LR5 Release Updates?

[catman]

I am not so sure about that, my guess is that most "Poverty spec" Disco SEs will arrive with the EAS option pre-installed here. It's strange they are offering coilers at all in NAS models. In most other markets abroad, UK and Eurpoean countries included, electronic air suspensions are standard equipment on all new Discos, including barebone S trims with cloth seats that aren't even offered here in North America. It was probably done so they could advertise it as "starting under $50K", but I don't think there will be that many coilers on dealers' lots to choose from next year.

Strange, I just had an alignment done on my LR3 and in looking around for specs I came across this post, which many of you may have seen in the past:

57.65.04 1.80 W6 ALGN4W

Normal warranty policy and procedures apply.
REPAIR PROCEDURE
ALIGN SUSPENSION GEOMETRY

1. If the vehicle has Electronic Air Suspension (EAS), refer to Technical Bulletin LA204-007, connect IDS to the vehicle and place the Electronic Air Suspension (EAS), into “tight tolerance” geometry setting mode.

NOTE: A small number of coil sprung vehicles were imported into North America at the very start of LR3 importation. Step 2 is included in the event that such a vehicle requires suspension alignment.

2. If the vehicle has coil spring suspension, perform the following steps to ensure that the equivalent of a full tank of gasoline weight is present in the vehicle when the alignment process is performed:​

​

Has anyone seen an LR3 with a factory coil suspension? I wonder the Disco 5 with coils will indeed be used for a marketing number as Umbeto suggests and then quickly fade away never to be seen again????

 

[umbertob]

Yes, I had a friend and former member of our local Land Rover club who had purchased a slightly used, white 2004 LR3 SE with coils (with a relatively small 3-liter V6 gas engine and no navigation) from a dealer, this was back in 2006. It was such a great deal, even at that time when the LR3 wasn't exactly setting sales records, and he couldn't pass it up.

As the bulletin above mentioned, very few LR3 coilers made it to North America in 2004, they were mostly test mules and/or used by dealers at shows and events or as loaners, then sold to private parties cheap. My friend loved that car, and of course you couldn't beat the simplicity and reliability of the coils vs EAS (this was back in the LR3's early days, when compressors, air springs and valves were failing miserably, and often.) His car lacked Terrain Response, but had low range, HDC, and all other goodies, so it was very capable off-road. However, he was always wishing for more ground clearance compared to our EAS equipped LR3s and Sports when we were wheeling together.

 

[stew77]

Front seat position was very familiar to me... It does feel like a LR4 from behind the wheel, same visibility all around, same size steering wheel, same legroom and generous headroom. The center console may be a little bit higher than in the LR4's (the refrigerated well under the center arm rest is substantially deeper), but overall you will feel right at home. I'm afraid I don't sit in the back seat of my LR4 much - I wonder if I ever sat back there, actually... So I can't really give you an informed opinion. I find that legroom on the LR4 is lacking for second row passengers, if you are like me and push the driver and front passenger seats all the way back. The new Disco seemed quite a bit more spacious. There is still plenty of headroom, the cushions are deep and comfy, and you still sit a couple of inches higher than the front driver and passenger for that "stadium seating" feeling. Also, unlike the LR4, the 2nd row seats on the Disco can slide back and forth several inches with a manual adjustment lever under the seats, and the seatbacks do recline back quite a bit. Overall I think 2nd row passenger would be much happier in the new Disco, even the center seat seemed plenty comfy despite the hidden cupholder on the folding arm rest. Access to the third row may be easier on the old LR4 though, I couldn't find a way to fold and "tumble" the second row seats forward like in the LR4, so getting back there may be more of a chore on the new Disco.

Thanks for the excellent photo link and comments relative to the new Discovery umbertob! The visibility and feel from behind the wheel of the LR4 is one of our favorite attributes of our current LR4 (when conducting the more mundane suburban activities, but even more so off-road where the excellent visibility allows you to perfectly position the LR4 on the trail). Very glad to hear that you found the front seat position "familiar" to your current LR4, and the flexibility and additional space in the second and third rows is very welcome too. I won't likely be a first adopter of the new Discovery, but I can see it a few years down the road after I've fully enjoyed our current LR4..

 

[toddjb122]

Did anyone notice that the Discovery doesn't seem to have the standard running boards?

I kind of like that, as I prefer side step tubes to running boards. Interesting though as I believe the boards were pretty standard in the U.S. on stocked LR4s.

Maybe I'm wrong. Just seems that every LR4 I see has running boards. I did a quick web search though and found several pictures of 4s without them.

 

[umbertob]

As of MY2015, beefy factory running boards became mandatory on NAS LR4 models only (not on Discovery 4 abroad, AFAIK), allegedly due to new, more stringent side impact regulations introduced by NHTSA in 2014... Prior to MY2015, a "light" version of those running boards was an optional dealer installed accessory, and it still is. The 2017 Discovery surely was built with the latest US regulations in mind, making mandatory factory running boards unnecessary - thank goodness.

 

[Surfrider77]

To add on that, I am pretty sure the running boards were identical. I have seen pics of the underside and it seems LR added some aluminum mounting blocks to the frame for the boards which would act like mini crumple zones. Same **** running boards, little pieces of aluminum added to frame.

You could always remove the running boards yourself and it would be every bit as safe as a 2010-2013 LR4. NHTSA has some pretty stupid and archaic rules at times. Due to NHTSA, US models are subject to all kinds of rules prohibiting advances in modern technology too. BMW has had anti-dazzle smart headlights in Europe for 4 years now, but some reason the NHTSA has yet to approve it for use over here. Also, the new 7 series has laserlight headlights which is also not approved for use on US shores.

 

[toddjb122]

Here is another video I came across. It's kind of long to sit through, but if you jump around you'll find some close-ups of areas you haven't seen before.

The all new Discovery...designed for DOGS! (@5:48)

I also have a dog and she loves roaming in the back of the Land Rover. Can't say I've ever seen this in a marketing piece, though.

 

[Fluffhead]

Should be nice

 

[catman]

The manual (in segements, not one easy to read pdf, at least that I noticed) is online now.
http://www.ownerinfo.landrover.com/model/3D/2017/document/22188_en_GBR

 

[danrhiggins]

Due to my concerns about towing and tongue weight confusion on the LR4, I immediately went to the towing section of this manual. Either they haven't updated all of the material or I am missing something or they are really missing something!

In the Towing Weights Section: "Maximum Permissible Towing Weightss"

• Trailer with brakes. 6,614 lbs
• "Unrestricted" Trailer Tongue Weight. 331 lbs. (That's what it says.)
• "Restricted" Trailer Tongue Weidht. 550 lbs. They have the following note associated with "restricted": For every pound above 331 lbs (150 kg) added to the trailer tongue weight, the same weight must be removed from the vehicle's payload.

And then there is this statement: "The trailer's tongue weight must be at least a minimum of 4% of the trailer's gross weight."

4%? At least here in the US the recommended practice is 10-12%.

This certainly doesn't square with what we saw in the marketing literature and seems to be a significant step backwards.