Land Rover Defender Will Return to the U.S.

[Sabre]

Torque

Land Rover CEO Ralf Speth recently confirmed to Automotive News, that the next-generation Land Rover Defender will make a return the U.S. The new Defender could arrive as early as 2015 and was previewed last year with the DC100 concept.

The Defender hasn't been sold in the U.S. since 1997, but when it does return here, it will be positioned as a new entry-level model that will be priced below the new Range Rover Evoque Pure, which starts just under $42k.

I like the looks

[Libra Monkee]

Make it blue and get rid of the yellow with a kiloton blast, I'd rock it. However, it DOES kind of remind me of an FJ Cruiser. Which isn't a good thing.

[Mr Kleen]

I don't know what that is, THIS is a Defender:

[complacent]

*swoon*

[PGT]

I don't see it being much more than a rebadged Evoque. Not a bad thing but not a successor to the D90/110.

[Mr Kleen]

I don't see it being much more than a rebadged Evoque. Not a bad thing but not a successor to the D90/110.

I should have posted this instead of being snarky. Sorry.

[Raven]

You guys sound that the wrangler enthusiasts that bemoaned the end of the straight 6. That engine was old and terrible by most performance metrics, it was well past it's time to die. Same with the old Defender. It's time for something new, perhaps with fully independent suspension. But put some real off road tires on it, those big low profile wheels are poserrific.

[PGT]

As a two-time owner of an I6 powered Jeep and a new Pentastar powered one, I can say that I liked the old motor better. It was a truck motor. This new one is a sedan/minivan motor.

[Raven]

No argument there actually. There are better motors to suit the wrangler, like a nice turbo diesel truck engine. But the out going I6 was just terrible. It had awful emissions and fuel economy, and pitiful torque for it's size.

[Sabre]

^^^ May be true, but it was probably the toughest motor I've ever owned and will own. I had a friend punch it out and he made 300/300 NA.

[PGT]

and pitiful torque for it's size.

235 ft/lbs from 4.0L is "pitiful"? You can't look at a peak number...you have to look at the curve. That number was FAR left (peak tq was at 3200rpm). You could easily let out the clutch in gear and the Jeep would start creeping....no throttle necessary and it wouldn't stall. How many non-pitiful motors could do that? Very few.

Emissions and crash regs killed it (V6 offers more crumple zone....same reason Mercedes changed). It was an OLD design. Anybody who lived with one knew it was thirsy but didn't complain about it's performance. My JK is faster but the TJ *felt* faster and that's all about torque.

the TJ got 16/19 EPA mileage. The JK now gets 17/21 with the Pentastar. The 3.8L in the '07-11 JK got 15/18 or LESS than the TJ with the 4.0L. Chalk that up to a curb weight difference.

Ignoring the Pentastar for a minute...the 3.8L got 205hp and 240 ft/lbs compared to the 4.0L's 190hp and 235 ft/lbs. Difference being the 3.8L needed more revs for both (i.e. moving away from a "truck" motor).