Rumour 2.2

[dullbird]

Now like I said its only a rumour

But rumour has it that for the defender to become euro V compliant it needs to have a 2.2 in it......so if you dont want a piddly little engine you best rush out and buy one that brakes down in the bush:D

Defender2 - View topic - 2.2 engine on the cards (http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic1840.html)


Let the flaming begin...............................

[Chucaro]

And was dreaming with a Defe TD6 :(
Looks like that my Defe it is going to be a keeper ;)

[101RRS]

Jumping at shadows - someone said - who heard it from his mother who heard it from a friends son who heard it from a mate who read it on a toilet wall.

As was said in the post - isn't the engine already compliant?

[spudboy]

If they can get the same Kw and Torque out of a 2.2 as they get out of the Puma engine, does it matter?

[Scouse]

This thread mentions that the TDV6 is a possibility too:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/rss-news-feeds/88733-land-rover-defender-succeeded-project-icon-motor-report.html

Either way, I'm sure Land Rover will have it fully sorted before releasing the car to the public.

[Scallops]

If they can get the same Kw and Torque out of a 2.2 as they get out of the Puma engine, does it matter?

I agree - I don't think it does.

[Chucaro]

I guess that all about preferences, I prefer the mecedez sprinter 2.9 than the 2.2 ;)

Yes, with electronics you can screw an engine heaps, but something it is going to give soon or later.

[dullbird]

I agree - I don't think it does.

I agree also but to a lot on here it matters a lot.....

hence why land rover got such a slagging for releasing this so called piddly engine.

I just thought would be even funnier if they brought out an even smaller one:D.

[dmdigital]

Is it a 2.2L Fiat motor by any chance? Aren't Tata allied to Fiat for engines.

[spudfan]

Rumour has it that the people at Solihull have been in talks with the people at Briggs and Stratton for some time now. Seems Briggs and Stratton have come up with a diesel version of their compact 3.5hp unit. Think of all the extra space we will have under the bonnet. There will be lots of room to work on the power plant not to mention buckets of room for add ons like compressors and stuff. You will be able to remove the power plant and put it on your workbench (or kitchen table) for a thorough overhaul every 30 hours or so. Seems like the days of the fixable Land Rover are on the way back. Won't those poor people in their techno ridden Range Rover Sports and Discovery 4's be green with envy. Interesting times ahead indeed.

[jplambs]

Is this new model for real? I have done a search and can only find 6 news articles on it.

If it is the one thing that I will be very disappointed about would be if they got rid of the current solid axles and substituted independent suspension.

There was some speculation on one of the sites that this is simply an attempt to divert attention from Land Rover announcing that they are closing one of their plants down.

[Grockle]

Rumour has it that the people at Solihull have been in talks with the people at Briggs and Stratton for some time now. Seems Briggs and Stratton have come up with a diesel version of their compact 3.5hp unit. Think of all the extra space we will have under the bonnet. There will be lots of room to work on the power plant not to mention buckets of room for add ons like compressors and stuff. You will be able to remove the power plant and put it on your workbench (or kitchen table) for a thorough overhaul every 30 hours or so. Seems like the days of the fixable Land Rover are on the way back. Won't those poor people in their techno ridden Range Rover Sports and Discovery 4's be green with envy. Interesting times ahead indeed.

Spud, don't forget the grass box can be used as a wading screen !

[Bush65]

I agree also but to a lot on here it matters a lot.....

hence why land rover got such a slagging for releasing this so called piddly engine.

I just thought would be even funnier if they brought out an even smaller one:D.
There are ricers running around with big horsepower, but would it make any sense to use one of their engines for a B-double :eek:

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

How many pumas are being worked hard, compared to doodling around city roads or touring?

It won't surprise me if they bring out a smaller engine than the puma. From the links posted above it looks like the new Defender will be 4 wheel independent suspension - guess who is keeping their current (25 year old) rover and will not be upgrading ;)

[Jock The Rock]

I don't see the problem

Wasn't the original Series I a 1.6l








:wasntme:

[Scallops]

I agree also but to a lot on here it matters a lot.....

hence why land rover got such a slagging for releasing this so called piddly engine.

I just thought would be even funnier if they brought out an even smaller one:D.

I agree with all of the above too! :D

[inside]

They should have put the 2.2 from FL2 in it from the start. More power and torque and has had next to no reliability issues. However the Defender is a world car and is required to run on some quite average diesel something modern diesels can't handle.

[dullbird]

They should have put the 2.2 from FL2 in it from the start. More power and torque and has had next to no reliability issues.
However the Defender is a world car and is required to run on some quite average diesel something modern diesels can't handle.

yes I managed to drive mine all the way to the dealership on its funky diesel:D

[camel_landy]

Hmmm.... There's definitely a strong bovine smell around here. :p

M

[eksjay]

Is this new model for real? I have done a search and can only find 6 news articles on it.

If it is the one thing that I will be very disappointed about would be if they got rid of the current solid axles and substituted independent suspension.

There was some speculation on one of the sites that this is simply an attempt to divert attention from Land Rover announcing that they are closing one of their plants down.


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

-Can driver side and pax airbags be fitted? Surely they can?
-Can other safety features be added?
-Can the driver's seating be improved?
-What is wrong with the current undercarriage? Why change it?
-Why move away from an aluminium outer shell?
-Can an appropriate Euro5 compliant engine [with a bit of guts] be sourced and matched to a suitable tranny?

If LR can come up with an improved on-road version like Chrysler did with the current Jeep Wrangler design [putting the many quality issues aside], without sacrificing the off road capability, would you all be happy with that? If it still looked like a Defender, but a little more contemporary, would that secure the brand for another quarter century perhaps? Note that Chrysler kept the Dana live axles unlike what the reports are saying about LR ditching live axles....

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

[rijidij]

Rumour has it that the people at Solihull have been in talks with the people at Briggs and Stratton for some time now. Seems Briggs and Stratton have come up with a diesel version of their compact 3.5hp unit. Think of all the extra space we will have under the bonnet. There will be lots of room to work on the power plant not to mention buckets of room for add ons like compressors and stuff. You will be able to remove the power plant and put it on your workbench (or kitchen table) for a thorough overhaul every 30 hours or so. Seems like the days of the fixable Land Rover are on the way back. Won't those poor people in their techno ridden Range Rover Sports and Discovery 4's be green with envy. Interesting times ahead indeed.

It'll be a bit of a pain having to open the bonnet and pull the starter rope every time you want to go anywhere !!!!!!!! :D

[rijidij]

There are ricers running around with big horsepower, but would it make any sense to use one of their engines for a B-double :eek:

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

How many pumas are being worked hard, compared to doodling around city roads or touring?

It won't surprise me if they bring out a smaller engine than the puma. From the links posted above it looks like the new Defender will be 4 wheel independent suspension - guess who is keeping their current (25 year old) rover and will not be upgrading ( Downgrading ???? ) ;)

My 4BD1T County will not be offered as a trade in to 'downgrade' to the new model either John.

Murray

[JohnF]

perhaps they will restart the series 2 engine abssembly line.

[camel_landy]

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

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


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



-Why move away from an aluminium outer shell?


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



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

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


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



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

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

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

M

[camel_landy]

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


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

M

[djam1]

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

[Bush65]

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


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

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

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

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

[slug_burner]

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

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

[one_iota]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bush65]

Size (cubic capacity) seems to be a fixation here.
...
Because it was fixed by the thread title :D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As revs go up, inertial loads increase exponentially.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[djam1]

Bush65 thanks that makes a lot of sense.
The thing that I hate with Milk Bottle diesels is not how much torque they have but were they have it.
Admittedly this isnt a Land Rover but I use a 3 litre Prado daily for work and it drives me insane my whipper snipper has more torque where you need it.
My dad has a TD5 and I find that a bit the same, as bad as this sounds I love driving my old Stage 1 V8 its not the most powerful but it will run from 10 km/h
through to an indicated 160 km/h in top gear, sadly it also uses a lot of fuel.
With all this argument about small diesels being ok why does an Isuzu last 1 Million km and a TD-300 last about 350-400 thousand I dont want an answer as its covered in the post above.

[one_iota]

However the reality is that some of us need the versatility and robustness of a vehicle that can be driven comfortably in the city, on the freeway, on rough tracks and off road...the new version (puma) as a package does this reasonably well perhaps better than any of its predecessors and obviously respects its 60 year heritage. :p


Without adaptability the Defender as we know it is probably destined to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Without Land Rovers commitment that would have happened a long time ago

[Slunnie]

Without adaptability the Defender as we know it is probably destined to go the way of the dinosaurs.
It has always been going that way because thats exactly what it is. Its enduring heritage is unrivalled by anything, not even the Beetle or Mini can be compared as their retro rebuild has brought significant changes to align the product with consumer expectations. If LR dont do something to make it a comparable option for business and their requirements, then it will become extinct. Even the neanderthal Toyotas now have SRS airbags in their commercial range.

[one_iota]

Yes Simon.

The Defender's architecture is its strength and its weakness. No change of engine will save it in the modern world.

The latter day Land Rovers: Range Rover and Discovery have shown a way.

Whether the Defender can be "transitioned" is the question. I dread the resulting pastiche with faux historical references.

Porsche has managed this stylistic evolution successfully.

[Slunnie]

Yes Simon.

The Defender's architecture is its strength and its weakness. No change of engine will save it in the modern world.

The latter day Land Rovers: Range Rover and Discovery have shown a way.

Whether the Defender can be "transitioned" is the question. I dread the resulting pastiche with faux historical references.

Porsche has managed this stylistic evolution successfully.
Absolutely Mahn, I was cooking dinner thinking about what you'd said, and in many respects what I will now think of as the great LandRover paradox is its history - with the various aspects such as its architecture and engineering, especially on reflection. The Defender needs to make these clean sheet changes if they are to continue as anything but an enthusiast vehicle and they need to pitch squarely at what the volume sellers are and to do it better - much like what they have done with the FL2, D4, RRS and RR. They have a proven chassis, they have a proven driveline, but they also have a proven arrogance to tell the Defender customer what they want and not to listen.

Edit, the handbrake is such an excellent example. It is very simple to move it to operate like any other handbrake using off the shelf LandRover parts.

[slug_burner]

but they also have a proven arrogance to tell the Defender customer what they want and not to listen.

Edit, the handbrake is such an excellent example. It is very simple to move it to operate like any other handbrake using off the shelf LandRover parts.

Now what is wrong with the handbrake? Is it everybody's hate? It doesn't much bother me. Just don't give me a foot operated handbrake please.

[Slunnie]

Now what is wrong with the handbrake? Is it everybody's hate? It doesn't much bother me. Just don't give me a foot operated handbrake please.
Theres a reason why no other manufacturer has a handbrake of that design in that position. :D

[Benny_IIA]

It'll be a bit of a pain having to open the bonnet and pull the starter rope every time you want to go anywhere !!!!!!!! :D


Not anymore.....:D
Link to video (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/#)
Briggs and Stratton ReadyStart® Electric



ReadyStart® Electric provides effortless starting

Electric start
No pulling required
Just turn the key and mow......I mean Drive

[jplambs]

Actually, I may be crazy ;) but after getting my Defender a couple of weeks ago the handbrake was one of the things that I really liked as being different from every other vehicle. :D

[Scallops]

Actually, I may be crazy ;) but after getting my Defender a couple of weeks ago the handbrake was one of the things that I really liked as being different from every other vehicle. :D

Same for me - I find the hand brake in a good position to support my left leg! I just don't see the issue. But Kat Woman has told me I am clinically insane (after telling her I'm keen on a 109 Series 1 ute I've spotted) so perhaps my condition is a perfect match with Defenders and Land Rovers in general. :huh:

[jplambs]

Same for me - I find the hand brake in a good position to support my left leg! I just don't see the issue. But Kat Woman has told me I am clinically insane (after telling her I'm keen on a 109 Series 1 ute I've spotted) so perhaps my condition is a perfect match with Defenders and Land Rovers in general. :huh:

:D After coming back to W.A. without my landy the first thing I did when I jumped into my little green bluebird was reach down to take the handbrake off, I was very disappointed to discover that it wasn't there. :p ... If its any consolation Scollops I've been told on a few occasions by some mates that I was clinically insane as well ... they do however all drive Toyotas ...... 'nough said. ;)

[Bush65]

I don't see the problem

Wasn't the original Series I a 1.6l








:wasntme:
IMHO one of the main reasons Toyota pushed Land Rover so far back in the Australian market was that it had a larger engine.

If Land Rover had a competitive engine back when the early Toyota Landcruisers appeared, then the current positions would probably be reversed.

By the time they bought out the V8, the game had been lost.

[Bush65]

They should have put the 2.2 from FL2 in it from the start. More power and torque and has had next to no reliability issues. However the Defender is a world car and is required to run on some quite average diesel something modern diesels can't handle.
Whose 2.2 litre diesel engine is used in the Freelander 2?

Is it a BMW engine, from before they sold Land Rover to Ford?

[spudfan]

Just waiting for one of you "Landy-Ladies" to write in and remind us that size is'nt everything.:whistling:

[carjunkieanon]

What you really want under the hood is a Stirling Engine :BigThumb:. They can run just on the heat of your hand.

Check it out on wikipedia.

'The Stirling engine is noted for its high efficiency, quiet operation, and the ease with which it can utilize almost any heat source. This compatibility with alternative and renewable energy sources has become increasingly significant as the price of conventional fuels rises, and also in light of concerns such as peak oil and climate change.'

[inside]

Whose 2.2 litre diesel engine is used in the Freelander 2?

Is it a BMW engine, from before they sold Land Rover to Ford?
It's a Peugeot/Ford engine, same factory that makes the TDV6, TDV8 and the new TDV6 in the D4. The 2.2L is also sold in the Ford Mondeo. Part of the agreement with the sale to TATA was that Ford get to continue to supply engines.

The 2.2L is a fantastic engine and I believe an excellent fit for the Defender. Maybe they could fit the equally excellent 6 speed auto in it too? People go on about wanting the TDV6 on a Defender, it only has 40Nm more torque and weighs/costs a lot more, the 2.2L makes more sense.

[Slunnie]

It's a Peugeot/Ford engine, same factory that makes the TDV6, TDV8 and the new TDV6 in the D4. The 2.2L is also sold in the Ford Mondeo. Part of the agreement with the sale to TATA was that Ford get to continue to supply engines.

The 2.2L is a fantastic engine and I believe an excellent fit for the Defender. Maybe they could fit the equally excellent 6 speed auto in it too? People go on about wanting the TDV6 on a Defender, it only has 40Nm more torque and weighs/costs a lot more, the 2.2L makes more sense.
Isn't the TDV8 a Rover motor?

The 2.2 might make only 40Nm less than the TDV6, but it will deliver its torque a lot differently. I've got no doubt it'll be a bit like the Patrol 3.0TD and 4.2TD. Both produce similar outright figures, but the 4.2TD has all of the low down lugging torque

[inside]

Isn't the TDV8 a Rover motor?
I could be wrong there. Wikipedia does say its a "further adaptation" of the TDV6.

The 2.2 might make only 40Nm less than the TDV6, but it will deliver its torque a lot differently. I've got no doubt it'll be a bit like the Patrol 3.0TD and 4.2TD. Both produce similar outright figures, but the 4.2TD has all of the low down lugging torque
Max torque is at similar points 1900rpm v 2000rpm but I agree the torque would be more linear in the V6. Variable geometry turbos do help the torque delivery in modern diesels though. Does the transit engine have one?

IMO just be done with it and put the supercharged V8 in, just to compete with the G Wagen that will hopefully be with us in the near future.

[Slunnie]

I'm not sure. I didn't realise that the TV6/8 were related, but thats not to say much. :D

I agree, just fit the Rover big block! :twisted:

[camel_landy]

Yep... TDV6 & 8 are related.

TDV6 came out of the work with Ford & PSG. However, PSG didn't see a requirement for the TDV8 so they let Ford/JLR get on with it themselves.

M

[camel_landy]

IMHO one of the main reasons Toyota pushed Land Rover so far back in the Australian market was that it had a larger engine.

If Land Rover had a competitive engine back when the early Toyota Landcruisers appeared, then the current positions would probably be reversed.

By the time they bought out the V8, the game had been lost.

Actually, the prime reason for Toyota's market dominance is probably more down to the apathy of British Leyland at the time...

M

[JDNSW]

I have never had a problem with the handbrake on any Landrover! It is in that position to accommodate the possibility of three across, as the original Series 1 was designed.

One of the necessities with low volume production is to not make changes if you can avoid them - otherwise you have an impossible cost and parts supply problem.

The really big opportunity that was missed was to widen the body when the coil spring ones were introduced, but this was apparently impossible due to the cost of retooling for the bulkhead (which is still built on the tooling made for the Series 2 in 1958), so instead they fitted wheel flares to match the track established by the Rangerover.

John

[JDNSW]

Actually, the prime reason for Toyota's market dominance is probably more down to the apathy of British Leyland at the time...

M

Toyota got a look in because Landrovers were in short supply (Landrover was unable to meet demand for Landrovers until the mid seventies), and specifically the first Australian Army purchase of Landrovers took most of Australia's allocation in the 1959 - early sixties. this enabled Landcruisers (and others) to get a significant part of the market, despite their awful steering and only three gears and generally poor quality control (collapsing seats, leaking fuel tanks, failing alternators, carburetter problems etc). The larger engines helped mitigate these problems, although the lack of a diesel was a problem is some markets, even in Australia.

Once having a foothold in the market, the vast expansion of their car sales meant they were able to expoand their dealer network as Leyland's network collapsed along with the collapse of their car sales. Engine size was a relatively minor factor - look at how the proportion of cars with large engines has dropped (as the power weight ratio in cars has increased dramatically, while speed limits have dropped! When Landcruisers first appeared in Australia, the most popular car, the Holden, had less power than the smallest car on the market today, despite being nearly as large as the current Commodore, and NSW for example, had effectively no open road speed limit)

John

John

[isuzurover]

Actually, the prime reason for Toyota's market dominance is probably more down to the apathy of British Leyland at the time...

M

Umm - we are talking about Australia here. Theiss started importing LandCruisers to Australia in 1958. BL formed in 1968.

The cruisers, despite being 3-speed back then, were an instant success due to the extra power they had in the hilly, high altitude conditions.

Series II and IIA 109" landies also developed a reputation for breaking axles, which was a further nail in the coffin.

The Nissan G60 also arrived in about 1960, and had the most powerful engine of all. The fact that it was only offered in 2-door SWB form limited its appeal in a country where LWB vehicles are preferred.

The last stats I saw, were that toyota sells 8 4x4s for any 1 sold by another manufacturer (in Australia).

This article is a bit biased but makes interesting reading:

It's a story Toyota loves to retell: a dozen of the first FJ25 models were imported to the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric project. Like all the other 4WDs, they broke down. "But it was Toyota's response to these problems that set the company apart from its rivals," sales and marketing executive vice-president Dave Buttner related this week. "Toyota flew out engineers from Japan who lived on-site to study and rectify the problems. They also flew out parts and sent the broken bits back to Japan -- to analyse them and fix the problems at the source."

Suitably impressed, construction magnate Sir Leslie Theiss began importing Toyotas in Queensland and NSW, and LandCruisers were increasingly used by resource companies and farmers opening up the bush. Half a million -- 10 per cent of all the LandCruisers ever made -- have been bought by Australians. Australia buys more LandCruisers than any market outside the Middle East.


Among full-size, dinky-di 4WDs the Toyota's only real rival is the Nissan Patrol. "But if you buy a Nissan it's taken as read you've had a bad year," was how one station owner explained it to me at the launch of the 200 Series LandCruiser in Alice Springs this week.
The attitude above is pretty representative of most cockies (farmers). For 95% of them its toyota or nothing.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22731645-5010800,00.html

[spudfan]

I think that the days of having a dedicated engine designed for the Defender are long gone.In days gone by we had an engine designed with the vehicles design premise in mind.Some came in for criticism from various sectors but they we usually designed with the off-road end of things in mind. This was sometimes at the expense of the on-road performance. For better or worse (or even lack of investment) Land Rover got good milage, time wise out of these. Look how long the 2.25 was fitted to to vehicles. The reason for this are many and no doubt if the engineers had their way it would have been changed long before it was. Look how many are still around today.
In Europe Land Rover are obliged to comply with the Euro emission laws. This means that engines have a very limited production life before they must comply with the next tranch of emission regulations. Land Rover therefore will not be able to design an engine designed with the Defender specifically in mind. The limited number of vehicles produced and the money needed to be recouped for the engine development would not justify these costs in this accountant run world. Land Rover will therefore source engines from other manufacturers. Some may be suitable for tweaking by the Land Rover engineers but we will never get the 100% Solihull unit as in days gone by.
The current unit was foistered on them by Ford. Despite some teething problems it seems to be a good unit in the vehicle. I like it but I know that it is only a matter of time before it is changed in order to comply with European laws.
In times gone by some places like South Africa had engines unique to that country. Sometimes this was for political reasons and sometimes it was better suited to that particular environment. The Perentie in your country had the Isuzu unit fitted. Maybe Tata will use this idea and fit different engines in different territories. It might not be practical to design a vehicle to accept different power units with differing operating characteristics. Tata may just bite the bullet and give up producing Euro compliant vehicles and just sell in territories that have less strict emissions laws. This could get the volumes up to compensate for the loss of the money generating county spec. vehicles sold in Europe.
I am sure Land Rover have been loaned engines by various manufacturers to try in the Defender. Other manufacturers will be eager to sell units to help recoup and reduce costs. The big decision now will be the next generation Defender and this will go in tandem with whatever power unit they have in mind. Tata could keep the Defender as it is but only if they gave up the Euro market and sold the Defender to a whole new market. Some could be territories that Land Rover left or lost while others will be new ground. Somehow I do not think that Tata had their head in the sand when they bought Land Rover. Personally I think that the Defender will survive much as it is now but with a less sophisticated power unit. The only trouble being that I will not be able to buy one as it will not be emissions compliant in Europe but it will be slogging around a whole new batch of markets. I think that Tata will give up the job of keeping the Defender Euro compliant and adapt it to sell in high volumes overseas.The vehicle could be hand built cheaply in India and fitted with an engine that would not meet European regulations but would be acceptable elsewhere.

[camel_landy]

Umm - we are talking about Australia here. Theiss started importing LandCruisers to Australia in 1958. BL formed in 1968.

Agreed... But all they really did when BL was formed was to bring all of the rot together under one name!!

IMHO - BMC/Rover/BL/etc... never really got serious about exports until the mid 80s.

M

[JDNSW]

.........
IMHO - BMC/Rover/BL/etc... never really got serious about exports until the mid 80s.

M


I'm afraid that is simply wrong as far as Rover is concerned. As a snapshot, in 1953, when Landrovers outnumbered all other Rover cars produced by 2:1, 76% of all Landrovers were exported. That cannot be construed as anything except being serious about exports.

For that matter, the Landrover was conceived in 1947 as primarily an export product, and the management bet the company on its export performance. More than half the prototypes were LHD, and the initial launch was outside the UK. As a further comment on the quoted article, according to the speaker at Cooma's 60th, Rover did in fact fly out experts to the Snowy Mountains to assess brake problems almost ten years before Theiss looked at Toyotas, and rapidly produced fixes - brakes were re-engineered several times in the first couple of years of Landrover production. At the time SMHEC had the largest fleet of Landrovers anywhere. (And ultimately their Landrover use exceeded their Landcruiser use over the life of the project by more than 100:1.

As a small company they simply did not have the resources to match Japan Inc., and when they attempted to gain these resources by merging with Leyland in 1967, they were used by Leyland as a cash cow, to the extent that Landrover was the only profitable product Leyland was making in 1974 (still mostly exported). And it was not until about then that Landrover production was able to meet demand.

John

[camel_landy]

Agreed, LR have always been serious about exports, that's why I didn't mention them in the list. ;)

The rest of your bit was sort of the same point I was making... i.e. LandRover have always done an excellent job despite the efforts of the parent companies to drag them down... If you see what I mean.

M

[spudfan]

If you look at the engine on the driver's side, towards the front there is a bracket attached to it. Stamped into this is a table that goes from 07 to 11.There are spaces for each month of each year to stamp when the engine was made. Clearly Ford do not envision this engine being produced past 2011. This could give Land Rover stocks for some time past 2011 but I'd say they will be looking for it's replacement to slot in when the Tdci is stopped.So 2012 seems a good bet for it's introduction.

[greenextreme]

IMHO Tata are aiming to be a truly global car maker and will most likely use India's low-cost labour coupled with outsourced, innovative componentry [i.e. engines, drive trains, electrics, etc] to produce cars compliant with EU, USA, Asia, Africa and Aust. Project Icon [2012 Defender] is probably just one of several projects Tata are pushing to raise their profile, sales and global reach. I won't be surprised if Tata adopt something similar in style to Audi's twin-turbo 1.4litre in the 2012 defender [i.e. small, light, powerful, economical]. I'll be about ready to trade in my '99 110 by 2012 ;)

[dullbird]

Defender2 - View topic - the NEW 2.2 puma defender. (http://www.defender2.net/forum/topic1911.html)

[Slunnie]

I would hope that if they can make a TDV8 and a TTV6 comply then they could sort out the Defender without adding another nail in the coffin.