I’ve got to admit, I was interested and excited to see Land Rover’s DC100 concept. The original Land Rover, the granddaddy of the current Defender, defined a whole new type of vehicle, and adventure: it would be a hard act to follow.
Imagine my disappointment, and cries of “WTF?” when I saw the concept, and its orange “sport” twin. Sport, of all things. Words do not accurately express my contempt of that lifestyle concept. The only sports Defenders should be associated with are hunting, shooting, and fishing, not the WAG-wannabe stylings of the Evoque*.
There is a reason people buy Defenders. It’s not reliability (if it was that, they’d buy a Mitsubishi L200 or Toyota Hilux). It’s go-anywhere, do-anything practicality and versatility; toughness and simplicity. People generally buy Defenders to use them off-road, not because the speed bumps at Waitrose are too harsh. We were recently in the Lake District, and the number of Land Rover Defenders around was very high: and they were all, without exception, vehicles which worked hard for their living.
Also, the variety of shapes of Defender was astonishing. 90 hard-top; 110 hard-top; 90 pick-up; 110 twin-cab pick-up; 110 hi-capacity pick-up; 110 station wagon; 90 station wagon; 130 twin-cab pick-up; 110 commercial station wagon; and they’re just the ones I remember!
But I look at the DC100 concept, and see none of those things. Those bling alloys would be pointless for an off-road machine: a pothole would trash them, and I doubt you could get decent mud or all terrains in that size. Sure, it’s got short overhangs, but that trim isn’t going to stand up to even slight scrapes off-road. Same with the interior: that’s not going to withstand a muddy farmer getting in. At least, not more than once.
Similarly, I can’t see the DC100 having such a huge variety of body styles. Or being used by the Army. Or the utility companies. I know that the costs involved in designing any modern vehicle are huge, and that the variation currently enjoyed by Defender would be expensive to continue, but how would that compare to the sales lost? Or are Land Rover targeting those who buy Chelsea tractors, rather than Massey Fergusons?
I know Land Rover are well aware of the difficulties of replacing such an iconic vehicle, when everyone will have their different two penn’orth to say … but I’ll add my own opinions, anyway.
Firstly, I bet the Wilks brothers are spinning in their graves at what’s happened to the practical workhorse they conceived all those years ago.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, please, please, please, keep it simple. I doubt the average driver of a Defender gives a monkeys about having the latest touchscreen infotainment, 20” alloys, or any other lifestyle bells and whistles, or even Terrain Response; he’d rather Land Rover spent the money on making it work, day in, day out, for 20 years … in the Kalahari. Or the Arctic. Or a muddy, churned up field in Wales. Towing a trailer full of sheep.
Thirdly, how about a choice of engines? Hybrids – fair enough, they seem to be the in-thing – but how about a choice of decent multi-cylinder diesel powerplants to give it some proper workhorse gruntiness back? That TDV8 would be awesome, for a start.
Finally, I accept that the premium, posing SUV as embodied by the BMW X5 and Porsche Cayenne is here to stay. Fair enough: use the Range Rover** brand to target them. If rich people are going to buy that sort of thing, then I’d rather they sent money the West Midlands’ way!
But please, Land Rover, bring practicality back. Reinstate simplicity and true classlessness to the Land Rover brand as a whole, to Discovery and Freelander and Defender. A Land Rover should be a vehicle which is just as at home on the school run as it is towing the horse box, navigating the Sahara, or bumped up on a kerb in Chelsea … with mud up to its doorhandles.
*It’s nice enough looking, to be fair. If you like that sort of thing.
**So long as the original Range Rover can still properly hack it off road. Brand DNA, isn’t it?
Thanks!
Completely agree with your comment, too – especially about the Camel Trophy. The G4 challenge never really got people’s imaginations in the same way. If LR loses this go-anywhere, do-anything capability, then it might as well just become a Kia Sportage.
Well said.
Something that LR is apparently missing is what the Defender really stands for: It is the living legend.
People purchasing the Freelander (over Rav4 or Vitaras) are buying this association with the go-anywhere do-anything capabilities the Defender provides.
The images of Defenders (or Series) in Africa, remote places expeditions, rescue missions, emergency aid help, even Camel Trophy is what keeps the brand alive.
Destroy it with the DC100 joke and LR will become just another SUV brand.
What LR needs to do is improve the Defender: Reliability, ergonomics, noise, greener powertrain, make it simple and affordable in order to start replacing all the Toyotas and Nissans in the hard work and news.
It might never become the best seller, but it will enable the Freelander to become the bestseller.
What LR is doing is like Marlboro replaced the riding cowboy in the 80′s with Boris Becker. There is nothing wrong with Boris, but he does not represents the values of the cowboy that many people long.
The Defender is key to the brand sustainability.
GOOD post ! I agree about the TDV8 !