Couple that with many (not all) new owners have no desire to go off-road with any Rover product.
So how come no link to the new Defender in the tech section...
- Thread starter DiscoHasBeen
- Start date
A new Range Rover is a drunks best friend. If you can make all your turns the truck will keep you in your lane and adjust your speed. I’m pretty sure it has the capability to stop at stop signs but it’s not enabled.
So yeah, we’re going to be completely helpless in a decade.
That's the problem, it was supposed to be a utility vehicle and one has to put too much effort into configuring them to be utilitarian when it should be the default. It's same problem the LR3/4 have. Some of the lifestyle gayness can be remedied with modifications and $, but it's a hassle. The LR3/4 platforms were supposed to be the next big hit for off-roaders in the used market, but it never materialized. The forums post counts reflect that reality. Instead, off-roaders flocked to Jeeps and trucks of all sizes because they're far more practical platforms to begin with. 17/18" wheels are more common. A $500 diagnostic tool (GAP) isn't a practical necessity for ownership. Windows aren't covered for "style". Headlights aren't given the angry-eye treatment from the factory. Tail lights actually make sense in their function. Maintenance is far less expensive and frequent. No fragile air-suspension to contend with. The list goes on and on.
Another problem is the badge. Wearing a blue-oval for example, doesn't say much. You could be anybody. With what the green-oval has come to symbolize, it broadcasts that one wants you to believe they're either a drug-dealer or a Kardashian. I'd rather the badge stfu. It's another of the great qualities the Grenadier has going for it. The badge means nothing.
I think the Defender was the last hope for a "real" Land Rover.
Then they went ahead and made another Nu-Rover.
Go drive one. I live in a house built in 1860. People always say "they ddon't build em like they used to". I always say " there's good reason for that"
Oh I'm definitely intrigued by the stripped build you envision.
I think the outer design is what's puts people off the most? Like a defender got mario-karted or something...
Not really.
First of all, the primary market for LR3/4 was minuscule.
Range Rover Sport outsold L319 by a factor of 2-3 every year from 2005 to 2016.
Compared to that, North America sales of D1 were about 2-3 times those of RRC/P38A, and 2-3 times those of LR3/4.
That tells you all you need to know about the target demographics of Land Rover between mid-90s to now.
I have to agree with that.
Drove a 2016 110 in the UK last June.
When I got behind the wheel, I assumed that - Puma and five-speed aside - I am going to enjoy the same handling and whatnot as on the LWB Classic.
Boy was I wrong.
First, the steering gear ratio was different - a lot slower, so I almost crashed into the fence anticipating a certain steering response.
As a consequence, the 110 needed a LOT more steering correction just to keep in the lanes.
The first gear gate is like quarter an inch from reverse; I figured oh-so-torquey diesel would allow me starts from the 2nd.
It was possible, but with so much clutch action that I punted on this early on.
The cab was nicely appointed, with seats better than in our LR4, and with totally out-of-place looking instrument panel out of LR3.
It could have been built right, but JLR just never cared.
I was referring to how each LR subsequent model release is met with criticism, valid or not, but there are those who claimed each model will eventually be adopted by enthusiasts with at the same rate as current models. It never materialized. Each model was adopted at a lesser rate than the previous to the point where both classic-LR enthusiasts and the larger demographic of off-roaders have nearly completely written off LR as an option for consideration.
The 110 we had in Brazil was truly gutless until the turbo spooled up. There were instances coming out of parking garages with steep inclines and tight turns that actually had to go to low with the transfer box. Once there was boost it was great yet without it not so much.
I experienced a similar response in the months I spent driving a TD5 D110 in South Africa. I knew it was a higher performance engine in all regards than the 300TDI, but the turbo didn't provide a meaningful contribution until the engine reached 2,200 RPM. That's fine for highway driving, but for steep climbs and off-roading, it didn't cut the mustard. I enjoyed being able to pass the sugar cane lorries on the N2 with ease, but that was the main positive. I know you can remap the TD5 for different performance profiles. Maybe a different map would deliver the higher numbers of the TD5 but at the 300TDI RPMs.
But this comes to the hart of it I guess. If you want comfort, convenience, style, bleeding edge tech you'll be in the "good reason for that" camp. If you want simple, utilitarian, straight forward you'll wish they "built them like they use to". I think to some extent using the Defender badge for this vehicle was a mistake. For a lot of people it hearkens back to something this truck just isn't. Maybe better inserted into the Discovery line up as the Off-road Edition.
At least this countrys version of it. When your fighting over teaching gender indenity to 3rd graders.... I mean fuck..
I think your talking about the heritage. It can only be found in straight axle trucks with swivel ball housings, full time 4 wheel drive with a locking center diff, enough dis similar metals in close proximity to make it rot from the inside out. A shitty old pushrod v8 we basically picked out of General Motors dumpster at a Buick plant.
I like the old stuff too. But 25 years later we can build a better truck.
Had they built a poor-man's g-wagon, or something like the new bronco, wouldn't that more or less fit that bill and also be considered a better truck?