Disco 5: Let the depression set in

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
I think I want to go back in time and tell myself this:

"Look, you fucking moron, it's not Land Rover's fault you're not evolved enough to understand this design language... Give it a year or so, and maybe you'll brighten up."

I'm starting to think this could potentially be a nice example of understated heritage that interprets the past instead of aping it; specifically from a style point of view. Still don't quite "get" the interior, but the exterior finally clicked.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

ERover82

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2011
3,899
450
Darien Gap
Stock D1s are ugly. Modified D1s look ok. D2s made the best of the design. Stock D3 is awkward and ugly. Modified D3 can look somewhat ok. D4 made the best of the design (again). Stock D5 is ugly. D5 SVX is still ugly, just slightly less. All D5s use 20" wheels at the minimum. They are not off-road vehicles more than a Subaru is.

The only Land Rovers that ever looked great were stock and tastefully modified Series and Defenders.
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
Stock D1s are ugly. Modified D1s look ok. D2s made the best of the design. Stock D3 is awkward and ugly. Modified D3 can look somewhat ok. D4 made the best of the design (again). Stock D5 is ugly. D5 SVX is still ugly, just slightly less. All D5s use 20" wheels at the minimum. They are not off-road vehicles more than a Subaru is.

The only Land Rovers that ever looked great were stock and tastefully modified Series and Defenders.

They'll still walk circles around any previous Rover right out of the show-room (and many that have been modified), on those 20" wheels and street tires. I don't think that will ever stop being surprising. :rofl:

I agree that the DII corrected some of the ungainly the form of the original Discovery (not perfect, but better from a design-specific perspective), and that the D4 was the best of the box-bodies.

Actually, I foresee the D4 eventually being recognized as a design triumph. This one? Maybe not, but I'll bet the refresh will, whenever it comes around.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

garrett

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2004
10,931
5
53
Middleburg, VA
www.blackdogmobility.com
They'll still walk circles around any previous Rover right out of the show-room (and many that have been modified), on those 20" wheels and street tires. I don't think that will ever stop being surprising. :rofl:

I agree that the DII corrected some of the ungainly the form of the original Discovery (not perfect, but better from a design-specific perspective), and that the D4 was the best of the box-bodies.

Actually, I foresee the D4 eventually being recognized as a design triumph. This one? Maybe not, but I'll bet the refresh will, whenever it comes around.

Cheers,

Kennith

A stock LR3/4 and Range Rover are absolutely useless off-road once you introduce some rain in a mildly muddy, flat fields. Introduce some "obstacles" and you have a shit show. When I facilitated the LR dealer events, the stock trucks with street tires were hard pressed to get very far. On a dry day the "aid" devices worked their magic and all that. But a slightly modified D1/D2/RRC would do far better then a bone stock late model truck in wet terrain. I don't miss doing those events. It was a lot of work to get those stock late model trucks through the course without any damage - let alone just down the trail.
 

ERover82

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2011
3,899
450
Darien Gap
They'll still walk circles around any previous Rover right out of the show-room (and many that have been modified), on those 20" wheels and street tires. I don't think that will ever stop being surprising. :rofl:


True, on a manicured dry course. They won't get you to any destination in the real world though, not even down a fire road without inevitable stone damage. Even 15-16" C-E rated wheels/tires get damaged on fire roads. Those barbie wheels dont stand a chance.
 

fishEH

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2009
6,927
201
Lake Villa, IL
Stock D1s are ugly. Modified D1s look ok. D2s made the best of the design. Stock D3 is awkward and ugly. Modified D3 can look somewhat ok. D4 made the best of the design (again). Stock D5 is ugly. D5 SVX is still ugly, just slightly less. All D5s use 20" wheels at the minimum. They are not off-road vehicles more than a Subaru is.

The only Land Rovers that ever looked great were stock and tastefully modified Series and Defenders.

You're missing the point. "Ugly" is subjective and isn't the issue. The D5 is BORING. It is not unique. The fact that it is constantly compared to a Ford Explorer is very telling. It is milk toast and uninspiring. Perfect for soccer moms blending in at the mall.



A stock LR3/4 and Range Rover are absolutely useless off-road once you introduce some rain in a mildly muddy, flat fields. Introduce some "obstacles" and you have a shit show. When I facilitated the LR dealer events, the stock trucks with street tires were hard pressed to get very far. On a dry day the "aid" devices worked their magic and all that. But a slightly modified D1/D2/RRC would do far better then a bone stock late model truck in wet terrain. I don't miss doing those events. It was a lot of work to get those stock late model trucks through the course without any damage - let alone just down the trail.

I have to disagree. I've been wheeling with LR3's and even an Evoque. Both did surprisingly well on city tires with traction control. There was one long steep muddy hill inparticular that every modified D1 and D2 was having issues with. The LR3 and Evoque zipped right up it. They might have issues with thick and deep mud but most trucks will.
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
A stock LR3/4 and Range Rover are absolutely useless off-road once you introduce some rain in a mildly muddy, flat fields. Introduce some "obstacles" and you have a shit show. When I facilitated the LR dealer events, the stock trucks with street tires were hard pressed to get very far. On a dry day the "aid" devices worked their magic and all that. But a slightly modified D1/D2/RRC would do far better then a bone stock late model truck in wet terrain. I don't miss doing those events. It was a lot of work to get those stock late model trucks through the course without any damage - let alone just down the trail.

That training is a little more difficult than many might think; relying heavily on observation skills. A damp grassy field is not always something to sneeze at. Sometimes it's a nightmare. A lot of what applies to snow, sand, and "crusty mush" driving applies. Don't break through...

You're probably going to be fine, but if you aren't, it's going to be one hell of a long day if you're out by yourself.

You've got to keep in mind that most off pavement press tests are conducted out West in good weather. Hell, take some of the modded guys out of their rock gardens and drop them in the middle of a former farm in Eastern NC in a slight drizzle...

...See what happens. :rofl:

Cheers,

Kennith
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
True, on a manicured dry course. They won't get you to any destination in the real world though, not even down a fire road without inevitable stone damage. Even 15-16" C-E rated wheels/tires get damaged on fire roads. Those barbie wheels dont stand a chance.

I'm curious as to their level of competence on smaller wheels with more appropriate tires.

Fire roads may be easy, but they can be full of things that will damage wheels. There's almost always something hanging out under that nastiness, seemingly waiting for one tire to pop it out so it can find something to break.

I think the inconsistency is what leads inexperienced people to believe they are driving on difficult terrain when in such areas.

It's not just fire roads and vast expanses, though. Most people have no idea how to "carry momentum". I try to tell them to imagine they're driving a car with a poorly-functioning clutch, a broken engine mount, an out of adjustment parking brake, and a bad starter in heavy traffic.

Now let's see just how carefully they manage velocity and torque application. Smooth is king.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

ERover82

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2011
3,899
450
Darien Gap
18" Compomotive wheels are compatible with the Discovery 5. See below

a34e48_243228941b0e4de1bdc43819a33f4db2~mv2.webp


I have no doubt it's more capable than the LR4. However, like the LR4, it's hard to call it an off-road vehicle when, from the factory, it literally cannot reliably venture off-road for any meaningful distance. When it requires thousands in extra expense, hours of time, results in less cargo space, and looks like a cross-over, I call it a loss. It's just not worth it. There's easier and cheaper ways to drive a mom car off-road.
 

jim-00-4.6

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2005
2,037
6
61
Genesee, CO USA
There's easier and cheaper ways to drive a mom car off-road.
Accurate.

What is it again that justifies the LR price premium?
I don't think it's the off-road ability any more.
Maybe it's the "heritage" that makes it worth so much.
perhaps it's just the relative scarcity of the LR vehicle.
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
Accurate.

What is it again that justifies the LR price premium?
I don't think it's the off-road ability any more.
Maybe it's the "heritage" that makes it worth so much.
perhaps it's just the relative scarcity of the LR vehicle.

I paid precisely $42,888 for my Discovery II in 2001.

Today, that's $61,124.34, accounting for inflation, so we're at 61 grand so far. That should be considered a fair price, as what I paid for my DII was a fair price given overall quality at the time.

Now we have to add something else, and that's the $10,000 that Land Rover can't do anything about. That accounts for all the modern conveniences people expect and that governments require. Don't have them? You're not selling that car as a current model. Period.

So, we're landing in at a fair price of $71,124.34; almost precisely what an HSE D5 is going to cost you once you fit the options you're absolutely going to fit. Dump a little profit on top; say, another 5 grand of room for negotiation, and you're at:

$76,124.34

That is, essentially, what a DII would cost today, if fitted with required and expected modern electronics. As purchased in 2001, it would be $66,124.34.

It is, therefore, the case that the prices have not changed. Since most everyone was fine with a DII hitting the low 40's when optioned up, nobody can logically complain about the astronomical prices these days. We can gripe, like I do, but that's all we can do. It's not Land Rover's fault, in the end.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles. We may not all like it, but it's a fair price.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
I don't believe jim is denying they've long been a premium, but that the premium was justified more then than now.

They land right in line with what people will cross-shop. Anything less, and apparent quality won't even be slightly close.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
Getting into an LR3 is like getting into a Toyota Camry. At least the old Discovery was interesting and the new one is actually a luxury car.

I just had a look at a 2018 4Runner today. It was surprisingly nice.

The interior shots on the net make it look cheap as fuck, but in person it's actually impressive for the price.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

garrett

Well-known member
Jun 18, 2004
10,931
5
53
Middleburg, VA
www.blackdogmobility.com
You're missing the point. "Ugly" is subjective and isn't the issue. The D5 is BORING. It is not unique. The fact that it is constantly compared to a Ford Explorer is very telling. It is milk toast and uninspiring. Perfect for soccer moms blending in at the mall.





I have to disagree. I've been wheeling with LR3's and even an Evoque. Both did surprisingly well on city tires with traction control. There was one long steep muddy hill inparticular that every modified D1 and D2 was having issues with. The LR3 and Evoque zipped right up it. They might have issues with thick and deep mud but most trucks will.

I'm just stating what I saw countless times with your average driver in above average terrain in most cases. There is only so much you can do with a low profile street tire. Any vehicle is limited by available traction based on tires and surface.

With a proper off road tire/wheel set up, you can easily air down safely to 12-18 psi and get a feeling of where you can get your momentum and where you need to be "soft". Something your computers won't be able to do very well at times.

An Evoque won't be able to do anything more than a Subaru. I've been out with them as well and ground clearance and tires severely limit their ability - unless you want to start damaging them. Their benefit in some situations might be weight, but the Evoque is not designed to leave a dry field in the suburbs.

All you need to do is search YouTube for the dozens of helpless vehicles in fields. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsoWChXebqA

There is a reason Land Rover dealerships design their "courses" specifically for their products that are quite limited. It's easy to impress the average customer that considers gravel roads as "off-road".