NoGa:

The cost in the under shield is substantially from the heavier backing frame, beautifully made in Belgium and 50 percent or so heavier than the one it replaces, to which the skid plate attaches. One wonders why the heavier frame could not have been put in place on all Defenders?

I note this fact to appreciate the unique program decision making logic of JLR for the new Defender (and its other 4WD vehicles). There exist numerous similar design and marketing decisions taken — the absence of suitable rear off road recovery loops being another of them.

The statement always made externally is akin to “95% of all land rovers will never go off road” so it does not matter.

Well, then why did JLR spend 25 years evolving the most capable, technical off - road capability machine ever made? ( and yes it is darn well not simple, nor inexpensive)

it is a damningly confusing paradigm.....

enjoy !!!

 

^^ I'm coming to understand that what you say is very true. Why there exists not one but two Off Road packages and neither includes proper skid-plating, not even the skid plating that exists but is optional even to the Off Road packs? Why they can't build the vehicle on the line with the winch installed is beyond comprehension. Why proper accessible recovery points front and rear are not part of the Off Road packs escapes me. Jeep puts two hooks in the front and one in the back, iirc, as a matter of course. Even if you argue (as JLR apparently does) that most people don't need any of that, then just confine it to the Off Road packages, presumably only taken by people who actually want to go offroad, or at least look like they do, in either case of which they will want accessible, heavy duty recovery points.

It's almost like Kia was building their first off-road vehicle and didn't bother to look at what anyone else was doing. Puzzling.

 

Agreed. With all the sub models available why there was not one model that was heavy into off-roading pre built at a slight discount from ala carte makes no sense to me. The fact that you cant even option everything on each sub model just seems dumb for a defender.

 

And especially given that they have the Street/Luxury side of the coin covered so well not only with all the versions of Defenders but with all the versions of all the other Land Rover, Range Rover, and Jaguar SUV models.

 

And to think they added so much as options on the 2022 that were standard on the 2021 models. I believe it's not just to allow customization but to drive up pricing on a very desirable vehicle. Having two 2021 110 SE models we could not do without the ClearSight rear mirror that was standard and is now a $450 option. Plus none of the models come without the panoramic roof as I recall, which is something we just never used in past vehicles. (I also like the extra rigidity in event of rollover, and the lack of a glass shower during same)

 

Methinks a SVX Defender is in our fairly near future (perhaps as a MY2023, since 2022 will be the year of the V8), and that one will have all the off-road trimmings, including skid plates, standard winch, special paint / wraps, perhaps even larger fenders / tires and rock sliders, to steal some of the new Bronco's thunder. It would make sense, especially since Land Rover almost did launch a similarly equipped SVX Disco5 a couple of years back, before realizing (wisely) that it wasn't the right vehicle for such a trim. Also, Bowler and the Special Vehicles team must be working on something other than really fancy and fast Range Rovers.

 

Good idea, but I fear such a vehicle might carry lots of "premium" items also, in order to price it above other trim levels. Would love it if a fairly stripped model with the I6 and all the off-road goodies could be brought out. Even if it had to be special-ordered.

 

Well looky here, on the back of my X-Dynamic SE when she arrived yesterday: