- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
2019 Land Rover Defender ute
- Thread starter Great In Grass
- Start date
- Location
- East Sussex
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
How many single cab pickups do you see on the road these days? Probably not many. Certainly a very small proportion of all pickups, which might give us a clue as to its viability.
Another clue is the chassis of the all alloy monocoque, which is scaleable to an extent. However, if you take the current shortest iteration to be the Jaguar F-Pace and new RR Velar, then the wheelbase is 113 inches. Longer than the old long wheelbase 110 Defender but a good deal shorter than most popular pickups that are around 130inch wheelbase or so. So you can probably forget a 94" shorty unless they chop a good extra bit out of the middle of the chassis, which I doubt. The Discovery 5 chassis variant, which is the same as the full fat Range Rover's, is the most likely to be used in my opinion, at 115 inches. Possibly a longer version as currently used by the uber-expensive long wheelbase Range Rover, which is still 'only' 123" and shorter than most popular pickups, whether single or double cabs. [Ranger is 127" for comparison and Volvo XC90 is 117.5 or halfway between standard and LWB Range Rovers]
Last edited:
Can you remember. Umm transcat. Built out of 2 mm sheet Think it had a pignut engine Is that the type of thing
That was a surprisingly good vehicle for farm use, just needed some components upgrading.
first ones came with 3 point linkeage and PTO. They had the pug 504 engine which had ledgendary lifespan, also fitted to ford sierra, better known as the MP's expenses special
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
Now if I told you that it wouldn't be a rumour .........
I feel a Donald Rumsfeld known unknowns type answer formulating .......
- Location
- Ceredigion, wales
The 90" and 110" wheelbase on the defender was too short to fit everything in. The short wheelbase 90" should have been made a foot longer to enable it to accommodate the airbags, more legroom and somewhere to put your coat behind the seat. LR could have easily done this with very little cost. Even the 110 double cab was cramped. If there was a tall person in the front there wasn't enough legroom for anyone to sit behind other than a young child.
- Location
- East Sussex
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Not without a redesign of the cab it wouldn't, and considering they already had the 110, which was by far the best seller worldwide for many years. For some reason, probably cost, British farmers tended to buy the short wheelbase, yet they now buy the equivalent of the extended chassis 130 [127" wheelbase] of other brands of pickup, thinking nothing of it. Yet they wouldn't have dreamt of buying a LR Defender 130, it being seen as 'far too big'.You mean build a 100? They tried doing that and decided not toWould have been a more useful machine.
Courier
Member
- Location
- M62 - M1 - M18 triangle
I doubt it will accommodate a tray easily in true ute style.
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
The 130 had the turning circle of the Ark Royal.
@GTB 's point was keep a SWB option but with enough leg room, space for airbags and space behind the seat for whatever.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
I tend to agree. The seperate-chassis-less construction of aluminium would suggest a separate tub as seen in the first post of this topic to be unlikely. It would be a miracle if they could make such a thing rigid and strong enough.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Like a completely new model? Yes, of course they should have done so at least fifteen years ago. But they didn't, which is why I deserted them [before they deserted their remaining utility customers more lately].
All the common and popular pickups of other brands have about the same wheelbase as the 130 Defender and people are very satisfied with them, their accommodation, driving experience and so on it seems to me. Hence their popularity.
Lots of farmers said the same thing about the manoeuvrability of the 110 Defender, yet I never saw it to be an issue with mine. I found the lock to be fine and I doubt the 130's turning circle was any bigger and no bigger than a 90 shorty with the wider tyres. Why should it be? They all used the same front axle.
Last edited:
- Location
- Ceredigion, wales
They didn't need to bring out a new model. All they needed was to make the existing cab longer. The doors could have been slightly longer and a bit more room behind the seat. It wasn't rocket science.
1976-1986: The Land-Rover 100 inch Prototypes
The prototype 100 inch Land-Rover was originally built on a Range Rover chassis, and so became the first coil-sprung 'Land-Rover'. The inner front wings were cut to make space for the suspension turrets. The front of the vehicle is Stage 1, which in 1976 was not yet in production. Over a number of years, Land-Rover experimented with different wheelbases and spring configurations, and set up a development team to design a short and a long wheelbase version of this vehicle, i.e. the 90 and the 110. However money being tight at the time, the project was hampered until the Swiss Army showed an interest in the existing 100 inch version.
The 100 inch was then developed mainly towards military sales, and so were actively promoted around 1978/9 to the Swiss and French military. In 1978 a fleet of 15 vehicles was built for the Swiss. They were constructed from a collection of parts from Series III, Stage 1's, 110's and Range Rovers. It is believed that they covered every combination of left-and right-hand steering, engines etc. In the end both countries bought other products. The project continued, and over time went through at least 70 experimental versions. Various body styles and engine configurations were experimented with, from 2.25 litre Diesel Soft Tops to 3.5 litre V8 Station Wagons. The project was ended with the release of the '90', and many of the prototypes were destroyed or sold on to Land-Rover employees.
The prototype 100 inch Land-Rover was originally built on a Range Rover chassis, and so became the first coil-sprung 'Land-Rover'. The inner front wings were cut to make space for the suspension turrets. The front of the vehicle is Stage 1, which in 1976 was not yet in production. Over a number of years, Land-Rover experimented with different wheelbases and spring configurations, and set up a development team to design a short and a long wheelbase version of this vehicle, i.e. the 90 and the 110. However money being tight at the time, the project was hampered until the Swiss Army showed an interest in the existing 100 inch version.
The 100 inch was then developed mainly towards military sales, and so were actively promoted around 1978/9 to the Swiss and French military. In 1978 a fleet of 15 vehicles was built for the Swiss. They were constructed from a collection of parts from Series III, Stage 1's, 110's and Range Rovers. It is believed that they covered every combination of left-and right-hand steering, engines etc. In the end both countries bought other products. The project continued, and over time went through at least 70 experimental versions. Various body styles and engine configurations were experimented with, from 2.25 litre Diesel Soft Tops to 3.5 litre V8 Station Wagons. The project was ended with the release of the '90', and many of the prototypes were destroyed or sold on to Land-Rover employees.
James
Member
- Location
- Comber, Down
I mind when I was at harper a couple of brothers got 100 inch range rover chassis one put a stretched 90 pick up body on and the other put a hard top on. Both used some great sounding petrol V8's
DeeGee
Member
- Location
- North East Wales
Trouble was that whatever they did to make the cab bigger the old Land Rover was way way out of date and totally 'unsafe' by modern standards.
I still cannot understand why they didn't develop a new vehicle years ago.
If they considered it unprofitable to do so then, why is there any talk of a replacement coming in the next couple of years?
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
It must have been, because people have been to the moon and Land Rover never managed to make the cab bigger and fit for purpose and safe and competitive.
The reason being, of course, is that it isn't as simple as you think. Any substantial change to the cab as it existed before 1990 would have required them to meet current [or post 2000] safety standards. That is something they didn't have a hope in hell of meeting without a completely new design, which would be a totally new model from the ground up.
- Location
- Lincolnshire
There isnt, its just rumour and speculation, when you are trying to be a premium brand you dont go making something cheap to sell to farmers, not under the same badge anyway.