2017 LR Discovery details

[A.J.M]

I went all round it, then walked to the D4 they had next to it.
Saw it was bigger inside, more practical.
Then walked over to the Range Rover, very similar.

Having had my look. My 3 will be getting joined by a L405 SDV8 Autobiography in a few years. Going to let the magic of depreciation do its stuff.

 

[smlobx]

This will outsell the lr3/4 by a long shot (coming from a happy lr3 owner). What separates it from other autos ? Better break over angle than a wrangler unlimited, also better ground clearance than the unlimited. More ground clearance , water crossing ability, and better traction control than outgoing lr4, 1000 lb lighter but stronger and stiffer frame , over 8k pound towing capacity, seats 7, beautiful European styled interior.....name another mid size SUV that has all that . And at 50-60k??

Well...I think my Grand Cherokee limited Ecodiesel would stack up pretty good 
It really doesn't make any sense to compare the Disco to a Wrangler. Apples and oranges.

 

[Dalko43]

Very true on all statements. Plus most people who buy a JK are going to add another $10-15k to that price for kit to get the most of their Rubicon. Out of the box, the LR is ready for the trail or family weekend adventure far more than a Jeep on day one IMO. At least of us like minded LR owners.

You're kidding right?

The Jeep (in stock form) is easily far more capable than anything Land Rover is currently making (perhaps with the exception of the Defender, which of course they don't make anymore). If we were talking about Land Rover 15-20 years, ago, when they were still making vehicles for the camel trophy, I'd agree with you, but nowadays, Land Rover's priorities have shifted from offroad utility to yuppie mall-crawling.

Let's face it, most people aren't buying Land Rovers to go do the Rubicon or do a week-long trip in the Australian outback, and Land Rover really isn't tailoring their vehicles for that kind use (we'll see what the new Defender turns out like). IMO, the Disco isn't even a valid comparison to the Wrangler, but rather to the Grand Cherokee. The Disco is a unibody luxury SUV, with some measure of offroad tech (which is almost the exact opposite of what the Wrangler is). The LR4 still has some utilitarian qualities about it: body-on-frame; big cargo space; center differential. But even that lineup has been neutered with mostly impractical street-oriented wheels and tires and a fully independent rear suspension. Just by nature of having 2 solid axles and beefier tires, the stock Jeep is capable of going more places that most Land Rovers can't.

If you want to compare the two brands on comfort, I readily agree that Land Rover takes the cake. But I don't think there is much left to debate on which brand has the better offroad utility.

 

[mpinco]

You're kidding right?

The Jeep (in stock form) is easily far more capable than anything Land Rover is currently making (perhaps with the exception of the Defender, which of course they don't make anymore). ......

Not clear which Jeep vs Land Rover you are comparing (Wrangler, Grand Cherokee? Both?) but most are surprised at how capable the LR3/4/RR's are.

- You say fully independent rear suspension but EAS is cross-linked both front and rear, functionally creating a suspension system that is a step above solid axles.
- Who cares what tires are supplied as stock/factory. Everyone changes them to their own needs.
- Jeep Wrangler can be equipped with a larger range of tires but a majority of owners do NOT put on rock crawler tires, staying with somewhat larger tires but still close to factory. That is 99% of Jeep owners.
- LR3/4 are unibody ON full frame. Have no idea what the Disco5 is. Wranglers are full frame while Cherokees are unibody. Well used unibody vehicles experience structural failure.
- Reliability? Wrangler is simpler so reliability is higher than the Cherokee/LR3/4/RR. Doh! I've seen unreliable and leaking Cherokees out of the factory box. Same for all vehicles that increase technology. Once had a brand new J10 that failed a 1/2 mile from home. Neighbors Grand Cherokee sunroof leaks, radiator leaked, etc. My D1 only stranded me once (fuel pump) in 160K miles while my LR4 performed flawlessly on Engineers Pass lower section (more difficult, rock ledges, etc)

After the J10 and before the D1 I ran IH Scouts. Now that is the comparison point! Made Wranglers look like junk.

 

[zelatore]

I will say I'm shocked to see the specs showing the D5 besting the Wrangler's approach/breakover/departure angles. Breakover especially as that's a huge weak point on the D3/4. Of course the beauty of a Wrangler is how easy and inexpensive it is to built to your taste. Do they compare to each other? Not really, though you can certainly do more with the Rover than it would look like sitting on the lot.

Not to worry, I won't be buying a D5 any time soon. Even with the specs looking better than I had hoped, I neither need nor want all the extra techy bells and whistles. I'll keep my LR3 and RRS(s) and see what happens with the future Defender. Given Rover's stated desire to have 3 families (RR, Disco, Defender) with multiple variants of each, I'll hold onto my hope that at least one version of the next Defender will be a bare-bones work/adventure tuned version. Something that will help them reclaim some of the lost off roader/commercial/military use markets the Defender once served

 

[roverpat]

I will say I'm shocked to see the specs showing the D5 besting the Wrangler's approach/breakover/departure angles. Breakover especially as that's a huge weak point on the D3/4. Of course the beauty of a Wrangler is how easy and inexpensive it is to built to your taste. Do they compare to each other? Not really, though you can certainly do more with the Rover than it would look like sitting on the lot.

Not to worry, I won't be buying a D5 any time soon. Even with the specs looking better than I had hoped, I neither need nor want all the extra techy bells and whistles. I'll keep my LR3 and RRS(s) and see what happens with the future Defender. Given Rover's stated desire to have 3 families (RR, Disco, Defender) with multiple variants of each, I'll hold onto my hope that at least one version of the next Defender will be a bare-bones work/adventure tuned version. Something that will help them reclaim some of the lost off roader/commercial/military use markets the Defender once served

There is nothing cheap about building up a Jeep. Sometimes more expensive than a Rover.

 

[Victory_Overland]

You're kidding right?

The Jeep (in stock form) is easily far more capable than anything Land Rover is currently making (perhaps with the exception of the Defender, which of course they don't make anymore). If we were talking about Land Rover 15-20 years, ago, when they were still making vehicles for the camel trophy, I'd agree with you, but nowadays, Land Rover's priorities have shifted from offroad utility to yuppie mall-crawling.

Let's face it, most people aren't buying Land Rovers to go do the Rubicon or do a week-long trip in the Australian outback, and Land Rover really isn't tailoring their vehicles for that kind use (we'll see what the new Defender turns out like). IMO, the Disco isn't even a valid comparison to the Wrangler, but rather to the Grand Cherokee. The Disco is a unibody luxury SUV, with some measure of offroad tech (which is almost the exact opposite of what the Wrangler is). The LR4 still has some utilitarian qualities about it: body-on-frame; big cargo space; center differential. But even that lineup has been neutered with mostly impractical street-oriented wheels and tires and a fully independent rear suspension. Just by nature of having 2 solid axles and beefier tires, the stock Jeep is capable of going more places that most Land Rovers can't.

If you want to compare the two brands on comfort, I readily agree that Land Rover takes the cake. But I don't think there is much left to debate on which brand has the better offroad utility.

Well, like I said "Out of the box, the LR is ready for the trail or family weekend adventure far more than a Jeep on day one IMO!" is solely my opinion. I fly back and forth from Oahu to the Big Island fairly frequently for work. When on the BI, I drive a Jeep. I play on-road, and off-road just like I do with my LR. IMO, my LR3 bone stock is a far better machine as an overall vehicle ready for the trail and weekend adventure and a daily use vehicle. I also believe it is better configured for utility form because I've lived in both vehicles and know the space and configuration required to camp out of each vehicle and not have to sleep on the ground or roof.

Jeep rides like crap on road, lose my kidneys on dirt roads but is nice in technical areas. MY 2008 LR3 far surpasses that 2015 Wrangler and my buddies Rubicon IMO in every area of comfort, space, utility, quality, traction control, etc... as an all around daily vehicle bone stock out of the box. The Jeep does one thing very well, off-road in highly techical areas and if I want my my vehicle to withstand being rained on in the interior, I'll take the Wrangler as well. That's one area beat compared to my LR in stock form. So yes, if you are buying a vehicle to be great off-road, buy a Wrangler or Rubicon because off-road technical trails is the only place it surpasses my LR IMO.

Matter of fact, all of my Jeep buddies absolutely love my LR in it's spacious sleeping space as they bust out their required ground or RTT when they need to sleep. Come to think of it, their ladies like it too when we crawl out of it in the morning refreshed and they have to fold up their tents and pack their stuff. They can only travel with two poeple max or they have to leave their gear at home. I go anywhere they go for our purposes of daily use overlanding vehicles. I didn't say the debate was for the best off-road vehicle, I debate best all around in a view of all aspects.

No chance a bone stock Wrangler or Rubicon is a better all around weekend camper Overland vehicle by any stretch outside of its range which we clearly lack on the LR side.

Solid axles......my dads E-350 4x4 Ford van has solid axles...........>I guess that makes his van a better off-road vehicle than my Landy...hahahahaha JK, JK..just having fun!

Two different vehicles, two different missions! We all have our opinions.

 

[ColoDisco]

Well, like I said "Out of the box, the LR is ready for the trail or family weekend adventure far more than a Jeep on day one IMO!" is solely my opinion. I fly back and forth from Oahu to the Big Island fairly frequently for work. When on the BI, I drive a Jeep. I play on-road, and off-road just like I do with my LR. IMO, my LR3 bone stock is a far better machine as an overall vehicle ready for the trail and weekend adventure and a daily use vehicle. I also believe it is better configured for utility form because I've lived in both vehicles and know the space and configuration required to camp out of each vehicle and not have to sleep on the ground or roof.

Jeep rides like crap on road, lose my kidneys on dirt roads but is nice in technical areas. MY 2008 LR3 far surpasses that 2015 Wrangler and my buddies Rubicon IMO in every area of comfort, space, utility, quality, traction control, etc... as an all around daily vehicle bone stock out of the box. The Jeep does one thing very well, off-road in highly techical areas and if I want my my vehicle to withstand being rained on in the interior, I'll take the Wrangler as well. That's one area beat compared to my LR in stock form. So yes, if you are buying a vehicle to be great off-road, buy a Wrangler or Rubicon because off-road technical trails is the only place it surpasses my LR IMO.

Matter of fact, all of my Jeep buddies absolutely love my LR in it's spacious sleeping space as they bust out their required ground or RTT when they need to sleep. Come to think of it, their ladies like it too when we crawl out of it in the morning refreshed and they have to fold up their tents and pack their stuff. They can only travel with two poeple max or they have to leave their gear at home. I go anywhere they go for our purposes of daily use overlanding vehicles. I didn't say the debate was for the best off-road vehicle, I debate best all around in a view of all aspects.

No chance a bone stock Wrangler or Rubicon is a better all around weekend camper Overland vehicle by any stretch outside of its range which we clearly lack on the LR side.

Solid axles......my dads E-350 4x4 Ford van has solid axles...........>I guess that makes his van a better off-road vehicle than my Landy...hahahahaha JK, JK..just having fun!

Two different vehicles, two different missions! We all have our opinions.

I agree.

 

[Dalko43]

Well, like I said "Out of the box, the LR is ready for the trail or family weekend adventure far more than a Jeep on day one IMO!" is solely my opinion. I fly back and forth from Oahu to the Big Island fairly frequently for work. When on the BI, I drive a Jeep. I play on-road, and off-road just like I do with my LR. IMO, my LR3 bone stock is a far better machine as an overall vehicle ready for the trail and weekend adventure and a daily use vehicle. I also believe it is better configured for utility form because I've lived in both vehicles and know the space and configuration required to camp out of each vehicle and not have to sleep on the ground or roof.

Jeep rides like crap on road, lose my kidneys on dirt roads but is nice in technical areas. MY 2008 LR3 far surpasses that 2015 Wrangler and my buddies Rubicon IMO in every area of comfort, space, utility, quality, traction control, etc... as an all around daily vehicle bone stock out of the box. The Jeep does one thing very well, off-road in highly techical areas and if I want my my vehicle to withstand being rained on in the interior, I'll take the Wrangler as well. That's one area beat compared to my LR in stock form. So yes, if you are buying a vehicle to be great off-road, buy a Wrangler or Rubicon because off-road technical trails is the only place it surpasses my LR IMO.

Matter of fact, all of my Jeep buddies absolutely love my LR in it's spacious sleeping space as they bust out their required ground or RTT when they need to sleep. Come to think of it, their ladies like it too when we crawl out of it in the morning refreshed and they have to fold up their tents and pack their stuff. They can only travel with two poeple max or they have to leave their gear at home. I go anywhere they go for our purposes of daily use overlanding vehicles. I didn't say the debate was for the best off-road vehicle, I debate best all around in a view of all aspects.

No chance a bone stock Wrangler or Rubicon is a better all around weekend camper Overland vehicle by any stretch outside of its range which we clearly lack on the LR side.

Solid axles......my dads E-350 4x4 Ford van has solid axles...........>I guess that makes his van a better off-road vehicle than my Landy...hahahahaha JK, JK..just having fun!

Two different vehicles, two different missions! We all have our opinions.

It sounds like everything you're saying here is simply reinforcing what I said earlier: that the Wrangler is the better vehicle for offroading while the LR 3/4 and Discovery are much more comfortable and refined for everyday driving. I've driven Land Rover vehicles before; they're nice. I wouldn't want to own a new one out of warranty or deal with their massive depreciation hits, but if I had money to blow, I could see myself buying one.

And yeah, a lot of people complain about the supposedly crappy ride with the Wrangler's solid front axle. But yet many of those people will spend big bucks to buy and restore some rusty, old Defender or Land Cruiser, which have far crappier suspensions. Solid axles have their own pro's and con's, as do IFS setups. It's up to each individual to figure out which setup makes more sense.

 

[RoyJ]

It sounds like everything you're saying here is simply reinforcing what I said earlier: that the Wrangler is the better vehicle for offroading while the LR 3/4 and Discovery are much more comfortable and refined for OVERLAND driving.

I think that's the point victory_overland was trying to make.

Overland driver does not always = technical off road. On a month long, or even week long journey, I won't risk taking my truck through terrain like the Rubicon even if my truck is capable of doing it. The risk of breaking something in a remote area with no cellphone coverage is not worth it.

Therefore, for true overlanding purposes (not trail runs), a Wrangler has very few advantages over an LR3/4.

 

[mpinco]

Hmmmm ....... I guess I must "Overland" to the campsite and then "Offroad" on Colorado technical trails. LOL

The reality is that most Wranglers and LR3/4's are for show. You know that by looking at the road biased tires.

 

[Dalko43]

I think that's the point victory_overland was trying to make.

Overland driver does not always = technical off road. On a month long, or even week long journey, I won't risk taking my truck through terrain like the Rubicon even if my truck is capable of doing it. The risk of breaking something in a remote area with no cellphone coverage is not worth it.

Therefore, for true overlanding purposes (not trail runs), a Wrangler has very few advantages over an LR3/4.

I really think that statement is far too subjective to have any merit, as a vehicle build will vary depending on what you intend to do and where you intend to go. If you want to drive mostly tame gravel roads, then yeah a solid axle wrangler doesn't offer much of an advantage over something more street-oriented like a LR3 or Discovery or Evoque. If you're planning on doing a week-long trip through remote and challenging back country in British Columbia or Utah, I would say a solid axle Wrangler is the obvious choice (or at the very least, there is a compelling argument to choose it over the Land Rover).

Hmmmm ....... I guess I must "Overland" to the campsite and then "Offroad" on Colorado technical trails. LOL

The reality is that most Wranglers and LR3/4's are for show. You know that by looking at the road biased tires.

I agree with the above but I'll note that it is far easier to throw a lift and beefier tires on a Wrangler than it is a LR3 or LR4. The street-profile wheels on the LR3 and 4 are really more street-oriented than they are offroad-oriented.

 

[DiscoDavis]

If you want to drive mostly tame gravel roads, then yeah a solid axle wrangler doesn't offer much of an advantage over something more street-oriented like a LR3 or Discovery or Evoque. If you're planning on doing a week-long trip through remote and challenging back country in British Columbia or Utah, I would say a solid axle Wrangler is the obvious choice (or at the very least, there is a compelling argument to choose it over the Land Rover).

Totally fair if you live out in the bush pretty much all the time, you may want the jeep for simplicity and ease of repair. As for challenging terrain I still point to the millionth discovery trip from UK to Beijing as being an example for the LR's robustness. I just woudn't call the choice between Jeep or LR (or Toyota) "obvious".

I agree with the above but I'll note that it is far easier to throw a lift and beefier tires on a Wrangler than it is a LR3 or LR4. The street-profile wheels on the LR3 and 4 are really more street-oriented than they are offroad-oriented.

Not necessarily true. The LR3/D3 wheels are excellent for weight and pretty robust in general. Yes you're limited on tire size but not terribly. As for lift you can lift a D3/D4 in seconds. I've found the suspension even when lifted to some extreme angles to be robust, and over long distances. Long distance comfort is much better, noise too. I like Eric's comment on passengers, an LR3/D3 is stupidly easy to set up for long trips with 4 adults, maybe 5 in a stretch. You are surely limited in choices for accessories but beyond that it's not hard to make these things work for almost everything, and they work pretty consistently. Beefier tires is subjective. Tire choice is more than adequate for either vehicle.

And that's coming from someone that now drives a little solid axle Discovery 1 day to day.

 

[Dalko43]

Totally fair if you live out in the bush pretty much all the time, you may want the jeep for simplicity and ease of repair. As for challenging terrain I still point to the millionth discovery trip from UK to Beijing as being an example for the LR's robustness. I just woudn't call the choice between Jeep or LR (or Toyota) "obvious".

I like that some people still use Land Rovers the way they were meant to be used, but some of those UK-Beijing trips are nothing more than marketing ploys. After all, it's not like there is a lack of improved roads between those two cities. Again, I'm not discounting the offroad capabilities that modern Land Rovers do have, rather I'm saying that there are pro's and con's to a Wrangler and a LR4; it's up to each individual to decide which vehicle matches his or her priorities.

Not necessarily true. The LR3/D3 wheels are excellent for weight and pretty robust in general. Yes you're limited on tire size but not terribly.

I wasn't commenting on the robustness of the wheel, but rather the tire size that they will allow for, which you yourself acknowledge as a limitation. The tire sidewall height will factor into what kind of terrain you can safely navigate. Again, that might not be an issue for someone who occasionally ventures onto a gravel road, but for technical terrain, which overlanders do encounter from time to time, that might be an issue.

 

[DiscoDavis]

I like that some people still use Land Rovers the way they were meant to be used, but some of those UK-Beijing trips are nothing more than marketing ploys. After all, it's not like there is a lack of improved roads between those two cities. Again, I'm not discounting the offroad capabilities that modern Land Rovers do have, rather I'm saying that there are pro's and con's to a Wrangler and a LR4; it's up to each individual to decide which vehicle matches his or her priorities.

I agree with you there. Where I live now actually the concentration of new Land Rovers/Range Rovers of all types is funny. Nobody uses them for anything tough, which is too bad but so many people live here anyway there isn't much to do but drive to the mall haha.

I saw one D4 overseas (base model with coils) as a company service truck for an electrical company. Mega neat. That said Jeeps on the other side of the atlantic are almost a mirror of some of the Land Rover products here. Industry support is slim compared to the other brands, naturally and are by far the least-worked vehicles I've seen. I go over there and drool over rovers and they ask me why I didn't buy a jeep! :ylsmoke:

The tire sidewall height will factor into what kind of terrain you can safely navigate.

Yes. Major limitation of the D3/LR3. Mitigated somewhat by new tire designs, kevlar/misc. sidewalls, better weight and speed ratings, better tread construction etc., but yes. I won't say the answer to everything is "throw 35, 37 40's" at it, but I see the point. I don't like the move towards 19, 20" wheels that much.