Have you already bought a new Land Rover or are you still deciding about that?
I have a LR3 ( in Europe called Discovery 3), V6 diesel engine, manual gear box, cairns blue. I´m so happy with it. I have run 8000 km. It is even better that I never dreamt. :drive:
Man, LRonly.com and DiscoWeb are so much different, There is like a 23746272 page thread on Discoweb about howmuch everyone hates the LR3. Too many A-holes have gone onto that forum. LRonly.com kicks major cojohns. So yeah, I would say go for it! and later in life, restore a D1!!! It'll work out great!
seems like 80% are just bitter about nothing at all and wanna vent on anyone who passes by...
Although I'm my opinion the LR 3 is less of a rover than anything to have rolled outta soulihull..that being said its caterin to a newr market that really has no need for off road capability excpet fot the occasional snowy weather...
150% agreed!..To be honest, i do like MOST (NOT ALL) of the deisgn, the only thing that bothers me is the independant suspension. That alone makes it less of a rover but its still a rover nonetheless and I appreciate all of the engineering and technology put into it, I simply dont see it being my primary off-roader. For anyone who works with computers, you know how unexpected and unreliable they could be and if there is one thing the LR3 is full of, its computers. Too many comps in control of so many things that work better mechanically. But what the hek, from here on out everything will be like this (other cars) and there's prety much nothing we can do about it so we might as well live with it. :shifty:
A friend of mine traded his 98 Disco series 1 in on a new Disco 3 SE V6 diesel auto. It is one very impressive car I think if you mainly do road running it is a fantastic car, he mainly wants it for towing a caravan. Off Road I think it is too nice a car to bash around,I will be staying with my Disco 1 TDI untill I have grown up a bit. :drink1:
The LR3 'controversy' boils down (as I see it) to two main issues:
1. Off-Road: LR3 is clearly disadvantaged. Difficult to argue otherwise (despite some positive press,,mostly by LR). I don't mean dirt roads,,, I mean off-road. A double whammy: 1) Suspension system impossible to upgrade (must be replaced to modify). 2) No all terrain or off-road tire option even in stock size. (stock tires inadequate for off-road use). Plus,,,, tougher break-over (although not quite as bad as H2) & lack of after-market accessories. Additionally, many LR "purists" dislike the Ford 'boxy' look,, and feel the LR3 lacks the true LR "spirit". :shifty:
2. Most people's reality: LR3 is clearly a step-up in luxury. It's bigger, with a high-tech dash. Rides smoother & with more power than previous renditions of Disco. :clap:
Reality is that sales of LR3 will help keep LR is business,,,which in the interests of everyone. Rather than an either-or, I wish LR would give both camps what they want. We already have the new Rangie & LR3,,, how about getting back into making off-road vehicles. Apparently senior management thinks there is no market,,, but look at Jeep Rubicon,,, and the persistence of the standard Jeep. It exists side-by-side with Liberty & Grand Cherokee. Not to make Chrysler out to be a model of corporate decision-making, but you know what I mean....... thoughts? :drink1:
You couldn't be more right SCSL. I would like to see a new Defender or something. Wasn't there suppose to be a new LR model presented at this years' G4? I think that BMW, after unveiling the M3/4, M5 and M6 in the states, should think about buying Rover back! (<i know its a wild idea). Every car mag i own reffers to BMW as "a diver's car"...well they should mix that with LR's rep of being an off-roader to come up with something radical!..like a modern carbureted vehicle (<me dreaming again) :buttrock:
We had an LR3 out on the trail with us a few weeks ago. It was an "obstacle course" type of event and the LR3 went thru all the obstacles except 1 (from what I saw). The one obstacle the LR3 bypassed took out my Rotoflex (I know, I haven't had a chance to do the conversion to u-joint), broke a 6 month old tranny mount, busted my y-pipe and scraped my brand spanking new sliders and bumpers (fr & rear)...
Don't underestimate the LR3!!
BTW, I have all the goodies on Disco except for lockers and 34" tires.
By the way,,, I just went on that other site to read some comments and spent some time browsing. Some great pics & off-road threads but,,,
Some of those members have SEVERE anger-management issues. Thank you, all, for keeping our discourse positive. :clap: :drink1: :drink1: :drink1:
some folks over there are truly Agrovated...
I guess they need to hsve it explained to them that the web should be treat like real life...one day you may bump into someone you smack talked...hope you have something to back that talk up with if that happens...
I'm tellin you guys, I'm going to buy Serg a new truck one day..haha...he's done an excellent job of administrating and this Forum ROCKS!!! Yeah those guys overthere do have TOOOOOOONNNSS of pictures and they even have videos and stuff, but dang, they cant post without trash-talking someone down ( even if its on their signatures)
The off-road disadvantage of the LR3 seems to be its size, the breakover angle will be greater. Approach & departure are still good. Solid axles have the advantage of being stout cheaply and providing articulation to lift the low side of the vehicle over obstacles. The LR3 has a stout ind. susp, and the cross-link feature allows it to articulate. No, I don't like the computers. But think about it: the old Disco II (1999-2004) had no center diff lock which could be easily engaged / disengaged, and so relied solely on a computer to manage ALL of its traction. And the P38 Range Rover, although it still had the VCU also used a computer for side-side traction, and its EAS system was very unreliable. How good is that truck riding on its bumpstops off-road? And that started in 1994. Ind. suspension has another advantage, which is clearance. The diffs are mounted fixed to the floor pan of the truck, and the entire underside is clean and high, no axles with low diffs hanging in the way. How do you think the Humvee gets 16" of clearance? Even the Range Rover (Series III) has 11.1" [The VW Toureg has 11.8!]
Back to the LR3, for the first time ever, land rover has a manual center diff lock AND a rear differential lock. Plus, ETC.
What other rides can you get for between $45k-50k? You could get a Volvo XC-90, no frame, front / AWD, no lo-range, S-80 car platform, and ugly styling. (Now with Yamaha V8 option!) You could get a BMW X5, no frame, AWD-no low range, a 3.0 six-cylinder, etc. You could get a
Mercedes ML, with ind. suspension, not much clearance, perm. 4x4 with lo-range, but three open diffs and only a computer to provide traction, plus basically poor styling. And the new for '06 ML is even more hideous, and low-range is now an option. So the LR3, with unibody-integrated frame, cross-linked air suspension, 300hp Jaguar V8, Terrain Response, permanent 4x4 w/lo range, locking center and rear diffs, 4-wheel ETC, liftable suspension--conservative styling, great brakes, roomy interior--its a bargain!
I hear ya Troverman. LR3's a nice SUV. But for 40-50k you could get a Disco II w/ solid axles, a Defender, or even (gasp!) a Jeep, and put the rest of the money into mods (suspension, lockers, etc), add a winch, end up with a truely capable off-road vehicle & still have plenty left over.
So,,, when does LR get back into the off-road vehicle business? :dunno: It's true that you can't keep a company in business building off-road vehicles or catering to the 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000, or maybe 1 in 10,000 who really takes their truck off-road. Even so, a true off-roader would still have mass appeal. The popularity of H2 seems to indicate that people would buy a vehicle with the "look" of a true off-roader. So all this comes back to--- when do we get an American-market Defender that is really a Defender? If Jeep can still sell Jeeps, and even add the Rubicon to the line-up, stands to reason that LR could sell the hell out of Defenders in the U.S. No need for high-tech,,,, their margins could be HUGE. :drive:
if judging the lr3 just on looks, personnaly, i'm not a fan of it. I think it's lost alot of disco charm without the stepped roof. the front does look sharp. rear looks like it was the last thing done and the designers just called it quits. think the could have done alot more with it.
also it looks very similar to the nissan aswell.
but looks are a personal issue so if you like... i say go for it
Troverman, geeze, you have some of the best posts! :buttrock: Good points! About the computer thing, im just stuborn and love classic mechanical stuff, but you made it very clear! Good comparisons too! :clap:
Oh... I won't forget that one... and I have plenty of witnesses... I'll take a D110 please...
Seriously, the LR3 is really aimed at all the people LR has done market research on. It is a product that seems to be guided mainly towards US consumers. Few of which want a $50,000 vehicle to go off roading. The majority of Land Rover buyers (in the US at least) buy them for the name, prestige, etc.. very few of the US sold LR's will ever see any kind of off road work.
However, Land Rover realizes this and made a product to match what the people's needs are. I totally agree that the LR3 will make money for LR and keep em in business.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.