Land Rover Engineer Requires Info
- Thread starter ORC1
- Start date
Loz,
Most of the comments you see here reflect the frustration that many loyal LR customers have with the last 10 years or so of LR's development direction.
But realising that you cannot reverse a decade of investment in the technologies LR has already developed, I'd suggest the following incremental changes for the next D4/LR4. This is based on my own problems with using the D3/LR3 off-road and comparisons with other brands in the same environments. As a passing comment, much as I wished to believe it when I first purchased a D3, I think the statement that the new LRs in std form "wipes the floor" with all other brands (in an off-road sense) is a little self-delusional.
1. Tyre size. As mentioned, the options available are extremely limiting. In soft sand, the std car simply sinks like a stone, and struggles where Prados and Jeeps fly past. If fitted with (oversize) 32" tyres (on the 17" rim which is seemingly only available on the diesels and V6s) it performs much better, and can keep up with other std brands on their 32 ~ 33" tyres. But to be truely class-leading, it needs to be available with something like 285/70/17, which are optional from the Toyota dealers here in Oz, simply because of their flotation characteristics. This is especially needed on such a heavy vehicle as the D3.
2. Suspension. I actually like the air suspension. It is nothing like the older systems in the D2/P38, and I've even found the access height useful off-road on side inclines under tree branches. However, there are still improvements that could be made. The limiting speed for the off-road height is far too low at 40kph. On long desert tracks, I cannot keep up with the rest of a convoy, who generally travel at 60kph. The crazy notion that the car should return to access height whenever a fault is triggered - if the air-bags are intact, keep the car at whatever height it was set at. It took me the better part of 2 hrs to winch myself off a muddy hill after the car had dropped to access height, simply because a connector (in front of the air compressor) had come loose. And because of the long wheel-base, I'd have off-road height set at the extended height profile, and the extended height set to the emergency height profile, making all of them user-selectable (perhaps with a lower speed/time limit on the last one), as well as auto-selected.
3. Drive-train. If LR sticks to the independent suspension set-up (which actually works well, if a little limiting for after-market mods), maybe they should consider replacing the CVs with new technologies, such as the Thompson Coupling. This would also help with reducing loads when the suspension is raised. Being able to manually lock the diffs (all three of them) would be benificial, allowing a pro-active responce to extreme terrains. I like the auto box, it seems to work well on and off-road, but maybe a lower 1st gear.
4. Engines. More torque. The chipping industry are getting 540Nm from the TDV6, and similar from the V8s. The TDV8 should be around 750.
5. Field repair. Standardise the OBC codes. Allow emergency access to the reset functions via laptop for fault codes generated in remote locations. When the choice is death from dehydration/starvation/flooding or possibly damaging my nice new LR, I know which option I (and LR's lawyers) would prefer. Add a bypass to the air valve block for emergency reset of the suspension.
6. Body. Increase front/rear departure angles. This means ditching a lot of the surperfluous plastic bits, and mounting the intercooler higher up. A better tow-bar design. An optional "heavy duty" pack incorporating rear tyre mount, long-range tank and under-body protection. Pretty easy to do, and more applicable than the 10 different roof-rack solutions LR pushes. Oh, and a clock you can actually read when you have sunglasses on!
That'd do for now.
Cheers,
Gordon
Most of the comments you see here reflect the frustration that many loyal LR customers have with the last 10 years or so of LR's development direction.
But realising that you cannot reverse a decade of investment in the technologies LR has already developed, I'd suggest the following incremental changes for the next D4/LR4. This is based on my own problems with using the D3/LR3 off-road and comparisons with other brands in the same environments. As a passing comment, much as I wished to believe it when I first purchased a D3, I think the statement that the new LRs in std form "wipes the floor" with all other brands (in an off-road sense) is a little self-delusional.
1. Tyre size. As mentioned, the options available are extremely limiting. In soft sand, the std car simply sinks like a stone, and struggles where Prados and Jeeps fly past. If fitted with (oversize) 32" tyres (on the 17" rim which is seemingly only available on the diesels and V6s) it performs much better, and can keep up with other std brands on their 32 ~ 33" tyres. But to be truely class-leading, it needs to be available with something like 285/70/17, which are optional from the Toyota dealers here in Oz, simply because of their flotation characteristics. This is especially needed on such a heavy vehicle as the D3.
2. Suspension. I actually like the air suspension. It is nothing like the older systems in the D2/P38, and I've even found the access height useful off-road on side inclines under tree branches. However, there are still improvements that could be made. The limiting speed for the off-road height is far too low at 40kph. On long desert tracks, I cannot keep up with the rest of a convoy, who generally travel at 60kph. The crazy notion that the car should return to access height whenever a fault is triggered - if the air-bags are intact, keep the car at whatever height it was set at. It took me the better part of 2 hrs to winch myself off a muddy hill after the car had dropped to access height, simply because a connector (in front of the air compressor) had come loose. And because of the long wheel-base, I'd have off-road height set at the extended height profile, and the extended height set to the emergency height profile, making all of them user-selectable (perhaps with a lower speed/time limit on the last one), as well as auto-selected.
3. Drive-train. If LR sticks to the independent suspension set-up (which actually works well, if a little limiting for after-market mods), maybe they should consider replacing the CVs with new technologies, such as the Thompson Coupling. This would also help with reducing loads when the suspension is raised. Being able to manually lock the diffs (all three of them) would be benificial, allowing a pro-active responce to extreme terrains. I like the auto box, it seems to work well on and off-road, but maybe a lower 1st gear.
4. Engines. More torque. The chipping industry are getting 540Nm from the TDV6, and similar from the V8s. The TDV8 should be around 750.
5. Field repair. Standardise the OBC codes. Allow emergency access to the reset functions via laptop for fault codes generated in remote locations. When the choice is death from dehydration/starvation/flooding or possibly damaging my nice new LR, I know which option I (and LR's lawyers) would prefer. Add a bypass to the air valve block for emergency reset of the suspension.
6. Body. Increase front/rear departure angles. This means ditching a lot of the surperfluous plastic bits, and mounting the intercooler higher up. A better tow-bar design. An optional "heavy duty" pack incorporating rear tyre mount, long-range tank and under-body protection. Pretty easy to do, and more applicable than the 10 different roof-rack solutions LR pushes. Oh, and a clock you can actually read when you have sunglasses on!
That'd do for now.
Cheers,
Gordon
Last edited:
I agree with all the above 
Make vehicles with less gimmickry.
Diesels in America.
I don't mind independent suspension, but offer coil springs or simpified EAS options.
Defender in America.
Don't aim for the cross-over/mini SUV crowd. Aim for the off-road crowd.
Mechanical Lockers; front, center and rear.
De-yuppyfi the dealers. Get them beliving in the product they sell and get them to understand the history and capabilities of the trucks.
Parts! Not only are Series parts no longer available, RRC, P38 and D1 parts are not available unless it happens to fit a newer truck. Freelander motors are already hard to source and I don't think it's 5 years since they started making them.
Galvanizing and rust proofing. Coming from a country with so much rain, I can't believe how fast these trucks rust! (Also can't understand how the older HVAC systems could be so poor coming from a cold country, but that's more likely cost cutting moves from various owners)
Make vehicles with less gimmickry.
Diesels in America.
I don't mind independent suspension, but offer coil springs or simpified EAS options.
Defender in America.
Don't aim for the cross-over/mini SUV crowd. Aim for the off-road crowd.
Mechanical Lockers; front, center and rear.
De-yuppyfi the dealers. Get them beliving in the product they sell and get them to understand the history and capabilities of the trucks.
Parts! Not only are Series parts no longer available, RRC, P38 and D1 parts are not available unless it happens to fit a newer truck. Freelander motors are already hard to source and I don't think it's 5 years since they started making them.
Galvanizing and rust proofing. Coming from a country with so much rain, I can't believe how fast these trucks rust! (Also can't understand how the older HVAC systems could be so poor coming from a cold country, but that's more likely cost cutting moves from various owners)
I have a feeling this guy is going to dismiss most of your inputs. He came in here asking, "What trouble have you had when wheeling a stock newer model Rover? What was the circumstance that caused your issue?" etc, and the replies have been a laundry list of what we'd like to see on new Rovers imported to the states.
Our replies aren't relevant to the question, and are most likely being dismissed. I think we can kiss the idea of a simple basic Land Rover like most of us would like to see goodbye.
-JP
Our replies aren't relevant to the question, and are most likely being dismissed. I think we can kiss the idea of a simple basic Land Rover like most of us would like to see goodbye.
-JP
In that respect, the Freelander and LR2 would benefit from a low range. Its annoying that at every rock ledge you have to floor it and bash over top of it. They can still get through most of the time, but there are times where more finesse is required. At the price these cars are being sold it should be a no brainer to include it. Even a POS tracker has a transfer case. Big bling wheels on the LR2 and 3 are a hindrance too. There are very few low profile DOT approved tires in the US that are made for going off the pavement. Good rubber underneath a truck is probably the most important aspect to offroad prowess.deadbeat son said:
Bring me a stripped Defender with a diesel and stock lockers and I will pick it up tomorrow. I would gladly pay $25,000 for a base model. More if you can justify it.
Based on the original question, I would say that the Range Rover is without a peer. Out of the box, this vehicle still stands head and shoulders above anything out there, and LR would not even be in existence still without it. Reliability needs to take more of a priority. Solid axles, and maybe different tire options when bought new.
As far as the other models in the line up, the LR3 needs some re-tooling in the design category. It doesn't lend itself well to modification, which was a hallmark of the previous design. That being said, it is still very capable out of the box on mild to moderate terrain.
The Range Rover Sport is very cool, but really has no Land Rover identity. Yes, it is also a capable vehicle off-road on mild trails.
My 2cents; Land Rover needs to find it's off-pavement identity again in the US, unfortunately, that's not where the money is.
Did I mention the LR2, no, i didn't.
As far as the other models in the line up, the LR3 needs some re-tooling in the design category. It doesn't lend itself well to modification, which was a hallmark of the previous design. That being said, it is still very capable out of the box on mild to moderate terrain.
The Range Rover Sport is very cool, but really has no Land Rover identity. Yes, it is also a capable vehicle off-road on mild trails.
My 2cents; Land Rover needs to find it's off-pavement identity again in the US, unfortunately, that's not where the money is.
Did I mention the LR2, no, i didn't.
Entry level Defender that aftermarket companies could build parts for. Similar to what Toyota did for the FJ and the after market support they got. Diesel option. As much as I hate to say it look at what Jeep did with the wrangler 2dr and 4dr.
Thanks for asking
Thanks for asking
If LandRover gives me an offer for a brand new D1, D2 or a DIII to choose from, and all three at the same price, I will still jump for the D1.
It is nice to know LandRover is capable of creating the DIII, bundling so much tech. stuff into it, but the direction of the DIII is just following any other manufacturer's SUV direction(SUV with most usage on road).
Why I like the D1, because it is simple, a ladder frame structure, with all the goodies of a modern cars (even it was created in the 80's).
It is nice to know LandRover is capable of creating the DIII, bundling so much tech. stuff into it, but the direction of the DIII is just following any other manufacturer's SUV direction(SUV with most usage on road).
Why I like the D1, because it is simple, a ladder frame structure, with all the goodies of a modern cars (even it was created in the 80's).
lucasd2002 said:
Hi David
Thanks for that mate. You're right about the technology but in a vehicle like Range Rover the customers expect luxury and off road capability, although the average RR driver doesn't venture far off the tarmac, there is a percentage that do and these are the people we have to satisfy aswell. It's a case of excess ownership, similar to owning a Rolex that's tested to 200m, we all know we aren't going to ever go to such a depth but it a reasurring thought knowing that if you drop it in the sink it will be OK.
There are some great comments here and I'm pleased to hear from all the LR fans in the US, and I wish we could sell Defenders over there but it's impossible at the moment without a complete vehicle redesign.
Cheers
Loz
As has been said:
Bring back the D90/110 and if your in a really good mood, the D130 with a hicap bed. You have no idea how many of those you would sell in the west.
And put the TDV8 at least as and option.
I bought a Expedition EB for the wife. I would have paid $15K more to put her into a D110 TDV8.
Next.....
Bring back the D90/110 and if your in a really good mood, the D130 with a hicap bed. You have no idea how many of those you would sell in the west.
And put the TDV8 at least as and option.
I bought a Expedition EB for the wife. I would have paid $15K more to put her into a D110 TDV8.
Next.....
ORC1 said:
But does it help upper management? There was a saying from the early 1970's to the effect that "Rover goes on despite upper management." Rarely - as in never - has there been a company that has made as many bone-headed decisions as Rover, yet somehow, miraculously even, the marque managed to survive. Rover could have *owned* the US market if they had bothered to bring in the Range Rover in the early 1970's. And what was up with the decision in mid-'74 just to say goodbye to the US entirely? Hell, the dealers didn't even know it was coming...suddenly parts and whatnot were simply unavailable. This was so stupid that when the words "British Leyland" are mentioned, most people spit on the ground....
Case in point: a decade or so ago, several of the chaps at LRNA has a novel idea. Create a "mothership-satellite" form of dealership network. A large dealership in a central city, with smaller, service-oriented shops in smaller markets. These smaller units would have a few vehicles on the lot for sale, but would primarily be about vehicle service. These heretics were exiled to the outermost reaches of the realm....
I hope that some of the comments made here will make it up the corporate food chain, but I seriously doubt it.
Cheers
ORC1 said:
I don't believe that this discussion is about Range Rovers. I agree Loz, the RR is a different market segment with Rolex expectations. Fine, but LR will not be financially viable selling only RR's or RRS's. Neither will it be successful with LR2's. This discussion, and the future of LR, is focused on the Discovery III and Defender II.
Here is a question for LR/Loz. Do you believe the Discovery III/LR3 was a successful product strategy? Looking at unit sales the conclusion would be no. Reading through the comments highlights why the product is selling at roughly half of the DII, at least here in NA.
I ask because it feels like LR is leaving both the off road and home agricultural markets in the pursuit of the high end or technology loaded market segments. If you believe LR can be the Jaguar of off road then also realize that sales volumes will be closer to Jaguar than to previous LR product generations.
deadbeat son said:
I sure lost sight of that.
On the last dealer sponsored off road event that Land Rover Peabody put together along with the BSROA (Bay State Rover Owners Assc.) we had a really good mix of the newer vehicles and I did notice some things.
RR and RRSport: Plastic bits runners and things that hang down from the bumpers and side skirts get scraped or broken off road. One lady was rather unhappy about a side skirt with a long scrape in it after the event. Another truck somehow had a temperature sensor or something hanging down on a wire from behind the front license plate.
Factory front and rear REAL recovery points aren't really available or you might harm the plastic or vehicle using them. They don't have to be ugly either, hide them behind a removable panel or something.
Big rims and low profile rubber = scratched rims with very mild off road. Also airing these low profile tires down gets you quick rim damage or unseated beads. More side wall on the tires and maybe even central air available would be pretty nice.
People didn't understand the operation of the controls. How about some sort of quick reference card instead of the daunting big owners manual for commonly used functions for off road?
Positive stuff I noticed:
ABS/TC is much improved on newer models. Had one obstacle that puts a tire in the air going up a little hill. DII's had a lot of wheel spin before TC did its job. Everything including the freelander seemed to have less wheel spin than the DII's.
Everyone that came in learned something about the vehicle they were driving and they were generally very happy and impressed with it.
The advice/ suggestions / personal accounts / requests that you get here I don't think represent much of te market you are targeting. Look at your own Defender platform (as has been beaten to death here already and many other places) Jeep Wrangler, MB G500, Toyota FJ Cruiser, and even the RRC for inspiration. The newer Land Rovers will fall out of favor with the enthusiast crowd due to complexity and expense. And trust us, as newer models become legal for import, we will do it ourselves, and bypass the domestic market entirely to get what we want. It still amazes me that you guys dont seem to get it. How can you not know what we want? Diesel engines. Where the heck are they? Solid axles, you know darn well you new Rovers can't keep alignment settings so save their life. There are many other things, but what bug me to no end: HOW ABOUT A FUCKING TRANSMISSION DIPSTICK?????
Loz, thank you for asking. I will keep my responce simple and to the point of the original question. Land Rover does need to keep some high end models, exclusivity and prestige are important.
By asking this board the question you asked re-instills my faith in the brand. While "bling" is important, there is a large market segment that could benifit from off road capability (real capability).
I would sugest a range of vehicle offerings, the high end ones with the ETC, and more basic "work horse" vehicles. These need to be the ones that will go anywhere, and GET YOU HOME AGAIN! Field servicability is a huge factor. If you will remember the Series Rovers could make it home with a blown head gasket by shoving saw grass in the cracks. To this end, the "expedition" vehicles will add to the brand image also. So, how do you make those?
1. An actual frame, this is the biggest benifit to the Defender, Disco and RR models.
2. Solid axles with very good articulation.
3. Selectable lockers at EVERY dif.
4. Stout and powerful engines based on long standing design with proven reliability.
5. As little electronic crap as possible.
6. Hell, why not even offer an option of millitary grade canvas seats?
7. Lots of factory options, bumpers, sliders, winches, Engels, basically anything that a driver on this board would put on their truck. You could even partner with Equipe, or RTE, etc. for design and supply of said items.
Basically, you need to produce a coil sprung Series IIA with the required modern attributes...
actually, I guess that would be a Defender.
By asking this board the question you asked re-instills my faith in the brand. While "bling" is important, there is a large market segment that could benifit from off road capability (real capability).
I would sugest a range of vehicle offerings, the high end ones with the ETC, and more basic "work horse" vehicles. These need to be the ones that will go anywhere, and GET YOU HOME AGAIN! Field servicability is a huge factor. If you will remember the Series Rovers could make it home with a blown head gasket by shoving saw grass in the cracks. To this end, the "expedition" vehicles will add to the brand image also. So, how do you make those?
1. An actual frame, this is the biggest benifit to the Defender, Disco and RR models.
2. Solid axles with very good articulation.
3. Selectable lockers at EVERY dif.
4. Stout and powerful engines based on long standing design with proven reliability.
5. As little electronic crap as possible.
6. Hell, why not even offer an option of millitary grade canvas seats?
7. Lots of factory options, bumpers, sliders, winches, Engels, basically anything that a driver on this board would put on their truck. You could even partner with Equipe, or RTE, etc. for design and supply of said items.
Basically, you need to produce a coil sprung Series IIA with the required modern attributes...
actually, I guess that would be a Defender.
Are you guys sure you're not being had?
What "study" would this guy being doing? What info would Land Rover really want from you guys, really?
What "study" would this guy being doing? What info would Land Rover really want from you guys, really?
Matt, of course!
But that doesn't preclude millions of children from writing letters that start with
"Dear Santa, ..."
But that doesn't preclude millions of children from writing letters that start with
"Dear Santa, ..."