2007 Defender latest.

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Larry wrote:
> I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in the new
> defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out some
> vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it :)
>
>

Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in pics-
http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-revealed.html
- are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have roof
rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with him.

Cheers,
Kalev
 
beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Richard" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>What about the front flappy vents? Looks like they have gone? I love those
>>on my 90.
>>
>>Richard
>>
>
>
> Looks like they've gone, and it looks all wrong without them. Very
> useful things as you say.
>
> Richard
>
No, just a lost marketing opportunity - "harking back to the look of the
original Land-Rover of 1948.." etc. :)

Stuart
 
In message <[email protected]>
Kalev Kadak <[email protected]> wrote:

> Larry wrote:
> > I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in the new
> > defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out some
> > vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it :)
> >
> >
>
> Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in pics-
> http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-revealed.html
> - are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have roof
> rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with him.
>

The blurb says the rear bench seats are gone, replaced by forward
facing seats (catching up with after-market - only 10 years late!),
which are optional. I presume that means on on non-Station Wagons,
a 110 Station Wagon with no rear seats at all would be very weird!

> Cheers,
> Kalev

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5f10f05b4e%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> Kalev Kadak <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>> > I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in the
>> > new
>> > defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out
>> > some
>> > vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it :)
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in pics-
>> http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-revealed.html
>> - are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have roof
>> rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with him.
>>
>
> The blurb says the rear bench seats are gone, replaced by forward
> facing seats (catching up with after-market - only 10 years late!),
> which are optional. I presume that means on on non-Station Wagons,
> a 110 Station Wagon with no rear seats at all would be very weird!
>

Side facing seats are an unacceptable safety hazard and if Land Rover
continued to provide them they and someone was hurt in an accident because
of them then the **** would hit the fan. Although it is an ancient design,
it is a mystery how they get away with such substandard safety provision in
this day and age and in comparison with the Defenders peers.

Huw


 
For cutting the holes or swapping the engine? I guess your right it would
not be a good idea to subject an old engine to todays emission standards.

Still the only sensible things seems to be not to buy a new defender in the
first place when there is still plenty of vintage metal about.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Kalev Kadak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Larry wrote:
>
> Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in pics-
>
http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-revealed.html
> - are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have roof
> rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with him.
>
> Cheers,
> Kalev


 
Huw Hi,

Some people have said that Defenders are classified as light vans and not
passenger cars.
But does this also apply to the ordinary Station Wagon "people carrier"
models?

Take care
Pantelis

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:5f10f05b4e%[email protected]...
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > Kalev Kadak <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Larry wrote:
> >> > I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in the
> >> > new
> >> > defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out
> >> > some
> >> > vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in
pics-
> >>
http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-r
evealed.html
> >> - are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have roof
> >> rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with him.
> >>
> >
> > The blurb says the rear bench seats are gone, replaced by forward
> > facing seats (catching up with after-market - only 10 years late!),
> > which are optional. I presume that means on on non-Station Wagons,
> > a 110 Station Wagon with no rear seats at all would be very weird!
> >
>
> Side facing seats are an unacceptable safety hazard and if Land Rover
> continued to provide them they and someone was hurt in an accident because
> of them then the **** would hit the fan. Although it is an ancient design,
> it is a mystery how they get away with such substandard safety provision
in
> this day and age and in comparison with the Defenders peers.
>
> Huw
>
>


 
Huw wrote:
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:5f10f05b4e%[email protected]...
>
>>In message <[email protected]>
>> Kalev Kadak <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Larry wrote:
>>>
>>>>I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in the
>>>>new
>>>>defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out
>>>>some
>>>>vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in pics-
>>>http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-revealed.html
>>>- are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have roof
>>>rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with him.
>>>
>>
>>The blurb says the rear bench seats are gone, replaced by forward
>>facing seats (catching up with after-market - only 10 years late!),
>>which are optional. I presume that means on on non-Station Wagons,
>>a 110 Station Wagon with no rear seats at all would be very weird!
>>
>
>
> Side facing seats are an unacceptable safety hazard and if Land Rover
> continued to provide them they and someone was hurt in an accident because
> of them then the **** would hit the fan. Although it is an ancient design,
> it is a mystery how they get away with such substandard safety provision in
> this day and age and in comparison with the Defenders peers.
>
> Huw
>
>

Bad driving is the safety hazard, and it is my opinion (voiced
previously in the NG) that the driving regulations should be seriously
tightened up, including more regular testing of drivers. No amount of
"safety equipment" will help, since risk compensation nearly always
cancels this out. Witness the *rise* in fatalities following the
introduction of both compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts.

Stuart
 

"Srtgray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Huw wrote:
>>
>>
>> Side facing seats are an unacceptable safety hazard and if Land Rover
>> continued to provide them they and someone was hurt in an accident
>> because of them then the **** would hit the fan. Although it is an
>> ancient design, it is a mystery how they get away with such substandard
>> safety provision in this day and age and in comparison with the Defenders
>> peers.
>>
>> Huw
>
> Bad driving is the safety hazard, and it is my opinion (voiced previously
> in the NG) that the driving regulations should be seriously tightened up,
> including more regular testing of drivers. No amount of "safety
> equipment" will help, since risk compensation nearly always cancels this
> out. Witness the *rise* in fatalities following the introduction of both
> compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts.
>
> Stuart

You must be of the opinion that a spike in the centre of the steering wheel
aimed at the drivers chest would eliminate accidents. In the real world,
accidents happen. **** happens. When it does, the safer the vehicle and the
more systems that help the driver avoid or lessen the severity of an
accident, the better for all concerned.
Your argument on rises in fatalities with increased safety legislation has
been proven and is accepted to be facile.

Huw


 

"Pantelis Giamarellos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Huw Hi,
>
> Some people have said that Defenders are classified as light vans and not
> passenger cars.
> But does this also apply to the ordinary Station Wagon "people carrier"
> models?
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
>

Defender 90 station wagon is classified as a car just by virtue of UK tax
rules. In particular it has traditionally been the case that businesses
could claim VAT back on all models without rear seats and on the 12 seater
station wagon but not on less seats. The 110 station wagon also needs an MOT
from the first year from new in the UK and all 110's and 130's need a higher
standard of MOT due to their weight.

Huw


 
On 2006-08-26, Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:

> No amount of "safety equipment" will help, since risk compensation
> nearly always cancels this out. Witness the *rise* in fatalities
> following the introduction of both compulsory motorcycle helmets and
> seat belts.

The fabled rise in fatalities after seatbelt introduction is something
that's often mentioned, but figures are always lacking. I suspect
there's some heavy statistical manipulation going on there to try to
justify that statement, which is why I've never believed it.

It's like statistics used to justify speed cameras, on the one hand
deaths have fallen since their introduction, but at the same time
roads have been improved and car safety measures have greatly improved
but that's never factored in. I suspect that "rise in fatalities
after seatbelt introduction" is another one, e.g. raw figures quoted
rather than percentage of drivers so increase in driver numbers is
masked etc etc etc.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
In message <[email protected]>
"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:5f10f05b4e%[email protected]...
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > Kalev Kadak <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Larry wrote:
> >> > I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in the
> >> > new
> >> > defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out
> >> > some
> >> > vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in pics-
> >> http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-revealed.html
> >> - are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have roof
> >> rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with him.
> >>
> >
> > The blurb says the rear bench seats are gone, replaced by forward
> > facing seats (catching up with after-market - only 10 years late!),
> > which are optional. I presume that means on on non-Station Wagons,
> > a 110 Station Wagon with no rear seats at all would be very weird!
> >
>
> Side facing seats are an unacceptable safety hazard and if Land Rover
> continued to provide them they and someone was hurt in an accident because
> of them then the **** would hit the fan. Although it is an ancient design,
> it is a mystery how they get away with such substandard safety provision in
> this day and age and in comparison with the Defenders peers.
>

Probably because the Defender is a work vehicle, not a family
run-about!

> Huw
>

Richard

>

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
In message <[email protected]>, Huw
<hedydd@[nospam].invalid> writes
>Defender 90 station wagon is classified as a car just by virtue of UK tax
>rules
Private/Light Goods
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
In message <a195605b4e%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> writes
>In message <[email protected]>
> "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:1f7d505b4e%[email protected]...
>> >
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > and a nice basic dash, the fancy one is going to get trashed in a
>> > working vehicle.
>> >
>>
>> You mean no more "Dad, the sheepdogs have been sat in the front again all
>> covered in mud". "Never mind son, just put the hose on it and leave the
>> doors open for half an hour".
>>
>> Ah yes sorry, I was forgetting. The target customer isn't the hard-working
>> man and his 'tools' any more. I wonder how that dash will stand up to
>> "squaddification" or whether a military version will appear without all the
>> Chelsea hairdresser add-ons?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>
>I doubt there will be a military version as such - press reports
>(for what they are worth) indicate the British Army is intent on
>severing it's links with LR. If there were a military version, it
>would certainly be of more interest to me (and a lot of our
>customers I suspect) than the Chelsea Tractor version pictured
>though - minus any expensive EMP protection of course!
>
>Richard
>
ISTR reading that LR also intended severing their links with the
military.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
Huw thanks for the clarification.

Here in Greece D90 and D110 fitted with 5 or 9 seats are classified as
personal use (private use as called in Greece) vehicles and are considered
as ordinary cars in view of taxation and insurance.
Three seaters are a different story and are classified as commercial or
agricultural use vehicles with significantly reduced taxation on import
duties, road tax and insurance rates. Agricultural use vehicles are
actually allowed to burn tax free diesel.

Take care
Pantelis


"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Pantelis Giamarellos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Huw Hi,
> >
> > Some people have said that Defenders are classified as light vans and
not
> > passenger cars.
> > But does this also apply to the ordinary Station Wagon "people carrier"
> > models?
> >
> > Take care
> > Pantelis
> >
>
> Defender 90 station wagon is classified as a car just by virtue of UK tax
> rules. In particular it has traditionally been the case that businesses
> could claim VAT back on all models without rear seats and on the 12 seater
> station wagon but not on less seats. The 110 station wagon also needs an
MOT
> from the first year from new in the UK and all 110's and 130's need a
higher
> standard of MOT due to their weight.
>
> Huw
>
>


 
People Hi,

some time ago a URL has been posted with the results of a survey run by the
UK police and MoT (IIRC) which showed that the Defender was the safest
vehicle when you were to be involved in a car accident with fatalities.

Does anyone have it handy by the way?

Take care
Pantelis

"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f0d8715c4e%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:5f10f05b4e%[email protected]...
> > > In message <[email protected]>
> > > Kalev Kadak <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Larry wrote:
> > >> > I wonder is it possible to retrofit an old and reliable engine in
the
> > >> > new
> > >> > defender, junking the dashboard while your about it and cutting out
> > >> > some
> > >> > vents under the windscreen, now thats more like it :)
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Sure it is, but you are doomed in next MOT. Another oddity seen in
pics-
> > >>
http://rovering.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/22/2007-land-rover-defender-r
evealed.html
> > >> - are those forward facing jupseats. Hopefully Defender will have
roof
> > >> rack in standard in case some passangers has backpack or tent with
him.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The blurb says the rear bench seats are gone, replaced by forward
> > > facing seats (catching up with after-market - only 10 years late!),
> > > which are optional. I presume that means on on non-Station Wagons,
> > > a 110 Station Wagon with no rear seats at all would be very weird!
> > >
> >
> > Side facing seats are an unacceptable safety hazard and if Land Rover
> > continued to provide them they and someone was hurt in an accident
because
> > of them then the **** would hit the fan. Although it is an ancient
design,
> > it is a mystery how they get away with such substandard safety provision
in
> > this day and age and in comparison with the Defenders peers.
> >
>
> Probably because the Defender is a work vehicle, not a family
> run-about!
>
> > Huw
> >
>
> Richard
>
> >
>
> --
> www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
> RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
> Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive


 
Pantelis Giamarellos wrote:

> People Hi,
>
> some time ago a URL has been posted with the results of a survey run by
> the UK police and MoT (IIRC) which showed that the Defender was the safest
> vehicle when you were to be involved in a car accident with fatalities.
>
> Does anyone have it handy by the way?
>
> Take care
> Pantelis
>
(snip)

Interestingly, this appears not to apply in Australia, where it is nowhere
near the bottom of the list either. I suspect that the reason for both
figures is that the driver is more important than the vehicle, and the
typical type of driving for people who select Defenders is different. May
also reflect the fact that in the UK the Defender probably represents a
large proportion of the heavy "cars" where in Australia it is only a small
proportion of the heavy "cars" (dominated by Landcruisers, Patrols, Pajeros
etc, many of which are considerably heavier), and the average size of cars
in general is much larger and hence heavier.
JD
 
On Saturday, in article
<[email protected]>
[email protected] "Ian Rawlings" wrote:

> On 2006-08-26, Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No amount of "safety equipment" will help, since risk compensation
> > nearly always cancels this out. Witness the *rise* in fatalities
> > following the introduction of both compulsory motorcycle helmets and
> > seat belts.
>
> The fabled rise in fatalities after seatbelt introduction is something
> that's often mentioned, but figures are always lacking. I suspect
> there's some heavy statistical manipulation going on there to try to
> justify that statement, which is why I've never believed it.
>
> It's like statistics used to justify speed cameras, on the one hand
> deaths have fallen since their introduction, but at the same time
> roads have been improved and car safety measures have greatly improved
> but that's never factored in. I suspect that "rise in fatalities
> after seatbelt introduction" is another one, e.g. raw figures quoted
> rather than percentage of drivers so increase in driver numbers is
> masked etc etc etc.

The speed camera results are often attributable to "regression to the
mean".

It's something that happens when you pick sites based on short-term
accident figures. A couple of bad years, higher than average accidentsm
and the site meets the requirements to install a speed camera. But
because the recent figures are worse than the long-term average, it's
more likely that the following years will have a lower accident rate.

Think of it as like rolling dice. You decide the "install" when you roll
a 5 or 6 twice in a row. The next roll has 4 chances in 6 of being less
than 5.

Accidents don't happen by chance. Or, at least, not entirely. But the
patterns are the same as if they were a chance event. If you don't
overtake on a bend, it doesn't matter if there's a car coming the other
way.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."
 
Ian Rawlings wrote:

> On 2006-08-26, Srtgray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No amount of "safety equipment" will help, since risk compensation
>> nearly always cancels this out. Witness the *rise* in fatalities
>> following the introduction of both compulsory motorcycle helmets and
>> seat belts.
>
> The fabled rise in fatalities after seatbelt introduction is something
> that's often mentioned, but figures are always lacking. I suspect
> there's some heavy statistical manipulation going on there to try to
> justify that statement, which is why I've never believed it.
>
> It's like statistics used to justify speed cameras, on the one hand
> deaths have fallen since their introduction, but at the same time
> roads have been improved and car safety measures have greatly improved
> but that's never factored in. I suspect that "rise in fatalities
> after seatbelt introduction" is another one, e.g. raw figures quoted
> rather than percentage of drivers so increase in driver numbers is
> masked etc etc etc.
>
Introduction of compulsory seat belts in Australian states was followed by a
massive reduction in fatalities - around 30% from memory (its thirty years
ago). This followed the meticulously documented results of fitting (and
compulsory wearing by employees) seat belts by the Snowy Mountains
Authority in Australia in the late fifties (mostly in Landrovers) where
road accident fatalities were effectively eliminated.

Another interesting safety figure is the use of mobile phones. In most if
not all Australian states their use while driving is illegal and they are
regarded as very dangerous to use. Yet there are no restrictions on their
use in some US states, and everyone uses them while driving. Yet not only
is there no correlation in accident and fatality statistics between states
where they are allowed or banned, but those states that allow (as well as
the ones that don't) them show modest decreases in both accident and
fatality rates over the last ten years despite their use going from rare
ten years ago to ubiquitous. Something does not add up.
JD


 
Not the case with 109's though I wonder why, just as well nobody ever takes
mine to a weighstation.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Pantelis Giamarellos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Huw Hi,
>> >
>
> Defender 90 station wagon is classified as a car just by virtue of UK tax
> rules. In particular it has traditionally been the case that businesses
> could claim VAT back on all models without rear seats and on the 12 seater
> station wagon but not on less seats. The 110 station wagon also needs an
MOT
> from the first year from new in the UK and all 110's and 130's need a
higher
> standard of MOT due to their weight.
>
> Huw
>
>


 
Air bags, traction control, side impacts bars and all that actually have a
negative impact on safe driving. I think Ralph Nadar got it wrong, if those
Americans really got the idea that the steering wheel was waiting to impale
them if they came to a sudden halt it would have sharpened the mind
somewhat.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"Srtgray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bad driving is the safety hazard, and it is my opinion (voiced
> previously in the NG) that the driving regulations should be seriously
> tightened up, including more regular testing of drivers. No amount of
> "safety equipment" will help, since risk compensation nearly always
> cancels this out. Witness the *rise* in fatalities following the
> introduction of both compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts.
>
> Stuart


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Ex Mod Defender 1986 No History on ERM Search
Replies
5
Views
2K
yfo866
yfo866
Jamscone
SOLD - P38 Range Rover v8 4.6 litre HSE 109,000 miles - £1800
Replies
1
Views
1K
Jamscone
Jamscone
C
Intermittent white smoke and diesel in oil engine
Replies
2
Views
1K
miktdish
miktdish
J
1987 Defender 90 for sale. Galvanised! SOLD
2
Replies
24
Views
11K
Knappster
Knappster
cborrman
Cubby box with tracker and door sensors
Replies
2
Views
1K
cborrman
cborrman
Back
Top