Thread: The New Defender

Originally Posted by DiscoClax

Definitely possible. Has been done for decades all around the world. Holden and Ford locally in the past, Transit currently, etc. as just a handful. Unitary or mono body with half-chassis. Likely is a different question and will depend on many aspects. Not super expensive to develop off a sedan or wagon but there needs to be good volume for it to make sense. If they want to tap into the top end of the 4x4 Ute market and reckon they can sell enough and they have the resources to prioritise that compared with all of the other JLR (and Tata) projects competing for those resources (money, engineers, facilities, time, etc). Then, yes. I hope they do as they'll do it well and raise customers expectations and therefore improve competitors also. Only they know their plan...

I wonder then if it in its somewhat commonality that they had considered it. If what they say is true about the new unibody design, they would at least have a great starting point to build off of.

If what Scarry says is the go and they aren't considering a ute, then it's possible they have put thought into it and decided that the cost of the extra development outweighs it's marketability. Yes a market in Australia and maybe parts of Africa, but not a lot in the US and Europe where the bulk will be sold.

Ute or no ute, it doesn't personally effect me, but whilst reading these posts and the "will/won't be retro" over the last year I had been thinking about how they could do it and the way the Aussie utes are, but no one has mentioned it.

Originally Posted by scarry

I recon it will be all most need,as heavy duty and as capable as D4 as an example.Probably slightly more capable,though.

But smallish fuel tank,smaller in rear than D4,not the greatest tourer,the 130 will be better.

A second tank maybe easily fitted,probably utilising battery space left for hybrid models,no tyre underneath helps.

To be a good seller in Aus,needs a bigger diesel engine,particularly for those that tow a lot,and coming from a 3.0L D4,or the TDV8 Cruiser.

What is the fuel tank size on the 110?


Cheers

Originally Posted by ozscott

What is the fuel tank size on the 110?


Cheers

85L diesel,90L petrol,usable,whatever that means.

D4 has 82 usable,most anyone can get into it is around 76L.

A larger tank is very helpful,particularly if towing.

Its not just about point to point travel,its helpful in many instances,as many would know.

85 is pretty good. Admittedly not being a ute storage of diesel is a pain but it could go on the roof or in a.rear aftermarket Jerry can holder to add 25 or 50 litres in total. I just purchased 2 x 25litre Scepter plastic diesel jerry cans and a Sceptor flo n go jobbie that looks like a petrol station pump handpiece. I can safely carry and dispense 50l of diesel down to the main fuel tank from the tub of the ute. Can't see why you couldn't do the same from a custom holder at the rear or on the roof rack of a new Deefender. For the Desert a little more might be required depending on where you go etc but should be easy to add even another Jerry for one off trips.

Cheers

I think it's important to not to compare the tank size to the D4 and assume you'd get similar range. My L494 has a 90 Litre tank, it is a TDV6 which has 190Kw/600Nm, when it was new I would regularly see in excess of 1000 Kms of range after filling it up. Now, nearly 4 years later and 133K Kms it's around 900 Kms and that's partly due to the fact that I drive it everywhere in sport mode now... not because I want to drag everyone at the lights but because it gets rid of the dreaded turbo lag.

If the improvement I saw going from the D4 to the RRS2 is anything to go by, I think people will be surprised by what range will be possible with the efficiency of the newer engines and bit of weight loss.

Disclaimer: I know that I am talking about numbers that come from the ever optimistic Land Rover trip computer but it comes from the same place as the D4s trip computer which used to give me a reported range of about 650Kms after filling.

Originally Posted by SBD4

I think it's important to not to compare the tank size to the D4 and assume you'd get similar range. My L494 has a 90 Litre tank, it is a TDV6 which has 190Kw/600Nm, when it was new I would regularly see in excess of 1000 Kms of range after filling it up. Now, nearly 4 years later and 133K Kms it's around 900 Kms and that's partly due to the fact that I drive it everywhere in sport mode now... not because I want to drag everyone at the lights but because it gets rid of the dreaded turbo lag.

If the improvement I saw going from the D4 to the RRS2 is anything to go by, I think people will be surprised by what range will be possible with the efficiency of the newer engines and bit of weight loss.

Disclaimer: I know that I am talking about numbers that come from the ever optimistic Land Rover trip computer but it comes from the same place as the D4s trip computer which used to give me a reported range of about 650Kms after filling.

Going on reports from people that have D5 with same diesel engines that are in new Defender,fuel usage is not that much better than last of the D4 V6,8 speed.And the D5 is lighter than the new Defender.

I get 8 to 8.5 l/100km out of my D5 SD4 while I got 10 l/100km out of my 2.7 D3 (measured not from trip meter) , not sure what the extra weight and reduced torque will make.

Originally Posted by Rovingwill

I get 8 to 8.5 l/100km out of my D5 SD4 while I got 10 l/100km out of my 2.7 D3 (measured not from trip meter) , not sure what the extra weight and reduced torque will make.

The late D4 with 8 speed had about 10 to 15% better fuel economy than a 6 speed.

Mine will do around 9.0l/100 at best on a run,actual,dash readout will be around 8l/100.