arijitdas Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 I am eagerly looking forward to this set and hope it is not in line with 42056/42083/42096. I would rather like it to be an interesting improvement to 42069 (I bought 2 copies of this set). I also hope this set will allow some easy upgrade to add power functions/control+. Quote
Vectormatic Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, arijitdas said: I am eagerly looking forward to this set and hope it is not in line with 42056/42083/42096. I would rather like it to be an interesting improvement to 42069 (I bought 2 copies of this set). I also hope this set will allow some easy upgrade to add power functions/control+. Considering independent suspension has been mentioned in the description, i would expect something very standard, although i do believe portal hubs are coming. Otherwise i think the fact that all the mechanisms are in the front of the car will be the interesting bit, 42056 and 83 have a split with steering/shifting front, gearbox/engine back. 1 hour ago, pleegwat said: In which direction is the engine mounted in the real car? Lengthwise or widthwise? One thing that bothered me about the mack engine is the uneven cylinder timing. I have a prototype fake engine on the shelf in mack style which has a half stud between cylinders and has a proper timing, with 2 cylinders popping up every 120° rotation of the shaft. I doubt we're going to see something like that though. lengthwise i would hope, i dont know of a single car with a transverse i6, wouldnt make much sense with the AWD drivetrain either (the only AWD platform with transverse engine i can think of is the VW golf/Audi s3/tt haldex thing, but that is a bit of a weird one) Quote
SNIPE Posted June 24, 2019 Posted June 24, 2019 I would also say lengthwise like in the mack because its much easier to connect to the drive shaft,gearbox,etc Quote
1gor Posted June 24, 2019 Author Posted June 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, SNIPE said: I would also say lengthwise like in the mack because its much easier to connect to the drive shaft,gearbox,etc Yes, and I think that it will be modified / adapted drivetrain from Discovery, even rear suspension looks very similar as you can see on photo 15/21 here https://www.motor1.com/photo/4179238/2020-land-rover-defender-spy-photos/ Quote
Seasider Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 A straight 6 in a car is always mounted longitudinally. I’ve never heard of a transverse straight 6. It would be too long for the width of most if not all cars! don't forget the winch mechanism needs to get squeezed in the front of the car as well as the engine, front diff, independent suspension and steering. It’s going to be a busy package Quote
tomek9210 Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 38 minutes ago, Seasider said: A straight 6 in a car is always mounted longitudinally. I’ve never heard of a transverse straight 6. It would be too long for the width of most if not all cars! don't forget the winch mechanism needs to get squeezed in the front of the car as well as the engine, front diff, independent suspension and steering. It’s going to be a busy package Volvo had such engines, even transverse V8 :) Quote
agrof Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) Even Land Rover had such model(s): http://gtcarlot.com/data/Land+Rover/LR2/2010/24752444/Engine-64854350.html So I expect to be MACK style engine (which is OK, and more to scale), but who knows. This model sounds technically very promising to me. If it will be even a modular build... coffee time! Edited June 25, 2019 by agrof Quote
Cumulonimbus Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) The first hint of the real car without camouflage has been leaked via this site (in Dutch) and apparently comes form Autocar magazine: So far, it seems like a close match with the Lego version: the straight shoulder line, sky light windows in the rear roof section, squarish wheel arches, bulge on the engine cover. Edited June 25, 2019 by Cumulonimbus Quote
Didumos69 Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 From the same site: The real model appears to have double wishbone suspension: Quote
M_longer Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 13 minutes ago, Didumos69 said: The real model appears to have double wishbone suspension: Low ground clearance :( Quote
Mechbuilds Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) Honestly, it looks like one of those city SUV's instead of actual offroad vehicle. Edited June 25, 2019 by Mechbuilds Quote
M_longer Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, Mechbuilds said: Honestly, it looks like one of those city SUV's instead of actual offroad vehicle. I was driving heavilly modified Defender lately and this SUVy thing does not look like an vehicle capable to go offroad :( Quote
agrof Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) You can blame car industry, and actually... people in overall. There is a need for stupid car concepts (city off-roader, eco-sport, wagon sport cars, etc...), there is a marketing and fashion trend. It has nothing to do with 42110. What if we just turn it upside down? Just like in real life, You get a nice basis, and than MOC the hell out of it for superb Off-road capabilities! Edited June 25, 2019 by agrof Quote
Maaboo the Witch Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 There's definitely some of the Evoque in the new model: Quote
Jim Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Mechbuilds said: Honestly, it looks like one of those city SUV's instead of actual offroad vehicle. Because basically, that's what it is Quote
rm8 Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 3 hours ago, Mechbuilds said: Honestly, it looks like one of those city SUV's instead of actual offroad vehicle. I must say, SUV's usually seem weak because of independent suspension and no ladder frame, but it is not so simple with Range Rover/Land Rover platform. JLR have enough experience in pneumatic suspenison, and second - leading techlologies in 4x4 transmission management software. They are good enough at offroad, of course not good in terms of endurance offroad, but pass obstacles easy as old bold Land Cruisers. It is just a question of powerful engine, proper tires and robust CV joints:) Check this out. Quote
nerdsforprez Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 Im not sure what you were trying to show here. I dont speak the language so perhaps i missed a ton. But they all seemed ill equipped to make any sort of real climb. And if ur referring to around the 18 minute mark all the snow was gone. Clearly driving in the tracks of others. Personally, i didnt see anything that couldnt be explained by driver variability or different conditions. But again, i listened with the audio off. Quote
Mechbuilds Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 This is the main problem i have with the concept of making these city "offroaders" Live axles just are heaps better. Quote
Vectormatic Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Jim said: Because basically, that's what it is Isnt that what the discovery/evoque etc.. are for though? the proper LR and especially the old school Defender were off-road first vehicles. I think though, for those who want some serious lego off-road toys, you should be looking at 42099, which is a much better base then this, if one was to take a normal land rover, or old defender, and scale it, and the hurdles it can take to 1:10 (roughly lego technic scale), you end up with the ability to drive over stuff like thick markers/penciles (thick branches) or through a CM or two of mud, which to play with isnt that impressive. This Defender is more about being a replica of the real car, with appropriate features, much like the Chiron isnt a good base for an RC track racer. Quote
Jim Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 9 minutes ago, vectormatic said: Isnt that what the discovery/evoque etc.. are for though? the proper LR and especially the old school Defender were off-road first vehicles. Yeah, of course. I'm not a 4x4 or off-road purist by any means Quote
agrof Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mechbuilds said: Live axles just are heaps better. It depends on: for what? For climbing, rock crawling with low speed for sure. For driving from A to B on mixed road with safety and comfort at high speed (80 km/h is high in this term), than independent suspension is far better. This is what reflected on different off road racing as well. Where speed is essential, independent or semi independent suspension is used - see Trophy Trucks. Where crawling ability counts, rigid axles are the winner - see rock crawlers. We must not forget, that these cars like the new Defender are not meant and developed as hardcore off-roader (climber), but as normal cars with good off-road capabilities. Considering modern electronics and technology, independent suspension got really capable in the last decade. Only drawback can be the reduced clearance, but it is still more than enough for usual people. The original Defender can not either be compared with rock crawlers, despite sharing similar chassis. I bet, that the new one can do too, what the classic could achieve on rough terrain. Edited June 25, 2019 by agrof Quote
Mechbuilds Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 Just now, agrof said: It depends on: for what? For climbing, rock crawling with low speed for sure. For driving from A to B on mixed road with safety and comfort at high speed (80 km/h is high in this term), than independent suspension is far better. This is what reflected on different off road racing as well. Where speed is essential, independent or semi independent suspension is used - see Trophy Trucks. Where crawling ability counts, rigid axles are the winner - see rock crawlers. We must not forget, that these cars like the new Defender are not meant and developed as hardcore off-roader (climber), but as normal cars with good off-road capabilities. Considering modern electronics and technology, independent suspension got really capable in the last decade. Only drawback can be the reduced clearance, but it is still more than enough for usual people. The original Defender can not either be compared with rock crawlers, despite sharing similar chassis. I bet, that the new one can do too, what the classic could achieve on rough terrain. That's why in my country, (Finland) we have things called wagons and sedans. And if you're not familiar with the mixed road conditions in finland then yeah we don't have it as bad as russia but still.. There are many back roads that they don't fix ever.. And we got all the weather conditions. What annoys me the most is a single woman who only uses their massive landwhale of an SUV for a short trip to work and shopping. When a small more economic car like a toyota corolla or something would do the same job easier.. If you ask me, those city "offroaders" are crap at all terrains.. They suck at offroad, they suck at city driving.. Pointless vehicles. But i guess nobody cares about efficiency and economics. It's only a status symbol like a watch or an apple i phone. Quote
Cumulonimbus Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 35 minutes ago, Mechbuilds said: Live axles just are heaps better. But all the examples shown to convince people that live axles are better are heavily modified vehicles build for extreme conditions. Was the old/current Defender really such a good offroader as a standard vehicle? And even if it was, it was probably due to the relatively low weight of the body (so a low center of gravity) since it had little onboard equipment and the body was mainly riveted aluminum sheet metal. If you're going to modify your vehicle for hard core off-roading anyway, does it really matter what the standard suspension setup was? By the way, I was reading this article about Ultra4 buggies, custom off-road buggies designed to take on brutal terrain like the King of the Hammer race in the USA. Even those guys are not unanimous about which setup (live axle versus independent suspension) is best in the field. I find it funny that the Defender has become such a status symbol. Seeing a Defender in full expedition spec (including a snorkel and permanent roof rack tent) driving in commuter traffic or trying to park in a crowded city really feels like an anachronism to me. I have always seen the Defender as a working vehicle used for jobs as first responder, construction site support vehicle and to perform countless other tasks in forestry, wildlife protection, etc. I think that even in those situations, offroad capability is just part of the requirements. On-road handling at highway speeds and stability while towing for example is at least as important for those users I suspect. Hence independent suspension still makes sense, even for an utilitarian vehicle. I'm very curious how rugged and capable the basic version of the Defender will be and how good it will suit the needs of the professional user, that is the true test to judge whether or not the design of new Defender has been successful. Quote
andythenorth Posted June 25, 2019 Posted June 25, 2019 (edited) I don't know much about off-roading. But I've been off-roading with off-roaders. They liked and used the disco, even though it's a fashion 4x4 with a sunroof. They're into expedition off-roading, not rock crawling. The shape of the body panels makes *** all difference to off-road performance. Perhaps there are some people who claim to be all about function, but can't see past some curved body panels? Edited June 25, 2019 by andythenorth Quote
1gor Posted June 25, 2019 Author Posted June 25, 2019 15 minutes ago, Mechbuilds said: That's why in my country, (Finland) we have things called wagons and sedans. And if you're not familiar with the mixed road conditions in finland then yeah we don't have it as bad as russia but still.. There are many back roads that they don't fix ever.. And we got all the weather conditions. What annoys me the most is a single woman who only uses their massive landwhale of an SUV for a short trip to work and shopping. When a small more economic car like a toyota corolla or something would do the same job easier.. If you ask me, those city "offroaders" are crap at all terrains.. They suck at offroad, they suck at city driving.. Pointless vehicles. But i guess nobody cares about efficiency and economics. It's only a status symbol like a watch or an apple i phone. You got point there...but since Lego sets are for using indoor I think it is nice set and sometimes model of real thing can look very good despite not liking original Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.