Car and Driver 10 Best Issue - 10 Bes... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

DiscoWeb Bulletin Board » Message Archives » 2002 Archives - Technical » Discovery » Car and Driver 10 Best Issue - 10 Best SUVs « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
 

Rans (Rans)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 08:22 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Anyone see the article in the January '03 Car and Driver where they ranked the '03 Disco second to last? They said it was slow, worst acceleration and worst gas mileage of the lot, but when they took them all off-road, the disco had to tow all the others out of the muck! HAHA... I loved that part. One of the testers said "It grows on you like a wart." I'm not sure if thats a compliment or an insult!
 

Tripp Westbrook (Tripp)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 09:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Just read it yesterday.

It's funny, because you could tell that a visceral part of the testers loved it. Unfortunately, it had to match the other "trucks" in terms of leather sq. footage, cup holders, navigation systems, soccer mom appeal, etc. etc.

The Disco is what it is. You either buy into that or you don't.
 

muskyman
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 09:53 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
car and driver has always been full of shit when it comes to 4wd.

its like 4wheel and offroad testing sports cars.

car adriver has very little basis to make judgments because they come from a cars are better view point.I remember when they said the lockers in a landcruiser where just toys that served no real porpose?

the catagories they choose always seam like they are making fun of them instead of truley trying to sort out what does what.
 

Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 09:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Car and Driver is full of it and not just with 4wd. Land Rover, or anyone else for that matter, will never win car of the year unless they build a US plant and buy a few two page ads on each issue.
 

Rans (Rans)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 10:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I agree Musky. I love C&D as a car magazine, but the first thing I noticed in their comparo is that they are using "CAR" criteria to test 4X4. WTF cares if a 4X4 accelerates to 60 in 10.1 or 8.4 seconds? Or if it can achieve 90 on the skid pad vs just 82? WTF cares what kind of slolum speed it can achieve? Neither off-roaders nor soccer moms care!! Funny thing is that back in '99 they absolutly praised the D2 as the 2nd coming....Regardless, it's fun to see how it's perceived. As I was reading the whole thing I thought that they have no idea of the size of the LR off-roading community. I think if one of the editors spent a few days in here he would be amazed!
 

muskyman
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 10:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Quote:

Car and Driver is full of it and not just with 4wd. Land Rover, or anyone else for that matter, will never win car of the year unless they build a US plant and buy a few two page ads on each issue.



yep this is the problems with magazine based reviews in general


rans, I'm with you how about towing,pulling a boat out of a steep landing, putting a 200lb person in every seat and going to lunch,loading it up with 1000lbs of baged potting soil and then driving it? there are so many things they could do with a little creative thought that would really sort them out. but instead they just run them thru the car test and tell you the best car of the bunch, and lets face it the best car of the bunch is most likely the worst suv to anybody who needs a real suv.

so maybe the rover really one?

see how I didnt mention "offroad"? lets face it its still 1% that goes offroad so we shouldent expect them to test them there:)
 

Rans (Rans)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 10:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
1% of Rover owners go offroad? or 1% of SUV owners go offroad? I agree on the latter, not on the former. I think there are some interesting and legitimate reasons people buy SUVs and are not "greenlaning". (I asked the soccer mom across the aisle at work why she bought a Sequoia)
1) Snow Rain 4wd security.
2) People capacity.
3) Shopping for big stuff capacity.
4) Seeing around other SUVs on the highway.
5) Get away from the stigma of a minivan.
6) Safer on highway when competing with 18wheelers
7) Safer when competing with deer.

Now none of these are the main reason we own Land Rovers, but I'll bet more than a few apply to us all.

So Peterson Publishing should come out with a new monthly magazine called "SUV and Driver" where the editors are NOT car people. I bet their comparos would be alot more interesting!! Hmmmm I think I sense a letter to the editor coming.
 

Chu
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 10:53 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
When I first saw that article, I thought it was a success for Land Rover. Normally, they come in last! But, they actually beat someone this time. WOO HOO! :)
 

L_Tilly
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 11:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Ok, I have to ask...who actually lost to the Rover?

Lawrence
 

Chu
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 11:25 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
It was either the GMC or Chevy version of that Trailblazer. That's pretty embarassing, losing to a rover on c&d. hehe.
 

muskyman
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 11:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I have a friend that drives the brand new tahoe and his wife a brand new trailblazer

on the street both are really nice trucks and if all you want is a street SUV I would say they are a pretty nice vehicle.much nicer then anything GM has made in the past.

but put a H2 body on it and call it offroad bad ass and everyone knows what I think:}
 

Chu
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 11:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
You know, those H2s are popping up everywhere. People cry foul about the bad economy, but they'll sure fork over the big bucks for a big, expensive SUV. Maybe this will be the savior to our recession? :)
 

L_Tilly
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 11:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I saw an H2 pulling into WallyWorld a couple nights ago. She had to back out, realign and pull in again about four times to get into a fairly normal sized parking spot. I was pulling into a slightly tighter spot two lanes over and just zipped right in. I couldn't imagine driving something that wide and unwieldy on the narrow woodland trails we hit here in the NE.

Lawrence [email protected]
96 Disco - Beowulf - NH, USA
 

Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Lawrence... I agree about the size issue but taking multiple attempts at getting into a parking space is just an indication of not knowing your own vehicle. And that opens another can of worms.
 

Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
FWIW, about the only "car" magazine I'll read these days is Automobile. While they still rate SUVs based on car standards they seem to have some understanding what a Land Rover is and have writen some articles on the Defender showing a soft spot for such vehicles.
 

Steve (Steve2)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
most american car magazines are advertising whores. they never really want to piss of the advertisers. the only mags with balls are the british ones.

i know for a fact that in 1986 motor trend changed testing criteria in mid-test so the rx7 would win over then audi 5000 turbo quattro when motor trend found out that audi would not give them a fleet of cars to flog for a year, when mazda had not problem doing so..

steve
 

Andy
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
The C+D report rated the following from 8 to 1;
8. GMC Envoy slt
7. LR Discovery SE
5.(tie) Lincoln Aviator
5.(tie) Volvo xc90 T6
4. Bmw x5 3.0i
3. Acura MDX
2. Lexus 470
1. VW touareg

C&D has always said they like cars better and trucks are silly. I believe Peterson Publications publishs a 4 wheel drive magazine. Funny thing is the Vw that won has auto and manual rear and center locking diffs and 11.8" of ground clearence with the suspension at full height. Hate to say this, but if arb comes out with touareg winch fnt bumper, I would probably think about the vw.

Andy
 

Dave M.
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
"The Disco is what it is. You either buy into that or you don't."

Which is basically what C&D said. They were crystal clear that this truck rules as an off roader, but that it has it's faults when compared from a "car" perspective to other luxury SUV's in it's price range.

I say it a lot. I LOVE Rovers, and want one very badly, but they are NOT for everyone.

I don't think this was news to anyoen who knows and loves Rovers, it's just the way it is.

Thus.... The Disco is what it is. You either buy into that or you don't.

:-)
 

Dave M.
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
On the VW Touareg...

You are right Andy. The 4 wheel drive systems on the Touareg are remarkably similar to those on the new Range Rover. Multiple locking, adjustable diffs, hill-decent, auto disconnecting sway bars, high-tech traction controls and abs, etc. So it can certainly hold it's own off-road.

It's an incredible effort from VW/Porsche.
 

Rans (Rans)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 01:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Is the Turareg built on the same platform and componentry as the new Porsche whatevertheycallit 4x4?
 

Daniel Covaciu (Danielcovaciu)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 01:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Yes, VW Touareg an Porsche Cayanne? are on same platform.
 

James F. Thompson Jaime (Blueboy)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 01:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
"It�s important to note that this was a joint effort teaming both Volkswagen and Porsche. The latter automaker will offer its own version under the Cayenne nameplate. The two companies spent nearly five years developing these vehicles, but during the last two, they worked largely on their own, dialing in the subtle but distinctive attributes that they hope will make the Cayenne a true Porsche, and the Touareg a true VW."

"From the point where the companies had their first running prototypes, for example, test drives were handled separately. Though critical elements of the suspension are shared between Touareg and Cayenne, settings and minor components, such as bushings, were left up to the individual automakers.

The partners even took a fundamentally different approach to the way power is distributed by the full-time all-wheel-drive system. Under normal conditions, the Touareg splits power 50/50 between the front and rear acles. Reflecting the way products such as the rear engine 911 sports car operates, Cayenne normally sends 32 percent of its torque to the front wheels, the rest to the rear. Even the climate control systems are programmed differently, though they use identical hardware."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5389
 

Dave M.
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 01:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Yes, same platform as the Porsche Ceyanne (sp?) but it is modified quite a bit. The Porsche is heavily on-road biased, where as the Turareg is beefed up for serious off-road ability.
 

andy
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 01:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
What also interesting with the vw is it suppose to cost 45K really loaded. The thing I question is what about durablity. The vw, volvo, acura, bmw, lexus are probably better than the rover at build quality, or at least relibility, but I wonder which would be best for long term off road use. C&D said about the discovery "Better suited for the Gobi desert than to Greenwich Connecticut" This statement is very true, typical US use for the Disco means there are better choices than a Rover. I think everyone on this board likes or loves Rovers for the fact it is more suited for the Gobi. Its all about that marketing nitch. Also all Porshe Cayenne's (the suv) will be made for the us market only. Shows what that we americans love our trucks, even if its to be a poser. At least rover builds trucks with no excuses, its made for offroad, if you buy it do whatever you want with it, but don't be suprised it's not an Acura MDX.
Andy
 

Dave M.
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 02:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
well said Andy
 

Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 02:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
"At least rover builds trucks with no excuses, its made for offroad,..."

"Have you driven a Rover lately?" Sure the D2 is capable off road. And being an owner of a D2 I will add that it's capable off road WITH the CDL. Sure there are issues with angles and such but it's better than most offerings out there in many areas but not all. I'm not knocking Land Rovers, I own one and I love them. But I'm also not blind. There are only two others SUV's in the US that I feel are better in many ways and they're the Jeep Rubicon (TJ) and the G500. Sure each also has it's weaknesses and the D2 falls well in the middle of the two in both size and price. But here in the good ol' USA Land Rover is offering vehicles not much different than the MDX and VW in terms of capability and off road use. We don't have the Defender and the D2 still lacks the CDL (and not even a CDL nipple on the 2003!). So I think all the Rovers that I see when I go to Greenwich CT are very well suited. And FWIW, I've been seeing fewer and fewer Land Rovers in Greenwich but there still seems to be a bunch of RRC's and G500's there.
 

James F. Thompson Jaime (Blueboy)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 02:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
andy,

from all the literature received from Porsche on the Cayenne, it mentioned that the US will be the largest market for the vehicle. pretty sure it will be sold in other countries as well. somehow I am on their mailing list. must admit, the stuff they've been sending is pretty cool.

Jaime
 

andy
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 02:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Thanks,
I reread the article over lunch, I thought this quote was good. They were discribing the Lexus gx 470's offroad ability, "It also clambered over hill and dale with the tread-lightly grace of a rover."
 

Fromage
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 02:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I came across 2 cayenne on reliability testing (driven by 2 guys with a strong german accent) while traveling to the Great Sand Dunes, CO (aka middle of nowhere) a couple weeks ago. Really cool car! I'd be scared to scratch it, though!

I was chasing buffalos with my DiscoI on the side of the road!

I have pictures but can't figure out how to post'em!
 

R. B. Bailey (Rover50987)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 02:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Someone said something about a statistic that showed only 1% of Rover owners going off-road. But, I believe Rover did a survey back in the '80's that showed that some 40+% of owners take their's off-road - that would make almost all of these so called SUV tests completely irrelevant for almost half of the owners, because they really do test them like they test cars. Look at MudFest! Or Consumer Reports!

http://landrover.mrbaileyshistory.net
 

muskyman
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 03:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Jeep did a study that proved to them that hosting the Jamborees would increase repeat sales do to the fact once people go off road they will more then likely buy another jeep. they as I recall where targeting getting 5% of there new buyers to go to a jamboree.

40% would seam way to high... even for rovers but then i have been wrong before
 

Geoff Wakefield (Geoff)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 03:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I read the article and I like C&D too, but agree with the other guys that the magazine is unabashedly anti-SUV. They just can't wait for the "craze" to end.

Of course there are reasons to buy SUVs other than making a "lifestyle" statement, such as 10 year durability, slow-to-age styling, good resale, and plain practical useability/versatility. In my opinion, the closer to traditional body on frame design, the better the product meets these requirements.

C&D glosses over such ridiculous considerations in favor of station wagons that can do more practical things such as go from 0-60 in 6 secs and do 150 mph. But hey 17 mpg city is ok if they can do that, right?
 

R. B. Bailey (Rover50987)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 03:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Ya, 40 does seem high, I will confirm my numbers when I get home and read it again in one of my books...

http://landrover.mrbaileyshistory.net
 

Dave M.
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 04:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I've read those numbers before and if I remember correctly, the SUV average is 2 ro 3% but both Jeep and Rover figure thiers to be in the high teens, low twenties.

I'll try to dig up a source, but that's how I remember it and it seems reasonable.
 

Andy
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 04:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Al-
You got me on the CDL thing. If LR thought they had a serious enough offroad market in the US I am sure they would put one on the disco, or at least as an option. I heard they removed it because to many people screwed up the center diff because they didn't know what to do with it. My thought is a discovery is more useful as an offroader than say the MDX or X5. True the rubicon would be superior comparing stock trucks, but the rubicon isn't marketed to the same crowd. Dwebers seem to think that the rubicon is a direct sales challenge to the discovery or H2. My thought is it isn't marketed either crowd, its like the defender was, makes you come down the showroom, but not really the real money maker for the dealer. That said the discovery has to have something to make people buy it over an MDX. The image of that offroad abilty and its unique "rugged" look? You are right though, if LR was serious about getting offroad in the US, it would offer something like a offroad package that included a cdl, not just light guards and a adventure rack. Out here in utah the G500's I see only have scratches from starbuck parking lot accidents. If MB was serious about wheeling in the G, they wouldn't sell it with running boards or those huge rims and street tires. Funny C&D reviewed the G500 and got it stuck in a snow bank with all three diffs lock. They blamed the tires. At least out here the primary vehilces I see off road are rovers, jeeps, toyota pu's and 4 runners, scouts and old bronco's. Plenty of lifted, racked,winch mounted stupid duties and discoverys, that don't even see dirt roads.
Andy
 

Peter Carey (Pcarey)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 04:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
40% could be right. think of how many RRCs there were in the US in the 80s.
1% sounds close to right but maybe a little higher. If there are 1300 registered users here on dweb, then there needs to only be 130,000 rovers out there. Not too hard to imagine.

pwc
 

andy
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 04:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
AL-
By the way I drove my D1 to work this morning, but If had the choice I would have driven my wifes Audi A4, much better highway vehicle.
Andy
 

James F. Thompson Jaime (Blueboy)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 04:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
1987-1,542
1988-3,942
1989-4,372
1990-5,315
1991-3,471
1992-3,266
1993-4,689
1994-5,790
1995-2,494

Not very many RRCs really made it to the US. The most was in 1994. Most were owned for status, at least from what I remember reading.

Pretty sure I also think I saw % LRs owners off-road 14% or so. It was at one time published in the ads LT put on the web. I can't seem to find it now on their web-page.

Jaime
 

Mark Albrecht (Markalbrecht)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 06:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
This was a little while ago in the thread, but Car and Driver is just: that a magazine about cars for people who drive them. C&D will always be car biased and report in that manner because that's their target audience.

Rans -- not picking on you, but you indicated that "Peterson Publishing should come out with a new monthly magazine called "SUV and Driver" where the editors are NOT car people." -- Peterson Publishing did (although I think it has been sold to a conglomerate) publish "4 Wheel and Off Road" which is geared towards people who drive their SUV off road. Or you could try Four Wheeler (Primedia). Although fat chance of seeing a Rover in them except about once a year.
 

OLIVER CLOTHSOFF (Everythingleaks)
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 08:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Yes, the rover is a good 4x4 for now but with ford taking it over it will probably more suited for the soccer mom crowd come 2005 when the new one rolls out. The current vehicles they are testing new rover engines ( current ford engines) in are explores and mountaineers. The new engines are rumored to be the 4.0L SOHC and the 4.2L jag engine. The 4.2L jag engine is just a different displacement 4.6L that ford puts in the explorer presently. These are good engines and very reliable but it does add to the mith that the new disco will be based off the explorer chassis.
Ford said it expects the profis of its PAG groups to increase ten fold and have put alot of pressure on the individual companies to do so. Look what the did to jag, while increasing its quality they have also cheapened the brand name. Look at the new s-type, it's a modified contour and if you open the hood of a xj and a lincoln mark VIII it looks almost the same. The current interior of the jags looks and feels cheap.
With ford at the wheel it will produce a vehicle that appeals to the mass market. The Land Rover name has heritage and ford will play off of that but will saturate the brand with crap in the name of sales. Don't be suprised if the new disco shares the same underpinnings as the explorer because that would be the " cost effective" thing to do. I highly doubt the straight axle will stay under the disco due to cost and that the average owner doesn't know the difference anyway. We were already told the LT230 will disappear due to the noise factor for its upscale customers in 2005.
One thing to remember, ford wants to sell as many cars as it can at the highest profit possible regardless if it performs like it should. Off-road ability will come second to sales and profit.
 

Rich Lee
Posted on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 09:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I wish I could quote the source... It was either an older issue of Land Rover Journal of some other LRNA publication. The quote I remember was that 38% of Land Rover owners actually use the capabilities of their vehicle to drive somewhere that a car could not go (except a rental car). The number quoted for all other SUVs was 15%. They did not distinguish between "serious" off-roading and simply bad roads in bad weather

Interestingly, C&D did do an off-road comparison once of various 4x4s of all categories, including the Rav-4, Subaru Outback, GMC pickup, Ford Expedition, Ford F150, Jeep Grand Cheroke, Jeep Wrangler and Land Rover D90 station wagon. The actually measured angles, wading depth (and problems)and RTI they also brough along one of the Peterson off road editors and Lea Magee.
By all the numbers, the D90 was rated the best off road. However (no surprise) the "consensus" was that the Grand Cherokee was the best vehicle.

The same verdict was made when Motor Trend took a bunch of vehicles through Butte valley & Mengel Pass in Death Valley. The trucks tested were ML 430, Toyota LC, Ford Excersion, Chevy Tahoe LT, Grand Cherokee, Hummer H1 and Range Rover 4.6 HSE
(with 18 Pirelli Scorpion ST tires). However, when they were caught in a flashflood, the vehicle they chose to lead the way out was the Range Rover, which they also rated the highest for off-road comfort. Both the Jeep and the ML320 suffered flats.

In 1999, FourWheeler SUV test rated the ACE-equipped D2 tops for off-road ability (against Jeep GC, Toyota LC, ML430, & others). The D2 had the highest skidpad numbers, and the highest RTI at 714. The next closest truck was somewhere in the low 600s. That was the best articulation of any stock vehicle they ever measured.

Anyway, the car mags will always praise the most car-like SUV and it would be interesting to see what relationship exists between ratings and advertising $. It would be more interesting to ask these testers which vehicle they would want to drive a family of 4 or 6 through BFE.

Lastly, what are the "off-road" stats for the Tourag? i.e. approach, departure, breakover, wading and RTI.
 

John Davies
Posted on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 12:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
In regards to the Touareg, here is what GermanCarFans.com says:
QUOTE:
Short overhangs, ground clearance of up to 300 millimetres [11.8 in], and a wading depth of 585 millimeters [23 in] provide the technical prerequisites for exceptional off-road suitability. Gradability of 100 percent and the ability to roll to 45 degrees, make the vehicle suitable for extreme off-road conditions.
UNQUOTE

and here is a pic showing its "articulation", if you can call it that.

http://www.germancarfans.com/photos/3020426.001/1007.jpg

The "Extreme Ofroad Package" that is rumored will allow the swaybars to (somehow) disconnect, allowing a couple of more inches of wheel travel.

Here is the best source I have found for Touareg info:

http://www.vwvortex.com/features/index_touareg_ms.html

It's an interesting vehicle. I certainly will take a look at it in the Spring. Unfortunately I think we won't get any of the diesels for at least a few years, if at all. The V10 is quite a package!
 

Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
Posted on Saturday, December 14, 2002 - 03:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
I wonder how they'll rate the Crosslander next year :)
 

GregH
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 02:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
C&D is only slightly less of an advertising whore than Motor Trend. The only "car" mags I get are Autoweek (for weekly news and racing info), European Car and Excellence (for my VW/Audi/Porsche fixes).

Vw Tourag and Porsche Cayenne offer great engine performance, traction systems and high quality. They ARE NOT really offroad vehicles (and I'm a long-time VW/Porsche owner/driver) . They are aimed at where the $$ is in the market. Comfortable, high quality, high performance skiing vehicles are more like it.

For the best VW (proven) offroad vehicle go here:

www.kooblekar.com

Jawohl, Herr General! :)
 

Corey Shuman (One_Bad_Rover)
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 03:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
If I could I'd still ante up for the new RR. I read a review in European Car Magazine and they loved it, talked about the test drive they went for in it, down a 70 degree angle and then completely submerged in 10 feet of water and rolled right out. Don't know about off road but I would just love to mess with people at the boat docks by completely submerging my truck to launch my boat. :D
 

Russian Landy
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 04:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
On Car & Driver:

I have been reading this mag for 30 years, and I have to disagree with many of you. C&D over the years calls 'em like it sees 'em, ruthlessly criticizing and even ridiculing the U.S. automakers (biggest advertisers) and others. What C&D says about Discos is actually right, from the point of view of the average SUV buyer. Bad quality, old technology, and definitely the worst choice for people who drive on the road all the time. A Disco makes sense only for odd balls like us: people who really bang 'em off road, and who care more about personality than on-road cornering or gas mileage. Not to mention reliability.

On the Porsche Cayenne:

This is the coolest damn vehicle I ever saw, and I intend to buy one next year. No, you certainly wouldn't want to scratch it, and you wouldn't put a winch on it, so it definitely won't replace the Disco. But I would bet that if you really put it to the test, it will go places the Disco won't, at least under its own power (leaving aside the winch). And to boot do the 150mph and 0-60 in 6 thing.

I love my Disco, which kicks ass on the trail, but I also need a vehicle that kicks ass on the road. That's what my BMW 540i (286 horses, 6-speed manual, 0-60 in 5.4, 155mph governed top speed) does for me now. The Porsche will replace the BMW, not the Disco. With its huge ground clearance, approach and departure angles (all better even than my Disco), locking center and rear diffs, and low range, as well as its ability to kick ass on the road, it will be much more useful than the BMW for my needs. I am a real estate developer in Russia, and have to crawl into some remote roadless place on an almost daily basis.
 

GregH
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 05:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Most of the writers you admired 30 years ago at C&D are now with other mags (namely Automobile) were they still write them like they see'um. R&T still has alot of the old journalists too.
 

Russian Landy
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 10:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Yeah - David E. Davis, LJK Setright, Csaba Csere, those were the days. C&D is not quite what it used to be. But I never quite formed a taste for "Automobile", and so I still read C&D and R&T, both of which are still pretty good, and better in my opinion than any of the European magazines. Hard to believe that there is nothing good in German, but I lived in Germany and read German and their car mags suck -- Auto Motor & Sport is the main one. My main complaint about both R&T and C&D is that they have become less technical and more kind of consumer oriented.

Believe it or not, the best car mag in the world to my taste is the Russian monthly "Za Rulem" (which means "Behind the Wheel"). It is extremely technical, much more than any other car mag I've ever read. Can you imagine a car mag commissioning its own crash tests? ZR does that. They do extremely sophisticated, scientific testing of tires, parts, oils, tools, etc. They have detailed step-by-step articles describing do-it-yourself repairs. They designed their own car (!) in a series of articles lasting a year, explaining in detail their choice of technology in every area. They even have a monthly column called "technology of the past", describing in great detail, including technical drawings, some odd technical detail of some pre-war car. And they rag on Russian car manufacturers without mercy, even though they are advertisers. ZR is fantastic!

ZR, by the way, loves the Disco and understands its purpose.
 

John Davies
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 11:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Get the latest ("Ten Best") issue of C&D and read their report on the new Saturn Ion. They ream a new @sshole in that ugly little car. They cut it to shreds! I don' recall one positive thing they said about the car other than about the good "Saturn dealer experience".

Of course, I did not see a Saturn ad in that issue....
 

Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 01:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Russian Landy has a point. I remember picking up a magazine in Portugal that did a review of the Jeep TJ and D90 and the review (as best I could read) was MUCH better than anything I've seen here. I could actually get breakover angles and such from the review. And this was a CAR magazine. I would be impressed if the writers of most american automobile rags had a clue as to what wheelbase has to do with off roading.

BTW- I'm glad to see someone else here with a Disco AND a 540i 6-speed. :)
 

Jason Vance (Jason)
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 07:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
You know...I wonder how much you guys would be bitching if the Disco actually won that comparo using the same flawed testing criteria.

Face it, C&D tests cars, trucks, AND SUVs the way the MAJORITY of people use them, and especially the way the MAJORITY of their subscribed audience uses them. Unless you forget that most truck and SUV owners DO NOT haul, tow, or use their extra occupancy on a regular basis.
 

Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco)
Posted on Sunday, December 15, 2002 - 07:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
You might be right Jason... since I'm no longer a subscriber my criteria no longer applies. :)
 

Kevin Howell
Posted on Monday, December 16, 2002 - 10:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
after this weekend, my only criterion will be the manufacturer's placement of the friggin' heater core! :)
 

andy
Posted on Monday, December 16, 2002 - 10:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Russian Landy is right, the disco is made for odd balls like us. Few other vehicles can have these many problems and still be defended from insults about reliability, value, and practality. If this was Hondaweb.org and we were talking about the CRV, I'm sure people would be horrified on the crap we put up with for the pleasure of owning a Rover. Everytime my truck breaks downI make an excuse for it, but when I owned my Nissan P/U before the discovery, if it made any small squeak or rattle I got pissed at it and wanted to sell it. Know I just call it rover "character".
Andy
 

Andrew Clarke (Aclarke)
Posted on Monday, December 16, 2002 - 08:46 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Well I bought the magazine on Saturday and read the article. It sounded pretty even-handed to me. They felt that it was the best off-road, or at least the standard bearer but thought it was underpowered, handled poorly on-road, got horrendous mileage and had quirky ergonomics.

Do you guys have Land Rover Discoveries made by a different company or something, because that sounds an awful lot like my truck!!

I love my truck and there's nothing I'd rather have more than a Land Rover. I just don't expect most other people to get it. A friend of mine used to have a Discovery and sold it because it took too much gas and cost too much to maintain. He recently bought a '98 4-Runner even though he could have picked up a Discovery for much less. He just didn't want one. And that's OK with me.

Having said all that, IMHO there is certainly a LOT that Ford could do for Land Rover that would make them more popular to us enthusiasts AND raise sales, but those things get covered in enough other threads...
 

KJ
Posted on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
You know, I never get the rap about gas mileage. When I was looking at everything in the class little more than a year ago, they ALL were rated in the same 13/15mpg range. Yes, I went in thinking I wanted a Disco, and yes, I came out with one. BUT, I really felt I tested the major manufacturers. I drove the Toyotas, Tahoes, GMCs, and ACE and non-ACE Discos. I had no desire to try a Ford. The 4-Runner was WAY too cramped, my husband's head would have banged into the headliner, though it drove nicely. The Tahoe and it's clone ROLLED like dice on even the most moderate turn, BAAAAD feeling. Spinning the ACE and non-ACE I felt little difference in performance. The Rover performed predictably I thought, and I liked the ride. Coming from my 4 cylinder Volvo it felt powerful enough, and I don't drive like I'm sprinting, so what do I care? The ergonomictics issue is a little lost on me, but maybe that's because I wasn't used to much creature comfort in the bottom-of-the-line Volvo? Everytime we have a cupholder thread it cracks me up, but hey, that's just me. The truck feels great to me, but maybe I just don't get out much!

Karen :)
 

Andrew Clarke (Aclarke)
Posted on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Karen: Looking at pages 86-87 of the C&D magazine in question, I see that the Land Rover has the SLOWEST 0-60 time by 0.7 seconds (9.2 seconds). The fastest is the Lincoln Aviator at 7.4 seconds and the average is 8.1 seconds.

The Discovery also has the WORST gas mileage at 12/16/14 (city/highway/observed). It actually tied for worst "observed" mileage although the EPA numbers are the worst in the whole test. The average observed is 16 and both the Acura MDX and the BMW X5 3.0 got an observed 18 mpg.

The VW did 0-60 in 6.5 and got 14mpg doing it.

I, too, am satisfied with the performance of my Disco 1. Even with 23/85 tires. It's a TRUCK, which means I don't try to take corners at speed or race Honda Civics with big exhaust pipes and expensive nos stickers. If I want to DRIVE, I'll drive our BMW, which also gets much better mileage obviously. The fact is that by looking at the raw numbers, the Discovery is at a disadvantage here compared with the others in the test.
 

Andrew Clarke (Aclarke)
Posted on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 10:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Oops, Toureg did 0-60 in 7.5, not 6.5...
 

KJ
Posted on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 - 02:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post
Andy, point taken, but when I was looking (MYs 2000-2001) I recall all the vehicles being rated within 1 or 2 mpg of one another. For me, that's about the same. IMO, when buying an SUV one would be foolish to base too much on mpg, it's never going to be an econo-box. Of course, this is my POV based on my low-mileage situation. Perhaps that 1 or 2 mpg would make me take notice more if it was important to me.

Call me shallow, but I threw out the MB, Acura and BMW on styling alone, not wishing to drive what looked too much to me like a minivan. I also read that the Disco pulled some of them out of the muck when they got stuck on the test trip, (despite the LR getting a middlin' rating in the test), which influenced me. Also, as I recall, the MB and BMW were in something of another price class, about $10K more I think? I wrestled with it all, and read a bunch and asked a lot of questions on different bbs before I test drove anything. Everyone to their own joy, their own priorities.

Karen

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration