LR3 with only 45K has major failure

[muskyman]

gone

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[kellymoe]

.



I don't know how the LR3 will pan out in the long run, but I have seen them being driven over some very difficult terrain, and perform superbly - much to my initial surprise. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are better off-road than a Defender 90 (they only have traction-control in their favour, but they have a worse power-to-mass ratio, worse grounding angles, less wheel articulation, and bigger dimensions to deal with). I would probably bet on a stock LR3 against my stock Defender 130, though, given similar tyres and equally experienced and willing drivers.

Very true. Stock to stock a LR3 would most likely out perform a 90, 110 and I know it out performs my 130 on steep sandy boulder choked hill climbs as I witnessed firsthand. It's traction control allows it to cruise right up slopes that would leave a stock Defender spinning it's wheels. It's too bad that 95% of LR3 owners will never take them off road.

BTW, are there any accounts of a LR3 taking on the Rubicon or Dusey Ershim? The trails LR3's do tend to shy away from seem to be these sorts of trails.

 

[greenmeanie]

Musky,
As you talked with him at great length you would be able to tell which end made contact with the barrier? Looking at his pictures the back end shows no sign of contact which would indicate a front end contact. Looking at the damage to the font end something went under the air dam which, as the bodyshop stated, could explain the front end damage espescially if it hooked the control arm. There seems to be no damage to the wheel but the angle is bad to see.

Personally I would be looking long and hard at the back end.

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[Antichrist]

Its amusing that I can recall similar debates when the first Range Rovers came out in the early 1970s. For years, a lot of Series enthusiasts insisted that the RR could never be as good off-road as their "real" Land Rovers.

Don't forget however, that a Series had to be brought in to blaze the trail for the Range Rovers crossing the Darien Gap.

BTW, are there any accounts of a LR3 taking on the Rubicon or Dusey Ershim? The trails LR3's do tend to shy away from seem to be these sorts of trails.

Don't know about that, but when Land Rover was showing off the LR3 in Central America shortly after it's launch, one had to be towed out of the jungle due to a blown air spring, if I recall correctly (I can't find the story).

 

[kellymoe]

Don't forget however, that a Series had to be brought in to blaze the trail for the Range Rovers crossing the Darien Gap.
Don't know about that, but when Land Rover was showing off the LR3 in Central America shortly after it's launch, one had to be towed out of the jungle due to a blown air spring, if I recall correctly (I can't find the story).

The LR3 performs well but I would not travel far from help in one. I feel much more comfortable traveling solo in my 1988 130 with a carburated V8 than I do even in my 1994 Disco. I know for a fact that if something breaks on my 130 I can do something to get it running again, it's a simple system. I could not imagine going on a solo trip in a LR3. For the serious overlander, camper, expeditioner, what ever you want to call your mode of travel, simplicity is key.

 

[proper4wd]

It seems as though there will be no resolution to this thread. One thing I will take from it, however, is a better understanding of who chooses to base their opinion on facts, first hand experience, and knowledge compared to photos posted on the internet, second/third hand knowledge, and assumption.

I will take that understanding with me in future discussions on LR forums to qualify those peoples' opinions.

 

[nwoods]

To say that the LR3 exceeds all of those other platforms is overreaching. Since you are in Socal, with your vast offroading experience, I'm sure that you are familiar with Truckhaven.

Nice.

On a run through Truckhaven a few years ago, both of the LR3s had to be left parked on the trail for fear of future damage. They had already mangled one of the front bumpers and feared more body damage.

A bone stock D1 with a broken CDL linkage and a bone stock D2 had no such issues and made it through the entire trail unscathed.

That just doesn't make any sense. The LR3 has shorter overhangs, better ground clearance, better articulation, and drives like it has front and rear lockers through cross axle situations via it's traction control and CDL. It is also significantly more nimble on the trail with it's much tighter turning radius. I don't know who you are referring too, but clearly they were not even close to pushing the boundaries of the truck can do, and, I suspect, they (and quite likely their spotters also) were unfamiliar with the techniques used to drive an LR3 well. They are very different creatures from the traditional platforms. I learned the expensive way early on that veterans with traditional vehicles can make terrible spotters for the LR3 drivers if they don't know the peculiarities of how the truck operates.

My main issue is that there is nothing in the line up anymore for the US that replaces the Discovery or Defender.

I hear you. I too wish for that. I was excited when Ford released the Bronco concept a while back, it looked just like a modern Defender should. Sigh....

Nathen
Put your ego and the fact you own one away.

I did not state anything about the quality of my experience, so ego is not at play here, what I stated is that I have experience, and it is entirely relevant to the discussion. It is practical, first hand experience.

But you need to wake up and smell the coffee that the truck may very well not be up to what you are putting it through over the long haul.

Isn't that exactly what I said? "I'm quite sure it won't take 20 years and a hundred fifty thousand miles of punishing washboard and off road use as a dedicated "Pangea Expeditions" type of vehicle without needing some serious help along the way. I will grant you all that in full agreement."

Once again you are racing in to wave the LR3 flag...

racing in? on post 90 something?

So where did you come up with these numbers of " tens of thousands of LR3's with over 100,000 miles " sounds kinda high to me? Go ahead and link us to this data. I tend to think thats a made up number and that does nothing to help the community sort this issue out.

About 18 months ago I saw some global sales figures. I can't find them now, so I won't bother to tell you what I remember because you are Doubting Thom, and so you should be. I wish you treated your own opinions with the same standard of care! However, I did find USA sales figures, and they average about 47,000-49,000 Land Rovers per year from 2005 through 2007. Ford sold LR to Tata in 2008, and Tata does not share their sales numbers.

Let's assume from this report that LR sells about 200,000 vehicles per year globally, and we know that 47,000 of them are in the USA. I have no real knowledge of what the percentages of sales are for the MkIII, RRS, and LR3, but it's safe to say that at least 40% are the LR3 from observations on the street and general discussions with multiple LR sales guides with whom I talk to regularly.

So, for 200,000 trucks globally per year, it seems safe to assume that LR has sold about 80,000 LR3's worldwide per year for 3 solid years. Yes, its conjecture, but its based general knowledge of the reports linked above and on regular forum participation on websites from around the world. Which is also where I derive my projections on mileage obtained by this fleet of vehicles. In the UK and elsewhere, the LR3 (D3) came out in early 2004, and here in the USA, early 2005. Many of the 05's are past 75,000 miles and clearly, worldwide, it is not a stretch to consider that of the approximately 80,000 2004 and 2005 model years, +10k are over 100,000 miles.

The LR3's are known for loosing their alignments...what do you think is changing shape to change the alignment

That's easy. LR uses peanut butter for the bushings. Well documented and very frustrating issue. One supposes is for improved ride, smoothness, etc...but they wear quickly, especially when you off road the thing.

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[greenmeanie]

Hmm, what you have done is begun a root cause failure analysis but I also feel you may have fallen into one of the common traps encountered in doing this in that you saw a broken part that fitted your preconceived idea of failure and stopped there. There are other broken parts underneath this truck that had equal potential for causing the accident and should therefore not be diregarded as probable cause along with the control arm.

To immediately blame the design is also misconceived as there has been no analysis of the part to determine it's actual failure mode other than a photograph. As you point out the parts in question have been lost so no definitive answer may be given.

Rather than an unequivocal damning of the control arm that in the initial posting comes across as 'I called it first!' the correct thing to do in this case would have been to say:
We just had a truck have an accident due to a catastrophic failure of the suspension. The parts that were observed to have failed in this crash were the front control arm bushing retainer and the rear shock or shock mount. This is obviously a serious failure so it would be good preventative maintenance to check your suspension paying special attention to these components.

No drama and no hyperbole. We know you have people's best interest at heart but it would be a shame for someone else to get hurt because they unecessarily narrowed their viewpoint to a single component.

 

[Teamjeff]

The LR3 is nothing but a nice minivan that can barely go offroad.

This type of comment only serves to degrade the integrity of this site. Why don't the moderators moderate??

I don't mean to pick on you in particular Mike, it looks like there are a few members here of this caliber.

 

[muskyman]

gone

 

[michaelgroves]

Let's assume from this report that LR sells about 200,000 vehicles per year globally, and we know that 47,000 of them are in the USA. I have no real knowledge of what the percentages of sales are for the MkIII, RRS, and LR3, but it's safe to say that at least 40% are the LR3 from observations on the street and general discussions with multiple LR sales guides with whom I talk to regularly.

So, for 200,000 trucks globally per year, it seems safe to assume that LR has sold about 80,000 LR3's worldwide per year for 3 solid years. Yes, its conjecture, but its based general knowledge of the reports linked above and on regular forum participation on websites from around the world. Which is also where I derive my projections on mileage obtained by this fleet of vehicles. In the UK and elsewhere, the LR3 (D3) came out in early 2004, and here in the USA, early 2005. Many of the 05's are past 75,000 miles and clearly, worldwide, it is not a stretch to consider that of the approximately 80,000 2004 and 2005 model years, +10k are over 100,000 miles.

Those don't seem unreasonable ball-park figures - either way, I'm sure that 5 years on, there are some thousands of Disco 3s that have done more than 100K miles.

Incidentally, the LR3 was launched in the USA in April 2004 (but, in the car market's illogical way, a 2005 model!), well before the UK (or anywhere else).