| Author | Message | ||
     Richard Hardin (Rhardin) New Member Username: Rhardin Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2003 |
I was quite disturbed when I saw the Pics of the 2005 Disco. A few days ago, I spoke to one of the Rover marketing directors. He said that those pictures are bogus and that they had not finished the design for the '05. The change will be drastic though... A more Range Rover-esque vehicle. Very posh! I can't wait to see what they come up with! | ||
| Christopher Boese (Christopher) Member Username: Christopher Post Number: 197 Registered: 10-2002 |
Now there are videos too. The Land Rover Chronicle site pointed me to this: http://movies.autoexpress.co.uk/LandRoverDiscovery-1003.mov. This is a few megabytes, but worth seeing - it's the new Discovery in high-speed testing. By the way, I've seen one of the 2005 prototypes in testing here in California, and sitting next to a D1. You do get a sense of mass and presence, but you get that from the new Explorer too, which I would have taken it for if I hadn't known better. | ||
| Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Senior Member Username: Offroaddisco Post Number: 1557 Registered: 04-2002 |
That's the dumbest video I've ever seen. I know lots of companies test on the 'ring and it was cool when BMW (M5) beat the record held by a F355 on part of the track but what is a Land Rover going to prove on such a track? That it can out run the school buses that sometimes are seen on the track? | ||
| CALM (Gumarcel) Senior Member Username: Gumarcel Post Number: 1032 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hey at least the Jaguar and Porsche were cool in the video... | ||
| Mark Douglas (Mdouglas) New Member Username: Mdouglas Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2003 |
I don't think it was dumb. Land Rover is obviously uping the ante regarding on-road performance which is what consumers are demanding of SUVs. I love Land Rovers for their off-road prowess, but that doesn't mean I don't want it to handle better on the road. I've got a 2000 Range Rover that I love - heck, it'll climb a tree. However, it's not as good on the road as my wife's SUV with independent suspension and we prefer to travel in my wife's SUV for that very reason. I for one loved looking at that video (opinions regarding shape of the next generation Disco aside). It showed the vehicle to have substantial electronic and mechanical aids to improve road-holding. If they bring out a truck that will cut a path through the woods and yet travel well with several children on the highway, I'll buy one. That testing at Nerumberg showed the vehicle to handle exceptionally well at extreme lateral G's - just what a family guy wants for accident avoidance. Just my .02, Mark | ||
| Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Senior Member Username: Offroaddisco Post Number: 1560 Registered: 04-2002 |
Hey Mark... if you're looking for IFS SUV's there are plenty out there. And I would be willing to put money on the fact that the ones out there already, will leak less oil and won't put you on a first name basis with the shop mechanic. Hell, I know what my mechanic's favorite beverage is. Don't get me wrong... I'm not Rover bashing, I love my Disco. But if what they have to offer in next generation vehicles is IFS/IRS then I'll either buy used or look else where. And for family trips... I still take the Disco if we have to take lots of stuff but the wife will take the X5 with the kids and DVD player. And we're looking at trading in one of our vehicles next year and it won't be the Disco. ;) | ||
| Mark Douglas (Mdouglas) New Member Username: Mdouglas Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2003 |
Dear Al......I'm not necessarily sold on the merrits of IFS. However, by that same token, I'm not willing to damn a vehicle just because it doesn't have solid axles. There are plenty of very competent off-road vehicles with IFS (new RR, Land Cruiser, Hummer, etc.). What I want is competence in both arenas (on & off-road). I like the idea of being able to get off the highway and drive straight to your deerstand. If that new Disco is a better marriage of those 2 worlds (and assuming the design is palatable), I'm going to give it some serious thought. Regarding leaking oil and knowing your mechanic - this is our 6th Rover so I'm no poser or soccer mom. I've paid my dues to the LR gods and feel very comfortable singing LR's praises and pointing out LR's problems (like less than stellar on-road handling). Most of the LR's that we have owned have been used, and all have leaked oil except for this RR. I have my LR mechanic's home phone # in my Palm Pilot and he doesn't even live here anymore - so yes, I'm aware of the nuances of LR ownership. Your wife's X5 is undoubtedly great on-road (as is my wife's Honda Pilot and our previous ML-320). But, all 3 of those vehicles suck off-road. Mark | ||
| Greg Hirst (Gregh) Senior Member Username: Gregh Post Number: 339 Registered: 10-2002 |
I'd buy the 2005 Disco (looks and all) in a heartbeat if it had body on frame with the Defender axles and coils, LT230 w/CDL (or better?) and a decent Ford/Jag aluminum V8 or diesel. If better on-road handling is wanted then it would've been nice if LR pursued the hydraulic ram/active suspension systems they experimented with in the 90's for the military. I believe that would benefit both on-road and off-road handling. Cost was probably the killer and the fact that nearly 100% of buyers wouldn't want to pay for it nor understand it's benefits. My 2 cents- | ||
| Jacquelyne Davis (Jmdavis) New Member Username: Jmdavis Post Number: 38 Registered: 06-2003 |
Here's my analogy on this topic. It's like choosing a ski. There are many skis that are made to be all-mountain skis; you can do bumps, crud, groomers, back bowls. Most people are happy with a one-quiver ski. The problem with most all-mountain skis is that they are not the BEST at any one thing. (Skier ability set aside, mind you). If you choose to buy an all-mountain ski, then you will have to make some sacrifices. It won't turn as quick in the bumps, because it has to be wide enough to keep you afloat in the pow, but it's not the best in the pow because it is somewhat narrow so as to turn in the bumps, and if you want to cruise long GS turns you can, but you won't get as much speed because it will have too much sidecut, and if you want to land switch in the park, well...etc, etc. Originally, I feel the heritage of the LR was like, say, a bump-specific ski; Very specialized in what it could do. Now, due to consumer pressure, trends, and sales numbers, they are making some sacrifices (ie.,in it's off-road capability) in order to create a vehicle that will do all things- just not all things extremely well. Me, I prefer to have a quiver of skis, so I can take my pick according to the conditions in which I'll be driving, er, skiing. Unfortunately, my pocketbook doesn't allow me the liesure of choosing which vehicle to drive. Not yet anyway. Again, just my analogy on this topic. (Can you tell I'm really anticipating the upcoming ski season? When's it gonna snow fer cryin' outloud!??!) Cheers, Jacquelyne | ||
| Greg Hirst (Gregh) Senior Member Username: Gregh Post Number: 340 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jacquelyne- I agree. That's why I have 5 vehicles. However, the Volkl Supersport 6 Star will be my only ski this year.  | ||
| Mark Douglas (Mdouglas) New Member Username: Mdouglas Post Number: 6 Registered: 08-2003 |
Jacquelyne, Enjoyed the analogy. I think there are vehicles that try to be the "jack of all trades" and end up being "master of none". However, the new Range Rover is exceptional off-road (almost besting a Defender in a Land Rover magazine independent off-road test) as well as being superb on-road. Electronics and good engineering go a long way. There are a lot of people on DiscoWeb who obviously modify their vehicles significantly so that they can go rock-hopping (usually out West). The newer Land Rover products won't allow for these modifications as much as the vehicles now are going to independent suspension and are more integrated from an engineering standpoint - i.e. it is not as easy to put an ARB airlock diff on a vehicle that has a central computer that makes the ABS function like locking diffs. Sure, the new RR can't jump bolders like an original RR retrofitted with lift kit, OME suspension, etc. But, the new RR can carry you out to your deerstand or track a path through the woods better than any domestic or civilian SUV. And........it's a whole lot nicer and safer in terms of on-road handling than the original RR. I for one can't afford the "quiver full of different skis". Plus, I like the idea of being somewhat of a minimalist (something that most LR owners aren't accused of being). I want a vehicle to be more of a "swiss army knife" that can competantly take me into the woods, but also take me to Disney World with the kids watching a DVD along the way. Also, regarding off-road prowess, I want some engineer wearing a white coat at some LR office designing the hardware and software that takes me off-road so that it works well with the vehicle when the vehicle isn't in extremes (i.e. when it's on-road with my family in it). Just my .02, Mark | ||
| Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Senior Member Username: Offroaddisco Post Number: 1566 Registered: 04-2002 |
So "due to consumer pressure, trends, and sales numbers" sould Land Rover have made a station waggon in the 60's and 70's? Or a mini van in the 80's and 90's? No, because they had a niche market. Has that niche market gone away? To add another two cents to the IFS issue -- Every time I get into a loaner I realize that IFS isn't all that in an SUV in terms of ride quality. Just take a drive in a Durango and see how good a coil sprung ride in a Disco is. And while the wifes X5 handles washboard roads better than my D2, the D2 will deal with pot holes and large bumps (speed bumps) better than the X5. | ||
| Jaime (Blueboy) Senior Member Username: Blueboy Post Number: 779 Registered: 02-2002 |
 they did. | ||
| Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Senior Member Username: Offroaddisco Post Number: 1568 Registered: 04-2002 |
lol... that's not what I ment. But, if they want to keep the underpinnings of the Defender and slap on a sliding side door and call it a Minivan then that's cool with me and I would buy one.  | ||
| Andrew Maier (Newman) Senior Member Username: Newman Post Number: 284 Registered: 04-2003 |
I agree with you, Al -- except that sliding rear door better not be power-assisted! It'd better be a track, and a wheel, and that's it! No electronics! Andy | ||
| Mark Douglas (Mdouglas) New Member Username: Mdouglas Post Number: 7 Registered: 08-2003 |
Al, Whoa --- no one is suggesting Land Rover make a minivan. And the quote you gave isn't mine. Just because some of us want a vehicle that handles better on-road, doesn't mean that somehow we are asking Land Rover to betry their heritage. Every time I look at one of those fugly Porsche SUVs, believe me, I wish Porsche had stuck with their heritage. So don't try and change the just of the discussion -- we all want LR to continue to make vehicles worthy of the name. However, things progress with time. The original Land Rovers weren't coil sprung, they had leaf springs! I'm sure there were people who decried the switch to coils back then just like you're now moaning about the move to independant suspension and (presumably) air springs. I've never had a LR with independent suspension (i.e. I've never owned a Freelander or the new RR). But, if the engineers tell us that independent suspension with air springs is the way to have good on-road and off-road handling, I'm going to trust them. I can also live with the fewer after-market products that will undoubtedly be available with the move to more complex suspension set-ups. Mark | ||
| Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Senior Member Username: Offroaddisco Post Number: 1575 Registered: 04-2002 |
I have yet to hear from "engineers" saying the independent suspension is better. I've only seen marketing hype. And if rumors that the British MOD turned away the redesign of the Defender that had IFS with solid rear is any indication of the abilities then I don't want one. And I have yet to see an IFS vehicle that I'm impressed with. The Freelander is fine on the road but a joke off road. The new Rangie is a work of over-engineering and works well off road as long as you don't want to work on it or have it fail on the trail. And time will tell how well it holds up. I know the debate of coil over leaf has been around for a long time but never has that debate centered on servicability. Take a look at the sales of the Freelander and new Rangie for an indication of whats to come. I'm willing to predict that soon after the new Disco is released we'll see huge rebates for that one too just as we're seeing for the Rangie. | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 816 Registered: 09-2002 |
Quote: "But, if the engineers tell us that independent suspension with air springs is the way to have good on-road and off-road handling, I'm going to trust them." That isn't always true. I'm sure the engineers at BMW thought that the I-drive thing was a good idea at the time but jamming 700+ controls into a little dial probably didn't achieve the results (or reaction) they hoped. Just pointing out an example of engineers not always knowing what consumers want or designing for the sake of designing instead of simplicity. | ||
| John Moore (Jmoore) Senior Member Username: Jmoore Post Number: 813 Registered: 10-2002 |
I start bummin' when I see images of the new Discovery like the one above. If I want to go fast on twisty roads, I'll take the MG! | ||
| Mark Douglas (Mdouglas) New Member Username: Mdouglas Post Number: 8 Registered: 08-2003 |
Alan, With all due respect, let's go back to that quote of mine. The authorities have spoken and independent suspension is the way of the future for Land Rover. If you don't agree with this or like it, tough titty. Mind you, I'm not saying independent suspension is better off-road. I'm saying that it is the best compromise in on-road and off-road handling. Also, I'm not saying engineers and designers are always right (i.e. the "I-drive" and the Pontiac Aztec are two examples of bad engineering/design). I simply think electronics and software are going to go a long way toward making vehicles satisfy these seemingly competing and dichotomously opposed worlds. I don't base this on personal experience (I drive a 2000 RR with solid axles and air springs) I base it on the trends from Land Rover as well as every other manufacturer out there. Look at the new RR: sure it cost too much to bang around off-road, and it's not as good at rock-hopping as a significantly after-market rigged original RR. But hell, it came damn close to besting a Defender in the mud according to LR Magazine - and this was with street tires on the RR! Electronics and good design made this possible. We have a Honda Pilot (independently sprung) and it is clearly better on-road than any of the solid axle Land Rover products that we've owned. I've never taken it off-road. Prior to this, we also had a Mercedes ML-320 (also independent suspension). While it paled in comparison to our Land Rovers off-road, it actually did better than one might expect being as though it had no locking diffs and poor wheel travel. It accomplished this through an ingenious use of the ABS brake system which LR went on to incorporate/copy in thier vehicles (not looking to start a flame war here on ETC vs. diffs, I know diffs are better in most hardcore off-road circumstances). My point? Electronics and good design can go a long way to making a vehicle satisfy a couple of different niches. Mark | ||
| John Moore (Jmoore) Senior Member Username: Jmoore Post Number: 815 Registered: 10-2002 |
Ho and John Lee should weigh in on the off road prowress of the new Rangie. Didn't they get to take one off-road and test it out for the Fine Living Channel? As I recall those 17" dubs kept getting flats. | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 819 Registered: 09-2002 |
Mark - not disagreeing with you nor was I picking on you specifically. Your quote just prompted that response from me as a general statement. I'm just saying that incorporating technology doesn't always result in advancement. Sometimes it's just a way of compensating for something that you shouldn't be doing anyway. If you need technology to prevent you from rolling your vehicle at 70 mph, then maybe you should slow down. So many of the vehicles out there are so complex and so reliant on electronics that it makes fixing/diagnosing almost impossible without a computer. Now you run into other issues like your car is more susceptable to problems like software bugs, logic problems, etc. Next thing you know, your mechanic is going to need a degree in computer science so that he can understand what the computer is saying to him before he can actually fix the problem. I see it all the time at work and I'm frequently asked to go with the technician to help diagnose the problem because of the fact that there's so much electronics. As an example, my sister and her husband just bought a 2004 4Runner. While it was impressive on the test drive, I couldn't help but think of how much electronics it had in it. Electronics affected many of the vehicles core performance areas and as I was driving it I thought how much of a hassle and potential inconvenience it will be if any of those systems went down which in a Toyota may be unlikely but at the same time, it was complex enough that not out of the question. To them, they liked the bells and whistles of it but to me, it kind of pointed out how little you really need to know about it to be able to drive it and potentially drive beyond it's limits. Personally, I don't really care. If that's what LR wants to do, then by all means go ahead and do it. I'm happy with my truck and I'll most likely stick with older LRs because they seem simple in design and concept. If I want something that drives well on the road then I'll buy a car. It's interesting to see how technology is filtering into the auto industry but I can see it getting carried away too. | ||
| thom mathie (Muskyman) Senior Member Username: Muskyman Post Number: 389 Registered: 11-2002 |
That video is very cool. as I recall that track is a thirteen mile loop that track is one of the most destructive high speed tests there is,every car company on the planet has had there cars there for TUV certification. back when nissan introduced the 300zx turbo it failed its certifacation because the brakes were not up to the power/top speed of the car. the brakes faded away in less then three laps! without TUV approval it couldent be sold in europe. for years people said MB,BMW,volvo...ect ect were all underpowered. the reason is they balenced the vehicles handeling,power and brakes . giving drivers the feeling they could drive there car at its limits all day long...truth is they can because these companies spent rediculous amounts of time doing just what that video shows....driving a vehicle at its limits. | ||
| Mark Douglas (Mdouglas) New Member Username: Mdouglas Post Number: 9 Registered: 08-2003 |
Alan, well put. I'll be less defensive about the subject. Your points are well made and taken. Mark | ||
| Alan Yim (Alan) Senior Member Username: Alan Post Number: 820 Registered: 09-2002 |
No worries. Just a friendly discussion. |
