2020 Defender Spy Shots....

[Victory_Overland]

Page 125, still comparing live axle to IFS in rock crawling situations. LR has never built a rock crawler so that discussion is over. However, if we must compare "off-road performance" and not rock crawling, then by far, IFS technology is pecking away, if not better already in every fashion on live axle.

Nobody can deny, that the most pivotal "Off-Road" racing event (I did not say rock crawling, I said Off-Road) is King of the Hammers. A few years ago, the Ultra 4 Class was created and is known to have changed the game of KoH and produced the fastest KoH times every recorded and times decreasing each year giving credit to increases in off-road, trophy style suspension technology. All Ultra4 vehicles are IFS front, live axle rears until this year when GenRight revealed the full 4 x IFS Ultra4 Truck; the first 4 wheel independent suspension KoH truck. GenRight qualified 9th in it's first year and was running top of the pack overall until it lost the rear differential seal and smoked the rear diff putting them out of the race; diff seal could happen to any axle and considering most racers don't finish I would call this an anomaly for a one of one vehicle!

They also finished Top 10 in Ridgecrest and various other races of the year.

Every state of the art "OFF-Road" vehicle is now IFS in the military, and off-road racing and endurance class. KoH suspension designers say IFS technology is here to stay and durability factors are becoming a thing of the past due to metallurgy, suspension design, and drivers who know how to effectively employ the vehicle to run the fastest routes while mitigating unnecessary vehicle abuse. IFS manages the course better because the suspension is tuned to all factors where live axle which normally thrives in the rocks, parishes in almost every other factor of the race course due to its limited tune-ability.

Sounds to me like a driver and technology win over brute force.

Jeep is a Jeep, Defender is a Defender..........neither are neither.

 

[JeepColorado]

Page 125, still comparing live axle to IFS in rock crawling situations. LR has never built a rock crawler so that discussion is over. However, if we must compare "off-road performance" and not rock crawling, then by far, IFS technology is pecking away, if not better already in every fashion on live axle.

Nobody can deny, that the most pivotal "Off-Road" racing event (I did not say rock crawling, I said Off-Road) is King of the Hammers. A few years ago, the Ultra 4 Class was created and is known to have changed the game of KoH and produced the fastest KoH times every recorded and times decreasing each year giving credit to increases in off-road, trophy style suspension technology. All Ultra4 vehicles are IFS front, live axle rears until this year when GenRight revealed the full 4 x IFS Ultra4 Truck; the first 4 wheel independent suspension KoH truck. GenRight qualified 9th in it's first year and was running top of the pack overall until it lost the rear differential seal and smoked the rear diff putting them out of the race; diff seal could happen to any axle and considering most racers don't finish I would call this an anomaly for a one of one vehicle!

They also finished Top 10 in Ridgecrest and various other races of the year.

Every state of the art "OFF-Road" vehicle is now IFS in the military, and off-road racing and endurance class. KoH suspension designers say IFS technology is here to stay and durability factors are becoming a thing of the past due to metallurgy, suspension design, and drivers who know how to effectively employ the vehicle to run the fastest routes while mitigating unnecessary vehicle abuse. IFS manages the course better because the suspension is tuned to all factors where live axle which normally thrives in the rocks, parishes in almost every other factor of the race course due to its limited tune-ability.

Sounds to me like a driver and technology win over brute force.

Jeep is a Jeep, Defender is a Defender..........neither are neither.

So, this comparison misses the mark in several key ways and always has. When you compare a race specific vehicle meant for 1 time use prioritizing speed over anything else to a vehicle meant to drive 100,000 miles or more over several years you are comparing apples to oranges.

A King of the Hammers rock racing buggy is so completely different than something meant to take the family into the backwoods it's absurd to compare them- you might as well try to draw conclusions from a NASCAR and apply them to a family sedan. If the only thing you care about it is running over aggressive terrain at 100+ MPH and then you plan on completely tearing down and rebuilding the vehicle, then sure, compare away. However, if you plan on using the vehicle in the way the vast majority of consumers of a mainstream product would- then your comparison falls completely flat.

Solid axles, lockers, body on frame beats Independent suspension in ever single type of off-road situation outside of running fast over wash-board roads- Ford Raptor style- solid axles keep both wheels pushed down, they allow for more articulation (which matters in every off-road situation outside of a flat surface, not just rock crawling) and an axle locked will always maintain momentum rather than waiting for a computer to receive a signal to be relayed back to a wheel to then engage. (take a look at any LR product overcoming obstacles and you will see the herky-jerky style as the computer tries to figure it out) The locker just keeps moving smoothly and effortlessly.

The military example is equally ridiculous- having spent years in service to include combat- the military uses these vehicles for rapid approach- so of course they prioritize speed- that's the point- if you want to blast across the desert by all means- get IFS- if you want an all-around platform that outshines in every scenario and is more durable over time- go with something that's withstood decades of use.

 

[Red90]

IFS on cars you have to sell must use short arms in order to not take up interior space. This gives them poor wheel travel.

All you need to do is spend a day off road with any modern Land Rover to understand the limitations and how much better are live axle multi link coil axles. If you do not understand this you do not have suitable experience to provide educated opinions.

 

[JeepColorado]

So, this comparison misses the mark in several key ways and always has. When you compare a race specific vehicle meant for 1 time use prioritizing speed over anything else to a vehicle meant to drive 100,000 miles or more over several years you are comparing apples to oranges.

A King of the Hammers rock racing buggy is so completely different than something meant to take the family into the backwoods it's absurd to compare them- you might as well try to draw conclusions from a NASCAR and apply them to a family sedan. If the only thing you care about it is running over aggressive terrain at 100+ MPH and then you plan on completely tearing down and rebuilding the vehicle, then sure, compare away. However, if you plan on using the vehicle in the way the vast majority of consumers of a mainstream product would- then your comparison falls completely flat.

Solid axles, lockers, body on frame beats Independent suspension in ever single type of off-road situation outside of running fast over wash-board roads- Ford Raptor style- solid axles keep both wheels pushed down, they allow for more articulation (which matters in every off-road situation outside of a flat surface, not just rock crawling) and an axle locked will always maintain momentum rather than waiting for a computer to receive a signal to be relayed back to a wheel to then engage. (take a look at any LR product overcoming obstacles and you will see the herky-jerky style as the computer tries to figure it out) The locker just keeps moving smoothly and effortlessly.

The military example is equally ridiculous- having spent years in service to include combat- the military uses these vehicles for rapid approach- so of course they prioritize speed- that's the point- if you want to blast across the desert by all means- get IFS- if you want an all-around platform that outshines in every scenario and is more durable over time- go with something that's withstood decades of use.

Something else that the "Defender" advocates are missing.......

A huge part of the disappointment that is being expressed all across the internet in this thing is.. even IF everything you say is true. Let's just assume that IFS really is overall better, that the benefits of on-road comfort outweigh the off-road performance, etc.. etc.. The point I believe you are missing is that there are already plenty of those out there. If you want a "more comfortable on the road, but slightly less capable off" luxury box you have dozens to chose from! You have numerous models to chose from simply from LR themselves not to mention Lexus, Infinity, Nissan, etc, etc....

If the D5, @DieselRanger really is as capable as you say it is- how's the Defender really different? The apparent reality is- it's not- it's a differently styled version of the same thing LR has been producing for the last several years. (speaking of the style, can you honestly say you like the "angry eyes" look it has? I personally don't care for it when Jeep owners do this with the aftermarket and LR went ahead and made it part of the permanent design?)

Most of Jeeps line up is IFS- the Grand Cherokee, the Cherokee, even the trailhawk versions, but, they keep the Wrangler solid axles, body on frame. Same with Toyota, the Sequoia, the Land Cruiser, all IFS, but they keep the 4Runner body on frame. Mercedes kept Lockers on the G-Wagon. Why? Because they want 1 vehicle that is true, they know the market desires 1 vehicle that is worthy of it's legacy.

The only vehicle in the stable of LR that could possibly carry on that legacy was the Defender- and they chose to make it not really different than anything else out there. How is the Defender with IFS, air bags and traction control computer wizardry really all that different than a dozen other current offerings in the market? The answer is- it's not.

 

[brosef1848]

Just drive your vehicle and any newer LR back to back and let me know which is overall better. Until then just quit trying to compare because it's obviously going nowhere. For overlanding my RRS is far better than my TJ ever was and has taken me places I've never believed it would go. The TJ is more fun at technical crawling but the RRS has done the same trails but with more thought out lines. As far as reliability it's been a one sided win for the LR. Zero issue for the 50k miles I've owned it. I was working on the TJ every weekend to fix something, bushings, clutch lines, radiator etc. Same mileage on both. Everything has a trade-off. My Jeep was terrible on the road and the LR is bliss. Once on forest roads both are quality with the LR allowing higher speeds more comfortably. Once into the technical stuff the TJ is point, shoot and go while the LR require a little more thought. Try them both from home to the trails and back and you will have your answer. Either way keep on getting out there no matter what your vehicle of choice.

 

[DieselRanger]

Something else that the "Defender" advocates are missing.......

The point I believe you are missing is that there are already plenty of those out there. If you want a "more comfortable on the road, but slightly less capable off" luxury box you have dozens to chose from! You have numerous models to chose from simply from LR themselves not to mention Lexus, Infinity, Nissan, etc, etc....

But the thing you keep missing is that the Defender will be supremely comfortable on road and supremely capable off-road, in a class of its own. It will be able to drive 99.99% of the trails on Earth.

If the D5, @DieselRanger really is as capable as you say it is- how's the Defender really different? The apparent reality is- it's not- it's a differently styled version of the same thing LR has been producing for the last several years. (speaking of the style, can you honestly say you like the "angry eyes" look it has? I personally don't care for it when Jeep owners do this with the aftermarket and LR went ahead and made it part of the permanent design?)

The Defender is smaller (including the 110) and thus more maneuverable, it has better geometry than the D5, it offers a user-selectable and controllable center and rear diff locker setup, and it can take larger tires. Thus it will be able to take more trails off the lot than the Discovery. The D90 will have even better break over.

And yeah, I do like the design. I don't care if it's got "angry LED eyes". Carmakers have been putting faces on cars since the late 1990s, including Jeep. It's human nature to anthropomorphize things we like. We talk to our dogs as if they understand us perfectly, and we put faces on our cars. I care how well the lights work, and the LEDs on my D5 are crazy bright, perfect for overlanding on a moonless night. I'll still add some aftermarket LEDs at some point though.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

 

[GetOutThere]

Just drive your vehicle and any newer LR back to back and let me know which is overall better. Until then just quit trying to compare because it's obviously going nowhere. For overlanding my RRS is far better than my TJ ever was and has taken me places I've never believed it would go. The TJ is more fun at technical crawling but the RRS has done the same trails but with more thought out lines. As far as reliability it's been a one sided win for the LR. Zero issue for the 50k miles I've owned it. I was working on the TJ every weekend to fix something, bushings, clutch lines, radiator etc. Same mileage on both. Everything has a trade-off. My Jeep was terrible on the road and the LR is bliss. Once on forest roads both are quality with the LR allowing higher speeds more comfortably. Once into the technical stuff the TJ is point, shoot and go while the LR require a little more thought. Try them both from home to the trails and back and you will have your answer. Either way keep on getting out there no matter what your vehicle of choice.

Rational posts aren't allowed in this thread. You must be polarized to one of two completely opposite camps, and format your posts with vitriol and willful ignorance towards any positive aspect of your opponent's position.

And I thought the Jeep community was bad...

 

[Paddler Ed]

Interesting piece from Autocar on the challenges that Land Rover and all it's owners over the years faced on developing a replacement.

The reinvented Land Rover Defender that never was | Autocar

Resurrecting Land Rover’s icon is nothing new, as we discovered when we met the man behind the 1997 LCV2/3

www.autocar.co.uk

Some interesting alternatives over the years in the article.

1991 Challenger:

 

[T-Willy]

I'll leave this here too...rear driveshafts that grenade on up to 50% of the vehicles on the road:

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

This discussion is rich.

Land Rover and Jeep enthusiasts debating reliability is like Telly Savalas and Mahatma Gandhi debating shampoo.

 

[grizzlyj]

I've been wondering if the new Defender will come with touch screen friendly winching gloves?

 

[Pilat]

This discussion is rich.

Land Rover and Jeep enthusiasts debating reliability is like Telly Savalas and Mahatma Gandhi debating shampoo.

The context is that the Jeep enthusiasts claimed that if only Land Rover built their new defender as a copy of the Jeep, it would then be reliable. As it turns out, that wouldn't be the case.

So, the analogy would be better if it was an old man trying to tell a young person that if only we got rid of of digital music and media and went back to reel-to-reel (or 8-track), we would be much better off as digital is just not practical in any way, form, or shape.

 

[grizzlyj]

"Slightly" OT but reading about the development of the MAN Kat1 in the Tankograd book which involved pretty much every German truck manufacturer from 1965 to the first actual production vehicle after more than ten years of development later, independent suspension systems were ruled out in 1967 because of limited travel, technically more complex and so more prone to failure, the limited travel led to more wheel lifting and then excessive stress on the wheels still on the ground and reduced traction with wheels up. The resulting truck had rear diff locks so they're talking about less traction despite that.
Not the fact they couldn't make it work, but that restricted access to independent suspension components, more actual components and joints which are more points of potential failure all at higher initial and maintainence cost, less travel and so less traction all meant the higher potential travel speed independant corners gave you was not worth the trade offs. Tatra chose to go independent and up close their underpinnings are enormous! Neither are rock crawlers.
I'm told as a tank resupply vehicle Kat1s have the reputation of getting there often when the tanks cannot
So JLR charging quite a bit for a vehicle that can go off road at speed I think acknowledges the same issues, double the reliability of the last Defender but five times the components leaves you with a judgement call of where you'd be happy taking it compared to the old. Who knows. And yes, I'd have a Mog as a daily driver over this despite not "hating" this

 

[grizzlyj]

OT again omg but anyway I think it's a-

Defender pushes Kat 1 across river

 

[Pilat]

"Slightly" OT but reading about the development of the MAN Kat1 in the Tankograd book which involved pretty much every German truck manufacturer from 1965 to the first actual production vehicle after more than ten years of development later, independent suspension systems were ruled out in 1967 because of limited travel, technically more complex and so more prone to failure, the limited travel led to more wheel lifting and then excessive stress on the wheels still on the ground and reduced traction with wheels up. The resulting truck had rear diff locks so they're talking about less traction despite that.
Not the fact they couldn't make it work, but that restricted access to independent suspension components, more actual components and joints which are more points of potential failure all at higher initial and maintainence cost, less travel and so less traction all meant the higher potential travel speed independant corners gave you was not worth the trade offs. Tatra chose to go independent and up close their underpinnings are enormous! Neither are rock crawlers.
I'm told as a tank resupply vehicle Kat1s have the reputation of getting there often when the tanks cannot
So JLR charging quite a bit for a vehicle that can go off road at speed I think acknowledges the same issues, double the reliability of the last Defender but five times the components leaves you with a judgement call of where you'd be happy taking it compared to the old. Who knows. And yes, I'd have a Mog as a daily driver over this despite not "hating" this

Yeah, if people doing that project from 1965-75 thought independent suspension was too complex and not viable for a super heavy*, 10 wheel (or more), slow truck, then independent suspension must be inferior.

I take it all back. We should all use the same type of steel used 50 years ago and built cars the same way they built huge trucks back then. But why stop there? Why not drop the tubeless design of wheels and tyres and go with tubes? And why even that? Let's go with solid tyres instead of pneumatic tyres, because what they thought in 1839 (that it wasn't feasible to have pneumatic tyres) must still hold true today.


* In fact, so heavy that with the metallurgy at the time, it would put so much stress on the remaining wheels that it couldn't cope.

 

[grizzlyj]

Regardless of the era, vehicle weight or level of engineering development, the questions raised during the design are the same.
Do you want more comfort and speed so requiring complexity (cost, more points of failure)?
Modern and technological do not mean complexity unless that's what you choose which JLR here have.