Talk:Land Rover Defender/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request to remove headline

Anyone else think that the Chassis and vehicle number locations bit seems a bit out of place here?

I think it should be removed, leaving the article to concentrate on the development of Series / Defenders, rather than including one relatively obscure and largely irrelevant detail about one model..

AndrewH 08:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that there was a gear box problem with the 90's Defender, so if anyone knows about it in detail, surely it should be added to the article. Highcount. 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Split suggestion

I think both the Series and Defender deserve their own article. This article is also getting rather large so it can well handle a split. I also noticed that other languages have separate articles and this would clarify mixup with iw links. --Oliagust 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we would wont to make a page about the Land Rover Series, when we have pages for every model of Land Rover in the series. --Welcomematt22 12:48, 11 June 2007

I'm not sure I'm getting you right here but I consider the Defender to be a distinct model from the Series cars although it developed from it. Im not finding many (if any) pages on the individual models (f.x. Series 2a). --Oliagust 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Havinf split the article off the page name should now be addressed. Someone should request a move to "Land Rover Defender"GraemeLeggett 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Santana PS-10 ANIBAL

Here is a car worth looking at, you may find it rather strangely familiar looking.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.233.137 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Body-on-frame Bias

Ok quotes like "A Defender can literally be broken down to its chassis with simple hand tools.... This is actually an advantage when used extensively for off road travel — unibody vehicles can weaken over time, but there are no such stress points on a Defender." have no references and don't make sense. Everything weakens over time and the only way to prevent that is with stronger materials. The advantage of unibody construction is weight saving with the disadvantage of not being able to tear it down with common hand tools. Being constructed with removable panels on a body-on-frame chassis is not inherently stronger than unibody chassis system. A quote I removed earlier about the US model of the defender claimed that it was removed from the market because it cost too much to add an airbag than it would on a unibody vehicle. What does an airbag have to do with the chassis construction? Whoever wrote this article has an extreme bias against unibody construction because they tried not so subtly reminding us how evil unibody systems are all over this article.Madzyzome (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"SUV"?

Why in blazes has someone seen fit to indicate that the landrover is an "SUV".

There's a significant difference between an off road vehicle designed as such and an "sports" "utility" vehicle.

For goodness sakes, it didn't even come with carpet! 203.129.55.192 01:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A Jeep Cherokee is considered an "SUV", even though the models began in the mid-1970s. The fact that something comes with carpet doesn't designate it to be an "SUV", but the fact of the matter is that it is a four-wheel drive vehicle built on a 4wd chassis, having the body of a truck with a nonremovable rear section that would designate it as a "wagon" (as the M998 HMMWV was). Chevrolet, for example, could release a solid-axle Tahoe, stripped down to the core with locking differentials; it'd still be an SUV. This seems to be the case with the Defender. I see these things on the road. It's becoming more of a "style" rather than usage. Was our old 1977 Suburban a, SUV? That thing mostly saw usage hauling/pulling down trees. Hell, I remember pulling out a bulldozer that got stuck. Point is, "SUV" is the curse bestowed upon great vehicles when idiots get the money to buy them and use them for pavement pounders. The Chevy Blazer, once a standard U.S. Military vehicle, was classified as a "midsize SUV" until the last model was produced. I know of two or three people at my school that own and use Land Rovers off-road. One I know, the other got a "new" one and doesn't want to scratch it, the other guy I don't know. Then there's about 50 or so other ones that run around campus, whose drivers are scared to let the tires touch the grass while making a U-turn. These people are the ones who curse off-road vehicles with the "SUV" tag. Zchris87v 05:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

SUV is just a marketing term it has no real meaning. If you went by the literal definition of Sports Utility Vehicle then it would apply to any vehicle utilized mainly for sports like a zamboni machine or golf cart. The general accepted loose definition is any vehicle that an enclosed truck based on a that trucks chassis. I say loose because there are many exceptions.Madzyzome (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The Defender is a utility vehicle, there is nothing sporty about it, and is not based for going on the road apart from bare essentials, everything about it is to enhance off road capabilities. It is designed for farmers and pure off roaders. The fact that some people don't take them off road doesn't mean it's not a utility vehicle, it just means that they're not using it for the right purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.243.25 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

SMB: Nothing sporty? Well sport is not only about speed racing and defender is about only car which can compete in several motor sports without any add-ons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.89.139.138 (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Defenders in Australia.

I have edited out part of this section. Namely the part where it states that Defender 90's have not been sold in Australia after 2003. This is the wrong way round. They were not sold in Australia until AFTER 2003. I have simply edited this section out as I do not have any sources for this, if someone cares to dig some up that would be good. 115.166.43.41 (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There was a 90 on sale in Australia in the 80s, but the only reference I can find is a listing of a clutch for it: [[2]] Djapa Owen (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Following the end of the Series Land Rover, SWBs were not available for purchase and the 110 was available only in 3.5 V8 and called the County. Anybody have a link so this can go in without being "original research"?KhProd1 (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A link to LR Perentie needs to be added. 203.219.69.223 (talk)

In answer to the above query - there was the option in the 110's of either the Rover 3.5 litre V8 petrol engine or an Australian-only option of an Isuzu 3.9 litre diesel/turbi-diesel option ( http://www.pitstop.net.au/view/marques-rover-land/page/query/plu/555 - I also have an original sales brochure for 110's in Australia from 1984 however I cannot upload a scanned copy of it to wikimedia commons unless I get approval from landrover according to their (wikimedia commons) usage policy ). I believe that the Isuzu option had been offered in the Series III stage 1 vehicles in Australia as well ( http://www.landroverv8.com/history4.html ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingy 110 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a picture of my 1986 Defender 110 with its original 4BD1 five speed configuration help? Djapa Owen (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading information about Australian military landrovers.

Under the section "Military defenders" there is an assertion made that "The Australian Army also tested the Td5 and found it to be reliable, but was concerned that the extra performance and speed that the engine gave would result in more accidents and vehicle damage on rough tracks when driven by inexperienced drivers, so opted for the older engine as well.". First-up can someone provide any evidence that this was why the Australian army did not go to a Td5 engine? More importantly though this section would make a reader think that the Australian army is using 250/300tdi engines in their vehicles which is incorrect. All Australian military landrovers use the Australian-only Isuzu 4BD1 or 4BD-T (seemingly referred to as 4BD1-T in some places) which is an Isuzu designed and built 3.9 litre diesel, with and without turbo-charger respectively (see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Perentie).

Here is a further reference to support the claim I am making about the army landrover engine configuration provided by the Defence Material Organisation (DMO), the Australian government agency responsible for handling the disposal process of the landrover fleet, which will take place over the next eight or so years, http://www.defence.gov.au/dda/vehicles/index.htm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingy 110 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I find the suggestion that the TD5 (2.5l 91KW) would be difficult to drive compared to the 4BD1-T (3.9l 99.3KW) is highly contentious. Even the naturally aspirated 4BD1 puts out 0.9KW more than the TD5. That section of the article is uncited, so I am removing it until someone can provide better evidence than Kingy 110. Djapa Owen (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant section of the Defender article has a good explanation for the non-adoption of the TD5 for military use;

Land Rover offered its "Core" military Defenders with the 300Tdi engine rather than the more powerful but more complicated Td5 engine offered in civilian vehicles. Before the 300Tdi engine was introduced, military Land Rovers were offered with 2.5-litre petrol and diesel engines, as well as the 3.5-litre V8 petrol. Although trials with the Td5 engine proved it to be reliable in battlefield conditions, it was decided that servicing and repairing its electronic control systems should they fail was too complicated and reliant on having diagnostic computers available. Land Rover were also unable to guarantee they could make the Td5 resistant to electro-magnetic interference.

However, this seems to be unreferenced. Does anyone know a citation for this? I think it fits the topic here.

Name and badge distinctions

The Name and badge distinctions section talks about the change from Series to Defender and states that the badge and name Defender did not come about until two years after the introduction of the Discovery. This is not true of Defenders sold in Australia during the 80s. Mine is an 1986 110 and it is marked Land Rover 110 on the nose as suggested, but Defender 110 on the compliance plate meaning that the model name was already established. I am aware of several other similar cases at a wrecker's yard I frequent. Does anyone know any more about this? Was the name Defender an Australian invention which the rest of the world took time to cotton on to? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Djapa Owen (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Manufacturer is Land Rover

It does not make sense to state that the manufacturer is Jaguar Land Rover when that company has only owned Land Rover for five years. The manufacturer was not reported as Ford before that or BMW before that and Jaguar Land Rover is only a subsidiary of Tata Motors anyway. Throughout the 30 year production of the Defender it has always been produced by Land Rover and that is how it should be reported in the article unless people think there is justification for a section on the convoluted ownership history of the Land Rover company. Personally I think that is not appropriate as that information is set out fully in the Land Rover article. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The manufacturer is Land Rover but not for the reason that you state. Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC is a public limited company (Companies House Company No. 06477691) that owns both Jaguar and Land Rover, but they don't make the cars. The cars are made by their subsidiaries Land Rover, a private unlimited company (Companies House Company No. 04019301), and Jaguar Cars Ltd, a private limited company (Companies House Company No. 01672067). So any and all claims that Jaguar Land Rover make Land Rovers (or Jaguars) are false. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not aware of a rear wheel drive Defender, am I wrong?

With reference to the little information box, top right. The 'layout' heading I belive is incorect. I was not aware that the defender was ever a rear wheel drive vehicle. Yes the series Landrovers were both,(they were either rwd or 4wd) when in use on non slippery/normal road conditions, until you engaged four wheel drive yourself and thus making all four wheels behave like a defender (with 3 diffs, one in each axle and one in the centre) with it's centre diff lock engaged by locking the two axle diffs together through the transfer box. I'm sure this is an oversight as the main body of the text states that the Defender is a permanent 4wd design.

Darkest Dog (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A very few of the earliest 110's had a Series III gearbox, and 2.25 engines. These would have been RWD. Very few survive, I know of only one with the original engine and box.

The vast majority of all 110's were full time 4x4.

94.197.190.67 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

94.197.190.67's response is pretty accurate to my knowledge. The first few were 2WD/4WD like the Series 3, but they quickly moved to full time 4WD with hi/lo range and diff lock. I do not think there has ever been a 2WD only Defender. Djapa Owen (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)