LR4 Offroad Performance WITHOUT Heavey Duty Package

No on the Defender tires but also no on the Discovery I and II tires which were Michelin. Tires can help but when your traction control strategy is to reduce throttle input and apply the brake to a wheel or wheels, traction/forward momentum issues can be discovered.

Edit add: Let's be fair to all manufacturers which basically used the same base technology, most customers will not take their vehicle into moderate to significant off road conditions. In addition the technology does work for 90%+ situations. That remaining 10% will **** off many. I took our LR4 HD up Engineer's Pass from Ouray a few years ago. Someone yelled out "I wouldn't take MY LR4 up here!" LOL.

For the tech folks in the forum, there are now multiple ways to achieve traction control and the more advanced use torque-vectoring AWD systems to alter the power going to each wheel rather than using the brakes to limit it. Note that some/all of them may use the brakes too- I am not certain about that.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a2178/4225886/

The biggest issue you would have pitting the LR3/LR4 vs the Defender in that climb is the sheer damn weight of the Discovery. At over 3 tons loaded with gear and passengers, it's a damn pig. The weight on these things is unbelievable.

I too think LR are insane putting those crappy Contis on the LR4. They spend a ton of money on R&D to make it a capable off-roader, then put garbage street tires on the thing. We all know its to get MPG figures as low as possible.. performance be damned.

I don't get the tire thing either, on a premium vehicle. I am disappointed that Ford used the cheapest tires on the Limited (premium) edition of the Explorer, disappointed but not surprised. I am surprised that Land Rover didn't go with the best tire, even if it is an all-season, on the LR4. All-season fits the "typical" use of the vehicle. Do they use better tires on the Range Rover?

Factory tires are selected for load, safety, ride, urban performance and cost. As for 'best' LR4 or LR5 tire? LOL. We can't even agree on what best is. Let each owner decide.

Surfrider77 said:

The biggest issue you would have pitting the LR3/LR4 vs the Defender in that climb is the sheer damn weight of the Discovery. At over 3 tons loaded with gear and passengers, it's a damn pig. The weight on these things is unbelievable.......

Click to expand...

A LR3/4 is only 3/4 of a ton heavier than a Discovery I. You can add more gear and passengers but the example I gave was curb weight for all vehicles + 2 passengers.

Should have noted that all vehicles used low range in the hill climb. If anything the longer wheelbase of a LR3/4 would have given it an advantage. But, there was no LR3 in those days. The Discovery II with TC was the new model.

So from the last couple posts, for my use where I am not doing any real rock crawling or teetering HD package may not be an issue, investment in better tires and recovery gear seems like a more plausible and overall more effective solution.

thanks for the replies.

What is the threshold in terms of MPH for driving in "Lo Range"? Is there a certain speed recommended to stay under?

There is no threshold because it's really not that cut and dry, the use of low range depends on driving conditions, terrain, etc. Nothing bad will happen (well, your gas mileage will suck) by staying in low range for stretches of flat trail, even at moderate speeds, if those stretches of trail separate tougher ones where the use of low range will be necessary. Remember that you can't even engage Low Range on-the-fly (vehicle rolling / not stationary) if you are exceeding speeds of about 24 mph, and vice-versa you can not shift from low to high range if you are moving faster than 38 mph, you gotta slow down first. So, I guess the "threshold" where using low range is considered politically incorrect, is found probably somewhere within that range. If you are in low range and shouldn't be, your car will literally whine and scream at you. You'll know.

doubt its any different than some common sense. On the quickly changing forest roads I usually use low because it tightens the range and also having more torque in say 3/4 it stays in the gear better than trying to stay in 2 then hitting a hair pin and it shifts to 1, then 2, etc. super annoying.

Seems silly to use it if 6th is starting to sound at all high revving though. see what i mean?