What is technology for?

Newer is better, right? I mean, things always improve. That’s what the march of technology is about, isn’t it? Actually, no. new technology can be introduced for any number of reasons. For example, because it’s cheaper to make. At the design stage, simplify it as far as possible. Use fewer parts and fewer fasteners; make the parts smaller, lighter and cheaper, even if they wear out faster. Automate everything as far as possible. More people will be able to afford it, even if they do have to throw it away after a few years and buy a new one. When they do buy a new one, they’ll have the illusion of affluence. But it is likely to be only an illusion, because they are caught on an endless treadmill of replacement.

There are of course good reasons for new technology. Fuel consumption is one of the most obvious. A modern Land Rover uses something between a half and a third as much fuel as the old Series petrol engines. On the other hand, there must be a point where if you don’t drive very far – if you use your Land Rover mainly on the farm, for example – the savings in fuel consumption must be outweighed by depreciation and the cost of parts and servicing. A smallholder who does his own servicing and repairs would probably find a Series very economical indeed: far cheaper than a modern alternative.

The new technology may be more convenient, though it is not always clear that this is a good thing. An old-fashioned choke is a lot less convenient than a modern electronic engine management system, but it’s also a lot simpler and easier to repair. When it goes wrong, the electronic engine management is much less convenient. Similar considerations apply to the ‘progress’ from sliding windows to wind-up windows to electric windows.

Another disputable advantage is ease of use. A skilled driver in a Series can traverse more difficult terrain than an unskilled driver with the latest in traction control, ride height adjustment and so forth.

Then there are statutory considerations. Emission controls are the most obvious example. Without doubt, lower emissions are desirable and constitute an improvement. Such new technologies are however for the benefit of society at large, rather for individual motorists: a catalytic converter is a horribly expensive piece of technology, and not all that long-lived. Many safety features are much the same.

Glitz is another consideration again. Without doubt, door mirrors are much more useful and comprehensive than wing mirrors. Folding door mirrors offer a slight advantage over the non-folding variety, but how much real advantage is there with tech-packed door mirrors. You know, the sort that fold up like a beetle’s wings when you turn off the engine? Does it need doing at all, and if it does, how much trouble is it to do it manually?

Likewise central (let alone remote) locking. Robert Benchley is reputed to have said of the invention of the ballpoint pen: “Ah, yes. When I think of those freezing nights when we had to trudge down to the well to fill the fountain pen...”

Finally, there’s evolution versus planned obsolescence. After many false dusks (the opposite of a false dawn) it looks as if the Land Rover is finally doomed. The real Land Rover, that is, the Defender that traces its ancestry back to 1948 and still looks like a Land Rover.

It evolved for well over 60 years, and often parts were interchangeable across decades. Not only did this make it easy to get original parts: it also provided a strong incentive for third parties to make replacement parts, from headlights to chassis. It is not, however, easy to imagine many third parties wanting to make the complicated, expensive mouldings that are today’s light clusters.

There have been a lot of worthwhile changes in automotive design since 1948, and although many of them have been incorporated in Series II, Series III and Defenders, even I am prepared to admit that it may make sense to design and manufacture a completely new vehicle.

All that worries me is that the Defender replacement is just going to be another generic motor car; as, indeed, the current Range Rover has become. It will no longer be an automotive Meccano set. It will not be possible to transplant engines across the generations. It will not, despite the Green Oval, really be a Land Rover.

“After many false dawns it looks as if the Land Rover – the real Land Rover, that is – is finally doomed”