Farmers weekly UK, is looking for comments on what people would like to see in the new defender...on behalf on Land Rover...
New Land Rover Defender
what a piece o crapolahope it doesnt acutally come out like that
Just received the October edition of Land Rover Monthly magazine from the U.K. The news article on page 10 mentions that Land Rover might ditch the Defender or extend the life of the current one (again, again, again) with more efficient engines even past the new 2.2 (I presume). It says the 2.2 will meet emissions regs until 2016.
Extending the life again does not worry me but ditching the model completely - OMG!!!! Other options include a Defender based on the expensive Discovery and Range Rover Sport chassis apparently. I think that the longer Land Rover dithers around with this and does not commit the more likely the Defender will go, sad to say. I hope LRO magazine has better news.
 Master
					
					
						Master
					
					
                                        
					
					
						I dont understand why the current 2.4L or 2.2L engine is only good till 2016 when the land cruisers are getting around with 4.5L V8?
Hay Ewe
 OldBushie
					
					
						OldBushie
					
					
                                        
					
					
						They don't sell 4.5ltr cruisers in Europe or any other country that has the latest pollution laws,LR have fitted 2.5ltr engines as in many countries the road tax is based on engine size or what comes out of the pipe,the reason the defender has got the 2.2 now. Pat
IMO land rover don't need a completely new shape as the existing one is quite functional. They should look at improvements done to the Jeep wrangler and Benz G wagon. The following is a list of changes I would make to improve the Defender or its production cost:
• zinc roof
• single piece zinc firewall, passenger floor, b-pillar (made so welds can be drilled out to replace each of these as required)
• retain alloy tub and have dropside tray as dual cab option
• side storage like Army 110 with high fuel filler point (reduce likelihood of water entering and easy to fill from jerry) lots of other storage compartments inside
• LSD front and rear as standard to strengthen both diffs
• rack & pinion steering
• better placement of ECU to reduce risk of water/dust inundation
• auto as an option
• two spring specs - high capacity for commercial/touring and lower/softer for mix city/occ offroad.
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
All good points Pat!
But I don't understand why the 2.7 TD from the D3 couldn't have been an option.
More expensive? Yes more than likely and maybe some engineering to make it fit but I certainly would have been willing to pay the extra $$.
I am quite happy with my tweaked TD5 but out on the highway towing anything of size the 2.7 would have done it for me.
Paul.
77 series3 (sold)
95 300Tdi Ute (sold)
2003 XTREME Td5
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Take a look at this link
Convertible Land Rover Defender
 OldBushie
					
					
						OldBushie
					
					
                                        
					
					
						You have to remember about vehicle placement.People who pay 80K for a D4 don't want a 50K defender to have the same motor/gearbox,same as a person who spends 150K on a RR doesn't want a D4 owner having the TDV8.It sounds silly but thats the way it works.Being a Puma owner I really like the 2.4,it punches well above it's weight but I also don't tow a van or boat so can't comment on that. Pat
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! | Search All the Web! | 
|---|
|  |  | 
Bookmarks