2020 Defender Spy Shots....

Status
Not open for further replies.

DieselRanger

Well-known member
hmm... I guess I expected a lot more. This just looks like yet another LR4 type body but larger.
After seeing what Jeep did with the Gladiator this just looks kinda... Underwhelming.
Still lots and lots of cladding. And yet the "traditionalists" hate the D5 because it *doesn't* look like the LR4...and it's too light, and it's too nice and....
 

DiscoDavis

Explorer
Still lots and lots of cladding. And yet the "traditionalists" hate the D5 because it *doesn't* look like the LR4...and it's too light, and it's too nice and....

Nope. Wheel selection is terrible for any hardy tire use, visibility is worse than earlier models, shift selector dial (not limited to D5) is a bad idea, and the low range is jerky. And the body style is subjectively bad. Drove one off road, it was nice, still take a defender or an L405 or even L322 over it any day.
 

DiscoDavis

Explorer
What is *your* point? What is a "serious" off-road vehicle, in your definition? Is it one that's "hard" to drive well? Is it one you don't *want* to drive on a long road trip to the trailhead? My D5 shames the old D1/D2/LR3/LR4 off the lot - it goes well beyond "intermediate" trails while also being a very comfortable daily driver and being easy to drive on difficult off-road trails as well. You simply refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of new technology and design born of decades of experience that Land Rover has applied - as well as the realities of maintaining road-legal certification in their largest markets, primarily from a fuel economy and emissions perspective. If they can't make it road-legal, they can't sell it, period. If I don't need to modify my truck to easily do what a modified D1/D2 can barely do, then I consider that a vast benefit - the capability is built in rather than spending tens of thousands to add it. Despite the fact that it's only entering its 3rd model year, there's already a no-cut winch available, off-road lighting, a suspension lift, underbody armor, and it easily accepts 32" M/T's without a lift...what's not to love? External accessories such as RTTs, gear carriers, etc are only a mouse click away. I've seen some shops experimenting with rock rails - but they're not done fine-tuning those yet. Another year or two and we'll see bumpers and rails that should complement the looks as well as armor it.

So tell me, do you consider the M1097A2 HMMWV a "serious off-road vehicle"? It has four-corner independent suspension for the biggest reason - to protect steering and driveline components from trail and combat damage. Is the Ford Raptor a "serious off-road vehicle"? IFS. An increasing percentage of Ultra4 racing winners, including KOH runners are fully independent F/R - almost all have IFS. A flat underbelly gives more line choices when it provides the same ground clearance everywhere, as compared to a traditional live axle vehicle that has its highest clearance between the bell and the wheel, along the axle; and IS provides greater wheel travel. Live front axles are prone to the Death Wobble - event the newest Wrangler is experiencing it, with Jeep issuing a statement in effect saying, "duh." IS is lighter, with lower unsprung weight. It's more stable, because articulation of one wheel doesn't impact the other wheel on that end. The only way you raise a live axle without portal axles is larger tires --- and to fit very large tires to raise the bellhousing and steering gear significantly, you need to lift the body, which raises the center of gravity and makes the vehicle less stable, unless you go the rock crawler route and widen the track so you can mount 44" boggers outside the fenders. You can still apply portals to an independently-sprung vehicle if you want to as well.

Sure, live axles have some benefits - stiffness being the primary as well as maintaining a constant ground clearance across the axle despite having less of it and less inherent travel in the suspension, but as technology marches on - metallurgy, structural engineering, etc - independent suspension is becoming more and more advantageous.

>I'm going to posit that a serious off roading vehicle is one that is more robust than capable, or a better balance. Can do the most and spend the longest without major breakdown or service, and if then can be user serviced.
>D5 accepts tires with racing slick level of sidewalls. That is not something to boast about versus earlier models. MT not going to do much for you if you cannot air it down.
>supremacy of new technology versus prevalence.... not the same thing. A computer that does the driving for you is nice but doesn't teach good off road driving, what happens when it breaks? not IF.
>Fuel economy is an interesting point. They had 25-30mpg diesels in 1990 land rovers and USA new stuff is just arriving at that? Nice.
>Is the HMMWV a serious vehicle? Yes. It was built to work and be user serviceable by the lowest common denominator. D5 was not built to do work, and certainly not built to be serviced by a layperson. Built to be a very nice driving car? Yes. They use IFS to protect many more components from damage than a D5 does, see where they put brake rotors on the HMMWV for instance.
>Live axles are nice to pull as a unit and service.

Discovery 5 is a nice car. It is comfortable. It drives great. It has good economy. It is very good in various slippery terrain types and has a very good computer traction control. You can point and shoot with it.

I think the posturing and "supremacy" / "shames" talk is unwarranted.
 

mpinco

Expedition Leader
Another new technology vs old technology debate. Interesting but not really relevant as all vehicle manufacturers are converging on technology. Technology normalizes the feature set that, in the end, there are fewer and fewer degrees of difference between the various manufacturers.

Land Rovers issue? All models look the same, the Russian doll affliction, just different sizes of the same. And that 'design language' converges on a design point that removes emotion and the ability to change/upgrade/unbolt/remove/customize by the future customer. Jeep figure that out a long time ago and stayed with the design point. LR took a different path into different size vans with a 'sporty' sloping roof line. Uninspiring.

Saw my first Velar on the road last week. .............. Ugly
 
Last edited:

J!m

Active member
Land-Rover’s own documentation touts the supremacy of beam axles over independent suspension. They could have gone independent long ago and made a conscious choice not to. I have whichever book it is on my shelf. Nicely illustrated too.

When a wheel climbs an obstacle in a beam axle, that wheel goes up and so does the axle, keeping clearance as it was on flat ground. The center of the vehicle goes up too.

When an independent wheel hits the same obstacle, it climbs up, the wheel tucks and the center of the vehicle does not come up, thereby reducing the clearance under the center of the vehicle.

Experienced drivers have seen it many times on the trails.

High speed desert racing is a good application of independent suspension. Trails are smooth and speeds are high. Basically highway speed or higher, so a suspension tuned for the road makes sense.

And by the way, the D1’s used in Camel Trophy did pretty well off road with minimal upgrading.

So, you go your way, and I’ll go mine.
 

DieselRanger

Well-known member
Land-Rover’s own documentation touts the supremacy of beam axles over independent suspension. They could have gone independent long ago and made a conscious choice not to. I have whichever book it is on my shelf. Nicely illustrated too.

When a wheel climbs an obstacle in a beam axle, that wheel goes up and so does the axle, keeping clearance as it was on flat ground. The center of the vehicle goes up too.

When an independent wheel hits the same obstacle, it climbs up, the wheel tucks and the center of the vehicle does not come up, thereby reducing the clearance under the center of the vehicle.

Experienced drivers have seen it many times on the trails.

Yep, I've seen the difference too, I've been driving off road for 20+ years and I learned on the "old stuff." I've driven Subarus over rockslides with rocks as big as basketballs...without damage. I've driven Jeeps and HMWWV's and Expeditions and Audis.... You can make almost anything work almost anywhere if you know your limits and have the skill. With FIS, with all the important driveline and steering bits tucked up under the flat floor of the vehicle, it simply does not matter if you know what you're doing. In fact, it provides much more flexibility in line choice. "As slow as possible, as fast as necessary," as they say.

High speed desert racing is a good application of independent suspension. Trails are smooth and speeds are high. Basically highway speed or higher, so a suspension tuned for the road makes sense.

Do you know what Ultra4 racing is? Do you know what King of The Hammers is? Do you understand how they race? Independent suspension is rapidly gaining preference there. Racing is Darwinian.

And by the way, the D1’s used in Camel Trophy did pretty well off road with minimal upgrading.

Yep, they sure did.

So, you go your way, and I’ll go mine.

Agreed.

A computer that does the driving for you is nice but doesn't teach good off road driving, what happens when it breaks? not IF.
I've never had an electronically controlled differential fail on the trail, ever. I have never had a traction control system fail on the trail, ever. I've never had an electronically/computer controlled fuel injection system fail on the trail, ever. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but these systems have the benefit of engineering and time behind them - they're overengineered for that reason, with millions of miles of test time to validate the engineering. I'm not talking about autonomous driving, but there are plenty of electronic and computer aids like fuel injection that we take for granted now.

>Fuel economy is an interesting point. They had 25-30mpg diesels in 1990 land rovers and USA new stuff is just arriving at that? Nice.
Emissions in diesels is now far more important than fuel economy thanks to California activist government officials. Diesel demand in the US was a factor, thanks to Oldsmobile. And now thanks to Volkswagen.

I think the posturing and "supremacy" / "shames" talk is unwarranted.

Just returning the sentiment.
 

DiscoDavis

Explorer
I've never had an electronically controlled differential fail on the trail, ever. I have never had a traction control system fail on the trail, ever. I've never had an electronically/computer controlled fuel injection system fail on the trail, ever. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but these systems have the benefit of engineering and time behind them - they're overengineered for that reason, with millions of miles of test time to validate the engineering. I'm not talking about autonomous driving, but there are plenty of electronic and computer aids like fuel injection that we take for granted now.

Have seen and experienced both traction control and transfer box control systems failures. Those systems are voltage sensitive and on low battery voltage they will disable themselves to prioritize engine operation and transmission shifting (goes from 6 to 4 speed on earlier models). It means if you lose it and learned to drive with those aids you will not do as well as someone with a normal car that knows how to work it best mechanically.

fuel injection is the worst comparison. you are not manually operating a fuel pump versus letting a computer do it, mechanical injection is self-running. Fuel injection doesn't make your car better off road or handle driving characteristics for you.
 
I'd have to agree that we are arguing two completely different animals. I'll disagree with the IFS being for high speed, smoother racing only. Hammer trucks CANT run the same speeds with live axle trucks as IFS, however, do perform better at lower speeds with the articulation of live axles out-performs IFS. IFS wins 100% of the time in daily driving quality, high speed, traction control, and just about every other situation where the NEW rovers are meant to thrive. And yes, Hammer trucks are now progressing toward IFS suspensions due to the speed they are able to hit larger obstacles while maintaining traction with new suspension innovations. Not to mention hi-tech magnetic suspension can now make an IFS drive exactly like a live axle at low speeds. IFS allows for more traction with caster/camber through the entire shock travel with little to no adverse action to the opposite side of the vehicle, live axles do not. Live axle rears remain in play because the 3 or 4-link trailing arm design is more robust and handles far different in traction and suspension travel in the rear of the vehicle than out front.

Bottom line, I think we are debating apples to oranges on suspension capabilities and optimal uses because both of them have their environments they perform the best in. Jeep stays with live axles on Rubicons yet IFS on Grand Cherokee and everything else! Why, because they know they will sacrifice ride quality and performance on a Cherokee that will spend the vast majority of its life on the road or maybe dirt roads where IFS performs better for comfort and traction.

Check out BJ Baldwin ripping the Baja, these whoops are 3-4 feet in height and he's handling these like cool breezes. Live axle front ends do not thrive in this environment because their design in nature is to force one wheel down for traction but it will always be out of alignment unless in the neutral position; hence loss of performance and handling as speed increases. Oh, then there is that whole weight thing! :cool:

BJ Baldwin IFS Trophy


Great convos fellas, keep it classy!
 

mpinco

Expedition Leader
Another design point perspective

- Land Rover was a agricultural / work truck for the UK farm / small business

- International Scout was a agricultural / work truck for the US farm / small business

- The LR4 did not fit that design envelope. A LR4ish Defender would not serve the Defender market.
 

DieselRanger

Well-known member
Have seen and experienced both traction control and transfer box control systems failures. Those systems are voltage sensitive and on low battery voltage they will disable themselves to prioritize engine operation and transmission shifting (goes from 6 to 4 speed on earlier models). It means if you lose it and learned to drive with those aids you will not do as well as someone with a normal car that knows how to work it best mechanically.

fuel injection is the worst comparison. you are not manually operating a fuel pump versus letting a computer do it, mechanical injection is self-running. Fuel injection doesn't make your car better off road or handle driving characteristics for you.

So you take care of your battery just like you take care of the rest of the vehicle, any vehicle, that goes beyond the affordable reach of a tow truck. You minimize the risk of a breakdown, you work on your skills, and you pray. Same as our grandfathers did. And as an added benefit, Lucas Electric no longer supplies Land Rover, so you can leave your replacement wire harness smoke at home.

The debate over fuel injection vs. carburetors a generation ago mimics this one exactly. With a carburetor and one throttle body control it was simpler to diagnose and repair or rebuild on the road/trail, there were fewer moving parts, cheaper, the benefits of fuel injection were (at the time) incremental, blah blah blah. Now we take it for granted. Fuel injection improves power, engine responsiveness, and fuel economy - definitely benefits off-road, as well as on-road.

Look, I love old cars. On the road it doesn't get much better than an air-cooled Porsche 911's wheezy grumble with too much weight hanging out behind the rear wheels, and the engine sounds like nothing else. The simplicity is engaging and the connection to the road is exhilarating and you have to be a good 911 driver (not just a good driver, period) to get the most out of it. But if you want to go fast, safely, a new Honda Civic Type R will blow it away, never mind a brand-new 911 GT3 RS. Same is true of modern off-road vehicles.

The bottom line is, technology is improving every single day. The D5 is better off-road than anything Land Rover has produced to date, and it's better than any of its competition. It's likely the new Defender will be better than the last, but it won't look right and it will be all leather-fancypants and too expensive and it's going to have too many buttons and not enough levers and you won't bash your knees on the dash anymore and it won't have fold-up side seating in the 110 and it will come with 18-inch wheels instead of 13-inch wheels so it won't be serious and it's not a farm implement any more and the Wrangler is cheaper, etc etc. It will disgust traditionalists. It will be seen in Whole Foods parking lots with really shiny tires more often than it's seen on the trail. But it will still be good on the trail for the few who take theirs there.
 

DieselRanger

Well-known member
A LR4ish Defender would not serve the Defender market.

It would also not be road legal in the United States or Europe, and thus would not exist any more - Land Rover stopped selling them in the US in 1997 because they didn't want to spend the money to fit them with mandatory airbags. Hell, the Wrangler is barely road legal in the EU due to crashworthiness.

"Further, the Jeep Wrangler is engineered to deliver superior performance and unique driving experiences under the most demanding conditions. Testing protocols that apply exclusively to urban scenarios may not align with such a vehicle."

Yeah, well, the ability to sell a vehicle that doesn't meet impact or emissions standards may not align with governing bodies' willingness to certify it for sale, so....
 

mpinco

Expedition Leader
It would also not be road legal in the United States or Europe, and thus would not exist any more - Land Rover stopped selling them in the US in 1997 because they didn't want to spend the money to fit them with mandatory airbags. Hell, the Wrangler is barely road legal in the EU due to crashworthiness. ..........

The point was that there are vehicle designs that work in today's regulatory environment and they are not jelly beans with sloping rear roof lines. Each market segment has unique requirements that one 'design language' cannot serve. (Current Land Rover products all look the same) Some time in the past it was said that Land Rover was following BMW's lead on design language. Well all BMW's also look the same and I don't see BMW selling any trucks. Maybe JLR should just admit that they are really selling a single product, collapse Jaguar and Land Rover into one company and move forward beyond the current financial losses. I would think the technology is common across Jaguar and Land Rover such that it could be normalized across all offered products. The current Discovery could easily be rebadged as a Jaguar SUV.

All arguments aside, Land Rover is missing the younger generation / future buyer by a long shot. The younger generation is looking for something to modify, play with, tweek, lift, whatever. They don't have $75K to spend on their everyday driver/hobby. They will go looking for a depreciated vehicle that has all the attributes to turn it into a hobby/trail rig. Sorry, don't see any of today's LR products that fit that market segment. Which by the way is your future buyer who has now gone elsewhere. In addition those younger buyers don't care about some government report on "crashworthiness".
 
Last edited:

DiscoDavis

Explorer
The bottom line is, technology is improving every single day. The D5 is better off-road than anything Land Rover has produced to date, and it's better than any of its competition. It's likely the new Defender will be better than the last, but it won't look right and it will be all leather-fancypants and too expensive and it's going to have too many buttons and not enough levers and you won't bash your knees on the dash anymore and it won't have fold-up side seating in the 110 and it will come with 18-inch wheels instead of 13-inch wheels so it won't be serious and it's not a farm implement any more and the Wrangler is cheaper, etc etc. It will disgust traditionalists. It will be seen in Whole Foods parking lots with really shiny tires more often than it's seen on the trail. But it will still be good on the trail for the few who take theirs there.

You're being hyperbolic. People will like it, people will not. The D5 is a good car. It is not better than what Land Rover has done in the past. I don't recall a D5 being able to do anything close to a camel event. Ford anything deeper than 33.5" of water? Oh boy that water crossing is 36 inches deep. Winch all day with anything other than an 8274 or a husky? Going to be an issue with a recessed winch, and anything planetary. Air down your tires? Little hard with 19 or 20s.

it will do a LR experience "off road" course better than the others, sure. It has the best traction control of any Land Rover ever made, is what you should be saying.
 

mpinco

Expedition Leader
Can't imagine the D5 "wing radiators" surviving any hostile environment.

New off the show room floor a D5 is very capable. The level of complexity of subsystems and overall design will relegate it to a highway cruiser as it ages.

There was a time when Land Rover was targeted at the simple / off-road segment at reasonable price points. Range Rover was the high end vehicle for the occasional crowd. Targeted at a different class of people. Somehow that has been lost in the years.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
185,527
Messages
2,875,545
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top