Defender's future

Defender "Puma" 110 Wagon - 2050kg* (*Unladen Mass=The mass of vehicle with additional features, No Driver, 10 Litres Fuel, Spare Wheel and Tools)

Discovery 4 - TDV6 2.7L - 2486kg* (*EEC kerb includes all fluids, tools, spare and 75kg driver)


Therefore:

Defender + Balance of fuel + 'spec' driver = 2050+65+75 = 2190kg
or
Discovery 4 -72 litres of fuel (at ~1 sg)- 75kg driver = 2339kg


Considering all the extras in the D4, thats not a lot of mass...

My Defender was 2800kg in touring form, sans driver and 1/2 tank fuel...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

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.
...

---

John

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, while not currently arguing the date of the Patent (I still believe it was 1937 or 1939, but so have not been able to find my printed copies of the patent) the 1595cc IOE engine was used in the Rover P4 car only built in 1948 and 1949*, in fact the initial Land Rover pre-production models used car engines still with the oil fliud level sensor units in the sump. These proved unsatisfactory and were removed from Land Rover with the hole blanked by a plate.

Diana

* Remember the 1948 Land Rover only went into production in mid 1948 and a large proportion of 1948 models were actually built in 1949, unlike all the models from 1950.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

John

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, while not currently arguing the date of the Patent (I still believe it was 1937 or 1939, but so have not been able to find my printed copies of the patent) the 1595cc IOE engine was used in the Rover P4 car only built in 1948 and 1949*, in fact the initial Land Rover pre-production models used car engines still with the oil fliud level sensor units in the sump. These proved unsatisfactory and were removed from Land Rover with the hole blanked by a plate.

Diana

* Remember the 1948 Land Rover only went into production in mid 1948 and a large proportion of 1948 models were actually built in 1949, unlike all the models from 1950.

---

There is a photostat of the patent in John Smith's book, showing the date. OK, it was fitted to another car before the Land Rover, but only to one that was contemporary with it. It is quite clearly misleading to talk as if it was a prewar engine - certainly design work started on it before the war, but compared to most engines in production anywhere in 1948, it was a new engine. (And, surprisingly, since it was designed for a totally different type of vehicle, quite a good engine in the Series 1.)

To put it in perspective, in 1948, Ford's flagship vehicles sported an engine design from 1932, Chevrolet (and Holden) one from 1914, Willys from the mid thirties, Austin a truck engine design from about 1940, Citroen 1932, VW mid thirties; Rolls Royce had a new engine design (also IOE). (All dates first production of the basic engine)

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

Defender "Puma" 110 Wagon - 2050kg* (*Unladen Mass=The mass of vehicle with additional features, No Driver, 10 Litres Fuel, Spare Wheel and Tools)

Discovery 4 - TDV6 2.7L - 2486kg* (*EEC kerb includes all fluids, tools, spare and 75kg driver)


Therefore:

Defender + Balance of fuel + 'spec' driver = 2050+65+75 = 2190kg
or
Discovery 4 -72 litres of fuel (at ~1 sg)- 75kg driver = 2339kg


Considering all the extras in the D4, thats not a lot of mass...

My Defender was 2800kg in touring form, sans driver and 1/2 tank fuel...

---

Not much of an improvement in basic vehicle weight efficiency either considering the basic design of the Defender is sixty years old and that of the D4 about ten. As you point out the weights are pretty much the same.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Not much of an improvement in basic vehicle weight efficiency either considering the basic design of the Defender is sixty years old and that of the D4 about ten. As you point out the weights are pretty much the same.

John

---

Indeed. IRC the county is ~1870kg unladen despite the heavy isuzu and salisbury.

The 110 chassis is a 1983 design with minimal improvements and weight saving modifications since.

The D3/4/rrs on the other hand would have been completely designed and optimised using cad/FEA packages.

EDIT - however the g-wagen professional (5 door wagon) is no lightweight either at ~2480 kg kerb weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Not much of an improvement in basic vehicle weight efficiency either considering the basic design of the Defender is sixty years old and that of the D4 about ten. As you point out the weights are pretty much the same.

John

---

Maybe I'm missing something....

D4 is mostly steel, is longer, wider and higher than a Defender and has a chassis like huge chunks of RSJ.

It has a ton of sound proofing and glass, a very advanced traction control system, Dynamic Stability Control, Hill Descent Control, Trailer Stability Control...etc, etc, etc....as well as a lot more gadjets and luxury finishings than a Defender.....it all comes at a cost in weight.

I believe Tombie's point is...considering how much stuff a D4 has in it, it hasn't really gained a lot of weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtoid

Maybe I'm missing something....

D4 is mostly steel, is longer, wider and higher than a Defender and has a chassis like huge chunks of RSJ.

It has a ton of sound proofing and glass, a very advanced traction control system, Dynamic Stability Control, Hill Descent Control, Trailer Stability Control...etc, etc, etc....as well as a lot more gadjets and luxury finishings than a Defender.....it all comes at a cost in weight.

I believe Tombie's point is...considering how much stuff a D4 has in it, it hasn't really gained a lot of weight.

---

:D You have obviously never had to park a defender in an undercover carpark... The specs I have have the defender at almost 200 mm higher than a D4 - but I don't know what suspension height on the D4 that is. You are right that the D4 is wider and very slightly longer (than a 110).

Most of the 110 panels are steel these days - bonnet, doors (roof?). They also have the bolded items above.

I think JDs point is that the D4 shape, chassis and suspension has 25 years development on the Defender. So despite all the extra widgets should have been better optimised wrt weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isuzurover

:D You have obviously never had to park a defender in an undercover carpark... The specs I have have the defender at almost 200 mm higher than a D4 - but I don't know what suspension height on the D4 that is. You are right that the D4 is wider and very slightly longer (than a 110).

Most of the 110 panels are steel these days - bonnet, doors (roof?). They also have the bolded items above.

I think JDs point is that the D4 shape, chassis and suspension has 25 years development on the Defender. So despite all the extra widgets should have been better optimised wrt weight.

---

The D4 height is measured with the suspension set at normal....which is sort of irrelevant, as I'm talking about the body size...as in how much steel and glass is in it.....thus the weight :). I think there is more in a Disco 4 than Deefer.

I knew you were going to jump on the TC....that's why I wrote advanced.....LOL... You get the jist though, the D4 has a lot more gear....more gear, more weight.

I'm not arguing (or defending) about the point that a D4 could have been made lighter, but considering all the marques large 4WDs are bloody heavy, I'd guess there is a reason...a common thread.

High tech materials come at a price....price versus weight (not that they are cheap either...another arguement...LOL) but I guess the manufacturers bank on the fact that people will live with the weight more than they would with an even more expensive product.

But as I've been saying all along, the new Defender/Disco (whatever they call it), should be highly configurable....take all the stuff off and it would be a lot lighter and cheaper......add on what you want....and pay the price in both weight and $

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:

---

Yeh,back in 1970 normal vehicles had AM radio's as optional extra's where's the Range Rover had a lightwieght V8,constant 4wd,coil springs,power steering,the best ride this side of a Rolls Royce and were that far ahead 40 years ago that today many popular 4wd's still can't go as far offroad or ride as good.Yep,LR they really didn't do anything.;) Pat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtoid

Maybe I'm missing something....

D4 is mostly steel, is longer, wider and higher than a Defender and has a chassis like huge chunks of RSJ.

---

I'm not sure which chassis is supposed to be "huge chunks of RSJ" Defender or D4? :confused:

On the other point, you would be surprised how little difference there is between the running gear dimensions of the Defender and D4. The Defer has a track of 1486mm (wider for the early TDi130 because of the wider offset of the rims) while the D4 is 1605mm (yes that is 119mm or about 4 1/2") but the Defender is about 5" wider track than the Series II/III Land Rover.

The wheelbase differences are even closer, the 110 is only 3.58" shorter in wheelbase than the D4.