New Defender

Message

ANDYD · #1 Post by **ANDYD** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:17 pm

So what do you think of these Defender concept ideas from Khan.....

http://www.motorward.com/2011/09/khan-a ... -defender/

From Frankfurt Auto show...

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/09/13/land ... frankfurt/

Quote...
We were all surprised when we arrived in Frankfurt a couple of months ago to find Land Rover there with not one, but two distinct versions of the DC100 concept: one hardtop and one open-air model. But when the LA Auto Show opens later this month, Land Rover is set to unveil a third version.

We don't know how the LA show car will differ from the two we've already seen, or what body-style it will carry. But together with the assertion attributed to the company's brand director that the next-generation Defender should appeal to "Californian surfer dude", it is a strong indication that the production DC100 will be offered in North America.

That's not who Land Rover will primarily target with the new model, however: the company aims to use the DC100 to get back in touch with its roots, marketing it to relief organizations and wilderness expeditions in the Third World

sailourboy · #2 Post by **sailourboy** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:08 pm

The first one is a copy of a few other ugly SUVs that are already on the market and the other doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up!!!

Cheers
Ted

exmod90 · #3 Post by **exmod90** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:46 pm

in my opinion , the defender is an icon . this DC100 concept does not advance the icon forward . building it Land Rover somehow is lost . gerry b [ old school ] .

swamijake · #4 Post by **swamijake** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:35 pm

It doesn't look like it has a very good approach angle or ground clearance. It's probably a good replacement for the freelander, but I don't see how this serves the defender market, nor can I see military purchases.

LandyAndy · #5 Post by **LandyAndy** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:24 pm

What you really want is an Ibex.... :D

http://www.ibexf8.com/

red90 · #6 Post by **red90** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:28 pm

Yes, it is pretty much a fail on all fronts. It has no lineage in form, function or looks from what it is meant to replace. It does not fill any missing gap in teh Land Rover line. Really it is hard to see a point and how the would expect to make any money on it.

PaulC · #7 Post by **PaulC** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:09 pm

You guys are hilarious :lol:

rayhyland · #8 Post by **rayhyland** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:10 pm

I spent about 2 hours chatting with the engineer who is building the technical bits for it when we reviewed it at the LA Auto show. He said he wants it to be more rugged and capable than the current model. He did not rule out solid axles and the ability to lift it and mount 35" tires. Also said that NGOs may be able to order it without all the technology, the same way Toyota currently offers the Troopy in a very simple version.

I am not a fan of the current body shape, but that always changes over time. (I always eventually get used to the body shapes that I initially hate. I may not like them, but at least I get used to them. 1984 Corvette is a good example of that. Or the LR3.)

:-)

Ray

ANDYD · #9 Post by **ANDYD** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:18 pm

I think part of the problem is we are so "Old Defender" starved in Canada that we feel that Land Rover are moving on all too soon with out giving us our fair fill of the Old Land Rover Defender that we all love & miss so dearly! :cry:

Come on Paul, give us some inside scope......... maybe you can you arrange for one of these new concept Defenders to be at Founders day!

red90 · #10 Post by **red90** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:48 am

ANDYD wrote:I think part of the problem is we are so "Old Defender" starved in Canada that we feel that Land Rover are moving on all too soon with out giving us our fair fill of the Old Land Rover Defender that we all love & miss so dearly! :cry:

Not really. Please show me one thing on the concept that shows any connection whatsoever to the current model?

red90 · #11 Post by **red90** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:50 am

What they need to do is create a Jeep JK killer. Build something better on and off road at the sameish price point... This would be a huge profit maker and boost the rest of the line.

Let me propose the vehicle. You tell me if every off road enthusiast will sell their Rubicon or not.... This is very realistic and could be easily done.

- Body on frame construction with modular design to allow wagon, soft top, cab chassis, pickup, crew cab configuration. All with quality built in roll over protection and a design that allow simple change from one configuration to another.
- Dana 44 front, 30 spline. Optional manual locker. 4 link, long arm. 10" travel shocks. Optional cab operated sway bar disconnect. Antidive and squat set stable with travel and near 100%. High roll axis. Throw some money is to quality variable rate, speed sensing shocks...
- Dana 44 rear SWB, 60 LWB (35 spline), full floating. Long arm 3 link. 10" travel shock. Optional cab operated sway bar disconnects on LWB. Optional air suspension.
- 4 liter V6 NA gasoline engine or 3.5 liter V6 diesel. 6 speed wide ratio gearbox with granny 1st. The one they are using now should be fine.
- Keep the LT230, but offer a 4:1 optional low range.
- 265/75R16 as standard size. 285/75R16 optional. Clearance for 35x12.5 built in as stock.
- Keep the tire outside width to 65", body to 60". No center seating.
- Pricing within 20% of Jeep.
- Galvanized spaceframe body structure with solid colour plastic panel the clip on and off.

They do not need to reinvent the wheel. They need to get rid of the "bad" aspects of the current vehicle and keep the good. You make a vehicle that causes the off road enthusiast community to drool and you have half a billion dollars of free advertising that boosts sales across the company line.

PaulC · #12 Post by **PaulC** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:45 am

Keep it coming guys...especially you Red90 you are killing me :D

ANDYD · #13 Post by **ANDYD** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:54 am

ANDYD wrote:
I think part of the problem is we are so "Old Defender" starved in Canada that we feel that Land Rover are moving on all too soon with out giving us our fair fill of the Old Land Rover Defender that we all love & miss so dearly!

RED90 wrote:
Not really. Please show me one thing on the concept that shows any connection whatsoever to the current model?

John, that's what I was saying, when we see the new shape coming in we are missing the old shape even more because we never really got our fill of it in NA... Just got teased with a few NAS models...

PaulC · #14 Post by **PaulC** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:11 pm

Yea I agree with you there Andy we did get ripped off a bit on there numbers....numbers.....somethin that Red90 might wana bare in mind before his happy fantasy day dream clouds his automotive business scenes...but it is good fun I have to admit.

ANDYD · #15 Post by **ANDYD** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:12 pm

Hey Paul
Have you seen this New LR concept close up, will it meet the requirement?

"the company aims to use the DC100 to get back in touch with its roots, marketing it to relief organizations and wilderness expeditions in the Third World"

Hey Ray, sounds like you have been having way to much fun! What did you think after seeing this close up? Does it fit the statement above?

PaulC · #16 Post by **PaulC** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:20 pm

No I haven't got anything I can add yet....but reality you are not going to see or feel anything like the Defender of the past.....but it is going to be very capable by any modern hi end vehicle manufactures standards.

What Ray and all other journalists are driving is a very early driver.

But come on lets not get all serious.....its has been fun thread. :D

red90 · #17 Post by **red90** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:04 pm

What Ray saw and drove appears to be a custom body built on an LR3 or LR4 unless I'm mistaken.

PaulC · #18 Post by **PaulC** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:16 pm

R90 you are one third right...unfortunately it is the last third

red90 · #19 Post by **red90** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 8:29 pm

PaulC wrote:No I haven't got anything I can add yet....but reality you are not going to see or feel anything like the Defender of the past.....but it is going to be very capable by any modern hi end vehicle manufactures standards.

If it does not look or feel anything like what it is replacing, why call it a Defender replacement? It should be a new model of its own. I'd be very surprised if it was capable....but I would love to be proven wrong.

PaulC wrote:R90 you are one third right...unfortunately it is the last third

OK, Mr. Inside Knowledge. What did they build this show body on top of?

unimogfever · #20 Post by **unimogfever** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:01 pm

just read some article about the DC100,

http://www.carbodydesign.com/2011/09/la ... -concepts/

found out this guy is the Director in Design,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_McGovern

Check out his work folio, no wonder he'll design something like this.

Skookumchuck · #21 Post by **Skookumchuck** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:15 pm

IT still makes me gag and then I want to cry. :cry:

PaulC · #22 Post by **PaulC** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:51 pm

It is just a car! :D

PaulC · #23 Post by **PaulC** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:57 am

Easy there R90....the RoverLanders member with way more knowledge and seat time than me is Mr Hyland (sorry Ray...did you hear the bus coming).

I have a whole other Land Rover launch next year that will fill some of my year (if I'm lucky) and then Defender bout nother year after that.

Why call it Defender....it is a great name why wouldn't you. Certainly I wouldn't cause the die hard enthusiasts Defender fans might get all bent out of shape cause there are no bits to be galvanized :shock: and there is no solid axle etc etc etc...I know I know the list goes on and on :)

I think you only have to look at LR3 and LR4 to see how capable a mass market (small manufacture) vehicle Land Rover builds....no body can touch its on road and off road performance envelope right off the show room floor and still be well under $60 or $70 grand. And the new Defender will be of the same ilk....hey at least they haven't gone to a CVT transmission....then I would be first in line to burn the place down :lol:

You may not agree with how capable LR3 and LR4 are and if you are not in agreement it a sure sign of someone who has not spent anytime driving one and understanding how to maximize its engineered abilities.

I have no idea what custom works went into DC100...course I'm not sure what "spaceframe body structure" is either...it like from outer space?

red90 · #24 Post by **red90** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:27 pm

PaulC wrote:Easy there R90....the RoverLanders member with way more knowledge and seat time than me is Mr Hyland (sorry Ray...did you hear the bus coming).

I know that very well. However you are the one that told me I was wrong.......

PaulC wrote:You may not agree with how capable LR3 and LR4 are and if you are not in agreement it a sure sign of someone who has not spent anytime driving one and understanding how to maximize its engineered abilities.

I have wheeled a fair bit with both LR3, LR4 and new RRs. They have been attached to my tow rope and winch more than a few times. They are certainly much better than the average SUV. But they limit out on moderate trails regardless of modifications. Hard trails will never be possible. I had a very long discussion on another forum as to why a good off road independent suspension cannot be built into a passenger vehicle, so feel free to read that to understand the technical details.

A JK, Landcruiser, Patrol of G series will kill them without trouble. And certainly a Defender is much better off road.

Before you continue to tell me I do not know of what I speak, I suggest you go out on a trail with me. I have been on trails with everything listed above including massively modified rigs.

IMO, Land Rover should come out with a "great" off road vehicle that sets the bar while being good enough on road to keep Joe Average happy. They need to look to what Jeep has done. Keep the pedigree. They need the new Defender to be a Rubicon killer. If they did that, they would be selling in the hundreds of thousands instead of the 10s. It would also give creed back to the brand and increase sales across the board.

It would be easy to do. BUT, it requires balls. It requires real vision. From the best I can see, the designers at LR have none of that. It is too bad, but such is the way things are. LR has been dead as a true off road vehicle designer for a very long time.

Spaceframe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_frame

scraig · #25 Post by **scraig** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:18 pm

I like it :wink:

The Rover-Landers of BC

The Rover-Landers of BC

New Defender

New Defender

Definitely NOT!!

New Defender

Re: New Defender

New Defender