LR5 Release Updates?

[danrhiggins]

I of course agree that trucks have a wide range of ratings because they have an almost dizzying array of configurations of engines, axles, gears, etc.

As for leveling, it is not the same as weight distribution. I'll see if I can find the YouTube video of a test/demo of this that I saw using both methods. Without the weight distribution physics, all of the weight remains on the rear axle - even if it is now level. With a WD hitch, some portion of the hitch weight will have shifted to both the front axle and the trailer axles. Leveling is actually a side effect of weight distribution. Whereas weight distribution is not a side effect of lifting the rear end to make the to vehicle level. Leveling with air is not bad, but it is not the same thing.

Actually, here is the YouTube video link.

If in fact the new Discovery comes out with 7700 lbs I will be all the more disappointed with JLR. Not changing the number suggests that they have not done the SAE certification. This SAE certification for towing capacity was introduced about three years ago and has been adopted by a number of manufacturers. Here is a good albeit somewhat dated article on this new rating criteria.

http://www.trucktrend.com/news/163-0910-truck-towing-capacity/

Now to be clear, if you are towing a lighter weight trailer (3-4K#, etc.) with an LR4 I can't imagine you need to be concerned about all this stuff. For heavier trailers a safe hitch (meaning one rated to the appropriate tongue weight, etc. - whether you go anti-sway and/or weight distribution is up to you) system is important.

Another note on towing with an LR4 (and any vehicle with a good departure angle which I hope the Discovery will have) is that there is an advantage to having the rear axle closer to the hitch location on the vehicle. This often comes up on trailering forums where many will declare that you shouldn't two heavier trailers with an LR4 (or LC or likely the Discovery) because of the short wheel base. These people typically state that you should use a proper, longer-base, truck with the tow package. They have a point. But the LR4 and LC and presumably the Discovery have the hitch receiver closer to the rear axle so there is a "shorter lever" that might "lift" the front end a bit. That is good for the LR4 provided you are safely within the Gross Axle Weight for the rear axle.

 

[PaulLR3]

What size wheels are on that camo Discovery...I'm guessing at least 20", maybe 21". Either way, they won't be great off road. I just hope that the LR4 19" wheels fit the new Discovery. And lets hope we can still order a "heavy duty" package with low gear and a full size spare. I was looking at the new Q7...it drives great and has so much technology. But a can of fix-a-flat is not an acceptable remedy for a flat tire, especially when a pothole blows out a sidewall.

 

[cperez]

@danrhiggins, interesting finding that airing up the tow vehicle to level it out actually increased the weight on the rear axle even further, while dropping the weight on the front. Appearances can be deceiving. Very informative video; thanks.

 

[catman]

Sure hoping the "camo" is hiding something that doesn't look so....."Explorer-like"

Ironically, the one thing that makes the LR look better between these two is that it does not look so squashed at the roofline. Considering how all of the other LR SUV's seem to be using this squashed sloped design these days, I was surprised the the Explorer was worse.

The window rake seems better on the Discovery as well, but at a glance, they sure do look like twins.

 

[Longhorn]

Ironically, the one thing that makes the LR look better between these two is that it does not look so squashed at the roofline. Considering how all of the other LR SUV's seem to be using this squashed sloped design these days, I was surprised the the Explorer was worse.

The window rake seems better on the Discovery as well, but at a glance, they sure do look like twins.

Completely agree and will be interesting to see what it looks like in real life. Hopefully the new Disco will retain a somewhat taller profile. When it was time for us to replace our Cayenne back in 2010, it was the "boxiness" of the LR4. I hate the squashed rooflines that do nothing but take up precious cargo space. We have 3 giant breed dogs plus a normal size one and the LR4 was the only thing that could give them the room to actually sit up comfortably.

That being said, we'll be keeping our 2016.5 MY LR4 for a long time.

 

[toddjb122]

FYI - here is the same story from 9/5, on a different website;
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1105953_2018-land-rover-discovery-first-look

...On the bright side, there still seems to be plenty of room for 7 passengers, and the cargo area behind the 3rd row actually looks a bit more usable than in the current LR3/4. I mean, you could never fit 7 parachutes in the back of the LR4's 3rd row seats, I don't care how tight you pack them...

, I was thinking the same thing. It is a rare day when I use my third row, but when I do, there is just enough room for me to roll up my mat and put it behind the seats. No room for gear (or parachutes).

However, unlike you I didn't notice any noticeable size increase over the LR3/LR4. I guess it has to be big enough for the wine and cheese platform to roll out, but that's it.

 

[cperez]

It is a rare day when I use my third row, but when I do, there is just enough room for me to roll up my mat and put it behind the seats.

Is this the thick OEM cargo mat you're talking about? Wow, I tried rolling mine up once and quickly realized I'd be out of luck if I ever had to deploy the 3rd away from home base (leaving mat by side of road). Actually I just decided that a couple of people would have to walk. I'll have to give it another shot.

 

[danrhiggins]

Completely agree and will be interesting to see what it looks like in real life. Hopefully the new Disco will retain a somewhat taller profile. When it was time for us to replace our Cayenne back in 2010, it was the "boxiness" of the LR4. I hate the squashed rooflines that do nothing but take up precious cargo space. We have 3 giant breed dogs plus a normal size one and the LR4 was the only thing that could give them the room to actually sit up comfortably.

That being said, we'll be keeping our 2016.5 MY LR4 for a long time.

I also valued the taller roofline of the LRx. To me it presented an, "I'm not about looking ****, I'm about getting down to business." attitude. And the LRx has always been about what it can do - far more substance than others even if it compromises a bit on style. As for the new Disco. I really need to see it in real life. 3D. Walk around it. Sit in it. Climb around in it. (No, I'm no longer in the market but I am very intrigued.) With the RRS (I won't even mention its baby sister) it was not merely about losing cargo space and functionality, it was also about losing visibility when driving due to the "elephant sat on me" roofline of the RRS. I sometimes try to picture things on a sliding scale with one end being "Country/Woods/Outdoors/Adventure/Handsome/Substance/The-Real-Deal" and the other end being "City/Chic/Pretty/Style/Pretender". The recent LR releases, IMHO, are moving rapidly towards the latter. They remind me more of the people you see at the ski slopes with lots of expensive, fancy gear and over-the-top clothing who spend more time in the lodge and very little on the slopes.

 

[umbertob]

I was just thinking, what about the 7 skydivers' crash helmets? Where'd they put those? Either that trunk is way bigger than I thought, or Land Rover embellished that video a little.

Here is a better view of that same car in motion:

So there, it can still go off road. End of story.

 

[Longhorn]

Looks like it's ready to attack the nearest soccer field with ample room for folding camp chairs.

Would have bee more impressed with it wading through a stream and then climbed up the bank it at least showing a little Land Rover heritage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk