Thread: Which is better Off Road a D3/4 or a late model Defender? ... Puma 110

Originally Posted by TerryO

So old mate you think a Defender has better approach and departure angles and late model Disco's can't fit big tyres do you?



Check this out and weep!

Oh man - the live axles are in full view .... You just stopped the rotation of the earth for a second!

Run for the hills the deefer drivers are going to stampede this post!

Test mule for the new defender???? They just havent worked out how to strap a beer can body to it yet?????
Andrew

Originally Posted by 1nando

The whole monocoque chassis thing being stronger is a load of BS!

yes i am going to refer to trucks here;

Things built to lug heavy loads day in and day out use ladder frame chassis not monocoque chassis. There is also a reason trucks have live axels

Yes - cost vs unsprung weight.

Its much cheaper to build a live axle set up than independant suspension. In a light vehicle the unsprung weight of a live axle is significant and buggers up the vehicle dynamics, which is important in a vehicle that is meant to be appealing to drive.

In a heavy truck the unsprung weight of a live axle is less significant and so has less of an impact on vehicle dynamics. Also, handling in a truck is not really very important, but load carrying is.

A live axle can carry a heavy load more economically, but this doesn't mean an independant system can't be engineered to do it as well. It just comes at a cost.

I guess if you want to use trucks as an example, what about air springs?

So much of this argument is just about old technology vs new technology. They both do the job, just differently.

Cheers,
Jon

Originally Posted by jon3950

Yes - cost vs unsprung weight.

Its much cheaper to build a live axle set up than independant suspension. In a light vehicle the unsprung weight of a live axle is significant and buggers up the vehicle dynamics, which is important in a vehicle that is meant to be appealing to drive.

In a heavy truck the unsprung weight of a live axle is less significant and so has less of an impact on vehicle dynamics. Also, handling in a truck is not really very important, but load carrying is.

A live axle can carry a heavy load more economically, but this doesn't mean an independant system can't be engineered to do it as well. It just comes at a cost.

I guess if you want to use trucks as an example, what about air springs?

So much of this argument is just about old technology vs new technology. They both do the job, just differently.

Cheers,
Jon

Love the bit about "handling in a truck is not very important". Yeah mate spot on. ...with 38 ton on board i cant imagine why i would want the thing to handle......**** i just hold on and press the accelorater.

Ladder frame chassis are suppose to be strong but also allow for a tiny amount of flexibility/movement. Could you imagine a monocoque chassis on a 11.5m long bogey? It would start to develop fracture cracks pretty quick on the chassis

Originally Posted by 1nando

Fact: puma weighs 1/2 ton less carrys 1/4 ton more
Fact; puma roof can carry 150kg, d4 only half that
Fact: puma has better body clearance.
Fact: puma has better angles of approach,exit, traversing etc
Fact: puma has the rear wheel located in a more appropriate location when off road. Its not under the car like a giant tampon
Fact: puma has and fits bigger tyres if required
Fact: pumas chassis has lasted the test of time. Its robust and bloody strong and thats why miliatry forces around the world have embraced this vehicle as a machine of war. Everything from ambulances to assault vehicles

Hows that for BS?


Im not disputing the d4s strength but rather trying to highlight that the defender is tried and tested. You blokes make it sound like they are made of cheese.

The disco is the model that falls between the defender and the range rover. Its the vehicle that settles on the middle ground, the defender is the workhorse and has always been (quoted from land rover themselves) LRs toughest vehicle!

I'm not going to waste my time on the rest, they have been well addressed over and over again .... but these are new.


Fully loaded a 130 is legally allowed to weight just more than a 1/4 ton over a fully loaded D4. A 110 fully loaded can only weight 3,050KG, which is around 200kg less than a fully loaded D4. I can't remember the number for the 90 ... it's easy to find though ... took me a few minutes for the other figures .... but it's even less than the 110. So you are talking about the 130 only. You say you know trucks and loads .... so I'm surprised that you keep throwing up **** like this. Why can a 130 carry so much more yet only weigh a couple of hundred KG more than a fully loaded D4? Mate, give it a seconds thought. It's BECAUSE the 130 has so much less in it ... like stuff that will save your life, etc that it can carry more load. It's a swings and roundabout scenario but you could easily dump a lot of stuff out of a D4 that wouldn't compromise it's safety and handling and it could carry shed loads more. 110 and 90 wouldn't even be in the mix. But once again ..... a D4 wasn't designed to do this .... that will be the new Deefer's job.


So where did you get the stats on the D4 Roof Rack? ..... my comment about a specific LR product? Nice try but no cigar! The genuine Expedition Rack is rated low. I have a non genuine full length rack for my D4 that is rated at 250KGs static. However, only a retard would put that much weight up there. If a D4 with EAS (active suspension), and a wide track feels ugly with a lot of weight on top I can only imagine how bad and how unsafe a narrower track, standard coil car would be! Oh FYI, good luck trying to get the REAL roof rating out of LR for any car. Weight on top of a roof compromises the car's strength should it roll .... I know what car I'd rather be in if that happened. Oh, you're saying a Deefer has a stronger roof than a D4 .... LMAO ....


And ..... please read and retain .... nobody on this thread has said the Deefer is weak .... other than Deefer owners talking about certain parts that break!


Oh one addition .... there are quite a few differences in a Military Spec Deefer compared to the standard one ..... have a search. Differences were at factory level, not easy add ons later ....

Originally Posted by Celtoid

Oh one addition .... there are quite a few differences in a Military Spec Deefer compared to the standard one ..... have a search. Differences were at factory level, not easy add ons later ....

quite right, the original army Deefers then went strait from the factory to be further modified for the Aus army before shipping then were further modified in Aus with such as a solid cross and needle roller bearings in the centre diff....... they were close to a $100k car by the time the army got them. I was informed of this by a LR mechanic who should know his stuff - and he owned one of the first Deefer command wagons the army let go

Originally Posted by 1nando

Love the bit about "handling in a truck is not very important". Yeah mate spot on. ...with 38 ton on board i cant imagine why i would want the thing to handle......**** i just hold on and press the accelorater.

That's not what I'm saying. Its about relative importance. You buy a truck to move as much possible as cheaply as possible. The reasons for buying a car are generally more complex.

Originally Posted by 1nando

Ladder frame chassis are suppose to be strong but also allow for a tiny amount of flexibility/movement. Could you imagine a monocoque chassis on a 11.5m long bogey? It would start to develop fracture cracks pretty quick on the chassis

Ladder frame chassis allow a lot of flexibility as its more difficult to build torsional rigidity into a flat structure. This is exactly what you don't need if handling is your main priority. A monocoque structure could be designed to provide the same characteristics but that would be a bit pointless as it would be far more expensive.

My point is its more about cost than anything else. A ladder frame is a more cost-effective way of doing the job than a monocoque, when your priority is load carrying rather than vehicle dynamics.


Cheers,
Jon

discotastique

Maybe you can explain the other thread re D4 breaking CV's when reversing in sand