Thread: Defenders to be Built in New Delhi

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Thinking back, CKD kits were actually more expensive than the assembled car. This came about because the car was assembled and then "knocked down" to major assemblies and packed in crates, which was all extra labour and packaging. Where the savings came in for the car company was the reduction in the cost of freight. Assembled cars were carried as deck cargo which was limited and at a premium price, while the CKD crates could be packed into the hold, saving space and therefore price charged by the shipping companies.

With ship containerisation and dedicated RoRo car transporting ships the savings are gone.

Diana

CKD was viable in the era of tariff protection. Plus the required token local input - tyres & batteries. Wind back the protection, CKD disappears.

Regards
Max P

Originally Posted by DirtyDawg

"Still they would have to convince the marketing guys in Australia that the 90 is marketable."

After my reasearch on bringing one in , the reason is they do not make the commercial vehicular standard for aussie ADR's...is what the LRA guy told me

This may be a problem - but poor sales is probably a more important one, as the costs of approval have to be spread over a smaller number of vehicles.

It is worth noting that (according to my observation, which may not be right) the short wheel base, two door, versions of the Landcruiser, Patrol and Pajero also seem to have disappeared from the market. I suspect that most people who used to buy them are now buying softroaders - applies for example to my sister - she used to drive an old (well, it wasn't when she got it!) two door Pajero, now drives a RAV 4.

My assessment is that most Australians who really need a proper four wheel drive travel with too much junk to make do with a 90 or similar. And this showed up when the 90 was briefly on sale here - sure, it cost too much, but that was inevitable given the poor sales expected (albeit a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy).

John

Do you think they'll change the name to say something like Ghandi Rover Surenderer?

Originally Posted by foz.in.oz

Do you think they'll change the name to say something like Ghandi Rover Surenderer?

Ha!!

I find it quite interesting, the way we question the quality of Indian made products and hold high the efforts of the Japanese industry. If my memory serves me correctly the much esteemed Nissan Patrol was originally made to fulfil an Indian army contract back in the 50/60's.
Not that many Toyotas in India either but a heck of a lot of Mahindra lookalikes doing admirable work in the mountains and desert areas. Tata is as common over there as Holden is here but with a much wider range of vehicles, from cars to heavy duty prime movers, and a lot of their smaller stuff uses Peugeot diesels maunfactured under licence, which IMHO has to be one of the best small diesels there are. I think they trade under the Lion group now and embrace most European diesel manufacturers, including the TDV6 that Disco 3 owners will know.
I was also led to believe that the gap under the doors on Series and defender models was a design feature for river crossing drainage as is the "no lip" floor pan! The 'softening' of the purchasing public over the years (fueled by the so called "ergonomics" banner of today) has put air conditioning, cup holders and CD stackers well above practicality of purpose built design requirements.
I am one of those swayed by the 'comfort stakes', so I bought a Disco. If I was intending to drive up and down the Jardine I would have bought a defender!
I for one will be very interested to see what comes out in the next few years from India and will wait until it happens before I pass judgement.
Regards
Glen

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Originally Posted by D3Jon

................
I presume the facelifted Defender must have also improved? But I think the gaps around doors / leaks is attributable to being based on a 50 odd year old design!! Before you hang me out here, I have an Isuzu 110 with gaps, leaks, noises, etc, and I love it to bits and would never sell it.

1. I am always amused by those who equate quality to panel fit and paint finish. It seems to me that these are almost totally irrelevant in an utility vehicle like the Defender. I see the REAL quality defects showing up as things like headlight switches that fail in normal service, oil leaking along wiring harnesses that causes breakdowns, front prop shafts hitting sumps, cracking chassis (130), leaking oil seals, drive flanges that chop out because the design does not allow for lubrication, this sort of thing.

2. The body assembly problems with Defenders, including water and dust leaks are a part of the structural design. This bolt together design philosophy originates from the decision to make the original Landrover with a minimum of tooling, and maximum versatility of body type. As long as this is retained, it is difficult to see how this sort of problem can be completely prevented.

To give one example - the sealing surface at the door corners is a sharp angle. This is almost impossible to reliably seal - look at any other vehicle produced today, and you will find it is radiused. But with the door pillars, sills, lintels all being separate pieces of metal, often in two or more pieces (necessary for the alternate body types), you are stuck with these sharp corners. Of course you could round them, but this requires a lot more tooling and simply changes the sealing problem from the door opening to between the bits. Not to say that improvements could not be made, but the cost of them may well be greater than is justified. And if the versatility of body type and meccano-like construction is scrapped (as is highly likely in a Defender replacement), then the vehicle is no longer a Landrover, even if it does have a Landrover label.

John

I'm at a loss as to why you're quoting me before stating that you're "always amused"... Anyway, you seem to be quoting me out of context as they say....

The words:

Originally Posted by D3Jon

I presume the facelifted Defender must have also improved?

Were in response to the following that was quoted within my original post:

Originally Posted by rovercare

Only vehicle that everything under the bonnet actually has a place and a clip, the comparison to a land rover is dismal

The remainder of my post:

Originally Posted by D3Jon

But I think the gaps around doors / leaks is attributable to being based on a 50 odd year old design!!

Was with obvious reference to an earlier post (that I didn't quote):

Originally Posted by djam1

... Sat in a Brand New Defender wagon last week that you could see the ground out through the bottom of the doors (oh yes and they were closed)

Doubt if it could be much worse

I was simply saying that it's the basic design of the car that causes the sealing problems which you seem to concur with:

Originally Posted by JDNSW

<snip>
2. The body assembly problems with Defenders, including water and dust leaks are a part of the structural design. This bolt together design philosophy originates from the decision to make the original Landrover with a minimum of tooling, and maximum versatility of body type. <snip>

So I guess we are in agreement?

Jon

Originally Posted by p38arover

Probably a damn sight better.

well can't be much worse

Originally Posted by D3Jon

.......

So I guess we are in agreement?

Jon

Yes.

I was just using your post as an introduction to the subject of equating quality with panel fit in circumstances where it is clearly irrelevant, and then amplifying why it is irrelevant.

John