Land Rover is dead... Long live land rover!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NT5224

....
With the release of this latest vehicle and the backtrack on producing a load carrying version (is that even possible with monocoque and gasbag suspension?) ....

---

I'm not understanding why folks seem to think that a monocoque body design won't allow a load carrying version?

Whether LR will do one, is up to them to decide, but just because the body design in unibody doesn't preclude it from being designed to carry loads.

Ford transit is the classic example of this change. Later gen Transits are unibody designs(literally a chassis and body welded together).
They upped it's already substantial load capacity to boot.
If memory serves me, the older gen(ie. body on chassis VE era ~1995) had about 1000kg load capacity(SWB) 2 pallet job.
Newer models in the 1300+ kg load capacity range for the same 2 pallet SWB models.

Volksy Transporter vans have been unibody for years now .. same with the Renaults, Peugeots etc.

Toyota's Jurrasic era latest release body on chassis vans, LWB models load cap is just over 1000kgs by comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK83

I'm not understanding why folks seem to think that a monocoque body design won't allow a load carrying version?

Whether LR will do one, is up to them to decide, but just because the body design in unibody doesn't preclude it from being designed to carry loads.

Ford transit is the classic example of this change. Later gen Transits are unibody designs(literally a chassis and body welded together).
They upped it's already substantial load capacity to boot.
If memory serves me, the older gen(ie. body on chassis VE era ~1995) had about 1000kg load capacity(SWB) 2 pallet job.
Newer models in the 1300+ kg load capacity range for the same 2 pallet SWB models.

Volksy Transporter vans have been unibody for years now .. same with the Renaults, Peugeots etc.

Toyota's Jurrasic era latest release body on chassis vans, LWB models load cap is just over 1000kgs by comparison.

---

Because a Monocoque Can or a Wagon is a completely different Banana to a monocoque Ute
Vans and wagons have roofs and walls carrying flexing loads
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

It’s the same reason that overloaded 130 utes cracked chassis but 130 wagons didn’t

S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Actually multiple external to JLR have seen and reported on its performance at moab, and around 10 reporters have sat in whilst being thrashed and reported on the experience, far from nothing.

10s of thousands of people have crawled all over them at frankfurt, dealers and shopping centres in the UK, Dubai, and LA motor show is next.

---

Have they driven it themselves?

I dont see the new defender being different to any other release from JLR in terms of when reporters get a thrash, we are just taking more notice.
It will only be after profiction line prototype testing in complete and signed of the automotive journalists get a drive, for obvious reasons.

I'm happy they are skipping parts of the process, due to impatience of people wanting reviews.

Have been following this thread for a while with some amusement mixed with angst, when you pull back and remember that no one has actually driven one yet! Anyhow, made me recall that this discussion has happened before (old enough to have been involved) except around campfires and in magazines. At that time it was the same, about Land Rover abandoning it's core workhorse roots and pandering to the soft roaders(not sure if that term was in fashion then, but you can get my drift) The issue then was the change from the manly and rugged leaf spring to the wimpy coils (which we all knew was an idea destined to bring down the world as we knew it). So if you are listening LR give us back the old Series and win back our trust, at least for the short time before you go bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverrescue

Because a Monocoque Can or a Wagon is a completely different Banana to a monocoque Ute
Vans and wagons have roofs and walls carrying flexing loads
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

It’s the same reason that overloaded 130 utes cracked chassis but 130 wagons didn’t

S

---

I should perhaps point out that my 1956 VW ute was monocoque - so the idea is not new. With a one ton payload and a large flat tray, these did not have a reputation for having any body issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackrangie

I dont see the new defender being different to any other release from JLR in terms of when reports get a thrash, we are just taking more notice.
It will only be after profiction line prototype testing in complete and signed of the automotive journalists get a drive, for obvious reasons.

I'm happy they are skipping parts of the process, due to impatience of people wanting reviews.

---

So they've released it a bit too early but want to 'drive' the hype surrounding it ?

What's the point of a manufacturer controlled review ?


Colin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverrescue

.....
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

....

---

Reason I brought up the Transit is that it also comes in a 'tray' variant too.
From what I've seen of the cab chassis versions of the Transit too, they're still body(as in cab) welded onto chassis rails.
Chassis is all welded too.

Honda in the US also has a monocoque dual cab ute(ridgeline) for sale in the US.
Can't see a tray version, only the tub. Has independent rear suspension too, and a bit over 700kgs payload(on coils). If they used air bags on the rear they could have probably increased that a bit more too.
Suspension does use bolt on subframes.
But the body itself is a unibody type. Images are available on the interwebs, and if you search for them you will see, it's basically a welded body on a ladder frame. A bit more than that, but that gives you an idea of what it is.

How do those monocoque utes go in low range across all terrains at GVM?

The ridge line gets a reasonable wrap as a tow vehicle but it is in no way an Off-road Ute.

S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gromit

So they've released it a bit too early but want to 'drive' the hype surrounding it ?

What's the point of a manufacturer controlled review ?


Colin

---

I don't think you realize the logistics of a car release?
They are releasing/showing the car all around the world right now to get the sales book started , at the same time doing final testing of the production prototypes in multiple countries. There is a process that needs to be followed.

The early offroad ride by reporters of pre production mules was to give reporters an early taste and create buzz, which it did. It was a thrash around JLRs test track. Water entered the cabin on 1 reporter but it ended up being temp wiring to the roof breaking the door seal.

Its only been a little over 2 months since release and im sure you will agree Franlfurt was a very good call for them (by reports it stole the show)

Maybe pen a letter to JLR with your proposed timeline taking into account absolutly everything, show them how they are wrong and how you would do it better, post it up for us too [emoji6].

The guys n girls in charge of the release and the pre release marketing are no doubt hundreds of seasoned industry professionals coming together to make decisions.

There comes a point were we should be humble and maybe realise that they know what they are doing because they are more experienced then us in this regard.

It been 2 months they are following normal release processes, imo reporters will get an actual drive when real pre production testing is complete for obvious reasons.