LR3 with only 45K has major failure
- Thread starter muskyman
- Start date
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
No, you're not looking at it right. It attaches at two points, fore and aft. Very common design.
Wow, Land Rover can be proud that they are following the lead of others and are now lumped in with a bunch of mediocre vehicles.
nwoods
Expedition Leader
Wow, you really have a prejuducied opinion on this that does not appear to be based on fact or experience. I have extensive off road expereince in the LR3. Probably more than 95% of the rest of the world in this particular platform. I will quickly agree that LR as a whole has refocused it's approach to the market from "Best4x4xFar", to "Premium Off Road", and that for me, its a lamentable change.
I will also agree with you that the off road durablity of the LR3 pales in comparision to RRC chassis (which is basically the same as the D1, DII, and Defender). 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.
However, it's "off road prowess" exceeds those other platforms in stock configuration, and it does it in a way that is far more "drivable" in daily urban/suburban life than any LR before it.
Please don't confuse the LR3's capabilities and intended usage parameters with your own personal ideals. It is not a Defender type of vehicle, it was never meant to be. It has a different focus and target than perhaps what you wish for, but it delivers its capablities exceptionally well, and it is amazing what it can do off road.
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. 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. I forgot to mention that a MKIII made it through without issue as well.
The LR3 is a disappointing vehicle. IMHO, it is much closer in terms of capabilities and durability to my Honda Pilot than a solid axled LR. It didn't bother me that the MKIII and RRS made the switch to a unibody design and independent suspension. They are geared to the luxury market. They seem to fill a niche in the market. I don't even have that much of a problem with the LR3 itself. My main issue is that there is nothing in the line up anymore for the US that replaces the Discovery or Defender.
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. I forgot to mention that a MKIII made it through without issue as well.
The LR3 is a disappointing vehicle. IMHO, it is much closer in terms of capabilities and durability to my Honda Pilot than a solid axled LR. It didn't bother me that the MKIII and RRS made the switch to a unibody design and independent suspension. They are geared to the luxury market. They seem to fill a niche in the market. I don't even have that much of a problem with the LR3 itself. My main issue is that there is nothing in the line up anymore for the US that replaces the Discovery or Defender.
KevinNY
Adventurer
Sorry Mike but your experience with those 2 LR3 owners has colored your opinion. I wanted to be a hater of the new technology and platforms, I really did. But having driven the RR, the RRS and the LR3 offroad I can't be. Just because someone was afraid of scratching their new truck does not make it a minivan. Very few 90's went from the showroon to the trails with their 1st owner back in the 1990's for the same reason. An LR3 will completely leave a stock 90, D1 or D2 in the dust offroad. I didn't want to believe it either, but it is true. I have driven them all over the same course, a completely apples to apples comparison. Where a Disco gets crossed up, an LR3 just idles on through.
Life_in_4Lo
Explorer
from the base Tacoma to the top of the line Land Cruiser, Toyota IFS lca's are fully boxed. Compare a 4Runner to the LR3. Go look at them in person, the LR3's is weaksauce.
KevinNY
Adventurer
I hear you about taking them out on real world trails, but you haven't done that either. Remember there isn't a line that prevents a cross axled or wheel lift situation sometimes. The course I drove them over was built when the LR3 wasn't out yet, D2s were used on it then. It is harder now. I will actually be taking them out and attempting some popular difficult trails in New England. I'll report back when I do.
greenmeanie
Adventurer
Musky,
Are you sure that the control arm was to blame? Seems like there is room for doubt even in the owner's mind.
LRO forum discussion with owner of crashed LR3.
Are you sure that the control arm was to blame? Seems like there is room for doubt even in the owner's mind.
LRO forum discussion with owner of crashed LR3.
Life_in_4Lo
Explorer
So the argument is that the IRS may have failed first. Then the IFS collapsed. That is supposed to be better?
There is a LR3 here at work and the suspension looks so weak. spindly tre's, weak control arms, tiny cv's, paper thin mounting points and the airbag is pretty small too. on top of that the hardware is tiny.
This is minimal requirement engineering. There is nothing rugged about it.
Too bad, it's nice looking and I like the interior. Good to learn the RRS has the same underpinnings- I can warn my friends.
The only real LR's are solid axle ones. Hopefully Tata realizes this and brings the level of quality up the current crop.
There is a LR3 here at work and the suspension looks so weak. spindly tre's, weak control arms, tiny cv's, paper thin mounting points and the airbag is pretty small too. on top of that the hardware is tiny.
This is minimal requirement engineering. There is nothing rugged about it.
Too bad, it's nice looking and I like the interior. Good to learn the RRS has the same underpinnings- I can warn my friends.
The only real LR's are solid axle ones. Hopefully Tata realizes this and brings the level of quality up the current crop.
michaelgroves
Explorer
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. It was too comfortable, too fast, too quiet, too sophisticated. It had flimsy coils instead of big beefy leaf springs. It wasn't helped by the fact that very few owners wanted to risk taking their shiny new Range Rovers on tough off-road trails and expeditions.
There are still lots of advantages to Series Land Rovers over the newer coil-sprung, permanent 4WD Land Rovers, but no-one now would deny that they were (are) both great vehicles.
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.
However, the point of the thread is not about the LR3's prowess (or lack of) off the road, but whether there is a design flaw or major QC problem with the control arm. I think it's a useful idea to publish details of incidents like this on the various forums, so we can get an idea of common defects. But I think the slightly hysterical reaction to what appears, so far, to be a rare occurence, is actually counter-productive. At this stage, if I drove a Discovery 3, I'd take a look at the state of it underneath, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. My attitude would change if this started to be a common occurence.
There are still lots of advantages to Series Land Rovers over the newer coil-sprung, permanent 4WD Land Rovers, but no-one now would deny that they were (are) both great vehicles.
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.
However, the point of the thread is not about the LR3's prowess (or lack of) off the road, but whether there is a design flaw or major QC problem with the control arm. I think it's a useful idea to publish details of incidents like this on the various forums, so we can get an idea of common defects. But I think the slightly hysterical reaction to what appears, so far, to be a rare occurence, is actually counter-productive. At this stage, if I drove a Discovery 3, I'd take a look at the state of it underneath, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. My attitude would change if this started to be a common occurence.