Discovery Evolution

[Cosmic Tourist]

So, heres my hypothesis.
The Range Rover, one of the best offroad vehicles ever built, was introduced in 1970.
Stayed pretty much the same due to its excellent design until it became the P38 in the 1990s, some would say with a change in focus away from hard core off road.
The Disco was introduced in 1989, with the same chassis and drivetrain, the same 3.5l engine but a different shell stuck on it.
That was revised to the disco 2 but with essentially the same underpinnings.

So, the final evolution of the original Range Rover is the Discovery 2, which is why the Disco 2 is the best 4x4 :D

Happy New Year and safe off and on the road

[scarry]

And what LR have done now is pushed the D3/4 into the RR luxury section,& left a big gap between it & the Deefer.

A 4wd with 19" wheels just doesn't cut it as a genuine 4wd anymore.

If my D2 was stolen or written off,there is nothing in the LR market to replace it with that ticks all the boxes:(
I will be buying new.

The D2 is a fantastic tourer that you could take anywhere,couldn't see me taking a D4 to to many of the places i have been to in the D2.

Don't get me wrong,the D4 is a fantastic vehicle,it is just in a different market than the D2.

And no i don't want a Deefer.

Maybe the next generation Deefer will be in the D2 kind of market,if you know what i mean.More luxurious,available as an auto,etc.

But there still needs to be a deefer....,for those people that want one,& military markets,etc

What do others think?

[d2dave]

Better be careful here.

The last thread that talked about evolution was removed from this forum:):)

Dave.

[V8Ian]

Better be careful here.

The last thread that talked about evolution was removed from this forum:):)

Dave.
:clap2::Rolling::Rolling::Rolling::TakeABow:

[PAT303]

And what LR have done now is pushed the D3/4 into the RR luxury section,& left a big gap between it & the Deefer.

A 4wd with 19" wheels just doesn't cut it as a genuine 4wd anymore.

If my D2 was stolen or written off,there is nothing in the LR market to replace it with that ticks all the boxes:(
I will be buying new.

The D2 is a fantastic tourer that you could take anywhere,couldn't see me taking a D4 to to many of the places i have been to in the D2.

Don't get me wrong,the D4 is a fantastic vehicle,it is just in a different market than the D2.

And no i don't want a Deefer.

Maybe the next generation Deefer will be in the D2 kind of market,if you know what i mean.More luxurious,available as an auto,etc.

But there still needs to be a deefer....,for those people that want one,& military markets,etc

What do others think?

Thats my biggest single beef with LR,when the D1 came out it was a mom-dad vehicle and they sold thousands,then the D2 arrived and it was priced higher so sold fewer and then the D3 was completely out of the market until they have two vehicles at the top end,one at the bottom and the freelander which isn't in any market.Vehicle makers need a mainstream vehicle to get brand awareness and people into showrooms,LR don't have one.The defender could also fill a very wanted need in the resource sector but they totally ignore that too but thats another story. Pat

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I think what you'll find is that the next defender will be built on a modified and simplified D3 platform. It will be more refined, will comply with worldwide safety standards, and will be built on a production line enabling them to up the volumes, increase the profit, and keep the costs down.

I think you'll find it will be this vehicle that they intend to fill that market with. This is all speculation, but I know these people will have noticed the gap and will be endeavouring to profit from it!

I'm optimistic that it will be a cracker of a car. If they toughen and simplify a D3 while keeping the costs down I think that would be a great thing.

[willem]

I reckon its an exercise in market positioning.

Just as Volkswagen - the 'people's car' went upmarket and became a premium brand, and was replaced as a 'people's car' by Skoda, so Land Rover has decided that it wants to be the premium brand off road vehicle. That's why they are streets ahead of everyone else in the latest developments electronically and mechanically.

This of course, as someone else noted, leaves a 'hole' in the marketplace, where the D1/ D2/ RRC used to fit. Land Rover tried to fill that with the D3 S, which had coil springs and conventional wheel control - no 'Terrain Response', but it wasn't very successful and I think it has been dropped in the D4. The EAS and the TR were just too good and the car was designed around them.

Which leaves just the Freelander 2. But again it is a class leader in the latest innovations etc. It is not a conventional 4WD. Once you have raised the bar its hard to go back.

I reckon this is also why LR has closed many smaller dealerships. They are positioning themselves as a premium brand, and need large luxurious dealerships to do that.

Which leaves a market for manufacturers that want to go down the conventional 4WD path, like the Nissan Patrol at the larger end and the Mitsubishi Outlander at the smaller end. But even these are having to go electronic ... in Victoria, for instance, all cars will have to have electronic traction control by 2011. And Land Rover is miles in front of everyone in the electronics area.

So its your choice ... for a while. There are still some conventional 4WDs around ... but not for long. Even the Defender will have to catch up. So expect to see a new - really new - Defender in the next few years. If Land Rover are smart it will look substantially like the old Defender, but will be built on a modern platform ... most likely the D3/ D4 platform. BUT the conventional Defender may stay for developing economies ... just like the VW Beetle continued in Mexico for many years after it finished elsewhere.

There will be more smaller Land Rovers, more environmentally friendly Land Rovers. But I think that Land Rover is well aware of its strength, that it makes the best 4WDs in the world, and it will continue to aim to be the maker of the best 4WDs in the world. In other words, I don't think they will fall for the temptation to go 'soft', as far as off road ability is concerned.

Willem

[BMKal]

... in Victoria, for instance, all cars will have to have electronic traction control by 2011.

Haven't heard this before.

Is this a Victoria only thing, or is it national. I was under the impression that all new vehicles sold in Australia had to meet ADR's (AUSTRALIAN design rules). If any one state is imposing conditions over and above the national standards for new vehicles, then I think it's high time we got rid of State Governments.

[d2dave]

Haven't heard this before.

Is this a Victoria only thing, or is it national. I was under the impression that all new vehicles sold in Australia had to meet ADR's (AUSTRALIAN design rules). If any one state is imposing conditions over and above the national standards for new vehicles, then I think it's high time we got rid of State Governments.

I am pretty sure that it is Australian not just Vic. As you said it is ADR.

Having said this I think many years ago (mid 70's?) NSW had their own set of emission control laws over and above the ADR's of the day.

As for stability control, I read some where a while back that this law will be the end for Defender in Australia.

Dave.

[BigJon]

Haven't heard this before.

Is this a Victoria only thing, or is it national. I was under the impression that all new vehicles sold in Australia had to meet ADR's (AUSTRALIAN design rules). If any one state is imposing conditions over and above the national standards for new vehicles, then I think it's high time we got rid of State Governments.

Victorian thing. It comes in nationally 12 months later.

I agree with getting rid of state governments. Australia doesn't have the population to warrant the levels of government we have.

[willem]

A 4wd with 19" wheels just doesn't cut it as a genuine 4wd anymore.



Why? :confused:

Willem

[scarry]

.Vehicle makers need a mainstream vehicle to get brand awareness and people into showrooms,LR don't have one.

Exactly....

Also,when the D1 arrived,it didn't have the competition in it's market here in Aus that the D2 did when it appeared.

[willem]

Haven't heard this before.

Is this a Victoria only thing, or is it national. I was under the impression that all new vehicles sold in Australia had to meet ADR's (AUSTRALIAN design rules). If any one state is imposing conditions over and above the national standards for new vehicles, then I think it's high time we got rid of State Governments.

Why should this mean we should get rid of state governments? All vehicles still have to meet ADRs. If any state wants to go a step further because of local conditions that's it's business. We are a Federation of States, after all.

Apparently, at this stage, it is a Victoria only thing - at least that's how it was put in an article in 'The Age' this morning (http://www.theage.com.au/national/states-road-toll-hits-record-lows-20091231-lkz0.html). Scroll down - its the fourth paragraph from the bottom. I have to say tho, that I got it a little bit wrong - its electronic stability control they were talking about.

Willem

[d2dave]

I was just reading a story in "4X4 Australia" magazine about the new RR Autobiography.

Apart from the tyres it appears to be just as capable off road as any of its predecessors. And with a 200K price tag.

From all the reading I have done on D3's, 4's, and RR's including sport they are all very capable off roaders.

I believe that Land Rover has not forgotten its core value of "off road ability" being of highest priority.

I think the problem lies with independent suspension. The hard core off roader and this includes myself don't like independent suspension. I think we all like live axles because it is simple and easy to maintain and modify if one wishes.

Live axles also offer superior wheel travel although from what I have read LR have a very good independent suspension, unlike the Jap brands

Dave.

[slug_burner]

Live axles vs independant suspension, springs vs air bags, electronics etc. The perpetual arguments that always come up. As for the new Defender looking like the old??

It is not the second hand car market that decides what sells or not. Car makers have to appeal to the new car buyer. I see that there are two ways to do this; appeal to the exclusive high price low volume end of the market or go for the low end of the market with high volume. Neither of these markets are going to go for the live axles. I don't think that either end of the market wants them. With very few exceptions most 4x4s spend 80% or more of their time on made roads which are much nicer to drive over in an independant suspension vehicle.

I was at a club gathering about 4-5 years ago where the Australian manager for LR came as a guest speaker. It was clear that LR had its challenges then, not even the top end of the market could be garranteed with nearly every OEM producing their own SUV, Porsche, Volvo, Mercedes, Lexus, Mazda etc to say nothing of the VW, Ford and GM offerings.

These people do their research and they know that we the people who give each other the LR wave or the subtle raise of the finger off the steering wheel as we pass each other want. Unfortunatelly they are not going to make a lot of money from people that hold on to their cars for 10 years or more and fix it them themselves. Dealerships count on income from their service departments and new car sales are what keep the factory going.

So unless we are in the new car market our opinion does not count for as much as the people in the D3/D4 part of the forum. It is nothing personal it is just business.:cool:

[BMKal]

If any state wants to go a step further because of local conditions that's it's business. We are a Federation of States, after all.



And that is exactly my point.

So if I buy a new vehicle over the border in NSW or SA that meets ADR's, i am not allowed into Victoria because some jumped up local bureaucrat decides that Victoria wants to impose some additional conditions or restrictions (not having a go at Victoria in particular - same principle applies to all states).

The next step from this is to allow local governments to make and impose their own rules - believe it or not, this was the case here in WA up until not so long ago - each shire had its own traffic cops, you had to register your vehicle in the shire in which you lived (hence the "shire" number plate system, many of which can still be seen on vehicles in WA) - and you could cop different fines / penalties for the same offence across shire boundaries.

Get rid of the bloody lot of them I say - we are one country and should be operating under one set of standards / rules. Can't see the value in having so many levels of government coming up with multiple layers of rules, just to justify the existence of useless bureaucrats who would probably struggle to hold down a job out in the real world.

[willem]

I think the problem lies with independent suspension. The hard core off roader and this includes myself don't like independent suspension. I think we all like live axles because it is simple and easy to maintain and modify if one wishes.


Dave.

I want whatever suspension works best. I reckon that once you accept air suspension and its ability to lift the car, independent suspension makes sense, because then you lift the diffs as well and give yourself better ground clearance than you can with beam axles. Cross-linking the air springs was a brilliant idea, giving better articulation.

Willem

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I'm pretty sure that all vehicles have to have stability control. Traction control is a subset of stability control.

From a 4wd perspective, stability control adds yaw sensors, lateral G sensors etc.

[willem]

And that is exactly my point.

So if I buy a new vehicle over the border in NSW or SA that meets ADR's, i am not allowed into Victoria because some jumped up local bureaucrat decides that Victoria wants to impose some additional conditions or restrictions (not having a go at Victoria in particular - same principle applies to all states).

The next step from this is to allow local governments to make and impose their own rules - believe it or not, this was the case here in WA up until not so long ago - each shire had its own traffic cops, you had to register your vehicle in the shire in which you lived (hence the "shire" number plate system, many of which can still be seen on vehicles in WA) - and you could cop different fines / penalties for the same offence across shire boundaries.

Get rid of the bloody lot of them I say - we are one country and should be operating under one set of standards / rules. Can't see the value in having so many levels of government coming up with multiple layers of rules, just to justify the existence of useless bureaucrats who would probably struggle to hold down a job out in the real world.

I don't like bureaucracies any more than you do, but I like many levels of government, because concentrating power at one level leads to a greater chance of corruption and eventually tyranny. Multiple levels of government are a guards against the concentration power and its accompanying problems. I am only too aware of human nature to want to see power concentrated at one level of government. Sure, it costs us more, but the greater cost is worth the greater safety from tyranny.

Willem

[JLo]

....
The Range Rover, one of the best offroad vehicles ever built, was introduced in 1970. Stayed pretty much the same due to its excellent design until it became the P38 in the 1990s, some would say with a change in focus away from hard core off road.....

The RR has always been the premium Land Rover. Full of technology. RRC was, just their wasn't the electronics around in 1970. Coils springs, constant 4wd etc. It has evolved with technology and incorporates it.

All the other manufacturers (try to) follow, but like others have noted, the RR has always maintained its ability off road as this is at the core of it's being - to be as capable off road or more so than the model it replaces.


Cheers

[vnx205]

A 4wd with 19" wheels just doesn't cut it as a genuine 4wd anymore.



Why? :confused:

Willem
Because for genuine 4WDing, it is handy to have a sensible amount of rubber between the rocks and your rims.

[willem]

Because for genuine 4WDing, it is handy to have a sensible amount of rubber between the rocks and your rims.

True ... but that's only a comment on the tyres available at present, not on 19" rims as such. The tyre industry will catch up eventually.

Willem

[JDNSW]

What everyone in this thread seems to have forgotten is that the market that Landrover was built on (and has virtually abandoned in Australia, but not everywhere else) is working four wheel drives - farms, construction, mining, development, utilities, infrastructure, police, military. These markets usually buy vehicles in substantial numbers and usually new. Cost of ownership is a major concern, and hence they would prefer solid axles, although this is not a top priority. (And traditionally, these vehicles second hand have provided the majority of the recreational market - all except two of the Landrovers I have ever owned were bought new by construction, farming or military buyers.

The current Defender shortcomings for this market are mainly:- regional dealerships, ergonomics (people have just got bigger!) airbags, loss of reputation, dealerships.

For this market, 19" wheels are less suitable, not so much because of what tyres are available, but because you want as high a sidewalls as possible to reduce the likelihood of tyre and rim damage on rocks, railway lines, kerbs etc. Nothing wrong with 19" wheels as such, but the D3/4 bodywork does not leave room for decent sidewall height on 19" wheels.

This market also requires multiple body types and wheelbases, and this is where it is difficult to see a D3/4 platform Defender replacement meeting these requirements, although you never know.

On the subject of stability control - will it apply to utility vehicles, or just passenger vehicles? Worth noting that the reason the Defender gets away with no child restraint anchorages is that it is classed for this purpose as a utility vehicle.

John

[Bush65]

...

I think the problem lies with independent suspension. The hard core off roader and this includes myself don't like independent suspension. I think we all like live axles because it is simple and easy to maintain and modify if one wishes.

Live axles also offer superior wheel travel although from what I have read LR have a very good independent suspension, unlike the Jap brands

Dave.
I agree, and add that with a beam axle when 1 wheel goes up (on a rock or step etc. the beam axle goes up with it - with ind. suspension the centre stays down much further, not gaining clearance.

I like air springs, and although they are used to improve ground clearance off road, the limited wheel travel is not overcome.

I recently re-read an old trip report by Patrick Sutcliffe on a Simpson Desert trip - a coil sprung disco 3 became stuck requiring recover numerous times because of low ground clearance (and no ability to raise its ride height).

It catches on all the clumps of mud and spinifex in the centre of the track, giving a very uncomfortable ride to its occupants, and had to be pulled over small sand dunes that no-one else had a problem with. By the end of the trip, Peter was not a very happy chappie and was talking of selling it, ...

Above quote from Patrick's trip report in The L.R.O.C. News, November 2006, page 34.




Because for genuine 4WDing, it is handy to have a sensible amount of rubber between the rocks and your rims.

True ... but that's only a comment on the tyres available at present, not on 19" rims as such. The tyre industry will catch up eventually.

Willem
I don't think the tyre industry will come to our rescue regarding this issue.

The legalities of increasing tyre size is a big problem. The allowable increase of 15mm on diameter will not change a low profile tyre to one suitable for rugged off road travel.

Also as JDNSW said the vehicles in question don't have the clearance in the wheel arches to use a high profile tyre.

[clean32]

There is also the question of a high profile tire going flat at highway speeds in a vehicle with a high center of gravity. bigger rims and lower profile tires seem to remove much of this problem. IE ford and firestone I think

[pando]

What everyone in this thread seems to have forgotten is that the market that Landrover was built on (and has virtually abandoned in Australia, but not everywhere else) is working four wheel drives - farms, construction, mining, development, utilities, infrastructure, police, military. These markets usually buy vehicles in substantial numbers and usually new. Cost of ownership is a major concern, and hence they would prefer solid axles, although this is not a top priority. (And traditionally, these vehicles second hand have provided the majority of the recreational market - all except two of the Landrovers I have ever owned were bought new by construction, farming or military buyers.

The current Defender shortcomings for this market are mainly:- regional dealerships, ergonomics (people have just got bigger!) airbags, loss of reputation, dealerships.

For this market, 19" wheels are less suitable, not so much because of what tyres are available, but because you want as high a sidewalls as possible to reduce the likelihood of tyre and rim damage on rocks, railway lines, kerbs etc. Nothing wrong with 19" wheels as such, but the D3/4 bodywork does not leave room for decent sidewall height on 19" wheels.

This market also requires multiple body types and wheelbases, and this is where it is difficult to see a D3/4 platform Defender replacement meeting these requirements, although you never know.

On the subject of stability control - will it apply to utility vehicles, or just passenger vehicles? Worth noting that the reason the Defender gets away with no child restraint anchorages is that it is classed for this purpose as a utility vehicle.

John

Hi Guys,

To add to this if I may.....

Regarding the point about "commercial" (working) vehicles and Airbags and stability control. A number of the safety type people I have spoken to regarding general vehicle safety at work have all said, at one time or another, that a lot of the larger industry groups have been pushing tojo and datsun to include these safety controls as standard equipment on their base vehicles for some time, and the first manufacturer who eventually does it, is going to pick up a lot a business very quickly.

If that would be the case or not who knows.......

[PAT303]

Thats toyota,the next cruisers getting bags,it will be interesting to see what price they sell them at.They are the most pointless safety devices yet fitted to mine vehicles,just another dumb idea from the people who invent dumb idea's. Pat

[rovercare]

Thats toyota,the next cruisers getting bags,it will be interesting to see what price they sell them at.They are the most pointless safety devices yet fitted to mine vehicles,just another dumb idea from the people who invent dumb idea's. Pat

The new dash came out mid last year for airbags

I agree, dumb idea, but OH&S is full of them:(

[scarry]

I don't think the tyre industry will come to our rescue regarding this issue.

The legalities of increasing tyre size is a big problem. The allowable increase of 15mm on diameter will not change a low profile tyre to one suitable for rugged off road travel.

Also as JDNSW said the vehicles in question don't have the clearance in the wheel arches to use a high profile tyre.

Exactly

They came to the rescue in the early 70's when the first RR came out,but this time they have a much bigger,if not impossible challenge....
And until this size tyre becomes common in the market place,they will probably do nothing.

Maybe the vehicle manufacture's have to catch up & produce lighter vehicles that don't need massive brakes.But this will never happen as they will be seen to be going backwards.....

Anywhere except the blacktop,any19"/ 55 profile tyre wouldn't last long.And isn't off road what these vehicles are supposed to be designed for?
Outback touring,such as desert trips,or cape trips are virtually impossible in a vehicle that has these low profile tyres.
They will also be hopeless in soft sand,no matter what tyre manufacturers do.

[PAT303]

People who have 19'' rims with 55 profile tyres want a pimp mobile not an outback tourer,you can always change the rim/tyre combo to suit but a metalic black RR with chrome trim,black tinting and full of ''homey's'' is gunner look funny sitting on 7.50x16 split rims. Pat

[slug_burner]

People who have 19'' rims with 55 profile tyres want a pimp mobile not an outback tourer,you can always change the rim/tyre combo to suit but a metalic black RR with chrome trim,black tinting and full of ''homey's'' is gunner look funny sitting on 7.50x16 split rims. Pat

Yes it would look funny but they would have to fit the discs inside the 16" rims.:(

[scarry]

People who have 19'' rims with 55 profile tyres want a pimp mobile not an outback tourer

This is what the D4 has become?,as it is impossible to change the rims.

If it had been left with say 17" rims as an option, it would be a fantastic outback tourer.....& family go anywhere wagon,as is the D2.

And a D3 with 17"s didn't look to bad.