The first Defender 130 Hi-Cap (“High-Capacity”) pickup I ever saw in person was in Namibia in 1999, at a camp outside Sossusvlei. I was instantly smitten with the massive, dusty white beast. A Superwinch Husky worm-drive winch (my first in-person look at one of those, too) rode on a stout front bumper, atop which were two Cibie Super Oscar driving lamps. Over the bed arced a tube canopy frame, and the canvas cover was rolled up so the husband and wife owners could unload a shipshape configuration of battered Zarges cases (yet another first in-person look) and Pelicans. From the lot they quickly assembled a spacious, comfortable camp, retrieved beers from the Engel fridge mounted on a frame installed in place of the back seat, and set out chairs to relax. At that moment the 130 Hi-Cap became for me the ne plus ultra of safari vehicles. Its only competition would be an equally awesome and well-sorted Toyota Land Cruiser Troop Carrier I pored over two weeks later.

Flash forward 20 years. I now have my very own Troop Carrier, but a 130 will still turn my head—and in the training area at the 2019 West Expo we had the use of a really nice one, courtesy of the folks at Land Rover Las Vegas, who have supported Expos for a decade. (The LRLV 130, a 2003 model, is a special dealer import and not licensed for street use. Earlier 130s are just now legal for importation under the 25-year exemption.) 

We also had, courtesy Scott Brown at FCA, a brand-new Jeep gladiator pickup, which I had just driven on a media introduction run.

It was an impossible comparison to ignore.

Aside from the identical configuration (four doors plus cargo bed), the two are pretty close in dimensions.

Gladiator

Length: 218”

Width: 74”

Wheelbase: 137”

130 Hi-Cap

Length: 207”

Width: 70”

Wheelbase: 127”

Additionally, they each ride on an increasingly anachronistic separate, fully boxed chassis, and solid front and rear axles supported on coil springs. Even the UK ex-Camel Trophy contingent of our training team agreed that the Gladiator looks the business.

Could it be a worthy successor to the 130?

The 130, of course, has been out of production for four years, and the Gladiator has just entered production. So any comparisons in terms of ergonomics and technology would be unfair to the Defender. Besides that, “our” 2003 130 did not even have the benefit of the latest interior. No matter: I was more interested in the basic integrity of each vehicle, and the potential for the Gladiator to step into the giant shoes of the 130 in terms of its backcountry ability and utility. (I will note here, however, that despite the 130’s traditionally cramped driving position, I found its well-formed bucket seats more comfortable than the Gladiator’s, which are flattened to suit current, more . . . generous . . . body shapes.)

As a firm fan of Jeep’s Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited, I was particularly interested to see what effects the longer wheelbase and chassis had on the Gladiator’s torsional rigidity. So the first thing I did was to take it out to our cross-axle transition hill and get it completely twisted, two diagonal tires stuffed into the wheel wells, a third hanging in the air and the fourth barely in contact with the ground. Then I got out and visually lined up the bed and cab to note the degree of chassis twist.

And . . . there was none. Or, I should say, virtually none. The bed was perhaps a half-inch out of alignment with the cab. On a 137-inch wheelbase, body-on-frame truck, that is beyond impressive. I’d been told that Jeep had not simply lengthened the Wrangler Unlimited’s frame to create the Gladiator but had gone to the expense of engineering a new frame. It showed. Sadly, I never got a chance to put the 130 in the same spot, but I seriously doubt it could have matched that performance. (The 130 chassis has exactly the same dimensions as a 110 chassis except for the 17-inch extension in the middle, and an extra crossmember.)

I found the ride of the two vehicles remarkably close. I’d still give the nod to the Defender for compliance on the road, but the Jeep’s extra tautness lent it better handling, especially in sharp transient maneuvers. How about suspension travel on difficult 4x4 sections? The 130 also had the edge there—that is, until you locked the Gladiator in low range and disconnected the front anti-roll bar, at which point it stepped decisively beyond the Land Rover.

Looking at the rest of each vehicle’s four-wheel-drive capability, there is really no comparison between a “full-time” 4x4 with a locking center diff, no cross-axle diff locks, and a 43:1 crawl ratio, versus a vehicle with part-time four-wheel-drive (and thus an automatically locked transfer case when 4x4 is selected), cross-axle diff locks front and rear, a 77:1 crawl ratio, plus that disconnectible anti-roll bar (the switch for which is still incorrectly and maddeningly labelled “sway bar”). The Rubicon wins this hands down. One could argue that a non-Rubicon Gladiator—that is, minus the anti-roll-bar disconnect, diff locks, and ultra-low crawl ratio, might not be so superior, and that’s a valid point. However, I wanted to compare each in its optimal configuration, and even a last-of-production 130 with electronic traction control would be left behind by the Gladiator in Rubicon form. Easy win to Jeep. 

Approach and departure angles are very similar on both vehicles; however, since the Gladiator is 11 inches longer than the 130, it needs a 10-inch-longer wheelbase to maintain those angles—and that hurts the breakover angle. This was apparent on our “elephant footsteps” track—a diagonally alternating series of deep holes. The Jeep ground out here where the 130 did not, and when I crawled underneath the Gladiator I was stunningly unimpressed with the factory “skid plate” covering the transfer case. It has all the appearance of re-purposed lawn-chair components. I’m sure the aftermarket will address this quickly, but FCA should have done it themselves. So, nod to Land Rover here.

Maneuverability? If you think the Jeep’s 44-foot turning circle feels vaguely ocean-linerish, wait ’til you crank the wheel on the 130, which needs a full 50 feet to complete a 180-degree turn, even with its shorter wheelbase. Win to Jeep.

Visibility out of both vehicles is very good and feels like a wash, although in the critical forward direction few competitors can match the Defender’s squared-off corners, which allow confident placement mere inches from boulders or building corners.

So, how about practicality for long-distance travel—for example cargo space in the bed? The Gladiator’s bed is 60 inches long; the 130’s is five inches longer, and almost 10 inches wider, so there is notably more volume; however, they are both fairly compact—Sleeping in either bed is a no-go unless done diagonally and solo. But the square shapes lend themselves to efficient packing.

It’s when calculating just how much one can pack that a stark difference arises.

The Gladiator has a listed curb weight of 5,050 pounds, and a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,250 pounds, giving it a weight-carrying capacity of 1,200 pounds including driver, passengers, and fluids, plus any of those overlandy accessories you want to add, like a roof tent, winch bumper and winch, etc.

The Defender 130 Hi-Cap has a listed curb weight of 4,750 pounds and a GVWR of 7,450 pounds, for an actual capacity of 2,700 pounds—well over twice that of the Jeep. Even factoring in some hyperbole on the part of Land Rover (I’ve always found their claims for towing ability to be laughable in real-world terms, for example), that’s a remarkable disparity. 

Again, one might point out the non-Rubicon spec Gladiator, which ups the capacity to 1,600 pounds (chiefly because its curb weight is roughly that much lower), but there’s still a big difference, and brings to mind one of my only big reservations about the Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited with its paltry 950-pound payload.

However. Consider the following to be under the heading of I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS; YOU COULD DIE, IT MAY VOID YOUR WARRANTY, AND IT WILL INCREASE THE CHANCES OF A DEVASTATING ASTEROID STRIKE ON OUR PLANET.

Nevertheless . . .

The braking system on the Gladiator is far superior to that on the Defender. The Gladiator’s petrol V6 has significantly more horsepower and torque than the 130’s four-cylinder turbodiesel. The Gladiator’s chassis, as we have seen, is at least as rigid as the 130’s and almost certainly more so. Therefore, if I owned a Gladiator (which I wish I did), and I had no concerns about DYING, VOIDING MY WARRANTY, OR PRECIPITATING A DEVASTATING ASTEROID STRIKE, I would have no hesitation installing an uprated set of rear springs and shocks on it, and calculating a reasonable increase in usable GVWR.

Back to my initial question—with the benefit of hindsight now that I’ve seen and sat in the new Defender.

It’s clear there will be no Land Rover descendant of the 130. The Defender is now an entirely different vehicle—it’s highly unlikely there will be a pickup version at all, much less a quad-cab high-capacity version. That means that whether we agree or not, the Gladiator is the successor to the 130. There is no other quad-cab pickup available in the U.S. with a separate, boxed chassis, front and rear solid axles, and all-coil suspension.

Is it worthy? I say absolutely.