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