According to MSN UK they're reminiscing over the Disco Defender , production of which comes to an end this Friday.
Articles on the web from a year or three back claims it wasn't ending. Some hinted it would be made abroad.
If production is ending - why?
Surely if LR can't make their car meet emissions then other manufacturers of similar sized 4x4 vehicles would have to follow?
What does Toyota/VW/BMW/Porsche etc have that LR doesn't?
edited as OP meant Defender, not Discovery
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 14:02
|
I read it was the Defender that was being ended.
The current Defender is far too expensive now anyway and doesn't get the enthusiasts that previous series had.
|
>> I read it was the Defender that was being ended.
But a new one is in the pipeline.
"The journey is continuing for JLR too, which is working on a new Defender, although it has not confirmed where or when it will be made. However, experts believe the vehicle will be quite different from the original."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35285258
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 14:05
|
Porsche is the only one of that list without a lot of small-engined, high-volume models to lower its overall emissions value; perhaps it falls below a volume threshold to spare it the strictest rules. I don't know without looking things up, but I'd imagine LR (or is it Jaguar-LR for this calculation?) shifts significantly more cars than Porsche, and doesn't put small engines in many of them.
It may also be that the big LR models have got too similar, and the margins are better on the Range Rover models, so they're what they've chosen to keep.
edit: Or possibly NBD has the right idea. As you were.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 13:28
|
Oops, I meant Defender not Disco. Well spotted.
header now amended
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 14:01
|
Yes, it is far too expensive to make, and doesn't incorporate modern safety gear are the main reasons. Although the other models that Land Rover make are heavy too, the Defender is both heavy and has the sort of aerodynamics that would not disgrace a brick build outhouse. That is why they use the 'emissions' reason, pretty well all older Land Rovers and Defenders have used the engine from something else.
It is a shame of course and I'm glad I owned both a 90 and a 110. Both were far easier to drive than a lot of the guff talked. They scored by having a very square profile which made it easy to tell the dimensions and thus could be confidently driven through gaps with very little clearance.
|
>> What does Toyota/VW/BMW/Porsche etc have that LR doesn't?
A loyal following among the Taliban, IS, and any other militant/rebel/guerrilla/Rag Tag army that wants to plonk 15 armed blokes or an AA gun on the back.
|
Did a lot of miles as a passenger in the Sahara in open lwb four-cylinder petrol Land Rovers.
They are exceptionally fine all-terrain vehicles, hardly ever need 4wd even. Quite economical too when driven gently.
A lot of 4wd vehicles are too complex. The great virtue of Land Rovers is simplicity.
|
>> hardly ever need 4wd
even up near-vertical hard sand cliffs. In fact the crest of one, the top four or five feet, actually was vertical and kicked the car's nose into the air... it balanced on its tail - six or seven people up remember, plus weapons and clobber - for what seemed a very long time before crashing down on the flat surface above and dragging itself onto firm ground.
Even the blokes driving the thing went quiet for a moment, then all started talking at once... tee hee!
|
>> >> hardly ever need 4wd
I knew a very senior retired (now dead) Australian police officer who had been a young plod in the NorthernTerritories. He always scoffed at 4x4 drivers and said he only ever used a police issue 2x4 Toyota ute and managed to get around in extreme conditions without problems. Some urban school run mums must have a tough route. :-)
|
|
The lack of elbow room made them uncomfortable for me to drive. Otherwise they are fantastic vehicles.
|
|
The last one rolls off the line tomorrow. I am sure they will be around for many years and there are enough spare parts around to build a few more.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 28 Jan 16 at 16:34
|
I am trying to think of any other vehicle that comes close to being not only 67 years in production, but remaining of the very best at what it does right through to the very end.
I've driven a couple of Defenders on off-road courses, and what they can do even with a complete ham-fisted novice behind the wheel literally beggars belief. And they can be fixed, even to quite involved levels using basic tools. Brilliant bits of kit.
A truly iconic vehicle, and the only 4x4 I have any aspiration to own.
|
...67 years in production...
But was it? Yes, there is a family resemblance between today's Defender and the 1948 Land Rover, but how many parts have they in common? The 'continuity' thing is clever marketing verging on myth-making, isn't it?
|
|
Yes, I think so. In the spirit of the phrase I do think its pretty much the same vehicle, albeit the actual part commonality might be lower than expected.
|
|
There are still pretty basic vehicles. So yes I think it's closely related to the original too. And I wouldn't want one.
|
>> And I wouldn't want one.
I would have loved one, but I just couldn't get along with the total lack of elbow room on one side.
It only worked with the window open and then every now and again it would either shut on my elbow or just be too damned cold/wet with it open.
|
>> . but how many parts have they in common? The 'continuity' thing is clever
>> marketing verging on myth-making, isn't it?
>>
That question was asked on the Series II forum recently.
It is believed that the front galvanised cleat for securing the canvas side curtain is the only current part used on the Series I.
|
>> It is believed that the front galvanised cleat for securing the canvas side curtain is
>> the only current part used on the Series I.
>>
But.... it has to be said that you can pretty much reverse engineer any "modern"
Landy component to fit an earlier model. In the motorcycling world, Harley-Davidson are past masters at it; indeed there is still one needle roller bearing in use on modern bikes which was first used in 1909!
|
>> I've driven a couple of Defenders on off-road courses, and what they can do even
>> with a complete ham-fisted novice behind the wheel literally beggars belief. And they can be
>> fixed, even to quite involved levels using basic tools. Brilliant bits of kit.
>>
>> A truly iconic vehicle, and the only 4x4 I have any aspiration to own.
>>
I was sort of raised on them, having spent a few years in the REME as a mechanic. Owned a couple after I came out; first one, which with hindsight I should have kept, was a 1958 Series 2 which is rare as hens teeth today. Second one, a 1951 Series 1, was huge fun but nearly drove me to bankruptcy with its fuel consumption.
The old "series" Landies are as close as it gets to being "future-proof" inasmuch as they can and will run forever if properly maintained. They're by no means as common a sight on the road as a working vehicle as they were, largely thanks to the booming classic trade, but it's still not unusual to see late 60's and 70's ones still being used for their intended purpose on farms.
If you really fancy being silly have a go in a 101, the Army forward control version powered by the V8 Rover engine. Scarily easy to tip over in novice hands, but great fun when you get the hang of them.
|
I had a 90 3.5 V8 a long time ago. Quite grungy really, bright orange body, white roof, big wide wheels, chunky General Grabbers, big ( really big ) Cibies on the bull bar, cherry bomb exhaust, ski racks on the back door, bike racks on the roof, Recaro seats, Willans harnesses, Momo steering wheel, well you get the idea, it wasn't subtle!
Loved it to bits though. Especially the sound and its ability to blow the doors of almost anything from a standing start up to about 40 mph.
Didn't like the 12-15 mpg though.
|
Land Rover Discovery - nice but dim
