I'd imagine it's more to do with parts sharing than owt else, the Defender's a marginal model so making it share as much as the rest of the line is going to make it cheaper. It'll appeal to those who buy the thing as a pose-wagon too, which seems to be the biggest market.
'cos they're the ones who are going to spend the cash and buy a new car every few years. Car manufacturers don't really worry about appealing to the market who buys a car and keeps it for 6 years or so, and those of us who would rather cut an arm off than buy a new car can go hang as far as they're concerned.
The 2.2 Duratorq comes in three ratings but is only on the front wheel drive vans mated to a 5 speed box... a.. 85 PS/250 Nm b.. 110 PS/285 Nm c.. 130 PS/310 Nm The 2.4 Duratorq comes in three ratings also, and for rear wheel drive, and is mated to a 6 speed box.... a.. 100 PS/285 Nm b.. 115 PS/310 Nm c.. 140 PS/375 Nm No doubt they can tune them for the Defender application, perhaps with more torque.
On or around Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:40:53 +0100, "Bob Hobden" enlightened us thusly:
yeah, I found that list - I reckon the 2.4 looks more suited to the land rover though, in top-spec tune, from that list.
While you can get the same figures from a smaller engine once you fit a turbo, you can't easily get the same characteristics - in particular, you can't get the same torque at low revs - although this may be more to do with emission regs than engines - but I have a feeling that it's easier to get low-rev torque from a bigger motor; also there's a balance to be struck between efficiency (small engine working at 100% most of the time) and longevity/reliability (larger engine working at 50% most of the time)
The other aspect to consider for 4x4s which *will* be used off road (as opposed to the BMW X5 etc.) is controllability - you don't want great gobs of torque coming in at 3750 rpm and bugger all below that - you want a good wide torque curve, but also a relatively gentle increase on the torque curve, so that you can control the output more closely off-road.
It was the posh engine - he doesn't have the lower spec ones (re-sale value is the key part of a van hire business). I don't need low box now, so I shouldn't need it now/then. It's just the wrong engine for Defender, and indeed for a 3.5T van off the motorway if you intend loading it!
It only has slightly better figures than the Td5, so wouldn't make a lot of odds. What it needs is a long stroke to get the torque and engine braking - top end is of little interest to working Defender, except as a bonus. At least that's how I and most of our customers who use the vehicle for work see it. As I've said before, the 300Tdi is sorely missed.
But at what revs? That's the vital bit off-road and towing. It could have
500hp, but at 3000rpm it would be useless for the intended application.
Neither of which is top priority for Defender, being able to get out of the yard without burning out the clutch is far more important, as is getting down the grassy, slippery slope without losing control.
..... and is therefore completely useless for Defender, and a libility off-road! Speaking personaly, I don't really want a Td5 Defender (I'd have a new 300Tdi one tomorrow), and the new engines figures rule one out completely. I can see an awful lot of ex-LR customers round here, they aleady moan about the Td5. Far from continuing any tradition, Ford have got it completely wrong, unless they are relying on the "life style" market - which judging by the new dash they are.
Not by much - torque is fundamental to the engine design, i.e. long stroke gives torque, short doesn't. You can move the rpm it's created at about a bit by tuning, but not funamentally.
According to our local main agent the vast majority of Defenders (except 90 Station Wagons) still go to commercial users and they never see them again. Whether the dash would make any odds to them I don't know. A lot of them used to atomatically buy a Defender (Land Rover in those days), but got dissillusioned during the
2.5TD years, tried that Jap altrnatives, got seriously disilusioned, came back to LR after the 200Tdi had proved itself and are currently back in the new Defender by default mode. Most of them view the vehicle as tool for a job, just the same as a tractor or van, so are probably more worried about the lack of a middle seat than what the dash looks like.
There isn't on the Td5 (officially). Though a new bonnet spare wheen carrier was intoduced from 2A000000 on vehicles, that may be for 300Tdi/2.5 Petrol's only and they forgot to mention it!
Probably not, I suspect that it's just a parts-sharing thing. It would help the Defender appeal more to the rufty-tufty school run types though, over the last few years I've seen one or two articles talking about the image of the Defender in terms of road-going non-commercial users and how it intimidates even range-rover drivers and so on. Nothing about what the vehicle can do, just about the image of it.
Indeed. Clarkson saying they are the coolest vehicle to drive is rather worrying ;-) I was accosted by a bloke in Leeds, in a sharp suit, apparently sober - "Great motor - really cool - wow!". I'm affraid I looked at him, then at my shed, then back at him - completelty gobsmaked. I couldn't even come up with a witty retort. I suspect my face suggested I was looking for the tree he had just fallen out of......
I caused a few double-takes some time ago when my Defender was my daily drive by hopping out of a snorkelled, rag-top red truck covered in dents and mud while wearing a suit, tie, big overcoat and carrying a briefcase. I certainly wasn't driving it for image purposes though, I was too cheap to buy a more practical daily drive!
I've met a few defender drivers who've gone into the benefits of the machine off-road but have never actually driven it off-road though, but then that's the same with any make IME.
the dashboard vents most probably have been abandoned because of the new facia's design and the A/C which most probably will be either standard or available on all variants, maybe as an extra only on the entry level models.
The six gears gearbox is in fact a worrying characteristic since it may sign the lack of torque at very low speeds. On the other hand it is a good marketing tool since the Jeep Wrangler (which is the Defender's main opposition in the North American market and in several European markets) comes with a six speed manual box. The good thing is that the gearbox to be used will most probably be either a Gertrag or a ZF one so it will definately be more sturdy than the R380. I have also heard (from my source in LR Greece who has advised me of the changes of the 2007 Defender, and he has seen it with his own eyes in the factory) that the change to a six gears manual box was required because of the increased torque of the engine I have also heard worrying comments about the engine that will most probably be fitted but we will have to wait and see what will the engine on the 2007 Defender will be and what its power and torque characteristics will be after the LR mechanics will put their hands on it.
Hope the moving to your new house is now over and everything is back to normal.
On or around Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:45:58 +0300, "Pantelis Giamarellos" enlightened us thusly:
's more likely that it's the same box they use in the transit. There's talk of a factory 4x4 transit - having made a FWD and RWD one, there shouldn't be too much to do - mind, I think the FWD vans are transverse engine; but the front transmission parts and hubs and so forth all exist, so all they need is a transfer box and a separate front diff... and oh look, we can use the same t-box as for the land rover...
Still don't like it! It's part of the character of the vehicle. I hate aircon, and as I'm inclined to drive with the window open, even when very cold, it serves no useful purpose for me. I'd much rather have the option - I can see the sense of having it as standard in, say, South Africa, but over here it's a waste of fuel, and at current prices that really does matter!
This model won't be on sale in the US apparently - no air bags (fortunately).
Time will tell - the R380's problem was the deletion of the two cross drilled holes in the transfer gear (as a Cost-Down excercise, they were present on the prototypes, so I'm told) - the actual box is pretty sturdy.
I'll have to assume that the Autocar repot has the wrong engine - the one mentioned has less torque. Aside from that, more torque = less gears, not more! I suspect the choice is down to off-the-shelf engineering, i.e. "that will fit".
Not a lot - the basic design can't be altered.
Thanks for that - nearly done......... just another week of "We need a......"
That's certainly a possibility, though Ford's last excursion into the 4x4 Transit world wasn't exactly a great success. Apparently, the suffered from having the wrong engines... :-0
ISTR that aircon on recirculation being shown to be as costly on fuel as the extra drag created by driving with the windows down. Obviously that would depend on mean speed, as the air con will produce a more or less constant drag while aerodynamic drag from windows will go up with your speed.
Also not sure whether the figures would still work for a vehicle that never had any aerodynamics to ruin in the first place ;-)
I can't see windows being open or not making any odds to a Defender, as aerodynamic it isn't, but you can hear the engine hesitate when switching aircon on. As I seem to spend most of my time waiting at traffic lights, both fixed and temporary, these days, I'd put my money on the aircon being far more costly! Plus it's just something else to go wrong ;-)
That was my point Austin, the smaller 2.2 ltr Duratorq engine/gearbox is a front wheel drive transverse fitment with 5 gears so I can't see it being the one put inline in the Defender if spy's say it's got 6 gears.
The most powerful 2.2 Ltr is ..128bhp /228lbft the most powerful 2.4 Ltr is ..138bhp/276lbft
One hopes it will be the most powerful bigger unit provided it's tuned properly for a Defender... plenty of low down torque, flat torque curve, and the 6th gear is a motorway cruise gear only. Perhaps there will be a choice of engine to include the V6. One can but hope.
|| On 2006-08-11, beamendsltd wrote: || ||| I can see the sense of having it as standard in, say, South Africa, ||| but over here it's a waste of fuel, and at current prices that ||| really does matter! || || ISTR that aircon on recirculation being shown to be as costly on fuel || as the extra drag created by driving with the windows down. || Obviously that would depend on mean speed, as the air con will || produce a more or less constant drag while aerodynamic drag from || windows will go up with your speed. || || Also not sure whether the figures would still work for a vehicle that || never had any aerodynamics to ruin in the first place ;-) || || -- || Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
I've now had three vehicles with aircon, and I keep a fairly close eye on fuel consumption, and I can't say that having it on or off makes a noticeable distance - certainly any change in consumption is more than cancelled out by variations in terrain, speed, headwinds etc. I would guess less than 1mpg.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.