Thread: Won’t be retro...

Originally Posted by DrytheRain

Gerry McGovern certainly seems to have a single-minded focus on selling crossovers and light-duty four wheel drives, loaded with bling and gadgetry, to the wealthier individuals in society. He’ll happily trade on the Series/Defender heritage, but not come up with a fitting replacement.

It actually amazes me that LR has sat on its hands for years, instead of just getting on with the job of designing a replacement for THE Land Rover. I’d love to hear the thought processes involved.

I mean, Defenders already sold to people who didn’t need one based on their image. The Benz G Wagen also sold on its image, despite being fairly agricultural, though Benz realised this sooner and offered more powerful, luxurious versions. What I’m saying is that the Defender replacement didn’t need to be super-high tech and have some sort of modern monocoque aluminium construction. If it were a sufficiently modern body-on-frame wagon or ute with rugged styling, decent engines, the option of luxurious trim and an auto for those who are so inclined, it would be an instant success. The image was already there to sell to non-traditional buyers.

The other aspect that I can’t figure out is that when you’re going to re-enter the US market with your new model, why would you take another Disco/RR variant soft-roader and try to sell it as a Defender - a formerly desirable forbidden fruit? The response is likely to be “meh”. Americans love rugged trucks and pickups, so if you were to deliver a proper BOF truck you should be onto a winner. If you can offer a genuinely capable Jeep Wrangler alternative, then even better (incidentally, the new Wrangler shows how this should be getting done). Gerry McGovern loves to talk about sales figures, well there’s a lot of new sales right there.

If they could sort out their dealer network, they could probably shift a fair few more out here in Australia too. If the new Defender were an actual LandCruiser or Patrol alternative, they could sell to farmers and maybe mining companies and it wasn’t even that long ago that Telstra, power companies, fire authorities and police forces in Australia were running Defenders.

Sadly, it sounds like it’s all too late.

The problem has always been that lr were cash strapped for so long that they couldn't afford decent development so design effectively stalled.
Anyone that expected anything less than a leading edge design is living under a rock.

You mean leading edge design in terms of how it looks? I think I can handle it being quite modern in appearance, if it has the right Defender design cues and looks tough. The graphic from the LA motorshow presentation gives me hope. I just can’t fathom why they’re using their aluminium monocoque platform, other than to amortise cost. It doesn’t differentiate the new Defender in any meaningful way from everything else in their range. They can say what they want about the Discovery and Range Rover lines being different, but at this point everything’s starting to blur into one.

I understand that designing a new platform is extremely expensive, even something as relatively low-tech as a ladder frame, but you’d think LR themselves, or even parent Tata would pull out the stops when replacing one of the most iconic vehicles ever made.

I’m just disappointed that after all the rumours about needing a properly utilitarian dual cab in the range, steel sub frames with live axles, etc. it’s just going to be another flavour of the same thing. If it’s a cut-down RR Sport in khakis, what’s the point?

Perhaps worth reminding everyone that in the early 1980s many, if not most, existing and potential potential Landrover buyers were absolutely certain that coil springs were totally unsuited to utility vehicles, and Leyland had written the end of Landrover by using Rangerover technology on the Landrover!

It can be a leading edge design, as well as super robust and hose-out. If it's not, it will be just another luxurious Disco/Rangey clone.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Perhaps worth reminding everyone that in the early 1980s many, if not most, existing and potential potential Landrover buyers were absolutely certain that coil springs were totally unsuited to utility vehicles, and Leyland had written the end of Landrover by using Rangerover technology on the Landrover!

100% agree John.

I have told this a few times, about a conversation with Mal Storey, who is a bit of an authority and reckoned the drive train on any Range Rover or 110 after the LT95, and certainly post Salisbury or proper drive flanges was rubbish and not worth a pinch.

Originally Posted by rar110

100% agree John.

I have told this a few times, about a conversation with Mal Storey, who is a bit of an authority and reckoned the drive train on any Range Rover or 110 after the LT95, and certainly post Salisbury or proper drive flanges was rubbish and not worth a pinch.

While I agree with both your post and John's, it is also worth remembering that the various versions of what became known as the Defender have NEVER crossed over into either the Discovery or Range Rover worlds. I think the fears being expressed in the various threads regarding the new Defender is that that will no longer be the case, and the Defender will no longer be the Heart and Soul. I hope we are wrong.

You have got to be kidding.....the heart of Land Rover, since it's conception, has been without any doubt, the Discovery.

The soul of Land Rover since its conception , has been Range Rover.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

You have got to be kidding.....the heart of Land Rover, since it's conception, has been without any doubt, the Discovery.

The soul of Land Rover since its conception , has been Range Rover.

Ha! ...I always wondered why the icon was such a piece of junk.