I think the Land Rover engineers & designers were looking at terrains south of them, not west of them. They are absolutely not designed for rock climbing in Colorado, New Mexico, etc. There are plenty of folks who do that and awesome vehicles. But if you aren't going to put better track shoes on it, it will not run off-road with the big dogs. Pick your terrain and go for it.

BTW - They picked the two most off-road capable versions of Bronco & Wrangler. A 4-cylinder 90 on steel 18's would have been the better raw off-road choice. That and a mediocre off-roader would have handled that trail.

 

That is the Body Lifted, customized 110 from Land Rover Denver, yes?

That one and the D90 from Sarek autowerkes Richmond, VA area (on coils !) are very cool and I think set the guide of what is necessary.

 

Oh yeah, you're right @TrioLRowner . My point was that a stock 110P400 was doomed for failure. You could see the fear on the driver which led to much of his problems. I think a 90 with 18's would have made the trail. Someone (you?) pointed out that the Defender was aimed at a different demographic with the ability to tow, haul, off-road and picnic (I added two of those). Those two were purely designed to rock-climb.

To be fair, they should next go wading. Then go in snow. Then go in mud. Then perform a towing competition. It's more of a triathlete (pentathelete?) than a one-trick "Pony".

 

I did read that decent tires in 275/60/20 tires would fit and given more protection against such fail. Anybody have any comments and suggestions on this? As I mentioned, I don't expect to be in extreme conditions but never know where Baja leads. I hoping to upgrade the standard 20" wheel rubber, probably go for the slider and OEM front protection and be done. Rubber 1st!

 

That's ~14mm extra sidewall with that size over the OEM. (A 275/55/R20 is listed as an OEM option for certain snow tires in the user manual). Airing down with these small sidewalls (even with an added 14mm of rubber) and tackling rocks like these in the video will likely end only one way (or one way twice as the TFL team learned)

I don't know what the rating on the Bronco and Wrangler rubber is but the OEM Wrangler Adventures lack any extra thickness in the rubber that the LT sizes have.

With the insane choice of 20" wheels the designers really castrated the defender's rubber footprint right out of the box. But as stock vehicles and the Defender being marketed as a go anywhere, large genitalia, explorer's muse, I think this video is a fair test of LR's claims.

 

And do their famous Tow-Test up the Ike Gauntlet. Since both the Jeep and Bronco are rated for around 3,500 lbs (if memory serves) where as the Defender is around 8,000 depending on specs.

 

My 2 cents... for what it matters:
- TFL clearly has a tooth against the Defender ( not questioning here why ). Did they had bad luck with one of them in the past? Yeah ! does that make Defenders 110 a bad vehicle ? Don't think so.
- their positive bias towards Jeep is so ingrained that almost makes me puke ... ( watch this infomercial made by TFL: ,disguised as a review). They sell themselves as "independent" reviewers. This was filmed at JEEP facility, under JEEP supervision, and provided materials. Too fake for me.
- By their admission the Bronco, in the video is a sponsorship. You can not bash a sponsored vehicle. Did it performed better in this tire "trial" ? Absolutely with those tires.
- in a fair test, apples with apples should be compared ( not different tires and rims ).
No idea what is their end game, but they lost me at the JEEP "presentation" ... can't trust them to be truly independent.

 

tbf that's not actually true. They bought the Bronco First Edition by assuming a private reservation/order holder's order in exchange for promoting the Ronald Mcdonald house charity. That promotion was just for the chance to purchase that Bronco, which they did (I think they said it came to $63K + tax).
Also they actually had two defenders break on them. That one rolling on 20s in the video is their third Defender.

They certainly are biased, but they are youtube for-profit entertainers. It's as ridiculous to hold them to impartial journalistic integrity as it is to compare the rock crawling abilities of a Bronco w/ sasquatch vs a Defender on low profile street tires.

 

@Mcdooogs I stand corrected on the Bronco. However, the 2nd Defender was a cluster that an incompetent installer did. So, in all honesty, is not a Defender fault.

 

But to also be fair, they tested vehicles in stock configuration. The P400 cannot be had in 18”; it comes with what it comes with. The Jeep and the Ford were tested with products that come from the factory. If you expect them to spend 2500 for brakes and wheels on the Defender and another 1500 for 5 tires, well then wait till you see what $4000 extra aftermarket dollars thrown at a Rubicon will get you. 37s and a full LCA suspension if you shop carefully and do the work (which you’d be doing with the Defender also for that price). I’m afraid the last thing we need is for them to spend like-amounts on aftermarket goodies for all three. The Defender will just fall farther and farther behind.

I do agree that a P300 with 18s should have faired a little better but it’s still running sucky tires from the factory. Change out the tires (in the road test) and Jeep and Ford get to spend $1500 or so on their trucks also. So they get super stout rock sliders and a complement of skid plates underneath.