Red Merle wrote:

Cam-Tech-Craig wrote:

I can answer that Red... Yes, Yes & Yes... And i completely agree it should have been branded the D5... As in real terms, its just like a D4 rework!

I knew that you would have done 👍 which is why I was especially asking CB.

My very low opinion of the current D5 is pretty well known 🙄 and I would have loved this to be the real thing but, beyond the boxy shape and external dimensions, this is very different from the D4 inside, the D4 still being a luxury car, but more spacious and practical than the Fatty. As soon as I got inside, this screamed Defender at me; from the flat front floor to the two front seats being pushed to the edges to allow for a third front perch.

Give it a bigger boot and the option of a split tailgate (and even better, build it in Solihull) and I’d have one. But, to many who might have looked at a D4 in place of say, a Mercedes estate, the Defender is going to be too much of a step.

I think anything after the D4 isn’t a proper Discovery..... and that the TD5 engined LR products were the last you could get away with potentially easily fixing in the field.

I’ve not been in the new Defender, but quite like the look of it. Though not sure when it’s a white one.

Time will tell......

 2011 Range Rover Vogue SE 4.4 TDV8

Previous cars :
2003 Range Rover Vogue TD6
1999 Discovery Td5 ES
1995 BMW M5 3.8 6 speed
1992 Range Rover 3.9 Efi Vogue
1992 BMW M5 3.8
1988 BMW 735i SE
1989 Ford Sierra XR4x4 2.9i
1981 Ford Fiesta Supersport

Last edited by mjdronfield on 29th Jan 2021 9:37am. Edited 1 time in total

Some spec's and colours of the new Defender make me think that I really like it and wouldn't mind having one, others make me think there's no way I'd have that. It does seem to be one of those cars that's very spec dependent on how it looks.

I liked the look of the old Defender but being 6'4 it was a tight fit and the lack of elbow room used to drive me nuts to the point I'd not buy one as I could never get comfy in them. My Uncle has a very late Puma engined Defender and I can barely get my legs onto the peddles because of the lack of space.

Times move on unfortunately and so do designs. If you look at the L405 and the Classic Range Rover you could say the same about the Defender but because we've been through the P38, and 2 facelifts on the L322 to get to the L405 it's a much more acceptable difference. The Defender has done the same jump in one go and I think that's what is rubbing people up the wrong way as it's much more noticeable.

Personally, it wears a Green Oval, and helps a company that I'm passionate about then I'd welcome it to the market.

David. 2002 4.6 Vogue SE - Alveston Red with Lightstone Leather
2007 Range Rover Supercharged in Java Black with Ivory Leather
2012 Range Rover 5.0 SC Autobiography in Indus Silver with Jet/Ivory Interior
2012 Range Rover 4.4 TDV8 Autobiography in Baltic Blue with Sand Interior

TJRL wrote:

Really??

TJRL wrote:

Really??

I seem to recall the that the original Land Rover (later renamed as "Series 1") has been updated many, many time over the years. As a rough guide (please don't flame me if a bit inaccurate!):-

1948 - Rover cars produced a new model of car - A Land Rover
1958 - Rover cars produced an updated version - The SII Land Rover
1961 - Rover cars produce an updated version - The SIIa Land Rover
1972 - British Leyland Cars produce an updated version - The SIII Land Rover
1984 - British Leyland Cars produce an updated version - The 90 and 110 Land Rovers
1990 - The Land Rover 90 and Land Rover 110 - Replaced by Defender 90 / 110 respectively
1996 - Land Rover produce an updated version - Wolf Defender

So very nearly "a new Defender every 8 years" or so. All with very similar "DNA" so much so that even JLR talk about a 1948 Land Rover as being a Defender when of course it was not.

It is easy to compare a 2016 Defender to a 1948 Series 1 Land Rover and see the common DNA.

But in no way shape or form can a 2020 "Defender" (of should that be Pretender?) be compared with a 2016 Defender. There just is not any common DNA at all.

Philip wrote:

Really. It was a relic by the time the Series III arrived (and I say that owning one).

I saw this lovely old (I think) series 2 last summer. Lovely car to look at and go 'ah'.

Fortunately mine’s a six cylinder petrol, but I take your point.

KurtVerbose wrote:

TJRL wrote:

Really??

I seem to recall the that the original Land Rover (later renamed as "Series 1") has been updated many, many time over the years. As a rough guide (please don't flame me if a bit inaccurate!):-

1948 - Rover cars produced a new model of car - A Land Rover
1958 - Rover cars produced an updated version - The SII Land Rover
1961 - Rover cars produce an updated version - The SIIa Land Rover
1972 - British Leyland Cars produce an updated version - The SIII Land Rover
1984 - British Leyland Cars produce an updated version - The 90 and 110 Land Rovers
1990 - The Land Rover 90 and Land Rover 110 - Replaced by Defender 90 / 110 respectively
1996 - Land Rover produce an updated version - Wolf Defender

So very nearly "a new Defender every 8 years" or so. All with very similar "DNA" so much so that even JLR talk about a 1948 Land Rover as being a Defender when of course it was not.

It is easy to compare a 2016 Defender to a 1948 Series 1 Land Rover and see the common DNA.

But in no way shape or form can a 2020 "Defender" (of should that be Pretender?) be compared with a 2016 Defender. There just is not any common DNA at all.

Yes they were updated. Each an incremental update of the previous one, and doubtless there wasn't a bolt from the last one that was the same as the first.

But as I stated, there wasn't a new one, just updated versions of the previous ones.

Everyone loves the old defender, but very few people actually want to own one, certainly after trying them. The new one has to reach a broader audience. I think they've done a pretty good job, but anyone expecting a very basic and cheap vehicle was bound to be disappointed. The market just won't support that.

As you can see from my signature block, I have a 1960 SII Land Rover, sort of the grandfather to the 2016 Defender and I can tell you at lots and lots of 2016 Defender parts fit my 1960 SII. Even the door hinges fit despite being a completely different design! So do the; seats, door mirrors, rear door, front doors, wings etc. etc.

The original proposition being put forward was that the reason people have some resistant to the 2020 Defender is that it was a 1948 to 2020 upgrade all in one go.
But it was not. - It was a complete change of car that took JLR 4 years to implement.

The reason I dislike this new vehicle being called a Defender is that it has no resemblance to the previous vehicle. JLR are not targeting the same market, or the same use, but are just cynically trying to reuse the good name of the previous vehicle.

To me it almost a trading standards abuse!

Back in 1982 I went from a Mk V Cortina to one of the very first "Y" reg Ford Sierras. Ford had the sense not to name this car a Cortina even though the Cortina had decades of good will behind it's name.

The 2020 "Defender/Pretender" is a great car and if reliable, much better than a 2016 Defender. But is not a Defender if by "Defender" one means a Land Rover car of the 1948 to 2016 linage (or DNA).


PS - I am 6'4" and did not purchase a 2016 Defender (although did consider it as an investment) because for the money I would have brought a "nicer" car. But I would consider a 2020 "Pretender" if they turn out to be reliable and if I could re-badge it  2010 Range Rover TDV8 Baltic Blue Autobiography (2011 MY) - SOLD
1960 Land Rover SII SWB SW
2020 BMW R1250 RT LE
2021 Triton ST-125 (Monkey Bike)

I’m guessing LR are trying to snap up disgruntled D4 owners who don’t like the D5, whilst trying to attract some Defender die hards to join the party.

That’s all fair enough, but I think LR are being rather disingenuous calling it a Defender when it clearly is not an updated version of the 2016 model.

TJRL wrote:

The reason I dislike this new vehicle being called a Defender is that it has no resemblance to the previous vehicle. JLR are not targeting the same market, or the same use, but are just cynically trying to reuse the good name of the previous vehicle.

Quote:

How much of a 1964 911 is there in a 992? Zero. The Defender's market was very small, mainly because it was objectively completely rubbish in comparison with pretty much every potential rival - things move on.

"How much of a 1964 911 is there in a 992? Zero" - Actually about 33% (the "9" in 911 is also the "9" in 922).

"things move on" - Indeed and that should have included the name!

On that note so am I, as you already know my thoughts on JLR's disingenuousness calling it a Defender.  2010 Range Rover TDV8 Baltic Blue Autobiography (2011 MY) - SOLD
1960 Land Rover SII SWB SW
2020 BMW R1250 RT LE
2021 Triton ST-125 (Monkey Bike)

TJRL wrote:

But as I stated, there wasn't a new one, just updated versions of the previous ones.

Everyone loves the old defender, but very few people actually want to own one, certainly after trying them. The new one has to reach a broader audience.
The reason I dislike this new vehicle being called a Defender is that it has no resemblance to the previous vehicle. JLR are not targeting the same market, or the same use, but are just cynically trying to reuse the good name of the previous vehicle.

To me it almost a trading standards abuse!

The 2020 "Defender/Pretender" is a great car and if reliable, much better than a 2016 Defender. But is not a Defender if by "Defender" one means a Land Rover car of the 1948 to 2016 linage (or DNA).


PS - I am 6'4" and did not purchase a 2016 Defender (although did consider it as an investment) because for the money I would have brought a "nicer" car. But I would consider a 2020 "Pretender" if they turn out to be reliable and if I could re-badge it

Could i make a quick point that you may have either overlooked or not really considered?

Bowler... We all know Bowler from the early days, right upto the "wildcat" and even the Range Rover Sport Dakar thing they produced... But few know or even took much notice of the work and progress Bowler made with the Bulldog! Now for those who didn't know, the Bulldog was a Defender'ish chassis with L405/494 subframes grafted in so it could run L405/L494 running gear... This usually ran the 3.0SDV6 which we all know to be a fine engine with plenty of tuning potential... It ran Defender'ish looking bodywork however, all made in house as it was all very slightly different to a Defender... Like the Spanish Santana or a home made Defender 100" made on a RRC platform... So looked like a Defender but Not 100% accurately a Defender... Anyhow i digress! So, fast forward several years and Bowler are ready to release their latest project... A Modular Bulldog! To be sold to the military and alike as a flat floored extendable wheelbase to 110 & 130 using their chassis with L405\494 subframes and running gear both on coils or air, to be used in third world countries etc etc etc...

Fast forward a couple of years, Bowler go under and is then purchased by JLR and voila! The next thing i see is the new Defender, i go and have a look and what do i see underneath? Pretty much a similar car to the Bulldog albeit a watered down simpler version... So i think the link between Bowler & JLR may have been far closer than most would have imagined, even to the point of Bowler developing the New Defender in plain sight???

So, why am i telling you this? Because i see the link between the old Defender and the New Defender, just in a different way to most who have voiced their opinion...

Thoughts?

KurtVerbose wrote:

Philip wrote:

Really. It was a relic by the time the Series III arrived (and I say that owning one).

I briefly had a series III diesel. At its maximum speed of 50mph the rear view mirror was useless at night as it shook so much with the vibration.

I thought they were awful, I started of with one but then the army I was in switched to the Geländewagons or G Class from Mercedes. LOL It cut my journeys in half, used less fuel, had way more comfort, and was better off road...

I also don't understand these comments about being able to fix it in the field. Firstly do the majority of owners really do that And secondly, you can with modern cars as well, a combustion engine is still a combustion engine. No magic involved.

I do agree with you, they need to sell more of them then just some loyalist, and city people moving a few miles out of London. Heck most of the farmers and farm hands around me use normal pickup trucks nowadays. But I'm seeing more of the new Defender than the old one around us already. But for the money they are asking I rather have a G or GLS class

I see the link you’re making Craig

But to a Layman like me they just seem poles apart.

The last Defender I had a go in was a late one that I think had the Transit engine. A fine engine, in a Transit or an ‘Old School’ Defender. I’ve only seen online reviews of the new one and it certainly doesn’t look ‘Transit Like’

The main engine of choice the other side other of the pond is likely to be the straight 6 producing 400bhp. 400 bhp in an off road vehicle does seem a little extreme.

Progress, I get it. I just think it should have been called something else. Obviously Discovery 6 would have left the D5 with nowhere to go. Not necessarily a bad thing some would say

How about Discovery Trek?