Scott Brady
Founder
The Overland Journal project LR4 will be on display at the Overland Expo in booth #7. Stop by and we will open it up for the full inspection.
Overland Journal Project Land Rover Discovery 4 (LR4)
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
Scott Brady
Founder
I suspect the same configuration will work. Spacers, 18" factory wheels and the Falken 265/70 R18. This tire seems to be perfect for the LR4 that will see some moderate trail use. Having the smaller rim and much larger tire has really transformed the vehicle.
Scott Brady
Founder
Unfortunately, no. The goal is to have a series of rubber bumpstops that can be installed in the field and maintain the vehicle at off-road height should there be a total system failure. We started researching the correct bumpstops but just ran out of time. It needs to be able to support the weight and also have some (even an inch or so) of compression.
Scott Brady
Founder
We intend to pursue the solution, but have been distracted with a more compelling upgrade (this will be a windfall for the LR3/LR4) that is in R&D. The jounce would need to be installed between the lower shock mount on the lower control arm and the frame. There is room but would require special brackets. Unfortunately, a traditional bump stop isn't there to work from. It is just for an emergency scenario to get the truck off the trail.
Jwestpro
Explorer
---edited
Also,.... you mention several times comparing an lr4 to a jeep....this doesn't make much sense to me except from a purely offroad point of view. The problem though is the jeep is basically just about being off road whereas the LR3 and lr4 are just as competent and being really sweet rides for 40 hr road trips in winter, summer, 90 mph, etc, sleeping inside, you name it, quite at highway speed. There is basically no real comparison with the jeep.
However, why not compare to the LC200 which is more plush for the long trip to a place then also rugged for when you get there. Thoughts on that? The LC 200 tow rating is higher (8200 or 8300). It's longer inside from front seats to cargo door, wider inside, and actually a little taller. (I both measured these and tested my mtn bike vertical height fit with front wheel removed. The LC provides more overall clear height than the lr3/4 by about 2-3". It is significantly longer inside for gear and sleeping, wider by 2-3" at 30" off the floor and much wider at the cargo floor bottom and 2nd row doors.
LC even has ventilated seats for those long sweaty drives
Much larger sunroof you could actually exit from if desired. 33" tires fit without mods, 35" fit with medium mods, bigger if you go crazy. None of those are really sensible for the lr4.I've been doing a lot of comparing
Last edited:
Jwestpro
Explorer
I just ordered one for my lr3 from Atlantic British and it will be here in a few days.... you should ask them.
Scott Brady
Founder
Have you owned a JK Unlimited Rubicon?
The LR4 has to compare against the best overland platform from each manufacturer, as it is the best 4wd platform Land Rover NA currently sells. So it much compare against the Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited, the Trail Edition 4Runner, the 200 Land Cruiser, the XTerra, the G-Wagon. In practice, the LR4 does compare and it is the reason that vehicle has been so rewarded by the automotive media. The way I have this vehicle modified, it is as capable of a RTW expedition as it is to cross the Rubicon Trail (which it would do without issue).
For me, the only outstanding question is reliability on long trips. Now that the truck is (nearly) done, it is time to load it up and see how it holds together. That will be the ultimate test and is of course the most important question.
From my perspective, you are comparing the things that don't really matter, at least to me. Sure, leather, HP and a great sound system are a pleasure, but they are down on the list below payload, range, ground clearance, traction systems, interior volume (space efficiency), etc. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get some of these overland platforms without all of the luxuries. The G-Wagon is a good example of that. I would much rather have a commercial version of the LR4 with cloth interior and a TDV6. For a vehicle I am driving in North America for long-distance adventure travel, I am primarily concerned about capability, durability, payload, reliability, range, and ultimately aftermarket support to improve on those categories.
From my perspective, luxury is just that - a luxury. If I want to drive around in luxury, I drive the Range Rover - nothing even comes close to that car.
The 200 was built for one market- the Middle East (and Russia to a degree). It is a durable estate wagon with ground clearance for bad roads and traction for deep sand. It is the perfect vehicle to buy your wife (if she is not interested in styling) and then never worry about. It will last as long as you care to drive it. For my needs, the Trail Edition 4Runner is the Toyota I would buy (and nearly did).
Last edited:
Scott Brady
Founder
You will love that little black box. I am curious how much reliable lift you will be able to program in. With the Johnson Rods, I could only add 10mm+ more to the rear and reliably achieve off-road mode.
I know the LR4/Discovery 4 is in beta still and they have been active in releasing BETA updates. As of right now, the unit is perfectly stable and functional in my testing - I bet they will be releasing it soon.
Jwestpro
Explorer
I think we use the word "comparison" differently. To me it's the whole package. If we were comparing only bits and pieces, it wouldn't make much sense. For example, the newest Range Rover beats all of these in "off the lot" build, if you're only comparing factory wading depth or long drive ergonomic comfort.
Seriously, I agree with the stuff you were saying, but I don't see the same person really tossing a coin between the Jeep or LR4. In that sense, they are simply not comparable. One is considerably cheaper and no where near as comfortable while the other has serious tire size limitations. Tire size is not only about crazy rock crawling, the LR4 cannot use rud 4x4 chains while retaining any reasonable snow depth or option to use hugely wide tires without incredible alterations. The jeep however is easy to set up for such use and return to it's factory condition.
Pros and cons are rampant but I do not think that just because two vehicles are at the top of their own brand 4x4 choices, that they are then "comparable". To me comparable means it's relatively sensible to compare.
I also think you are missing what the LC has to offer by saying it's just meant for sand or a wife! That's ridiculous. With all the changes you have had to make on the LR4 just to get decent tires in there, you must also then allow all the great stuff available to help the new LC show it's potential. With the basic offerings available right now, the LC can have greater ground clearance, front and rear lockers on top of traction programs, sway bars that keep it from handling like a Land Rover boat while disconnecting for good articulation off road, more power, more torque, greater towing capacity, higher load capacity which can be increased by simple spring change, a no air bags to worry about as everyone with a recent Land Rover project ponders.
Which is "better"? I don't even care, but these two are certainly directly comparable on capability, price, trim, etc.
Styling? Hmm, well, I can't say Land Rover styling has gone in such a fantastic direction in every aspect. THe lr4 drops several highly useful places to put things inside just in the name of styling. That's BS to me. Nicer seats, fine, great, love that, seriously I do, but remove my convenient places to put things?! Some aspects of either my 96 or 2004 discos are still better so I don't understand why we have to loose the good bits while in search of better new bits. Minimum stock wheels size 19"?! Nonsense! Still no 4 way lumbar? Nonsense. Maybe these stupid seats aren't designed for everyone but the 04 disco seats were actually better.
Seriously, I agree with the stuff you were saying, but I don't see the same person really tossing a coin between the Jeep or LR4. In that sense, they are simply not comparable. One is considerably cheaper and no where near as comfortable while the other has serious tire size limitations. Tire size is not only about crazy rock crawling, the LR4 cannot use rud 4x4 chains while retaining any reasonable snow depth or option to use hugely wide tires without incredible alterations. The jeep however is easy to set up for such use and return to it's factory condition.
Pros and cons are rampant but I do not think that just because two vehicles are at the top of their own brand 4x4 choices, that they are then "comparable". To me comparable means it's relatively sensible to compare.
I also think you are missing what the LC has to offer by saying it's just meant for sand or a wife! That's ridiculous. With all the changes you have had to make on the LR4 just to get decent tires in there, you must also then allow all the great stuff available to help the new LC show it's potential. With the basic offerings available right now, the LC can have greater ground clearance, front and rear lockers on top of traction programs, sway bars that keep it from handling like a Land Rover boat while disconnecting for good articulation off road, more power, more torque, greater towing capacity, higher load capacity which can be increased by simple spring change, a no air bags to worry about as everyone with a recent Land Rover project ponders.
Which is "better"? I don't even care, but these two are certainly directly comparable on capability, price, trim, etc.
Styling? Hmm, well, I can't say Land Rover styling has gone in such a fantastic direction in every aspect. THe lr4 drops several highly useful places to put things inside just in the name of styling. That's BS to me. Nicer seats, fine, great, love that, seriously I do, but remove my convenient places to put things?! Some aspects of either my 96 or 2004 discos are still better so I don't understand why we have to loose the good bits while in search of better new bits. Minimum stock wheels size 19"?! Nonsense! Still no 4 way lumbar? Nonsense. Maybe these stupid seats aren't designed for everyone but the 04 disco seats were actually better.
Jwestpro
Explorer
I mainly got it for general code issues like reading and/or clearing the yellow engine lamp if my extra tank makes it pop up. The suspension control will just be a nice extra as I had already found a100% reliable and free way to gain full height without screwing around with rods. You just drop the suspension from standard "lift" down onto a blocked object such as a tri-folded wheel chock and the system will raise up into "extra" height to clear the "obstacle". Then you just go along as needed, of course not exceeding the speed which will bring you down again.
I suppose one might find greater highway stability by using the IID tool to cruise slightly lower at highway speeds similar to what Matzker advertised several years back. I am curious if this will let us drop lower than standard "garage/loading" height? If so, I could find that useful too.
I tried the Goodyear Duractrac in 18" 275/65 and they are not playing nicely with the rear wheel well fender liner bumps housing the hvac lines. So, BFG AT are going back on in the no worries for ever and ever size of 265/65 and the bonus is that size will allow the rare but fun opportunity to carefully use the RUD snow chains. The LC is going to get some 33.2" Duratracs 275/70x18 3640 lbs per tire load rating, only 99 mph but it seems that should suffice! I like the BFG sizes but the GY seem to be a better tire. I did get over 66,000 miles from my last BFG.
Jwestpro
Explorer
Similarly equipped, LR4 is $65k. They are both in the same pricing segment and almost identical in size/purpose/capabilities. LR4 seems like best overall value but I will definitley be watching these over the next 10 years with curiosity on reliability. My 1996 Disco never really let me down in 230,000 miles so far.