Chicken Drumstick wrote:

Retroanaconda wrote:

Nice pair. Can really see the lineage there

Funny. I’d say the exact opposite. Not a similar line or common piece of shared design language at all!

Chicken Drumstick wrote:

Retroanaconda wrote:

Nice pair. Can really see the lineage there

Funny. I’d say the exact opposite. Not a similar line or common piece of shared design language at all!

gcc130 wrote:

Click image to enlarge

The Ninety’s not mine unfortunately, it was a courtesy car while my 130 was sick, but couldn’t resist taking the picture🙂

cgardnerma wrote:

Chicken Drumstick wrote:

Retroanaconda wrote:

Nice pair. Can really see the lineage there

Funny. I’d say the exact opposite. Not a similar line or common piece of shared design language at all!

You seem really fun.

How about the sharp curve of the body below the greenhouse?
Or perhaps the white roof option?
Or maybe the safari windows?
Or the incredibly short front and rear overhangs?
The near vertical rear surface?
The rear mounted spare?
White steel wheels?
Classic mud flaps?

"Not a similar line or common piece" = fail

LOL.

Not entirely sure which side of the camp your post is aimed at


How about the sharp curve of the body below the greenhouse? - Yes the old one has this, but the new one has an almost sharp angular bit here and doesn't look or follow the original at all.

Or perhaps the white roof option? - But JLR offer this on the Velar and Evoque, are they also now Defenders because of it.

Or maybe the safari windows? - Do you mean the alpine lights? The things a Discovery 1/2 also has.

White steel wheels? - The traditional model had Old English White as the colour, which is an off white or cream. Not brilliant white. The only similarity between the new and old rims are the fact they are round.

lightning wrote:

There's a lot of elements of the old Defender in the new design.

lightning wrote:

The barrel sides

Are hugely distinctive on the old model, as is the capping line above it and the flat section where the hooks for caverns tilt would be. But the new model doesn't have anything remotely similar. It might have a bulge, but also a distinct crease. And really does not hark back to the original in any shape or form.




Also note that since 1958 thru to 2016 this feature was a straight line from the wing top. But as the new model lacks the squared off front and wing tops, it simply does not emulate the original at all.

lightning wrote:

side opening rear door

lightning wrote:

traditional mud flaps

lightning wrote:

and side steps

lightning wrote:

, air intakes on the wings,

lightning wrote:

steel wheels

lightning wrote:

roof windows

yes, about the only common item between the two. Although the new Defender looks more like Discovery style alpine lights. And not all older models have them, so it is still rather tentative ground.



Click image to enlarge

vs


Click image to enlarge

lightning wrote:

, black plastic wheel arches

lightning wrote:

and plastic door handles to name a few.

Plastic door handles sorry but wtf. 99.99% of all cars since 1990 have had plastic door handles. The "Land Rover" from 1948 thru to about 1987/88 didn't, mostly having a lift up handle (which would have been cool to see come back, as they don't get mud on them and are flush fitting for less drag and improved aero dynamics). From circa 1988 to 2016 the Defender had a very distinctive PUSH button handle. The new models door handles are a million miles from this.

Suffice to say, it isn't a few.... it is literally no common design concepts. the only ones being the alpine lights and rear door. Both of which are also traits of the Discovery 1/2 and have much closer representation and design to the ones on the new Defender.

Again... for clarity. I do actually like the new Defender. But there is no way any objective person can say it looks like or harks back to the old one. They didn't even include things like slated or mesh grill, so distinctive from past models.

lightning wrote:

it's basically forty years of updating in one go.

lightning wrote:

They'll say the new Defender has been an incredible success, which it has. And that's the bottom line sadly.

Well they would be unlikely to say the opposite no matter what.

And yes it has sold well, but it has been at the sacrifice of massacring Disco 5 sales and impacting RRS sales. Net sales might still be up, but certainly not by the level you'd think based on just the numbers for the new Defender.

JLR are reporting D5 sales are so bad that they are going to have to rein-vision the model to reposition it in the market place. Prior to the new Defender launch, D5 sales looked healthy, down on previous models. But still ok.

For reference, D5 sales in the US have dropped by 4/5ths!!!!

And EU sales D5 sales dropped by over 50%

Quote:

Not entirely sure which side of the camp your post is aimed at


How about the sharp curve of the body below the greenhouse? - Yes the old one has this, but the new one has an almost sharp angular bit here and doesn't look or follow the original at all.

Or perhaps the white roof option? - But JLR offer this on the Velar and Evoque, are they also now Defenders because of it.

Or maybe the safari windows? - Do you mean the alpine lights? The things a Discovery 1/2 also has.

White steel wheels? - The traditional model had Old English White as the colour, which is an off white or cream. Not brilliant white. The only similarity between the new and old rims are the fact they are round.

Chicken Drumstick wrote:

lightning wrote:

There's a lot of elements of the old Defender in the new design.

I know you like your 90 and I'm not knocking it as a vehicle. But the design claims are tentative at best... and if say the new Defender was made by another company (say Mitsubishi designed it and sold it as a Shogun), nobody would ever say hey, doesn't it look like an old Defender. It's only because it has a Land Rover badge that people seem to create the belief that it is identical in appearance.

lightning wrote:

The barrel sides

Are hugely distinctive on the old model, as is the capping line above it and the flat section where the hooks for caverns tilt would be. But the new model doesn't have anything remotely similar. It might have a bulge, but also a distinct crease. And really does not hark back to the original in any shape or form.




Also note that since 1958 thru to 2016 this feature was a straight line from the wing top. But as the new model lacks the squared off front and wing tops, it simply does not emulate the original at all.

lightning wrote:

side opening rear door

This is more a function than a design language feature. As you can't really tell just by looking at it or a side profile. Also the Discovery 1/2 also have a side opening rear door. If really emulating the look of the older model exposed hinges or a lift up handle would be present, but both are absent.

lightning wrote:

traditional mud flaps

What mud flaps? the ones on your new one look like those offered for almost any car since 1980. And bear no resemblance to the old ones, which on the rear literally are just a flat sheet of rubber and importantly mounted at the very back of the vehicle on the cross member, not at the wheeel arch. There is noway any sane, reasonable or logical person could claim the new model as the same sort and style of mud flap as the old one.

lightning wrote:

and side steps

Eh?

TBH I don't mind the side step on yours. But look at your own photo, the old model as fold down step that is about 12" long. The designs couldn't be further apart. The style of step on yours is also common on lots of other vehicles from across the decades, so not really a traditional Defender trait.

lightning wrote:

, air intakes on the wings,

The design and look is nothing like past models. If you had never heard of or seen either vehicle before. I doubt you'd identify the feature on the new one as resembling the old model. If anything it looks like a design clue from the L322 Range Rover, which was supposed to represent a door handle!

lightning wrote:

steel wheels

That look nothing like the old ones. Lots of vehicles have been and are still offered with steel wheels. So unless they actually look like the old ones, they are not representative of a shared design language.

lightning wrote:

roof windows

yes, about the only common item between the two. Although the new Defender looks more like Discovery style alpine lights. And not all older models have them, so it is still rather tentative ground.



Click image to enlarge

vs


Click image to enlarge

lightning wrote:

, black plastic wheel arches

Nope. Not unless you are also claiming an Audi AllRoad also looks like a Defender. The arches on the new model couldn't be further from the flat panel sides of traditional model.

lightning wrote:

and plastic door handles to name a few.

Plastic door handles sorry but wtf. 99.99% of all cars since 1990 have had plastic door handles. The "Land Rover" from 1948 thru to about 1987/88 didn't, mostly having a lift up handle (which would have been cool to see come back, as they don't get mud on them and are flush fitting for less drag and improved aero dynamics). From circa 1988 to 2016 the Defender had a very distinctive PUSH button handle. The new models door handles are a million miles from this.

Suffice to say, it isn't a few.... it is literally no common design concepts. the only ones being the alpine lights and rear door. Both of which are also traits of the Discovery 1/2 and have much closer representation and design to the ones on the new Defender.

Again... for clarity. I do actually like the new Defender. But there is no way any objective person can say it looks like or harks back to the old one. They didn't even include things like slated or mesh grill, so distinctive from past models.

lightning wrote:

it's basically forty years of updating in one go.

But it isn't. And it really irks me when people proclaim this.

The previous model, from 1948 thru to the end had continual updates and revisions. Even during the "Defender" only period from about 1990 to 2016 there were lots and lots of incremental changes and design tweaks. To claim the old model was not updated or changed over its lifetime is just wrong.

Keeping a vehicles appearance and design language is possible, even with a major redesign, in fact JLR have done this 3 times recently:

Jaguar XF used to be built on the Ford/Lincoln platform, a platform that actually under pinned the live axle s197 Ford Mustang. But in 2015 a brand new XF was released, yet many people, maybe even most people don't realise that from2015 onwards it is a completely different vehicle sharing almost no parts and using a completely different platform. But they look very very similar, as though it was just a mild facelift.

JLR did this again with the Evoque and the Discovery Sport. The current models from 2018MY look almost identical the ones prior, but again are completely different vehicles on a different platform.

Clearly demonstrating that the company is capable of retaining looks, appearance and design language. The fact the new Defender retains so little was clearly a design choice (an odd one IMO), but a choice none the less.

lightning wrote:

They'll say the new Defender has been an incredible success, which it has. And that's the bottom line sadly.

Well they would be unlikely to say the opposite no matter what.

And yes it has sold well, but it has been at the sacrifice of massacring Disco 5 sales and impacting RRS sales. Net sales might still be up, but certainly not by the level you'd think based on just the numbers for the new Defender.

JLR are reporting D5 sales are so bad that they are going to have to rein-vision the model to reposition it in the market place. Prior to the new Defender launch, D5 sales looked healthy, down on previous models. But still ok.

For reference, D5 sales in the US have dropped by 4/5ths!!!!

And EU sales D5 sales dropped by over 50%

TexasRover wrote:

Just like all retro design.

lightning wrote:

You obviously don't like the new Defender.

How to you come to this conclusion? I have never once said I don't like it, I've not even said I don't like how it looks. All I've done is said it doesn't look like the old one ---- which it doesn't.

Clearly as you own one, you (and many others) are then biased in trying to justify how it does resemble the old one. Even though it doesn't.

It a way it is rather like the Monty Python dead parrot clip. Completel and utter refusal to accept the facts, even when starring them directly in the face.

?si=UmHfPGvRvghLtFav

lightning wrote:

But if that's the case (that you don't like the new one) what on earth are you doing on this part of the forum, posting negative comments about the vehicle to owners who have decided it's what they want?.