Thread: RIP Defender....

Originally Posted by steane

Progress is a good thing and there is no doubt that many modern vehicles are better in a multitude of ways when compared to a defender. New vehicles are safer, easy to drive, mostly comfortable and perform their intended function efficiently.

But modern efficiency doesn't excite me.

I sold a modern 4wd to buy my 300tdi defender. Not because I think it is more capable but because I wanted to drive again. I get to drive most of the new vehicles on the market, incl the D4 and I can tell you the modern vehicle is pretty impressive on lots of levels but they are also amazingly bland to operate and own.

You don't drive them anymore and there is no adventure left behind the wheel. In lots of ways they are all the same and feel the same. This is something that a collegue also struggles with and he also prefers an older vehicle for his daily drive.

I've been on the new car treadmill as well. Buy one, think its the best thing for a year or three and then trade on the next best thing to come along. In reality I was bored and missing a car that needed to be driven.

The defender is the only vehicle I've owned for many years that is a real driving experience. Yes it's underpowered, yes its noisy, yes it's slow but it needs me to drive it, it's involving and every drive puts a smile on my face. And honestly, I just love the way it looks and feels. No other 4wd is as character laden as the defender.

I dont care what LR do with the next Defender. If there Is a new one, it will be modern and competant, that's just the modern reality. I might even buy one for my wife and trade it a few years later as you do. It will be the keys to the 19 year old defender that will hold the most appeal.

You realise that the 200/300tdi was "modern efficiency"? It was one of the first direct injection turbo diesels in a useful vehicle.
That was landrover breaking the mould and making bold new steps. They did it again with the TD5.
Toyota and Nissan didn't. Their vehicles in many situations were using ~50% more fuel to do the same job.

I bought a new (to me) car last year, tried to get a brand new one but couldn't get the spec so I got a 3 year old one that was the spec.
It's 4wd, turbo diesel, manual.
Does 1000km on a 60L tank.
Corners like it shouldn't.
Rides very well.
26,000km between oil changes.
Put simply I rate it higher than damn near anything else I've driven.

A family member bought a RRS.
Same deal. Just newer, the fuel tank is bigger and it's automatic.

Honestly if you see cars as boring appliances, you're probably buying the wrong ones.
A toyota camry is an appliance.

I would love to own a defender, the wife would too. but they just don't fit what I need and use vehicles for. The rangerovers actually do. Even the Evoque ticks the list for possible replacement of the next work car.

Originally Posted by goingbush

whats the world coming to

plenty of "Taboo's" I'd indulge in before makeup
hell I wont even wear sunscreen,

Refusing to wear sunscreen (unless you were highly allergic to it) is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. How's that skin cancer treating you?

Every Summer I head to the bog and take home turf (peat) using the Land Rover and trailer. Everyone else uses a tractor and trailer. The owner of an ISUZU maindealer ship pays to have his brought home by someone in a tractor and trailer. I have known the owner well for many tears. He always had new and used ISUZU 4wd's in the garage. I asked him why he did'nt take one, hitch it to a trailer and take his own turf home. All he did was smile and say that "It's rough down there."Also he never once asked me to test drive one of his vehicles or tried to get me to change.
I've never driven an Isuzu but they are supposed to be fine vehicles.
I knew of a Mitsubishi Pajero sitting up with engine trouble. It sat as the owner said it was too expensive to have repaired.
I know of many Land Rovers that have had various things rebuilt and no one ever said that it was too expensive and not worth doing.
The current basic Defender may lack a lot of stuff like locking diffs or outright power that others have but you pay a lot more for the other vehicles with this as standard.You can have a basic Defender and pay to have other things fitted and still come in cheaper than other vehicles.
When I was buying my first car ever in 1990, it was a 90 turbo diesel, I phoned up a maindealer asked the price of various parts and how much to have them fitted. I did the same with other makes and the Land Rover came in cheapest.
A Defender is cramped and uncomfortable only compared to other cars. As I have never owned any other car and my wife has never driven anything other than a 110 we are happy with the Defender. In it's present Puma form it is a wonderful car for every day use.
Defining basic varies from person to person. To me "basic" did not include remote central locking and in earlier tdi days I scoffed at such things. However our Puma came with remote central locking and my wife found it an asset because we have a child with special needs. My wife could now unlock the vehicle without letting go of our daughter's hand. Might not seem like much but if you have been there you'll appreciate it.Also the second row passenger seats are just the right height for lifting a child into and out of a vehicle - no stooping. Again only appreciated if relevant to you.
The way things are going legislation wise it might not be possible in future to change and adapt a vehicle from factory spec. once you by it. Maybe Land Rover see that coming so are not figuring an easily adaptable platform into their plans.
I like the Defender and it does not bother me that it does not have ABS, side intrusion bars or airbags but it does seem to bother someone in Brussels who probably never drove one. It's a bit odd the Defender will have to comply with pedestrian safety impact laws when other vehicles like vans, trucks and the ambulances up the road don't.
I suppose it will depend where Land Rover see the future market for the Defender that will determine it's final spec. Somehow I don't see a vehicle for the third world cutting it with Land Rover. If they can't get a decent dealer network in Australia how expensive would it be to set up and maintain a good dealer network and spare parts distribution set up in a developing country with a low margin, profit wise, vehicle?
The Defender may not be perfect but if like me you accept it for what it is, it is a wonderful vehicle. Then again I don't live in the back of beyond where a breakdown could be catastrophic.That Pajero I mentioned earlier was not in the back of beyond and it was deemed too expensive to repair.
People seem to expect new cars to have stuff like sat nav fitted as standard - me, I don't even own a mobile phone. How many cars have you seen with those television screen things strapped to headrests for kids to watch? Yes people expect a lot these days - even in basic spec. To develope a true workhorse vehicle on it's own may not be in Land Rover's sights but they may "adapt" a high selling premium selling vehicle for the work type market. This is the complete opposite as to how Land Rover did things in the past. Remember how the "COUNTY" was developed from the basic range. Should they go the route of developing the "replacement" as a big selling, high profit margin premium brand, trying to adapt it to the "utility" market will be a compromise.
Anyway we can but wait and see what transpires and I'll continue to enjoy what I have.

Originally Posted by Tombie

You mean as in do the same amount of work, but in 20 years will still have a working back?

Only people I know as grumpy as this are old Stokers....

The only old grumpy stokers I know are ****ed off because the young o/d's just don't get it. The old TIFFIES, however..... Bob

Originally Posted by bob10

The only old grumpy stokers I know are ****ed off because the young o/d's just don't get it. The old TIFFIES, however..... Bob

I was a Birdie rate Bob

Originally Posted by Tombie

I was a Birdie rate Bob

Off topic , but did you know Skinhead Kelson? Bob

...from the UK Telegraph.

Land Rover: the end of a legend - Telegraph

Regardless of what lies in the future,
The only thing that concerns me is will I be told that I can not drive my 30 year old Land Rover because it does not conform to the standards required of today's vehicles.

Mocky.

Wow, what a stupid company. So when you want a workhorse, soon it'll be only a Toyota, or a Nissan, or a Ford, or a blah blah blah whatever. Too bad they never really bothered advertising the things or having more than a handful of dealers here. I bet if this modern Land Rover Ltd were farmers, they'd never water or fertilise the orchard they'd inherited and then wonder why nothing ever grew.