2007 Land Rover Defender Revealed! - Photos and Pics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluetongue

When I got my water leaks fixed a few weeks back the guy was telling me that LR at one stage welded up the vents, don't know for sure, but he thinks sometime in the late 90's, maybe on the early td5's or late 300 tdi's???

He also reckons that everyone complained to LR big time, which is why the later and current models still have opening vents.

If there is one thing I love about the fender, it is those vents.... I'm not one for aircon anyway, always prefer to get natural air into the car. Added plus with the defender is you get to hear the td5 purring.

---

Vents were welded up on Landrover 110 fitted with factory airconditioning from their introduction in about 1983 probably until replaced by the Defender in 1989, possibly not quite that long - and I think the Australian importers started fitting after market aircon earlier to keep the vents rather than importing the ones with factory aircon - which was pretty woeful anyway, even when it did work.
John

Bonnet bulge is due to the fitment of the new motor - the stroke is that much longer than the Tdi & Td5!!! Hence the torque!!!

LRH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LRHybrid100

Bonnet bulge is due to the fitment of the new motor - the stroke is that much longer than the Tdi & Td5!!! Hence the torque!!!

LRH

---

variable vane turbo might have something to do with the torque, as well ;)

without reading all 5 pages of this thread so far....
has anyone noticed the handbrake for 2007......?

yes.....its still in exactly the same ruddy spot......!!

Yes, I have it looks the same, so does the indicator and wipers switch!!!

where would you silly buggars be without that handbrake?:whistling:

but oh! THAT bulge---:woot:

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

---

Toyota, Nissan, and the Americans don't seem to have any trouble fitting big (4.0+ litres & bulky) engines. A medium size Cummins is an option in Dodges. In my time at Leyland Truck & Bus, I once sighted a Series III in for service, with a Perkins 6-354 neatly installed. Same car also had HQ Holden power steering box. Chrysler Aust. Hemi Six 265's were becoming quite common in older LR's once the swap gained Dept. Transport approval. Terrific performers too. Mexico Chev. 5 litre (petrol) truck engines were also fitted with suitable camouflage and creative numbering as Holdens, with which they were virtual twins in external appearance, just a little bigger all around. I once sighted a 4-53 Detroit in one but it was unregistered, a property vehicle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

Toyota, Nissan, and the Americans don't seem to have any trouble fitting big (4.0+ litres & bulky) engines. A medium size Cummins is an option in Dodges. In my time at Leyland Truck & Bus, I once sighted a Series III in for service, with a Perkins 6-354 neatly installed. Same car also had HQ Holden power steering box. Chrysler Aust. Hemi Six 265's were becoming quite common in older LR's once the swap gained Dept. Transport approval. Terrific performers too. Mexico Chev. 5 litre (petrol) truck engines were also fitted with suitable camouflage and creative numbering as Holdens, with which they were virtual twins in external appearance, just a little bigger all around. I once sighted a 4-53 Detroit in one but it was unregistered, a property vehicle.

---

You've come back from 5 to 4+, and the Toyotas and Nissans are bigger and heavier. And as for the Americans, we are into a different class altogether - they NEED a bigger engine, but often won't fit between the trees. I would love to see the S3 with a Perkins six in it, but it would be very nose heavy. The petrol engines you quote are significantly lighter than similar capacity diesels.
John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

You've come back from 5 to 4+, and the Toyotas and Nissans are bigger and heavier. And as for the Americans, we are into a different class altogether - they NEED a bigger engine, but often won't fit between the trees. I would love to see the S3 with a Perkins six in it, but it would be very nose heavy. The petrol engines you quote are significantly lighter than similar capacity diesels.
John

---

The Toyota and Nissan offerings are quite heavy & bulky in relation to their displacement. Most Jap. engines seem to be. An up-to-date fresh design using all the advantages of CAD-CAM to reduce unwanted metal and spaces, modern thin wall casting foundry technology, the improvements in machine tools & their cutting tools should result in a lighter and more compact engine. Understood the petrol examples quoted are lighter than most diesels but they are excellent examples of compact lightweight engine design. The Chrysler Hemi Six block is only 1/4" longer than a red Holden, much more compact & lighter than an equivalent Falcon, and it was designed in the sixties. The Mexico Chev. is likewise not much larger overall than a red Holden. Compare the red Holden & Hemi Six with a Rover F-head six as used in LR's, or the Jaguar 3.4/4.2 as good against poor examples of design from many years ago and now should be able to be improved upon. As to overall size of the package, remember we are going to lengthen & widen the vehicle so as to fit real people in. Anyway the difference between a 4+ liter engine and a 5 litre should be no more than bore & stroke measurements.

The Series III with Polly Perkins installed was nose heavy, hence the HQ power steering. The owner was quite pleased with it in all respects, as I recall. it was registered for road use but there were virtually no restrictions on engine swaps then. I don't know where, or what sort of use it got. Probably would not have been much use on soft sand or wet black soil, but most 4wd's then only spent about 5% of their time , or less, actually in 4WD. Most LandRovers were bought by primary producers or Govt. Depts. Range Rover seemed to be bought by Doctors. The property LR with 4-53 Jimmy installed was a bloody pig. Noisy in the extreme, nose heavy without power steering, but went very well. Handling was ,shall we say, of a total understeer persuasion. It was a very, very, worn & battered IIA which had spent its entire life on a property down the Diamantina from Winton. Used as a workhorse with regular trips to the nearest pub and occasionally into Winton. It was de-registered when the Police in Winton expressed a desire not to see it in town again until extensive renovation had been done. The jimmy came out of a piece of mobile plant which had otherwise disintegrated. These two stroke Detroits commonly outlived their original homes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

The Toyota and Nissan offerings are quite heavy & bulky in relation to their displacement. Most Jap. engines seem to be. An up-to-date fresh design using all the advantages of CAD-CAM to reduce unwanted metal and spaces, modern thin wall casting foundry technology, the improvements in machine tools & their cutting tools should result in a lighter and more compact engine. Understood the petrol examples quoted are lighter than most diesels but they are excellent examples of compact lightweight engine design. The Chrysler Hemi Six block is only 1/4" longer than a red Holden, much more compact & lighter than an equivalent Falcon, and it was designed in the sixties. The Mexico Chev. is likewise not much larger overall than a red Holden. Compare the red Holden & Hemi Six with a Rover F-head six as used in LR's, or the Jaguar 3.4/4.2 as good against poor examples of design from many years ago and now should be able to be improved upon. As to overall size of the package, remember we are going to lengthen & widen the vehicle so as to fit real people in. Anyway the difference between a 4+ liter engine and a 5 litre should be no more than bore & stroke measurements.

The Series III with Polly Perkins installed was nose heavy, hence the HQ power steering. The owner was quite pleased with it in all respects, as I recall. it was registered for road use but there were virtually no restrictions on engine swaps then. I don't know where, or what sort of use it got. Probably would not have been much use on soft sand or wet black soil, but most 4wd's then only spent about 5% of their time , or less, actually in 4WD. Most LandRovers were bought by primary producers or Govt. Depts. Range Rover seemed to be bought by Doctors. The property LR with 4-53 Jimmy installed was a bloody pig. Noisy in the extreme, nose heavy without power steering, but went very well. Handling was ,shall we say, of a total understeer persuasion. It was a very, very, worn & battered IIA which had spent its entire life on a property down the Diamantina from Winton. Used as a workhorse with regular trips to the nearest pub and occasionally into Winton. It was de-registered when the Police in Winton expressed a desire not to see it in town again until extensive renovation had been done. The jimmy came out of a piece of mobile plant which had otherwise disintegrated. These two stroke Detroits commonly outlived their original homes.

---

I agree with you on the possibility of designing a much improved low stress large capacity engine using modern tooling and design methods. However, I rather doubt it will be done, since the same methods can produce a turbocharged engine with identical performance (and durability) which is much smaller and lighter and quieter. Unfortunately your and my (and a few other's) desire to see a modern diesel without electronics is very unlikely to be met, since it is very much easier (and cheaper) to meet fuel consumption and environmental requirements by doing as much as possible in software.

Your comment about the noise level of the Jimmy equipped Landrover reminds me of an early GM equipped Hummer - notice on the top rail of the windscreen in front of the driver "Hearing protection MUST be worn". Says it all.

I don't think I go along with lengthening and widening the current Defender - I could agree to widening it to the mudguard spats, but the main problem with width in the current Defender is the thickness of the doors - it should be possible to reduce the thickness of these to those of the early 110s or even the sliding window doors - which are all that is really needed anyway in this type of vehicle anyway. Lengthening it raise parking problems, although you could live with a few inches.
Either change, however, loses one of the significant pluses of the Defender compared to its competitors - commonality of parts with earlier models (OK, it is certainly not complete commonality, but there are a lot of parts that can be used at a pinch going back to 1958 - just used a 1963 rear window in my 1986 110, for example, until I got a new one, and I could have used the whole door).