spudfan wrote:

Looks to have very good ground clearance. I think I would rather take something like this off road than something built without a separate chassis and depending on electronics to control wheel spin etc. Ground clearance and wheel travel would be a deciding factor for me.

But still feel comfortable driving Tarquin to his finishing school

Rashers wrote:

It is remarkable how the classic shape Land Rover is seen as cool by a multitude of generations and classes. From the Farm Yard, to the society event. It just fits in. Not sure any other vehicle has ever made that transition.

Rashers wrote:

It is remarkable how the classic shape Land Rover is seen as cool by a multitude of generations and classes. From the Farm Yard, to the society event. It just fits in. Not sure any other vehicle has ever made that transition.

I went to school in an 850cc grey Austin Mini van. I was cool because my friends walked to school and we would give them a lift back in the back of the van when it was raining.

Yes kids, the 1970’s was a time before health and safety. No one died, she kept a clean licence to her dying day so I guess Mum was vindicated

Chicken Drumstick wrote:

... As for 4x4’s. The Land Rovers father the Wrangler ...

The Wrangler - introduced in 1986 - is not the Land-Rover's father !

The Ford GPW or Willys MB could be considered thus, but more properly perhaps Harold Crist's and Karl Probst's Bantam BRC-40 prototype - created in just 49 days from concept to prototype - should get the accolade as the progenitor of them all. Bantam was of course originally American Austin, thus (at a slight stretch) closing the circle back to Austin-Rover.

The CJ series (from which ultimately the Wrangler evolved) was introduced in 1945 by Willys-Overland, the only one of the three manufacturers of wartime jeeps to continue production after the war (which ultimately led to Willys being granted the Jeep trademark) and therefore predates the Series One Land-Rover, it was however a Willys MB which inspired the Wilkes brothers to produce the Land-Rover.

Wrangler, huh!

blackwolf wrote:

I can't say that I follow your reasoning, but it doesn't matter!

Not sure why you don’t follow. It is quite simple. The Willys MB spawned the CJ Jeep (and AgriJeep). The CJ went through evolutions and redesigns but retained the CJ naming. Much the same as Land Rover did with the 88 and 109 through the different Series models. Then instead of calling the next Jeep a CJ something, they gave it a name “Wrangler”. But it is very much just the next evolution of the CJ. Hell, the first Wrangler still retained leaf suspension and shared the wheelbase and much of the CJ7 it replaced.

Land Rover basically did the same thing. Arguably as early as 1983 with the introduction of the One Ten. Using words rather than number. And if not then it was the 1989/90 introduction of the brand line of “Defender”. Which shared its wheelbase and many components with the earlier One Ten and Ninety models.



Click image to enlarge

Moo wrote:

Not sure I'd want to have a crash in a Wrangler though......

https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/jeep/wrangler/34192



Click image to enlarge

Yet it is probably many many times safer than a traditional Defender

And probably safer than many small cars on sale. Do remember these tests rate crash safety only by crashing into something of the same size and weight. They never say how safe they are if you crash into a hatchback or a super mini.