Printable View
Makes sense to me - I was only pointing out the obvious, that the L660 defender this thread occasionally refers to is more likely to appeal to the type of D3/4 owners that frequent these forums. ie, it is the new, new discovery for people that go (or identify as going) offroad.Quote:
Originally Posted by scarry
Sub frames don't make a chassis. A monocoque doesn't have a chassis ... the only exception was the D3 and D4, and their Range Rover sport brothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackrangie
As far as towing - in a chassis vehicle, the chassis takes the tow load. In a monocoque, those loads get distributed over the vehicle. As an example, in the 1970's, I towed a race sail boat (a 470) behind a Datsun ex rally car. The door sill under the driver's seat cracked. The rest of the body looked just fine. Creaks and groans occur over time in a monocoque that does lots of heavy towing. Hence why many say a chassis vehicle is best for towing. I wonder too about the alloy monocoque suffering from work hardening and fatigue from towing. Alloy changes its characteristics much more than steel when "worked".
Also it will cost a lot to make a monocoque Defender into a utility. Because without the roof, the monocoque will be weaker and it will flex like crazy. And unlike a Golf convertible or a BMW 3 series convertible, a ute will be supposed to be able to traverse tough off road environments, so its stiffness would need to be retained. So IMO an open topped ute tray Defender monocoque will cost a lot more than the wagon version. So IMO if you want an off road ute, best to look for a vehicle with a chassis.
As to the looks resembling a Ford - the D3 and D4 both look like Ford Rangers etc from the front IMO. Clamshell bonnet, headlamp look etc. And both were owned by Ford when they were designed.
For sure the l663 will appeal to them too, and d1, rrc, current defender owners that wish it was safer, more economical, comfortable, cabable out of the box, then there are all the other brands that will finally take green oval plunge due to them finslly having something good looking, capable and durable.Quote:
Originally Posted by veebs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne Park
Melbourne Park, a Moncoque is still considered a form of chassis - a Monocoque or Unibody chassis are typically where the body of the vehicle is designed and built to incorporate the chassis functions (i.e support the weight of the vehicle and perform any other function of a chassis). What you refer to as a "chassis" where the body of a vehicle is mounted to a separate frame or chassis is a Ladder Chassis or Body on Frame arrangement.
You cant compare a Dato 1600 to any well built monocoque vehicle, the Pajero post 1999 would be a more accurate comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne Park
Even Falcons made a reasonable tow vehicle and you dont hear of many of them cracking the subframe.
Fact is that frame chassis arrangement is quite different and IMO semantics just confuses things. Vincenzo Lancia would be upset too.Quote:
Originally Posted by BradDS10
Didnt say they subframes made anything. They are subframes that bolt onto the monocoque unibody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne Park
Maybe you misunderstood what i wrote?
A unibody certainly does have a chassis or a base frame, its integrated into the body and not seperate like body on frame, my point was only that the way unibodys can be engineered is that they can end up much stronger and rigid so you gain in that regard.
Monocoque 4X4s explained - should you be afraid? | Practical MotoringQuote:
So what “monocoque” 4x4s actually have is a chassis that is reinforced for stiffness and strength in some aspects by the body, so the body and chassis are one unit. This is known as unitary construction, a much less sexy term than monocoque which is why it probably hasn’t caught on. Maybe ‘body frame integral’ or ‘unibody’ will enter common parlance as these are also terms of unitary construction. The main advantages over separate-chassis are extra rigidity and overall lighter weight.
Off topic but do a search on creaks and squeaks on monocoques that tow - such as the Falcon and Pajero. They squeak when you tow, and quiet when you don't. Guess why ... I have a 1997 Prado, bought new in 1997 - its light, and tows great. No squeaks at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by loanrangie
But sure - monocoque is provides a stiff body normally. Monocoque big benefit IMO with an off road vehicle, is that it test drive for half an hour near the dealer's outlet, it handles much better and feels really strong and stiff.
Why not go far and make the motor stressed - it'd be even stiffer. But now the windscreens are too - and with their rain sensing electronic hardware - quite expensive to replace when their tensioned surface chips from a typical stone. We the customer pays for a new costly windscreen, the factory and retailers make their margin. Drop the door winders because electric ones now cost less. Leave it to the cost accountants to sign it all off.
If the Ford Ranger can become an Escape and Toyota can make a Hilux into a wagon and Mitsubishi can do the same then I'm sure LR can do the same.
As for names, the Discovery was called the LR3/4 in the USA, which was stupid as LR makes other vehicles. Let's just call it the Discovery 5 and I look forward to the Defender 2.
This PDF for me kinda sums it up:
Left column top to bottom
1985
1995
2005
2015
Right column top to bottom
1989
1999
2009
2019
Personally (and I’ve owned a D1) I don’t consider the Discovery Iconic
It is a functional economical fourby.
And as the changes in Discovery over 30 years clearly show
There is very little Iconism the company is even trying to portray
Now looking at LR2020 or Defender2- that 007 Ruskie leak - assuming it is the real deal is a jump in styling so far from its predecessors that any claim of Iconic Lineage starts and stops at the letters on the bonnet. In 10-15years the Defender 4 or whatever will be as disparate from a 1985 county as D5 is from a D1.
My rambling point is that this thing is NOT a Defender....
Now I could go and show a 1989 cruiser Ute, a 99, 09 and a 2019 and you would see a similar pattern as my picture of defenders. It can be done JLR just didn’t want to.
A 2019 cruiser Ute is everything an 89 isn’t (safer, bigger, better) but it’s still a cruiser Ute
JLR are merely using the name and calling it Iconic
Sure it might be a banging SUV , excelling off road , never break down , never leak oil, easily navigate the woolies carpark....
But it’s not a Defender!!!!
Steve