Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 96

Thread: Disco 4 vs new Defender comparison

  1. #61
    DiscoMick Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rar110 View Post
    It’s all about relativity.

    I drove our perentie wagon to the middle of Australia and back, and was ready to do it again right then.

    Now, 8 years later after driving that same 110 on the M1 to Coopers Plains, for about 1/2 an hour, I wasn’t game to go over 90kmh.

    The new Defender will have rack & pinion steering, EAS, ABS, TRS. So will be incredibly more drivable in all conditions and will only notionally connected to the 2015 Defender, which is ok as it was a dogs breakfast at best. I could describe it worse, it was a sub optimal rather than the ultimate example of the Ford produced Defender. I think it will be historically be regarded as a second rate product, which was a terrible strategic decision by Ford for such an iconic product.
    Gotta disagree there. Our 2009 has done 70,000 ks since we bought it, and cruises just fine at highway speeds. I think it is a modern classic, and the high resale says many people agree.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,279
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoMick View Post
    Gotta disagree there. Our 2009 has done 70,000 ks since we bought it, and cruises just fine at highway speeds. I think it is a modern classic, and the high resale says many people agree.
    Taking about the general QC, build and engineering compromises/cost cutting by Ford in a lot of places weren't great.
    From all accounts far, far quieter than previous incarnations though.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisbane,some of the time.
    Posts
    13,643
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rick130 View Post
    Taking about the general QC, build and engineering compromises/cost cutting by Ford in a lot of places weren't great.
    From all accounts far, far quieter than previous incarnations though.
    Disgraceful,is the word,Rick.

    Yes i must admit it is quieter and faster than the Series 1,starts easier as there is no choke,but still bloody noisey,especially with a set of KM2's on.The ride is great,nice and smooth,and they handle pretty well.

    They are not as frugal as the old models either,the D4 is way better,and the LC76 only about 1litre/100 worse on a run,about 2L at the very most around town.Although the drivability and low down torque off idle of the LC76 puts the 2.4 to shame,but the engines are completely different.

    Although as Mick says they are a modern classic,with huge resale compared to other modern LR products.

    But that is because there are very few around,and many people put them in the 'i just want one' category.

    One of the guys at MR told me last week,priced sensibly,they do sell pretty quickly as well,particularly the later ones.
    Paul

    D2,D2,D2a,D4,'09 Defender 110(sons), all moved on.

    '56 S1,been in the family since...'56
    Comes out of hibernation every few months for a run

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    5,779
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoMick View Post
    Gotta disagree there. Our 2009 has done 70,000 ks since we bought it, and cruises just fine at highway speeds. I think it is a modern classic, and the high resale says many people agree.
    I’m glad you’ve had a good experience with you car. I’m also happy to agree the interior was nice improvement.
    L322 tdv8 poverty pack - wow
    Perentie 110 wagon ARN 49-107 (probably selling) turbo, p/steer, RFSV front axle/trutrack, HF, gullwing windows, double jerrys etc.
    Perentie 110 wagon ARN 48-699 another project
    Track Trailer ARN 200-117
    REMLR # 137

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    NSW far north coast
    Posts
    17,279
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by scarry View Post
    Disgraceful,is the word,Rick.

    Yes i must admit it is quieter and faster than the Series 1,starts easier as there is no choke,but still bloody noisey,especially with a set of KM2's on.The ride is great,nice and smooth,and they handle pretty well.

    They are not as frugal as the old models either,the D4 is way better,and the LC76 only about 1litre/100 worse on a run,about 2L at the very most around town.Although the drivability and low down torque off idle of the LC76 puts the 2.4 to shame,but the engines are completely different.

    Although as Mick says they are a modern classic,with huge resale compared to other modern LR products.

    But that is because there are very few around,and many people put them in the 'i just want one' category.

    One of the guys at MR told me last week,priced sensibly,they do sell pretty quickly as well,particularly the later ones.
    Some of the things JC has seen....Disco 4 vs new Defender comparison
    Let's just say he's flicked me a few messages with photos and the caption "guess what this is out of?"
    I didn't win anything when I answered "Puma" every time!

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisbane,some of the time.
    Posts
    13,643
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rick130 View Post
    Some of the things JC has seen....Disco 4 vs new Defender comparison
    Let's just say he's flicked me a few messages with photos and the caption "guess what this is out of?"
    I didn't win anything when I answered "Puma" every time!
    I have just spent the last 3 weeks,on and off stripping one inside completely,and its about 1/2 back together.

    Reminds me of the old Mecano set we had when we were kids

    The paint on the actual body appears to be pretty good quality,but they forgot to treat a lot of the alloy pieces properly before painting.

    The paint on the seat rails,brackets,etc, is just peeling off,very poorly done.Matts that go around seats and in front footwells,over transmission tunnel, are absolute rubbish quality.As is the gearstick,window rubbers,etc.

    And haven't started on the mechanical stuff yet,except fluid changes.

    Luckily we know a panel guy who works for himself,and knows Defenders inside out,has a steady stream of them in for repairs.
    Thanks to the guys at MR auto,again.
    Paul

    D2,D2,D2a,D4,'09 Defender 110(sons), all moved on.

    '56 S1,been in the family since...'56
    Comes out of hibernation every few months for a run

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    83
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    No. There is almost no evidence to support this. Yes, there is a massive decrease in deaths and injuries compared to the past - how massive depends on what time gap you look at. But the rate of accidents, deaths and injuries have been decreasing fairly steadily ever since statistics started being collected in the 1920s. The only innovations that made a noticeable drop below this regular decrease were seat belts and random breath testing.

    Data from insurers shows that in real life, accidents and their results are surprisingly independent of the vehicle's safety features.

    The reduction is almost certainly a combination of a large number of factors - attributing it to vehicle design is very one eyed. Road design and standards have possibly the largest influence - to see this effect, you just have to look at the relative safety records for divided roads against two lane roads - and freeways are even better. No such comparison can be found for vehicle standards.

    Minor changes, from road edge markings, to tyre design, to road signage, curve straightening, turning lanes etc etc all have cumulative effects, and one of the most important (but almost impossible to quantify) is driver attitudes. You just have to think, for example, about the attitude to drink-driving; thirty years ago, the response to a mate getting caught would be "bad luck". Today it would mostly be "the idiot had it coming".
    I didn't say vehicle design was solely responsible I said it was directly attributable. I also said vehicle design - by that I mean advances in brakes, tyres, suspension, engines etc as well as safety features. Suggesting it's all down to better roads and no drink driving is a little bit ridiculous.

    Of course it's hard to attribute to one specific feature - that's what continuous improvement is all about. It's an ongoing development that drives incremental improvements, each minor on their own but adding up to a significant whole. It's same reason that they have been steadily decreasing (on a deaths per million vehicle km driven rate) since cars existed. Because we are not driving 1920s cars anymore.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    83
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    Yes - but this is where the error in deciding what causes the drop in the road toll arises. No question that the modern car is safer when it runs off the road and hits a tree, although tow things should be pointed out - anything much over 60kph and it doesn't much matter the type of car, and you do not need a a big tree. Most fatals round here are exactly this scenario, usually well over 100kph, usually about 0200, and the tree is rarely seriously damaged if it is over 150mm trunk.

    But the bigger influence on whether someone is killed or injured is whether it left the road and hit the tree in the first place. And road construction, signage, and driver attitude has far more influence on this than car or tyre design.
    Improvements in tyres, rain wipers, stability control, brakes, headlights and suspension all have a major impact as well.

    Tried driving a country road in the dark and in the rain in a car from the 80s with old tyres, crappy headlights and crappy wipers? Much safer in a modern vehicle, if only because you can see where you're going.

    Hitting a tree at 60+ yeah you're probably stuffed no matter what car you're in.

  9. #69
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    28,805
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexRS4 View Post
    Improvements in tyres, rain wipers, stability control, brakes, headlights and suspension all have a major impact as well.

    Tried driving a country road in the dark and in the rain in a car from the 80s with old tyres, crappy headlights and crappy wipers? Much safer in a modern vehicle, if only because you can see where you're going.

    Hitting a tree at 60+ yeah you're probably stuffed no matter what car you're in.
    But equally safe if you drive according to conditions, the vehicle you are driving and your ability. I have driven many, many kilometres in the dark and rain on country roads over the last sixty years, very little of it in post '80s cars, without accidents except for hitting (or being hit by) roos. The only other accidents I have ever been involved in were at low speed in built-up areas - two were my fault, the others were a car drove through a stop sign into the left side of me, and most recently a car ran into the back of my trailer while I was waiting to turn right. Other accidents my cars have been involved in while I was not driving were my d-i-l while learning side swiped a tree and while my car was lent to the captain of the local brigade a firetruck backed into it during a fire.

    The "much safer in modern vehicles" is not supported by the actual accident data. It is if you just look at the deaths or injuries once you have an accident, but not if you look at the overall deaths and injuries per kilometre.
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Faraday, Vic
    Posts
    94
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    But equally safe if you drive according to conditions, the vehicle you are driving and your ability. I have driven many, many kilometres in the dark and rain on country roads over the last sixty years, very little of it in post '80s cars, without accidents except for hitting (or being hit by) roos. The only other accidents I have ever been involved in were at low speed in built-up areas - two were my fault, the others were a car drove through a stop sign into the left side of me, and most recently a car ran into the back of my trailer while I was waiting to turn right. Other accidents my cars have been involved in while I was not driving were my d-i-l while learning side swiped a tree and while my car was lent to the captain of the local brigade a firetruck backed into it during a fire.

    The "much safer in modern vehicles" is not supported by the actual accident data. It is if you just look at the deaths or injuries once you have an accident, but not if you look at the overall deaths and injuries per kilometre.
    Cant put my hands on the research right now, but I think it caught my attention via motorcycle forums.

    Basically, it indicated that improvements in car dynamics, braking, lights etc tend to just mean people go faster, brake later etc etc.

    People are complicated and inconveniently dynamic, so its not as simple as give the person better tyres/brakes (for example), and assuming the persons behavior wont change, and they will be safer.

    The theory was that people tend to have a fixed idea of what their acceptable level of perceived risk is for a given activity. Make that activity safer, and that improvement in safety is quickly countered by people changing their behavior to be at the same level of perceived risk. Note - perceived risk, rather than actual probability. Make someone feel safer, and they'll push harder. Give em ABS, they'll brake later - cos they factor it into their idea of the perceived risk of driving.

    I've seen the behaviors pattern in other areas too - as I'm sure has everyone else. How many times have we tried to make something safer only to turn around and see them now doing something else daft as a result?

    Its thought be one of the reasons why the seatbelt and drink driving campaigns had an impact - as well as working on the social acceptability, it also worked on changing the perceived risk involved. I guess things like road side barriers and stuff tend to mean the even if the person does run out of talent (even with ABS, tyres, headlights, ASC etc), and least when they do, they may stay on the road and not in the trees.

    Its always hard to try and work out why people do stuff. Ethics committees limit the legal experimentation, so you're stuck with trailing indicators, and end up scratching your head at the data and trying to understand why we're so daft :-) Logic can lead you astray too.

    I remember someone on reading the research advancing the theory that we should all ride stark bollocky naked (from memory they allowed boots) to prevent accidents. In winter. Maybe they had been single for a while, but even then, in winter, you're hardly putting your best foot (ahem) forward.

    I think I'm going to stand in front of the fire now.

    cheers

    Dave

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!