LR3 Ownership Update - Eight Weeks

[Angry_Man]

i wasn't referring to the CJ. its not really fair to compare a nearly brand new computer managed truck to a jeep built in the 70s with "engineering"

put an LR3 against a same vintage LWB Jeep Wrangler Rubicon and there isn't any way the LR3 could follow it through the stuff the Jeep can traverse. its not possible. the math simply doesn't add up. you cannot compare the two in that category. offroad prowess simply falls to the solid axle factory locker crowd.

now if you're going to start looking at things such as comfort, overall power, storage space and capacity - then it changes.

perhaps you should eat some crow too.

You can't be serious. If you've spent more time under a car than on the internet you'd know that was total BS and an old wives tale. An IFS is better in many ways. The articulation keeps the tires level with the ground, the differential is out of the way, the handling characteristics are worlds ahead. There's a reason Baja trucks and the like have feet of IFS articulation instead of solid axles.

The biggest problem with IFS is cost. They need more parts, so they cost more. Also, more parts means more potential for breaking. A solid axle is not superior engineering, it's cheap manufacturing and warranty cost maintenance estimates leading to more profit. An IFS is not inferior, it's better in every way but more expensive and frowned upon by people in the ORV community who are intimidated by the cost and complexity to modify/maintain it.

 

[Angry_Man]

And getting back to the Rubicon Unlimited vs LR3 argument: An 06 Rubicon Unlimited from the factory has 10" of ground clearance, just like the LR3 in Off Road Mode. The LR3 can be lifted another 2.5 with a $180 kit thanks to it's IFS with air bags. The Jeep would cost upwards of $500 for a 2.5" lift kit.

They both have factory lockers. The Jeep has factory skids, where as the LR3 has a better engine and 4x4 system with Terrain Response.

The Jeep has better approach and departure angles, where the LR3 has better turning radius and maneuvering in rocks.

Again, they both have advantages and disadvantages, they're both equally capable but different applications to achieve the same goal. A comfortable long wheelbase on road ride, with heavy duty off road ability. The only math that says an LR3 would fall behind is the width and height of the car. But that's like my arguing that the Jeep is inferior because it can't carry as much equipment as the LR3 or doesn't have as high a power to weight ratio as the LR3. It's an irrelevant point that's easily planned around, not something that would prevent a person from getting from point A to point B on or off road.

 

[epiccosmo]

You sure about that? .... While the GC certainly does have great mpg, cool lift tech, and very nice interior, the "capabilities" are not quite equal. It's not even as big inside or providing the same range of wheel articulation. The new GC really are pretty sweet looking as am overall package though.

The only item I agree with you on is the interior volume and that was a decision I had to make. I was mixed between another LR4 or RRS. I looked at every metric and the WK2 GC is an incredible blend of both of those vehicles and it has a larger aftermarket. Plus I was able to get the diesel engine that is getting me at least 550-600 miles on a tank vs the 300 I could get in the LR4.

Not saying I will never be back with the Green Oval as there is nothing quite like them. Certainly not bashing them or trying to sway anyone. Just my experience so far between the brands.

 

[da10A]

Be a jerk.... First of all, I was talking about the hype regarding the pentastar in the jk being unreliable. Not you as a person mentonning it.

Second, although I believe that a jku rubicon can't compare to an LR3. You compared the LR3 to a Cj then a TJ. Long wheelbase or not, a jk which started in 2007, is much superior than a tj (1997-2007).
I will not hesitate one second to affirm that I would much rather own a LR than a jeep, for I find that I fit the LR owner profile much better than Jeep. But my past experiences with their extremely poor reliability, has pushed me towards the Jeep brand.

But I have a hard time recognising myself in the overlifted, over sized tires, undergeared, looks over function world that seems to be too common in the world of jeep owners.

 

[marshal]

You can't be serious. If you've spent more time under a car than on the internet you'd know that was total BS and an old wives tale. An IFS is better in many ways. The articulation keeps the tires level with the ground, the differential is out of the way, the handling characteristics are worlds ahead. There's a reason Baja trucks and the like have feet of IFS articulation instead of solid axles.

The biggest problem with IFS is cost. They need more parts, so they cost more. Also, more parts means more potential for breaking. A solid axle is not superior engineering, it's cheap manufacturing and warranty cost maintenance estimates leading to more profit. An IFS is not inferior, it's better in every way but more expensive and frowned upon by people in the ORV community who are intimidated by the cost and complexity to modify/maintain it.

I was a mechanic for the Air Force, thank you - and most of their vehicles these days sport the Oshkosh independent suspension. So yes, I understand it well and it's merits and disadvantages of IFS vs Live. But once again you're not comparing the same things AGAIN. your reference to Baja racers isn't even quantifiable. Baja racers are about covering the maximum amount of distance in the shortest amount of time at the fastest speed atainable, which is not what were talking about at all. If it was, then yes - I'll give the nod to the factory independent suspensions for the obsious win, but were talking about technical trail articulation.

The LR3 cannot keep up with the jeep. It's as simple as that. Your LR3 has what? 9" of wheel travel in the front, 11 in the rear and a 114" wheel base. The jeep has 10" stock in every corner with a 116" wheel base and sports 32s stock. Which isn't even what we were originally talking about, since you originally said your LR3 could take on a lifted jeep on 35" tires. Beyond that the wrangler also has an advanced traction control system (not as good as the LR, but not lacking either) and dual lockers. The center of gravity is lower on the jeep, as well a better power to weight ratio.

Wrangler has 285 horsepower with a curb weight of 4340lbs
Lr3 has 300 horsepower with a curb weight of 5426lbs

Beyond that, you can get the 2.5" day star pucks less than 100 bucks for the wrangler to lift it. Not that you need to considering I was running 37" tires on stock suspension with mine and 12" travel shocks. I'm sorry to make you all butt hurt, but you're just flat out wrong. The lr3 and lr4s are awesome, truly ************, obscenely capable and surpass the cabalities OVERALL of the wrangler, and I would absolutely love to have an LR4 - but they will not best a wrangler unlimited rubicon offroad. It just isn't physically possible. If you continue to deny that then you're just a flat out fool.

 

[da10A]

As I mentionned earlier, being blinded by pride of ownership is one thing , but such declarations takes all credibility away from the owner.

But all in all, both vehicles are much more capable than I have guts to put them through. So in my case, the LR3/4 would be the best all around vehicle for me to own. But the reliability dictates otherwise, which is a real shame.

 

[unseenone]

:lurk:

 

[mpinco]

You can't be serious. If you've spent more time under a car than on the internet you'd know that was total BS and an old wives tale. An IFS is better in many ways. The articulation keeps the tires level with the ground, the differential is out of the way, the handling characteristics are worlds ahead. There's a reason Baja trucks and the like have feet of IFS articulation instead of solid axles.

The biggest problem with IFS is cost. They need more parts, so they cost more. Also, more parts means more potential for breaking. A solid axle is not superior engineering, it's cheap manufacturing and warranty cost maintenance estimates leading to more profit. An IFS is not inferior, it's better in every way but more expensive and frowned upon by people in the ORV community who are intimidated by the cost and complexity to modify/maintain it.

Now that's a first. Never seen anyone argue that IFS is superior to solid axles off road. LR addressed that with cross-linked air suspension that mimics a beam axle.

Suspension Details & Modifications

Over the years the best jeep I've seen climb a difficult moguled out hill was a J10 that the owner had the suspension replaced with the softest springs available, running a big-block motor with lots of torque. Oh, it was a solid axle D44.

 

[Angry_Man]

1) I own two Jeeps and one Land Rover, and have no 'pride' involved in either.

2) You're all missing the point and telling anecdotes. If an off road purpose built solid axle performs better than an on road purpose built IFS, that doesn't make solid axle better than IFS. Seriously, stop regurgitating old wives tales and read up on suspension geometry, function, flex, wheel travel, etc. Solid axle's sole advantages are simplicity of design and low cost. Both Jeep and Land Rover have proven that there's nothing a solid axle is capable of that an IFS isn't when they're both properly designed with off road driving in mind.

I'll post some pictures of the new wheels and tires to get this back on track.

 

[LL247]

I'd like to make a quick chime-in, although admittedly I have never taken an LR3 or LR4 off road...but I own 2 JKU's ('14 and '08) one of which is built strictly for off road exploration. To further that, I've owned 2 YJ's, 2 TJ's, and 3 JK's so I'm familiar with the Wrangler's abilities in multiple generations. From every bit of research I've done from online to talking to LR owners, the LR3/4's are excellent in besting terrain in a very technical, calculated manner. The terrain response system enables optimum traction as well, preventing the 'press the pedal and pray' method in most cases. From what I can tell, it seems the main advantage a built JK would have would be in deep mud or very extreme obstacles. For moderate off road and trail exploration, I can't imagine one having a huge advantage, other than overall comfort which then leans to LR.

Admittedly my '08 JKU is built for off road and I have a blast using it on the weekends...however the more it beats me up the more closely I eye the LR. My main consideration in switching brands is constantly seeing Rovers traversing obstacles and thinking "Wow, I could be doing the same stuff I do in my Jeep and be comfortable too..."

 

[zelatore]

I missed out on some of the fun here .... I was out wheeling my LR3 instead of reading the forum

I run a lightly mod'ed LR3. Skids, sliders, Johnson rods, 32" duratracs, front and rear bumpers. I've not owned but have wheeled a few JK Rubicons (2 door only) in places like Sedona and Moab and have done some simple dirt roads in regular JKs. I'm not the expert in either platform but have some seat time in both.

From a purely technical capability standpoint, I still pick the Rubi over the Rover. I'm not saying it's 'better', only that it can physically make obstacles the Rover can't. My mod'ed LR3 is roughly the equal to a stock Rubi unlimited; a little behind a 2 door; and further yet behind an equally mod'ed Rubi.

Further, it's easier/cheaper to build a Rubi to your taste simply because the aftermarket is so highly developed compared to the LR3 platform. Want a bumper? Here's 20 to chose from on the JK; 2 on the LR3.

The 18" wheels on the LR3 are another item of contention. I know Lucky8 now has a 17" option, though I haven't looked into it and probably won't at least for some time. Given that a 32" tire is the maximum you can squeeze under an LR3 without major interference (vs that being the stock size on a Rubi and 35-37's fitting with minimal work) you only have a little sidewall to work with. Again, this is not a problem for most things somebody would want to do in an LR3 and is actually a benefit on the road, but it's another limit you hit first on the Rover vs the Jeep.

Weight. There's no way around it, the Rover needs to eat a freakin' salad. I really need to take my loaded rig to the scales, but I'd guess I'm around 6500 lbs. Power isn't the problem, but all that weight can really be felt when off-camber, on soft surfaces, or going downhill.

Lockers. I have stock rear and center lockers and a computer to fake it in the front. But I can't manually select any of them. The Rubi has simple manual controls. While the automatic stuff of the Rover is good, when it gets really hard core the computer is no match for simply locking everything and crawling. The computer may actually be better in some slick situations (snow and ice come to mind) but I've been in the rocks and watched helplessly while the computers in my rig freaked out flashing locked/unlocked lights at me from the dash and I sat stuck knowing I had traction on one front tire and only needed a little movement to get over the rock I was on. A Rubi, with it's manual f/r lockers, wouldn't need the computer to 'think about it'. You'd just push the button and go.

All in all, I'd follow a stock JK just about anywhere he wants to go. But I'm not stock either, and I know how easy it is to take the JK platform well beyond what the Rover can do. Again-from a technical capability standpoint. I'm not addressing cargo capacity, civility, comfort, towing, etc...

Here's a link a buddy shot of me coming down the hill at Spider lake this weekend. Would a Rubi have fared better here? Maybe a little due to lighter weight but not much. Honestly a better driver in either would leave me for dead. But you can quickly see how all that weight + limited tire size adds up on something like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uQZHWpo2bg&list=UUI1xhfU41JLR7sLUsLVTn5Q

Enough arguing about which is better. They each have their strong points as well as their weaknesses. Let's all simply agree that both are better than a Toyota. :sombrero:

 

[marshal]

Hey... I have a toyota...

 

[mpinco]

1) ........Both Jeep and Land Rover have proven that there's nothing a solid axle is capable of that an IFS isn't when they're both properly designed with off road driving in mind.

.......

True, after adding LR's cross-link air suspension to a IFS to make it a virtual beam axle. Except that Jeeps nitrogen system is not cross-linked, addressing only ride height. Still a IFS. Wierd choice. Similar to a RRC of the 90's.

 

[da10A]

Well, maybe I had been a wannabe for too long, but if one word can describe the feeling I had when driving my expedition built D2, was "pride". I fealth like a million bucks and every motorists around me were envious So I thought. I am confident that I could build an LR3/4 in which I could feel just as proud. So keep the pics coming cause I sure like what you're doing to the vehicle....

 

[zelatore]

Hello, My name is Don and I'm a euro-snob.

(hello Don!)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(but I wouldn't kick a Jeep out of my garage if one just showed up there)