand.
How it competes with the brands that already have a strong hold in the 4WD market will be interesting to see. I'm sure there will be an initial surge of sales (when they finally become available) but the longer term sales growth will tell if they got it right.......



ColinGood questions, i think of the ecu like windows 10, will keep getting better and better. And i believe it has ability for modules to be changed as tech changes.

If your scared of tech, dont fly.

[goingbush]

Some could say the same about your series vehicle "sick feeling" but they don't because they know its right for your needs.
Beauty is on the eye of the beholder.

I agree on consumerism, but any vehicle beyond the horse and carriage is imo too far, yours included.

For once we are in complete agreeance !!

BTW, The Lightweight is arguably the ugliest Series LandRover ever made, but it was made for purpose, not looks. I can understand it might make some people sick to look at it. ( but far from the Ugliest LandRover , D5 takes that prize and I think it was likely made for looks over purpose) .

[NT5224]

I wrote in my original post that Land Rover no longer make a vehicle appropriate to my needs and so I would not be buying another. I’m not passing judgement on the merits of the new vehicle.

This is a shame because I have brand history and I’m probably the type of customer that they would wish to retain. I bought my last vehicle in cash and will buy my next the same way, but this time my money will go to a different brand.

Land Rover probably feel they can afford to lose my custom, if they can attract ten other customers new to the brand with a trendy urban-focused SUV runabout. But I would question whether the pricing of their new model is appropriate to the new generation of customers they are chasing.

If statistics are to be believed, fewer urban 20-40 year olds are homeowners than 20 or 30 years ago and many do not enjoy the same level of employment security in the new economy. Which right minded millennial will spend 70k on a new vehicle which immediately depreciates when they are still struggling to get on the property ladder? Furthermore, the whole concept of the gas guzzling SUV is out of vogue among the more environmentally conscious -unless there is genuine need for it. Yes, Land Rover do a hybrid, but you get better bang for your green buck with smaller more efficient electric vehicles.

I would love to keep buying Land Rovers. But for me there was only ever one ‘Land Rover’, and now that is discontinued. Looking forward for a glimpse of the Ineos Grenadier.

Alan

[DiscoMick]

Yes, I agree. The new Defender looks great, but it's not in the same market as our 110.

[blackrangie]

Yes, I agree. The new Defender looks great, but it's not in the same market as our 110.That market unfortunately only had 5k public buyers and 15k fleet per year, profitable but not enough volume and not future proof.

[gromit]

Good questions, i think of the ecu like windows 10, will keep getting better and better. And i believe it has ability for modules to be changed as tech changes.

If your scared of tech, dont fly.

Interesting analogies.....

Aircraft
I'm not scared of tech for the right application.

Aircraft and their spare parts are highly regulated so very different to cars, despite your regular comments about how the the extensive testing will make the 'Defender' more reliable I'm not sure it will be comparable to aircraft.

Have you seen Air Crash Investigation programmes on TV ?

Daily driver, 6 years old and all the analogue instruments stop working. Dealer had no idea so it was going to cost lots of $$'s to investigate.
Removed the instrument cluster and noticed a large IC on the back, CanBus and the cluster has to be paired to the vehicle so replacement expensive and may not fix the problem.
Digital display can give digital speed reading and distance to empty so drove it without analogue instruments. 3 weeks later it came good !

Windows
You might not be old enough to remember the reply from GM when Bill Gates made a comment about the speed of development of the computer vs. cars (I'll include it at the end of this post).

I understand that the software in the vehicle will need to be regularly updated but will they make it go slower as it gets older, then you have to upgrade the vehicle to 'Defender' 2.0 ?
Will it suddenly stop for no reason and you have to turn it off & on again ?
They won't give software updates to independent service centres so you are locked into LR and their huge service costs (I sort of understand this).
At the moment the dealer has to connect the car via PC to LR head office as any upgrade is done, not sure why this is but I guess it keeps tabs on the dealer ???

Joking aside, I understand why there is so much electronics but it makes it much less likely to be a vehicle with a long life, I guess you'd argue that we'll have to go electric before the new 'Defender' reaches the age of my Defender so it's not relevant.


They are seen now as a prestige brand so the purchase price and service costs reflect this and it needs all the wizz bang features to appeal to the modern 'driver'.

Capable - yes.
Meets the demands of the current (cashed up) market - probably.
Long term investment - no.

Many buyers nowadays move a vehicle on in a few years so it'll be interesting to see the secondhand price in say 3-4 years time (out of interest, because I wouldn't consider buying one)

Interesting that it was launched well before they have vehicles to sell, I guess they are hoping the hype will generate interest and therefore sales. Also interesting they are controlling the media (you can 'test' it but you can't have the keys).



Here's the reply from GM from many years ago.

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.
For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."


Finally, no I don't believe the World is flat (before you ask).


Colin

[manic]

Given a few years of sales there should be a good amount of cheap second hand parts for this new model. ECUs included.

Aluminium monocoque, independent suspension and airbags will practically guarantee a statutory write off after any half decent impact.

It doesn't take much to pop an airbag - strike one.

It doesn't take much to impact on the structure of the car when it's aluminium monocoque and designed to crumple - strike 2

It doesn't take much to bend steering linkages when your wheels are right out there to take a hit - strike 3.

You're out! Statutory Write Off.


If LR sell a good amount of these hippos, and a good chunk of owners think they can drive like James bond, the salvage auctions will soon have them in good supply!

And if this new rover is as reliable as we all hope there will be a good supply of salvage parts coupled with very little demand. Cheap cheap.

[manic]

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

I like this one. [emoji28]

[roverrescue]

Talking repair costs
Recent D5 incident reported on AULRo
New vehicle (first year) lightly side swiped
Rear quarter panel and rear door damaged

Cutting and replacing rear quarter and rear door ran to $25,000
Once these 75-80-90k vehicles are 4 years old
They WILL be worth $35k-$45k no questions asked and that’s probably generous

They will not survive minor bingles as costs of repair will reduce them to scrap

Going Uber high tech alloys to save weight (it’s still bloody heavy for a mid size SUV) has a huge trade off in longevity and repair ability
I have no doubt the electronics will be largely stable and OK - assuming they are truly IP67 that’s a real first for JLR.

As mentioned above - this is now a luxury expensive high-end vehicle
It will be expensive to maintain
Expensive to insure
Expensive to own

Even if the purchase price is within the realms of reasonable

S

[blackrangie]

Interesting analogies.....

Aircraft
I'm not scared of tech for the right application.

Aircraft and their spare parts are highly regulated so very different to cars, despite your regular comments about how the the extensive testing will make the 'Defender' more reliable I'm not sure it will be comparable to aircraft.

Have you seen Air Crash Investigation programmes on TV ?

Daily driver, 6 years old and all the analogue instruments stop working. Dealer had no idea so it was going to cost lots of $$'s to investigate.
Removed the instrument cluster and noticed a large IC on the back, CanBus and the cluster has to be paired to the vehicle so replacement expensive and may not fix the problem.
Digital display can give digital speed reading and distance to empty so drove it without analogue instruments. 3 weeks later it came good !

Windows
You might not be old enough to remember the reply from GM when Bill Gates made a comment about the speed of development of the computer vs. cars (I'll include it at the end of this post).

I understand that the software in the vehicle will need to be regularly updated but will they make it go slower as it gets older, then you have to upgrade the vehicle to 'Defender' 2.0 ?
Will it suddenly stop for no reason and you have to turn it off & on again ?
They won't give software updates to independent service centres so you are locked into LR and their huge service costs (I sort of understand this).
At the moment the dealer has to connect the car via PC to LR head office as any upgrade is done, not sure why this is but I guess it keeps tabs on the dealer ???

Joking aside, I understand why there is so much electronics but it makes it much less likely to be a vehicle with a long life, I guess you'd argue that we'll have to go electric before the new 'Defender' reaches the age of my Defender so it's not relevant.


They are seen now as a prestige brand so the purchase price and service costs reflect this and it needs all the wizz bang features to appeal to the modern 'driver'.

Capable - yes.
Meets the demands of the current (cashed up) market - probably.
Long term investment - no.

Many buyers nowadays move a vehicle on in a few years so it'll be interesting to see the secondhand price in say 3-4 years time (out of interest, because I wouldn't consider buying one)

Interesting that it was launched well before they have vehicles to sell, I guess they are hoping the hype will generate interest and therefore sales. Also interesting they are controlling the media (you can 'test' it but you can't have the keys).



Here's the reply from GM from many years ago.

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on. At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue.
For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.
6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light.
7. The airbag system would ask "Are you sure?" before deploying.
8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off."


Finally, no I don't believe the World is flat (before you ask).


ColinDo you still ride a horse & carriage? [emoji6][emoji1787]
If you do, respect [emoji1417]

Saying if your scared of tech dont fly, in no way infers that the new defender is as reliable as a plane, rather its pointing to planes as one of the most tech heavy peices of transport on earth. Its tested and proven very reliable before launch.
Tech has come a very long way and today csn be proven very reliable if done right and tested right.

I see testing done to a high standard also with the new defender for example and new rovers, something like 60,000 engineering signoffs , pre realworld tests, 1.5million ks real world tests, pre production real worlds, then SOTA and FOTA to pick up whatever is missed.

So in context of the original thread the new defender will to a large extent be the pillar for LR moving forward..we will see this come to light as journalists start to get thier hands on them and it starts winning 4x4 OTY etc around the world like the D3,D4, D5 did.

[goingbush]

BR there are plenty of threads extolling the virtues off the new offering from JLR , you don't see me sticking my nose in there with hate speech.

This thread is on topic.
better yet if your not worried about tech in modern aircraft go for a flight in a 737 MAX.

[blackrangie]

BR there are plenty of threads extolling the virtues off the new offering from JLR , you don't see me sticking my nose in there with hate speech.

This thread is on topic.
better yet if your not worried about tech in modern aircraft go for a flight in a 737 MAX., there is nothing being said that's off topic and out of line with other posts here, my opinion is my opinion.

As others in charge have said before, lifes to short for hate, lets just be nice and respect each others opinion even if we dont agree.

I believe all 737 max's are grounded so thats not guna happen, due to cracks in the wings not a tech fault [emoji12].

[SBD4]

, there is nothing being said that's off topic and out of line with other posts here, my opinion is my opinion.

As others in charge have said before, lifes to short for hate, lets just be nice and respect each others opinion even if we dont agree.

I believe all 737 max's are grounded so thats not guna happen, due to cracks in the wings not a tech fault [emoji12].

Just for the record, 737 MAX aircraft were grounded because of a design flaw in a system that was introduced to make the aircraft feel the same to fly as earlier 737s. This system (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System)was introduced purely to save airlines money on retraining their pilots on these aircraft. It works by controlling the jack screw that actuates the elevators - its sole purpose is to trim the nose of the aircraft down. Its design flaw was that it took its input from only one of two angle of attack indicators (AOA) meaning that if that AOA indicator failed MCAS could (and did twice) send an aircraft into the ground. So yes, grounded due to technology.

[cripesamighty]

If you are talking high tech in modern cars compared to modern airliners, then the points brought up previously are probably valid.
But, when comparing affordable modern cars to affordable flying (ie own/operate/fix yourself light aircraft - ie the bulk of aircraft flying around the world), most civilian aircraft still run old tech (carburettors, magneto's, single cams, etc) for various reasons (economic, political, litigious), although thankfully this is changing. Just to throw a spanner in the works! [biggrin]

[Tins]

Just for the record, 737 MAX aircraft were grounded because of a design flaw in a system that was introduced to make the aircraft feel the same to fly as earlier 737s. This system (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System)was introduced purely to save airlines money on retraining their pilots on these aircraft. It works by controlling the jack screw that actuates the elevators - its sole purpose is to trim the nose of the aircraft down. Its design flaw was that it took its input from only one of two angle of attack indicators (AOA) meaning that if that AOA indicator failed MCAS could (and did twice) send an aircraft into the ground. So yes, grounded due to technology.

Beat me to it. The original iteration of MCAS was far less intrusive, but Boeing engineers "upgraded" it so it could take over control of the elevators almost completely, and made manually trimming the aircraft extremely difficult, a disaster if the aircraft had a low above ground height.

BTW, the "cracks in the wings" are actually cracks in the 'pickle forks', they are not causing the grounding of any aircraft immediately and they are in the 737 NG, which is a different aircraft to the Max line of aircraft.

[gromit]

Do you still ride a horse & carriage? [emoji6][emoji1787]
If you do, respect [emoji1417]

Saying if your scared of tech dont fly, in no way infers that the new defender is as reliable as a plane, rather its pointing to planes as one of the most tech heavy peices of transport on earth. Its tested and proven very reliable before launch.
Tech has come a very long way and today csn be proven very reliable if done right and tested right.

I see testing done to a high standard also with the new defender for example and new rovers, something like 60,000 engineering signoffs , pre realworld tests, 1.5million ks real world tests, pre production real worlds, then SOTA and FOTA to pick up whatever is missed.

So in context of the original thread the new defender will to a large extent be the pillar for LR moving forward..we will see this come to light as journalists start to get thier hands on them and it starts winning 4x4 OTY etc around the world like the D3,D4, D5 did.


I wish Tata all the best with the new 'Defender' but it isn't a vehicle I'd buy even secondhand.



Colin

[goingbush]

Good News, Jim Ratcliffe has defeated JLR in court , he is now free to model the Ineos Grenardier on the old Defender shape. JLR failed to retrospectively copyright it.

[blackrangie]

Good News, Jim Ratcliffe has defeated JLR in court , he is now free to model the Ineos Grenardier on the old Defender shape. JLR failed to retrospectively copyright it.To be fair to LR, its not much better than the chinese with the evoque imo, why steal someone elses hard urned IP, come up with something yourself.

Its still in the high court, so no he is not free to do as he pleases, the shape is protected in other markets, so that means he can't sell globally if he copies the shape doesn't it?

Jim Ratcliffe wins Jaguar Land Rover challenge over Defender shape : CityAM (https://www.cityam.com/jim-ratcliffe-wins-jaguar-land-rover-challenge-over-defender-shape/)

[gromit]

To be fair to LR, its not much better than the chinese with the evoque imo, why steal someone elses hard urned IP, come up with something yourself.



The Iveco Massif isn't far off the shape of a Defender
Iveco Massif - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco_Massif)


Colin

[manic]

The Iveco Massif isn't far off the shape of a Defender
Iveco Massif - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco_Massif)


ColinI think that comes from a series 3 licence sold to Santana - the Spanish.

Leaf sprung.

Good luck to Ratcliff..... I would love to see the Defender continued!

[goingbush]

So whatever boxy shape the Ineos is JLR will claim is was stolen from the Defender,

Whatabout the Mobius II, G-Wagen , UAZ Hunter, Fiat 1107 , and a zillion other vehicles that are all boxy 4x4's .


Speaking of the Mobius, where do you reckon JLR stole the design for their new POS from.
Kenya’s Mobius car sells out new generation model - Business Daily (https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/corporate/industry/Kenya-s-Mobius-car-sells-out-new-generation-model/4003110-4199328-d4w0t/index.html)

and its well known that LandRover stole the design for the Discovery from the Simca Rancho
The Simca Rancho, or how the French built the Discovery 12 years before Land Rover | CarsGuide - OverSteer (https://www.carsguide.com.au/oversteer/the-simca-rancho-or-how-the-french-built-the-discovery-12-years-before-land-rover-59833)

so they have no right to be taking any high ground.

[blackrangie]

The Iveco Massif isn't far off the shape of a Defender
Iveco Massif - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iveco_Massif)


ColinAnother copy no doubt? 2007 first year

[blackrangie]

So whatever boxy shape the Ineos is JLR will claim is was stolen from the Defender,

Whatabout the Mobius II, G-Wagen , UAZ Hunter, Fiat 1107 , and a zillion other vehicles that are all boxy 4x4's .


Speaking of the Mobius, where do you reckon JLR stole the design for their new POS from.
Kenya’s Mobius car sells out new generation model - Business Daily (https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/corporate/industry/Kenya-s-Mobius-car-sells-out-new-generation-model/4003110-4199328-d4w0t/index.html)

and its well known that LandRover stole the design for the Discovery from the Simca Rancho
The Simca Rancho, or how the French built the Discovery 12 years before Land Rover | CarsGuide - OverSteer (https://www.carsguide.com.au/oversteer/the-simca-rancho-or-how-the-french-built-the-discovery-12-years-before-land-rover-59833)

so they have no right to be taking any high ground.What is a POS?

[scarry]

What is a POS?

:Rolling::Rolling:

Sorry couldn’t help myself.

Google is your friend.

[blackrangie]

I think that comes from a series 3 licence sold to Santana - the Spanish.

Leaf sprung.

Good luck to Ratcliff..... I would love to see the Defender continued!The defender has been continued, and its better in so many ways [emoji6]

[blackrangie]

:Rolling::Rolling:

Sorry couldn’t help myself.

Google is your friend.Twas a tongue in cheek joke..i know we are not allowed to abbreviate certain words on here [emoji1787]

[gromit]

The defender has been continued, and its better in so many ways [emoji6]

Except for :-
Cost of ownership.
Looks.
Repairability.

I'm sure there are few more areas where it's not 'better in so many ways'

Colin

[101RRS]

The defender has been continued, and its better in so many ways [emoji6]

And so much worse in many ways - is now just another wannabe in the high end luxo barge market.

[scarry]

The defender has been continued, and its better in so many ways [emoji6]

But it does leave twice the size hole in the bank balance,and has a much smaller cargo area in the rear.[biggrin]

An d Mick won’t be able to fit 12 bags of goat poo in the back,maybe he will have to invest in a trailer.


In fact I measured the cargo area in my brothers D1,and it’s 50 mm shorter but higher,width similar, to new Defender,so smaller than D2,and way smaller than D4/3.Similar size to D1.

That’s with second row seats up.

They need to get the 130 on the market as soon as they can.

Anyone coming from a Patrol or LC will have to leave half the stuff they take camping behind[

But they probably take to much crap anyway.

[Hugh42732]

I'll choose my words carefully here...

With the release of this latest vehicle and the backtrack on producing a load carrying version (is that even possible with monocoque and gasbag suspension?), what I've long suspected in the leadup to L663 SUV has come to pass. Land Rover no longer build vehicles that are relevant to my individual needs or lifestyle, and maybe not relevant to anybody who needs a serious off road working vehicle. I will always love Land Rover heritage and my amazing 110 HCPU 'Hector', but I wont be buying another vehicle from them (unless a new 'Series IV' line emerges).

I respect that from a commercial marketing perspective their rationale and current product line may be a shrewd business move, and that the world is now largely urbanised and populated by trendy, cashed up latte drinkers with a penchant for weekend extreme sports (or at least appearing on facebook to do so).

The bit I dont get is how many of the beardy urbanistas that they target with their marketing can afford upwards of 70K for their cafe to cafe runabouts? I will spend upwards of that on my next vehicle. But it wont be a land rover SUV. G Wagen Professionals and Iveco Daly 4x4 are probably the two I like best right now.

I guess the question I now have for the Land Rover brand enthusiast is which model will carry the brand identity forward now that the Land Rover is gone? I've never had a Discovery, but hear they're OK. I liked those boxy ones. So is the Disco or the Range Rover now the flagship of the land rover product range?

Alan

I agree, could have easily called it the new Discovery...

Was waiting in hope for a rugged work ute but, failed, as I thought they would after the public feedback for "wants" in the new Defender.

Currently looking a Mercedes Benz Dual Cab, it won't have the off road ability of the G Wagen or the Iveco 4x4 but with a fair bit of in and out I think the height of the Iveco would wear me out.

Anyway moving along...

[blackrangie]

Except for :-
Cost of ownership.
Looks.
Repairability.

I'm sure there are few more areas where it's not 'better in so many ways'

ColinThat's individual needs dependant.

[blackrangie]

And so much worse in many ways - is now just another wannabe in the high end luxo barge market.Easy to type but harder to back up with facts

[LRJim]

Easy to type but harder to back up with factsDont need any written fact, the picture tells 1000 words

[101RRS]

Easy to type but harder to back up with facts

True but the facts are in the miriad of threads and posts you have generated on this forum - just look at all the dissenting views on the vehicle that you constantly challenge or ignore.

[blackrangie]

Dont need any written fact, the picture tells 1000 wordsYeah I prefer facts, just because something has rounded edges it doesn't in any way correlate to toughness, durability or reliability. [emoji6]

[blackrangie]

True but the facts are in the miriad of threads and posts you have generated on this forum - just look at all the dissenting views on the vehicle that you constantly challenge or ignore.Your original post


And so much worse in many ways - is now just another wannabe in the high end luxo barge market.

Please show your myriad of facts to back this how (A) the new defender is so much worse in so many ways? and (B) how its just another wannabe in the high end luxury SUV market?

Genuinely interested in your well thought out fact based reasoning rather than claims with no facts to back it up.

Then show me where I have ignored them?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/Zd1BUb0qs6nwjeMUBu/giphy.gif?cid=349c9dd708d5bf2d9c8a1d5667a02c5beaf6 7eb3e7000aaf&rid=giphy.gif

[101RRS]

Oh deer.

[scarry]

And so much worse in many ways - is now just another wannabe in the high end luxo barge market.

What was their other option,produce something that won’t sell to the masses?

That wouldn’t be a good business decision.

That’s the way the company has gone,there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If we listened to some on here we would still be riding horses to work.

They could have continually updated the old vehicle,but sales were very poor,and there were many other issues with it,so it was dropped.

Make something similar to old model,that wouldn’t have sold well either.

And that market is very small,what is left of it is taken mainly by the 70 series,LR would have had virtually no chance of cracking it.

And many are saying it’s going as well,but that has been said for the last 10 yrs,it keeps soldiering on.

Sure there are few things not to like with the new model,but every vehicle is a compromise in some way.It is built for a world market,every market is slightly different,and here the LR market is tiny compared with their overall sales.
So one would have to presume our market here wasn’t taken into much consideration when it was built.

[blackrangie]

What was their other option,produce something that won’t sell to the masses?

That wouldn’t be a good business decision.

That’s the way the company has gone,there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If we listened to some on here we would still be riding horses to work.

They could have continually updated the old vehicle,but sales were very poor,and there were many other issues with it,so it was dropped.

Make something similar to old model,that wouldn’t have sold well either.

And that market is very small,what is left of it is taken mainly by the 70 series,LR would have had virtually no chance of cracking it.

And many are saying it’s going as well,but that has been said for the last 10 yrs,it keeps soldiering on.

Sure there are few things not to like with the new model,but every vehicle is a compromise in some way.It is built for a world market,every market is slightly different,and here the LR market is tiny compared with their overall sales.
So one would have to presume our market here wasn’t taken into much consideration when it was built.Fair comment, but i would change the last sentence to: "some buyers in our market have not yet been taken into consideration" (70 series buyers)

In terms of the vehicle build, if i didn't think it was tested and built to last in the Australian environment, I can assure you myself and others would not have put our hard earned down.

I have spent quite a large amount of time investigating and studying, others flew Frankfurt to see in person. The testing i have seen + the underlying strength of structure and components along with ability for continual over the air improvement gives me a lot of confidence it will do very well in our market and markets like Africa.

One thing that will be interesting is the continual shock monitoring to avoid shock failure on congregations along with the strongest axles ever on a LR and updated steering system/susp components

The cooling system with its seperate coolers + being tested in dubai should also be stellar in places like the deep sand of fraser on a 35 degree day or traversing the dunes of the outback on a 40+ degree day.

The wading depth of close to a meter + IP67 electricals along with what looks to be high quality engine bay wiring along with double rubberized flooring + proper recovery points front and rear give me the confidence to head to places like cape York or the high country.

In many ways in my eyes the new defender could become the ultimate future proof Australia touring vehicle. To be fair to LR have done everything in their power in my eyes to make that possible, not just in our market, but 150+ others.

Quite an achievement in so many ways. When i saw the first post in this thread, in the interests of Fair Go, im gunna stick up for LR here.

[scarry]

Fair comment, but i would change the last sentence to: "some buyers in our market have not yet been taken into consideration" (70 series buyers)

Yes correct,but I would also add,LC200 and late model Patrol buyers.

Main reasons as I have said before,
Small Diesel engine,
Lack of room behind second row seats,
Fuel tank size,particularly as many tow huge vans.

Anyway,after market guys may sort out fuel tank.

Other issues,may get sorted with time,and arrival of 130.

As said,every vehicle is a compromise.

[manic]

If we listened to some on here we would still be riding horses to work.

The phrase is 'workhorse'. I don't think anyone here has ever suggested an actual horse replace the Defender.

Here's a modern workhorse that isn't horse.
Here's Everything You Need to Know About Workhorse, the EV Truck Maker That May Buy the GM Lordstown Plant (https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopnik.com/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-workhorse-the-1834673218/amp)

A tray back option is a requirement for any new vehicle looking to replace the Defender. Bare minimum. It might still happen...

[blackrangie]

Yes correct,but I would also add,LC200 and late model Patrol buyers.

Main reasons as I have said before,
Small Diesel engine,
Lack of room behind second row seats,
Fuel tank size,particularly as many tow huge vans.

Anyway,after market guys may sort out fuel tank.

Other issues,may get sorted with time,and arrival of 130.

As said,every vehicle is a compromise.

Fair points

In this day and age small high capacity deisels seem to be the norm and sufficient for most people. I test drove the D240 D5 recently and was pleasantly surprised, no slouch indeed. However for me the straight 6 petrol def is on order as i like a bit of excitement.

The straight 6 diesel in the defender will come onboard they say next year so that takes care of any small diesel issues, i may even consider trading on that if it ends up being a winner and if especially if its hybrid, and i believe their is a possibility the LC200 will be dropping down to a 6 also?

For sure LC200 has a better tank but it also would drink a 3 or 4 L more per hundred in real worlds than a D200 or D240, so it needs a bigger tank.

I agree with you though the new def needs another 20-40L of fuel stored somewhere before anyone takes on some of the big outback stretches in oz, but that is easily overcome as you know.

Storage I believe won't be an issue imo as most familys are low numbered in AU so you have a lot of space in the rear in reality.

[manic]

Fair comment, but i would change the last sentence to: "some buyers in our market have not yet been taken into consideration" (70 series buyers)

.

Add to that all the genuine Defender owners and businesses/services with utility fleets. Not to mention the Military and Police forces globally who used them - and still do!

LR have handed their balls to the 70series and gwagen pro.

Has the Defender brand name been glued to a family SUV? They will milk the pedigree of that name for all it's worth, but if the new vehicle cannot even attempt to take on the roles of its predecessors - the value of that brand will quickly diminish.

A tray back variant could be used for camperback overlanding and utility/service adaptations. You would continue to see custom defenders built up and adapted for purpose! So if they truely want to keep the Defender going - it would be crazy not to offer one.

[Gregz]

..... to avoid shock failure on congregations ....

I suspect some congregations have had quite a few shocks recently.

[blackrangie]

Add to that all the genuine Defender owners and businesses/services with utility fleets. Not to mention the Military and Police forces globally who used them - and still do!

LR have handed their balls to the 70series and gwagen pro.

Has the Defender brand name been glued to a family SUV? They will milk the pedigree of that name for all it's worth, but if the new vehicle cannot even attempt to take on the roles of its predecessors - the value of that brand will quickly diminish.

A tray back variant could be used for camperback overlanding and utility/service adaptations. You would continue to see custom defenders built up and adapted for purpose! So if they truely want to keep the Defender going - it would be crazy not to offer one.Defender only sold 5k to public and 15k to fleet, are you kidding it was a disaster for sales.

LC 70 series dual cab doesn't get fleet deals due to not being 5 star safety rated.

New defender will beat both, be more durable, safer and future proof, it will actually be able to be driven on roads in 5 yeara

[blackrangie]

I suspect some congregations have had quite a few shocks recently.[emoji1787]

[manic]

Defender only sold 5k to public and 15k to fleet, are you kidding it was a disaster for sales.


So a tray back variant on this new platform would be a disaster for sales? What are you on about?

The series-defender was one of the most globally recognisable and successful go anywhere utility vehicles ever sold. 1948 - 2016.


They clearly want to sell off the back of that, why else would they continue the name. But so far the extension is not convincing. A ute version would help maintain the link. Right now its looking like a D4 replacement.

[101RRS]

What was their other option,produce something that won’t sell to the masses?

That wouldn’t be a good business decision.

That’s the way the company has gone,there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If we listened to some on here we would still be riding horses to work.

They could have continually updated the old vehicle,but sales were very poor,and there were many other issues with it,so it was dropped.

Make something similar to old model,that wouldn’t have sold well either.

And that market is very small,what is left of it is taken mainly by the 70 series,LR would have had virtually no chance of cracking it.

And many are saying it’s going as well,but that has been said for the last 10 yrs,it keeps soldiering on.

Sure there are few things not to like with the new model,but every vehicle is a compromise in some way.It is built for a world market,every market is slightly different,and here the LR market is tiny compared with their overall sales.
So one would have to presume our market here wasn’t taken into much consideration when it was built.

I dont disagree with anything you have said - the slot where the new Defender is pitched against the lower 3/4 span of the D5 and the bottom end of the RRS - this new Defender is just an other model in the LR lineup with models competing against each other. I agree for a small company like JLR to continue a vehicle like the old Defender is probably not viable.

The D5 has been a bit of a failure - certainly has not captured the public's imagination, so maybe cut their losses with that and slot in the new Defender in as the new Discovery - and take one of the agricultural Tata vehicles - wave the magic wand to give it a make over looks wise, fit TR etc and slot it in the bottom of the line up as a real replacement for the old Defender.

I dont dislike the new Defender and would certainly consider one but it would be as a replacement for my RRS - having trouble understanding where it fits in the line up and its pricing.

[blackrangie]

So a tray back variant on this new platform would be a disaster for sales? What are you on about?

The series-defender was one of the most globally recognisable and successful go anywhere utility vehicles ever sold. 1948 - 2016.


They clearly want to sell off the back of that, why else would they continue the name. But so far the extension is not convincing. A ute version would help maintain the link. Right now its looking like a D4 replacement.They only sold 5k on average to the public, worldwide last few years, 15k to fleet.

It wasnt the be all and end all of anything, if it was it would have sold like hot cakes.

I'm not saying I don't like the old defender because I do.. I'm just saying the new one will connect with much more people as they have ticked a lot more boxes whilst keeping it rugged durable and capable.

[manic]

Well it must be official then. The new one will sell like hot cakes, and connect with more people than the 1948-2016 series run. It will be iconic by default.

And it will be as capable, and durable. No worries there.

Anything else worth discussing?

Or have they missed something carrying this thing forward - anything come to mind? No probably not, it's gotta be all there.

[blackrangie]

I dont disagree with anything you have said - the slot where the new Defender is pitched against the lower 3/4 span of the D5 and the bottom end of the RRS - this new Defender is just an other model in the LR lineup with models competing against each other. I agree for a small company like JLR to continue a vehicle like the old Defender is probably not viable.

The D5 has been a bit of a failure - certainly has not captured the public's imagination, so maybe cut their losses with that and slot in the new Defender in as the new Discovery - and take one of the agricultural Tata vehicles - wave the magic wand to give it a make over looks wise, fit TR etc and slot it in the bottom of the line up as a real replacement for the old Defender.

I dont dislike the new Defender and would certainly consider one but it would be as a replacement for my RRS - having trouble understanding where it fits in the line up and its pricing.If the D5 by sales is a failure(which its not), the old defender was one of the worst automotive failures in history for sales in its final years (which it wasn't)

[NT5224]

I dont disagree with anything you have said - the slot where the new Defender is pitched against the lower 3/4 span of the D5 and the bottom end of the RRS - this new Defender is just an other model in the LR lineup with models competing against each other. I agree for a small company like JLR to continue a vehicle like the old Defender is probably not viable.

The D5 has been a bit of a failure - certainly has not captured the public's imagination, so maybe cut their losses with that and slot in the new Defender in as the new Discovery - and take one of the agricultural Tata vehicles - wave the magic wand to give it a make over looks wise, fit TR etc and slot it in the bottom of the line up as a real replacement for the old Defender.

I dont dislike the new Defender and would certainly consider one but it would be as a replacement for my RRS - having trouble understanding where it fits in the line up and its pricing.

Just wanted to say I completely agree with the points made above, articulated so much better than I could!

And one more thing. As somebody else mentioned earlier in this thread, despite the hype, nobody outside of JLR seems to have actually tested and driven the vehicle off road yet...

So all the accolades for the performance of the new land rover SUV are coming from the manufacturer, not any objective source.

So far this is what we really know about the new vehicle:


It looks like a Ewok/Discovery 5 SUV with a plastic suitcase stuck on the back window.
It looks like a Ewok/Discovery 5 SUV with a plastic suitcase stuck on the back window.


Alan

[Homestar]

If the D5 by sales is a failure(which its not), the old defender was one of the worst automotive failures in history for sales in its final years (which it wasn't)

Not a failure no, I agree there, but certainly not a hit though you’d have to say. Global figures for the D5 are about 20 odd percent down on the D4. Defender sales were stable and of course rose significantly after the news production was ending so a different story all together IMO. More interesting is how the Velar took away sales from the Evoque and Discovery Sport. Sales of both of these plummeted on the release of the Velar so is is clear that LR have History or taking their own sales away from certain models with the release of new ones and shows to me that they have too many in their lineup that customers think are pretty much all the same. Time will tell if this is the case with the new Defender. My uneducated guess is that Disco 5 sales will start to fall when we can see a full years sales of the new Defender.

[blackrangie]

Just wanted to say I completely agree with the points made above, articulated so much better than I could!

And one more thing. As somebody else mentioned earlier in this thread, despite the hype, nobody outside of JLR seems to have actually tested and driven the vehicle off road yet...

So all the accolades for the performance of the new land rover SUV are coming from the manufacturer, not any objective source.

So far this is what we really know about the new vehicle:


It looks like a Ewok/Discovery 5 SUV with a plastic suitcase stuck on the back window.
It looks like a Ewok/Discovery 5 SUV with a plastic suitcase stuck on the back window.


Alan

Actually multiple external to JLR have seen and reported on its performance at moab, and around 10 reporters have sat in whilst being thrashed and reported on the experience, far from nothing.

10s of thousands of people have crawled all over them at frankfurt, dealers and shopping centres in the UK, Dubai, and LA motor show is next.

[Homestar]

And it will also be interesting to see where LR end up at the end of 2019 in total sales. Not sure how they are tracking but are they still on the slide from last year after jumping up so dramatically in 2017 with the release of the Disco Sport which was a hit, and now plummeting. Will they crack 400,000 units this year?

[blackrangie]

And it will also be interesting to see where LR end up at the end of 2019 in total sales. Not sure how they are tracking but are they still on the slide from last year after jumping up so dramatically in 2017 with the release of the Disco Sport which was a hit, and now plummeting. Will they crack 400,000 units this year?I believe they are back in profit this year, which is way more important than sales or turnover.

[Homestar]

Good point. 👍

[gromit]

Actually multiple external to JLR have seen and reported on its performance at moab, and around 10 reporters have sat in whilst being thrashed and reported on the experience, far from nothing.

10s of thousands of people have crawled all over them at frankfurt, dealers and shopping centres in the UK, Dubai, and LA motor show is next.

So actual testing has been completely 'controlled' by Land Rover so far (crawling over them doesn't really count).

Interesting that they launch the product long before it's available and then don't let the press loose in them. Strange marketing strategy but they must think that they know what they are doing.........


Colin

[AK83]

....
With the release of this latest vehicle and the backtrack on producing a load carrying version (is that even possible with monocoque and gasbag suspension?) ....

I'm not understanding why folks seem to think that a monocoque body design won't allow a load carrying version?

Whether LR will do one, is up to them to decide, but just because the body design in unibody doesn't preclude it from being designed to carry loads.

Ford transit is the classic example of this change. Later gen Transits are unibody designs(literally a chassis and body welded together).
They upped it's already substantial load capacity to boot.
If memory serves me, the older gen(ie. body on chassis VE era ~1995) had about 1000kg load capacity(SWB) 2 pallet job.
Newer models in the 1300+ kg load capacity range for the same 2 pallet SWB models.

Volksy Transporter vans have been unibody for years now .. same with the Renaults, Peugeots etc.

Toyota's Jurrasic era latest release body on chassis vans, LWB models load cap is just over 1000kgs by comparison.

[roverrescue]

I'm not understanding why folks seem to think that a monocoque body design won't allow a load carrying version?

Whether LR will do one, is up to them to decide, but just because the body design in unibody doesn't preclude it from being designed to carry loads.

Ford transit is the classic example of this change. Later gen Transits are unibody designs(literally a chassis and body welded together).
They upped it's already substantial load capacity to boot.
If memory serves me, the older gen(ie. body on chassis VE era ~1995) had about 1000kg load capacity(SWB) 2 pallet job.
Newer models in the 1300+ kg load capacity range for the same 2 pallet SWB models.

Volksy Transporter vans have been unibody for years now .. same with the Renaults, Peugeots etc.

Toyota's Jurrasic era latest release body on chassis vans, LWB models load cap is just over 1000kgs by comparison.


Because a Monocoque Can or a Wagon is a completely different Banana to a monocoque Ute
Vans and wagons have roofs and walls carrying flexing loads
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

It’s the same reason that overloaded 130 utes cracked chassis but 130 wagons didn’t

S

[NT5224]

Actually multiple external to JLR have seen and reported on its performance at moab, and around 10 reporters have sat in whilst being thrashed and reported on the experience, far from nothing.

10s of thousands of people have crawled all over them at frankfurt, dealers and shopping centres in the UK, Dubai, and LA motor show is next.




Have they driven it themselves?

[blackrangie]

I dont see the new defender being different to any other release from JLR in terms of when reporters get a thrash, we are just taking more notice.
It will only be after profiction line prototype testing in complete and signed of the automotive journalists get a drive, for obvious reasons.

I'm happy they are skipping parts of the process, due to impatience of people wanting reviews.

[trumpycam]

Have been following this thread for a while with some amusement mixed with angst, when you pull back and remember that no one has actually driven one yet! Anyhow, made me recall that this discussion has happened before (old enough to have been involved) except around campfires and in magazines. At that time it was the same, about Land Rover abandoning it's core workhorse roots and pandering to the soft roaders(not sure if that term was in fashion then, but you can get my drift) The issue then was the change from the manly and rugged leaf spring to the wimpy coils (which we all knew was an idea destined to bring down the world as we knew it). So if you are listening LR give us back the old Series and win back our trust, at least for the short time before you go bust.

[JDNSW]

Because a Monocoque Can or a Wagon is a completely different Banana to a monocoque Ute
Vans and wagons have roofs and walls carrying flexing loads
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

It’s the same reason that overloaded 130 utes cracked chassis but 130 wagons didn’t

S

I should perhaps point out that my 1956 VW ute was monocoque - so the idea is not new. With a one ton payload and a large flat tray, these did not have a reputation for having any body issues.

[gromit]

I dont see the new defender being different to any other release from JLR in terms of when reports get a thrash, we are just taking more notice.
It will only be after profiction line prototype testing in complete and signed of the automotive journalists get a drive, for obvious reasons.

I'm happy they are skipping parts of the process, due to impatience of people wanting reviews.

So they've released it a bit too early but want to 'drive' the hype surrounding it ?

What's the point of a manufacturer controlled review ?


Colin

[AK83]

.....
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

....

Reason I brought up the Transit is that it also comes in a 'tray' variant too.
From what I've seen of the cab chassis versions of the Transit too, they're still body(as in cab) welded onto chassis rails.
Chassis is all welded too.

Honda in the US also has a monocoque dual cab ute(ridgeline) for sale in the US.
Can't see a tray version, only the tub. Has independent rear suspension too, and a bit over 700kgs payload(on coils). If they used air bags on the rear they could have probably increased that a bit more too.
Suspension does use bolt on subframes.
But the body itself is a unibody type. Images are available on the interwebs, and if you search for them you will see, it's basically a welded body on a ladder frame. A bit more than that, but that gives you an idea of what it is.

[roverrescue]

How do those monocoque utes go in low range across all terrains at GVM?

The ridge line gets a reasonable wrap as a tow vehicle but it is in no way an Off-road Ute.

S

[blackrangie]

So they've released it a bit too early but want to 'drive' the hype surrounding it ?

What's the point of a manufacturer controlled review ?


ColinI don't think you realize the logistics of a car release?
They are releasing/showing the car all around the world right now to get the sales book started , at the same time doing final testing of the production prototypes in multiple countries. There is a process that needs to be followed.

The early offroad ride by reporters of pre production mules was to give reporters an early taste and create buzz, which it did. It was a thrash around JLRs test track. Water entered the cabin on 1 reporter but it ended up being temp wiring to the roof breaking the door seal.

Its only been a little over 2 months since release and im sure you will agree Franlfurt was a very good call for them (by reports it stole the show)

Maybe pen a letter to JLR with your proposed timeline taking into account absolutly everything, show them how they are wrong and how you would do it better, post it up for us too [emoji6].

The guys n girls in charge of the release and the pre release marketing are no doubt hundreds of seasoned industry professionals coming together to make decisions.

There comes a point were we should be humble and maybe realise that they know what they are doing because they are more experienced then us in this regard.

It been 2 months they are following normal release processes, imo reporters will get an actual drive when real pre production testing is complete for obvious reasons.

[Geedublya]

I should perhaps point out that my 1956 VW ute was monocoque - so the idea is not new. With a one ton payload and a large flat tray, these did not have a reputation for having any body issues.

I'm very concerned that you keep presenting the voice of reason John. Being a series and Defender owner you do know that you are completely out of line discussing Rover and Landrover's history of change and evolution and pointing out that monocoque vehicles have carried loads previously.
I think you need to sit back and turn this around and start pointing out why the new Defender isn't able to be called a Defender but should in fact be called the Discovery 4.5 or maybe a Pretender. Having your range of experience you should know that the vehicle for the Australian Outback has leaf or coil springs, a separate chassis, no electronics and a non-common rail di diesel engine of at least 3 litres (preferably 4 or more).

[Tins]

Because a Monocoque Can or a Wagon is a completely different Banana to a monocoque Ute
Vans and wagons have roofs and walls carrying flexing loads
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

It’s the same reason that overloaded 130 utes cracked chassis but 130 wagons didn’t

S

"Monocoque". Are we all on the same page here?

Monocoque literally mean 'single shell'. To my knowledge there has never neen a true monocoque car. The term is better equated to boats. The cars referred to this way are really 'semi monocoque', as the "shell is reinforced with ribs and braces, often with some form of pseudo chassis, or rails, for added rigidity. There have been plenty of utes built this way. All Falcons up until the XF for example. The aforementioned VWs. Holdens, up until ,I think, the VS. My Datto 1200 also comes to mind. I have yet to see a "tray variant" of a monocoque ute. There were some VP to VR trays, but they were converted in Castlemaine and had a rear chassis added, quite similar to how ford built the AU and onwards Falcons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Defender 130 was a 'body on frame' design, with a ladder chassis, and thus in no way can it be described as semi monocoque, let alone monocoque. (This is why Daniel at Mulgo can convert them.) Maybe the full length wagon body added some strength, or, more likely, it was much harder to overload the wagons. Whatever, chassis cracks in 130s had nothing to do with monocoque.

[roverrescue]

Sorry I was a little unclear

The new defender is monocoque or whatever you want to call it
I can’t see them making a tray back variant of the new defender

The old defender was body on chassis
Utes most definitely cracked just in front of the spring mounts as the highest load point of flex
(Same as coil GU utes) wagon bodies on same chassis protect the chassis by limiting flex of the rails


Anyways - it is all moot till they actually officially release anything that resembles a Ute

S

[scarry]

Anyways - it is all moot till they actually officially release anything that resembles a Ute

S

And i bet my left one that will never happen.

A very good source has told me no way.

But never say never...[bighmmm]

[gromit]

I don't think you realize the logistics of a car release?
They are releasing/showing the car all around the world right now to get the sales book started , at the same time doing final testing of the production prototypes in multiple countries. There is a process that needs to be followed.

The early offroad ride by reporters of pre production mules was to give reporters an early taste and create buzz, which it did. It was a thrash around JLRs test track. Water entered the cabin on 1 reporter but it ended up being temp wiring to the roof breaking the door seal.

Its only been a little over 2 months since release and im sure you will agree Franlfurt was a very good call for them (by reports it stole the show)

Maybe pen a letter to JLR with your proposed timeline taking into account absolutly everything, show them how they are wrong and how you would do it better, post it up for us too [emoji6].

The guys n girls in charge of the release and the pre release marketing are no doubt hundreds of seasoned industry professionals coming together to make decisions.

There comes a point were we should be humble and maybe realise that they know what they are doing because they are more experienced then us in this regard.

It been 2 months they are following normal release processes, imo reporters will get an actual drive when real pre production testing is complete for obvious reasons.


Maybe you could give examples of vehicles released in this way.

Lots of 'leaked' photos (yes there are always leaked photos but they seem to have been LR controlled).
Then an official launch but no product available for months.
Controlled 'testing' of the vehicle (ie no real world testing because they don't have production vehicles available).

Seems odd to me but I look forward to your examples [bigsmile1]

It's all been hype so far so for their sake I hope it lives up to the hype and look forward to hearing about yours when it arrives because I'm sure you'll have plenty to say about it.

There seem to be mainly three camps now.

1. Foaming at the mouth with excitement about it.
2. Wouldn't buy one because Tata/Land Rover have moved away from their roots.
3. Same thing happened with the move from leaf springs, the release of the Disco etc. etc. and looking back now it was actually a move forward.

I know which camp I'm in and I'm fairly sure I know which camp you're in.

I hope it's a success for them but, as I've mentioned before, I'm not in their target market for many reasons.


Colin

[JDNSW]

"Monocoque". Are we all on the same page here?

Monocoque literally mean 'single shell'. To my knowledge there has never neen a true monocoque car. The term is better equated to boats. The cars referred to this way are really 'semi monocoque', as the "shell is reinforced with ribs and braces, often with some form of pseudo chassis, or rails, for added rigidity. There have been plenty of utes built this way. All Falcons up until the XF for example. The aforementioned VWs. Holdens, up until ,I think, the VS. My Datto 1200 also comes to mind. I have yet to see a "tray variant" of a monocoque ute. There were some VP to VR trays, but they were converted in Castlemaine and had a rear chassis added, quite similar to how ford built the AU and onwards Falcons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Defender 130 was a 'body on frame' design, with a ladder chassis, and thus in no way can it be described as semi monocoque, let alone monocoque. (This is why Daniel at Mulgo can convert them.) Maybe the full length wagon body added some strength, or, more likely, it was much harder to overload the wagons. Whatever, chassis cracks in 130s had nothing to do with monocoque.

A slight difference in terminology - my understanding is that "monocoque", in automotive use, simply means that the main structure of the body/chassis is in one (usually welded) bit. If it is without ribs and braces, it would be referred to as stressed skin, and I believe you are right - there has never been one, although the Southern Cross car of the 1930s can probably be accurately described as such, as can several other cars built in very small numbers.

The VW mentioned above is a tray version of a monocoque ute - unlike most monocoque utes it does not need to rely on the sides of the tub to provide rigidity - it has a stressed tray of corrugated steel with dropsides, with another flat floor of corrugated steel about 50cm below that, extending from the attachment point of the rear suspension to the back of the cab/attachment of the front suspension. Both of these floors are backed by crossways ribs and a rail under the edges, and additional rigidity is provided by the sides of the engine compartment.

[blackrangie]

I'm very concerned that you keep presenting the voice of reason John. Being a series and Defender owner you do know that you are completely out of line discussing Rover and Landrover's history of change and evolution and pointing out that monocoque vehicles have carried loads previously.
I think you need to sit back and turn this around and start pointing out why the new Defender isn't able to be called a Defender but should in fact be called the Discovery 4.5 or maybe a Pretender. Having your range of experience you should know that the vehicle for the Australian Outback has leaf or coil springs, a separate chassis, no electronics and a non-common rail di diesel engine of at least 3 litres (preferably 4 or more).[emoji1787][emoji1417]

[Bonino]

I’d rather see them do this than going out of business. The decisions LR have made is so they can stay in business and, regardless of what the older generations may think, the consumer requirements have evolved and, surprise surprise, the latte drinking urbanistas are now the generation in the workforce who are spending their hard earned cash on goods and services to ensure the economy stays alive [bigsmile]

[goingbush]

I’d rather see them do this than going out of business. The decisions LR have made is so they can stay in business and, regardless of what the older generations may think, the consumer requirements have evolved and, surprise surprise, the latte drinking urbanistas are now the generation in the workforce who are spending their hard earned cash on goods and services to ensure the economy stays alive [bigsmile]

Yeah, not necessarily so. There plenty of cashed up retirees . I have access to loads more money now than I ever did when I was in the workforce. $$ burning a hole in my pocket , but I still need to be sensible about it, I'm not going to spend $200k on a Bollinger . $125k is my max spend on a new vehicle , & I can tell you right now it will never be anything that comes from JLR . And I probably visit more coffee shops than & support local communities more than any city dweller ever does.

[AndyG]

What is a POS?

Many things, but in context .......



POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Position-(sports-statistics)-(POS).html)
Position (sports statistics) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Position)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Position&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Positive-(POS).html)
Positive (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Positive)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Positive&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Point_Of_Sale-(POS).html)
Point-Of-Sale (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Point-Of-Sale)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Point-Of-Sale&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)







POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Point_Of_Service-(POS).html)
Point-Of-Service
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Point-Of-Service&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Period-Of-Service-(POS).html)
Period Of Service
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Period+Of+Service&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Political-Science-(POS).html)
Political Science (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Political+Science)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Political+Science&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Place-of-Service-(POS).html)
Place of Service
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Place+of+Service&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Part-of-Speech-(POS).html)
Part of Speech (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Part+of+Speech)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Part+of+Speech&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Program-of-Study-(POS).html)
Program of Study
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Program+of+Study&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Pomona-(Amtrak-station-code%3b-Pomona%2c-CA)-(POS).html)
Pomona (Amtrak station code; Pomona, CA) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pomona)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Pomona&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Philosophy-of-Science-(POS).html)
Philosophy of Science (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Philosophy+of+Science)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Philosophy+of+Science&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Plan-of-Study-(POS).html)
Plan of Study
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Plan+of+Study&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Position-of-Strength-(POS).html)
Position of Strength





etc etc

I'm guessing Position of Strength[wink11][bigwhistle]

[goingbush]

in context it actually means Piece Of **** .

and this online definition suits the vehicle in question so eloquently ( thats JLR speak)

[manic]

I’d rather see them do this than going out of business. The decisions LR have made is so they can stay in business and, regardless of what the older generations may think, the consumer requirements have evolved and, surprise surprise, the latte drinking urbanistas are now the generation in the workforce who are spending their hard earned cash on goods and services to ensure the economy stays alive [bigsmile]


The new one disappoints many of those that chose the Defender for what it is. This is not simply a generational thing. There are those that know what a Defender is for and those that never did and never will.

We are all now getting an idea of what the new one is good for. And many are disappointed that those same interests and reasons that led them to buy the old one cannot transfer easily to the new one. Those interests and reasons still exist for young and old, they have not disappeared. It is simply a market that LR have abandoned.

Maybe I want an excuse to replace the Defender with something more modern, but the problem is - the new one is not looking like a replacement. Nothing in the LR line up is.

If I want a modern car I choose the Tesla Model 3. If I also want a rugged load carrying utility or overland 4x4 I can take anywhere in the world I choose the original Defender. The new one does not compete. A luxury SUV offers me nothing.

My worry for LR is that younger generations will loose interest in SUVs. I know I have.

I'm sure the original defender will continue to be outfitted for overland travel by young solo and couple adventure travelers. It's iconic, it's insta cool, it's simple and cheap to maintain, it's easy to adapt, it can gobble up **** fuel, run on chip fat, and people around the world love them. All these things do not transfer to the new LR.

Those that know it are a small crew in the grand scheme of things. But look where you are - this forum is full of us! So you are going to hear it.

And if the new Defender is simply a cosmetic twist on the other vehicles in the line up - I can't see how it protects Land Rover from going out of business should lux SUVs go out of vogue.

LR are now highly exposed to the wants of a new eco conscious generation. The utility/fleet market for a load carrying 4x4 is much more predictable going forward. IMO they should have left a foot in! They didn't need to add another lux SUV.

[AndyG]

Have been following this thread for a while with some amusement mixed with angst, when you pull back and remember that no one has actually driven one yet! Anyhow, made me recall that this discussion has happened before (old enough to have been involved) except around campfires and in magazines. At that time it was the same, about Land Rover abandoning it's core workhorse roots and pandering to the soft roaders(not sure if that term was in fashion then, but you can get my drift) The issue then was the change from the manly and rugged leaf spring to the wimpy coils (which we all knew was an idea destined to bring down the world as we knew it). So if you are listening LR give us back the old Series and win back our trust, at least for the short time before you go bust.

The rot started with parabolic leafs and carbide lamps

[blackrangie]

Many things, but in context .......



POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Position-(sports-statistics)-(POS).html)
Position (sports statistics) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Position)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Position&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Positive-(POS).html)
Positive (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Positive)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Positive&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Point_Of_Sale-(POS).html)
Point-Of-Sale (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Point-Of-Sale)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Point-Of-Sale&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)







POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Point_Of_Service-(POS).html)
Point-Of-Service
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Point-Of-Service&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Period-Of-Service-(POS).html)
Period Of Service
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Period+Of+Service&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Political-Science-(POS).html)
Political Science (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Political+Science)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Political+Science&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Place-of-Service-(POS).html)
Place of Service
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Place+of+Service&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Part-of-Speech-(POS).html)
Part of Speech (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Part+of+Speech)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Part+of+Speech&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Program-of-Study-(POS).html)
Program of Study
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Program+of+Study&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Pomona-(Amtrak-station-code%3b-Pomona%2c-CA)-(POS).html)
Pomona (Amtrak station code; Pomona, CA) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pomona)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Pomona&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Philosophy-of-Science-(POS).html)
Philosophy of Science (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Philosophy+of+Science)
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Philosophy+of+Science&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Plan-of-Study-(POS).html)
Plan of Study
https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/st/i/find2.gif (https://www.acronymfinder.com/~/search/google.aspx?q=Plan+of+Study&f=a&cx=partner-pub-6540158310198554:102410011&cof=FORID:10&ie=UTF-8)


POS (https://www.acronymfinder.com/Position-of-Strength-(POS).html)
Position of Strength





etc etc

I'm guessing Position of Strength[wink11][bigwhistle][emoji1787][emoji1787]

[blackrangie]

in context it actually means Piece Of (edited)


These type of posts make me continually reconsider being on this forum.

[blackrangie]

The new one disappoints many of those that chose the Defender for what it is. This is not simply a generational thing. There are those that know what a Defender is for and those that never did and never will.





The small percentage of the 5k sold to the public per year(diehards) is not many, compared to the worldwide market they will now sell too, its a drop in the ocean.

All things considered, LR did what needed to be done to the defender to keep it viable, anyone that says otherwise is not considering ALL the facts rationally.

Here's a fun game, explain what you would have done differently redesigning the defender whilst taking into account it has to be sold in all markets(aim for 150-200k per year), with current and future emissions restrictions in mind, current and future safety (both occupant and pedestrian) in mind, keeping iconic features whilst being modern, being utilitarian, tough, capable and reliable whilst still being comfortable.

So if you were LR, what would you have done differently and why, but only do so considering all the factors involved(the above is not all but a small portion) like LR would have and showing the rationale behind what you would do differently.

[gromit]

The small percentage of the 5k sold to the public per year(diehards) is not many, compared to the worldwide market they will now sell too, its a drop in the ocean.

All things considered, LR did what needed to be done to the defender to keep it viable, anyone that says otherwise is not considering ALL the facts rationally.

Here's a fun game, explain what you would have done differently redesigning the defender whilst taking into account it has to be sold in all markets(aim for 150-200k per year), with current and future emissions restrictions in mind, current and future safety (both occupant and pedestrian) in mind, keeping iconic features whilst being modern, being utilitarian, tough, capable and reliable whilst still being comfortable.

So if you were LR, what would you have done differently and why, but only do so considering all the factors involved(the above is not all but a small portion) like LR would have and showing the rationale behind what you would do differently.

Maybe you could explain why they called it a 'Defender' rather than a Discovery 6 [smilebigeye]

Yes it's for a modern market in a modern World and maybe the Defender name should have been left alone. It's their decision and, to be fair, most of the buyers wouldn't know or care in the slightest about the heritage.
They need volume and I don't think they could compete in the modern Ute market so they have moved the 'Defender' model upmarket.

I'm not sure about "keeping iconic features whilst being modern, being utilitarian, tough, capable and reliable whilst still being comfortable "
Reliability yet to be proven.
Is it utilitarian ? designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive ??
Modern, yes, capable & comfortable probably yes.

It's a consumable product for today's consumable world. Marketed differently to those before it. I bet there are 'influencers' already being signed up to spread the (paid for) word about how good it is.......

When I'm out in my Series I, Series II, Series III or Defender would I wave to one (when they finally appear) ? I'll have to think about that one.......


Colin

[p38arover]

These type of posts make me continually reconsider being on this forum.

I think you are too thin-skinned.

[blackrangie]

I think you are too thin-skinned.Reported

[blackrangie]

Maybe you could explain why they called it a 'Defender' rather than a Discovery 6 [smilebigeye]

Yes it's for a modern market in a modern World and maybe the Defender name should have been left alone. It's their decision and, to be fair, most of the buyers wouldn't know or care in the slightest about the heritage.
They need volume and I don't think they could compete in the modern Ute market so they have moved the 'Defender' model upmarket.

I'm not sure about "keeping iconic features whilst being modern, being utilitarian, tough, capable and reliable whilst still being comfortable "
Reliability yet to be proven.
Is it utilitarian ? designed to be useful or practical rather than attractive ??
Modern, yes, capable & comfortable probably yes.

It's a consumable product for today's consumable world. Marketed differently to those before it. I bet there are 'influencers' already being signed up to spread the (paid for) word about how good it is.......

When I'm out in my Series I, Series II, Series III or Defender would I wave to one (when they finally appear) ? I'll have to think about that one.......


Colin

You really didn't reply to the posts questions, rather bring up irrelevant naming arguments and avoid the questions entirely.

[ausGeoff]

I can understand the thrust of the OP's angst regarding the perceived decline of the Land Rover marque.
Unfortunately, as an old bloke, I've seen this occurrence with every other consumer car maker, such that
all modern vehicles can be classified by looks into maybe half a dozen "styles".

From a distance I'm having difficulty quickly recognising a current Korean vehicle from a Japanese one or
a German one or a Chinese one. But that's how marketers work these days—individuality in car design is
a thing of the past. Conformity driven by potential consumer rejection is (apparently) the name of the game.

And so, sadly, it is for Land Rover. I still see the "older" Defenders and Discoverys as the bench mark for
Land Rover's styling and mechanics. (I see the Range Rover as an upmarket Defender for the Sloan rangers.)

And the current Range Rover—from the 3/4 rear viewpoint—is a visual disaster.

[DiscoDB]

Here's a fun game, explain what you would have done differently redesigning the defender whilst taking into account it has to be sold in all markets(aim for 150-200k per year), with current and future emissions restrictions in mind, current and future safety (both occupant and pedestrian) in mind, keeping iconic features whilst being modern, being utilitarian, tough, capable and reliable whilst still being comfortable.

So if you were LR, what would you have done differently and why, but only do so considering all the factors involved(the above is not all but a small portion) like LR would have and showing the rationale behind what you would do differently.

That is easy to answer - develop the New Defender as they have and target those with plenty of cash for the premium markups and take them for as much profit as you can, but then also have an entry level commercial version with a utility/pickup option (like the old Defender also had) but be prepared to discount it to get new buyers and create the interest and keep those loyal to the LR brand. However many New Defenders they do sell, having a low cost utility/pickup version globally would add an easy 50K sales per year, if not 150-200K. By making the sports pickup the hero version, they will get more people in the salesrooms, and more people who then also consider going more upmarket if and as they can afford to. The same successful model that Ford have with their 4WD/SUV offerings in the US - the market which JLR have the most to gain in.

The heart and soul of Land Rover comes from its Working Class roots. The Range Rover opened the door to Upper Class, and the Discovery slotted perfectly in between for the emerging Middle Class (allowing the Range Rover to go even more up-market). You had the Defender for work, the Discovery for family duties and play, and the Range Rover for the top end of town.

[p38arover]

Reported

LOL!

[DiscoMick]

The small percentage of the 5k sold to the public per year(diehards) is not many, compared to the worldwide market they will now sell too, its a drop in the ocean.

All things considered, LR did what needed to be done to the defender to keep it viable, anyone that says otherwise is not considering ALL the facts rationally.

Here's a fun game, explain what you would have done differently redesigning the defender whilst taking into account it has to be sold in all markets(aim for 150-200k per year), with current and future emissions restrictions in mind, current and future safety (both occupant and pedestrian) in mind, keeping iconic features whilst being modern, being utilitarian, tough, capable and reliable whilst still being comfortable.

So if you were LR, what would you have done differently and why, but only do so considering all the factors involved(the above is not all but a small portion) like LR would have and showing the rationale behind what you would do differently.I would have made it like an Isuzu MU-X/D-Max.

[Homestar]

Reported

Who’d have thunk it... 😉

[gromit]

You really didn't reply to the posts questions, rather bring up irrelevant naming arguments and avoid the questions entirely.

Maybe I didn't feel the need to reply to your questions.....my choice.

Colin

[101RRS]

I think you are too thin-skinned.

Ron you have only realised this - I thought you were quicker on the uptake [thumbsupbig]

[p38arover]

Ron you have only realised this - I thought you were quicker on the uptake [thumbsupbig]

I haven't been reading any of BR's threads on the new Defender. I can't understand why they are getting so long. Surely it's been done to death by now.

[Homestar]

They certainly have been.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

MOD HAT ON

I dont think being called thin skinned is reportable,,

There is a reason Ron has THAT sentence after his name,,

Nobody is above reporting,,,,,,,

This is the first time in the history of this site that some has reported Ron....

Thats a HUGE call from you blackrangie,,,

As always, the Mods Pen will look at all sides and take action,, or not.

[16PMark]

So many threads turning knarky...
Not enough popcorn!
Sigh....

[DiscoDB]

So many threads turning knarky...
Not enough popcorn!
Sigh....

I guess we can thank JLR for this.

[16PMark]

I guess we can thank JLR for this.I didn't know Jaguar Land Rover made popcorn!! [emoji44][emoji16][emoji39]
Imagine how many flavours one could get.
[emoji1787][emoji23]

[Homestar]

I didn't know Jaguar Land Rover made popcorn!! [emoji44][emoji16][emoji39]
Imagine how many flavours one could get.
[emoji1787][emoji23]

But it would cost $600 a bucket..

[DiscoDB]

And they come with Land Rover branded buckets for an extra $500.

When empty you can even hear the echo of the old Land Rover Defender.....

[16PMark]

Well for 500-600 bucks, I reckon it would be bloody good popcorn!
Nawwww....
[emoji23][emoji1787]

[DiscoDB]

But it would cost $600 a bucket..

That must be the X version with Defender X on the underside.

[V8Ian]

Well for 500-600 bucks, I reckon it would be bloody good popcorn!
Nawwww....
[emoji23][emoji1787]
With coil springs, no less. [biggrin]

[blackrangie]

Who’d have thunk it... [emoji6]Great attitude for a mod

[blackrangie]

Maybe I didn't feel the need to reply to your questions.....my choice.

ColinIndeed

[blackrangie]

MOD HAT ON

I dont think being called thin skinned is reportable,,

There is a reason Ron has THAT sentence after his name,,

Nobody is above reporting,,,,,,,

This is the first time in the history of this site that some has reported Ron....

Thats a HUGE call from you blackrangie,,,

As always, the Mods Pen will look at all sides and take action,, or not.Well it is against the rules, offended me, so it was reported, not a big call really.

[blackrangie]

That is easy to answer - develop the New Defender as they have and target those with plenty of cash for the premium markups and take them for as much profit as you can, but then also have an entry level commercial version with a utility/pickup option (like the old Defender also had) but be prepared to discount it to get new buyers and create the interest and keep those loyal to the LR brand. However many New Defenders they do sell, having a low cost utility/pickup version globally would add an easy 50K sales per year, if not 150-200K. By making the sports pickup the hero version, they will get more people in the salesrooms, and more people who then also consider going more upmarket if and as they can afford to. The same successful model that Ford have with their 4WD/SUV offerings in the US - the market which JLR have the most to gain in.

The heart and soul of Land Rover comes from its Working Class roots. The Range Rover opened the door to Upper Class, and the Discovery slotted perfectly in between for the emerging Middle Class (allowing the Range Rover to go even more up-market). You had the Defender for work, the Discovery for family duties and play, and the Range Rover for the top end of town.Well said

[gromit]

Indeed

Indeed, you seemed to want an essay and as the Disco 6
, sorry 'Defender', isn't something I'd buy I couldn't justify the waste of time.

Colin

[blackrangie]

Indeed, you seemed to want an essay and as the Disco 6
, sorry 'Defender', isn't something I'd buy I couldn't justify the waste of time.

ColinNah just wanted the questions answered, because in doing so one would realize what i did after looking into all the facts, and that is that they did a great job all things considered.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Well it is against the rules, offended me, so it was reported, not a big call really.


MOD HAT ON

It is actually a big call..
because it shows us ( and hopefully you) just how far outside normal parameters you were with this report....

Please take this as a guide to what is, and what isnt, considered reportable on this site.

All Mods considered this report to be not inline with this sites guidelines.

Please stop reporting posts that are outside these guidelines.

No further warnings will be issued.

[blackrangie]

MOD HAT ON

It is actually a big call..
because it shows us ( and hopefully you) just how far outside normal parameters you were with this report....

Please take this as a guide to what is, and what isnt, considered reportable on this site.

All Mods considered this report to be not inline with this sites guidelines.

Please stop reporting posts that are outside these guidelines.

No further warnings will be issued.Ok, thought name calling wasn't ok on this forum, cheers.

[goingbush]

Ok, thought name calling wasn't ok on this forum, cheers.

Saying your a bit thin skinned isn't name calling , its an accurate description, and a lot more kind than I would be.

in a previous post you offered to leave because people didn't like your views, I see your still here, why are you still posting the same dribble across multiple topics?

[gromit]

Nah just wanted the questions answered, because in doing so one would realize what i did after looking into all the facts, and that is that they did a great job all things considered.

This is becoming very much like Groundhog Day.........

As I've mentioned several times before.....they have made a modern disposable vehicle for the modern age. I get it !

They are using the heritage for marketing purposes.

Did it work with the Beetle, sort of but appealed to a different market.
Did it work for the Mini, yes but again I think a very different buyer.
Did it work for that Toyota thing, like the Defender it was almost an insult to the original.....
In all the above cases the original vehicles continue to rise in value.


Colin

[ozscott]

BR I have read most of your posts. I think I commended you on your enthusiasm. I know you have a lot invested (did I see that you had flown to Frankfurt to look at it? Maybe that was someone else. But you have laid down your hard earned and you are clearly invested with head, heart and hip pocket) so it's pretty normal to be up beat and positive about your choice. But matey I have to say, your posts generally read like an infomercial and you brook no negative comments or criticisms of your new vehicle. You can't leave alone comments that are less than an endorsement of the new vehicle. A vehicle that not one person on this forum has driven and is untested in the real world in the hands of real buyers. What we can tell is that the new car has gone in a direction that many brand loyalist don't like based on the design (which does not need to be driven to understand).

Mate you tend to dominate the conversation on the new vehicle and when people start to get a bit over it you get narky and report them. Perhaps just not joust at so many posts and it will all flow smoother.

I am actually looking forward to your photos, vids etc or build and driving your new vehicle even if it isn't the vehicle for me. Having your own build / drive thread would be good in a variety of ways and we could get to see what the vehicle can and can't do.

Cheers

[Ausclassics]

Add to that all the genuine Defender owners and businesses/services with utility fleets. Not to mention the Military and Police forces globally who used them - and still do!

LR have handed their balls to the 70series and gwagen pro.

Has the Defender brand name been glued to a family SUV? They will milk the pedigree of that name for all it's worth, but if the new vehicle cannot even attempt to take on the roles of its predecessors - the value of that brand will quickly diminish.

A tray back variant could be used for camperback overlanding and utility/service adaptations. You would continue to see custom defenders built up and adapted for purpose! So if they truely want to keep the Defender going - it would be crazy not to offer one.

It was Ford who decided to abandon the Military Landrovers in the 90s-00s That is one major reason we now have Mercs. There was no Landrover produced to replace the Perentis even in prototype form.

From what we have been shown these new cars are extremely capable "out of the box" but they are certainly different as are all the Landrover vehicles from what they were.

In a large part due to regulations and overcoming that with tech. Like the loss of high seating positions with Panoramic views... Now replaced by sensors and cameras.
The three cameras in mirrors and nose give amazing vision of the front wheel position for instance.
A different experience but arguably more capable....

It is wether you like this difference or indeed trust it, especially in terms of it faulting (mud covered camera for instance)

If you want the former drive a classic..

And for the sour pusses throwing their dummies out of the cot and saying now I will buy a ....... (G Wagon discontinued this week in Aus too BTW)

Why not restore the Landy you love?

[DiscoDB]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191123/5319c17b15b16b9a979ab84040c1c0e8.jpg

[akovach]

I think it's quite bazaar that we have all this talk about a vehicle that nobody has driven. With due respect to all those that love their Defenders, it should have been discontinued in the last century. What the Defender does show though, is that there are a lot of people that buy stuff using their heart, not their head. Just look at some of the prices that people are asking for them. Some a hell of a lot more than the apparent pricing on the new Defender when it comes out.
I personally chose a Discovery (1, 2, 3 then 5) as I believe it's a lot more capable than a Defender, more comfortable and certainly safer. For what I do anyway, which is touring and towing. I am looking forward to the new Defender as I'm hoping that it will be just as good as the current Discovery, if not better, yet more practical.

[goingbush]

I think it's quite bazaar that we have all this talk about a vehicle that nobody has driven. With due respect to all those that love their Defenders, it should have been discontinued in the last century. What the Defender does show though, is that there are a lot of people that buy stuff using their heart, not their head. Just look at some of the prices that people are asking for them. Some a hell of a lot more than the apparent pricing on the new Defender when it comes out.
I personally chose a Discovery (1, 2, 3 then 5) as I believe it's a lot more capable than a Defender, more comfortable and certainly safer. For what I do anyway, which is touring and towing. I am looking forward to the new Defender as I'm hoping that it will be just as good as the current Discovery, if not better, yet more practical.

Hit the nail on the head, It will be the perfect vehicle if your a Discovery Owner.
If it had been named the Discovery 5 (or 6) everyone including me would be happy.

Im not in the Discovery market so its a moot argument, but c'mon you have to admit you had more fun in Mugsy than any of these newfangled Discovery things. [bigwhistle]

[akovach]

Hit the nail on the head, It will be the perfect vehicle if your a Discovery Owner.
If it had been named the Discovery 5 (or 6) everyone including me would be happy.

Im not in the Discovery market so its a moot argument, but c'mon you have to admit you had more fun in Mugsy than any of these newfangled Discovery things. [bigwhistle]

Haha. We did have a lot of fun. But if you remember, we spent a lot of time and money on trying to get them to go better, faster and quieter. When the Discovery came out, basically the factory had done the job for us. And they did a better job. I struggle to understand why some people are upset that JLR have brought the Defender into this century.

[goingbush]

Haha. We did have a lot of fun. But if you remember, we spent a lot of time and money on trying to get them to go better, faster and quieter. When the Discovery came out, basically the factory had done the job for us. And they did a better job. I struggle to understand why some people are upset that JLR have brought the Defender into this century.

JLR themselves started retroactively calling the 1948 80" a Defender , when we all know the Defender name really started soon after the Discovery 1 was introduced. They can't have it both ways. They have not bought the Defender into this century, its an entirely new vehicle, it might as well be made in another factory, in another country as far as its heritage is concerned , ..... oh wait.

I suppose its the same as the FJ Cruiser is to a FJ40 - only the wheel stud pattern is the same. Not even that with LandRover.

Anyway I'll leave it at that.

[zilch]

J, it might as well be made in another factory, in another country as far as its heritage is concerned , ..... oh wait. .

bugger the heritage from where it is made perspective, lets hope the build quality is far better in Slovakia than "Barry from Bromsgrove" can knock together
in his Brummie shed, and as a pom i mean that quite literally.. the delivery standard of my current Sport was dire.. took nearly a week to get it fixed at the
dealers before i could take delivery

[gromit]

I struggle to understand why some people are upset that JLR have brought the Defender into this century.

I think it's the use of the Defender name on what is a modern vehicle.

They had to update it because of design rules, the manufacturing cost of the old design and to be able to sell to a 2020 buyer. I mean without ApplePlay etc. it can hardly be termed a car can it ?

The fact that they refer to the first Land Rover as a Defender is odd. Do they not know their own heritage or is it just 'marketing' ?

It started off as 'The' Land Rover.
Then followed by the Land Rover Series II, IIa and III (and Stage I)
When they changed to 90" & 110" and coils it became the County.
Some 10 years later it became the Defender.

The name has changed over the years so why use the Defender name on the very latest product which has little in common with its predecessor ? I guess they are trying to cash in on the 'heritage' of the brand.

I'm not in their target market but it will be interesting to stand on the sidelines and see how it sells in the current market here and overseas. I don't think you'll have people trying to restore them in 40 odd years time but we'll probably all be running electric vehicles long before then !


QUOTE=zilch;2955118]bugger the heritage from where it is made perspective, lets hope the build quality is far better in Slovakia than "Barry from Bromsgrove" can knock together
in his Brummie shed, and as a pom i mean that quite literally.. the delivery standard of my current Sport was dire.. took nearly a week to get it fixed at the
dealers before i could take delivery[/QUOTE]

I did Google labour in Slovakia thinking it might be lower cost but it seems that the workforce is skilled and labour costs there are rising.
The quality control comes down to Land Rover themselves so hopefully they recruit new staff and don't re-located any QC staff from the UK !


Colin

[scarry]

Hit the nail on the head, It will be the perfect vehicle if your a Discovery Owner.
[bigwhistle]

Not really.

If anyone is going to go from a D3/4,they are going to have to learn to put up with a rear load area that’s a lot smaller than what they have now.And a tiny Diesel engine.

In fact,looking at the new 110 specs the load area behind the second row seats is similar to a D1.

The 130 can’t come quick enough,and no doubt at quite an increase of cost over the 110.

In fact,looking at D5 costs,if a larger diesel does turn up in the new Defender it’s going cost something like $10K more than the current spec diesel models,and will be quite an expensive vehicle,even in stock SE trim,no other boxes ticked.

[cripesamighty]

I went from a 110 to a D1 and now also have a D3. The difference in what a 110 or D3 can carry vs a D1 is huge. That’s a lot of space to lose if you want to go touring. From experience, you have to get very creative, space-wise touring in a D1. If I ever decide to buy a new Defender I will wait until all 3 types are available before making a choice.

[akovach]

Gromit. You hit the nail on the head. Marketing determines the names used and that's why we have, for example, so many variants on the Range Rover. Everyone wants to be seen in a Range Rover. Land Rover have, in my opinion, stuffed the naming of models, to the point that people are confused. For example, why would you call the replacement of the Freelander 2 a Discovery Sport?? Crazy. People were saying that they wouldn't buy a Discovery because it's so small, not realizing that it's supposed to be a "sportier" (which is absolutely a disgrace to call such a car a sport) smaller version of the "normal" Discovery.
Factories market their cars in any way to sell cars. Most of JLR's customers are not on this forum as they aren't Land Rover enthusiasts. They buy a Land Rover, mostly, because it's seen as one of the brands to be in. If JLR relied on people like us on the forum, they would have been broke decades ago.

[zilch]

The quality control comes down to Land Rover themselves so hopefully they recruit new staff and don't re-located any QC staff from the UK !


Colin

i hear you Colin..

[gromit]

Gromit. You hit the nail on the head. Marketing determines the names used and that's why we have, for example, so many variants on the Range Rover. Everyone wants to be seen in a Range Rover. Land Rover have, in my opinion, stuffed the naming of models, to the point that people are confused. For example, why would you call the replacement of the Freelander 2 a Discovery Sport?? Crazy. People were saying that they wouldn't buy a Discovery because it's so small, not realizing that it's supposed to be a "sportier" (which is absolutely a disgrace to call such a car a sport) smaller version of the "normal" Discovery.
Factories market their cars in any way to sell cars. Most of JLR's customers are not on this forum as they aren't Land Rover enthusiasts. They buy a Land Rover, mostly, because it's seen as one of the brands to be in. If JLR relied on people like us on the forum, they would have been broke decades ago.

Maybe it should have been the Range Rover Defender ...........

Colin

[scarry]

Maybe it should have been the Range Rover Defender ...........

Colin

Probably,it has more in common with a RR,than a RR has in common with an Epoke.

[DiscoMick]

It's going to be a range, not just one vehicle. We already know a Defender Sport is coming.

[100inch]

Gromit. You hit the nail on the head. Marketing determines the names used and that's why we have, for example, so many variants on the Range Rover. Everyone wants to be seen in a Range Rover. Land Rover have, in my opinion, stuffed the naming of models, to the point that people are confused. For example, why would you call the replacement of the Freelander 2 a Discovery Sport?? Crazy. People were saying that they wouldn't buy a Discovery because it's so small, not realizing that it's supposed to be a "sportier" (which is absolutely a disgrace to call such a car a sport) smaller version of the "normal" Discovery.
Factories market their cars in any way to sell cars. Most of JLR's customers are not on this forum as they aren't Land Rover enthusiasts. They buy a Land Rover, mostly, because it's seen as one of the brands to be in. If JLR relied on people like us on the forum, they would have been broke decades ago.
Bit of a sweeping statement, that you are obviously not an enthusiast if you are not on this forum. Plenty of JLR owners (and enthusiasts) who have different priorities than expressing their opinions on the net. But I agree that JLR would be broke listening across forums. Glad they don't. m

[W&KO]

It's going to be a range, not just one vehicle. We already know a Defender Sport is coming.

Don’t reckon it’ll be a sport....I think everybody is referring the to 90 as a sport which is is wildly different to the RR Sport and Disco Sport.

[AK83]

It's going to be a range, not just one vehicle. We already know a Defender Sport is coming.

which will probably be a ute version of the Disco Sport(or some other confabulated lunacy)!

[bigrolf]