Thread: Defenders to be Built in New Delhi

Originally Posted by p38arover

You are over 4 months late with that comment!

Does that mean I cop a fine?

I'm sure that you realise, Ron, that not everyone posts their every thought on this forum (and I'm sure that you don't, so I'm not having a go).

Four months ago, if am right about the thread to which you are referring, the deed was done and I felt that any comment from me would be superfluous.

The comments re Tombie in this thread, I felt were just "scratching at old wounds".

Best Wishes,

PS: I hope this means that my fine will be reduced.

That "new defender'' is good only for a fire.LR have to be kidding. Pat

Originally Posted by Ian

You've never looked at a Hyudai/Ssangoon et al after 2 years?

Mate I hate to rain on your parade, but I have a 2005 Ssangyong 4wd ute as a work ute and the wife has a 2003 Disco. The Ssangyong wins easily in build and component quality I'm afraid.


Justin

Originally Posted by solmanic

..............

I would like to see Tata, with their massive resources, have a good go at producing a real, modern Defender design for 2012 and onwards. Agreed

Other manufacturers have demonstrated how you can effectively work design cues into new models to satisfy the die-hard enthusiasts (eg. Mini, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Jeep, dare I say - Hummer, Jaguar, VW... the list goes on) - albeit with varying results. No die hard enthusiast is at all happy with any of the examples quoted.

Again, this prototype was, in my opinion, a decent crack at the problem. Land Rover know the reasons Defender is such an enduring off-road success - and build quality is not one of them. It just always seems that money and the risk of producing a marketing dud have kept them from actually doing it. And tooling costs and loss of interchangeability with previous models.

I'm no automotive designer, or engineer - but my uneducated list of what major things should stay and what should go is as follows:

KEEP:
- Separate chassis. Good idea, but may not be possible - see below
- Live axles. Yes
- Simple, manual transfer and diff-lock controls. Not necessarily
- Small, efficient but high-tech diesel engine. Inevitable. Add that it must have onboard diagnostics and be designed to stand adverse conditions
- Simple, flat floor, hose-out design. yes
- General seating layout which prioritises load space. yes
- High-up driving position with good view of corners of the vehicle. yes
- Lights - same cheap, easy to replace ones. Yes, but don't hold your breath - this is one of the top priorities of designers to tie owners into dealers!
- Spare wheel on back where it can be gotten to easily. And mounted so it does not fall off/cause body damage on corrugated roads!
- General shape so it still looks like the same old Defender. Not all that necessary, but probably will happen.

CHANGE/ADD:
- Body to monocoque with 21st century panel fit and finish. It is impossible for it to be both monocoque and separate chassis. Changing to a monocoque body may well be inevitable, both to reduce manufacturing labour costs and meet environmental and safety requirements, but will either greatly increase the volume needed to pay for tooling, or reduce the number of body styles, or both.
- Aerodynamics to improve fuel economy (this can be done without radically altering the box shape - the 1960s Alfa Romeo Berlina was a dead-set box on wheels, but one of the most aerodynamic saloons available). The current Defender is not as bad as often portrayed, and as you say, minor changes can be made to greatly improve drag using various airflow control devices, as long as the stylists don't have too much sway.
- Modern safety features (read airbags). Inevitable, but will seriously restrict design
- Drop the roof height 100mm to enable it to get into 2m high car parks. Not sure about this one - for the non-urban areas where the vehicle is designed for, the extra interior room probably more important, particularly keeping the high driving position and the ability to keep your hat on.
- Realistic 100l fuel tank capacity. Need a minimum safe range of 1000km, so failing improved economy, this figure is a real minimum one
- Front seat position so tall drivers can use it without seat rail extensions. Yes - the average size of adults has increased markedly since the dimensions were fixed in 1956 (I know the S2 was 1958 but the design was frozen then). Unfortunately, failing some very clever design, this means a reduction in load space or an increase in size - neither of which are desirable.

]

To the above I would add -

Keep flat glass that does not have to come from a dealer

Keep flat panels with reinforced corners as far as possible.

Keep alloy body skinning.

Ensure roll protection even in soft top versions.

Maintain existing dimensions if possible, and reduce weight by clever design. Perhaps take a leaf out of Henry Ford's book with the model T - by using high alloy steel, he was able to make a vehicle that looked impossible flimsy by contemporary standards, but proved it was a lot more rugged than its competitors. Ever since the 80" the Landrover has been putting on weight as various bits have been beefed up, almost always by adding metal rather than by using better materials or better design.

Unfortunately, the most likely Defender replacement will be built on a D3 platform, with a body structurally similar to the D3, but that looks like a Landrover. Probably with a steel body, floors to collect water with their raised sills, curved glass, no dropside utes available, no soft top available, probably only a wagon and possibly a ute and a van. The only thing the Tata ownership could mean is a continuation of the existing Defender with various changes for those markets where changes are not mandated - and I don't expect you would be able to get them here!

John

"Body to monocoque with 21st century panel fit and finish. It is impossible for it to be both monocoque and separate chassis. Changing to a monocoque body may well be inevitable, both to reduce manufacturing labour costs and meet environmental and safety requirements, but will either greatly increase the volume needed to pay for tooling, or reduce the number of body styles, or both."

If my understanding is correct, the D3 has a body designed like a monocoque bolted to a hydroformed chassis. Hence the extra strength and weight.

Originally Posted by 81stubee

"Body to monocoque with 21st century panel fit and finish. It is impossible for it to be both monocoque and separate chassis. Changing to a monocoque body may well be inevitable, both to reduce manufacturing labour costs and meet environmental and safety requirements, but will either greatly increase the volume needed to pay for tooling, or reduce the number of body styles, or both."

If my understanding is correct, the D3 has a body designed like a monocoque bolted to a hydroformed chassis. Hence the extra strength and weight.

I believe you are right - even though it is bolted to the "chassis", structurally it is a monocoque structure - it does not have a separate chassis in the same sense that the traditional Landrover does. The "chassis" relies for its strength on the body, as well as forming the floor of the body. It is difficult to see how sufficient strength could be provided with a soft top or even a dropside ute, without adding considerable weight and space occupying structure. And since the body provides most of the structural strength, each body variant is a fairly major design and testing exercise.

John

Yes, the D3 was what I was thinking about when I made that comment.

Essentially the single-press body would eliminate most of the panel fit and finish issues that have been around since 1948. I would see them still doing the assembly in two main parts. Drivetrain built up on the chassis whilst the trim was assembled into the shell. Then the two halves come together near the end of final.

I disagree about the comment that the Defender's aerodynamics "aren't that bad". They are woeful! Any vehicle that gets dramatically worse fuel economy at 110kph vs 100kph like the Defender has major issues. Especially with the new Defender only doing around 2000rpm at these speeds - it's not the drivetrain that's the problem.

Oh, and I wasn't saying I liked the example in my last post. Just that it was at least evidence that Land Rover could have a go at this long standing problem.

Originally Posted by solmanic

Yes, the D3 was what I was thinking about when I made that comment.

Essentially the single-press body would eliminate most of the panel fit and finish issues that have been around since 1948. I would see them still doing the assembly in two main parts. Drivetrain built up on the chassis whilst the trim was assembled into the shell. Then the two halves come together near the end of final.

Yes, good description - the problem as I pointed out - is which shell? The Series 2a advertised 27 body types excluding forward controls. While the Defender has far fewer, it still has something like a dozen by my count. To use a single press (eliminating panel fit problems) makes either a dozen very expensive dies or make the upper bodies out of bits like they do now - even if welded rather than bolted together, it is still going to result in panel mismatch. Or more likely, go to one or two models - which ones?

I disagree about the comment that the Defender's aerodynamics "aren't that bad". They are woeful! Any vehicle that gets dramatically worse fuel economy at 110kph vs 100kph like the Defender has major issues. Especially with the new Defender only doing around 2000rpm at these speeds - it's not the drivetrain that's the problem.

Interesting comment - my 110, with identical aerodynamics, makes very little difference between 100 and 110 - you have to get up to 120 to make a big difference. But what I meant was that there is little improvement can be made without compromising the vehicle's utility, because there are two major factors that it is very hard to change without these compromises. These are the frontal area - the proposal to reduce the height would help, but any gain here is likely to disappear when the vehicle has to be widened in the interests of passenger space. And the airflow under the vehicle - the approach usually used is to minimise this airflow by air dams, side skirts, close wheel arches and low clearance, all of which are absolutely out of the question given the vehicle's purpose. Independent suspension and streamlining the underbody would help, as would adjustable height suspension, but not much would be achieved without an air dam at the front. I suppose this could be made retractable, but that is getting away from the desired simplicity.

The windscreen could be raked more, but this would turn it into a hothouse like most other cars are, and is not something to be encouraged - and the same result could be obtained by a line of vortex generators across the front about six inches back from the front of the bonnet, but the stylists would not like this, and road safety people might take a dislike to it as well. And in any case given the frontal area and the underbody, the improvement would be slight.

Oh, and I wasn't saying I liked the example in my last post. Just that it was at least evidence that Land Rover could have a go at this long standing problem.

I am afraid that something like that is very likely to happen - and it will bear about as much relation to the current Defender as the current VW Beetle does to the original one.

What I would like to see is for Landrover to take a fresh look at what a Defender is supposed to do, and start from a fresh sheet of paper, like Tata have done with their ultra cheap car. But I don't expect it to happen - Landrover's only important market today is the urban lifestyle market, and the Defender is a bit of an embarassment for this - particularly if people actually use it for what it is designed for!

John