 | Home > General & Technical (L663) > Replacement for defender - a little bit more news |
 
|
|
|
| GUM97 Member Since: 05 Feb 2012 Location: Cheshire Posts: 3555   
|
What Puddle?- My last post may have come across the wrong way. My pout was that a Range Rover on standard road tyres and electronics is a better off roader than a Defender. I took the Evoque off roading last week again, and on standard road tyres it got places that my Defender can't. Now, I went through mud, and lots of it. You'd be hard pushed to want to take a Defender through without MT's/AT's, and I certainly wouldn't take a Def through on road tyres, whereas the RR flew through on road tyres... An engine to TDi for!
"Land Rover- Proudly turning drivers into mechanics since 1948"  |
||
17th Mar 2014 10:14pm |
|
| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
As the yanks say, my bad.
I see Jerry Thurston echoes both my points in this month's LRO mag. Now left. |
||
|
17th Mar 2014 10:23pm |
|
| Limey Member Since: 18 Oct 2013 Location: Northern Italy Posts: 193 
|
Wow, if you want to be like that, the point was quite clear, what is an alleged Defender replacement doing on low profile wheels and tyres? That story that you linked to I'm sure was very interesting to you, but how does it alter the fact that if you've only got 2 to 3 inches of tyre sidewall between your city-friendly alloy wheel rim and a big sharp rock, that you'll be quickly gouging your actual wheels on any serious terrain. A city kerbstone for that matter. The point about the DC-blob having low-profile tyres was nothing to do with the A/T or M/T tyres. It's about the fact that it implies the DC is looking more like just another city dwellers blah SUV, not suitable tyre/wheels for something trying to pass as a Defender replacement. Insert your own patronising and insulting icon with head banging against a wall. Plus you're again trying to demean somebody else's point with "GUM, that would be true if most Defender owners used theirs for off road, but they don't! The vast majority of Defenders are seen on country roads, with a fair few in towns and cities." In the UK do you mean? The point that has been made up until now very, very clearly, has regarded the worldwide uses and versatility of the venerable Defender, even the photos supplied have illustrated very, very, very clearly that while they might be a country road car for some, that for others in more remote locations they're a tool, a lifeline, a saviour. That they are MORE. You said that you were happy to agree to disagree, then stop trying to patronise and correct anybody who doesn't share your DC-loving views. I was attempting to ask everybody else if they would keep a DC-100 for free if it meant handing back the keys to their current Defender, which I believe would give an interesting insight into the appeal of the DC-100 for more than just me or you. Is it OK with you if we can continue with that? |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 8:04am |
|
As I said, electronics have passed the Defender by. Now, in mud, you ARE going to want MT tyres, but there aren't too many on this forum with MT tyres - mine has AT.| What puddle? Member Since: 25 Oct 2013 Location: Reading Posts: 952
|
Limey, so sorry if you took it that way, really didn't mean to patronise anyone!
 It was merely my exasperation that your "core point" was about abilities, but I was trying to point out that with electronic aids, your core point was invalid as an argument against the DC100, as (despite road tyres) it would be fully capable. Sorry again, I certainly wasn't trying to demean other's views, merely expressing a reality that (yes, in this country, admittedly) the vast majority of owners are only ever on-road. Please understand that I strongly feel everyone should move on, and that I get exasperated by people stuck in the present and the past (you really should read Jerry Thurston in LRO). Take no offence, Limey, really none intended.
I'll bow out of this discussion and let others have their say. All the best. Now left. |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 8:17am |
|
| willyj Member Since: 23 Oct 2009 Location: Carmarthenshire Posts: 160 
|
I went on landrover.com last night.
The top picture had the whole fleet displayed except for the defender! |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 8:55am |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11240 
|
It's been like that for ages and is because the Defender isn't available in all markets. Country specific websites display it if appropriate. Darren
110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 9:41am |
|
| Setok Member Since: 16 Jan 2009 Location: Helsinki Posts: 415 
|
Keep It Simple Stupid (both in terms of business strategy and in terms of vehicle). So: * Update what is needed to fulfil requirements, both in terms of legislation and, to some extent, comfort (may require fairly extensive updates) * Keep the vehicle simple, as field serviceable as possible, and focused on doing a job rather than posing * Engineering is a priority, not an afterthought. Ie. use solid engineering to improve reliability, and build its reputation around being ultra dependable (thus fixing one of the major reasons people go elsewhere for their purchases). "The Defender is for work, and it is the hardest most dependable vehicle in our stable, and indeed anywhere on the market". I hate how engineering has somehow become a bad word in the UK, and yet Toyota has been kicking rear end in everything they do precisely because of their reputation for reliability. * Make sure it complies to requirements for US market, and thus fixing another major reason limiting sales numbers. * Retain as much of the iconic shape as makes sensible to serve the above requirements It does require investment, but none of this requires dramatic moves, but rather a solid focus on improving the product offering and better serving the demand that is there. It always amazes me how businesses are willing to play around and lose customers by not being properly motivated in offering them a great product. It stinks of a lack of real passion for the product. |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 7:28pm |
|
. So (presumably) you'd replace it. What with? A utilitarian vehicle? Or (all the time bearing in mind that YOU have been appointed in charge at LR with all those jobs and the company's future to think of) would you opt for a softer vehicle - one likely to appeal to a larger market?| Setok Member Since: 16 Jan 2009 Location: Helsinki Posts: 415
|
That depends what you mean by 'ability'. In terms of pure offroad measurements, that may be true, and one would certainly hope any future Defender to extend the abilities of what it currently has. But Range Rover is missing the abilities that define a Defender: field repairability, reliability (RR is way more finicky), modularity, upgradeability and the ability to put it to hard work without ending up in tears over the repair bill. |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 7:37pm |
|
| 22900013A Member Since: 23 Dec 2010 Location: Oxfordshire Posts: 3140 
|
There is much, much more to a Defender than it's abilities. I think that point has been missed by the manufacturer and perhaps even some on this forum? 2011 110 USW
1973 Series III 1-Ton 1972 Series III 1-Ton Cherrypicker 1969 IIA 1-Ton 1966 IIA 88" |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 7:42pm |
|
| g-mack Member Since: 07 Jan 2014 Location: northumberland Posts: 1967
|
too true!!! will i be able to un bolt the roof on the dc100 if i damage it? can i stick the hose in when it gets dirty?will i be able to rebuild it one part at a time 30 years from now? My 109 thread
my youtube channel |
||
|
18th Mar 2014 7:53pm |
|
| UtilityTruck Member Since: 09 Jan 2014 Location: Oxford Posts: 463
|
^ I think you know the answer to that.
|
||
|
18th Mar 2014 10:29pm |
|
| Limey Member Since: 18 Oct 2013 Location: Northern Italy Posts: 193
|
I've been trying to verbalise that complex appeal for several pages now, even resorting to photos as an aid. Still it's not enough, it seems to be as emotional as it is calculable. |
||
|
19th Mar 2014 9:49am |
|
| alfajock Member Since: 12 Jan 2011 Location: Bedfordshire Posts: 227 
|
My brief would be durability and dependability in an old fashioned sense – design it to live long, work hard, and cater for easy modification according to different needs throughout its life. My 89 110 was top of the range at the time because it had cloth seats and carpets, and no electrics other than lights, ignition and a crappy radio! Imagine that, but actually all the rest is irrelevant in a utility LR and adds weight, cost, and things to go wrong. You shouldn't have to have them, so make them optional so that those who do want them, can. Apart from assembly cost, as I understand it the main reasons for the impending death of the defender relate to inability to re-engineer its structure for modern crash regs. Fair enough - the basic chassis and body structure goes back to the SII in 1959 - but surely in this brand driven age the Defender is a hugely valuable design icon and they should be protecting that 911-style, ie no shared parts but identifiable styling progression and keeping the same basic design philosophy. So for me: New platform, sharing dimensions and basic suspension and steering systems with Disco/RRS for economies of scale but without the air and electronic bits (though these could be optional upgrades if all the hard points are the same) Body structure based around a galvanised monocoque front structure (bulkhead forward) which meets all crash regs. This would then extend rearward (still galvanised!) as effectively a ladder frame chassis allowing wide variation of body structures to sit on it from the drivers seat back. Scope for wide range of engines and transmissions to fit onto this basic platform. Truck cab, van, SW etc skeletal body structures could then be fitted to that (think of something like a full roll cage or a tubular Challenge front end - still bloody galvanised!) which provides decent strength and roll over protection. Attach to that non-structural body panels or soft top etc in whatever material best suits the current use of the vehicle - alloy, plastics, carbonfibre etc) Powertrain - low electronics ROW version, along with Euro/US compliant versions with modern turbodiesels and larger capacity options including those from Disco/RRS range. Styling - leave outline well alone, update details. Marketing - sell the most basic vehicle you can in each market and then give huge scope for add ons and personalisation, Mini style. It's what we tend to do with Defenders anyway, so LR may as well make the money out of it. So, you can have the most basic LR this side an SIII, or spec it up to whatever you want. The rolling chassis (did I mention galvanised?) would last forever, the body structure and panels would be endlessly replaceable for different users needs (what about a dealer supported second hand market in them?) and the simple version mechanicals would be bush repairable if required. Once the posh people have worn out their up-spec versions, we can buy them and bolt in the base model systems when the electronics fail - just like putting coils onto an ageing air sprung RRC. As long as the basic version is homologated, should all be perfectly legal. If this endless reconfigurability were part of the business plan, it would provide a whole new revenue stream coming into the dealers throughout the extended life of the basic product and would give LR a commercial reason to make sure the basic vehicle actually does last. I don't know if those revenues would offset lost repeat sales, but I suspect that the much wider market opportunity and unique concept would more than offset that. And of course it would have a further USP of being properly, usefully rather than superficially, environmentally friendly too because of the long service life and recycling of major parts would mean the use of raw materials and whole life carbon footprint would be far less than making, running and scrapping several other vehicles during the same period. That’s actually a key benefit of all utility Land Rovers to date, so my not make more intelligent use of it and turn it into a key brand value? Fully Restored 89 110 CSW V8 CLS 350 CDI for the sensible stuff |
||
|
19th Mar 2014 10:04am |
|
| Limey Member Since: 18 Oct 2013 Location: Northern Italy Posts: 193
|
Very good post 'alfajock'.
And 'What puddle', come back all is forgiven! A lot of what you're saying is absolutely valid, a point that I'd like to go back to is the electronics part, I know that you've said that they've passed the Defender by, and you're quite right, but don't they have more of a place (in their abundance) in a luxury model like the Range? Because isn't that a sector where the luxury market drivers absolutely expect all of that stuff? For a Defender isn't easy field repair (as raised by Setok etc.) an equally valid necessity? Because electronics are great, absolutely great, until they're not, until they pack up -at which point they're are beyond useless. I get the point about being frustrated by people being stuck in the past, but IMHO there is just as much danger in our current Western society of people blindly looking forward, at digitising everything, without any thought to the future consequences of that. A Range Rover (and maybe even more so, a Freelander or Evoque) with a fried digital component is usually a tow truck ride away from a dealership, but many Defenders live a different life, a Defender may be literally stranded in the middle of nowhere. Many are chosen exactly because they are capable of toughing in out in different environments, from what I've seen on my travels. And I know that mechanical repairs can happen anywhere, but we're all learning that digi stuff usually packs up without warning, and the more digi stuff we attach, then the more possibility there is of a failure. I would have thought that would be another valid consideration for Land Rover, or yet again, I'd go back to an earlier point that if a replacement model doesn't take into account such considerations then, maybe it shouldn't be presented as a Defender replacement at all. |
||
|
19th Mar 2014 10:52am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
