Drove the new Discovery and I'm totally confused now.

[patski]

Then there is another contender...Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland. Nice square shape, V8 Hemi, and $20K less price tag. Based on friend's Jeep ownership experiences, I figure can only keep the Jeep for 2 years before the warranty expires and it falls apart. I guess I have some time to think about this more since I need to take delivery of a new vehicle before 12/31/17.

My neighbor has a JGC Overland, normally when we go skiing we take my LR3, once this season we took his Overland.

He and I only ski storms, as you may know it was a big year in Tahoe, no way could the JGCO defrosters/heaters keep up with the snow that day, not even close.

What ever you get, make sure it has a heated windshield..

 

[manoftaste]

I had a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland with all the bells and whistles. It was LL after @7 months and I immediately bought my 2012 LR4. While on paper, the JGC looks great, at the highest setting, the suspension was atrocious, and things started breaking almost immediately. In fact, it was the suspension that was the final straw, it broke, and they simply couldn't fix it. I love my LR4 and am very grateful I got the v-8. I briefly test drove the D5 and was amazed at the level of luxury. With every version, LR becomes more like a RR, not exactly the direction I wanted. Clearly, it has become closer to the generic SUV's that it competes with, but I am unsure if its passed the tipping point. I do remember how jaded many of us where during the D2 to LR3 transition (no solid axles, tire underneath, not trail reparable, etc), perhaps the D5, given a chance, will grow on us. For now, if it wasn't for the diesel option, I wouldn't have much interest.

Bromhead,

I respectfully disagree.

I loved the D1/II, but when LR3 came out, I was stoked. Why, because the evolution of D1/II into the modern world with this LR3 was not an ordinary one by any means. This evolution and progress was one which was very intelligently designed and implement (minus some bad engineering/design choices like the mufflers running under the rear axels etc, which I had thought would be addressed in the future re-designs in the same spirit of engineering innovation).

The engineers/designers had challenged themselves and had gone to great lengths to marry that well-planted smooth highway ride offered by the independent suspension with the vertical wheel travel that the solid axels had provided, resulting in the cross-linked air-suspension, etc. They had spent time and effort to marry the advantages of the uni-body to those of ladder frame design resulting in Integrated-Body Frame. If you have any doubts about this unique IBF, park your truck on a steep incline while titled to either side, and then open any of the four doors and shut them back without any extra force.

If LR simply had followed and continued the same tradition of engineering innovation and standards, set by themselves, then today we would have had a much more capable D5 with much more refined ride, better wind tunnel performance without compromising on the interior room, and including a solution to the mufflers running under the axels problem.

If they had continued to challenge themselves, today we'd have had a solution the changing track width (a side effect of vertical wheel travel with independent suspension). If you look at LR3/LR4' rear suspension' components/hardware design, the engineers were already thinking ahead and were already on their way to coming up with a solve.

So, no. Cant speak for others here, but that ridiculous tail gate design of the new D5 which increases the truck' hight will not grow on me at least. The lack of stadium seating will not grow on me. The lack of flat cargo floor will not grow on me. The lack of panoramic views, the new restricted outside visibility due to smaller windows, and the lack of command driving position will not grow on me. The lack of 18 inch wheels will not grow on me. And most certainly, the Ford Explorer like rear end will not grow on me at all

 

[iSurfvilano]

I have heard this argument before, but the truth is, the transmission is working the magic for you. The engine is down on hp / tq no matter how you cut it. The fact is, they could have mated the new transmission to the V8 and people would have been happy too. I am glad the combo worked for some people, but I would never trade my V8 for that thing.

Would you trade it for a diesel? That's what I wish I had in my LR4...either that or that ridiculous SVR engine.

 

[manoftaste]

Also, its a truck. When critics talk about LR3/LR4's weight, its just sad. I am very happy with my LR4' nearly 6000 LBs of mass. That mass is coming from the truck being built like a tank and I feel safe in it with my family.

I feel safe inside when I am parked on a freeway shoulder for some reason and an eighteen wheeler flies by me at 65 mph, or when on a two-lane highway an on coming eighteen wheeler passes by at its full speed. A lighter vehicle would flutter like a tin can in either of the above situations, but our LR4s stay well-planted and composed while maintaining its course, heading in a straight line on its intended trajectory with minimal disturbance and while maintaining momentum offered by the same mass.

Its the same mass and weight (with its low center of gravity) that keeps this truck well-planted during very high wind situations, specially on the freeway or at high altitude mountain roads. Its that same mass/weight that provides for the rolling momentum helping it cut thru the wind.

As far as the LR4/Discovery, the emphasis should have been, imho, on making the engines more energy-efficeint, and LR was/is on the right track when they had introduced their 5.0 v8 and the TDV6. Its just that more work was/is needed on that front.

Branding this new car-like, unibody minivan (with 20-22 inch wheels, minivan like interior, minivan like rear door, and minivan like stance, and mercedes' minivan like price) as a Discovery 5 is just a joke to me.

 

[mpinco]

Also, its a truck. When critics talk about LR3/LR4's weight, its just sad. I am very happy with my LR4' nearly 6000 LBs of mass. That mass is coming from the truck being built like a tank and I feel safe in it with my family.........

The LR4 is a great tow vehicle. As a "truck" both weight and power support that role. The D5, not so much.

Tow Vehicle and Caravan Weight

 

[777AIA]

[/QUOTE]My accountant said that my LR4 is done depreciating...[/QUOTE]
So.. I may be in a different class here... but, just because a vehicle has fully depreciated does not mean it has no value. In many ways, if you like The LR4 experience, why are you even looking... just stick with the latest LR4 model. There are tons available with low mileage. The new Disco is that a joke in comparison to the capabilities of the earlier vehicle... other than the technology… Which is mostly Bluetooth oriented! and therefore useless off the road…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[manoftaste]

The LR4 is a great tow vehicle. As a "truck" both weight and power support that role. The D5, not so much.

Tow Vehicle and Caravan Weight

Wow, never knew that, but makes total sense. Thanks for the link.

Now I appreciate each and every single pound of my 5800 LBs of LR4 even more

 

[777AIA]

Wow, never knew that, but makes total sense. Thanks for the link.

Now I appreciate each and every single pound of my 5800 LBs of LR4 even more

Make a list: What can LR4 do that Disc17 can't... and, wow. I mean... why did they even build the new Discovery?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[patski]

So, no. Cant speak for others here, but that ridiculous tail gate design of the new D5 which increases the truck' hight will not grow on me at least. The lack of stadium seating will not grow on me. The lack of flat cargo floor will not grow on me. The lack of panoramic views, the new restricted outside visibility due to smaller windows, and the lack of command driving position will not grow on me. The lack of 18 inch wheels will not grow on me.

Conclusion: It wasn't designed for anyone on this list.

 

[jwest]

Also, its a truck. When critics talk about LR3/LR4's weight, its just sad. I am very happy with my LR4' nearly 6000 LBs of mass. That mass is coming from the truck being built like a tank and I feel safe in it with my family.

I feel safe inside when I am parked on a freeway shoulder for some reason and an eighteen wheeler flies by me at 65 mph, or when on a two-lane highway an on coming eighteen wheeler passes by at its full speed. A lighter vehicle would flutter like a tin can in either of the above situations, but our LR4s stay well-planted and composed while maintaining its course, heading in a straight line on its intended trajectory with minimal disturbance and while maintaining momentum offered by the same mass.

Its the same mass and weight (with its low center of gravity) that keeps this truck well-planted during very high wind situations, specially on the freeway or at high altitude mountain roads. Its that same mass/weight that provides for the rolling momentum helping it cut thru the wind.

As far as the LR4/Discovery, the emphasis should have been, imho, on making the engines more energy-efficeint, and LR was/is on the right track when they had introduced their 5.0 v8 and the TDV6. Its just that more work was/is needed on that front.

Branding this new car-like, unibody minivan (with 20-22 inch wheels, minivan like interior, minivan like rear door, and minivan like stance, and mercedes' minivan like price) as a Discovery 5 is just a joke to me.

AMEN BROTHA!!!