Would domestic car manufacturer troubles possibly open the door for the Defender?

[p m]

yes, but an electric motor at a relatively slow speed will get a lot more out of that energy than 3.5 minutes of operation time.

ok, let's descend from Prius land to the dirt.
In my experience, while off-roading on the rocky trails, I usually run the engine at about 1200-1500 rpm; Rover V8 makes about 25-30kW (35-40hp) there. Say, 10kW is lost to the automatic transmission, and another 3-4 - between transfer case and differentials (those are more efficient than you think). That still puts about 11-16 kW on the ground.
If ALL of your electric charge could go to the ground, you'll have 15 minutes of running time.

Next, about the weight savings.
The maximum torque and power an electric motor can develop are limited by the volume of copper (in windings) and iron (in core). These are physical limits that can hardly be better than current state-of-the-art. So, there you go:
internal combustion engine: roughly 1kW/kG of engine mass
Best electric motors: roughly 2kW/kG of engine mass.
Good? Yesss! But...
Batteries: 0.18 (lead acid) to 0.34 (Li Ion) kW/kG.....

Now, if you actually bothered to look at the torque-RPM curves of most electric motors, you'd find that you simply cannot get by without at least a two-speed gearbox.
There goes some more of your perceived weight advantage.

One motor, two motors, four motors... have as many as you want, but consider this:
what would you rather do when your ride stops dead in its tracks: pull a third member or an axle apart, or tinker with a 300-volt, high-amp cirquit? Hint, in case if you never dealt with high-power electronics: a quarter-inch-diameter shank of a screwdriver will evaporate in a flash when you short a 300-volt battery bank. Shatterproof safety glasses are a must, and later on you'll wish you had a welding helmet.

I'm getting chatty...

 

[knewsom]

Oh, I never maintained the vehicle would be LIGHTER... but certainly more efficient and have a much greater range.

I have worked with very high voltage electricity before, and have known people who were injured by plasma balls generated by short circuits and hot current in fluorescent lamp ballasts. YIKES! As for which I would rather tinker with, yeah, of course electricity is scary, but at the same time, gasoline and sparks are pretty damned scary too. Obviously battery banks and wiring can be well protected and waterproofed.

The point is that with the setup I've described, you can have a more rewarding, longer range, more efficient, less environmentally hazardous, more reliable with greater redundancy vehicle with some well implemented technology. And battery technology as well as electric motor technology is continually improving - brushless motors, for example.

I'm just saying that it seriously has potential, and I'd JUMP at the chance to own a vehicle like this - I think a lot of other people would too. If we can help encourage auto-makers to PRODUCE such a thing, all the better.

 

[Roverrocks]

It does not matter what the technonogy is or how light the vehicle is or how efficient. The greenies want to end offroading period. I live 3 hours from Moab and get there a lot including the Easter Jeep Safari. Wherever the Jeepers and others come from across the country you hear all of them talking about the trail closures and battles to keep some places open. In Utah the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Blm want to end offroading and associated offroad camping in as many places as possible. Around Moab literally dozens of trails are in danger. Just ask the Red Rock 4Wheelers. The future of Rovering and Jeeping is in real danger. The Defender will never see our shores again and Jeeps, etc are in danger because if there is nowhere to wheel then why buy/produce them.

 

[knewsom]

take it from a greenie - we don't want to end 4 wheeling. the greenies that DO have an incorrect impression of what offroading IS. The see the dudes in the massive chevy trucks tearing up the land and running over everything, and leaving a trail of beer cans behind, and assume that's what everyone who wheels is about.

...rover drivers tend to not be that way. Matter of fact, I tend to leave the trail with more junk than I brought, because I stop to pick up those jerkwad chevy drivers' beer cans, because my dad always taught me to leave the camp site a better place when you leave it than when you got there.

There are plenty of people like me, who like to offroad because it affords you the chance to see places, views, environments, and even wildlife that would otherwise be absolutely unaccessable without a road, and we all know the massive environmental imact a ROAD has. A truck trail OTOH has very little, comparitively.

Many offroaders like the challenge of extreme rock climbing, others like extreme mudding and things like that, and that's ok - there are dedicated areas for that. Containing that type of activity limits the imact of it. But if we're going to have a future of nice long trails to explore and new horizons, we have to help shift the perspective of the offroader, which means that the onus is on ALL OF US to not leave junk behind, clean up after the jerks, and spread the word that LAND ROVERS are about a lighter footprint, and the only thing that gets left behind is a tire-tread.

...our trucks don't tear shit up like a lot of trucks do, that's the benefit of land rover suspension. we also have far lower emissions than most trucks, so don't be ashamed to flaunt that. dont' fight the greenies. become one.

 

[Blueboy]

trucks tearing up the land and running over everything, and leaving a trail of beer cans behind

yep, only we usually leave a trail of single malt Scotch bottles....

 

[SGaynor]

ok, let's descend from Prius land to the dirt.
In my experience, while off-roading on the rocky trails, I usually run the engine at about 1200-1500 rpm; Rover V8 makes about 25-30kW (35-40hp) there. Say, 10kW is lost to the automatic transmission, and another 3-4 - between transfer case and differentials (those are more efficient than you think). That still puts about 11-16 kW on the ground.
If ALL of your electric charge could go to the ground, you'll have 15 minutes of running time.

.
.
.
.

I'm getting chatty...

Ha Ha! Don' t mess with Russian mathematicians or physicists!:bigok:

 

[knewsom]

yep, only we usually leave a trail of single malt Scotch bottles....

hah, you'll know it's me if you see a talisker or glenmoraingie port-wood finish bottle laying around.


...I apologize in advance.

 

[p m]

...our trucks don't tear shit up like a lot of trucks do, that's the benefit of land rover suspension.

I don't even know how you came up with this conclusion.

About emissions - it's BS as well. Any OBD-2 engine will have the same, or lesser, level of emissions. Comparing a low-mileage OBD2 engine with a 300kmi beat-up Chevy 350 with a Holley on top is not fair.

 

[p m]

This, Mr. Newsom, is how "green" off-roading trips are rather likely to end.

 

[Roverrocks]

About becoming a greenie. I have never stopped being one and that is why I am so peeved at the radical Greenies in the 4 Corners area because their agenda is to close everything to motorized use. I used to be a Sierra club member. Way too radical. My local jeep club and I ran a trail last Saturday for the last time as it is being closed for no good reason. This is happening all over the 4 Corners area and also includes numerous isolated camping spots being closed for no reason and numerous easy isolated 2 wheel drive trails leadind to these sites and overlooks. I am tired of going to Moab and being flipped off and ridiculed by hikers and bikers. I'm a hiker and former trail runner and don't under stand the viciousness of the radical greenies. The Moab area trails and Western Colorado trails are under serious assault. The Red Rock 4 Wheelers out of Moab are spending megabucks to try and keep their trails. This is not about being Green but is about turning Greenism into some sort of religion and locking up vast areas for a privaledged few that can hike in 20 miles or bike in vast miles. Green is good but radical green is bad.

 

[knewsom]

This, Mr. Newsom, is how "green" off-roading trips are rather likely to end.

Hah, now that IS ironic. Nice link, but I've never needed a massive chevy to rescue me yet. ...just a couple of FJ's.

Roverrocks, that really is a shame about the trail closures... I understand why hikers and bikers tend to resent 4x4s, noise, exhaust fumes, litter... but I'm going to continue to work on shifting that perception through the act of NOT being a douchewad on the trail. Sadly, a lot of trails have been closed here in California too, including a particularly neat one through a beautiful wildlife sanctuary. I believe its even closed to foot and bike traffic.

Though, as an aside, nature worship is essentially the oldest form of religion.

I'm actually thinking about joining the Sierra club to bring a less radical voice to the table. Let's face it - a truck trail is only about twice as wide as a hiking trail, and it gives you the ability to bring every ounce of garbage (even excrement) back out with you. It's also safer - if you get injured, you can be driven to safety, rather than having to bring in a helicopter, which will snap tree branches, kill saplings, and badly erode topsoil.

 

[jhmover]

Radical idea would be to get everyone that has a OHV to join the Sierra Club, then take it over....hehe. I know...........total fantasy.

 

[knewsom]

maybe what we need to do is form an environmentally-conscious OHV club.

 

[Jake]

Radical idea would be to get everyone that has a OHV to join the Sierra Club, then take it over....hehe. I know...........total fantasy.

if this were done surreptitiously, the idea has merit. it wouldn't be the first time an organization was co-opted by its opponents. Sierra Club has become a wack organization. BLM has become its bitch. Radical greenies are impeding the rights of others so that they can stroll hand in hand in the wilderness, and talk about global warming. all part of the radical BS that is farking up this country.....:banghead:

 

[knewsom]

ok, let's get something straight - environmental protection is important. the vast majority of the scientific community are in staunch agreement that unless climate change and widespread environmental damage are corrected, life on earth will be irreparably changed.

This is not radical, and it is not BS - it is simply necessity. SOME things, like closing every freakin' OHV trail in existence, are just stupid. Many also want to eliminate hunting, which is even DUMBER, because humans are the only remaining natural predator for many animals that can cause a LOT of environmental damage if allowed to breed unchecked.

There are a lot of complex problems in this world, sometimes simple solutions work, sometimes they don't. Take deforestation - how about this: use hemp for paper instead of trees. lasts longer, more recyclable, easy as hell to grow, doesn't destroy the soil, and fixes buttloads of carbon, leaving trees to continue doing the same.

trying to use OHV trail closures as a solution to climate change on the other hand is stupid. OHV are literally a drop in the carbon bucket compared to the amount of emmisions created by nationwide trucking. Rebuild our train infrastructure, you will see our carbon emissions plummett. enact legislation restricting auto emissions, manufacturers will implement EXISTING TECHNOLOGY to meet the requirements.

We truly must all embrace environmentalism, not only because it's NECESSARY, but becasue it deserves tempering as well.

 

[MarkP]

ok, let's get something straight - .... the vast majority of the scientific community are in staunch agreement that unless climate change and widespread environmental damage are corrected, life on earth will be irreparably changed......

:banghead: ...... Another lemming.


Molehill, meet Everest

 

[knewsom]

so you know, this isn't a stance I've taken simply because others are taking it. It's because I've looked at the facts and made an educated decision about it. Destroying the planet we need to live on for an unknown amount of time is stupid.

 

[jhmover]

ok, let's get something straight - the vast majority of the scientific Whack-jobscommunity are in staunch agreement that unless climate change and widespread environmental damage are corrected, life on earth will be irreparably changed......

Fixed it for you.

 

[knewsom]

calling someone a whack-job simply because they don't think the rapture is going to happen before we destroy life on earth ourselves doesn't actually make them a whack-job.

the correlation and theory of increased CO2 due to human activity and increased global temperatures is sound.

 

[jhmover]

If you say so.