Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?

Gord Wedman said:

I saw one on the road here in BC for the first time a couple days ago. Coming towards me I at first thought it was a new D4/LR4 but when it went around a corner and I saw the perfectly flat back, especially around the tail lights, I knew it was a new Defender. Consequently I don't agree with "Ultimately it is completely lacking the classic lines that have made the Series and Defender models so iconic ". It may not be a slab sided box that you can bolt a shovel onto but it does have some design cues from the past. As for Terrain Response be so complicated I thought the idea was exactly the opposite. I believe it even has a Auto setting. Maybe some people are over thinking this?

Click to expand...

I think you've nailed it, 'Design Cues' are all that's left of the original vehicle, it has become full-on urbanista orientated.

Gord Wedman said:

I saw one on the road here in BC for the first time a couple days ago. Coming towards me I at first thought it was a new D4/LR4 but when it went around a corner and I saw the perfectly flat back, especially around the tail lights, I knew it was a new Defender. Consequently I don't agree with "Ultimately it is completely lacking the classic lines that have made the Series and Defender models so iconic ". It may not be a slab sided box that you can bolt a shovel onto but it does have some design cues from the past. As for Terrain Response be so complicated I thought the idea was exactly the opposite. I believe it even has a Auto setting. Maybe some people are over thinking this?

Click to expand...

JimS said:

I think you've nailed it, 'Design Cues' are all that's left of the original vehicle, it has become full-on urbanista orientated.

Click to expand...

That is the problem. It is a defender in the same way the new mini is a mini, or the new beetle is a beetle. Aesthetically it has been designed by someone who has heard roughly what one looked like from someone else who only got a brief glimpse of the original. There are styling cues but it is not the same long lived look that we all know and love. It is no longer a defender just like the bmw mini is no longer a mini. The name is just being used as a marketing ploy and the new vehicle has none of linage of the original vehicle. From the first series 1 to the final "proper" defender off the line you could see the lineage, flat front sides and back, ali skinned paneled body, ladder chassis, beam axles. The new vehicle is a complete re-design and does not share any of the features of its predecessors in terms of fundamental design, because of this in my opinion it should have been renamed. This would also stop it being compared to the old models. however the name is to powerful a marketing tool for them to have retired it.
It is a defender in name only and as mentioned is the same for as the beetle (if it is not air cooled rear engine it is not a beetle!) and mini. For all practical purposes it is not a defender, it cannot be treated as one, and does not have any of the features the old enthusiast loved in the previous defender. However it is not aimed at us, it is aimed and built for the school run mum/dad who wants an suv, not the enthusiast who has rebuilt a 30 year old vehicle to drive though the dessert and repair with only adjustable spanner and a rock!

dag019 said:

That is the problem. It is a defender in the same way the new mini is a mini, or the new beetle is a beetle. Aesthetically it has been designed by someone who has heard roughly what one looked like from someone else who only got a brief glimpse of the original. There are styling cues but it is not the same long lived look that we all know and love. It is no longer a defender just like the bmw mini is no longer a mini. The name is just being used as a marketing ploy and the new vehicle has none of linage of the original vehicle. From the first series 1 to the final "proper" defender off the line you could see the lineage, flat front sides and back, ali skinned paneled body, ladder chassis, beam axles. The new vehicle is a complete re-design and does not share any of the features of its predecessors in terms of fundamental design, because of this in my opinion it should have been renamed. This would also stop it being compared to the old models. however the name is to powerful a marketing tool for them to have retired it.
It is a defender in name only and as mentioned is the same for as the beetle (if it is not air cooled rear engine it is not a beetle!) and mini. For all practical purposes it is not a defender, it cannot be treated as one, and does not have any of the features the old enthusiast loved in the previous defender. However it is not aimed at us, it is aimed and built for the school run mum/dad who wants an suv, not the enthusiast who has rebuilt a 30 year old vehicle to drive though the dessert and repair with only adjustable spanner and a rock!

Click to expand...

Yes they are in the business of selling cars and tough looking SUV's are popular. It's not just JLR, the amorphous blobs of SUV are popping up everywhere where you least expect it- Bentley, Jaguar, Maserati, Alfa, Aston... even Ferrari are developing one FFS.. all of which for the sake of a grill and badge you would struggle to separate.
You could argue that while the Mini and Beetle are quite different to their predecessors they still retain the same functional intent, the new LR is just 'identifying' as a Defender.....

JimS said:

You could argue that while the Mini and Beetle are quite different to their predecessors they still retain the same functional intent, the new LR is just 'identifying' as a Defender.....

Click to expand...

Whereas that is true arguably the original functional intent of the defenders no longer exists anywhere and is no longer required, it depends what you consider to be the defenders functional intent.

• 4x4 utility vehicle - these are now double cab pickups which the original defender never meaningfully was
• military vehicle - now fulfilled by specialist military vehicle providing the required armour and armoument for modern warfare
• ability to strip, repair, rebuild by any semi competent person - no modern vehicle fits these criteria and the age of the home mechanic is dying out
• modular design which can easily be converted to several variant and body types - now fulfilled by specialist vehicles for each role rather than one size fits all with a changeable configuration
• off road capability - the modern version by all accounts fits this with no problems. It is a different style of off road driving (one I do not like or agree with) but the current discovery is a formidable off road machine all be it reliant on technologies rather than driver skill and awareness, I do not see the new defender being any different. The only part of this it does not fulfill is the easy of modification to increase off road performance (at the expense of other traits) like the old one, but it will not be long until there will be suspension lifts and protective kit available for it just as there is for other modern 4x4's they will just not be as many of them and they will not be as cheap as they were for the old defender but the whole vehicle is not as cheap as the old defender.

I have deliberately not included the second hand and enthusiast market in the function element from this because that does not directly benefit the company making the cars as enthusiast do not buy new vehicles. There is obviously a PR benefit but that is not a tangible asset. But again it could be argued that this no longer exists with modern vehicles and is dying out along with the home mechanic due to the increasing complexity of modern cars. even the performance and racing enthusiast market is far more limited than it once was with new vehicles.

dag019 said:

Whereas that is true arguably the original functional intent of the defenders no longer exists anywhere and is no longer required, it depends what you consider to be the defenders functional intent.

• 4x4 utility vehicle - these are now double cab pickups which the original defender never meaningfully was
• military vehicle - now fulfilled by specialist military vehicle providing the required armour and armoument for modern warfare
• ability to strip, repair, rebuild by any semi competent person - no modern vehicle fits these criteria and the age of the home mechanic is dying out
• modular design which can easily be converted to several variant and body types - now fulfilled by specialist vehicles for each role rather than one size fits all with a changeable configuration
• off road capability - the modern version by all accounts fits this with no problems. It is a different style of off road driving (one I do not like or agree with) but the current discovery is a formidable off road machine all be it reliant on technologies rather than driver skill and awareness, I do not see the new defender being any different. The only part of this it does not fulfill is the easy of modification to increase off road performance (at the expense of other traits) like the old one, but it will not be long until there will be suspension lifts and protective kit available for it just as there is for other modern 4x4's they will just not be as many of them and they will not be as cheap as they were for the old defender but the whole vehicle is not as cheap as the old defender.

I have deliberately not included the second hand and enthusiast market in the function element from this because that does not directly benefit the company making the cars as enthusiast do not buy new vehicles. There is obviously a PR benefit but that is not a tangible asset. But again it could be argued that this no longer exists with modern vehicles and is dying out along with the home mechanic due to the increasing complexity of modern cars. even the performance and racing enthusiast market is far more limited than it once was with new vehicles.

Click to expand...

It does raise the point as to why still call a vehicle a Defender when no longer used by the armed forces.
I think the longevity will be interesting, JLR have obviously put it through some punishing tests but when you take the 'bush mechanic' out of the equation it has to be a lot more dependable, and JLR of late do not have a good record on reliability.
I don't see that anyone will be buying this that even goes off tarmac that often, it is just another variation on a theme targeting premium money from the right (well off) buyers... would be interesting to see if they can produce a decent pick up version though that can compete with Toyota head-to-head

JimS said:

would be interesting to see if they can produce a decent pick up version though that can compete with Toyota head-to-head

Click to expand...

Not at a price point to compete with the toyota/ford etc. If they did it would be in the Amerok or X-Klasse category neither of which I believe even have low range and again arguably are aimed at the school run SUV rather than people who actually want/need a 4x4 utility/adventure vehicle.

dag019 said:

Not at a price point to compete with the toyota/ford etc. If they did it would be in the Amerok or X-Klasse category neither of which I believe even have low range and again arguably are aimed at the school run SUV rather than people who actually want/need a 4x4 utility/adventure vehicle.

Click to expand...

The most annoying aspect of the new Defender is that not only have they avoided the obvious naming protocol of calling it 'Defender 2' but just to really screw up internet searches they've called the 119" wheelbase version 'Defender 110'.
It's like they are deliberately trying to be dicks....

The only thing I disagree with is the description of the gearbox performance .
Mine was flawless I never ever expireanced the delayed response cited , in fact if I had it would have Been back at the dealers pronto.

It's a thread revival, Very few Defender/Pretender around hear. Most farmers now have crew cab pickups of various makes.