Overland Journal Project Land Rover Discovery 4 (LR4)

[Scott Brady]

I view all of these trucks from the perspective of overland travel, which is the reason I would buy them (and the reason we would discuss them here). Otherwise, I would just drive a Range Rover.

While I can see your perspective with regards to appointment, I believe that the LR4 and the Wrangler are quite relevant for comparison. They are both the most capable vehicle and utility-minded offering from two of the most iconic 4wd brands in history. You cannot simply base it on the cost differential or luxury appointment, as those elements can actually be detractors to our needs, reducing payload, reducing interior space (with panels and thick insulation, etc) and increasing cost unnecessarily.

In Rubicon trim, with the new interior and heated leather seats, they are closer in comfort than you think, particularly when you have the advantage of so much capability. You should look at the specs between the G-Wagon, LR4, Rubicon, 4Runner Trail Edition and XTerra. All very comparable. . . and worth comparing.

The tire size issue is nothing new for Land Rovers. They have always had small wheel wells and were fitted with smaller tires than the competition. I am more than happy with the 33" tire on the LR4. They are already bigger than any tire I have ever installed on a Land Rover. My DI is running 30s, and does just fine for my needs. Of course, the LR4 is a bigger vehicle, so the 33 seems to be "just right"

 

[Scott Brady]

Similarly equipped, LR4 is $65k. They are both in the same pricing segment. . .

Interesting that you are focused on price. The base LR4 is also the same price differential to a top-line Rubicon, about 15k. Would you consider the 200 and the Range Rover in the same class? Of course, yet the price differential is even greater. Would you consider a 200 and a G-Wagon in the same class, yet that price differential is nearly $50,000!

I know a lot of people that own Rubicons, but could easily have afforded Range Rovers. They bought what they liked and what provided the attributes they were interested in, not just a fashion statement.

I believe it is important to compare by intended use and market position, not price. Ultimately, people will buy what they can afford, or want to spend, so it is more important to compare the things that matter, at least within the context of this activity.

 

[David Harris]

I view all of these trucks from the perspective of overland travel, which is the reason I would buy them (and the reason we would discuss them here). Otherwise, I would just drive a Range Rover.

While I can see your perspective with regards to appointment, I believe that the LR4 and the Wrangler are quite relevant for comparison. They are both the most capable vehicle and utility-minded offering from two of the most iconic 4wd brands in history. You cannot simply base it on the cost differential or luxury appointment, as those elements can actually be detractors to our needs, reducing payload, reducing interior space (with panels and thick insulation, etc) and increasing cost unnecessarily.

In Rubicon trim, with the new interior and heated leather seats, they are closer in comfort than you think, particularly when you have the advantage of so much capability. You should look at the specs between the G-Wagon, LR4, Rubicon, 4Runner Trail Edition and XTerra. All very comparable. . . and worth comparing.

The tire size issue is nothing new for Land Rovers. They have always had small wheel wells and were fitted with smaller tires than the competition. I am more than happy with the 33" tire on the LR4. They are already bigger than any tire I have ever installed on a Land Rover. My DI is running 30s, and does just fine for my needs. Of course, the LR4 is a bigger vehicle, so the 33 seems to be "just right"

From what I have seen as a Jeep enthusiast turned Land Rover enthusiast, Land Rovers seem to be able to get by on smaller tires than a Jeep or other brand for a given terrain situation. I think it's because Land Rover's design places its components up higher and more protected in the chassis than others. Also, they have better stock suspension articulation than just about any 4x4.

 

[Scott Brady]

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.

That is just my opinion. The 200 is a huge disappointment to me - I expected better from Toyota. Oh, and I tried to like the 200 and didn't dismiss it off-hand. We have spent months in a diesel variant in Australia and we also had a long-term test unit from Toyota with the 5.7. It is important for me to clarify my opinion though, as the 200 is not categorically a bad car, it is just categorically a bad Land Cruiser. It is wonderful on the highway, smooth, quiet, refined and comfortable. It is solid and well made and feels right for the worst potholes and road construction in Moscow. The 200 is nothing I want in a Land Cruiser and given the fact that they sell less than 2,000 per year, most of the SUV-buying public agrees.

Maybe my opinion is ridiculous. . . call me old fashioned, but a Land Cruiser should look and work like this


Not this

 

[getlost4x4]

THAT IS UGLY

Not this
View attachment 160826

 

[PhyrraM]

Don't forget the third row. When all the overlanding stuff is pulled out (which for mere mortals is most of the time) the 3rd row counts for a lot. It seems like I've always got friends or Scouts or somebody back there.

Neither the JKU or the Grand Cherokee have that. I'm not sure about the newest 4 Runner. Might they have something if they let you order a Durango with all the cool GC options?

 

[Jwestpro]

Would you consider a 200 and a G-Wagon in the same class, yet that price differential is nearly $50,000!

Well fine Scott! I took a pause, considered the important aspects, and I think I may agree with you mostly on concepts over all this stuff. However, the msrp pricing for 2013 G550 is $115k - LC200 $80k = $35k, not $50k. I do LOVE the G wagens!!!! It's entirely irrational!

G63 $135k, G550 $115k, RRSC up in there somewhere, RR HSE $85k+, LC200 $80k, LR4 top spec, $65k and I don't know the rest because I'm not shopping them now that I've been spoiled by incredibly comfortable seats I've had in my BMW 5 series or previous Range Rover. (I drive 30,000+ miles per year so it's important)

On the LC 200, even with what you say, it could be just right for my current intended purpose of 95% highway use and towing with the "ability" to go play/explore. I will just keep the LR3 for more serious outings.

This dialogue has been very helpful for me but maybe also for anyone following along thinking about an LR4. I'll tell you that every time I unfold-up a 2nd row seat for the impromptu passenger, I am reminded of how much I love the LR3/4 functional design aspects.

 

[Scott Brady]

On the LC 200, even with what you say, it could be just right for my current intended purpose of 95% highway use and towing with the "ability" to go play/explore. I will just keep the LR3 for more serious outings.

The LC200 is a brilliant highway cruiser; safe, comfortable and exceptionally reliable. I am mostly just bitter at Toyota for calling it a Land Cruiser. . .

 

[Dendy Jarrett]

I can actually speak with some degree of knowledge on this.
I went from Land Rover to an AEV Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (well built) and back to a Land Rover.

There are a couple of important pieces that are missing in your assessment of these two (JKU vs. LR4) comparisons.

JKU is rated at 3500 pounds towing capacity
LR4 is rated at 7716 pounds towing capacity

JKU Horse Power at 285
LR4 Horse Power at 375

JKU Gas Mileage at 16/21 (personally, with larger tires and lift ... you'll never see this type of mileage and the JKU seems to loose more mileage for build than the LR)
LR4 Gas Mileage at 12/17 (personally in the LR3, I am recognizing better mileage in the heavier LR3 than I did in the JKU)

James, I believe I understood from somewhere that you might be towing with your vehicle. This would really knock the JKU out of any contention if you are towing anything of weight or unless you add a tranmission cooler for anything of lessor weight, and forget any highway performance speeds if you are towing.
The Land Rover won't know something is behind it, and you won't know unless you check the rear view mirror!

But there is the biggest part of the assessment that hasn't been really breached. This is a personality purchase. Seems that there are Jeep people and that there are Land Rover people.
James I can tell by your signature, you have a DI (no issues), a DII (no issues), a killer LR3 (why you are looking for another vehicle ... ???), so if you are adding to the fold, an LR4 would make the perfect completion to your Land Rover fleet.

I will add - I love the LR4 but it is extremely nice inside (think MIII Range Rover interior). The LR3 is so much more Utilitarian in my opinion. If the mileage on your LR3 is why you are looking, perhaps you find an extremely low miles 2009 LR3 and move your goodies over? 2009s with 30K or less mileage are out there. You'd be in a lot less money, same towing capacity. Be able to use all your goodies off your current truck. Recoup some cost while selling your current LR3 in stock form.
Anyway, just some thoughts to ponder.

D

 

[Expat93]

Wow, I saw this coming the minute the question was asked.

Scott, I think I read somewhere, the reason you went right instead of left on the layman mount. Can you tell me why? I'm being told that left side is the NAS standard.


Regards,

Expat93 (Kevin)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LR Max]

LR3's and LR4's are both super nice trucks. Personally, I'd love to take a stock one, wrap it in 3M protective clear coat, and just drive it. It would definitely be the king around here on the forest roads. Could probably give a few of the local off road parks a run for their money.

However I want one that isn't silver, white, or black. Therein lies the difficulty.

 

[Scott Brady]

Wow, I saw this coming the minute the question was asked.

Scott, I think I read somewhere, the reason you went right instead of left on the layman mount. Can you tell me why? I'm being told that left side is the NAS standard.


Regards,

Expat93 (Kevin)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Practical position= left side. Curb loading
Aesthetic position= Right side (passenger). Matches the Discovery, covering the noc (dip) on the right side. Practically, it also leaves the license plate alone, etc.

 

[Mack73]

What wheel spacers did you use?

Any issues running them on the trail? Can they take the abuse of hits on the trail? I did bend a lower control arm once soooo

 

[Jwestpro]

Practical position= left side. Curb loading
Aesthetic position= Right side (passenger). Matches the Discovery, covering the noc (dip) on the right side. Practically, it also leaves the license plate alone, etc.

Eh? Aesthetically the Lr3 and LR4 got goofed up by being designed for non-UK market which is why the window dips on the right instead of left like it used to for Discovery 1 and 2. The tire was supposed to be mounted on the large portion of the door and the dip is to allow viewing the backup area better while twisting to see out.

The LR3/4 isn't supposed to have a tire there so it's actually aesthetically goofy for us to put it there, on the right. It should go on the left with license plate mounted onto it or onto a right hand jerry can holder. If I were doing it over, I'd choose the left tire carrier and right hand jerry can for water.

I don't understand what you are saying about "practical" "curb loading"?

Besides, what's aesthetically pleasing about a tire way over to one side totally covering your right tail lamp? The stock Kaymar layout is only that way so you can fit two tires. I had mine moved in board about 6" so as to allow full view of rear lamp. You should consider moving yours in board, it looks a lot better, just slightly offset rather than falling off the side, it's also safer, and it centers the weight a little better too.

 

[brickpaul65]

Edited because I learned to read earlier posts

What is the windfall upgrade alluded to earlier that was taking time from the "bump stop"?

What level of "suspension failure" causes an issue? I assume these issues would not occur at the stock wheel size?

Is there a trade off between 265/65 R18 and 265/70 R18?

I currently have 265/60 R18 and I am looking at a second set of wheels/tires for trails only. I was just curious on your take on an LR3 setup because you have a very knowledgeable and well thought out approach. Is it really as simple as the gain is 1/2" clearance for each step up and the pain is trimming to fit and suspension failure will result in an increased level of interference for each step up as well?

Also, how is the driveability affected at the new height etc.? Are you happy with the performance of the rig with the larger tires? Have you had any issues with the reduction in articulation?

Sorry for the questions.