"lf JLR made a trim for buyers that absolutely don't care about 0-60 speeds or top speeds, they may trade some acceleration HP for low end torque and get a more pokey Defender that can work with the 18 rims"

ln the U.K. you can get the D250 which is a 3.0 litre MHEV diesel
This has 600Nm torque at under 1500rpm
And in base specification it comes with 18" rims.
ln the higher specification you can get the same engine but with 300bhp (rather than 250) and a bit more torque.

lt's flippin' awesome particularly in the SWB 90.

Why does LR not offer this in the USA. Do you not like diesels over there. ls there legislation because of the higher pollution of the diesel?

 

Diesel is deader than dirt here. On domestic side of things, big pickups are about all that are available with it now. It's a shame. Diesel is also a lot more expensive here.

Just like in UK, P300 can be spec'd with 18" rims.

 

The US market is unlike others for Defender. First, the US is indeed more skeptical of diesel (because of "diesel-gate" where a manufacturer had programs in some models to underestimate emissions). The US Defender initially did offer the 18" rims, but only on the 4 cyl. Once the Defender dropped the 4 cyl., it stopped the 18" rims too. The 6 cyl is more powerful, and because JLR wants Defenders to be Porsches rather than Jeeps, the acceleration, speed, and weight are a problem with brake calipers on the 18". Granted if JLR didn't try to make Defender a Porsche, it would have 18" rims, but JLR won't do that. JLR apparently is set on taking on G Wagons in the US, so fast and unlikely to be driven off road seems to be their direction. The last difference in the US is that we have no allocation of Commercial Defenders. Without a Commercial 110, we are apparently also prohibited from configuring a 110 with a solid roof. In markets with Commercial Defenders, the solid roof is still standard. But US based Defenders are drifting toward "show pony" status, so features valuable in other markets (like 18" rims and solid roofs) are not available to US based buyers. Solid roofs (particularly if white) can reduce heat transfer to the cabin for those in markets like Arizona, Texas, or California. A glass roof SUV is literally a fishbowl on wheels - and when driven for hours along sunny highways, it will surely make the a/c work.

If I could buy a Defender from Australia, I'd probably do that, because I think the Defender is great overall. The US market does not get allocated some of the features that other markets have, so I am holding out. I have a LR now with a glass roof, and so I've already done that; my next SUV will have a solid roof. If JLR won't build Defenders without glass up top, they will lose sales. Lucky for me, the market for adventure SUVs is growing: the new GX Over Trail is big on torque (who cares about HP and silly 0-60 speeds!) and will offer the buyer a choice to fit it with 18" rims; and although many will chose to pay extra for the moon roof, the GX won't mandate it as a feature. There's also the Grenadier, which can have either glass windows up top, or just a plain and simple solid roof - consumer choice. If you want the glass, Grenadier will charge you for it, but I like that they let consumers choose. The Grenadier is also pokey enough to have 17" steel rims, so the tire choices available are many more with that rim size (than the 19" rims). The KO2 tires, for example, won't fit a 19" rim Defender, and if you put them on the 20" rim, where's your sidewall? I think the 19s will fit the Kevlars though, so that's good. The GX should be in the US in another few months, so if JLR keeps shifting Defender features to G Wagon buyers, I'm likely to be in a GX next.

 

I must live in a very different US market.

18” rims are available. P300. Always have been.

only change is they’ve canned the 18” alloy and the solid roof. Steelies are a go still.

But I do agree. it seems LR has completely lost interest in chasing the off road market. Jeep and Toyota have it locked down here. Defenders on the trail are rarer than hen’s teeth.

I see a few OG Defenders knocking about but Ive never seen one on the trail. A couple of old Discos is about all I’ve seen.

Defenders for the most part are marketed (without saying as much) as a poor man’s Range Rover. You can essentially get a top of the line neutered Defender with all the shiny bits and 22” rims for less than an entry level RR. Fantastic markup from a sales standpoint. All the inventory here is clad in 19/20/22 rims.

The U.K. has almost no off road terrain save for some mild lanes and off road parks. LRs vision is skewed by that tame market and the demand for Chelsea tractors.

if you’re waiting for 18” factory option on a P400 before buying one you’ll never have a Defender. It was never an option. Move on.

I couldn’t care less on roof type. Sunroof was standard on my SE.

 

The first thing that comes to mind is the tires. Fact is the Bronco and Wrangler are both offering factory options for 35's now. It could be argued that the Defender is marketed in the Porsche segment rather than Jeep and Bronco territory, but that was not the promise JLR made when they proposed it. They had the luxury performance SUV line filled out, and they promised something rugged. The Bronco, proved there is a US market for what the Defender could have been, but JLR failed to address it and came out with something that's closer to the Evoque they already had. Even if JLR intended to stay in the upper-end of the market, they could be competing with Wildtrak, Everglades, Heritage and Raptor versions which retail in a similar price range. The Defender was an opportunity to offer a vehicle that wasn't priced for rich middle-class white-collar people. Outside the US, esp. in the UK, Australia and South Africa, that's the customer base to whom the original Defender sold. I understand the profitability of doing the Mercedes GL thing, but it ruins it for regular folks. So the the things I wish the Defender had: factory 35's on 17" wheels, ruggedness in the class of the original, a working man's price.

 

There are a number of your assertions about the new Defender with which I wouldn't necessarily concur as well as I'm sure your desired market segment placement likely isn't consistent with anyone's intent at LR corporate. Among the many...at what point in time was the Defender, past or present, aimed at the working man?

Regarding Broncos and Jeeps, I appreciate them for what they are, especially given the numerous standard recovery points when pulling them out of trouble.

 

Pretty much all of that is off base, IMO. Bronco Wildtrak and Defender P400 110 owner, so speak from experience. And being originally from the UK, the characterization of the market there is off base too. Defenders of old were more utilitarian, but they were largely the preserve of the "middle class".

 

These people got left behind:

 

A new Defender in 1997 in the US was something like $36k which was approximately 130% of the average US annual income at the time. The average income in the US in 2023 is about $68k so apples to apples that would be the equivalent of spending mid-high $80’s for a vehicle today.

So, using logic and financial prudence as a guide, at what income(or net worth) level should someone need to be at for a $85-90k vehicle purchase to not be irresponsible? I dont pose the question for any other reason than to point out it was not an affordable vehicle (nor particularly reliable) 25 years ago. According to Pew research, the top level of middle class income in 2023 is approximately $115k. If you make $115k, perhaps purchasing a $90k vehicle would be ill advised?

 

It was never affordable in the US because it was only ever marketed as a "luxury" item (something that the upper class would disdain but which the middle class loved to aspire to as a status symbol). Remember that by 1997, the Range Rover had been well-established as a status symbol in the US and the whole "luxury SUV" phenomena was on a roll. Look at what it cost in Australia or South Africa.