Agreed, well said.
Modernity didn't kill the core idea of the Defender though - LR, through neglect, let it die.
Printable View
Agreed, well said.
Modernity didn't kill the core idea of the Defender though - LR, through neglect, let it die.
It is a shame JLR didnt utilise their existing engineering know how/name to make a commercial permanent 4WD that was better than a 70 series, and had greater potential than a Grenadier which had to be designed from scratch. The Grenadier designers have done well to get it to production.
I think the engineering aspect of the vehicle slipped in the pecking order. I think that the "image" of JLR and where they saw the brand got precedence over the engineering department. The accountancy department got precedence over the engineering department. The corporate snacks department got precedence over the engineering department.
They had a good vehicle as it was but imagine if they had upped the quality of some of the components how much better it could have been. Fair enough the price would have increased but not to the extent of the "New Defender". Better quality components and better quality control would lead to less warranty claims.Seems they preferred to take the blinkered view.
I wonder if there is a parallel to Boeing? In 1997 Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas merged, and there was immediately a clash of cultures - Boeing was run by engineers, McDonnell-Douglas by bean counters. Although it was nominally a takeover by Boeing, the bean counters won, and the company headquarters moved from Seattle, where the aeroplanes were made, to Chicago, where there were plenty of M.B.A.s.
Over the next couple of decades, they gradually weeded the engineers out of management, replacing them with M.B.A.s, meaning that the former career path all the way to the top that enabled Boeing to attract the and keep the best engineers no longer existed. With the shortage of good engineers that this led to, more and more key work was outsourced.
The culmination of this was a decision to not replace the by now elderly but best selling 737, but rather to keep upgrading it to compete with the Airbus offerings, which were new designs. The end result was, of course, the 737MAX, making headlines around the world in 2018 and 2019 with disasters directly linked to poor engineering, and seeing Boeing paying out billions in criminal penalties, with enormous financial and reputational loss. And today the news that they are being fined again, this time for lying about it to investors.
Agreed. The engineering is exceptionally poor on more modern Land Rovers. I have done a lot of work on my wife's Rangie Sport. Now I know its a 10 year old vehicle so not that modern. For example we all know they have no dipstick but the failures of the oil level sensor is just stupid engineering. The sensor is in the sump but not removable from the outside like the BMW vehicles are. The electrical plug used to come off on the earlier vehicles as it wasn't secured enough, (later ones have a better retaining clip apparently) Also the sensor will just fail randomly and to remove the sensor the front diff has to be taken out to get to the the sump. Who comes up with this stuff? No wonder its hard to get mechanics that want to work on these cars. Now lets not talk about cranks snapping and plastic inlets cracking as well as oil leaks. Yes all modern cars are complex but Land Rover has been topping the list of most unreliable cars constantly for the last few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by spudfan
The modern Land Rovers are great to drive but there is always a thought, Whats going to go wrong next and how much is this going to cost.
The new Defenders are bought largely by people who would never have considered an old Defender. (obviously there are exceptions) In addition a large percentage are to people who have never owned a Land Rover product. People who have the money to buy a new Defender will probably not own it more than 5 years or so anyway.
Totally. The source of much of my disgruntlement with LR.Quote:
Originally Posted by rar110
Why they let their heritage, values and identity slip away is beyond me. How about splitting the range into versions for passenger vs commercial use? The financial viability for the commercial version might not have been strong, but they would’ve made an awesome car, probably justifiable as a ‘hero’ product.
And it’s principle benefit would’ve been in allowing them to continue - credibly - to stake claims connecting them to the past, exploring, working, conquering, etc. Which would’ve sold more disco’s, RR’s, …
The D1 is probably one example of engineers and bean counters working together to produce a good result. I can’t think of another.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
JLR could have easily taken some of the engineering from a L319/320/322 and fitted it to a re-engineered ladder or IBF setup, even with IFS/beam rear, 6HP/Magna Steyr, terrain response etc. Maybe with a M57 or Ford territory 2.7 tdv6. Anyway didnt happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deefa
Well Land Rover also involved the marketing department when it developed the Range Rover ....the rest is history. Look at the current line up!Quote:
Originally Posted by rar110
The D1 was a working man's Rangie being built on its platform.
Just maybe the new Defender is a descendant?
Any way back to the Grenadier.....
I am really hoping the Grenadier is a success, including its claim of open source / DIY repair ability. Whether this is a realistic claim or just marketing fluff, too early to tell.
But it’s the one significant thing I like about my D2 - most common points of failure can be repaired in the field by the owner.
…. typing this at the moment, 1900km from home on Fraser Island touch wood!!