2020 Defender

[fishEH]

Another POS that will further cannibalize their shrinking client base. Brilliant.

Land Rover reportedly lining up a $33,000 small SUV

A new report suggests that Land Rover could be lining up a $33,000 small SUV based on the new Defender to slot underneath the Discovery Sport. Also planned is a high-end battery-electric Defender Sport.

www.autoblog.com

 

[kennith]

Land Rover reportedly lining up a $33,000 small SUV

A new report suggests that Land Rover could be lining up a $33,000 small SUV based on the new Defender to slot underneath the Discovery Sport. Also planned is a high-end battery-electric Defender Sport.

www.autoblog.com

Well, that's a stupid idea, at this point.

If the fucking 110 won't fit anything in the cargo bay, the 90 is even worse... What the hell do they think people will do with the smaller model?

If the ass gets any tinier than it is now, the vehicle will truly be useless.

The Defender might have been a decent car for everyday driving, reasonable overland use, and beach/trail driving; but it's not. You'd have to be nuts to pay that much for so little utility. You're buying the brand with the Defender now; you want the image, and that's it. There's no other reason to buy it, because better options exist.

It's an objectively bad design, and I can't see how the heck they plan to make it even more useless.

It was fine until I saw behind those seats, but once I did, it revealed itself as the pointless vehicle that it is. Period. End of fucking story.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[mgreenspan]

You're buying the brand with the Defender now; you want the image, and that's it.

The company makes zero sense. The 130 would sell easily in the US as an off-road 7-8 adult seat vehicle. Instead they’re already talking about marketing that as the top end luxury $100k+ version. What is that? I can’t tell if it’s them attempting to capitalize on bigger is better idiots or just them being so out of touch with buyers that they literally built a vehicle no one will actually want because they just felt like they had to in order to realign their brand under Range Rover and Defender names.

I will say again that I liked the DC100, I liked this thing, but their price point for lack of usefulness is a major turn off. The fact that I can’t get the middle front jump seat with the third row really pisses me off. The idea that the 130 is going to be Uber expensive pisses me off. The idea that the only reason they probably built this vehicle was so Gerry McGonads could design another _________ Sport pisses me off.

 

[kennith]

The company makes zero sense. The 130 would sell easily in the US as an off-road 7-8 adult seat vehicle. Instead they’re already talking about marketing that as the top end luxury $100k+ version. What is that? I can’t tell if it’s them attempting to capitalize on bigger is better idiots or just them being so out of touch with buyers that they literally built a vehicle no one will actually want because they just felt like they had to in order to realign their brand under Range Rover and Defender names.

I will say again that I liked the DC100, I liked this thing, but their price point for lack of usefulness is a major turn off. The fact that I can’t get the middle front jump seat with the third row really pisses me off. The idea that the 130 is going to be Uber expensive pisses me off. The idea that the only reason they probably built this vehicle was so Gerry McGonads could design another _________ Sport pisses me off.

Absolutely.

The 130 is the only model that makes any sense at all, and even that's pushing reason. If they peg that as a premium version... The Defender is completely dead.

It doesn't matter how good it is off-pavement, it doesn't matter how reliable it is, and it doesn't matter what it looks like. Suspension, computers, screens... None of that is the problem. Unibody isn't a problem. The problem is the interior packaging and that rear door.

It is now officially a douche-mobile for people who want to look like they're fancy. That is literally the only reason to buy one. There's nothing wrong with buying something for that reason, but make no mistake, that's all it's got going for it.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[fishEH]

Is the new Defender rear door really that much smaller/limiting than the original, though?

Well, that's a stupid idea, at this point.

If the fucking 110 won't fit anything in the cargo bay, the 90 is even worse... What the hell do they think people will do with the smaller model?

If the ass gets any tinier than it is now, the vehicle will truly be useless.

The Defender might have been a decent car for everyday driving, reasonable overland use, and beach/trail driving; but it's not. You'd have to be nuts to pay that much for so little utility. You're buying the brand with the Defender now; you want the image, and that's it. There's no other reason to buy it, because better options exist.

It's an objectively bad design, and I can't see how the heck they plan to make it even more useless.

It was fine until I saw behind those seats, but once I did, it revealed itself as the pointless vehicle that it is. Period. End of fucking story.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[Blueboy]

The problem is the interior packaging and that rear door.

I am going to wait until I actually see it in person.

 

[Lake_Bueller]

Is the new Defender rear door really that much smaller/limiting than the original, though?

I can't image it's any worse that the D1 or D2 rear door. The Defender is wider so I'd expect a similar sized door.

 

[kennith]

Is the new Defender rear door really that much smaller/limiting than the original, though?

Is the new Defender rear door really that much smaller/limiting than the original, though?

No. The new door is bigger, but it's also not a rectangle, and it's far more recessed. Moreover, it's stuck with a tiny interior and more trim in the way.

The original was infuriating, but they were stuck with it. They still had military contracts, and they were still riveting the shell together. Mercedes similarly fucked up with the revised G wagon, which isn't sold for industrial/fleet/military use. The new G is not the G. The previous generation is still manufactured for that use. Neither of these new vehicles are stuck in contract dimension.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

I can't image it's any worse that the D1 or D2 rear door. The Defender is wider so I'd expect a similar sized door.

The actual opening is much smaller than the door itself, and those dimensions are deceptive. Either Discovery is a better hauler than any Defender of any year shy of a high cap.



With the side trim out (just a few minutes), a DII may as well be a cargo van, and a D1 becomes much more practical. Even with the trim in, the DII is a phenomenally practical hauler. Here's the side trim in, which is unusual on my vehicle. You can't see the door opening, but what you can indeed see is that long, flat cargo floor. I've got a shot somewhere showing what happens when the trim is out, which really shows the full width of the door properly, but I need to find it.

I've just been trying a new layout; it won't be that plywood for too much longer. Had this on the desktop for the computer thread.

That Defender is about five inches wider than the DII; Six, depending on what you're measuring. All of that and more is taken up by the shoulders on the bodywork. The parts of the body that matter are well inboard of those numbers. So, the question is whether they've built a shit car, or whether they're masters of optical illusions.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[Lake_Bueller]

The numbers I found on the interweb...

2020 Defender cargo volume (from front seats): 78.8 cubic feet
D2 cargo volume (from front seats): 82.7 cubic feet

While four cubic feet is measurable in a vehicle that is considerably larger, its only 5%

 

[kennith]

The numbers I found on the interweb...

2020 Defender cargo volume (from front seats): 78.8 cubic feet
D2 cargo volume (from front seats): 82.7 cubic feet

While four cubic feet is measurable in a vehicle that is considerably larger, its only 5%

Your air filter has the surface area to cover a cinder block, yet it will only cover a brick.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

I suppose it comes down to how big this tire is:



Google is popping up 30" tires, but I don't see it on Land Rover's site just yet. Might be there, though, as these newer websites are a bit confusing to me. I'm not sure why Google would have the tire information right there to search, but 30" does seem realistic.

If that's a 30" tire, that door opening is tiny.



Track width is where I compared vehicle width, as I didn't know where they were pulling the body numbers from. From the rear, you can see how the extra width doesn't have much to do with the utility of the inner shell from this angle. All of that extra bulk is taken up in the shoulders, which seem to be used as wheel wells.

To me, this places the logic of retaining those shoulders into question. The Defender to Discovery comparison was never fair. One was stuck with certain features and unable to ditch it's styling, and the other was painstakingly designed without hindrance to be a modern, practical, everyday SUV to compete with Japanese vehicles known for practicality.

No Defender could win that battle, but it wasn't a big deal. The platform was flexible, and most of their customers were used to it, at that point. Industries developed around the dimensions that grew increasingly odd in the consumer segment as time went on, even if they never changed.

This platform is not flexible, and Land Rover knew that. It didn't have to retain anything. It wasn't stuck in the past. I just can't figure out why they thought they needed that much bodywork back there. This vehicle needed to be able to swallow more than their other offerings. If you can fit more in a Range Rover, what's the point of a brand spanking new Defender?

If I'm wrong about the door size, I'll be very happy. Even so, the second-row seat backs are wider than that opening in the picture...

I hope I'm wrong, because I actually kind of like the car.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[mgreenspan]

Saw this picture and thought it made the c pillar look less awkward. Then messed with the builder and you can’t get black with a white roof. What asshat at the company let’s you put a white roof on the other colors, but decided for you that a white roof on the black vehicle is not allowed?

 

[Blueboy]

Either Discovery is a better hauler than any Defender of any year

Hum, have owned a 110 and have a D1. The 110 had more cargo area. By the numbers assuming correct info:
110-81.2 cubic feet
D1-69.8 cubic feet
Either one though probably better than the new Defender.

 

[kennith]

Hum, have owned a 110 and have a D1. The 110 had more cargo area. By the numbers assuming correct info:
110-81.2 cubic feet
D1-69.8 cubic feet
Either one though probably better than the new Defender.

It's still no contest.

If you want those cubes back, use about fifteen minutes to match the Defender's trim. You still get a much bigger hole to stuff, and now you've got the overall space, as well. There's a point at which the Defender has to be considered what it actually is: A cool vehicle that's fun to drive around, and something for people who either need or think they need the approach and departure angles.

Throw a DII into the mix and it's not even remotely fair. The Defender is just plain slaughtered in regard to hauling utility. Match them trim for trim, and the game is over before it even begins. You'd just about have to buy a Sprinter to do any better.

That doesn't mean I don't like Defenders.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[Lake_Bueller]

You'd just about have to buy a Sprinter to do any better.

Hahahaha....

That thought actually crossed my mind yesterday. For reasons I'd rather not explain, I had to pick up 20 cases of soda (cans) and 20 cases of bottled beer for work. They all fit rather nicely in the back of my DII with room to spare. While unloading, I had to climb into the back of the truck to get to everything. As I was almost standing in the back, I thought to myself....This is almost as big as a sprinter van

 

[Blueboy]

The Defender is just plain slaughtered in regard to hauling utility

Agreed with Defender 2.0.
My numbers / comments were with the former Defender.

 

[kennith]

Agreed with Defender 2.0.
My numbers / comments were with the former Defender.

The 2.0 is obviously not competitive, but it could never have been at this point. Something must have changed in regulation to promote all this bodywork and trim. I can't think of any other reason, honestly. I see no practicality or performance benefit.

The original Defender also has it's issues, though. While the interior capacity is high and square, the wagon variant is still limiting, in that regard. They offered truck beds for increased utility; and at that point, it certainly was special. I'd love to have a 130 double cab.

Wagon for wagon, though; trim for trim, it's not fair:



The Defender is a longer vehicle; and by that I mean we're now looking at those angles, again. Exterior packaging is where the Defender shines, as that affects the length of the actual load bay in a given total vehicle footprint, but that packaging needed refinement.

If Land Rover had made a LWB DII, they'd have cleaned their own clock entirely. The DII will swallow small riding mowers as it is. My pressure washer wouldn't even fit through the door of a Defender. Loading and unloading a bay full of prospecting samples is irritating as hell in a Defender, but very easy in a Discovery.

The same goes for digging through gear when in the middle of nowhere.

If I buy a Medium moving box at Lowes, and you buy a Large box, you'll have the edge... Until you have to load it through a mouse hole. The 2020 Defender failed to learn a very obvious lesson taught by every second loading or unloading cargo in original Defenders: Girth is just as important as length.

It's much less of a hassle moving things around when you can actually get to them, and when they actually fit through the door to begin with.

The problem is, not too many people pushed the DII so hard. It didn't earn the reputation it deserved as a hauler; perhaps because it was a relatively controversial vehicle, and still is; but that's got nothing to do with utility.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

I've routinely wondered how much more efficient a Discovery would be with asymmetrical barn doors. The biggest drawback is having to open that large door all the way; but once it's open, you've got the space of many pickup truck beds with even better rear access; and even in factory trim, seven built-in tie-down points.

There are also numerous plates and brackets from the factory, ready for five minute bolt-in shelves, cages, and all manner of things; as well as floor pass-throughs and switched wiring that's easily accessible; but that's really only a tertiary benefit, as you could do the same thing with a Defender.

It'll take me a while, but I'll try to draw up what I think the Defender should have been, at that point.

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[kennith]

Here's an interesting question:

After seeing the 2020 Defender, would you rather Land Rover have released something like my Outrider "concept"?



Ain't so crazy, now, is it?

Cheers,

Kennith