Won’t be retro...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donh54

JLR has more money now, than it ever had - thanks to those same "nice modern SUVs". Without the cash-flow from them, Defender would be dead and buried.

Personally, I'd like to see a D4 with a lot of the fruit removed, and a manual gearbox, available as either a wagon, a trayback ute, or a dual-cab, in standard and long wheelbase variants. [biggrin][biggrin]

---

Defender is dead and buried. From what I can tell, it will be a poverty pack Disco or Rangie, and possibly a Disco/Rangie based ute. A dual cab Disco ute would be an interesting one, but a Defender it is not.

If they are so flush with money, then they should be taking more pride in the history of their brand and developing a new 4x4 that brings some essense of the defender into the 21st century. It's an opportunity to show off their off road pedigree, something they seem to have lost sight of. Their stable is full of yuppie busses, bring back a solid workhorse!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

JLR is maximising the number of models it produces using standardised components, which is logical.
The new Defender is to use an aluminum Range Rover platform and existing engines.

---

Which is a very interesting point to make, Mick.

That’s exactly how the original coil sprung 110/County/Defender was designed. We all seem to be pretty happy with that now.

Cheers,
Jon

Not just the coil sprung Landrovers - while the chassis and body of the first Landrover were new, the engine was an existing one, the gearbox dated from 1932, as did the diffs. New design bits also included the transfer case and front axle. Springs shocks, brakes, electrics were all off the shelf.

Very true. I was thinking specifically of the Range Rover reference, a vehicle that was fairly radical when it was introduced and not considered a “proper” 4wd.

Cheers,
Jon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon3950

Very true. I was thinking specifically of the Range Rover reference, a vehicle that was fairly radical when it was introduced and not considered a “proper” 4wd.

Cheers,
Jon

---

Same reaction to the coil sprung 110/90.

Yes. Many were convinced that it could not be a proper four wheel drive without leaf springs.

BS. When the Defenders came out everyone knew the RR was great off road and it would only make the Land Rover better.

Today anyone that knows anything k owe the RR and Disco are crap off road and will make the Defender replacement crap.

Why are they crap offroad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red90

BS. When the Defenders came out everyone knew the RR was great off road and it would only make the Land Rover better.

Today anyone that knows anything k owe the RR and Disco are crap off road and will make the Defender replacement crap.

---

When Defenders came out, the coil sprung 110 had been on the market for about six years, and if you were round when the 110 came out, like I was, you would be aware that it was considered to have "gone soft" like the Rangerover. Not that they thought the Rangerover was incapable off road, but that coil springs were unsuitable for load carrying, which, after all, is the primary requirement for utility four wheel drives like the Defender and its predecessors. It should be pointed out that most of those who decried the 110 when it came out had no experience with either it or the Rangerover. There was very little overlap between Landrover users and Rangerover users in the early eighties. Rangerover drivers were almost exclusively wealthy, and commonly lived in Toorak if in Melbourne - most Landrover drivers were either wages employees driving them as company vehicles or farmers etc, and a large part of this market was becoming dominated by Toyota and to a lesser extent Nissan, who still used leaf springs and used it as an advertising point in comparing to Landrovers.

I can't comment on the current Landrover products from my own experience, but the reports I have seen say they are not "crap offroad", although their load carrying ability seems to be under that of the Defender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

Why are they crap offroad?

---

IMO its because of the reliance of electronic trickery.

Dont get me wrong its amazing what they can do with traction control and all the computer stuff. But the basis for a GOOD offroad vehicle is a stable platform. That being through its physical balance and suspension. All modern SUVs are not! yes they go places but dont do it easy on the vehicle and some times unsafe despite the fact most of the electronic aids are designed to add saftey.

A lurching unstable vehicle is not safe and not easy on the mechanical components