2007 Land Rover Defender Revealed! - Photos and Pics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

My engine specification for an out back 4wd as opposed to a private school, pony club, ballet lessons 4wd is a 4 or 6 cylinder diesel, minimum 5 litres, all cast iron including the water pump, gear driven pushrod overhead valves, open combustion chambers, in-line mechanical injection, naturally aspirated.(snip)

---

Problem with that specification is the size and weight. The 4BD1 engine as in my 110 is the closest Landrover have ever come to your specification, and even though it is under four litres it is easily the heaviest engine ever factory fitted in a Landrover, and also fills the engine bay pretty well. Not that I'm complaining, but I have problems wondering where you are going to put the extra 25% engine capacity while maintaining the ruggedness you want.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Problem with that specification is the size and weight. The 4BD1 engine as in my 110 is the closest Landrover have ever come to your specification, and even though it is under four litres it is easily the heaviest engine ever factory fitted in a Landrover, and also fills the engine bay pretty well. Not that I'm complaining, but I have problems wondering where you are going to put the extra 25% engine capacity while maintaining the ruggedness you want.
John

---

I have also got a County-Isuzu. Perhaps a few inches in the wheelbase and the track is necessary. This will also help with the interior room. I like simplicity, repairability, reliability, and totally dislike any electronic system whose failure will disable the vehicle. I have had too many. I firmly believe an electronic failure will cause a tragedy in a remote location. This is inevitable. Foundry technology has come a long way in the last forty years and thin wall castings of the high grade irons have been a reality since the late sixties. What I call the "Early English Vertical School of Engine Design" is way obsolete. Compact, lighter, engine designs are possible. An in-line engine also leaves plenty of room around it to fit in things like compressors ( air & A/C), alternators, power steering pumps, fuel & air filters, etc. etc. and room to get the hands and spanners in. I worked at Leyland Truck & Bus when they were the LR/RR distributors and we all knew that the principal problem with LR/RR's was that the Poms refused to put a decent sized engine in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

I have also got a County-Isuzu. Perhaps a few inches in the wheelbase and the track is necessary. This will also help with the interior room. I like simplicity, repairability, reliability, and totally dislike any electronic system whose failure will disable the vehicle. I have had too many. I firmly believe an electronic failure will cause a tragedy in a remote location. This is inevitable. Foundry technology has come a long way in the last forty years and thin wall castings of the high grade irons have been a reality since the late sixties. What I call the "Early English Vertical School of Engine Design" is way obsolete. Compact, lighter, engine designs are possible. An in-line engine also leaves plenty of room around it to fit in things like compressors ( air & A/C), alternators, power steering pumps, fuel & air filters, etc. etc. and room to get the hands and spanners in. I worked at Leyland Truck & Bus when they were the LR/RR distributors and we all knew that the principal problem with LR/RR's was that the Poms refused to put a decent sized engine in them.

---

There are a number of problems with increasing the wheelbase and track, although as you point out there are multiple advantages in it. Everything else remaining similar it would result in a significant increase in mass of what is already a fairly heavy vehicle, and reduce the handiness of a vehicle that is already a bit of a problem in tight parking spaces for example. I'm not sure that the Isuzu falls into the "Early English Vertical School of Engine Design" but maybe that is not what you meant.

I share your distrust with electronics, but perhaps not for quite the same reasons - the problem is not that they are more likely to fail (in fact the evidence suggests they are not) but that if they do fail, it is virtually impossible to find out what the problem is, let alone fix it (although the actual problem may just be a dirty connection), without a dealer on tap. While an electronic failure may very likely cause a tragedy in a remote location, to put this in perspective there have been any number of such tragedies caused by old fashioned mechanical failures.

I do not have your problem with turbocharged engines - I would point out that they have been used reliably in aircraft service for over fifty years, and almost as long in earthmoving equipment for example, so I don't think they have any inherent shortcomings. While an engine whose original design power is increased by turbocharging will usually be less reliable or durable or both, if an engine is designed (properly) for it from the outset, I do not see a problem, and the resulting engine will be smaller, and lighter than the equivalent unboosted engine. (talking diesels here, by the way).

Because the Australian view is that large engines are necessary, this has always hampered Landrover sales here since they started to have any real competition. But the real problem was never the engine size, but the available power and Landrover's failure to respond to customer demand, both in this and other areas. When it was Rover, you had to have sympathy for them, because they were capital strapped, but it is hard to feel any sympathy for Leyland (who are the ones who lost most of the market here anyway) because they treated Landrover for years as a cash cow without putting anything back in until it was too late (without an enormous effort) as far as the Australian market was concerned. And since the Leyland era there has been little improvement - for example dropping the 110 when the Disco was introduced, not bringing in the 90 because it might compete with the Disco, dropping half their dealers recently, a parts service that is markedly less effective than what you can get from the independents. And so on.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

There are a number of problems with increasing the wheelbase and track, although as you point out there are multiple advantages in it. Everything else remaining similar it would result in a significant increase in mass of what is already a fairly heavy vehicle, and reduce the handiness of a vehicle that is already a bit of a problem in tight parking spaces for example. I'm not sure that the Isuzu falls into the "Early English Vertical School of Engine Design" but maybe that is not what you meant.

I share your distrust with electronics, but perhaps not for quite the same reasons - the problem is not that they are more likely to fail (in fact the evidence suggests they are not) but that if they do fail, it is virtually impossible to find out what the problem is, let alone fix it (although the actual problem may just be a dirty connection), without a dealer on tap. While an electronic failure may very likely cause a tragedy in a remote location, to put this in perspective there have been any number of such tragedies caused by old fashioned mechanical failures.

I do not have your problem with turbocharged engines - I would point out that they have been used reliably in aircraft service for over fifty years, and almost as long in earthmoving equipment for example, so I don't think they have any inherent shortcomings. While an engine whose original design power is increased by turbocharging will usually be less reliable or durable or both, if an engine is designed (properly) for it from the outset, I do not see a problem, and the resulting engine will be smaller, and lighter than the equivalent unboosted engine. (talking diesels here, by the way).

Because the Australian view is that large engines are necessary, this has always hampered Landrover sales here since they started to have any real competition. But the real problem was never the engine size, but the available power and Landrover's failure to respond to customer demand, both in this and other areas. When it was Rover, you had to have sympathy for them, because they were capital strapped, but it is hard to feel any sympathy for Leyland (who are the ones who lost most of the market here anyway) because they treated Landrover for years as a cash cow without putting anything back in until it was too late (without an enormous effort) as far as the Australian market was concerned. And since the Leyland era there has been little improvement - for example dropping the 110 when the Disco was introduced, not bringing in the 90 because it might compete with the Disco, dropping half their dealers recently, a parts service that is markedly less effective than what you can get from the independents. And so on.
John

---

I wasn't referring to the Isuzu in that comment although it is a pretty bulky engine. I was referring to the general run of English engines that were tall and heavy, Jaguar, BMC, Rover, Rootes, Rolls-Royce B series, were all guilty of making heavy bulky engines that didn't really put out in proportion to their swept volumes. A major problem with the British motor industry was paternalism, a hangover from colonial times. They thought they knew best, would not listen to their overseas distributors and particularly not to the customers. Some, like the motor cycle builders, made what they could, or what they had, and expected the overseas distributors to sell them against Jap. bikes that didn't leak oil, had self-starters, went well. etc. An example was the accusation made by head office to Leyland Aust., that we were submitting false warranty claims on Range Rovers, as the failures could not be duplicated at the proving grounds. It appears the poms got in their tweeds, loaded the Purdys and Harrods hampers and trundled gently out to the grouse moors, whereas we uncouth colonials belted p--s & pick handles out of the vehicles, and broke the diffs., and gearboxes. An oft repeated complaint made by LR customers from the wide open spaces was the poor cruising speed of the Series 3. When you live 100 miles or more from town, or you regularly drive from Townsville to Mt. Isa, and the Patrol or Cruiser will cruise at 70mph and the LR is busy at 55, then you look at the Ricegrinders. it was Leyland UK who told their Aust. operation that no truck needed 400 horse power. Rover chose to build the aluminium Buick/Olds V8 at only 3.5 litres when GM had built it at up to 5 litres and even turbocharged it. I have no problems with turbochargers per se, I owned and drove turbocharged trucks for years. It is just that they are an unecessary complication on a passenger/ light goods vehicle. Heavy truck engines need to be pressurised to get the requiiste power out of them. A 600hp naturally aspirated diesel would be far too heavy & bulky. Turbos are an added cost to make & buy, to maintain, and to fit under the bonnet. Keep it simple, sancho. We are talking bush vehicles here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

I wasn't referring to the Isuzu in that comment although it is a pretty bulky engine. I was referring to the general run of English engines that were tall and heavy, Jaguar, BMC, Rover, Rootes, Rolls-Royce B series, were all guilty of making heavy bulky engines that didn't really put out in proportion to their swept volumes. A major problem with the British motor industry was paternalism, a hangover from colonial times. They thought they knew best, would not listen to their overseas distributors and particularly not to the customers. Some, like the motor cycle builders, made what they could, or what they had, and expected the overseas distributors to sell them against Jap. bikes that didn't leak oil, had self-starters, went well. etc. An example was the accusation made by head office to Leyland Aust., that we were submitting false warranty claims on Range Rovers, as the failures could not be duplicated at the proving grounds. It appears the poms got in their tweeds, loaded the Purdys and Harrods hampers and trundled gently out to the grouse moors, whereas we uncouth colonials belted p--s & pick handles out of the vehicles, and broke the diffs., and gearboxes. An oft repeated complaint made by LR customers from the wide open spaces was the poor cruising speed of the Series 3. When you live 100 miles or more from town, or you regularly drive from Townsville to Mt. Isa, and the Patrol or Cruiser will cruise at 70mph and the LR is busy at 55, then you look at the Ricegrinders. it was Leyland UK who told their Aust. operation that no truck needed 400 horse power. Rover chose to build the aluminium Buick/Olds V8 at only 3.5 litres when GM had built it at up to 5 litres and even turbocharged it. I have no problems with turbochargers per se, I owned and drove turbocharged trucks for years. It is just that they are an unecessary complication on a passenger/ light goods vehicle. Heavy truck engines need to be pressurised to get the requiiste power out of them. A 600hp naturally aspirated diesel would be far too heavy & bulky. Turbos are an added cost to make & buy, to maintain, and to fit under the bonnet. Keep it simple, sancho. We are talking bush vehicles here.

---

Yes, I have to agree with just about everything you say - except that your comment about the need for a turbocharger on a passenger/light goods vehicle. If you try to get the power you want for such a vehicle from a simple, rugged unblown diesel, you end up with a much heavier than necessary vehicle, with all that results in for cost, running costs etc.

In the mid 1960s I was working in the Simpson Desert - I had my own Landrover there, but the company was using Internationals and Landcruisers. After the first six months the Inters were replaced by more Landcruisers, which were performing quite well despite their shortcomings (which are interesting considering the reputation they have today) - awful electrics, seats which collapsed under the weight of Westerners, upholstery that lasted only months in the sun, leaked water and dust everywhere, some models (FJ45V) the bodywork fell to bits and had the worst ride of any vehicle I've ever driven, appalling steering and very mediocre brakes, very poor fuel consumption - as little as 6mpg on the highway as a result of the effect of sand on the carburettors, only three gears, only semifloating axles.
But! Toyota listened to customers complaints, and shortcomings were rapidly acted on, and meanwhile the ability to cruise at 70-80mph even if you had trouble keeping it on the road made up for a lot. (As a matter of interest, one of our subcontractors used Patrols - despite the even bigger engine they were always having problems, commonly a broken front axle housing.)
And meanwhile, Rover (who at that stage could not make enough Landrovers to keep up with demand) ignored the demands from Australia, which would probably have been for a (much) bigger engine, preferably a six, a decent size fuel tank, and synchromesh on all four gears, or at least the top three. At least Landrover offered a diesel, which Toyota did not, although it was even more inadequate on power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Yes, I have to agree with just about everything you say - except that your comment about the need for a turbocharger on a passenger/light goods vehicle. If you try to get the power you want for such a vehicle from a simple, rugged unblown diesel, you end up with a much heavier than necessary vehicle, with all that results in for cost, running costs etc.

In the mid 1960s I was working in the Simpson Desert - I had my own Landrover there, but the company was using Internationals and Landcruisers. After the first six months the Inters were replaced by more Landcruisers, which were performing quite well despite their shortcomings (which are interesting considering the reputation they have today) - awful electrics, seats which collapsed under the weight of Westerners, upholstery that lasted only months in the sun, leaked water and dust everywhere, some models (FJ45V) the bodywork fell to bits and had the worst ride of any vehicle I've ever driven, appalling steering and very mediocre brakes, very poor fuel consumption - as little as 6mpg on the highway as a result of the effect of sand on the carburettors, only three gears, only semifloating axles.
But! Toyota listened to customers complaints, and shortcomings were rapidly acted on, and meanwhile the ability to cruise at 70-80mph even if you had trouble keeping it on the road made up for a lot. (As a matter of interest, one of our subcontractors used Patrols - despite the even bigger engine they were always having problems, commonly a broken front axle housing.)
And meanwhile, Rover (who at that stage could not make enough Landrovers to keep up with demand) ignored the demands from Australia, which would probably have been for a (much) bigger engine, preferably a six, a decent size fuel tank, and synchromesh on all four gears, or at least the top three. At least Landrover offered a diesel, which Toyota did not, although it was even more inadequate on power

---

When I started at Leyland Truck & Bus they had just taken over LR/RR distribution and we were selling Series III and the first mark of Range Rover. A very few 110 forward controls were still around. Here in Qld we only got three station wagons in the first 18 months. Our reps would take orders for Range Rovers without being able to give any idea as to when delivery might take place, what colour, whether or not it would have power steering or cloth seats. When we got a batch of RR's, the Sales Supervisor would start 'phoning the oldest order to ask if they still wanted one. The bulk of sales were 109 with 4cyl. petrol engines and dropside bodies, to primary producers and Govt. depts. The few 110F/C's sold mainly to bee-keepers. The little diesel engine was noteworthy for its fuel economy and ability to accelerate from low rpm's (unladen). One mining company replaced its petrol cruisers with diesel LR's and saved staggering sums on fuel. Toyota did not have a diesel cruiser variant at the time.and almost no mining coy. employee had a diesel vehicle so fuel theft virtually ceased. My memory of new Series III was that they too had very ordinary steering & brakes, even by the standards of the time. Interesting, your comment on Patrol's front housings. They had become unpopular in black soil areas as being quite nose heavy, after a bit of rain they would sink their snouts deep into the black muck where other better balanced vehicles could (mud)dle through. We sold a few LR's to a French coy. working in the sandhills of Western Q. and their staff were divided on the merits of short or long wheelbase. Some said the shorties got their noses and tails stuck in the bottoms of the dips and others said the long ones bellied out on the top of the dune. Suppose it depends on where you prefer to be digging. With a few exceptions the dealer network was hopeless, mostly BMC dealers with no acceptable product left to sell and grabbing desperately for something to pay the bills. Or multiple franchise operations that could not service any of their lines properly. Generally they were the least desirable of available dealers in a country town. Only a few had been LR dealers prior to Truck & Bus taking over distribution. I was asked once if a particular dealer in a Qld. country town would take on another franchise. I told my boss that he would have to extend the premises to carry another sign. He sold everything from rabbit traps, barbed wire, ammunition and chemicals to a range of cars, trucks, farm machinery and huge tractors. One dealer used to boast he had the biggest dealership in the West. He had bought a WW2 aircraft hangar and put it up behind his office and parts counter for a workshop & warehouse. I asked him if he had trouble getting planning permission from the council because it was a bloody eyesore. He replied that he didn't bother to ask.

Quite a lot of posts mention the dropping of the front vents, but I've seen photos with them still there!

http://www.lroimages.zoomshare.com/a...type_album.css

and

http://www.lroimages.zoomshare.com/a...type_album.css

Well bugger me

Interesting your comments on the steering and brakes of the S3. Compared to even cars of that time they would have been fairly ordinary - steering slow and relatively heavy (improved with radials - which were almost unheard of, although see below), but compared to the mid sixties Landcruiser they were notably better. The early Landcruisers had the steering drag link going onto the side of the track rod, which meant that every time the load on it reversed, the track rod twisted as far as the track rod ends allowed. In addition, the steering relay, which like the Landrover had the link from the steering box avove the link to the track rod, had the bearings only about an inch apart, which meant when they wore, as they inevitably did in a few thousand miles, the whole thing tilted every time the load reversed, giving even more free play.
I actually had a diesel 2a 109 when I was working in the Simpson Desert. And, following the company lead I fitted it with radial tyres, which performed better in the sand. Also improved matters on the road when I finished there.

At least one company I am aware of replaced their Landcruisers with Landrovers (can't remember whether petrol or diesel) with the intention of reducing the fatality rate.

You have to remember that in the sixties at least Landrover had a dealer network - Toyota didn't, but they were still able to take the market from Landrover, at least partly because Landrover were unable to supply vehicles, as you point out. And as you may remember, the first Landcruisers were imported by Thiess after they were unable to buy Landrovers at any price, since Australia's quota for the next couple of years had just been sold to the Army.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spudboy

Quite a lot of posts mention the dropping of the front vents, but I've seen photos with them still there!

---

But do they open or are they more attractive versions of the blanked-out spaces on airconditioned One Tens?

Steve