Thread: Will be Retro

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

..

Youtube: The new land rover defender in frankfurt.

Go windows

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

Seems like there might be three families to JLR off road labels:
Range Rover
Discovery
Defender

From the sound of the pre view of the new Defender ...

Doug

Yes and because of the similarity of the vehicles all competing with each other for market share rather than each "brand" targeting a particular segement and competing with other makers in those segments.

Eg the RRS main competitor is the FFRR and vice versa, no one is buying the D5 so it is not competing with anyone at the moment but when the new Defender is released it will compete and beat the D5.

Overall - I don't think companies like Toyota, BMW, Audi have a lot to worry about with current LR products.

Garry

Originally Posted by ozscott

Pajero Sport is much smaller and lighter vehicle than a Pajero.

The D3 which Jeremy Clarkson said had it's own gravity, has both a separate chassis and mono construction making it incredibly strong. And...the one in question was wearing a solid steel bull Bar...
Cheers

Yes -attached to the seperate chassis. If the solid steel bull bar was attached to the monocoque, the bull bar would have caused the crush zones in monocoque to deform. Resulting in not just the right corner of that Pajero collapsing, but instead, the whole front of the P S would have crushed in, although I'd suggest with less depth of intrusion. But still a likely right off IMO. That Pajero was likely written off IMO.

Bull bars work well on a separate chassis in preserving the vehicle IMO in what I would call low impacts . Which IMO that Pajero Sport inflicted a low impact to the D3.

The issue of vehicle mass, as mentioned: The Pajero Sport suffered a heavier hit to it than did the D3, due to the mass of the D3 being greater, which resulted in what I would call more than a low impact to the Pajero Sport. For instance, if the vehicle impacting the D3 had of been a VW Polo, there would have been even more damage to the Polo than there was to the Pajero IMO.

Before buying my 1997 Prado, back in 1996 I looked at deaths and damage to passengers and drivers via published statistics in NSW, which were available back then. The safest vehicles back then, 4 were 4WDs. The safest being the Holden Jackaroo (made by Izuzu and sold into the USA as a Honda curiously). The only non 4WD in the top 5 was an E class Mercedes, the W124 series, which came in 4th. The reality back then was that in suburban environments a heavy 4WD was comparatively very safe. Hitting a tree in the countryside though, you'd be better off in a vehicle with advanced crush zones, variable rate air bags and active safety including pre-emptive braking etc.

I also think a heavy tow vehicle is safer when towing as well, due to simple physics. But towing is not a significant requirement in most countries IMO. Its a niche in Australia though and I'd bet the D4 would have been very popular if it had of had the Toyota service network.

If you want to add things to an off road vehicle - wheel carriers, fuel and water carriers, fuel tanks, bull bars, winches, it's straight forward with a ladder frame chassis and also the stress of the extra weight from the accessories does not effect the cabin or the doors etc. of the vehicle, which the exception of roof racks extras. Not so with a monocoque which distributes those stresses throughout the whole entity.

Originally Posted by 101RRS

Yes and because of the similarity of the vehicles all competing with each other for market share rather than each "brand" targeting a particular segement and competing with other makers in those segments.

Eg the RRS main competitor is the FFRR and vice versa, no one is buying the D5 so it is not competing with anyone at the moment but when the new Defender is released it will compete and beat the D5.

Overall - I don't think companies like Toyota, BMW, Audi have a lot to worry about with current LR products.

Garry

Actually there are approx as many d5s sold as RR vogues worldwide, from memory 1/4 are from the states, in oz last month or the month before sales were comparible with the RRS, not bad for only 2.5years out.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

Yes -attached to the seperate chassis. If the solid steel bull bar was attached to the monocoque, the bull bar would have caused the crush zones in monocoque to deform. Resulting in not just the right corner of that Pajero collapsing, but instead, the whole front of the P S would have crushed in, although I'd suggest with less depth of intrusion. But still a likely right off IMO. That Pajero was likely written off IMO.

Bull bars work well on a separate chassis in preserving the vehicle IMO in what I would call low impacts . Which IMO that Pajero Sport inflicted a low impact to the D3.

The issue of vehicle mass, as mentioned: The Pajero Sport suffered a heavier hit to it than did the D3, due to the mass of the D3 being greater, which resulted in what I would call more than a low impact to the Pajero Sport. For instance, if the vehicle impacting the D3 had of been a VW Polo, there would have been even more damage to the Polo than there was to the Pajero IMO.

Before buying my 1997 Prado, back in 1996 I looked at deaths and damage to passengers and drivers via published statistics in NSW, which were available back then. The safest vehicles back then, 4 were 4WDs. The safest being the Holden Jackaroo (made by Izuzu and sold into the USA as a Honda curiously). The only non 4WD in the top 5 was an E class Mercedes, the W124 series, which came in 4th. The reality back then was that in suburban environments a heavy 4WD was comparatively very safe. Hitting a tree in the countryside though, you'd be better off in a vehicle with advanced crush zones, variable rate air bags and active safety including pre-emptive braking etc.

I also think a heavy tow vehicle is safer when towing as well, due to simple physics. But towing is not a significant requirement in most countries IMO. Its a niche in Australia though and I'd bet the D4 would have been very popular if it had of had the Toyota service network.

If you want to add things to an off road vehicle - wheel carriers, fuel and water carriers, fuel tanks, bull bars, winches, it's straight forward with a ladder frame chassis and also the stress of the extra weight from the accessories does not effect the cabin or the doors etc. of the vehicle, which the exception of roof racks extras. Not so with a monocoque which distributes those stresses throughout the whole entity.

Maybe you could start a mono vs chassis thread?

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Maybe you could start a mono vs chassis thread?

Not here - JLR have discarded the idea.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

Not here - JLR have discarded the idea.

Ladder Frame vs Monocoque

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Actually there are approx as many d5s sold as RR vogues worldwide, from memory 1/4 are from the states, in oz last month or the month before sales were comparible with the RRS, not bad for only 2.5years out.

But given their target segments, there should be 10 times the number of D5s sold compared to RR Vogues. Clearly highlights what a dud the D5 has turned out to be in marketing terms, both here and globally.