Old Rovers Too Feeble?

[Antichrist]

So rather than all this "what if" talk. Who has ACTUALLY been in, or with a group that has had an LR3 fail to make it home at the end of the day due to electronics?

They don't say how it made it home, but there's another thread here mentioning overheating leading to suspension dropping to the bump stops resulting in transmission damage. In this case it broke a seal, but who's to say if it hadn't impacted an inch in another direction the case wouldn't have cracked, or had a hole knocked in it? That might make if difficult to get home under it's own power.

When Land Rover introduced the LR3 they did a jungle trip in Central America and one had suspension failures resulting in it having to be towed through the jungle.

Then there's this feeble Series in Central America

Some other feeble Series Rovers

I don't really get the "too feeble for modern overlanding". I'll be the first to admit they aren't as comfortable on long trips as newer vehicles, but that's not a measurement of feebleness to me. They have, for decades, routinely hauled well in excess of their CGVW and done it day in and day out without complaint. I know this from personal experience. Does modern overlanding require more stuff to be carried so that you need a higher CGVW rating?

 

[David Harris]

I see a lot of hearsay in these posts.

I've been offroading an LR3 for several years now. The local group I go out with is 90% LR3's. There is usually the token DI/DII.

There has been several incidents of the LR3's having electronic issues out on the trails over the years (height sensors, steering angle sensor, down on bump stops, etc). Not once has an LR3 failed to be repaired in more than 15 minutes with an IIDTool and pulling fuses to disable faulted system.

So rather than all this "what if" talk. Who has ACTUALLY been in, or with a group that has had an LR3 fail to make it home at the end of the day due to electronics?

So far the LR3/4 do seem to be pretty reliable vehicles for the weekend use you describe. It sounds like those vehicles limped out and were repaired elsewhere. What about on a longer trip when you're really out there and don't get back to civilization equipped to repair those faults for days or even weeks? An older truck would have had none of those problems in a similar situation because they don't have those systems. They are there solely as a compromise for greater on road comfort and handling. Also, the verdict is still out on the longevity of the complex electronics in hard day in day out off road use in the long run. All these vehicles are still less than ten years old, and see only the occasional off road use. It's an interesting question whether most of the LR3 and newer trucks will even be on the road in twenty years, let alone the forty or fifty years some Series trucks are pushing now. Have we entered into the throw away era of Land Rover ownership?

 

[LR Max]

I see a lot of hearsay in these posts.

I've been offroading an LR3 for several years now. The local group I go out with is 90% LR3's. There is usually the token DI/DII.

There has been several incidents of the LR3's having electronic issues out on the trails over the years (height sensors, steering angle sensor, down on bump stops, etc). Not once has an LR3 failed to be repaired in more than 15 minutes with an IIDTool and pulling fuses to disable faulted system.

So rather than all this "what if" talk. Who has ACTUALLY been in, or with a group that has had an LR3 fail to make it home at the end of the day due to electronics?

So you brought the required tools, spares, and knowledge to fix your vehicle in the field? Good for you. THAT is what I'm talking about. Its a different beast and requires a different tool bag and workshop manual.

That said, I'd love to wheel with a series truck again. Last time was...02? Stupid coil sprung trucks. Also never wheeled with a LR3 or any of the new stuff. Guess we too poor here in the south.

This is a discussion of "feeble" Series Rovers not being up to snuff for the OP to go "modern exploring" so he picked an FJ40 instead.

Indeed. It is funny that he replaces an old truck...with another old truck...to be better at something "modern". Should've kept the LR4, the tricked out D2, the G-wagon, or one of the other fancy cars.

 

[meatblanket]

I understood "too feeble for modern day exploring" to mean "too slow to comfortably keep up with traffic in an 80 mph blast out of the city on I-70 on a Friday evening."

If that was the intended meaning, I get it.

It is interesting, though, how people have gotten addicted to comforts and conveniences that were unheard of 50 years ago.

 

[tacr2man]

Perhaps a different perspective is needed ,
I have and would still take an old landrover thru the outback , I would also take a new modern vehicle , with a similar level of wariness, but i would not take a old modern vehicle , as the level of risk and and inability to bodge a get you home is too high. With the older vehicles the level of complexity is such that critical failure items is lower , so you only need to carry a few spares , as complexity increases the quantity of critical fail items is bound to increase , even with equality of diagnostic and rectification ability of the driver. JMHO

 

[Viggen]

Look at all the 20 year old vehicle circuit boards failing now....These new trucks with everything running off a computer built with Chinese low end parts are going to be a nightmare....

And here is the trifecta for an Expo **** storm:
1. Land Rovers
2. Modern Electronics
3. Chinese Manufacturers


HERE WE GO!



This thread has now gone full stupid.

 

[overlander]

This thread has now gone full stupid.

thank God. Never go half stupid-never

 

[Desert Dan]

I miss the simplicity of the older rigs but the safety, good brakes, HVAC and reliability of some of the newer vehicles is pretty nice too. I think where you live and the number of miles driven each year make a big difference in vehicle choice.

 

[I Leak Oil]

It is funny that he replaces an old truck...with another old truck...to be better at something "modern".

That's what I find odd too. He says he picked up the FJ to "modify" it for his modern travels. In this thread he sites the rovers 10 spline axles and suspect brakes when reversing a hill as examples of the models feeble characteristics. Axles and brakes are "modified" ALL the time in other vehicles (including FJ's) classic and modern alike. I just don't find it to be a genuine arguement of one vs. another.

 

[alaskantinbender]

I understood "too feeble for modern day exploring" to mean "too slow to comfortably keep up with traffic in an 80 mph blast out of the city on I-70 on a Friday evening."

If that was the intended meaning, I get it.

It is interesting, though, how people have gotten addicted to comforts and conveniences that were unheard of 50 years ago.

A very good point. Who would have envisioned heated seats in a jeep.........

 

[Antichrist]

And here is the trifecta for an Expo **** storm:
1. Land Rovers
2. Modern Electronics
3. Chinese Manufacturers
HERE WE GO!
This thread has now gone full stupid.

Well, this is, in fact, a Land Rover section.
1. legitimate topic
2. It's not necessarily electronics per see. It's how they are implemented.
It's stupid to have a dead remote battery disable a vehicle made for back country travel (or, in my personal opinion, any vehicle other than maybe a smart car).
It's stupid to have an overheating problem drop your suspension so you damage your gearbox, potentially stranding you.
It's stupid to implement computers in cars that can be hacked via a smart phone and blue tooth to do things like disable the brakes.
Complicated electronics are fine if you want to put them in a car, but they should be designed, if at all possible, in such a way that a failure won't leave you immobile. All to often they aren't.
3. Some is good, some is bad, buyer beware and I agree on not lumping them all together. Unless you're a "buy local" kind of person, in which case I've no idea why such a person would be driving a Land Rover.

I understood "too feeble for modern day exploring" to mean "too slow to comfortably keep up with traffic in an 80 mph blast out of the city on I-70 on a Friday evening."

If that was the intended meaning, I get it.

Yeah, that type of argument would make sense. "I don't have a lot of time to get to places where an old land rover really does well in exploring. It just can't keep up with the high speed traffic on the interstate getting there and I don't have the time to take back roads out of town."

Whereas the original statement made it sound like they can't cut it on back roads and/or off-road.

I'll be the first to admit that they don't offer the amenities of new vehicles, but to me that's not "feeble", except in the most liberal sense of the word, and has no bearing whatsoever on a vehicle's ability to be used for actual exploring (for me exploring isn't driving down the interstate).

 

[overlander]

Well, this is, in fact, a Land Rover section.
1. legitimate topic
2. It's not necessarily electronics per see. It's how they are implemented.
It's stupid to have a dead remote battery disable a vehicle made for back country travel (or, in my personal opinion, any vehicle other than maybe a smart car).
It's stupid to have an overheating problem drop your suspension so you damage your gearbox, potentially stranding you.
It's stupid to implement computers in cars that can be hacked via a smart phone and blue tooth to do things like disable the brakes.
Complicated electronics are fine if you want to put them in a car, but they should be designed, if at all possible, in such a way that a failure won't leave you immobile. All to often they aren't.
3. Some is good, some is bad, buyer beware and I agree on not lumping them all together. Unless you're a "buy local" kind of person, in which case I've no idea why such a person would be driving a Land Rover.

Yeah, that type of argument would make sense. "I don't have a lot of time to get to places where an old land rover really does well in exploring. It just can't keep up with the high speed traffic on the interstate getting there and I don't have the time to take back roads out of town."

Whereas the original statement made it sound like they can't cut it on back roads and/or off-road.

I'll be the first to admit that they don't offer the amenities of new vehicles, but to me that's not "feeble", except in the most liberal sense of the word, and has no bearing whatsoever on a vehicle's ability to be used for actual exploring (for me exploring isn't driving down the interstate).

EXACTLY all this! Also, to comment on Tom's reference to back country travel, all this protective mode crap pisses me off in the designs. LR should have set the default fail safe mode for their current products to full extension and limited the vehicle speed through the ECU if they were concerned about liability of center of gravity performance. On what planet does "let all the air out when something wrong is detected" make sense? To do this they could have used one way valves on the air springs that were closed normally and had to be opened by ECU to release air. That way on or off road, you could get home. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the design engineers debated how the faults would be handled for the suspension from the comfort of their climate controlled office while they were drinking their vente' mocha latte's. I'd also like to know who is doing the field testing of prototypes that isn't saying to these engineers "you blokes are daft! change this!".

 

[David Harris]

EXACTLY all this! Also, to comment on Tom's reference to back country travel, all this protective mode crap pisses me off in the designs. LR should have set the default fail safe mode for their current products to full extension and limited the vehicle speed through the ECU if they were concerned about liability of center of gravity performance. On what planet does "let all the air out when something wrong is detected" make sense? To do this they could have used one way valves on the air springs that were closed normally and had to be opened by ECU to release air. That way on or off road, you could get home. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the design engineers debated how the faults would be handled for the suspension from the comfort of their climate controlled office while they were drinking their vente' mocha latte's. I'd also like to know who is doing the field testing of prototypes that isn't saying to these engineers "you blokes are daft! change this!".

All good points. The fact of the matter is that the new Rovers are not made with a view to the same use and owner base as the old ones. They are for the well heeled buyer who wants a high performance luxury vehicle for primarily on road use in all conditions. Everything is a compromise in that direction. Those on this portal who buy these seem to be family people who want to be able to balance a practical on road vehicle during the week with the ability to do moderate off-roading on the weekends. There's nothing wrong with that, but the result is that a comparison between new Rovers and the old ones made for professional expedition and off road use is becoming more and more difficult. Of course this is happening to the other brands of off road vehicles too, from Toyota and Mercedes to Jeep.

 

[overlander]

On or off road, or in any situation, ECU's deciding to fully depressurise the suspension when any fault is detected makes no damn sense. It's a clear fault in the program logic diagram at the design, and should have been corrected by now. The #1 fault people refer to anywhere you read about the LR3, LR4 or RR is about the occasional but rare suspension drop.

LR needs to adopt six sigma.

 

[proper4wd]

The system will not depressurize when any fault is detected. In fact it will continue to operate when a large number of faults are present.

The air compressor will shut down, though, if an overheat condition is detected. If there is a major fault in the system and it can no longer make sense of the inputs and outputs, it will default to the bumpstops as a safety precaution (because this is inherently the safest position for the suspension to be in).

The system can be re-set in the field and faults can be cleared, which 90% of the time will correct the issue at least temporarily.

The biggest obstacle here is knowing what you have and how to work with it. I could send an LR4 owner out in the woods in a Series IIA and he would have no idea how to take the carb apart and clean the bowl and jet. Or I could send a Series IIA owner out in the fieldin an LR4 and he would have no idea how to do a master reset on the vehicle. Is either one of those the vehicles fault? Of course not.

As always, its 10% vehicle, 20% having the right tools, and 70% knowing what to do with it.