D3, it's great but is it true sales have been disappointing?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamo
Well, when my compressor stopped working, the car lowered itself to Normal Height and locked out the TR and height adjustment. The car was still driveable, ground clearance was lower than I'd have liked but the belly plates were strong enough to take a little scraping. It seemed that its 'failsafe' position was to leave me with a driveable vehicle.

---

I don't see why the compressor would lock out TR. And the air suspension should be inflatable by other means. I wouldn't like to be deep in the High Country with a D3 at Normal. I'd like to have a part in the decisions about what gets shut down, not just the computer. Same way as I'd like to decide when to lock the centre diff.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rmp

I don't see why the compressor would lock out TR. And the air suspension should be inflatable by other means. I wouldn't like to be deep in the High Country with a D3 at Normal. I'd like to have a part in the decisions about what gets shut down, not just the computer. Same way as I'd like to decide when to lock the centre diff.

---

I don't know why it did it either, but when I rang LR they said that that was normal for a compressor fault. I suppose the vehicle is trying to restrict itself.

As to inflation by other means, thats why when I take it Perth on Friday to get the compressor changed, I'm going to watch so I can see where it is and how it's connected. That way I'v got a chance of replacing it myself or linking in my portable compressor to raise the suspension in an emergency.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rmp+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rmp)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-spudboy
RMP: I did think of a 78 series, but only 2 doors acrss the whole model range.

The thing that gets me, is that Land Rover's reputation has been built on tough go anywhere simple vehicles, and they are throwing it away.

---

They don't see money in that line of business. They *do* see money in the likes of the D3 and that brand reputation. It's at least intentional, even if from our perspective it's regrettable. However I'm all for development of electronic aids, but strictly in a "graceful dedgradation" mode, ie something can fail and it reduces the car's capability, not completely immobilises it.
cheers,[/b][/quote]

rmp - this is the bit where I start scratching my head.

For decades this segment (rural/mining/military) has been LR's staple in virtually all the markets around the world (Europe, Africa, Australia etc).

How many premium specialist 4WD manufacturers are there in the world....none and it is for a good reason. In fact there are only two specialist 4WD manufacturers (Jeep & LR) and Jeep does not confine itself to any one portion of the 4WD market.

The cost structures facing Defender are certainly not favourable against the 79 Series, Patrol and company, but that just increases the urgency to develop a more cost effective replacement or move production to a more favourable location. 2008 for the Defender replacement is ridiculous...what will have been the product development timeframe on that? 10 years +??

You cannot help but think Ford want LR out of the lower end, plunder their intellectual property (as BMW did) and assign LR to play in the smallest sand pit in town.

Just some thoughts.

Spudboy, i dont think they are throwing their reputation away, all of the mags have said the drive train of the D3 is over engineered, and the most Land Rover hating mag of them all, 4wd Monthly, said it was more off road tough than the cruiser and patrol. After spending the day off road with one on saturday, and seeing two rangies and 3 discos make it up tracks with some effort (i.e rock flicking, backing up to change direction etc) and then see Peter from Trivett pick lines the discos and the rangies couldnt get up and then do it without slipping a wheel i think Land Rover has gotten serious about off road ability, but gotten serious about the on road ability at the same time. Something that the other manufacturers simply cant do. Yes the electronics are a problem, but we all thought traction control was bad years ago, but its standard feature on nearly all 4wds, christ even the fender has it now. Yes they will cause problems, but by no means is the reputation of Land Rover as a serious off roader being thrown away. The RRS is another top example, it is supposed to be a sports car, yet it goes more places off road than some supposedly tough 4wds. Matt

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Noddy+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noddy)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rmp@
<!--QuoteBegin-spudboy

---

Quote:

---

RMP: I did think of a 78 series, but only 2 doors acrss the whole model range.

The thing that gets me, is that Land Rover's reputation has been built on tough go anywhere simple vehicles, and they are throwing it away.

---

They don't see money in that line of business. They *do* see money in the likes of the D3 and that brand reputation. It's at least intentional, even if from our perspective it's regrettable. However I'm all for development of electronic aids, but strictly in a "graceful dedgradation" mode, ie something can fail and it reduces the car's capability, not completely immobilises it.
cheers,

---

rmp - this is the bit where I start scratching my head.

For decades this segment (rural/mining/military) has been LR's staple in virtually all the markets around the world (Europe, Africa, Australia etc).

How many premium specialist 4WD manufacturers are there in the world....none and it is for a good reason. In fact there are only two specialist 4WD manufacturers (Jeep & LR) and Jeep does not confine itself to any one portion of the 4WD market.

The cost structures facing Defender are certainly not favourable against the 79 Series, Patrol and company, but that just increases the urgency to develop a more cost effective replacement or move production to a more favourable location. 2008 for the Defender replacement is ridiculous...what will have been the product development timeframe on that? 10 years +??

You cannot help but think Ford want LR out of the lower end, plunder their intellectual property (as BMW did) and assign LR to play in the smallest sand pit in town.

Just some thoughts.[/b][/quote]

Landrover's place in the Ford empire is quite simple, and it's as a premium brand. By definition that's low volume. You'll not see a Landrover model to compete with the Territory, for example, which is breeding like a rabbit on Viagra.

Landrover products will be more advanced, refined and desirable than Ford equivalents, and Landrover will retain its strong 4WD credentials. Landrover will be associated with celebrities, international athletes like the G4 Challenge crew, advanced technology, adventure, premium, high end of town, advanced, exclusive.....you get the idea. The RRS is specifically designed to say "I've made it in the world". Doesn't work? What about BMW?

Volvo is also part of Ford's PAG, or Preimer Auto Group. Compared to Ford branded vehicles their cars are safer, more expensive, luxurious, play on the Volvo brand. Jaguar is another PAG member and similar sort of deal except they're even further upmarket and have a sporting bent to their vehicles, something Volvo certainly doesn't have.

So you have to see Landrover not as Landrover but as a part of PAG and that within Ford to understand their brand strategy, which makes a lot of sense to me.

Doesn't stop me moaning about unbushable 4WDs, but I at least understand the strategy which is about shareholder value.

Ford have decided not to play in the mass-market military, because that's not what they do. Hence, no LR push.

AFAIK.

I understand, and completely agree with what you are saying. However Ford need to understand the Land Rover is a unique following, and whilst many of the enthusiasts like you and i rarely buy a new vehicle, we do keep the brand alive, thats why over 70% of all rovers are still on the road today. I have no problem with the path land rover is taking, i think its good, but they need to maintain the defender as a no frills hard working bushable vehicle, because in that market they have the monopoly, no one else really does it. Matt

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ace
I understand, and completely agree with what you are saying. However Ford need to understand the Land Rover is a unique following, and whilst many of the enthusiasts like you and i rarely buy a new vehicle, we do keep the brand alive, thats why over 70% of all rovers are still on the road today. I have no problem with the path land rover is taking, i think its good, but they need to maintain the defender as a no frills hard working bushable vehicle, because in that market they have the monopoly, no one else really does it. Matt

---

We don't keep the brand alive as Landrover would like it to be alive.

The absolute last thing LR want is to be associated with nerdy anorak rivet counters who like Landies for Landies sake. That's alien to the market they're driving at, where the vehicle is a premium status symbol which may never go offroad, but owners can puff their chests out and claim they could if they wanted to.

(OK some exaggeration above, but you get the idea. Also no disrespect at all intended to anyone who owns a new Landrover and uses it offroad, wish there were more of us!)

And to achieve Ford's objectives for LR they do not need the Defender. In fact that vehicle is a double-edged sword. On one hand it is a rough, tough vehicle reminding everyone of LR's heritage, something they wish to play up. On the other it is a backward vehicle and tacking on ABS and ETC hasn't really changed that, so it's an embarrasement in a brand that prides itself on being technologically advanced. A new, D3-based Defender would fit. The current model definitely does not. Which is a real shame because I think my Defender is a great vehicle, massive space, payload...fun and comfy to drive...just love it.

rmp -- I understand where LR fits within PAG, but to me it does not make commercial sense.

If LR is a premium brand, why are they even still selling the Defender, because we all know it ain't a premium product in the mould of the D3 or RRS. In the UK they are still selling Defenders and commercial vans to all sorts of utility companies and farmers, so how does that fit with the premium brand? What is 'Defender' meant to say to the market in the brave new world of the 'premium brand'?

At best, LR is sending a contradictory message to the market about its brand image and at worst it has no strategy and is torn with internal confusion about its model line-up.

Where does the 'new' 2008 Defender fit in the model line-up when compared with a D3 S? Or back closer to the original post, how do punters distinguish between the RRS and D3 HSE when there is only a few $K between them?

To me, the whole LR 'strategy' does not pass the logic test, which to someone who loves the marque and wants to see it thrive, is concerning.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Noddy
rmp -- I understand where LR fits within PAG, but to me it does not make commercial sense.

If LR is a premium brand, why are they even still selling the Defender, because we all know it ain't a premium product in the mould of the D3 or RRS. In the UK they are still selling Defenders and commercial vans to all sorts of utility companies and farmers, so how does that fit with the premium brand? What is 'Defender' meant to say to the market in the brave new world of the 'premium brand'?

At best, LR is sending a contradictory message to the market about its brand image and at worst it has no strategy and is torn with internal confusion about its model line-up.

Where does the 'new' 2008 Defender fit in the model line-up when compared with a D3 S? Or back closer to the original post, how do punters distinguish between the RRS and D3 HSE when there is only a few $K between them?

To me, the whole LR 'strategy' does not pass the logic test, which to someone who loves the marque and wants to see it thrive, is concerning.

---

I'm not saying LR are executing their strategy perfectly!

As posted above (which you may not have seen) the Defender is a double-edged sword -- it's a reminder of the heritage, yet an anachronism as you rightly point out. It is however selling 25,000 a year and that's a reasonable profit considering the R&D is well and truly amortised. So there's reasons for and against it being included in the brand, and it might as well be kept around until replaced. A strategy is not something executed overnight.

As for the 2008 Defender; my guess is think D3, slightly longer, a lot simpler and lighter, different, more utiliatrian body, more manual controls, cheaper, lifted. Able to carry more payload, even better offroad, gives up a little onroad, comes with 17s (hopefully 16s) instead of 18-19s and larger tyres. I doubt in-car DVD will be an option.

Pricing will be above competitors like the Patrol etc, because it'll be better on and offroad due to all its engineering and electronics. It'll be the premium choice in the hose-out-interior market, consistent with Landrover's brand.

Difference between D3 and Defender '08; basically latter will be more utilitarian. Very similar as the difference between the Discovery I and Defender, which remember are reasonably similar.

The difference between the RRS and D3 HSE is significant, but not to a logical, rational buy-with-the-head person like most on this board. If you compare spec-by-spec you'd never buy a RRS because the D3 is better value, more space for example.

But humans tend not to do that, otherwise we'd all be driving Excels.

Anyway, the RRS is there to Make A Statement. And that statement is:

"I have arrived in the world. I have enough money to buy this object of desire. I do not need 7 seats. I am a sporting driver, yet I enjoy the great outdoors. I do not wish to drive a puesdo-4WD, for I know the real thing. I identify with the Landrover brand."

The RRS is a status symbol relative to the D3, in the same way the D3 is be relative to a Territory.

Why do you think it's called the "Range Rover Sport" and not the "Discovery Sport" ? What does the name Range Rover mean to Joe Public?

rmp -- I think my last post overlapped with your previous one, hence my comments in relation to the Fender fitting the premium brand strategy.

While the Defender has well and truly recovered its development costs, it still has one of the highest unit costs in the entire automobile industry. LR have chosen to not address this problem which BMW went to war over until 2008.

I am a little confused. The fact they contine to sell 25,000 units each year, with neglible marketing, would indicate there is a signifcant market to be had, but LR intends to walk away from this market with the new Defender? Or continue to play in this segment with the old Defender? (which begs the question how will the old Defender fit in the model line-up with the 2008 one :? :roll: )

What are the development costs of the new 2008 Defender (I would imagine some significant re-tooling and pressing even though they will use the D3 platform) compared with this obscure market segment. The current Defender market includes: primary producers, military, utilities and the 'purist 4WD-er'. How does LR expect to get a return on the new Defender when they are only catering to the later category which morphs into the bottom end D3 segment?

Toyota have been very successful with 'being all things to all people' and making their vehicle line-up reflect this (using pretty much antiquated technology). LR are hedging their future on playing in some very niche product areas yet still having to carry the cost burdens associated with being an innovator.

Me think it is a very ballsy play and one which you would want steadfast guarantees from Ford on.

If Henry keeps losing cash at the current rate, guess who will come into the sights of the good'ol boys in Dearborn??