New defender axle and suspension

Dr Strangeglove said:

I am not an offroad driver, though I do drive across a moor often but I am careful not to break through the grass into the peat. I do this in a 1993 90 and whilst it does this comfortably, I am sure a new Defender would be more than capable of the same.

The big differences in my mind are these;

I can't afford a new one.

If I could I wouldn't want to risk damage due to hidden rocks etc.

At 30 years old I doubt the new Defender will still be going.

I enjoy the basic rugged nature of my very, very basic truck!!

Click to expand...

Same here.

300bhp/ton said:

To some extent yes I do know. It is only physics and I've done a lot of serious off roading and playing about in 4x4's and specifically Land Rovers. As said, the most likely thing is they just didn't have it in diff lock, easily done and lots of us have done this sort of thing.

Do you have any photos or video of the location of incident? What you are describing sounds like this:
View attachment 299651

Which is pretty unbelievable that it couldn't drive off.

Click to expand...

I’m afraid no photo’s but it’s a guy from Landyzone 90boy if you wanted to contact directly. Yes he tried it in diff lock but just span 2 wheels, also seen similar on ice where puddles have frozen at the side of the road. By the way I’ve also done a lot of off road driving.
You seem unable to accept that the original defender has any flaws,
Like I said I own and drive both, but can appreciate both have limitations.

johnlad said:

I’m afraid no photo’s but it’s a guy from Landyzone 90boy if you wanted to contact directly. Yes he tried it in diff lock but just span 2 wheels, also seen similar on ice where puddles have frozen at the side of the road. By the way I’ve also done a lot of off road driving.
You seem unable to accept that the original defender has any flaws,
Like I said I own and drive both, but can appreciate both have limitations.

Click to expand...

Well I've been doing off road competitive 4x4 trials since the late 1990s and been around Land Rovers and farm equipment all my life. I also have a pretty good grasp of physics and how the mechanicals work. I just do not believe what you are saying happened they way you say it did. It has nothing to do with what I may or may not own.

As said earlier, the newer LR models (D3 onwards) have superb TCS. As can be seen here:



@johnlad a non TCS Defender would not drive off the ramps in some scenrios, such as both wheels one side being on the rollers. In reality however you are more likely to win the lottery than come across that situation when off road. And if you really couldn't drive forward, due to an incline, you'd be able to reverse out and of course turn the front wheels left & right. Last resort would be left foot braking.

300bhp/ton said:

As said earlier, the newer LR models (D3 onwards) have superb TCS. As can be seen here:



@johnlad a non TCS Defender would not drive off the ramps in some scenrios, such as both wheels one side being on the rollers. In reality however you are more likely to win the lottery than come across that situation when off road. And if you really couldn't drive forward, due to an incline, you'd be able to reverse out and of course turn the front wheels left & right. Last resort would be left foot braking.

Click to expand...

You need to take your blinkers off.
If you don’t think it can happen then there’s no point continuing talking to you, go bury your head.

lynall said:

I would hazard a guess the two different cars on the same tyres would show the newer model wins hand down.

Click to expand...

I agree, you only need to see how often open differ land rovers get cross axled when not using momentum.

johnlad said:

I agree, you only need to see how often open differ land rovers get cross axled when not using momentum.

Click to expand...

People are always afraid of new stuff, though to be fair not many people like change.
Plus you just know the techs at LR are going to make damned sure the older model cannot beat the new one, otherwise why would anyone buy the newer one!

johnlad said:

You need to take your blinkers off.
If you don’t think it can happen then there’s no point continuing talking to you, go bury your head.

Click to expand...

No blinkers. Just physics....

lynall said:

People are always afraid of new stuff, though to be fair not many people like change.
Plus you just know the techs at LR are going to make damned sure the older model cannot beat the new one, otherwise why would anyone buy the newer one!

Click to expand...

Well no, as they don't sell them side by side. But I seriously doubt there is any terrain the new one can drive that a Puma Defender can't. But I'm pretty sure there are places you'd take a Puma Defender where you wouldn't take a new one. And yes, have off roaded both kinds and no, I don't hate the new model apart from the name.

300bhp/ton said:

Well no, as they don't sell them side by side. But I seriously doubt there is any terrain the new one can drive that a Puma Defender can't. But I'm pretty sure there are places you'd take a Puma Defender where you wouldn't take a new one. And yes, have off roaded both kinds and no, I don't hate the new model apart from the name.

Click to expand...

There are places I take my s2 that I wont take my 200 90, only because the s2 is narrower and the lanes would wreck the 90, I assume the new defender is bit of a fat boy?

The new defender will work its way into LR fans hearts, look how derided the freelander was for many years same as the s3, now both have a serious following.

lynall said:

There are places I take my s2 that I wont take my 200 90, only because the s2 is narrower and the lanes would wreck the 90, I assume the new defender is bit of a fat boy?

The new defender will work its way into LR fans hearts, look how derided the freelander was for many years same as the s3, now both have a serious following.

Click to expand...

The new Defender is big. A new 90 is as long as a 5 door Discovery 1 and quite a bit wider.

Interesting, your Series 2 is the same width as your 200Tdi 90 across the bulkhead, ie the body work. The only thing that is wider on the 90 is the axle, which moves the wheels outboard more, so you have the wheel arch spats/flares/extension to cover them.

There cannot be many lanes that are too narrow to a traditional 90.

I can completely see what @johnlad is saying, I've been on a lane before now in a pos Isuzu truck cab, and done exactly the same thing. When the Isuzu is in 4wd (usually rear wheel drive only until 4 is engaged, bit like a series for the simplicity of explanation)it is essentially acting like a 90 with cdl engaged, the side I pulled onto was basically a bog and I sank upto the sills on the right hand side, so much so that I couldn't open the drivers door because of the compression. A friendly farmer pulled me out with a trater. That was when I was a newb 18 year old. But it can, and obviously did happen and I'm unsure why it's being questioned? Whats physics got to do with it apart from prove that that outcome is a possibility. I'm sure most of us are seasoned off road enthusiasts, and all have differing experiences I'm sure!

Gottschalk said:

I can completely see what @johnlad is saying, I've been on a lane before now in a pos Isuzu truck cab, and done exactly the same thing. When the Isuzu is in 4wd (usually rear wheel drive only until 4 is engaged, bit like a series for the simplicity of explanation)it is essentially acting like a 90 with cdl engaged, the side I pulled onto was basically a bog and I sank upto the sills on the right hand side, so much so that I couldn't open the drivers door because of the compression. A friendly farmer pulled me out with a trater. That was when I was a newb 18 year old. But it can, and obviously did happen and I'm unsure why it's being questioned? Whats physics got to do with it apart from prove that that outcome is a possibility. I'm sure most of us are seasoned off road enthusiasts, and all have differing experiences I'm sure!

Click to expand...

They never said anything about sinking. They said the grass was too slippery.... I showed a picture of their description. But maybe they meant something else. Here is their wording....

johnlad said:

A scenario I saw with the a 300tdi defender, whilst laning in the peaks, driver of said vehicle pulled 2 wheels onto the grass verge to allow another car to pass on a road section between lanes,
Said defender had to be towed off the verge as drive went to the wheels on the grass, and although fitted with mud tyres, couldn’t gain enough traction to move.
Whereas any car with traction control would of just drove off effortlessly, let alone a new defender.

Click to expand...

They haven't got a picture, but I asked was it like this:




So doesn't sound like your scenario @Gottschalk of which I would totally agree with you. Something similar to what you described happened to one of group a few years back.

Two wheels on the verge, but then sank slipped into the hidden ditch. In this case it was a 1989 90 pickup, but has ATB's front rear and was happily spinning all 4 wheels. Unless it was something similar that @johnlad is describing, I just don't believe on a level gradient on flat ground that 2 wheels on the grass would stop you driving away in any direction in a Land Rover Defender.

K14 said:

One thing I was trying to highlight was that the old defender with a body on ladder chassis, beam axles, and diff lock etc, and fairly light and narrow. Was a very capable 4x4 for everyone.
If you want to throw some money at it you can make an exceptional machine for what ever you want to do. Because all the basic core requirements are there.
Although the new defender is very good. it’s basic core has more in common with a regular car, monocoque body/ chassis, independent suspension, so your limited.

Click to expand...

I like that statement a bit more than the OP, because you actually say that New Defenders are good, which most people who drive them seem to agree with.
Old Defenders were good too. But vehicle manufacturers exist to sell vehicles, and Old Defenders were hard for them to make money on, because they were almost hand built, and production was difficult to automate fully, as they weren't monocoque construction.
Another issue, which you may already be aware of, is that it would have been very expensive to modify the vehicle to be saleable in all global markets, because in most parts of the world regulations demand side impact protection, and crumple zones, which are very difficult to fit on a vehicle with a solid steel chassis and separate alloy bodywork.

JLR were already facing criticism for the ferocious price of the luxury 4x4s such as Range Rover and Discovery, so to produce an affordable utility vehicle, they had to move to monocoque construction.

300bhp/ton said:

They never said anything about sinking. They said the grass was too slippery.... I showed a picture of their description. But maybe they meant something else. Here is their wording....

They haven't got a picture, but I asked was it like this:

View attachment 299676


So doesn't sound like your scenario @Gottschalk of which I would totally agree with you. Something similar to what you described happened to one of group a few years back.

Two wheels on the verge, but then sank slipped into the hidden ditch. In this case it was a 1989 90 pickup, but has ATB's front rear and was happily spinning all 4 wheels. Unless it was something similar that @johnlad is describing, I just don't believe on a level gradient on flat ground that 2 wheels on the grass would stop you driving away in any direction in a Land Rover Defender.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying I do apologise for jumping the gun!

Turboman said:

Another issue, which you may already be aware of, is that it would have been very expensive to modify the vehicle to be saleable in all global markets, because in most parts of the world regulations demand side impact protection, and crumple zones, which are very difficult to fit on a vehicle with a solid steel chassis and separate alloy bodywork.

Click to expand...

Not wanting to disagree with your sentiments or other points. But this bit isn't really true. Body material (steel or aluminium) would make very little difference in crash worthiness. But there is no reason why you can't build and sell ladder chassis vehicles in global markets.

Indeed the best selling vehicle in the USA is a ladder chassis vehicle. The Ford F150 pickup, I think they sold over 640,000 of them in 12 months. Or on average 1 every 49 seconds!!!

Every big car maker pretty much sells a global ladder chassis vehicle and often multiple models. The Toyota Hilux and Land Cruiser range of vehicles for example.

There is no legal, physical or mechanical reason that Land Rover could not have continued to build a ladder chassis vehicle.

300bhp/ton said:

Not wanting to disagree with your sentiments or other points. But this bit isn't really true. Body material (steel or aluminium) would make very little difference in crash worthiness. But there is no reason why you can't build and sell ladder chassis vehicles in global markets.

Indeed the best selling vehicle in the USA is a ladder chassis vehicle. The Ford F150 pickup, I think they sold over 640,000 of them in 12 months. Or on average 1 every 49 seconds!!!

Every big car maker pretty much sells a global ladder chassis vehicle and often multiple models. The Toyota Hilux and Land Cruiser range of vehicles for example.

There is no legal, physical or mechanical reason that Land Rover could not have continued to build a ladder chassis vehicle.

Click to expand...

Age of the design, maybe?

But I don't actually make the decisions, that is one of the reasons given by JLR for discontinuing them.
Could be that economy of production is actually more important.

300bhp/ton said:

Not wanting to disagree with your sentiments or other points. But this bit isn't really true. Body material (steel or aluminium) would make very little difference in crash worthiness. But there is no reason why you can't build and sell ladder chassis vehicles in global markets.

Indeed the best selling vehicle in the USA is a ladder chassis vehicle. The Ford F150 pickup, I think they sold over 640,000 of them in 12 months. Or on average 1 every 49 seconds!!!

Every big car maker pretty much sells a global ladder chassis vehicle and often multiple models. The Toyota Hilux and Land Cruiser range of vehicles for example.

There is no legal, physical or mechanical reason that Land Rover could not have continued to build a ladder chassis vehicle.

Click to expand...

Forgot. The US is not a very good example, as vehicles are much less regulated over there than in European Markets.
Most US regs are actually aimed at preventing vehicles being imported, but they don't use safety as the reason in the same way as the EU.
Or economy, for that matter, the streets of US cities are still lined with massive gas guzzlers. And I mean massive, Dodge Rams etc, even in downtown Boston and New York.

300bhp/ton said:

The new Defender is big. A new 90 is as long as a 5 door Discovery 1 and quite a bit wider.

Interesting, your Series 2 is the same width as your 200Tdi 90 across the bulkhead, ie the body work. The only thing that is wider on the 90 is the axle, which moves the wheels outboard more, so you have the wheel arch spats/flares/extension to cover them.

There cannot be many lanes that are too narrow to a traditional 90.

Click to expand...

Used to be one or two down there that the s2 would nearly get stuck in it was so tight, 90 would not fit, snorkel mainly but especially the wheel spats.

Turboman said:

Age of the design, maybe?

But I don't actually make the decisions, that is one of the reasons given by JLR for discontinuing them.
Could be that economy of production is actually more important.

Click to expand...

I don't know what 'official' statement was given by JLR. However I'd be inclined to say most of it was probably excuses and not reasons. I think JLR claimed it was impossible to make a vehicle like the Defender.... yet Ineos seemed to have managed it without issue.