Thread: Will be Retro

Originally Posted by roverrescue

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

Sure it is - it’s written right on the bonnet.. 😉

Hope the new Bond film is good.
Love Bond films.

Originally Posted by ozscott

A D5 is not a D1 either....couldn't be further from a D1 but that doesn't stop LR. If LR kept developing the old jalopy Deefer instead of leaving it in yesteryear then we would be in exactly the same place arguably with Defender 2. So no it's not (thankfully) a Defender with some modern kit in it. And LR can call it what it wants.

Cheers

Yep its as much a defender as a d5 is a discovery, its no old defender for sure, some people will like that others won't. If they don't they can keep their old one or buy one, everyone's happy.

Originally Posted by 16PMark

Hope the new Bond film is good.
Love Bond films.

Been looking at spy shots of filming, there is a RRS that is flipped in it too and lots of cars..looks like they are putting a lot off effort into it! Will be there first night for sure

Hi blackrangie,

Awesome! I'll bring the drinks and popcorn! Hoping also, for an Aston Martin we don't know about too.

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Been looking at spy shots of filming, there is a RRS that is flipped in it too and lots of cars..looks like they are putting a lot off effort into it! Will be there first night for sure

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 others have said, a monocoque is a type of chassis.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

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 ....

My dad's a farmer and spent decades towing cattle around with an old HR Holden - it might've stretched a little but there was no cracking.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

.....

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. ....

Errr.. dunno about this.
I reckon there's enough Triton owners here in Aus that will debate that claim!

A google search for cracked chassis will reveal many ladder frame chassis cracking events, very few monoque cracking hits tho.

A monocoque design will be stronger for a given body weight every time compared to a ladder frame.
And the ladder frame design will make it cheaper to build variant bodies for the manufacturer.

Originally Posted by AK83

Errr.. dunno about this.....
A monocoque design will be stronger for a given body weight every time compared to a ladder frame.
And the ladder frame design will make it cheaper to build variant bodies for the manufacturer.

"Stronger" doesn't really describe the differences does it ... for torsional rigidity a monocoque is the cheapest way to get there, for sure. And for a given level of torsional rigidity, its lighter too, and much cheaper to build, plus it crushes better in a crash. Plus you can roll the floor pan into all sorts of different vehicles, the new Defender being a typical example of what contemporary cost accountants have decreed. Towing though with a chassis sees the stresses by pass the "cabin" which is not subjected to the tow weight strains.

If a chassis Defender had of been developed, street wise it would have been worse than this new monocoque one will be. And R&D cost would have been many many many times greater, because it would have been new. And IMO a version of the D3/4 concept would have been very heavy which is not a Defender hallmark and also costly. Rather than a conversion of current floorpans into something more off-road and evidently tougher.

It's great they've created a new "Defender". And they aren't making X5s or Audi Porsches etc. ie just essentially good handling softroaders. LR are differentiated and that differentiation goes back to their core off road heritage. While I'd have liked a chassis in the new "Defender", the cost of capital for developing a new chassis platform would have provided a much lower return than using that capital for other JLR projects that are coming. So doing a chassis Defender might have wrecked the company. We've got to be happy that they did something and who knows whether for me it will provide a tow option, or something that 3rd parties will want to develop off road gear for. And I note that ARB don't seem to list gear for the current Discovery models.