Thread: The New Defender: Diesel vs Petrol

Fact: modern diesels are trouble!!

Perhaps wht they've brought back a petrol option?

Even mighty Toyota can't make a modern diesel that runs like the old ones ie for 500000ks. Service and repair costs will chew up any fuel savings too...IMHO😎

Go the petrol. BTW superchargers are v common . They are v effective and simple and reliable too.

Originally Posted by Bellytanker

I am waiting for the rumoured all electric version. I reckon that will be a cracker.

Hybrid was seen at frankfurt, I believe released 2020, that would be good for AU for range.

Notice the plug in and left side "fuel" flap

Im not really much of a fan for long term ownership of modern diesels, so I would now be leaning more towards petrol. I've only brought my cars second hand and generally keep them as long as possible (last couple where forcibly removed due to being written off)

I dunno but the elephant in the room for me is it looks too much like an FJ Cruiser (please excuse the blasphemy)
Not really a fan of any of the engine options especially a turbo and super-charged diesel? (did I read that correctly?)
Been thinking about upgrading the Disco lately but there's really nothing anywhere that I like _and_ that I can justify the $$$$$$ spend.

Anyway I really like my 2003 Td5 D2a very much even after 16yrs. Yes all things plastic etc are breaking but it is still such a lovely vehicle.
I'ts due for new tyres next year and I'd like to replace the driver's seat but that's minor compared to new car costs these days.
It still has less than 150000km on the clock so not driven much but it's towed plenty when we go away.
I think the Disco will remain our tow vehicle for quite while yet.

Cheers
Peter

Originally Posted by RobA

OK
Camper is an AOR + which comes in at 2500kg. We're normally around the 2450kg mark fully loaded

Towing with a MY15 TDV6

Economy.
Bitumen normally around the speed limit is an average of 15.7l per 100km. In really bad conditions like 60kph+ headwinds we can hit low 20's. We always have a fully roof platform for remote travel
Off bitumen. Varies depending on conditions but our planning figure/average is 18l per 100km

These figures have not varied outside of their normal range for the last tow years and 50,000km all of which has been towing

We spend 3-5 months each year travelling remotely

Rob

I've not weighed mine and we don't use our AOR Matrix much but we did three weeks this year, two weeks on dirt. I'm running on the 18" alloy wheels 265/65 KO2s and the economy has been pretty good, but its speed dependent. On dirt roads at 70 kmh I was getting 13l/100. But I play with the transmission a bit to keep its revs down, it makes a difference. On bad roads its easy not to do that though.

I'd like to keep my D4; I bought my petrol 3.4 Prado in 1997 and its still going well. The interior lights don't work though. My major concern with LR is if it breaks down, getting it towed out, and a bush repair is out of the question. But with Toyotas the bush also don't have most parts and you had to wait too ... but a Toyota should be able to be fixed in the bush, although I reckon an older 70 series would be a heck of a lot easier than today's 200s. Which I don't like to drive.

The current V6 diesel seems a great engine IMO and short motors are becoming affordable now ... the thing that worries me about the new Defender is the lack of a chassis when towing. Vw, Mercedes, Ford - their delivery vans are still using a chassis. And they don't even tow. I am skeptical from a physics point of view about the advantages of a monocoque when towing 2 or more tonnes.

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

I've not weighed mine and we don't use our AOR Matrix much but we did three weeks this year, two weeks on dirt. I'm running on the 18" alloy wheels 265/65 KO2s and the economy has been pretty good, but its speed dependent. On dirt roads at 70 kmh I was getting 13l/100. But I play with the transmission a bit to keep its revs down, it makes a difference. On bad roads its easy not to do that though.

I'd like to keep my D4; I bought my petrol 3.4 Prado in 1997 and its still going well. The interior lights don't work though. My major concern with LR is if it breaks down, getting it towed out, and a bush repair is out of the question. But with Toyotas the bush also don't have most parts and you had to wait too ... but a Toyota should be able to be fixed in the bush, although I reckon an older 70 series would be a heck of a lot easier than today's 200s. Which I don't like to drive.

The current V6 diesel seems a great engine IMO and short motors are becoming affordable now ... the thing that worries me about the new Defender is the lack of a chassis when towing. Vw, Mercedes, Ford - their delivery vans are still using a chassis. And they don't even tow. I am skeptical from a physics point of view about the advantages of a monocoque when towing 2 or more tonnes.

I have complete faith in the D4. Given its duty cycle over the last 4.8 years and the sort of terrain we have travelled through over extended periods the car has never put a foot wrong and along the way been as reliable as all the LC200's we have travelled with but, on average, 20% more fuel efficient. An aircraft is a monocoque and WW2 fighters pretty much all were and they were pulling a lot of G's in combat plus plenty of buffeting. As our modern jets are made from composite fibre, along with ships like hovercraft and mine sweepers I have never felt the need to doubt the technology and I would think the operators would be very comfortable with the engineering and physics as the consequences of failure are somewhat higher than almost everything else on the planet

In fact on reflection we have experienced plenty of minor niggles with our AOR Q+ compared to the D4

Rob

Originally Posted by RobA

... An aircraft is a monocoque and WW2 fighters pretty much all were and they were pulling a lot of G's in combat plus plenty of buffeting.

...

..LC200's we have travelled with but, on average, 20% more fuel efficient. An aircraft is a monocoque and WW2 fighters pretty much all were and they were pulling a lot of G's in combat plus plenty of buffeting. As our modern jets are made from composite fibre, along with ships like hovercraft and mine sweepers I have never felt the need to doubt ...
In fact on reflection we have experienced plenty of minor niggles with our AOR Q+ compared to the D4.


Rob

Hey Rob. As to reliability of AOR, niggles are part of any job lot manufacture IMO. But the chassis of the AOR is probably its most important feature IMO and it's seems bullet proof. Most of the stuff that goes wrong in mine is due to the article failing from another manufacturer, not to AOR. I had a kink in a hose that played havoc but it was something that happened by not using the van and also such things can develop in hand built operations. AOR resprayed my front and roof due to a 3M material that failed and AOR picked up the considerable bill that was solely due to 3M who walked away. 'nuff said ..

As to the WWII fighters - my Dad - a 4th generation Australian - died 8 years ago but he flew Spitfires and Typhoons in the WWII. The Typhoon engine was over 2000 HP - it had 4 straight 8s with a central crankshaft. It was fast too - quicker than any Spitfire in a straight line.


My Dad destroyed a Spitfire when he went to 42000 feet on empty tanks and did a vertical dive with the throttle open, He pulled out at 14,000 feet and blacked out with the throttle pulled back to keep the plane level a(he'd tried this before at lower altitudes). He came to consciousness and could see the instruments again - but the altimeter kept spinning down. At 300 feet the plane stopped decending. The CO called him in next day and said that he'd ruined his plane - the rivets along the Spit's wings were popped, the plane deformed, and also on the body work things were wrecked. As punishment he was shipped off into combat. He did all that in training. He flew Typhoons in combat. But the life of those planes weren't that long. Plus the endurance of a fighter plane in WWII was very short. In the Typhoon, Dad was in the air for only 50 minutes a mission. He was more than likely to be shot down once in every 5 missions. So fatigue wasn't a fighter plane issue in WWII it seems to me. And failures happened although most were due to flack and to a lesser extent other aircraft.

My trained nurse Mum flew as an air hostess in Australian National Airline Douglas DC4s in the late 1940s Melbourne to Vancouver, rock hopping from Australia and then landing somewhere after hawaii for re-fueling to get to LA, then onto Vancouver. It took a week including for her a 4 day stop over in Honolulu. That DC4 was I think the same as the military C-54. However the tails fell off 'em. They sure fatigued but in wartime if a plane crashed it wasn't blamed on fatigue and even if they knew it was fatigue, it was wartime and they'd have flown the plane anyway. The Comet failed due to fatigue issues and Boeing people later said that but for the Comet lessons learned, the 707 would have had major fatigue issues. Although the dumb thing about the Comet was it's square windows which would fail due to fatigue around them causing the corners to open up. If they'd put in oval windows in the British Comet then it seems the 707 would have had major fatigue issues.

They've always used rivets for large alloy passenger planes - I have always presumed they aid expansion contraction issues hence fatigue issues. Rivets aren't aero dynamic so why have them? IMO less fatigue prone than welds, cheaper to build than welding and its easier to replace a fatigued part of the plane by removing the rivets and putting in a fresh part of the plane. When composite shows fatigue issues you just glue some composite over the top - they have to do that on carbon racing yachts often.

I notice that Ford, Mercedes, VW, etc etc still use a chassis for their transit vans etc. And they don't even tow. And the reason that the new Defender is light is IMO because its alloy - not just because of its monocoque. I wonder how much lighter an alloy body on a D4 might have been? And throw in some carbon fibre here and there too? And some magnesium for good measure? And keep the chassis ... the cost accountants would have rejected it though for Just In Time reasons plus building multiple vehicles from a single platform is the recipe car makers want to stick to nowadays. The Camry is a Rav is a Corrolla etc. etc.

I do wonder if LR had of put a flat square of carbon fibre with a kevlar outer layer from the tow bar to the front of the new Defender, and some similarly ultra light cross beams to also be a base for the front for a bull bar attachments and at the rear for some wheels etc., and some rubber connections to the monocoque underneath via those light composite cross bars - how much happier I'd have felt. Something like that would have cost maybe 10-15kg plus some rubber and bolts I reckon. And would have distributed the tow and extras stress more evenly across the monocoque. But if a designer had of shown that concept to a manager he'd have said the D4 concept is dead son and I've got orders that we can enhance the current floorpan design but that essentially we are not allowed to change it. So instead they fell back on the "we need to weld it better then" , it seems to me.

so, does anyone know if the petrol motor will need 91, 95 or good grief I hope not, 98 RON. Seems to me a big factor in availability and running costs.
Peter