Defender's future

Thoughts on the G Wagons looks aside.....isn't that the concept you would want?

I assume it has a shared chassis through the range (except for specialty vehicles) and all that happens is that there are a stack of options that get added and subtracted.

So you can go from a bog standard Military 'truck' through to something more Lux.

Isn't that what Merc are doing? If so why can't LR do the same.

Something new but Defender'ish at the low end and something Disco'ish at the other. Make all models very capable and just option performance enhancements and Lux components.........

Maybe I'm missing something? :confused:

How much is a standard G Wagon worth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

We need to get off this "Defender" sentimentality. The Defender models have only been around since the late 1980's and the basic bodies were designed for the Series II first built in 1958, well before there were welding robots.

The Defender body has too litle shoulder space for the front seat drivers and insufficient leg room and head room for people much over 5'8".

I guess the best we can hope for is a Defender replacement, designed and engineered in the UK with some production happening in either India or China for price competitiveness. Not discounting the poor quality of the Tata in Timor Leste, but quality control is something that can be improved something that the 53 year old design deficient Defender body can not.

---

My ultimate defender will be an old one with 4bd1, High capacity back with flares and widened rear axle, and body widened to match the high capacity back then flares back on and wider front axle. Have done the wider running gear but not the wider body yet.

Funny the military widened the pirentie too. First widened ones ran doors that shut at an anlge....then later they widened the front too.


I personaly would try to capture the nature of the old vehicle but with a complete re-design applying modern materials technology and assembly techniques.

Brimabright and rivets was cutting edge airo technology in the 40s but times have moved on.



Things to keep for me are....
1. unitary construction for the back half

2. ladder frame chassis (dont downgrade it much)

3. Long travel, simple, supple suspension

4. good low range

5. frugal diesels(preff small truck, maybe where to source the transfer and gearbox too)

Keep the box, its easy to widen, iconic, and practical, in moderate headwinds :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by popemobile

My ultimate defender will be an old one with 4bd1, High capacity back with flares and widened rear axle, and body widened to match the high capacity back then flares back on and wider front axle. Have done the wider running gear but not the wider body yet.
<snip>
I personaly would try to capture the nature of the old vehicle but with a complete re-design applying modern materials technology and assembly techniques.
<snip>
Things to keep for me are....
1. unitary construction for the back half

2. ladder frame chassis (dont downgrade it much)

3. Long travel, simple, supple suspension

4. good low range

5. frugal diesels(preff small truck, maybe where to source the transfer and gearbox too)

Keep the box, its easy to widen, iconic, and practical, in moderate headwinds :)

---

Have to agree with you, I like the idea of a wide body, but don't think the wider track suits the Aussie bush yet.

The guys building the close coupled Isuzu boxes to the LT230 behind the Isuzu diesels is a great idea and Tata do bigger trucks so hopefully, while not a 4BD1 a more modern equivalent Tata engine may work, maybe.

I have to agree, certainly in the sense that one of the major drawbacks of the Defender is that its bsic dimensions were set in 1958, or possibly 1955. And they were based on the dimensions of poms who had been half starved through the depression, war and post war rationing - even poms are now significantly bigger, and Australians have always been, and are more so.

Problem is, add a few inches here and there, and the weight can climb alarmingly, meaning more power needed, which needs more weight to produce it, more weight to support it, more power needed ...... Very skilful design and hard decisions needed.

But I doubt very much whether this is what we will get.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Problem is, add a few inches here and there, and the weight can climb alarmingly, meaning more power needed, which needs more weight to produce it, more weight to support it, more power needed ...... Very skilful design and hard decisions needed.

---

Given that the D3/D4 is horrendously obese at ~2.8 Tonnes, I doubt Landrover care about that.

I also suspect that if the defender is replaced it will be (as suggested) by a vehicle based on the D3/4/RR Platform/chassis.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Which would be fairly easy, as the driveline has been done...

However a vehicle that needs the body removed to do basic repairs will never be a serious offroader. That said though, a disco-based defender with 35's, beefed up axles and CVs, decent ground clearance and a TDV6 would be quite nice though.

I would do a personal import of a G-Wagen Professional before I would buy a land rover with independant suspension personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

<snip>
I would do a personal import of a G-Wagen Professional before I would buy a Land Rover with independent suspension personally.

---

Have to agree with the commercial load carrying abilities of independent suspension. While coils and airbag suspension are good for ride, the single point load carrying design requires additional reinforcement (& extra weight) in the rear. It is the reason that almost every other 1 tonner or 4WD ute out there has a beam axle carried on leaf springs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Haver to agree with the commercial load carrying abilities of independent suspension. While coils and airbag suspension are good for ride, the single point load carrying design requires additional reinforcement (& extra weight) in the rear. It is the reason that almost every other 1 tonner or 4WD ute out there has a beam axle carried on leaf springs.

---

??? The G-wagens, defenders and (most) nissan patrol utes all have coils. They all manage to reinforce the chassis sufficiently to carry loads with relatively few reported failures. EDIT - as do the unimogs - one coil per corner and in most cases only a single torque tube and panhard rod per axle to distribute lateral/horizontal loads.

My dislike of independant systems on serious 4x4s is due to the 6 extra CV joints to fail, 8 extra CV boots to damage, and countless extra bushes, ball joints and (usually weaker) suspension/steering links.

There are many reports of front diff failures on IFS vahicles (including land rovers). There are also a few reports of D3s/4s stranded offroad because of broken CVs.

Chassis failures on Defender 130 are well known. Even a Land Rover recall on the chassis in 2009.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/technical-...-cracking.html

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/90-110-130...ures-130s.html

Land Rover chassis recall | News | Vertikal.net

Even Nissan offer a leaf spring option on their current Patrol cab chassis for: "the load carrying ability of leaf springs in the rear." http://www.nissan.com.au/webpages/mo.../specification

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Chassis failures on Defender 130 are well known. Even a Land Rover recall on the chassis in 2009.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/technical-...-cracking.html

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/90-110-130...ures-130s.html

Land Rover chassis recall | News | Vertikal.net

Even Nissan offer a leaf spring option on their current cab chassis for: "the load carrying ability of leaf springs in the rear." Nissan Patrol Cab Chassis Ute: Offers, Deals, Prices - Nissan Australia

---

Excluding Land Rover's cobled together 130 chassis...

How many 110 chassis have failed?
How many unimog and g-wagen chassis?
How many patrol chassis?

Sure, leaves offer improved load distribution, but IMHO for an overland/touring vehicle that is outweighed by the rough ride. For a workhorse, then they still have their advantages.

The leaf patrol has 124kg extra payload capacity over the 1.171 Tonnes which the (base) coil model ute has. Hardly a big difference, and probably the result of nissan doing FEA on both chassis.