LR3 bashers...

[ducati]

Everyone saying that the Disco wasnt accepted at first is kinda useless in this thread. The Disco came with the exact same driveline as his brothers that went before him . The truck could have been redisigned to drive better on road but they didnt do that. They sacraficed that so that the Disco would be just the same as the rest under the skin.

You're fooling yourself. The reason the disco came with the old Range Rover driveline was purely economic . Lord Rover, after many years of having the corporate coffers raped didn't have the money to design a new platform for their entry into the school-run set.

That of course doesn't change the final result - the Disco ended up a fine offroader.

 

[ducati]

Good points Michael. Everyone hang on to those Series trucks- government regs have effectively destroyed the simple vehicle... From "cleaner engines" to "safely equipment" the modern vehicle is a mess of electronics and wires.

a real issue is the failsafe modes of modern technology. There aren't backups to these systems and when a sensor goes, you're toast.

 

[roland]

Couldn't agree more. Sums up everything written about the LR3 pretty nicely.

Was pretty close to actually placing an order for an LR3 back in November but luckily I've made the right decision to keep my MY03 DII and to buy a year old Volvo S60 T5 as second car instead. Have saved some money and am a very happy camper now! Two great vehicles, each with it's own purpose

Roland

 

[SLloyd]

While the LR3 is certainly not a stump-jumper, I saw one at Uwharrie National Forest and it did rather well. I'm not sure I would feel taking something that cost that much off road, but this one sure as hell went up and over everything that was put in front of it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[njemoore]

Flog that horse!

I'm not trying to drag this out any longer than neccessary, but a couple of points still have me a little confused.

1. Where is the line between an "off road" vehicle and an SUV that can go off-road? If I had to draw the line between those two categories, I guess I would have to choose purpose built off-road vehicles in one category and all street-legal vehicles in another (they ALL have compromises, otherwise they would all come stock with 37 inch mudders, 5-point harnesses, snorkels, and locked diffs x3). We all own vehicles primarily designed to travel on roads. They all have varying abilities off the road, also - differentiating them from cars. It would seem odd to me to draw the line between the Disco and LR3.

2. I see almost universal criticism of the independent suspension that many manufacturers are moving toward. This system is used in some of the most extreme "off road" vehicles conceived. The military H1 (which has considerable on-road capabilites, so maybe it's just an SUV) has independent suspension. More notable, however, is the suspension used on true off-road vehicles like those in the Paris-Dakkar rally and other more 'off-road" oriented competitions. These vehicles are purpose built for off-road performance, and I noticed that all of last year's entries (except the full-size multi-axle truck division) had independent suspension. I'm not sure that an SUV should be considered any less "off-road" oriented just because it has independent suspension.

 

[Kyle]

The IFS trucks you mention were also BUILT with off road in mind. Look at the height and width of them. For an IFS truck to go up and keep everything tucked up it must also go wider. That prevents the CVs from being all bound up non stop.. The LR3 is not in this class and shouldnt be compared to such... Lift it 2" and see what you get.... You would have to lift it 5" to get it in the same ball park with the H1....

 

[Str0ud]

a real issue is the failsafe modes of modern technology. There aren't backups to these systems and when a sensor goes, you're toast.

I think a lot of people are under this impression. If you take the time to comprehend how these system sensors work, there are some very effective ways around failure issues. The computer makes all of its adjustments based off of voltage reading inputs. Knowing the proper resistance for these sensor allows them to be replaced with simple resistors. Learn these values, then head to the local Radio Shack and buy yourself a handful of resistors. Throw them in the glove box and when disaster strikes you are prepared. Most people around here would be shocked at the amount of "stuff" that can be unbolted or temporarily eliminated in order to make it home. That being said I will take the basic D1 over the LR3 wizardry every-time.

 

[Str0ud]

There are some potentiometers that there are no substitute for so throw an extra TPS in the glove box too.

 

[cts]

Black LR3 Uwharrie

Having owned a D2 and now and LR3 and having taken it off road at Uwharrie, they are obviously different vehicles. Given, the Discovery is old school, there are many options for making the discovery even more capable, while the LR3 is lacking. Noting that I did not alter my discovery from stock, the LR3 is much more capable. The people I rode with at Uwharrie were of the opinion the LR3 was more capable than a Disco with 2" lift and lockers. In places I know my D2 would have been grinding on the traction control, the LR3 complained none. I think Land Rover has completed an amazing task, they have made a truck that is more capable than the discovery ever was off road, and they have made it more comfortable than your mom's beemer on the road. I have a truck that can easily take me the 20K miles I travel for work each year and when the day is finished I can go off road with almost any group interested.

 

[Ian95rrc]

I see the issue as being one of building in redundancy. I can carry spare axles and 2 CVs on a trip with my RRC easily. I suppose to that end I could carry 8 for an LR3, but what is the more redundant friendly vehicle? I would invite anyone to argue the point that they can build in as much redundancy into their LR3 as a D1,RRC, etc.

In aviation, aircraft redundancy is directly related to capability. The navy could use single engine aircraft. However, they don't because they have a valid need for the redundancy of 2 engines. Just as a true off-road vehicle needs redundancy to get home from a trail on a consistent basis.

 

[njemoore]

The navy could use single engine aircraft. However, they don't because they have a valid need for the redundancy of 2 engines. Just as a true off-road vehicle needs redundancy to get home from a trail on a consistent basis.

Well, the Navy's about to start using a single engine aircraft again, now that it's argued to be more reliable. Search "Joint Strike Fighter"

 

[noee]

The people I rode with at Uwharrie were of the opinion the LR3 was more capable than a Disco with 2" lift and lockers. In places I know my D2 would have been grinding on the traction control, the LR3 complained none.

Whoa now, Truckstop. Dem's fightin' words. (sorry, been listening to MerleFest all weekend)

Okay, that settles it, I gotta see this thing in action. I've got a D2 in reasonable trim (DL/TT, 33" BFG MTs, 4.11s, 3" lift), anybody in the Western VA area with an HSE wanna meet up somewhere and do some trail runs?

 

[Ian95rrc]

Well, the Navy's about to start using a single engine aircraft again, now that it's argued to be more reliable. Search "Joint Strike Fighter"

Yeah, I suppose it was a bad example.

I don't think the Navy's original logic was flawed though. A lawn dart (f-16) probably wouldn't have made it back from this hit...

Maybe someone like Paul Morgan can explain aircraft redundancy better than me.

My point remains, you cannot easily build in any redundancy to an LR3.

 

[Mike_Rupp]

I'm not trying to drag this out any longer than neccessary, but a couple of points still have me a little confused.

1. Where is the line between an "off road" vehicle and an SUV that can go off-road? If I had to draw the line between those two categories, I guess I would have to choose purpose built off-road vehicles in one category and all street-legal vehicles in another (they ALL have compromises, otherwise they would all come stock with 37 inch mudders, 5-point harnesses, snorkels, and locked diffs x3). We all own vehicles primarily designed to travel on roads. They all have varying abilities off the road, also - differentiating them from cars. It would seem odd to me to draw the line between the Disco and LR3.

2. I see almost universal criticism of the independent suspension that many manufacturers are moving toward. This system is used in some of the most extreme "off road" vehicles conceived. The military H1 (which has considerable on-road capabilites, so maybe it's just an SUV) has independent suspension. More notable, however, is the suspension used on true off-road vehicles like those in the Paris-Dakkar rally and other more 'off-road" oriented competitions. These vehicles are purpose built for off-road performance, and I noticed that all of last year's entries (except the full-size multi-axle truck division) had independent suspension. I'm not sure that an SUV should be considered any less "off-road" oriented just because it has independent suspension.

1. The terrain will draw the line. The stock LR3 is probably a decent off-roader in stock form. But until I see one drive 1,000+ miles, hit the trails in Moab & make it back home in one piece, my opinion of the capability of the LR3 won't be formed. My Disco1 is a relatively mildly modified truck having bumpers, sliders, 2.5" lift, 32" tires and DT/TT. It did most of the trails in Moab with no breakages or body damage to speak of. I just don't think that is possible with the LR3.

2. Using the rally-type vehicles' suspension systems as evidence to prop up the LR3 is laughable. While those suspensions are purpose built for off-road, they are designed for a completely different type of off-roading than I'm ever going to do. Independent suspensions do very well in high speed rally race style situations. My idea of off-roading is very slow, obstacle type off-roading. Independent suspensions just can't compare to the old school solid axle suspensions in terms of performance and simplicity.

 

[roverdawg]

1. The terrain will draw the line. The stock LR3 is probably a decent off-roader in stock form. But until I see one drive 1,000+ miles, hit the trails in Moab & make it back home in one piece, my opinion of the capability of the LR3 won't be formed. My Disco1 is a relatively mildly modified truck having bumpers, sliders, 2.5" lift, 32" tires and DT/TT. It did most of the trails in Moab with no breakages or body damage to speak of. I just don't think that is possible with the LR3.

I see where Land Rover has a Land Rover Adventure scheduled to take place in Moab later this year. They're providing Range Rover Sports for two days of trails. Are these the same trails that you speak of? If they are and the RRS can handle them, the LR3 ought to be able to. Of course, they probably won't let us drive them 1,000 miles back home to qualify for your "test"!

 

[Mike_Rupp]

Are these the same trails that you speak of?

Well, I'm not sure. http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Owners/Drive_Off_Road/Adventures/Moab.htm. This doesn't list which trails they will be driving. I guess I should have been more specific. I want to see a RR or LR3 run Poison Spider Mesa / Golden Spike / Gold Bar Rim.

I plan on going back to Moab once a year or so. Any LR3 owners are welcome to join me the next time I go & we'll see how well the LR3 does.

 

[MarkP]

In all fairness to Land Rover part of the problem is nanny state features and politicians who think they know how to take care of you with regulations. The future of simple low-cost vehicles seems pretty dim to me.

Not sure how the pedestrian is hitting the engine block?

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Industry/Daily_Edition/Daily_Edition_Oct_20_2004.S173.A7675.html
Electronics Will Help Meet New European Pedestrian Standards

Europe is moving forward with new safety standards that will require cars that can protect pedestrians in a crash. About 15 percent of all traffic fatalities involve pedestrians in Europe compared to about 11 percent in the U.S. The first wave of standards aimed at protecting pedestrians will involve changing materials on fenders and hoods to help minimize the injury to pedestrians. However, the next generation of pedestrian protection will be found in European cars starting around 2010, and the makers of automotive electronics are already working on the new technology that will protect pedestrians. Siemens VDO's engineers, for example, are working on a new system that wraps fiber optics around the front of the cars. The system can differentiate between a fire hydrant and a pedestrian and if a pedestrian is involved the system instantaneously raises the hood to catch the pedestrian. Raising the hood can stop the pedestrian from striking the engine block beneath the hood. The secondary collision between pedestrian and the engine block is currently a major source of serious injury in car-pedestrian accidents, Siemens VDO officials noted. - Joe Szczesny

 

[chillywater]

this argument reminds me of what people say on BMW forums about the new 5 and 7 series designed by bangle, people hate them with a passion because they are new and swear up and down that there old BMW's are better because.......um they don't have one. It's the same with the LR3, lots of people with DI's and DII's argue that LR3's are useless and all that, and most (not all) people are probly saying that because they don't have one.

I have trouble figuring out why people think cars get worse when new models come out....how do you not understand that every new car is improved. Name one vehicle that has down graded and become worse in a newer model then i'll listen, but till then bone stock the LR3 is the best discovery offered....Leap years ahead of the DI

 

[noee]

Name one vehicle that has down graded and become worse in a newer model then i'll listen...

Okay, here's one. Nissan or Datsun 280ZX. THis was the replacement to the good old 280Z. We had a 280Z 2+2, in fact, I learned to drive on that car. Great car, great engine, small, but solid. Then came the ZX. What a load of bling shit that car was.

That was too easy, there are tons of examples.

...Leap years ahead of the DI

Hmmm. That's an interesting choice of words...

 

[chillywater]

haha you know i meant light years