Hmm really not that much difference, 4wders generally prefer good departure angles/rampover angles over interior space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob66
Printable View
Hmm really not that much difference, 4wders generally prefer good departure angles/rampover angles over interior space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob66
About 10%.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackrangie
I don't have the numbers but I suspect it would be significantly more compared to the previous 110.
Those of us that use them as expedition/touring vehicles would compromise some departure angle for a bit more room. The previous 110 made a good expedition vehicle. It now looks like you'll need to go for a 130 for a similar result.
Yep 10% is nothing really, just put 10% of your stuff thats light on the rack + underfloor + side storage box, We use our RRC LSE as an expedition vehicle, the 110 looks based on pictures alone to be a large step up in usable space, especially looking at the full flat ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon3950
If its just the two of you and your building a true expedition vehicle, pull all the rear seats out and you will have tons of space, over a toone of payload and great offroad angles.
Im guessing commercial will be similar spec.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...11954abaa1.jpg
Fair enough, Nothing should ever be taken at face value.Quote:
Originally Posted by roverrescue
I have read that flooding the vehicle to well over it's wading ability with doors open for an hour is part of Land Rovers testing regime. This is what they did the the D5:
Of course that it does not preclude some oversight, but I figure if they're going to that sort of trouble they will have covered most if not all bases.Quote:
Heslop explains that the fording maximum is set at 900mm "because after that it floats". Land Rover has a test where the vehicle is put into a water tank at up to 30 per cent greater depth than it claims, all the doors are opened and the vehicle left for an hour, before the poor test engineer has to wade back in and check the vehicle will restart and crawl its way out of the flood.
On the complexity of the engine, Yeah I agree, I can't understand why the P300 is not here (thanks LRA) for those that want petrol but without the "electrickery" and no doubt the diesel line up needs a 6 with decent torque. On a side note, according to the UK site the P400 is ever so slightly more fuel efficient than the P300.
Personally, I think the engineers will have done a stellar job. It is the marketers and the designers (interior) that have mucked this up. They needed to tone down the stylistic aspect of the vehicle and get rid of some of the gadgetry. A little pragmatism would have gone a long way.
I'm fine with them milking the upper end of the market but disappointed that they haven't served the bottom end of the market very well. It's hard not to be cynical when you look at they way they have packaged it.
Ultimately, we will see how they did when someone can get their hands on one and drive it proper. I like the car and think it will be a success but there are a whole lot of people that were really looking forward to this that are perhaps disappointed that it is out of reach when it needn't have been.
BR, I think the payload will be dependent on the model and options added. The base 110 has a payload of 825Kgs (same as L494) while the "X" is 732Kgs. That's with full fluids and 75Kg driver (I haven't been 75Kgs since I was 16!). Getting a seven seater would be the go because LR add an extra 100Kgs to the max rear axle weight and 85Kgs to the gross weight of the vehicle meaning if you trim back the fat in the form of unneeded seats you might get some extra capacity. That might get you to the tonne on the base model but I don't think so on the 'X'.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackrangie
I think judging whether or not the engineers did a "stellar job" will be proven in time. If they have this vehcile will sell tremendously well. If one is reported as having a major issue or fault I believe the brand will not be able to avoid terrible sales and the perception unrecoverable. This is a golden opportunity for LR to show the world that this new defender is a reflection of where the company is in today's market and where its heading tomorrow and that reliabilty is paramount to the company's ethos and marketing strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by SBD4
I'm disappointed like you on the price point and feel as though they've chosen to ignore those that supported them over many years of Defender ownership. Having 2 small children and Mrs id happily pay $100k for a offroad capable comfortable vehicle. Anyhting over that seems like it's too much and at an estimated $120-$130k for a reasonably kitted 110 a bit on the ridiculous side.
Sure it's got some fancy gear but this new vehicle also has no pedigree, the name plate doesn't automatically award it worthy status but rather time and resilience to offroad torture.
Based on what has been shown so far i also agree the engineers have done a stellar job, much better than i expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1nando
Yep, the proof will be in the pudding for sure and you are dead right about how important this vehicle is to Land Rovers future.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1nando
The "new model" syndrome sure is a factor here. While the much of componentry has been proven in other vehicles, it hasn't been proven in the Defender configuration. There's also the new components and the biggie which is the manufacturing process. They seem to have been doing OK with the D5 in Slovakia, but it will be interesting to see how they go now they have to work with building two different vehicles instead of one.
Sean
Although I can only take Mr Heslop on his word
I’m sure he has been a little loose with the truth
30% deeper than 900 makes what 1200mm deep water
Even at max height that is well above bonnet / dash height
Even if they had a completely sealed air intake
After an hour water will find its way up the exhaust and into the engine IF it is not running
As indicated in the deep pool story
Now perhaps they sat in 1200 deep pool and kept it running and it didn’t die
With only a true snorkel modification
Or maybe they used a fully sealed extended exhaust stack before shutting down
But as that story is written I’m calling complete marketing BS
Having said all that maybe they have tested this jigger really really well and it will exceed even the toughest off-road challenges
But colour me skeptical I’ll wait to see it in the flesh
Before I start lauding the engineers !!!!
S
I consider 10% to be significant and its probably more like 20% on the old 110. Also, its not just volume but useable dimensions. Although the back of a Defender is a funny shape I find it easier to pack than a D4 due to its length. The length in the back of the new 110 is much less than a D4 (can’t remember the numbers) and to me that is a significant compromise. It’s easy to say carry less, or put more stuff on the roof, but for me that is a compromise that I don’t want.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackrangie
It can’t be all things to all people and no vehicle is perfect. For me though that reduction of space in the back is a big negative.