Defender Frankfurt 2011: Land Rover Defender Successor (DC100 Concepts)

[wookieecrisp]

Two Land Rover Defender Concept Vehicles Unveiled At Frankfurt Motor Show

- DC100 and DC100 Sport revealed at Frankfurt Motor Show: demonstrating the dependability and versatility of the go-anywhere Defender
- New Defender intended for 2015: concept vehicles demonstrate future direction of the iconic model
- Technology and sustainability: key features demonstrated on both models

Land Rover has unveiled two new concepts for the Land Rover Defender, the iconic go-anywhere vehicle. Named DC100 and DC100 Sport, the two concepts showcase the direction and thinking behind the ongoing development of the new Land Rover Defender, intended for production in 2015.

DC100 and DC100 Sport capture the flexibility, adaptability and configurability that have always been key attributes of Land Rover and continue in today's Defender.

DC100 demonstrates the future of Land Rover's capability and versatility; DC100 Sport is an active expression of freedom and leisure.

Both concepts are based on the same shared 100-inch wheelbase. They feature sustainable hi-tech materials and the latest technology to optimise fuel and operational efficiency at all times, in all modes and in all driving conditions.

DC100 and DC100 Sport include a variety of capability technologies including a Terrain-i scanning device to warn of obstacles when off-road, Wade Aid sonar technology to assess water depth and Land Rover Terrain Response System, which automatically optimises the car for any environment.

 

[wookieecrisp]

More Live pics here: Land Rover Defender successor visualized in pair of DC100 concept trucks

 

[Merc1]

Land Rover is on a roll, while Jaguar is still progressing much, much slower. Build this and buyers will come in droves.


M

 

[bmer]

I'm sorry LR but that looks like a cubistic VW Beetle on steroids. It just tears my heart apart seeing such a legendary and serious off-roader replaced by something like this concept.

 

[Wolfgang]

http://www.auto-news.de/auto/news/anzeige_Roundtable-Interview-mit-Jaguar-Chef-Ralf-Speth_id_31181

 

[Wolfgang]

Mercedes Working on Baby G-Class Called GLG

We’ve known that the MFA platform will spawn four models in total (at least), but besides the A-, B- and CLA-Class, we’ve not been able to figure out what’s next. Recently, reports surfaced about a compact crossover called the GLA under Merc’s new naming scheme.

During the media event marking the start of production for the new A-Class five-door in Germany, Daimler Chief Executive Dieter Zetsche officially confirmed the subcompact crossover is coming. But will it be the rumored GLA?

It might, but this simple and small crossover might also be joined by something funky. A new report from German publication Auto Bild suggest that a year after the GLA, a model with edgy lines and bonnet-mounted indicators will follow.

This model will be called the GLG and will basically be a little version of the G-Class flagship. It will come as standard with front-wheel drive, so it will be more of a poser that will ensure Land Rover can’t corner the market on boxy but stylish compact SUVs with the production version of the DC100.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/mercedes-working-on-baby-g-class-called-glg-47787.html

 

[Kilcrohane]

more JLR vapourware:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/plans-new-land-rover-defender-shaken

- blamed on parent Tata's problems by UK journos. Hmm.

Tata/JLR appear to be clearing the decks of any remaining real-spend commitments, perhaps in readiness for a stock market float, off the back of this latest trumped-up stock market-driven global 'recovery'.

So that's the Defender canned from 2015, with no replacement, the baby Jag/3-Series Killer pushed out to 2016 at the earlliest, the vastly expensively engineered, dual monocoque/separate chassised Discovery/LR3 to be replaced by a stretched Evoque/Freelander/LR2, based on a 2006 FWD Mondeo platform, no hard info yet on the supposedly in production by 2014 'Hotfire'/AJ-200 engines, and no replacement in sight for the 6 year old XF, 8 yr old XK or desperately in need of a major re-do XJ. Hmm.

 

[martinbo]

Bleak outlook for pukka Land Rover fans and buyers. The demise of the proposed Defender body-on-frame platform bodes ill for the next generation of Discovery as this will now have to use the PLA architecture. Which is fine for premium "light duty" off-roaders but no good for hardcore, heavy-duty, off-road use that justifies a product like a Defender 130. With a 1.5 ton payload, a similarly deployed aluminium monoque will bend like tin foil. Not good news at all and we once again come full circle to the question of: how does one suitably replace the Defender?

 

[Kilcrohane]

Bleak outlook for pukka Land Rover fans and buyers. The demise of the proposed Defender body-on-frame platform bodes ill for the next generation of Discovery as this will now have to use the PLA architecture.

- the article in last Wednesday's(May 15) print edition of Autocar, which the above on-line article is a watered-down version of, does not make clear whether the Discovery 4(LR4) replacement will be R/Rover L405 based, i.e. 'PLA', or extended Evoque(Freelander/LR2) based.

My money says Land Rover will go the cheapo route - extended Freelander(/LR2)/Evoque for the Disco replacement.

Trying to pass off what will be by then a near ten year old platform, and a FWD one at that, as it comes from the Ford Mondeo/Volvo S60, as the basis for the previously very capable off-road 'dual chassised' Disco 4 will be tough for even Land Rover's marketing dept. and its many UK/US media helpers.

Which is fine for premium "light duty" off-roaders but no good for hardcore, heavy-duty, off-road use that justifies a product like a Defender 130. With a 1.5 ton payload, a similarly deployed aluminium monoque will bend like tin foil. Not good news at all and we once again come full circle to the question of: how does one suitably replace the Defender?

- you need to realise Martin that all that talk of a Defender replacement was eyewash from the get-go. There never was a viable 'DC100' programme, like there never was a viable CX75 hypercar programme or a viable 3-series competitor programme, just all churned out press releases by Adrian Hallmark's people, to keep JLR in the headlines and saturating the internet search engine crawlers, to make JLR look fizzing with activity and going places, when the truth was the near exact opposite.

They pulled this stunt back in 2011, in the run up to then planned ~$20bn IPO, planned for 2012, pre the Facebook IPO debacle, which queered the pitch.

This latest move to ditch the Defender's true replacement, put the Discovery's replacement on an extended Freelander(/LR2) FWD platform but dress it up to fool the punters, a la the Evoque, and yet no word of the overdue replacements for the XF, XK and refreshed XJ, show that Tata and JLR are once again gearing up for maximising marketing effect but minimising real spending, in the run up to another attempt at IPO-ing JLR in probably later this year/early 2014, before these product replacements become too obviously due and even the most gullible realise that the company has been hollowed out, with little or no real R&D and just a reliance on redressing legacy Ford platforms.

 

[martinbo]

Thanks for your insight and opinion. I am sitting up and paying attention - I assure you. It's starting to look a bit like a Bahar-style fanfare to drum up investor confidence. And we all know now what happened at Lotus with all those fancy vapourous concepts and expensive home renovations.

Is it quite the same here at JLR? I tend to harbour a less extreme view but this doesn't mean I am criticising your position on this. I personally feel that - free leg-up on the platform aside - the new Range Rover and RR Sport are decently desirable machines and am quite sure that they'll do well given the nature of consumerism.

But, that "new" V6?!? Hmmm - I have serious doubts that it's nothing but a cheap, shortcut of an engine. The CX75 with gas-turbine hybrid technology? Yeah right - pull my other leg. And then there's the issue of what to do about replacing the old Defender... and boy did I view the concepts with great scepticism. Having covered 10's of thousands of kilometers in Southern Africa in a Defender - I know what they're made of and why, structurally at least, they are so very tough. The DC100 concepts didn't shout tough and rugged to me.

Sorry for self-quoting; I expressed this opinion all those months back:

The Defender is not a fashion car - Victoria Beckham will not be consulted on the interior appointments - it's a workhorse that remarkably has found favour with poseurs looking to portray a certain lifestyle type of image. The amazing thing about a Defender is that it manages to look even better a little banged up - as South Africans we have an Afrikaans term for this, it's called houding and there's no appropriate English word for it. The new Defender has to have houding even when it's been roughed up (as is to be expected) and in the case of this concept - that's not going to cut it.

The fact remains: this concept is too soft, too stylised and too mainstream to cut it as the true and worthy Defender replacement. Nothing radical at all should be done around the thinking of Defender's purpose - its raison d'etre yet, conversely, where Land Rover does have to be radical is in the innovation around construction, technology and use of materials in the new model. It's got to be simple, it's got to be tough, it's got to be usable and it's got to be capable.

Land Rover, I would love to be involved in the design survey phase of the new Defender's development.

It still stands - I have misgivings on how Land Rover could possibly approach the true and worthy replacement of Defender.

 

[Kilcrohane]

^ Trust me Martin, there will never be a Defender replacement, and there never was one - a real programme to do one. Your suspicions and intuitions about the suspectness of the DC100 were all right.

Land Rover and JLR's senior management are still set on their task of dressing up the company for sale - probably by IPOing, or if they can find a bigger sucker, a straight trade sale. That's been the case since at least back to early 2011, and all the recycling of the old Ford platforms and quiet canning of anything meaning real mega-bucks expenditure and long-term commitment is further proof of this, with so many future programmes kicked out conveniently to 2016, or later.

The new factor in this all along known visible plan to any half decent motor industry analyst, though, is the parent company Tata's problems.

Tata Motors, the direct parent of JLR, is suffering from huge market share loss in India, driven by the arrival of the likes of the uber competent and far superior VW, now manufacturing locally in India in a big way, plus the little reported recession or depression in India's economy on top of that.

Then there's the problems with Tata's steel business. Again, contrary to the media's lies of a gathering worldwide economic recovery, the largest steel producers, like AcerlorMittal and Tata show that on the contray Europe and much of the rest of the world are still down around 30% on 2007 peak bubble levels and if anything starting again to go backwards, driven in large part by the reduced demand from the auto makers.

Add these two problems for Tata group together and you see the desperate need for JLR to both cut spend back drastically and for Tata's management to see JLR 'cashed in' as soon as possible, to get urgently required liquidity into the at risk of collapsing parent/group operation, and of course at all costs avoid delaying further, beyond the end of 2014 at the latest, as then people will realise the real situation of JLR - hollowed out and a media created Potemkin - like the Jaguar of the late 1980s that Ford were suckered into buying foolishly. Interesting times we line in!

 

[martinbo]

Seems your gut-feel is vindicated, Kilcrohane...

This, the latest PR rah rah from JLR:

The all-new Land Rover Freelander replacement will become a member of an extended Discovery family, according to company sources. The new car, based on a stretched Evoque platform, is expected late next year.

The Freelander badge, first seen in 1997, will be dropped. The name was discontinued in the US market in 2006 when the second-generation model was launched. The Freelander and Discovery are known as LR2 and LR4 in the US.

Land Rover’s decision to create a family of Discovery models is based on a number of considerations. Perhaps most importantly, Land Rover suffers from a profusion of confusing brands. Although the company is called Land Rover, Range Rover is also its own well established brand. And the company sells three families of vehicles under the Freelander, Discovery and Defender nameplates, which are arguably distinct sub-brands in their own right.

At Land Rover’s recent 65th anniversary celebrations, global brand director John Edwards made a point of telling journalists that the company was based on “three iconic brands: Range Rover, Discovery and Defender”.

The three nameplates will lead to three distinct vehicle families, as Autocar revealed last year (News, 7 November). The Range Rover family has already been marked out with the eponymous luxury version as a flagship, stretching down to the highly successful Evoque. The new Range Rover Sport is close to being launched and sources expect a fourth Range Rover model in the medium term. It has already been dubbed ‘Evoque XL’ and is designed to fill the gap between the compact Evoque and the Range Rover Sport.

It is now clear that the Discovery replacement will be used as a flagship to create a new family of rugged models designed for everyday use and aimed at adventurous families and outdoor enthusiasts. Insiders say today’s Discovery — which combines generous seven-seat space with the ability to carry huge loads — has become an icon in its own right, and the customer satisfaction and brand image it delivers is such that it will be the inspiration for Land Rover’s mainstream range.

The new Discovery range will be topped by two flagship models based on the Range Rover’s PLA all-aluminium architecture. They will be joined by two models to replace the Freelander — a seven-seater and a five-seater.

Propping up the range — if it is given the green light — will be a compact urban model, not much more than four metres long and based on a shortened Evoque platform.

The new Discovery models will be powered by JLR’s new AJ-200 range of four-cylinder engines, including a supercharged petrol unit.

Plans for a third brand family, which will replace the ancient Defender line-up, have also recently been shaken up.

Clearly, JLR hasn't got the resources to actually develop a viable, rugged platform for Disco and Defender. This means that all those Discos that are being used as lifestyle, proper offroad vehicles in many countries won't be seeing a suitable replacement any time soon.

 

[Kilcrohane]

Clearly, JLR hasn't got the resources to actually develop a viable, rugged platform for Disco and Defender. This means that all those Discos that are being used as lifestyle, proper offroad vehicles in many countries won't be seeing a suitable replacement any time soon.

- indeed.

As a side note, for those who maybe haven't spotted it already, a big winner in all this course of events will be the Fiat backed Jeep brand.

Jeep has been chronically neglected and underdeveloped, when their 4X4 cred was all along at least the equal of the later - 1948 v WW2 - original Land Rover. With Land Rover vacating its last remaining semblance of credibility, the field is open to a proper worldwide launch of the once niche, US-focused Jeep brand.

The other main winner will be Mercedes, with the ability to keep the G-Wagen going past the Defender-killing 2015 legislation, and the exploiting of the G-Wagen's pukka 4X4 image with the new GLA, MLC, and possibly 'baby G' based on the GLA.

 

[Giannis]

Very interesting points guys.

[quote="martinbo, post: 639999, member: 42"Not good news at all and we once again come full circle to the question of: how does one suitably replace the Defender?[/quote]

Thinking again and again for this, I think MB has the answer, the same answer that applies to the G-Class:

You just don't replace the Defender. You only update the engines with more modern ones, so that they can pass the emissions regulations. Same with the G. Very small visual changes and new engines - styling and chassis/AWD is the same.

With the tendency of the nowadays automotive industry, which dictates that every model has to appear to a huge target group, having the best compromise between comfort and sport, being very user friendly and cheap to build, there's no room for a modern purpose built vehicle like the Defender.

 

[JLBM]

Yes, there is something cool about respected old design. I suppose that's why the iconic Golf 1 survived as long as it did and the G-Wagen and Defender still have their cool-factor.

 

[Kilcrohane]

You just don't replace the Defender. You only update the engines with more modern ones, so that they can pass the emissions regulations

- I don't think it is a question of the engine. The current engine in the Defender - the just over a year ago introduced, Euro 5 compliant, Ford Duratorq 2.2 l - is o.k. till Sep. 2015, emissions wise, when Euro 6 kicks in. Even then I'm sure Ford would sell JLR their by then Euro 6 compliant update of the Duratorq, as will be found/is already found? in the new Ford Transit, or, if we can believe JLR, they will have their own Euro 6 engines next year - the 'AJ-200' 4 cyl. petrol and diesel engine family - anyway.

The thing that kills the Defender is not engine emissions but pedestrian safety regs and the compulsory fit of airbags to commercial vehicles from 2015. To satisfy the much higher pedestrian safety requirements and airbag fitment would mean a substantial redesign of the Defender, and one that would make little commercial sense, unless you intend it to be a brand new vehicle effectively, with at least a ten year life span ahead of it to recoup the major investment cost. Major investment cost is not what JLR do(es), with a haemorrhaging parent sucking up all your surplus and a pending likely stock market flotation.

 

[Kilcrohane]

Another delay. Quel surprise!:​

​

Jaguar Land Rover's new range of four-cylinder petrol and diesel engines is expected to launch in 2015.​

​

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/borgwarner-strengthens-relationship-jaguar-land-rover​

​

JLR's in-house magazine Autocar blows more smoke to cover the real news with the shock news that Borg Warner makes turbochargers, but let's the cat out of the bag at the end that the hitherto expected new engines from JLR in 2014 are now to be launched in 2015.​

​

Bear in mind these new engines - supposedly a brand new family of 4 cylinder petrols and diesels, to replace the Ford EcoBoost and Ford/PSA Duratorq diesel, variously called 'Hotfire' and lately 'AJ-200' - were first announced more than two years ago, in Apr. 2011, and then officially in Sep. 2011, with an expected in-service date of no later than 2013, from the new factory in Wolverhampton, then slipped to some time in 2014, and now with this news, buried in a PR puff piece about a supplier, 2015.​

​

Either this is the longest drawn out announcement and gestation of what is a fairly modest engine programme by industry standards, or, as 100% suspect, it's just the inevitable consequence of the no real spend/maximum marketing going on at JLR, in the run up to the hoped for IPO, by the parent, Tata Motors, in late 2013, early 2014, so that all major spend programmes, like the Defender replacement, Jag 3-Series competitor, in-house 4 cyl. engines, all move out to conveniently after the sell off date.​

​

As I said here back in September last year, Tata never ever had an intention of keeping JLR, they just wanted to cash in, many times over on their 2008 purchase price, but were thwarted in their original sell off by the IPO route in 2012, and now a year later are having to make continual, poorly concealed announcements of delayed programmes, almost daily, by dressing them up as major achievements - like the supply of turbos from BorgWarner - Wow!​

 

[martinbo]

I wonder who'd buy JLR - Chinese?

 

[Kilcrohane]

I wonder who'd buy JLR - Chinese?

- they better hurry up, Martin:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-...rs-contraction-first-sub-50-pmi-print-october

No trade sale anyway. Tata wants to IPO JLR, as they were all ready to do, pre the Facebook IPO debacle, in 2012.

This was the 'kite they flew' in early 2012 in the helpful local Indian financial press, in order to prepare the ground for the hoped for IPO later in 2012:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/02/15/india-tata-motors-jlr-idINDEE81E09O20120215

And in their favourite US market, 'kite flying' too:

Tata Considering Jaguar/Land Rover IPO​

How will Tata Motors pay for the upcoming Jaguar and Land Rover product? Rumors have the company preparing an initial public offering, essentially spinning off the British brands Tata bought from Ford Motor Company in 2008 for $2.5 billion. Jaguar/Land Rover now is worth $14 billion, Bloomberg News reports, based on a survey of three analysts.​

​

http://www.motortrend.com/future/fu...aguar_prepares_3_series_killer/#ixzz2U6Wg13pZ​

Tata were hoping for as much as $15-20bn in 2012, off the back of the Evoque launch/Victoria Beckham mega hype.

With Tata Motors and Tata Steel currently going down the pan at a rate of knots and even the greenest twigging that all is not as it appears at JLR, with constant, increasingly desperate claims of £2.5bn being spent a year on new products, yet they're apparently unable to commission even a new block for a V6, or fit airbags to the Defender, Tata will be lucky to realise half of that maximum $20bn in 2014, when they go for a JLR float on the stock market again.

If the real world economy continues on its decline - see UK retail sales in April 'unexpectedly' collapsing against a supposed increasing recovery and booming house prices in UK - then Tata might not even get JLR off at all, and be stuck with the nightmare scenario of being lumbered with it through 2015, and as you say, at best being forced to trade fire sale it, at loss, to the Chinese or however is stupid enough to take it on, cos if they don't get shut of it by 2015, they really will have to come up with real billions of pounds a year, to fund real new platforms, engines, electronics interfaces, safety systems... , which will kill the Indian Tata parent. Basically, pretty much whatever happens from here on in, they're f*cked. Hubris meets nemesis, and so on.

 

[martinbo]

I geddit now, thanks. Economics isn't a strong point of mine. So for the layman - Tata isn't looking to dispose of JLR to a potential trade suitor - they're looking to publicly float JLR and thus drum up "investor confidence" via the PR machine. This to maximise the return resulting from the sale of shares to the public.