Alright, so I sent a message to Land Rover asking them why they've been dragging their feet about bringing the Defender back to the States (and by this I mean the real agricultural Defender, not some scaled-down RR Vogue or LR3 with a fancy interior). I waited maybe a day received a message back from their customer relations people: apparently, for the current Defender 90 & 110 to be legal on US roads there have to be serious changes made for emissions and safety. Emissions I can understand, but safety? It's been proven that in a collision the current crop of Defenders is at least 2x safer than the safest Volvos currently on the streets. That's not safe enough? It can't be that hard for Land Rover to install some airbags in the front! Come on! (Oh, and if I'm being ignorant about something here, I apologize. Please tell me. I'm not trying to seem like a moose about this! )
__________________
Such is life: sometimes, you are the bug; other times, the windshield.
Last edited by walter4x4 : 08-27-2007 at 02:18 PM.
Location: Bloomfield, CT If I died today, I lived there all my life.
Posts: 2,006
Gallery:
0
Quote:
Originally Posted by walter4x4
Emissions I can understand, but safety? It's been proven that in a collision the current crop of Defenders is at least 2x safer than the safest Volvos currently on the streets.
Only the newest Ford deritive diesel would pass Current EPA diesel opacity and NiOx specs. The 300 Tdi wouldn't pass any country's limits, and the TD5 won't pass EU, New UK standard, and Californis's standards.
Apart from the emissons issue I would like to know where you got the info that the Defender is safer than, well, anything. There are no side impact structures, no SRS of any sort, no crumple front bumper, the most primitive colapsable steering column, two piece A pillar, and the list goes on. I'm not trying to take anything away from the simple love of the truck, I've been driving one for years, but to call it a truck designed for safety, let alone compare it to one of the safest cars on the road is utterly rediculous. Unless things have changed radically, we're still the only country with not one, but two crash testing bodies (NHTSA & NIIHS)
The last Defender to undergo a crash test (1 vehicle, frontal crash only) was a '97 D90 soft top, in 1997. Leonard Torres bought it after the test, and if what I saw meets your idea of safe, we have very different standards. There haven't been any structural body design changes to date so even the pretty new dash and Transiit engine won't make it any safer.
Wow, I had no idea. I can't remember where I read it, but I did read somewhere that, structurally at least, the Defender was safer than the new Volvos. That's obviously pretty far off the mark. So really there's no chance of us seeing a Defender that resembles the current offering, is there?
__________________
Such is life: sometimes, you are the bug; other times, the windshield.
Location: Bloomfield, CT If I died today, I lived there all my life.
Posts: 2,006
Gallery:
0
Other than the Get Home test, I can't think of a single destructive test where a D90 or D110 would score much better than no stars. Maybe the testing was designed by former British Car designers
The test in question involved the British standard BSOLDC (Beer Spilled On Lap During Collision) rating.
The veh is driven at very low speed from the pub car park and into the nearest lamp post. The driver is holding a (full) pint of mild during the test.
If the driver has more than half his pint at the conclusion of the test, its a pass!
Obviously this is B.S.
So are some of the things that you hear from the auto industry.
The Defenders are very unsafe. So, not untill the UK and other markets (where defenders are working veh and not expensive alt to a Jeep) bring the safty standards into line with the US standards will we see a Defender in NA. Even then, it will be tough for Land Rover to break into the Farm/Fleet 4wd work truck market awash with Ford F150's Dodge and Chevy pick-up's.
Bottom line, if the only interested customers are a few Land Rover nuts (like us) then they just can't sell enough bare bone's Defenders to make it worth the effort/cost to import them on a large scale to the US and Canada.
and to make matters worse, its getting hard to find good pint of mild these days! Dammed common market and EU Larger drinking Puff's.
__________________
"Your only supposed to blow the BLOODY DOORS OFF" The Italian job 1969.
The test in question involved the British standard BSOLDC (Beer Spilled On Lap During Collision) rating.
The veh is driven at very low speed from the pub car park and into the nearest lamp post. The driver is holding a (full) pint of mild during the test.
If the driver has more than half his pint at the conclusion of the test, its a pass!
Obviously this is B.S.
So are some of the things that you hear from the auto industry.
The Defenders are very unsafe. So, not untill the UK and other markets (where defenders are working veh and not expensive alt to a Jeep) bring the safty standards into line with the US standards will we see a Defender in NA. Even then, it will be tough for Land Rover to break into the Farm/Fleet 4wd work truck market awash with Ford F150's Dodge and Chevy pick-up's.
Bottom line, if the only interested customers are a few Land Rover nuts (like us) then they just can't sell enough bare bone's Defenders to make it worth the effort/cost to import them on a large scale to the US and Canada.
and to make matters worse, its getting hard to find good pint of mild these days! Dammed common market and EU Larger drinking Puff's.
"The Defenders are very unsafe" sorry but this is BS ive just bought a D90 that was T boned by a rover (car) impact speed was 85mph the driver of the 90 was knocked unconcious but was physically fine ill post some pics up tomorrow
__________________
Current fleet
86 90 V8 in bits
86 RR classic Under repair
94 Disco TDI 3dr ex-police 256k and still going
80" coil sprung V8 auto Trialer in progress
71 2a Trialer V8 auto,parabolics,6" shackles,power steering awesome machine
The particulars of any one accident do not prove or disprove anything. That is why there are 'standard' tests (not the BSOLDC, I mean front impact etc) to measure the performance of the veh in question.
I once worked with a guy that claimed to been in a 100mph wreck, did not have a seat belt on, was thrown clear of his car (out the door) and suffered only a small cut on chin. The car was totaled, he even showed us all pictures he took after the wreck. As a result he now thinks that seat belts are over rated and not really needed.
This one wreck and its happy outcome would not convince me (or you) to abandon the use seat belts and take commando rolling lessons for when we get thrown from our cars in the event of a accident.
Time to call a spade a spade, I love Defenders, but i am sorry to say they are very unsafe. The only good point about them (safety wise) is that they don't go very fast so unless you get one up to speed on the motorway (highway) nearly all you accidents will be at low speed.
__________________
"Your only supposed to blow the BLOODY DOORS OFF" The Italian job 1969.
It's funny.. now that I own a D90, i don't want them to re-import them here.. it'll take away from the value & rarity of mine! Other d90 owners i've talked to feel the same way..
__________________
Ryan :: Off-Road/Accessories Moderator :: Gallery
2001 Discovery II | 1994 Defender 90 #416
At least you can import 83-92 defenders up there in Canada!
Really? does that mean if I end up in Canada I'll be able to bring Eva along with me? She's a 1992
A thought on the safety thing. Isn't it also to do with pedestrian safety as well as occupant safety?
There are some very conflicting studies done on vehicles and pedestrian accidents. Some say that cars are worse cos the person has their legs taken out and they smash their heads on the windscreen and that being hit by a blunt fronted 4x4 is better as the shock is spread over a larger surface area. Then there are the complete opposite studies too!
AFAIK the defender's thin doors and lack of side impact protection are a problem with the US safety people as well as the unsuitability of the bulkhead to hold air bags.
It's mostly occupant safety.. the fact that it doesnt have airbags and certain crumble zones im sure..
But with a 92, you should be able to import it into Canada w/o much problem.
There certainly seems to be more of a push for pedestrian safety over occupant safety in the uk at the moment.
So if I were to import my 90 in to Canada, should I go and work there, would I also be able to drive it across the US borer for a holiday then? as long as I promise to take it back with me?!?!
I have to agree, the blunt front of a Land Rover ensures the pedestrian is funneled neatly down and underneth the vehicle with almost no loss of momentum. This means when driving to work you can use the pavement (sidewalk) and be able to drive just as fast over the tree huggers as you can on the road! Go Land Rover's.
You should have no problem visiting the US from Canada in Eva as long as she was imported into Canada legally and the papers are in order.
If you come on over with Eva, can she bring a friend?
__________________
"Your only supposed to blow the BLOODY DOORS OFF" The Italian job 1969.
I was told by the sales rep at LR/Rocklin that Land rover isn't about to put airbags in the D90 and their not "pedestrian-collision friendly" i.e. Pedestrian
will go under D90 instead of over the top if struck. (Might be worthy field-study research)
__________________
DRAGUNOV -------> Don't run from me... You'll just die tired.
'99 Discovery II
'98 Discovery I
'89 RRC "The Lizard"
RoverAddiction
I thought the fact that the pedestrian would be pushed under the defender was a plus. It cuts down on costly repairs after running them down i.e. replacing the hood windshield etc.
__________________
"Only two defining forces ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom."
When I talked to LR rep, he mentioned that brining back LR to US at this time would cost a lot of money. Dollar is weak. Competition from Jeep is strong and Defenders are expensive already. How many Americans will be willing to buy it?
I have to agree, the blunt front of a Land Rover ensures the pedestrian is funneled neatly down and underneth the vehicle with almost no loss of momentum. This means when driving to work you can use the pavement (sidewalk) and be able to drive just as fast over the tree huggers as you can on the road! Go Land Rover's.
You should have no problem visiting the US from Canada in Eva as long as she was imported into Canada legally and the papers are in order.
If you come on over with Eva, can she bring a friend?
Excellent! As it happens I have been talking with a mate of mine about exporting a few landys to Canada, he is based in Edmonton. It looks as if I will be heading out to your fair country next summer for a couple of months or so, with the possibility of hanging around for a while. He has promised to show me the trails round his way (although it'll be in a Nissan ).
Certainly looks unlikely that defender will be back in the US anytime soon.
Wow... I guess I never took into account how much change and $$$$$ would be needed for the Defender to be re-introduced to the US market. Oh well, I guess I can wait a few more years to import one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArmyRover
I thought the fact that the pedestrian would be pushed under the defender was a plus. It cuts down on costly repairs after running them down i.e. replacing the hood windshield etc.
and
__________________
Such is life: sometimes, you are the bug; other times, the windshield.
Only the newest Ford deritive diesel would pass Current EPA diesel opacity and NiOx specs. The 300 Tdi wouldn't pass any country's limits, and the TD5 won't pass EU, New UK standard, and Californis's standards.
Apart from the emissons issue I would like to know where you got the info that the Defender is safer than, well, anything. There are no side impact structures, no SRS of any sort, no crumple front bumper, the most primitive colapsable steering column, two piece A pillar, and the list goes on. I'm not trying to take anything away from the simple love of the truck, I've been driving one for years, but to call it a truck designed for safety, let alone compare it to one of the safest cars on the road is utterly rediculous. Unless things have changed radically, we're still the only country with not one, but two crash testing bodies (NHTSA & NIIHS)
Most of what you say is accurate, except about crumple front bumpers. Those have nothing to do with safety, but were introduced to reduce excessive vehicle repair costs in low speed impacts. The only legal requirements from the NHTSA on bumpers focus on protecting lighting, radiator and such in an impact.
__________________
Tom Rowe
Atlanta, GA
Four wheel drive allows you to get stuck
in places even more inaccessible.
62 88 reg
67 NADA x2
74 Air Portable - The Antichrist (tag 6A666)
95 D1
95 D90
Defender Back to the US: What stands in the way?
Emissions I can understand, but safety? It's been proven that in a collision the current crop of Defenders is at least 2x safer than the safest Volvos currently on the streets. That's not safe enough? It can't be that hard for Land Rover to install some airbags in the front! Come on! (Oh, and if I'm being ignorant about something here, I apologize. Please tell me. I'm not trying to seem like a moose about this! 
)
As it happens I have been talking with a mate of mine about exporting a few landys to Canada, he is based in Edmonton. It looks as if I will be heading out to your fair country next summer for a couple of months or so, with the possibility of hanging around for a while. He has promised to show me the trails round his way (although it'll be in a Nissan
).
