The New Defender

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon3950

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.

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.

---

Its around 200mm less than D4,which is a huge amount of room.
Using a RTT,not much more will fit on the roof,but it does leave a bit more room inside the vehicle.

D1 rear to D2 was 150mm,and the general comment was that was a huge amount of room.

I do think LR deliberately left it short in the rear,to accomodate the 130.Whether that was a good idea,or not,we will have to wait and see.

Many do like the D4,LC,Patrol,old Defender,as a touring wagon, because the have a heap of loadspace room.
I would think people that own them would much prefer the room than worry to much about departure angles.

Removing the 2nd row of seats maybe OK for long trips,which i have done many times,but for shortish trips taking them in and out is a PITA.

One of the main reasons we traded our D1 for a 110 was the extra room in the rear. It's a major issue for expedition vehicles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roverrescue

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

---

Nothing wrong with a good dose of skepticism Steve, it's a basic instinct that helps to keep us wary of hazards (taken to the cleaners)![thumbsupbig]

Who knows what the true test parameters were? I can only assume that for the test to be somewhat meaningful the car had to be configured as it would be used by Average Joe. Maybe the success criteria was simply that the vehicle had to operate for 15 minutes after the 1 hour submersion after which point it was a write off.

My take on it is, regardless of the actual depth and duration of the test, it's a pretty impressive feat for a modern vehicle to achieve given the prolific use of electronics.

It would be great if LR released some test footage like they did with the D3 (maybe someone else did that). It'd go a long way to settling the doubts around the claims they are making and cementing some confidence in the legitimacy of the to its heritage.

BTW I only bring this info up as I think it is interesting and gives some more points to discuss. With this stuff, I like to keep an open mind to both sides...it helps my education... God knows i need it!

Agree it’s very interesting information
Just that engines don’t run after they fill up with water
1200mm will backfill at least one pot via an open exhaust valve
If the engine is not running

Agreed maybe the parameters were somewhat fluid

Hey that old hilux on top gear spent a salty high tide running through it and ran again
BUT they spent a little time making sure the pots were dry (ish) before jumping the starter

Maybe they sat the Defisco in a big bath for an hour

But before hitting the key or whatever jango starts this thing they would have to have emptied the pots of soggy stuff

Haha. Departure angle compromise is fixed by height adjustable air suspension! Give me extra storage volume anyday.

These angles are important to me and if a 110 new defender doesn't have enough space for 2 people overlanding imo you have too much stuff.

Big Familys for sure would need to utilize the roof fack or a camper trailer.

These angles are at high setting, increasing the length decreases departure or ramp which are both equally important.

I find it funny that if it had a departure angle that was rubbish some would be saying why did they make it so long.

A true 4x4 should have class leading offroad angles first and then get the most storage around that with a boxy shape, tick, tick, for both generations of defender.

New one looks after family comfort and legroom more which was needed to actually sell it. The rear seats now look like a very nice place to be.

For the 110 its got 34 cubic feet with 3rd row down, which is roughly the same as the D5 with its third row folded. Fold down the second row and the 110’s interior space grows to 78.8 cubic feet, that's a lot of packing space.

Feet is a good measurement for interior car space as you can get a visual.

For those that need more there is the 130(showing mid 2020 release), but no mater how the wheelbase ends up it will be a compromise off-road, however some as already mentioned don't mind as much as others.

And for those that need less there is the 90 which is not far off either.

Pretty much everyone's catered for imo.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5647d8f5c7.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5103b1defa.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackrangie

These angles are important to me and if a 110 new defender doesn't have enough space for 2 people overlanding imo you have too much stuff.

Big Familys for sure would need to utilize the roof fack or a camper trailer.

These angles are at high setting, increasing the length decreases departure or ramp which are both equally important.

I find it funny that if it had a departure angle that was rubbish some would be saying why did they make it so long.

A true 4x4 should have class leading offroad angles first and then get the most storage around that with a boxy shape, tick, tick, for both generations of defender.

New one looks after family comfort and legroom more which was needed to actually sell it. The rear seats now look like a very nice place to be.

For the 110 its got 34 cubic feet with 3rd row down, which is roughly the same as the D5 with its third row folded. Fold down the second row and the 110’s interior space grows to 78.8 cubic feet, that's a lot of packing space.

Feet is a good measurement for interior car space as you can get a visual.

For those that need more there is the 130(showing mid 2020 release), but no mater how the wheelbase ends up it will be a compromise off-road, however some as already mentioned don't mind as much as others.

And for those that need less there is the 90 which is not far off either.

Pretty much everyone's catered for imo.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5647d8f5c7.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...5103b1defa.jpg

---

Depends what you do with the vehicle. When I take the family.of.5 and the boat away on camping trips the new Triton with a much bigger load space and load rating than the 110 is not enough and I need the roof too. And it's not glamping. I can't put more stuff in the boat due to load limits there. I have camped rough plenty of times and this is comfortable but not excessive. Extra boat fuel tabks, boat spare wheels, solar, fishing gear etc etc before you get to camping gear. Now if you add in remoter camping taking in your own water and leaving with your rubbish, well you would need every bit of the d4 extra 200mm and then some. So no there are many people for whom the new 110 just wouldn't cut it.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozscott

Depends what you do with the vehicle. When I take the family.of.5 and the boat away on camping trips the new Triton with a much bigger load space and load rating than the 110 is not enough and I need the roof too. And it's not glamping. I can't put more stuff in the boat due to load limits there. I have camped rough plenty of times and this is comfortable but not excessive. Extra boat fuel tabks, boat spare wheels, solar, fishing gear etc etc before you get to camping gear. Now if you add in remoter camping taking in your own water and leaving with your rubbish, well you would need every bit of the d4 extra 200mm and then some. So no there are many people for whom the new 110 just wouldn't cut it.

Cheers

---

Exactly.

Now if it had a larger fuel tank,that would free up the space where a couple of jerries would go,but it hasn’t.Hopefully the after market guys will find space for one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozscott

Depends what you do with the vehicle. When I take the family.of.5 and the boat away on camping trips the new Triton with a much bigger load space and load rating than the 110 is not enough and I need the roof too. And it's not glamping. I can't put more stuff in the boat due to load limits there. I have camped rough plenty of times and this is comfortable but not excessive. Extra boat fuel tabks, boat spare wheels, solar, fishing gear etc etc before you get to camping gear. Now if you add in remoter camping taking in your own water and leaving with your rubbish, well you would need every bit of the d4 extra 200mm and then some. So no there are many people for whom the new 110 just wouldn't cut it.

Cheers

---

Agree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, everyone is differenr camping/boating not vic high country/watagans or yalwal in NSW or cape york were angles are everything.

For me, we go long distances, need good space, good angles, drive hard tracks, drive easy tracks.

As mentioned by next year everyone seems to be catered for in the range. If you need big space, go 130. For most 110 will be fine.

One big improvement i see is there is now lots more room for a fridge in the back were as due to the side boxes and smaller rear door in the previous gen defender it was difficult, most ended up with it coming out the side inplace of seats.

Has anyone got the behind front seats literage from gen1,2 defender, i would imagine its similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackrangie

Agree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, everyone is differenr camping/boating not vic high country/watagans or yalwal in NSW or cape york were angles are everything.

For me, we go long distances, need good space, good angles, drive hard tracks, drive easy tracks.

As mentioned by next year everyone seems to be catered for in the range. If you need big space, go 130. For most 110 will be fine.

One big improvement i see is there is now lots more room for a fridge in the back were as due to the side boxes and smaller rear door in the previous gen defender it was difficult, most ended up with it coming out the side inplace of seats.

Has anyone got the behind front seats literage from gen1,2 defender, i would imagine its similar.

---

"One big improvement i see is there is now lots more room for a fridge in the back were as due to the side boxes and smaller rear door in the previous gen defender it was difficult, most ended up with it coming out the side inplace of seats."

What? I thought it was great. I built a draw system between both wheel arches creating a flat floor space above the arches and then installed a gull wing window on the passenger side and accessed my fridge easily. In fact I thought it was very practical apposed to a fridge slide that isn't space efficient or removing a seat which wasn't practical.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...34a55acf8d.jpg

Apologies for the screen shot, but I took it from my Google drive