In-house designs : Land Rover LCV⅔
April 9, 2012
· 
Keith Adams · 
32 Comments
Defending the 1990s
The 1997 Land Rover LCV2/3
The Lightweight Concept Vehicle programme was initiated by Land Rover in the early 1990s, and was a serious investigation into the production of lighter, cleaner and greener off-roaders. The idea was to test-bed new technologies, harking back to the days of the British Leyland Technology ECV programme, and one of the targets was to come up with a Defender replacement capable of 40mpg.
The LCV1 based on a Discovery 1, and was effectively that car re-clad in aluminium – and produced encouraging results. That led to LCV2, which was a series of prototypes closely based on the Defender 90. Underneath, though, it was radically different to its lookalike, built on a unique bonded and riveted space frame. Despite this, it was strong – and is said to have the strength and durability of the production Defender. That was developed into the ultimate incarnation of the LCV, the LCV⅔ – or LCV ‘two-thirds’, as it was known internally.
The LCV⅔ was built to demonstrate to company management what could be achieved in the next phase of the programme, LCV3. Sadly, that never got underway, leaving us with a fascinating insight into the mindset of Land Rover in the late 1990s, and what its idea of a new-age Defender replacement would look like. It’s also an interesting comparison with the Land Rover SD5 of the 1970s.
The styling inside and out was conservative, yet progressive, designed to appeal to management – but it was underneath where all the action takes place. The space frame design philosophy and construction techniques were carried over from the LCV2, while the engine was a KV6 lifted straight out of the Rover 800. The pick-up was considerably more aerodynamic than the Defender 90, and looks really appealing even today. However, the project never took off – investment costs would have been too high in an era when the emphasis was on getting the Range Rover L322 and Rover 75 into production.
According to site contributor Joel Beaumont, ‘the LCV⅔ was styled by David Bees and a great proportion of the engineering was done by a selection of people in the Pre-concepts department, including Neil Thomas, Robert Barlow and Pete Webber. The department was headed by Mike Pendry who retired shortly after I joined in 1998.’
More room than a Defender.
LCV2/3 interior looks reassuringly familiar
Related posts:
- In-house designs : Rover SD5
- News : Land Rover DC100 for Frankfurt
- In-house designs : Rover CCV
- In-house designs : Rover R30
- In-house designs : Rover TCV
32 Responses
You can see little snippets of today’s Landies in the interior and the front end…does the smoothed off front remind anybody else of the Mini?
I’ve looked at this many times at Gaydon and to me its just a logical evolution for the Defender. Tough Chassis, simple engines, bolt on panels and electrics that work. Leave the glitz for the rest of the range.
Very subtle and clever. May we bin the DC100 now please?!
Why? This is DC100 with a different face, in the looks department at least.
Love the Landy, seen it several times in the flesh and it always looks good. Pointsthe way to the brilliant DC100.
What a missed opportunity : the replacement for the Defender, 20 years early (but not a moment too soon!)
Is that the handbrake blocking the leading edge of the driver’s door?
Ive seen this always reminds me of Shaun the sheeps LR
A shame this never went into production, though not sure why they would use the KV6 engine.
Provided that Land Rover are to surrender the last reminents of their traditional utility 4×4 market to the Far East, then the DC100 represents a brilliant entry level, leisure market, 4×4 for Land Rover and (if that’s their intention) good luck to them.
However, what we see here is a genuine update on the Defender concept. It seems to have many of the advanantages and the character of the current car, without the shockingly cramped cab and tiny windows.
What concerns me about Land Rover abandoning their traditional market isn’t the loss of sales (they sell so very few now anyway), but each Land Rover showroom usually has a Defender in it and that gives a hugely positive feeling to a customer, that’s new to the brand, when they come to look at a Disco, Evoque, Freelander or Range Rover! It makes them feel that they are in a showroom where the real deal is sold.
The Defender is what made Land Rover and is still there Halo product.The DC100 comes across as soft , sounds like it is full of electronics , the very thing that makes current Land Rovers unreliable !!! This concept looks to me to be very limited in appeal to a wider audience and I remain to be convinced . I am sure most Defender sales are 110 station wagons so where are these longer wheelbase DC100s ????? A double cab is what will sell in the zillions , where is this variant ?????
Want one!
I wouldn’t worry about the future of the current defender or the DC100.
I see the DC 100 being made here, and the present defender tooling being shipped overseas.
Tata could end up building the Defender in India?
An interestng design concept, even down to the new dashboard fascia design which I particularly like. Reserve all the additional silverware dashboard detailing for an upmarket derivative, and the dashboard in a more toned down form actually looks more appealing than the current updated Defender dashboard, right down to those 38A Range Rover-sourced air vents and passenger airbag cover and Discovery Series 2 door grab handles.
Imagine this as a short-wheelbase soft-top model with bikini-style canvas roof like the Defender NAS 90 models and more recent SVX 60th Anniversary had, a high impact exterior colour and a roll-over cage. It would look more appealing than the Jeep Wrangler. Oh, if only…
The Defender’s replacement needs to look at it this for some inspiration.
I was in awe of this when i first went to Gaydon in 2005, and wondered why it was never produced! but i’m sure the details with it said that it had an L series engine in it. The dash design is what makes it for me, if only they put that with the dash mounted transmission levers in the current Defender and it would be my dream vehicle!! mind you, i’d be happy with the Defender as is now, if only i could afford one
replacing the defender is undoubtedly a daunting task. i dont think the above idea is realy what is needed though.its definitly got some good points dont get me wrong, but it sort or looks land rover-ish, like the nissan march looks mini-ish, (ie a Japanese attempt at a defender). the problems with the defender as it stands are , they let water in in copoius amounts. they are draughty, not very good in a crash, not very reliable, and the trim (which the above example addresses very well) until recently has not been very good. one of the biggest problems wth the defender is that while it looks big, its not really and its not roomy. so I think that is what will make the next defender, first of all utilitarian, roomy and functionality (multi platform)excellent crash protection including all terrain roll over, and hopefully the ability to keep on going and going and going like the topgear toyota invincible. and it also needs to look COOOL. unfortunately the above example looks nice and comfy and addresses some of the issues….but it certainly doesnt look cool sorry, I think the DC100 from the front looks too much like the freelander but from other angles it looks ok, but there are some other front end concept treatments out there that actually look not too bad. alex
“What concerns me about Land Rover abandoning their traditional market isn’t the loss of sales (they sell so very few now anyway), but each Land Rover showroom usually has a Defender in it”
Probably one that’s been sitting there about 20 years, knowing the rate at which they sell..
That would have been a fitting replacement for the Defender.
Defenders usually sell in reasonable numbers – 15,000-23,000 each year and most dealers do not seem to have trouble selling them. Unless, of course, they have bought in the wrong spec version that does not suit their immediate customer base (e.g. a Defender 90 pick-up in base spec with solid paint for sale in a Land Rover dealership based in Mayfair or Chelsea.
Then again, this is looking at just the buying requirements of the UK market and not other market territories. Last year, for example, I saw numerous Defender 110 County Station Wagons finished in black and fitted with the special 60th Anniversary grille and LED lighting and numerous other accessories being driven around Austria. Over here that specification would cost you over £32,000!
The beauty of the defender is: it can be whatever you want it to be.
That’s why the resale value is high.
Buy an unloved pickup, find a station wagon top on ebay- sorted!
No other vehicle is as adaptable.
@ Chris Sawyer
A trick of the eye! Look at the following pic and you’ll see the handbrake is between the two front seats
Yes I agree with most right thinking people .. BIN DC100 and build this
They need to keep the Defender as simple as possible, and this would be bang on the money for the replacement
Interesting snippet in this weeks Autocar about the DC100. JLRs opinion poll revealed that only 2% of people asked gave negative feedback on the car. Of this 2% the majority where existing Defender owners (probably had beards as well)
Looks good apart from the front which is too smoothed off for my liking. Perhaps pedestrian impact considerations necessitated this though (as well as improved fuel consumption).
Brilliant concept. LR are idiots for not taking this further. Imagine how good it would have been had they also stolen a few Ford bits (axles.. engines..), it might not have out sold the Wrangler, but it would have been the only viable alternative.
@24 Paul..
so what they are saying is 100% of people who might actualy buy a defender to actually USE it rather than pose in it don’t like the DC100.. and the other 82 % probbaly would not buy it, and if they did would just as likley buy an X5 and so will probbly never take it off road ever. The DC100 is just yet another yet another useless 4×4 posing pouch This on the other hand is a realistic repalcement for the Defender.
What would be more interetsing would to have given this as and alternative
I could never get on with that Ford sourced steering wheel, but besides that, it’s great… and even better in reality too!
… except the steering wheel is not Ford sourced. Indeed ’97 was under BMW’s tenure. I remember seeing this parked at the back of the Pre-Devt teams Portacabins at Gaydon. I recall talking to Neil Thomas about the vehicle – his enthusiasm for the concept was massive. Great guy. It’s the running gear which is what really makes this machine – the aluminium billet machined live axles and radius arms; chassis frame etc. This concept could have been production ready for 2000 (the hive down year) but the upper Mgt didn’t have the balls or foresight (strategy). It didn’t need to have the expensive axles to still be great. The one negative in the write up – KV6. Has no place in a Land Rover (I always thought it had the 2l L series diesel – maybe I’m mistaken?).
Could a production version of the LCV2/3 have worked with an improved version of the T-Series? since in the old Defender it was said that the Turbocharged version far outperformed the Rover V8 powered version.
2.3 triumph engine would have been fine in it
Worked on the project. Project was suppose to be LCV3, but due to Budget restrictions, The concept investigations had to be cut back .i.e. the rear tail light system was full LED. The reverse light was a challenge as white LEDs were not available at the time. But Blue LED technology had just arrived and was very expensive. My theory was to use a combination of Red, Green and Blue LEDs (RGB)for White. The concept was initially cancelled but resurrected when the standard Tungsten filament bulbs could not be packaged within the styling concept. As the vehicle was registered to drive on the public road, I believe this to be the first road registered vehicle with Full LED tail lights.
Leave a Reply