Defender's future

i reckon the new defender will be carbon fibre to live with tradition of using a new material will have a 1.4 twin turbo diesal and be totally electronic controlled but with rtv added to the joints for water proofing, will be wide enough to fit though a farmers gate and tall enough to not quite fit into westfields.
to keep the trad happy it will have a new leaf sprung air bag system so it can polp on the floor to fit waitrose (posh supermarket) and get up high for crusing hollywood, of course will be true monoque body and chassis so that it has no doors therefore it will be built around the owner were they will live in total bliss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddymech

i reckon the new defender will be carbon fibre to live with tradition of using a new material will have a 1.4 twin turbo diesal and be totally electronic controlled but with rtv added to the joints for water proofing, will be wide enough to fit though a farmers gate and tall enough to not quite fit into westfields.
to keep the trad happy it will have a new leaf sprung air bag system so it can polp on the floor to fit waitrose (posh supermarket) and get up high for crusing hollywood, of course will be true monoque body and chassis so that it has no doors therefore it will be built around the owner were they will live in total bliss.

---

And it will have such large brakes,it will run on 19" rims,for those who want to do seroius off road work..........;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scarry

And it will have such large brakes,it will run on 19" rims,for those who want to do seroius off road work..........;)

---

You can also get 33" rims now, but have to swap to Hummer PCD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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.

http://carsunder500.co.uk/wp-content...8232545650.jpg

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.

---

Come on lads, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story....LOL!!!

~ 2.5 Tons is the correct weight....which is still bloody heavy.

But what have you read/heard about body removals to do "Basic Repairs"? All I've heard is body off for turbocharger and engine replacements....replacements, not fixes! Not what I'd call basic repairs and most folks wouldn't be doing them in the middle of nowhere. And I haven't actually heard of the turbo issue stopping tha car from running either, so it could smoke, fart and cough itself to somewhere (most of them haven't really affected the driveability...they just need fixed at some point).

I expect most folks would consider a blown engine as requiring a recovery in any vehicle...and I've only read about a few of these occurring and only in older D3s and RRS. However, in theory (like any vehicle) you could probably rebuild a D3/4/RRS engine in the scrub I suppose..if it was the end of the world and you had to.....as you could a Defender ..if you had the know how, parts and tools. ...except I don't think you can readily get engine rebuild parts in Australia for D3/4/RRS' anyway....LOL.....but that's another LR story!

Obviously the Defender and some other trucks would be easier to repair out bush but my point is, you're highly unlikely and I suggest unlucky, to ever get to the point where you'd have the need for a body off repair in the middle of nowhere.


Cheers,

Kev.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtoid

~ 2.5 Tons is the correct weight....which is still bloody heavy.

---

Redbook Kerb weights vary from ~2500 to 2810 kg for the D3/D4/RR (diesel HSE rangie is heaviest). Either way, about 0.5T more weight than it should have.

Quote:

---

But what have you read/heard about body removals to do "Basic Repairs"? All I've heard is body off for turbocharger and engine replacements....replacements, not fixes! Not what I'd call basic repairs and most folks wouldn't be doing them in the middle of nowhere. And I haven't actually heard of the turbo issue stopping tha car from running either, so it could smoke, fart and cough itself to somewhere (most of them haven't really affected the driveability...they just need fixed at some point).

I expect most folks would consider a blown engine as requiring a recovery in any vehicle...and I've only read about a few of these occurring and only in older D3s and RRS. However, in theory (like any vehicle) you could probably rebuild a D3/4/RRS engine in the scrub I suppose..if it was the end of the world and you had to.....as you could a Defender ..if you had the know how, parts and tools. ...except I don't think you can readily get engine rebuild parts in Australia for D3/4/RRS' anyway....LOL.....but that's another LR story!

Obviously the Defender and some other trucks would be easier to repair out bush but my point is, you're highly unlikely and I suggest unlucky, to ever get to the point where you'd have the need for a body off repair in the middle of nowhere.


Cheers,

Kev.

---

There was a thread recently (posted by Ron?) Which showed photos of removing the body. Somewhere in there it stated that for most repairs it is easier to remove the body.

On older landrover models, replacing the turbocharger would take 1-2 hours. However I agree that most would consider that a major repair, and you may be able to limp along with a dead turbo - depending what had failed.

The parts availability issues are another reason why I wouldn't use a new LR/RR for touring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddymech

i reckon the new defender will be carbon fibre to live with tradition of using a new material will have a 1.4 twin turbo diesal and be totally electronic controlled but with rtv added to the joints for water proofing, will be wide enough to fit though a farmers gate and tall enough to not quite fit into westfields.
to keep the trad happy it will have a new leaf sprung air bag system so it can polp on the floor to fit waitrose (posh supermarket) and get up high for crusing hollywood, of course will be true monoque body and chassis so that it has no doors therefore it will be built around the owner were they will live in total bliss.

---

Actually considering that Rover Co. couldn't get the Frank Whittle jet engine into production, used aluminium in the 1948 model because it was war service scrap and would have preferred to use steel had they been able to get sufficient supplies. They used a 10 year old pre-war design engine coupled to a pre-war design gearbox and designed the Land Rover on the exact specifications of the WWII Jeep (including prototyping it on an actual Jeep chassis), their record of innovation started off on very shaky ground The Range Rover used an engine design dumped by Buick and GM, subsequent engines and gearboxes, including the Puma and LT77/R380 are hand me downs from other manufacturers leading one to the notion that Land Rover innovation is a lot of myth and advertising hype.

The next Land Rover Defender may actually be made of recycled cardboard and an old boots! :twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Actually considering that Rover Co. couldn't get the Frank Whittle jet engine into production, used aluminium in the 1948 model because it was war service scrap and would have preferred to use steel had they been able to get sufficient supplies. They used a 10 year old pre-war design engine coupled to a pre-war design gearbox and designed the Land Rover on the exact specifications of the WWII Jeep (including prototyping it on an actual Jeep chassis), their record of innovation started off on very shaky ground The Range Rover used an engine design dumped by Buick and GM, subsequent engines and gearboxes, including the Puma and LT77/R380 are hand me downs from other manufacturers leading one to the notion that Land Rover innovation is a lot of myth and advertising hype.

The next Land Rover Defender may actually be made of recycled cardboard and an old boots! :twisted:

---

I thought you were going to day the next defender would be plagiarised from a 10 year old jeep design (only with reduced engine capacity) and have a body made from recycled i-phones...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

I thought you were going to day the next defender would be plagiarised from a 10 year old jeep design (only with reduced engine capacity) and have a body made from recycled i-phones...

---

Hadn't thought of that but I hear that old iPhones are one of the greatest sources of recycled gold, something far too expensive for Tata to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

Redbook Kerb weights vary from ~2500 to 2810 kg for the D3/D4/RR (diesel HSE rangie is heaviest). Either way, about 0.5T more weight than it should have.




There was a thread recently (posted by Ron?) Which showed photos of removing the body. Somewhere in there it stated that for most repairs it is easier to remove the body.

On older landrover models, replacing the turbocharger would take 1-2 hours. However I agree that most would consider that a major repair, and you may be able to limp along with a dead turbo - depending what had failed.

The parts availability issues are another reason why I wouldn't use a new LR/RR for touring.

---

Yup, agreed, it's a heavy beast alright, although the LR site quotes ~ 2.5 with fuel and no occupants....splitting hairs really, it's heavy :) However, that was the original point of one of my posts on this thread, make the vehicle highly configurable...save a lot of weight by opting not to have a lot of the Lux items.

To Ron's point...fixing all sorts of issues is easier with the body off, as it would be with most cars..specially as the D3/4/RRS was designed to be split with 'relative' ease..you just don't NEED to except for some more major jobs. I don't think he was suggesting that there would be a plethora of failures that would stop a D3/4/RRS running that you couldn't fix without popping the body.

I haven't read of or heard of the turbo's actually blowing up or stopping working....for the 3.0L D4 it's supposedly a bad batch (on the first build or so...I think?) that just start leaking oil. I imagine they would die at some point but unlikely to go from nothing wrong to not working at all, on any sort of trip, as it happens over time. I believe the symptoms are pretty bad and obvious when the turbos get pretty ill....but still working all the same. I believe you'd have to be pretty lax on your regular maintenance checks to not pick it up.

Yeah, parts can be an issue for sure....production requirements outweighing spare parts in some cases and in others, economics of getting parts to Oz....in other words LR will ship larger assemblies - Long Engine Vs Short....stupid stuff like that! However, I don't believe it's entirely unique to LR and is definately getting better. I've noticed the turnaround on parts has improved heaps from when I first got my car in Jan 2010 till now....so it should be on the improve. In fact, my D4 is currently getting a turbo changed and all the parts were available within Oz. Many on this site have also found the internet a great way to improve, cheapen the cost and speed up spare parts availability.

You hear woeful stories of other brands...mainly European.....people waiting for months for parts to get their car back on the road. It's all part of the problem being in Oz, when the car is relatively rare and new. In 10 years time, there will be heaps of D3/4/RRS parts and I imagine a shed load cheaper than now. It sucks but that's the way it is thus far.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

........ They used a 10 year old pre-war design engine .........

---

Not quite - the patent on the engine IOE design is dated 1942 - from then to 1948 to see production is hardly a ten year span, particularly since the war did not finish until 1945. There were no (production) cars fitted with this engine prior to the Landrover, although a smaller capacity engine was, I think used a year or so earlier in a sedan. It was not a ten year old engine; Landrover was the first major use for the engine.

But you are right about their innovation - Rover did as little innovation as possible, using the Bantam designed Jeep as their guide, and most design decisions being heavily constrained by circumstances, such as steel rationing and the need to minimise tooling costs and time to production. Probably the major significant innovation was the welded ladder chassis.

John