Thread: Won’t be retro...

Here is the difference between Vern's stock (as I understand it) Patrol (current model) tyres and LR typical stock tyres- ie both for 18 inch rims. The difference in sidewall height is very appreciable. As to going up...yes you can legally take the 255/60 to 255/65 but you are still a fair way down on sidewall height and length of track when aired down and of course the Patrol can go up a profile side and a with size too...

Cheers

Originally Posted by ozscott

Here is the difference between Vern's stock (as I understand it) Patrol (current model) tyres and LR typical stock tyres- ie both for 18 inch rims. The difference in sidewall height is very appreciable. As to going up...yes you can legally take the 255/60 to 255/65 but you are still a fair way down on sidewall height and length of track when aired down and of course the Patrol can go up a profile side and a with size too...

Cheers

So new defender will be fine, profiles look to be similar or better on new defender, you can also now fit decent profiles to D3,4,5

A Defender is not a Discovery - unless you’re Gerry McGovern. This is the problem.

Those of us who want a new ‘modern’ Defender want it to be more capable off-road than on. It’s a work vehicle we’re after.

Those who yearn for a new D4 (because they don’t like D5) like the look of new Defender because it looks more capable on road...with some off road ability for weekends or the occasional trip. They want an all-rounder.

You cant really have both IMO. It’s not just about capability (which is very different from durability in constant off road environments).

If the new Defender is more like a D4 with low profile wide tyres ‘for high speed on road capability’ it’s not a Defender. It’s a Discovery.

265 is simply too wide for off-road tyres IMO. Too much frontal resistance, not enough lengthening when aired down.

New BFG 7.50R16 MT will be my next Defender tyre. It’s not old fashioned, it’s about how you use your vehicle. Infact BFG have only just released this tyre in response to demand for a real off-road tyre.

Anyone who thinks 265/70R18 is a good tyre size doesn’t spend much time in the bush. Their priorities are different. Which is fine and perfectly suited to a Discovery or Y62 type vehicle. But it’s not fine for a Defender.

Originally Posted by blackrangie

So new defender will be fine, profiles look to be similar or better on new defender, you can also now fit decent profiles to D3,4,5

Blackrangie you are still governed by legality....so as note above you can only go one side up and wide and you are still WELL down on what Patrol can legally run (and what existing Defender can legally run) . No spin gets anyone away from this fact.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Zeros

A Defender is not a Discovery - unless you’re Gerry McGovern. This is the problem.

Those of us who want a new ‘modern’ Defender want it to be more capable off-road than on. It’s a work vehicle we’re after.

Those who yearn for a new D4 (because they don’t like D5) like the look of new Defender because it looks more capable on road...with some off road ability for weekends or the occasional trip. They want an all-rounder.

You cant really have both IMO. It’s not just about capability (which is very different from durability in constant off road environments).

If the new Defender is more like a D4 with low profile wide tyres ‘for high speed on road capability’ it’s not a Defender. It’s a Discovery.

265 is simply too wide for off-road tyres IMO. Too much frontal resistance, not enough lengthening when aired down.

New BFG 7.50R16 MT will be my next Defender tyre. It’s not old fashioned, it’s about how you use your vehicle. Infact BFG have only just released this tyre in response to demand for a real off-road tyre.

Anyone who thinks 265/70R18 is a good tyre size doesn’t spend much time in the bush. Their priorities are different. Which is fine and perfectly suited to a Discovery or Y62 type vehicle. But it’s not fine for a Defender.

Some good points for sure

We must remember that JLR have been very open that the new defender will "move the game along" and "those expecting a carbon copy of the old defender will be disappointed"

Medium or low profiles were not needed or suited to the old defender, unless people up their performance significantly. The current defender, whilst awesome for what it is, has many documented funamental shortfalls, one of the main ones is safety like the Jeep and the dual cab 79.

With the new defender, from what we have seen so far at the ring, they seem to have addressed this and by the looks of the body roll that exists even on the low profile tyre option they have done this only to the point that is necessary for a safe on/off-road vehicle, unlike the SVR.

Its already been shown the new Defender has a tyre options that are low profile and that are not low profile rather a medium profile, so infact you can have both in the same vehicle.

There is not a chance in the world that the new defender will not be able to accept tyres that eccell both on and off-road, this already exists for Landrover models that JLR have targeted towards a less rugged and durable market.

I don't think we will be disappointed, again unless we are expecting the old defender reincarnated, that comes with its shortfalls.

I am certainly glad they didn't take Jeeps approach on the Defender redesign and end up with this. Then again LR have always been innovators not imitators, that's why we all love them (well most of the time)

2019 Jeep Wrangler handed devastating 1 Star Euro NCAP result | CarAdvice

Originally Posted by ozscott

Blackrangie you are still governed by legality....so as note above you can only go one side up and wide and you are still WELL down on what Patrol can legally run (and what existing Defender can legally run) . No spin gets anyone away from this fact.

Cheers

Patrols have always had to run bigger to tyres than LR's to match their off-road credentials. No spin, Fact.

Originally Posted by blackrangie

I am certainly glad they didn't take Jeeps approach on the Defender redesign and end up with this. Then again LR have always been innovators not imitators, that's why we all love them (well most of the time)

2019 Jeep Wrangler handed devastating 1 Star Euro NCAP result | CarAdvice

If we read why the Wrangler received a 1 star rating, most of it relates to a lack of pedestrian safety (No active bonnet??!!) and autonomous braking controls.
And no side curtain air bags.

It's still a body on chassis construction.
Jeep have made a conscious decision there.
And FWIW Jeep pre-dates Land Rover by decades on utilising monocoque construction.
The WJ Cherokee was released in 1984 with a full monocoque chassis.

Originally Posted by rick130

If we read why the Wrangler received a 1 star rating, most of it relates to a lack of pedestrian safety (No active bonnet??!!) and autonomous braking controls.
And no side curtain air bags.

It's still a body on chassis construction.
Jeep have made a conscious decision there.
And FWIW Jeep pre-dates Land Rover by decades on utilising monocoque construction.
The WJ Cherokee was released in 1984 with a full monocoque chassis.

Good points, either way 1 star is shocking, Jeep are trying to spin that its still safe. I love the concept if jeeps, however i wouldn't but one today after having a few near misses on and off road, safety is very important to me.