If you’re talking about the Discovery 1, it had an identical chassis and running gear to the Defenders. The differences were wheelbase and different high range transfer case ratio due to the Defenders coming with larger tires. Same for the Range Rover Classic. Land Rover hasn’t built another solid axle vehicle since 95.No, they quite clearly state it's built on the same platform as the Disco. The electronic systems have been updated, and the monocoque is significantly stiffer, and the interior is completely different, and it looks different and comes with different options and can take larger tires and can do better off-road right off the lot, but yes, it's basically the same thing. Such is the way of things in world auto platforms these days.
The Disco was always more of an all-around daily driver that can overland when you want to, and go on 90% of the roads in the world. Still is. The Defender was always the technical off-roader that could be your expedition vehicle or weekend warrior trail basher. Still is. Except now it's much, much nicer to drive, safer, and more durable than the old Defender, and it's more capable off the lot than the old Defender.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk
I do agree that the Defender shouldn’t be rolling out flagship tech. Use the trickle down technology of the premium models. Land Rover has been so far ahead of the curve that they’ve had stuff out for a decade that’s just becoming the norm.
How many people would be happy if the new Defender was nothing but a stretched LR3 with a more classic looking Defender body and interior? I’d be fine with it.