The future of the Defender?

[fraser130]

I hope this hasn't been posted before:
Click here (http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/79696AE643C3E79DCA25764A00051AFF)

[stig0000]

i wonder what would happen to the prices of defenders when they stop making it;)

[whyatts]

Quick everyone get a new defender while you can! ;)

[pbroz]

That's a interesting article... why don't we refer to the Defender as the Series IV... anyone?

[JDNSW]

That's a interesting article... why don't we refer to the Defender as the Series IV... anyone?

For reasons best known to themselves, British Leyland decided to not use the term "Series" when the coil spring Landrover 110 was released, probably as part of their efforts to convince the market that it was a "Leyland Landrover", rather than marking a distinct break between the leaf sprung and coil sprung vehicles - this and the necessary body and chassis changes were virtually the only difference initially, although the optional four wheel drive did not last long and the an enlarged four cylinder engine soon appeared (not seen here).

As noted elsewhere, the name "Defender" was only introduced with the release of the Discovery in 1989, as the demise of Leyland made it necessary to add the company name of Landrover to the Discovery, previously only used for the Series Landrovers and their successors.

John

[Bigbjorn]

JD, I can't speak for the other states, but at Leyland Truck and Bus, Qld, we registered all our company vehicles and retail sales as make- Leyland, model- Land Rover or Range Rover. No idea what dealers did. Other than station wagons and RR's, all CTP insurance applications on private sale first registrations were shown as private use utility. This class no longer exists but then it was the cheapest.

[JDNSW]

JD, I can't speak for the other states, but at Leyland Truck and Bus, Qld, we registered all our company vehicles and retail sales as make- Leyland, model- Land Rover or Range Rover. No idea what dealers did. Other than station wagons and RR's, all CTP insurance applications on private sale first registrations were shown as private use utility. This class no longer exists but then it was the cheapest.

Yes, that would be right. Leyland attempted to integrate all its disparate companies, and part of this integration, perhaps the only bit that really worked, was at the marketing end. As has often been noted, by 1975, if not earlier, the Landrover (and Rangerover) were the only Leyland products (perhaps except some bus and truck products) that were actually being sold for more than they cost to make. And one of the major basic reasons for Landrover losing much of their market here and elsewhere, is that the profit, instead of being at least partly invested in product development, mostly went into propping up other models. This started to turn round with the Stage 1, and by 1983 with the 110 - but these were ten years late. There is no reason why the 110 could not have been introduced in 1973 not 1983 - it simply transferred Rangerover (1970) technology to the working model. If this had been done, the picture today may well have been very different - but Leyland would have collapsed much earlier.

John

John

[bobslandies]

That's a interesting article... why don't we refer to the Defender as the Series IV... anyone?

Just another example of rewriting history! Series 4???????
What was here called "Stage 1" was always referred to in "official" Land Rover-speak as the V8 Series 3.

Then there was no vehicle available. By the time the 110 was introduced and called the "County" here they had lost the plot. They still had a market for short wheel base vehicles but would not import them to compete with Toyota, Nissan and Suzuki. Then there was hardly a real Land Rover dealer left.
This is the mob with the revolving door management that went from almost all of the 4 wheel drive Australian market in the late 1960s to a miserable couple of per cent and are happy about it, only interested in marketing Range Rover and later Discovery.

The scenario being flagged here is an entity named Range Rover will take over the British "luxury" side of the business. Does this mean Land Rover will move to India?

And it's all too hard to think about the Defender! Well, watch out for the Iveco Massif - a cheaper, very practical and apparently well built vehicle like other Iveco/Fiat products. I imagine it is already Euro compliant - and Tata already have a relationship with Fiat.

Bob

[eksjay]

I got nothing from that rant provided in the link.

The future of the Deefer is in its past. If they muck around with that vintage formula, then the people who purchased the deefer in the past, have much less reason to do so in the future.

It is a real dilemma for LR to put up the business case to Tata when there isn't one. Range Rover is its margin generating product.

The Deefer is the proverbial unwanted stepchild. Ironically what gave LR and RR its cred is now an embarassment.

If I were Tata, why would I want to build something good, call it a Deefer, and detract from higher margin selling stuff like the D3 to the RR Sport?

Jeep managed to update their TJ Wrangler successfully [refering to sales figures], although the result was appalling when it came to build quality. But there is a place for the Wrangler in the Jeep lineup.

However, the same cannot be said for the Deefer and the D3. Potentially, an all new Deefer might sink the D3.

[10 inches more]

I wouldn't worry too much about a revamped defender not appealing to the people who have bought them before, it's clear there are not enough of them...

And if they made a new vehicle as capable as it now is, looking essentially like a defender, but made so the other 70% of the 4X4 driving population actually fit in the drivers seat, they might just do a lot better than 50,000 sold per year.

[Benny_IIA]

I wouldn't worry too much about a revamped defender not appealing to the people who have bought them before, it's clear there are not enough of them...

And if they made a new vehicle as capable as it now is, looking essentially like a defender, but made so the other 70% of the 4X4 driving population actually fit in the drivers seat, they might just do a lot better than 50,000 sold per year.


Is that not one of the reason why we drive defenders?, If everyone could drive one then the charm would not be same... I'm thinking disco :wasntme:



ben......

[10 inches more]

I agree entirely, but playing the Devils Advocate one must admit that producing a vehicle many peple will never contmplate buying is not a great business model.... I'm happy to be part of us 30% though.

[wally]

I wouldn't worry too much about a revamped defender not appealing to the people who have bought them before, it's clear there are not enough of them...

And if they made a new vehicle as capable as it now is, looking essentially like a defender, but made so the other 70% of the 4X4 driving population actually fit in the drivers seat, they might just do a lot better than 50,000 sold per year.

Actually they only sell 25000 per year.