Building a better mouse trap... Er, Defender

[DaveB]

I didn't want to hijack Andy's New Defender thread, but some of the points in it cry out to have further discussion. For example, few of us appreciate the new concept, and Red90 has proposed his idea of what the design should be...

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.

When I read that list, it sounds like a shopping list for the Icon.

And that's where my questions start.

How is Icon able to produce vehicles with little to no consideration for safety such as side impact curtains, crush zones, and all the items that we're being told have to go into a modern vehicle to make it regulatory correct to put on the market? -- and in California to boot??

Could a similar thing be done with the Defender we're all familiar with, taking the good and adding the best aftermarket upgrades to make an exceptional vehicle?

Is there a market for it? How big of a corporation would you have to be to make an impact, or perhaps the question should be how small do you have to be to run under the radar of red tape, bureaucracy, testing, etc. that the other manufacturers have to go through?

Is it possible to build a better Defender, still styled on the classic lines, and meet the needs of both the public and the regulators?

[exmod90]

hey uncle dave ... you make some good points . however with Obama and the mood of protectionism south of the border ... buy american or built in america [ honda , bmw , nissan , toyota to name a few ] , the new defender , despite the land rover following , could become a victim of low sales if it ever reaches the NA market . who knows ??? however , if the new defender was to be built in china , it could be sold at your local wal-mart north american wide .

what ever happened to the concept of simplicity ? we own an old 1975 jeep cj5 , an old 1981 toyota land cruiser bj42 and 2 x 25 year old land rover defenders . they are not worth a lot in $'s but they are all great reliable & fun wheelers sans the gadgets . all are simple to maintain and to work on ! i do understand the need for regulations & accept the new concepts of vehicles , their technological wizardry , safety features , navigation systems , being green and hybrid capable . all good and for a bloated price ! welcome to 2012 .

on reflection , the new FJ land cruiser reminds me the DC100 concept .


anyone have a series truck for sale ?

gerry [ old school ]

[red90]

I think the basis for this being feasible both technically and financially is the Jeep Wrangler. They are building a body on frame, live axle truck. They are selling it worldwide and must be meeting all of the regulations including crash requirements.

They are making a lot of money doing it. They are selling 100000 units per year in the USA alone.

[rayhyland]

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.

Well, there lies the question I guess. What do they NEED to build?

Although I personally would love for LR to build the truck described above, I don't know that they actually need to make anything of the sort.

The only people who seem to want a truck like that are people like us, the enthusiasts. And we a) don't buy a lot of new trucks, and b) usually have a very high warranty-claim rate when we do buy a new truck.

So, if I was selling as many $80,000 trucks as I could make, I don't know if I would spend a lot of time worrying about the lower end of the range.

Remember, Tata bought Jaguar/Land Rover together as a considered effort to increase the brand cache of the Tata group. That means top of the line RR's and Jags.

Tata doesn't really need another simple, reliable and antiquated 4x4 with beam axles in their lineup. They have the Sumo, the LSV, and the Xenon Pickup, all of which currently outsell the Defender in the developing markets for which they are targeted, and are much more profitable.

So it seems the only way in the above scenario to keep the Defender name is to turn it into a truck that has an $80,000 price tag. And for that price, the buyer is going to expect RR comfort, and a car that will cross the himalayas at the push of a button.

Everything said here is my personal opinion and does not reflect the opinion or thinking of anyone I currently work with or consult for.

[red90]

The truck proposed, the DC100 does nothing for them. It fills no gaps. It is just another SUV in a full lineup. I cannot see how they will make much money on it. There is no market potential.

This low end of the range truck would give much needed pedigree to the off roadable image of the rest of the line and boost sales across the board.

And it is NOT just enthusiasts. Have you seen the Jeep?? How many of those 100000 sales per year are enthusiasts? 5% maybe? People buy them because they think they could go offroad if they wanted. I know dozen people with Jeeps that have and never will go off road. They certainly don't buy them because they are good on the road....

[BOlson]

Land Rover is IMHO going after the "rolex" market , the guy ( or gal ) who feels they need a watch capable of going several atmospheres under water when all they intend to do with it is go in the hot tub

A bunch of us Timex guys are not going to change that , besides like the IKON trucks being built in California ( With bodies built in Kelowna ) can't you basically assemble a Defender from aftermarket parts anyways?

[DaveB]

Thanks for the replies guys, but I have to say, most of them reflect the same thing as is reflected in so many of the New Defender posts on so many forums right now.

What I'm looking for is, let's skip beyond what Land Rover/Tata would rationalize into its future dc100 project, and let's design our own.

How is ICON doing it, for example? Can you guys give a stab at how they're getting past all the regulatory crap, and for that matter how other manufacturers are doing it on select vehicles? (various jeeps, 1 ton pickups)

We all love the current Defender. Let's design a new one, the future of the line, from an enthusiast viewpoint. Maybe we'd find its unmarketable, but who knows, look at all the military and utility companies that still need to replace their vehicles every 8-10 years. Are they now going to go to a blinged out ride to check the hydro poles and patrol the world's hotspots? I'm not talking about the north american market, but worldwide, theres been a vast amount of utilitarian need for a Defender over the past half century, and that's not going to change overnight.

Dave

[Bill E.]

Good discussion Dave, and everyone has made thoughtful replies. Let me add this into the mix. While we're talking about ICON let's not forget how much of an icon the Defender is for Land-Rover. All the bean counters in the world are so quick to rationalize away about the un-profitability of a truck with real underpinnings for off-road use but they're just as quick to use all the branding cues of that off-road capability. This company has been selling the safari image at it's dealerships in North America for a couple of decades now when the most rugged aspect of much of their product amounts to a tire cover with a giraffe emblazoned on it. The old chestnut about us enthusiasts not buying new trucks, or not wanting to pay is spurious as well. Land-Rover hasn't given us anything to buy since 1997 so how would they know! Red 90's point about the success of the JK is evidence that enthusiasts will pay $40,000 to $50,000 for a Rubicon style vehicle, hell many of my friends drive $70,000 to $80,000 pick-up trucks without batting an eyelid.

To Dave's point about how do companies like ICON or AEV do it, I think they just barely do it. These custom builds are not for everyone or every jurisdiction. Much is done by bending the regulatory structures and keeping the financial wolves placated from one month to the next. Small operations like that are permitted to exist because they are small. I think the big boys would squash them like a bug if they represented any real threat.

[red90]

How is ICON doing it, for example? Can you guys give a stab at how they're getting past all the regulatory crap, and for that matter how other manufacturers are doing it on select vehicles? (various jeeps, 1 ton pickups)

One must assume that they are meeting all the regulations. Why would you think that they cannot? Without being familiar with all of the details of the regulations, it really is not possible to make an educated assessment.

I'm sure they are crashed per the standards and meet the deceleration and intrusions limits. AFAIK, there is nothing preventing the construction of a body on ladder frame vehicle. The body needs structure and occupancy protection built in, unlike the current Defender. My suggestion, as stated, would be a spaceframe body designed for impact and rollover protection of the occupants. This is strong and light and can allow easily replaceable panels. It can tie into the frame structurally to improve the torsional stiffness. You could design the body structures to be easily removed for changing to other configurations.

[rayhyland]

The AEV trucks are registered as Kit cars I believe.

[red90]

Sure, but the Wrangler is no different in the respects that Dave is talking about and obviously it must pass all requirements.

[DaveB]

I read somewhere that the bigger manufacturers can get away with some non-compliant vehicles as their EPA measurements and safety ratings are based on overall production, not by single models. So for instance if Chrysler produces X number of safe compliant sedans, they're able to also produce a few bigger non-compliant pickups, some Rubicons, etc.

I can't find the link where I read about that so I can't verify. That still doesn't answer how ICON is able to do it, but I understand they're only producing a handful of trucks a year, which would make it quite a sacrifice to offer up several of those to crash testing. I have a hunch they're registered as kits too, or perhaps old vehicle restorations...?

Dave

[rayhyland]

I think the key safety regulations will be the new ones in Europe around 2015