Thread: Will be Retro

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Hmm, isnt the D5 known as one of the best tow rigs? Payload, tow weight, ball weight etc, stability, safety etc, if it towes anything like the D5, we should be fine.

Bullbar on monocoque, same benefits as body frame,(protect the body) there is just no rubber between body & frame.

Monocoque still has chassis and is probably stronger and stiffer than the current defender.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by veebs

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

Sub frames don't make a chassis. A monocoque doesn't have a chassis ... the only exception was the D3 and D4, and the Range Rover sport brothers.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

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.

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 a ute will cost a lot more than the wagon version. So IMO if you want a ute, expect to buy 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.

You cant compare a Dato 1600 to any well built monocoque vehicle, the Pajero post 1999 would be a more accurate comparison.
Even Falcons made a reasonable tow vehicle and you dont hear of many of them cracking the subframe.

Originally Posted by BradDS10

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.

Fact is that frame chassis arrangement is quite different and IMO semantics just confuses things. Vincenzo Lancia would be upset too.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

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.

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.

Didnt say they subframes made anything. They are subframes that bolt onto the monocoque unibody.

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.

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.

Monocoque 4X4s explained - should you be afraid? | Practical Motoring

Originally Posted by loanrangie

You cant compare a Dato 1600 to any well built monocoque vehicle, the Pajero post 1999 would be a more accurate comparison.
Even Falcons made a reasonable tow vehicle and you dont hear of many of them cracking the subframe.

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.

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.