LR3 Help

[proper4wd]

I don't think that argument was being made; I believe Rob was saying that yes there are *different* things that can fail, but there are also things which have been improved and refined over the years to the point that they no longer represent a failure point the way they would have on a 40 year old vehicle. A few glaring examples would be multi-circuit brakes, distributorless ignition, fuel injection, etc. I want to stress that I am not arguing one as necessarily better than the other, only that they are different and must be viewed differently.

It is known here that I am a fan of modern Land Rover technology. I am simply trying to offer it a fair defense from ridicule. I would venture to guess that most of you would be impressed and surprised by the newest generation of Terrain Response that LR has put forth. Regardless of the vehicle that it is installed in, the system itself is quite remarkable. The tightest settings for the traction control and locking rear diff detect wheel spin within 15 degrees and counteract it. Driving one off road is eye-opening, there are other long-time LR enthusiasts here who will support that.

 

[muskyman]

Just to be clear, I'm not picking on the LR3 specifically and I said that in my first post. And I only compared it to a SIII because that's another Land Rover product. I could just have easily compared it to my 62, or my 95's. If it were a new Toyota, I'd compare it to an FJ40.

As for the different philosophy, I have no issues with someone who feels that, for their personal needs, the features of a new car outweigh the drawbacks, but to then turn around and say that that new car has fewer things to go wrong with it...well, that's just downright silly.

Lastly, there's plenty I don't like about how complicated my 95's are and that's one reason my D90 is getting a diesel transplant.

exactly!!

FJ40 are a great example...simple wins

 

[proper4wd]

I'm glad that you guys agree with each other that simple wins... Just be aware that yes, simple wins for you, but not necessarily for everybody and every purpose.

In your opinion, the LR3 is not a good expedition vehicle for what you idealize an expedition vehicle to be. As seen on this site, which entertains all sorts of folks who drive everything from Series trucks to FJ80 Land Cruisers to fullsize pickups with camper shells to multi-hundred-thousand-dollar purpose built expedition vehicles, ideals can vary. Somewhere in that spectrum is a happy home for the LR3.

 

[muskyman]

I don't think that argument was being made; I believe Rob was saying that yes there are *different* things that can fail, but there are also things which have been improved and refined over the years to the point that they no longer represent a failure point the way they would have on a 40 year old vehicle. A few glaring examples would be multi-circuit brakes, distributorless ignition, fuel injection, etc. I want to stress that I am not arguing one as necessarily better than the other, only that they are different and must be viewed differently.

It is known here that I am a fan of modern Land Rover technology. I am simply trying to offer it a fair defense from ridicule. I would venture to guess that most of you would be impressed and surprised by the newest generation of Terrain Response that LR has put forth. Regardless of the vehicle that it is installed in, the system itself is quite remarkable. The tightest settings for the traction control and locking rear diff detect wheel spin within 15 degrees and counteract it. Driving one off road is eye-opening, there are other long-time LR enthusiasts here who will support that.

LOL fair defence?

distributorless ignition: this has to be one of the largest failure points in modern off road truck. Crank position sensors go bad, Cam position sensors go bad. more coils means more chance of a failure and they all end up in a run issue or complete failure that strands trucks.

fuel injection: read above since most are tied in to each other. Also because they require high pressure fuel pumps you have another major failure point.

You say " they are different and must be viewed differently" thats just not true if all you want to do is get to a destination and back without issues of vehicle failure. I will agree that when working correctly some of the new features are pretty cool and down right impresive. But thats when they are working correctly.

I feel you need to start looking at the context of your opinions. Like I said before this is suposed to be a expedition based site. When a LR3 hard faults at the mall and the flat bed comes to get you its no big deal. That same hard fault in a lower canyon in utah as it starts to rain might be a bit more of a issue.

 

[Mike_rupp]

Adam, I think even the most die hard old school Land Rover fans can appreciate the technology that goes into the new class of vehicles. When we bought our last vehicle, I considered the LR3. It is a nice truck.

That being said, all of the things that make it nice are exactly the things that I don't want in an overland vehicle. Virtually all of the significant improvements on the LR3 reduces its effectiveness as a reliable vehicle. They wanted to have better on road handling since most of the people that drive them only drive on road. They were able to maintain a decent suspension for off-road use, but the system isn't bullet proof and its finicky.

Let's face it. The entire line up for LRNA is catering to the yuppie / soccer mom market. While I have no issue with catering to that market segment, they completely abandoned the utilitarian segment of the market. That's why I dislike the LR3. The Discovery was the no frills vehicle in the line up. When the LR3 replaced the Discovery, they chose to leave that market niche. The LR3 is more of a luxury SUV. It never bothered me that the MKIII changed over to independent suspension. The RR was never intended to be a offroad beater. It was a luxury vehicle that offroaded well.

 

[proper4wd]

I'm not going to argue the specific reliability of individual systems. There are just as many achilles heels in a "traditional" carb/distributor setup.

Regarding the context of my opinions see my last post regarding the array of vehicles and vehicle owners that are represented on this site. By your test of "in a lower canyon in Utah as it starts to rain", I could come up with an infinite number of scenarios for any vehicle that would render it useless in that situation. Broken layshaft in a Series LR transmission anyone? I've seen it happen.

Also, do not judge my opinions on what you think my biases and prejudices are. I have experience at every level of Land Rover evolution from early Series trucks (I owned a 1964 IIA among other Series LRs) to the newest stuff. What you see as bias is actually just extensive hands on experience with modern LR product; something you do not have.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

And why do we want to lay this stuff to rest? If we are not going to talk about what makes a good expedition truck why are we here?

This website is primarily here to talk about the *journey*, less-so the vehicles they were done in.

Really? Outside of the carburetor and distributor/coil, what does a LR3 not have that my '79 Series had when it had a petrol engine.

I really don't have the time to enumerate the practically infinite number of engineering improvements on new vehicles. If you can't see it for yourself, I can't teach you, and I'm not going to try.

but to then turn around and say that that new car has fewer things to go wrong with it...well, that's just downright silly.

I feel like this is aimed at me, even though I NEVER claimed that. You guys claim the new vehicles represent bad choices because they have new technology you don't understand and are afraid of. I'm arguing there is nothing wrong with the new technology, yes, it presents new failure modes, but that is offset by a reduction in other failure modes due to modern engineering, materials science and manufacturing techniques. Not to mention the fact that the newer vehicles typically have 1/4 to 1/10th the total accumulated miles on them as your old ones. All I have argued is that given how many different things can go very wrong on a trip, trying to determine which vehicle is more reliable than another is futile.

FJ40 are a great example...simple wins

Then why are you even driving a truck anyway? Motorcycles are VASTLY more capable, simple, reliable, easy to fix and more fun than trucks. By your logic, you should be driving an 80's Japanese air cooled dual sport like a Yamaha XT350 or Honda XR400.

Perhaps an old farm tractor is more your style. Also simple, reliable, 60" tires, locked rear diff. Perfect!

This website is about discussing journeys, the vehicles we do them in, and things we do to those vehicles to make them better. If your purpose for being here is argue the best platform to start from, any argument you have is instantly destroyed because you're using a truck for off-roading in the first place. Any street legal truck is the wrong vehicle to use, if you want to be purely logical.

 

[Antichrist]

A few glaring examples would be multi-circuit brakes

Not in my experience. The ABS system on my Disco failed and I avoided plowing in to a busy intersection by the skin of my teeth. I never came close to that level of danger in 35 years of driving Series Land Rovers, both single and dual circuit braking.

This website is primarily here to talk about the *journey*, less-so the vehicles they were done in.

Huh? There are 6 sections on the "journey", nearly 30 on equipment.

I really don't have the time to enumerate the practically infinite number of engineering improvements on new vehicles.

That's fine. Just list 5 things that aren't on LR3's that are on my series Rovers. Or that are on my coilers even.

 

[muskyman]

There are just as many achilles heels in a "traditional" carb/distributor setup.

No chance!

to claim there are is just silly(thanks Tom)

 

[muskyman]

You guys claim the new vehicles represent bad choices because they have new technology you don't understand and are afraid of. .

once again here's a dig that will go unchecked on this board. LOL

I am neither afraid of technology or unable to understand it.

You talk a good game here on the internet Rob just as you did on discoweb but when it comes right down to it you really are just a rookie off roader with very little real experience.

 

[muskyman]

Then why are you even driving a truck anyway? Motorcycles are VASTLY more capable, simple, reliable, easy to fix and more fun than trucks. By your logic, you should be driving an 80's Japanese air cooled dual sport like a Yamaha XT350 or Honda XR400.

.

once again a stupid post that has nothing to do with the subject.

so how do you carry 1000lbs of gear on a motorcycle?

see Rob you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

 

[Mike_rupp]

Rob, you have 1049 posts on this bbs, yet can you tell me what journeys you've taken?

Have you ventured out of Ontario?

 

[muskyman]

What you see as bias is actually just extensive hands on experience with modern LR product; something you do not have.

I will agree and admit I dont have "extensive" hands on experience with LR3's. Because of the way the industry is set up only the dealers will have that until these trucks get outside the warrantee period.

What I do have is access to real users of the trucks, both soccer mom types and people that bought them and use them for off-road and enthusiast use. I have also had a few friends that own them that have been back to the dealer 5 and 6 times for the same issue. So even the dealers dont seem to have "extensive hands on experience " working on them in all cases.

Now keep in mind that I dont have to have "extensive hands on experience " with these trucks to know whats what and what is BULL%&$#. I have been around enough cars and trucks a long long time and just because I dont work at a dealer does not then dictate I dont know what I am talking about.

I actually like the trucks and have stated so a number of times. I was actually planning on finding a used one at some point for my wife as her daily driver because the way she uses her truck is exactly what the LR3 was designed for. The front control arm failure may have chased me away from that plan, only time will tell.

 

[Navman]

Ok, I'll open myself up to some abuse. First, simplicity is good - real good. However, this is 2009 and most of us live in the US. We can't buy (new) simplicity anymore. I wish we could.

My VW is simple. No AC, manual windows, etc. I love it and it's been all over the country. However, it is old and it breaks down occasionally.

My D1 is not as simple, but more so than newer cars. However, it is old and it breaks down occasionally.

My LR3 is very complex and it scares me a little. However, it is an amazingly capable machine offroad, and incredibly comfortable onroad. It is new and hasn't broken down yet (I know, someone is going to comment on the yet part).

Which vehicle would I trust to take my family on an expedition anywhere in the US or Canada? Hands down the LR3. No question whatsoever. I feel a thousand times safer (safety, reliablility, capability) in it than the others and it it so much more comfortable on or off road.

Now, if I was going on an expedition south of the boarder and beyond...well, then I would want a Toyota or a motorcycle.:sombrero:

 

[muskyman]

Which vehicle would I trust to take my family on an expedition anywhere in the US or Canada? Hands down the LR3. No question whatsoever. I feel a thousand times safer (safety, reliablility, capability) in it than the others and it it so much more comfortable on or off road.

:

so a week of doing this every day you would take your LR3 over your D1?