Land Rover Plans to Offer Pickups

Land_rover_defender_pickup II

With a new generation of Defenders on the horizon, Gerry McGovern, the lead designer at Land Rover, is saying that a pickup truck variant of the highly capable four-wheeler is likely to debut not long after the smaller 4x4.

Without providing many specifics in an interview with WhatCar?, McGovern suggested the Defender pickup could be available soon after the next-gen 4x4's introduction. The interview dealt with global markets where current Defenders are sold; it is not sold in the U.S. right now.

We're guessing the 2017 date is optimistic. McGovern sees the new premium-priced Defender pickup as a competitor to the Volkswagen Amarok and global Ford Ranger. The last time we heard about the new Defender was at the 2011 Los Angeles Auto Show, when Land Rover was showing the DC100 concept. Back then the new Defender replacements were not going to be on sale until 2016, which means any variants of the those platforms will not be available until several years after that. So a more realistic date is likely closer to 2020.

Of course, with the new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado set to go on sale by the third quarter of 2014 and other global truck makers hammering at the continued existence of the "chicken tax" (the U.S.' 25 percent tax on import vehicles), interest in this category is bound to grow. And if sales of the Colorado bolt out of the gate and Congress repeals the chicken tax, who knows what will happen next.

Land-Rover-DC100 II

 

Comments

They have been saying this for years. It is never going to happen. The GM twins are going to virtually conquer the midsize market over the next few years, and Toyota and Nissan will fight over the scraps.

You are correct, retard. And Ford won't even get any scraps 'cause they're not at the table.

Hopefully the new Chevy twins will cause Toyota and Nissan to give the Tacoma and Frontier a needed update. As for repeal of the Chicken Tax one can only hope. As for this new Land Rover pickup, it will not compete with any of the above, it will be for those who want a Land Rover. It appears to be a nice truck.

I love that 110 Hi-Capacity double Cab posted above. the 110 High-Cap single cab looks even better.

Neither one is imported to the US, but East Coast Rover in Maine will build you one from the ground up, just like the AEV Jeep Brutes. Just don't expect to get one on the cheap.

If Land Rover does indeed build a pickup, I hope it will be similar to the current models, at least in size. But since they are talking mid-size, I wouldn't be surprised if it shares it platform with the next-generation Tata Xenon. That wouldn't be much of a stretch, considering Tata is planning to build Land Rovers in India as well as in England.

it would be overpriced anyway, just a truck for people that want to just make a status statment. like an H3 is.

@Imoore,
Land Rovers Owner TATA has just released their own revised Pickup. Not going to set the world on fire, but looks OK compared to a Mahindra. Whether like the Chinese Great Wall will it last, I doubt it.
http://news.drive.com.au/drive/new-car-reviews/tata-xenon-4x4-new-car-review-20131206-2yvoh.html

I think there would be a good market for a land rover truck here actually. I wonder if they would be accepted in Coral Gables?

A Land Rover Defender pickup like the ones pictured are not in the same market class as a Colorado or Tacoma. In the rest of the world it is a utilitarian vehicle but it would most likely be a luxobarge in North America. If they go with a softroader platform then it would be more like the Colorado or Tacoma.

@AllAmerican,

Tata owns Jaguar and Land Rover.

Ford sold Land Rover several years ago !

They owned Land Rover from 2000-2008 (bought it from BMW 1994-2000).

Ford has only Ford and Lincoln,no other makes.

Ford even sold Mazda..

@Jeff S
Exactly what would you add to the current Tacoma or Frontier to make them substantially better?

for anyone who wants a compact or midsize those are both solid dependable and durable trucks.

As long as you aren't over six feet tall you'll love it!

@papa jim--Both Frontier and Tacoma are basically unchanged since 2004 and need a refresh. You are assuming that I said they are bad trucks, wrong I said they need to be updated. Both trucks could use a more efficient drive train and if Colorado/Canyon get a diesel option and it is successful then maybe Toyota and Nissan would then offer diesel as well. You assumed that I made a negative comment about Frontier and Tacoma. Competition in the midsize market would force both Toyota and Nissan to improve their trucks. A lack of competition has given no incentive for updating either truck.

As for a Land Rover pickup, we will not see this in the US market. This is a specialized truck in that it would not appeal to everyone, but as Big Al has said the Chicken Tax will keep this truck, the VW Amarok, and other midsize trucks out of the US market. Restricting competition again protects Toyota and Nissan as well because they have even less competition and less reason to update their products. A free market provides more choice to the consumer than a protected market.

@Lou_BC
"A Land Rover Defender pickup like the ones pictured are not in the same market class as a Colorado or Tacoma."

Correct ,1 tonne Utes as they are called here. Stick anywhere close to 3000lbs on the tray.
Or to make it more obvious from someone from NA, a substantially heavy Truck Camper.
http://www.truckcampersaustralia.com.au/files/35498/images/2012%20Model%208-11SE/Landcruiser/IMG_2196.JPG

http://www.truckcampersaustralia.com.au/files/35498/images/2012%20Model%208-11SE/Exterior/IMG_1686.JPG

"likely closer to 2020."

In other words it's not happening.

@CDN Dodge RAM Owner

You know it's useless trying to educate Michigan DUMB-ASS or his alias AllAmerican as he don't even know who owns LR.

Idiot!

Mid sized pickups? What about a small one ala Ranger? A lot of us don't need BIG!

Range Rovers are for wealthy soccer moms.

Build it here and the Nitpickers Alliance would still reject it. And the soccer moms prefer enclosed cargo space.

GUTS

GLORY

TAKING THE M OUT OF MASCULINE

LANDROVER

Hahaha I bet all the Ford girly girls driving their Ecoboost(R) are wishing that Ford still owned Landrover. Sorry but even if Landrover still belonged to Ford it would still end up being a lame truck. LOL you guys need to stop drinking that Ford kool aid and wake up to see the real trucks all around you.

Those who are saying that the Land Rover Defender is a soccer mom vehicle needs to open their eyes to what is beyond the USA borders. The Defender is the utility vehicle of the Range Rover line. The Freelander, Evoque, Sport, and Ranger Rover are all mid to high end SUV's.

@ CDN RAM Owner,

Ford never owned Mazda.

@ Frank,

You're half right, I'll bet he does know who owns LR. He's trying to get under your skin. He's a troll. I doubt he owns a GM product, I doubt he even holds a valid drivers license.

Actually Ford held 33% of Mazda but sold 20% of it retaining just 13% back when they sold LandRover and Jaguar to Tata Motors of India.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6293317

Ford did this to help offset the need to borrow money, Unlike GM who went with the Gov't bailout, I guess if Ford had not done this they could have continued to hold onto to these brands and let the US Gov't Fleece the US Tax Payers (Like GM Did) for money only to let them "Off the Hook" from paying it all back and not holding up their end of the bargain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo

More Tonka truck toys for the rich meanwhile nothing for the working guy.

Ford did what they had to in order to survive. One could argue that Ford should have not bought Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Volvo, and etc. and that argument would hold true with GM for Saab, Hummer, and for keeping too many competing divisions. Sometimes it is better to admit you made a mistake and move on which is what Ford did and what GM has done as well. It is better to preserve the parts of a company that are viable by extracating those parts that are not viable even if it means taking a loss.

@Jeff S

Times change! Back in the late 1990s the US dollar was very strong and allowed Detroit firms like Ford and GM to buy big assets in Europe (Volvo, Saab, Rover...) very cheaply. Ten years later soft dollar policies at the Dept of Treasury had crushed the value of those decisions, which only years earlier had been so smart.

Ford's purchase of Volvo allowed for a lot of that company's very futuristic designs to become integrated into other Ford models and even with Ford allies like Mazda. The value of that integration is now mostly in the past but it was a smart way for Ford to "buy" great designs and innovation very cheaply. GM's decision to buy Saab--not so much :(

gm is going to show ford who really sells all the trucks. this truck if it has a great engine and known for reliability it will kill Toyota. the Toyota was the exotic truck to have now its the norm, same as the Nissan. the euro pickup will kill them. the guys who plan on buying a gm truck will always buy a gm unless catastrophic failure drives them away which is not most likely to happen as gm trucks last the longest mileage wise(fact)!

@papa jim,
Jaguar, LR, Volvo were very happy leaving Ford's control as they had found partners that were going to give them a lot of cash for R& D and a lot more freedom to do their own thing.
So those "underperforming assets" under Ford really blossomed when they left.

@papa jim--That is true. What 20 years ago appeared to be a smart decision by buying a competitor for its upscale product line and innovation is today not necessary. Back when Ford bought Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar, and Aston Martin they had tried to go upscale with the Merkur line of vehicles that I believe were imported from Ford Germany and sold in the Lincoln Mercury dealers. Merkur did not go over so Ford bought these other companies. GM went the same way with their purchase of Saab. Now Ford and Chevy offers higher trims that are close to their premium brands of Lincoln and Cadillac. A top of the line Taurus, Fusion, Impala, and Malibu is not much different in its features than a luxury brand. That is one reason why Lincoln has had problems because a loaded Taurus and Fusion are very similar to the corresponding Lincoln. Ford did what was necessary in order to stay a viable company.

@JeffS, if one is really honest, Ford-Lincoln, Chevrolet-Cadillac, Toyota-Lexus etc is really all a company needs. Two brands can cover literally everything. Frankly, one can about get it done. Mercedes Benz has cheap cargo vans, rigs and high dollar luxury auto's all. GM still has too many nameplates. They just don't have the internal balls to cut anymore.


@Lou, luxobarge is right.

@FordTrucks1 - I made that comment in relation to what most likely would come to the USA. A base model utilitarian Defender like the one pictured would never come to the USA due to the chicken tax. No one buy it with a 25% tariff heaped on it but if you aim it towards the rich and shameless, they won't care for anything other than status and fancy seats.

@FordTrucks1--Agree, it has become less relevant to have various lines of a manufacturer's brand since you can get the top trim level with most if not all the offerings of its luxury twin at a lesser price. Mercury was a prime example of this for Ford and Oldsmobile and Pontiac for GM. For Chrysler it was Plymouth and could still be Dodge.

As for GM, I don't see them cutting Buick because of the Chinese market and as for GMC as long as there are few differences between Silverado and Sierra and they are produced in the same plants then the cost difference is not that significant. The only thing I would add is that GM should offer the same high end trim for Silverado as they do for Sierra for the die hard Chevy fans.

@Robert Ryan,
your remarks about the former Ford assets enjoying some kind of rebirth after they were liberated from Detroit's grip struck me as odd.

Volvo today is a brand looking for a job to do. Many of Ford's products today, such as the Explorer and the Flex are brimming with Volvo 1990s engineering/design. So why pay the extra cost of buying a Volvo when you can get the same quality in a Mazda or Ford--the greasy stuff underneath is almost the same.

Britain's taxpayers have been subsidizing their auto industry since the 1980s and I'm surprised that Jaguar or Rover remain in business at all. Jag's recent stuff is competitive but their cars ten years ago were so bad that nobody wanted 'em. Ditto Rover.

Now that the US dollar is so soft, there isn't much incentive for American buyers to pay a currency penalty for buying European built cars.

Britain is no longer supporting their auto industry and haven't for years. Tata, a corporation based in India, owns Land Rover and Jaguar. Under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the British auto industry was privatized along with many other government owned industries. Rolls Royce and Mini Cooper are part of BMW, Bentley is part of VW/Audi, Land Rover & Jaguar are part of Tata, and some of the Chinese companies own other parts of the British auto industries such as Rover. Volvo was originally a Swedish corp and now owned by Geely and yes they are looking for a market.

@Jeff S

do British taxpayers continue to guarantee the pension benefits of their union employees (and retirees)? I bet you a bottle of good Scotch that they do!

Do you really think the Indians took on the responsibility for previous pension obligations without the Brits putting some skin in the game?

papa jim--Maybe so but they are not directly supporting the auto industry. We as US taxpayers are also supporting retired and furloughed workers from industries that are no longer in existence. Supporting pensions is not directly supporting the auto industry.

@Jeff S

I think I just got a bottle of Johnny Walker! Do you want to send me the bottle, or just a gift card?

Merry Christmas!

Papa Jim

@papa jim--Better, I have a bottle of Makers Mark bourbon, let's meet and share it over a good discussion. Since I am a proponent of buying local that supports a KY industry

Ford still owns 4% of Mazda, hence the platform sharing of the global Ranger and BT50. I think in its heyday Ford had a 25% stake in Mazda, for technology transfer.

As for the UK auto industry, Jeff S is correct in the Thatcher government privitised and limited protection to the industry.

This force the UK to produce better vehicles. This mainly occurred through the buyouts of the British firms.

The US bought the 'quality' through technology transfers with the partial ownership of inter/multi-national companies.

Better than copying ideas.

Past a LR Dealer in Brentwood, Tennessee today (Friday, 27 Dec. 2013) and he has a Defender pu on display outdoors. going back for a better look tomorrow (Saturday, 28 Dec, '13).

Why r the following trucks not 4 sale in th U.S.? : VW Amorak; Toyota Hielix;Ford Ranger; Mahindra TR40...and all other small trucks...Answer: The big three want us to only have the larger more expensive trucks available as a choice....I'd like to be able to buy a small truck and so do alot of my friends...I really believe that around 2006 they decided to limit our choices so they could increase their bottom line, and I am angered about it,you can't even import them....



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2011 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com