It wasn't graphite on the roof. Probably just burnt concrete.
Another Defender hint?
- Thread starter iSurfvilano
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
It wasn't graphite on the roof. Probably just burnt concrete.
cperez
Full Access Member
So it IS a hybrid.
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
Looking at the pics under the camo and now the interior/dash, the following is just my personal take on the prevailing design philosophy here, incase if one currently exists at LR, that is 
Looking at this thing from various angles in the pix as well as the undercarriage, what I see is this: Instead of following a natural evolutionary and modernization process (both mechanical and visual) to bring this brand identifying icon (wether LR likes this fact or not) current and into the 21st century while conforming to the modern world visual standards, and while still maintaining, if not enhancing, its existing functionalities and offroad capabilities and capacities, the silhouette that I see here rather presents a struggle between two isolated school of thoughts, and an utter disregard for the engineering department.
The outcome here seems to be the result of two opposing design forces that are at clash here at LR. The distinct tapering roofline up front, alpine window, the classic’ish dashboard layout, the belt line’ vertical curving up to the window lines, the tailgate mounted spare, etc, seems to represents the group at LR that says “Hey, we need to make this thing carry over some of the original visual design cues, it needs to look like the original in some ways or we will get too much bad press if it doesnt look anything like the original Defender.
On the other hand, the slightly tapering roofline in the rear, the recent LR signature higher belt line, rounded front/rear skirt corners, etc. has McGovern written all over it as his definition of “modern” is tapering rooflines, boat-like bowing rear ends, practically no sidewall tire/rim combo with sizing from Mars, and higher belt lines, regardless of the significantly reduced outer visibility from inside the cabin as well as cargo room, etc., let alone the proper tire/rim sizing.
This second camp at LR also seems to include the fearful beancounters who’s primary concern here is not the rebirth of an icon but the mass appeal as this group doesn’t believe in spending a single dollar in educating the potential customer about the engineering and the resulting benefits its own products have to offer. Rather, this group would very much prefer and feel more safe by just following the prevailing trends/fads as well as dumping millions of valuable R&D dollars into creating TV ads showing a red RR Sport climbing up the steep steps or finishing a high altitude run while still wearing tire/wheel combo with practically zero sidewall, and/or with specially created tire for similar marketing/events runs. And no one knows how many of those low profile tires (being carried by a pickup truck behind that sleek looking red rover) they have destroyed while filming these runs. And of course that hard to read fine print (which is called the “Legal line” or “disclaimer” in the advertising business) describing the real facts of life saves their day
Never in the history of automotive design (or anything else for that matter) a complete redesign of an icon has looked great unless the redesign process itself has stayed trued to the “Form follows Function/Purpose” principle. In fact, the very reason for an original product or design to become successful, an icon itself, to begin with is the fact that a Form-follows-function school was followed while designing it.
The above is the main reason why a Ferrari or a Lamborghini from 1980s still looks visually as beautiful as their modern evolutions.
The original Defender was not trying to look like a previous model (as it didn’t exist yet) or was trying to be like something else, and that is the main reason it became a visual icon.
The LR3 was an excellent example of this evolutionary process (despite some mid-process interruptions as far as the engineering work). It wasn’t trying to look like the Discovery I/II (icons themselves) by hinting back to series II’s exterior design and interior dash layout, rather it simply built and improved upon the original functionalities of series I and II and brought an original icon into then modern world, and with such a brute engineering/tech force that the competitors were compelled to follow.
Since LR3 designers/engineers were not trying to make it look/work like its processor series II, they came up with some clever ideas, ideas like moving the spare from up top on the tailgate to down under. I know some here will disagree with me on this but please allow me the opportunity to convey my thoughts on this.
I think that was an excellent idea but unfortunately it wasn’t followed thru and fully realized.
The move of the spare to the undercarriage brought the center of gravity further down and closer to the ground. But unfortunately the whole idea became useless as the full size spare reduced the rear departure angle, as if the engineers didn’t have enough time to work this out. This whole thing feels almost like as if mid-developevent process someone from the bean counting department showed up on the engineering R&D floor and said: “Mates, thats it, times up, we need to start shipping this thing now, so just wrap it up wherever you are.”
If they had been successful in finishing up this improvement before the launch/shipping began, it would have been an excellent improvement. And then the next natural thing for LR would have been to introduce a reasonably priced rear bumper/lower tailgate accessory for the owners to be able to mount a second spare (yes, they would have had to make the rear bumper/lower tailgate stronger, etc.) The ability of carrying two spares would have more than satisfied an off-road enthusiast and would have earned some great respect as well as press too by having introduced another factory first, like the TerrainResponse.
Despite being partly accomplished, the spare' move to under the truck gave birth to that extremely useful/functional asymmetrical rear tailgate. It gave this model of LR a distinct and instantly recognizable rear end look due to that stepped rear window design that complimented the SUV' distinct stepped roof line.
Regardless of the unfinished bits business like the spare' position, etc., the overall improvements upon the existing functionalities were the main reason why LR3 itself became a visual icon, superseding even its predecessor in many ways. A 2006 LR3 parked on the tarmac, still looks every bit as modern as it did back on its launch date. Same cannot be said for many cars/SUVs, regardless of their categories.
Mercedes had an amazing opportunity here for their G-box, they didn’t have the pressure of satisfying the mass-appeal for the redesign, but unfortunately they went the route of playing too-safe and basically blew it and lost an amazing opportunity there.
This weekend I was actually checking one out parked on the street. Looks good. I prolly would stop by their dealership just to check it out as its way out of my budget. But I wouldn’t mind keeping an open mind for exploring a used one down the line. I am sure it would be more reliable than any pre-owned (or even a new) LR product. Or maybe Toyota/Lexus will have come back to their senses by then and would have brought it down a notch or two on those crazy, way over the top, pizza oven looking front ends (with unnecessary over extended front/rear overhangs) on their LX and GX
Looking at this thing from various angles in the pix as well as the undercarriage, what I see is this: Instead of following a natural evolutionary and modernization process (both mechanical and visual) to bring this brand identifying icon (wether LR likes this fact or not) current and into the 21st century while conforming to the modern world visual standards, and while still maintaining, if not enhancing, its existing functionalities and offroad capabilities and capacities, the silhouette that I see here rather presents a struggle between two isolated school of thoughts, and an utter disregard for the engineering department.
The outcome here seems to be the result of two opposing design forces that are at clash here at LR. The distinct tapering roofline up front, alpine window, the classic’ish dashboard layout, the belt line’ vertical curving up to the window lines, the tailgate mounted spare, etc, seems to represents the group at LR that says “Hey, we need to make this thing carry over some of the original visual design cues, it needs to look like the original in some ways or we will get too much bad press if it doesnt look anything like the original Defender.
On the other hand, the slightly tapering roofline in the rear, the recent LR signature higher belt line, rounded front/rear skirt corners, etc. has McGovern written all over it as his definition of “modern” is tapering rooflines, boat-like bowing rear ends, practically no sidewall tire/rim combo with sizing from Mars, and higher belt lines, regardless of the significantly reduced outer visibility from inside the cabin as well as cargo room, etc., let alone the proper tire/rim sizing.
This second camp at LR also seems to include the fearful beancounters who’s primary concern here is not the rebirth of an icon but the mass appeal as this group doesn’t believe in spending a single dollar in educating the potential customer about the engineering and the resulting benefits its own products have to offer. Rather, this group would very much prefer and feel more safe by just following the prevailing trends/fads as well as dumping millions of valuable R&D dollars into creating TV ads showing a red RR Sport climbing up the steep steps or finishing a high altitude run while still wearing tire/wheel combo with practically zero sidewall, and/or with specially created tire for similar marketing/events runs. And no one knows how many of those low profile tires (being carried by a pickup truck behind that sleek looking red rover) they have destroyed while filming these runs. And of course that hard to read fine print (which is called the “Legal line” or “disclaimer” in the advertising business) describing the real facts of life saves their day
Never in the history of automotive design (or anything else for that matter) a complete redesign of an icon has looked great unless the redesign process itself has stayed trued to the “Form follows Function/Purpose” principle. In fact, the very reason for an original product or design to become successful, an icon itself, to begin with is the fact that a Form-follows-function school was followed while designing it.
The above is the main reason why a Ferrari or a Lamborghini from 1980s still looks visually as beautiful as their modern evolutions.
The original Defender was not trying to look like a previous model (as it didn’t exist yet) or was trying to be like something else, and that is the main reason it became a visual icon.
The LR3 was an excellent example of this evolutionary process (despite some mid-process interruptions as far as the engineering work). It wasn’t trying to look like the Discovery I/II (icons themselves) by hinting back to series II’s exterior design and interior dash layout, rather it simply built and improved upon the original functionalities of series I and II and brought an original icon into then modern world, and with such a brute engineering/tech force that the competitors were compelled to follow.
Since LR3 designers/engineers were not trying to make it look/work like its processor series II, they came up with some clever ideas, ideas like moving the spare from up top on the tailgate to down under. I know some here will disagree with me on this but please allow me the opportunity to convey my thoughts on this.
I think that was an excellent idea but unfortunately it wasn’t followed thru and fully realized.
The move of the spare to the undercarriage brought the center of gravity further down and closer to the ground. But unfortunately the whole idea became useless as the full size spare reduced the rear departure angle, as if the engineers didn’t have enough time to work this out. This whole thing feels almost like as if mid-developevent process someone from the bean counting department showed up on the engineering R&D floor and said: “Mates, thats it, times up, we need to start shipping this thing now, so just wrap it up wherever you are.”
If they had been successful in finishing up this improvement before the launch/shipping began, it would have been an excellent improvement. And then the next natural thing for LR would have been to introduce a reasonably priced rear bumper/lower tailgate accessory for the owners to be able to mount a second spare (yes, they would have had to make the rear bumper/lower tailgate stronger, etc.) The ability of carrying two spares would have more than satisfied an off-road enthusiast and would have earned some great respect as well as press too by having introduced another factory first, like the TerrainResponse.
Despite being partly accomplished, the spare' move to under the truck gave birth to that extremely useful/functional asymmetrical rear tailgate. It gave this model of LR a distinct and instantly recognizable rear end look due to that stepped rear window design that complimented the SUV' distinct stepped roof line.
Regardless of the unfinished bits business like the spare' position, etc., the overall improvements upon the existing functionalities were the main reason why LR3 itself became a visual icon, superseding even its predecessor in many ways. A 2006 LR3 parked on the tarmac, still looks every bit as modern as it did back on its launch date. Same cannot be said for many cars/SUVs, regardless of their categories.
Mercedes had an amazing opportunity here for their G-box, they didn’t have the pressure of satisfying the mass-appeal for the redesign, but unfortunately they went the route of playing too-safe and basically blew it and lost an amazing opportunity there.
This weekend I was actually checking one out parked on the street. Looks good. I prolly would stop by their dealership just to check it out as its way out of my budget. But I wouldn’t mind keeping an open mind for exploring a used one down the line. I am sure it would be more reliable than any pre-owned (or even a new) LR product. Or maybe Toyota/Lexus will have come back to their senses by then and would have brought it down a notch or two on those crazy, way over the top, pizza oven looking front ends (with unnecessary over extended front/rear overhangs) on their LX and GX
Last edited:
remember5
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2014
- Posts
- 408
- Reaction score
- 126
The son works at VW and said that all their test cars have a **** switch so if something goes crazy it kills the electrics and the fuel pump. He had a pre series Atlas come through today for testing that had one on it.
NASdiesel
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Posts
- 648
- Reaction score
- 60
I actually like the dash I've seen. Reserving judgement on the exterior. We all knew it was no longer shaped like a bread box... Just f'ing show us the goods already... this build-up is ridiculous.
TheWidup
Full Access Member
I'm not against the dash either. I understand there are those that like the shifter in hand as a way to rest the arm. I used to be in that camp but since I bought the LR4 I've been using the flip down arm rest much more often than the center arm console. The command style seating (probably the way I sit) is too high to really make the console + shifter arm rest a non-starter for me. I didn't think I would ever be in the "use the flip down arm rest camp" but I am. If the new Defender has command style seating (let's hope it does) then the location of that shift knob isn't an issue. It would be nice to see this whole thing in person...why not tour the country(ies) offering exclusive test drive experiences to get the excitement going? Ford did that in 2011 with the Ecoboost and it was awesome (I got a personal experience at my office thanks to them) and ended up getting one as a result.
At this point, I'm not sure what Land Rover is worried about with regards to people seeing the whole damn thing.
If they are worried about China copying it, China already has access to what the original Defender looks like. The closer to that they can make a copy look, the closer they can be to what most people actually want.
If they are worried about China copying it, China already has access to what the original Defender looks like. The closer to that they can make a copy look, the closer they can be to what most people actually want.
NASdiesel
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Posts
- 648
- Reaction score
- 60
This brings up an interesting thought. Putting the shifter on dash would force more to have two hands on the wheel, in a correct driving position. Whether on road or off. Just a thought.
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
I am not despising it either, just commentating on the motivation for its design' direction. Both steering and the dash remind me of general dash designs from the eighties but being updated with the latest tech (screens, knobs, etc.) and material.
manoftaste
Full Access Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Posts
- 618
- Reaction score
- 194
Two possible reasons that I can think of:
The process of slow-trickling of images of a highly anticipated (at least in the world of press) and supposedly a make or break product for LR as some say could have some dampening effect if the re-design is too radical (in either direction) for some tastes. This slow reveal process also gives the new potential buyer some time to self-adjust, absorb, and digest a radical-to-them design, allowing it to grown on them (good example could be D5 for the existing LR3/4 owners, although its clear that LR wasn't really too concerned about that segment).
Second: Possible adjustment and/or fine-tuning of marketing/PR campaign(s) as well as stealers' training material/customer approach tactics, based on the live incoming reactions from the targeted market to seek and preemptively smooth out any potential sales-related bumps.
