piratexpress1369a
Explorer
thanks for that link ..work great to see it
Overland Journal Project Land Rover Discovery 4 (LR4)
- Thread starter Scott Brady
- Start date
thanks for that link ..work great to see it
True because Tanner mentioned that he hated ABS offroad.
Although I didn't think DSC would go that far, I've kept it on plenty of times and never had it go so far as to kill the engine
Ditto, but this LR4 isn't that old.. or at least I would assume it was new enough not to have that much buildup in the TB
Adrenalinsports
Member
I had my LR4 in Moab this weekend and it stalled on my a couple of times. It only happened on steep climbs when not in rock crawl mode and when I let off the gas and it rolled backwards a little bit. It never happened if I drove with my left foot on the brake peddle or if it was in rock crawl mode. My guess is Tanner didn't have it in rock crawl mode???
KlausVanWinkle
Explorer
That seems super dangerous. Don't you lose brake boost when the engine stalls? In a manual transmission truck, that could leave you tumbling down the hill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hi Scott,
Nice write up! I have been reading this closely and I must say im impressed with the way you have gone with the Discovery 4! Its cool to see how far u can go with this vehicle on the tracks. It would also be cool to see how it would work in the muddy trails, with MT tires. But ofc, I think that would be a hard challange!
I have also a Discovery, a 05 TDV6. This is my daily driver and I truely love this car. It is a perfect allrounder, it can take on anything. But, I am kinda surprised that so many wants to pimp out their D3/4s for off road use. I must admit I have concidered going down that road myself with my TDV6, witch also can fit the 17" wheels. But when all comes to all, I cant really see the D3/4 be a success on the trail. Specially in the muddy tracks. I know I might get ppl against me now, but if u look at the total package, the D3/4 is not a optimal off road car. In off road I mean serious tracks. For a long distance tourer in moderate terrain, these cars are 100% perfect.
I know the Disco have alot of advantages, but it also have alot of disadvantages that makes this car not worth building for off road use. The most important ones in my opinion is the weight of the car, this will set you back big time when the trails get though. To follow up on the weight, the poor flexibility to fit bigger tires, preferable above 33", makes the weight of the car a critical point. In muddy trails, the tires wont be able to move the car, even tho the great Terrain Response. To top it up, there are too risky to damage the EAS system that would make things even worse. In addition, 100% lockers front and rear would be necessary. And with these lockers for though terrain, the steering radius would be poor like any other vehicle with lockers. Note it will be interesting to follow you, Scott, further for the details and functionality of the ARB lockers in use. Please post a videodemonstration of this. I think many people would see this very interesting on a Disco.
My plans is to keep my D3 stock and a daily driver, and hopefully get a Defender 110 for heavy off road use and for the bigger adventures
!
Best regards,¨
Erik, Norway
Nice write up! I have been reading this closely and I must say im impressed with the way you have gone with the Discovery 4! Its cool to see how far u can go with this vehicle on the tracks. It would also be cool to see how it would work in the muddy trails, with MT tires. But ofc, I think that would be a hard challange!
I have also a Discovery, a 05 TDV6. This is my daily driver and I truely love this car. It is a perfect allrounder, it can take on anything. But, I am kinda surprised that so many wants to pimp out their D3/4s for off road use. I must admit I have concidered going down that road myself with my TDV6, witch also can fit the 17" wheels. But when all comes to all, I cant really see the D3/4 be a success on the trail. Specially in the muddy tracks. I know I might get ppl against me now, but if u look at the total package, the D3/4 is not a optimal off road car. In off road I mean serious tracks. For a long distance tourer in moderate terrain, these cars are 100% perfect.
I know the Disco have alot of advantages, but it also have alot of disadvantages that makes this car not worth building for off road use. The most important ones in my opinion is the weight of the car, this will set you back big time when the trails get though. To follow up on the weight, the poor flexibility to fit bigger tires, preferable above 33", makes the weight of the car a critical point. In muddy trails, the tires wont be able to move the car, even tho the great Terrain Response. To top it up, there are too risky to damage the EAS system that would make things even worse. In addition, 100% lockers front and rear would be necessary. And with these lockers for though terrain, the steering radius would be poor like any other vehicle with lockers. Note it will be interesting to follow you, Scott, further for the details and functionality of the ARB lockers in use. Please post a videodemonstration of this. I think many people would see this very interesting on a Disco.
My plans is to keep my D3 stock and a daily driver, and hopefully get a Defender 110 for heavy off road use and for the bigger adventures
! Best regards,¨
Erik, Norway
LR Max
Local Oaf
Typically there is enough engine vacuum to give you brake boost for one...maybe 2 brake pedal pushes. I experience this often in my 109. It stalls out all the time. On that, newer brakes are easier to use when the boost is off. That said, I'm used to miserable brakes. so maybe I just have a strong right leg.
Jwestpro
Explorer
Unfortunately, no, the fuel range is one of the least important downsides of the LR3/4 as it is the very easiest to deal with by simply bringing extra fuel in jerry cans or by adding another tank both of which can easily double the range.
There is a long list of things much more limiting such as the tire size/fitting, ridiculous oem procedure to access the spare.
The range is a huge drawback in my opinion. You mention adding another tank.....I have not found one in the US as yet. Has this Project vehicle had fuel tank mods? I don't think it is all that easy.
Thank you Jeremy. That is very helpful
Jwestpro
Explorer
Well, maybe you were not aware the tank is in fact available. I have an extra tank and so do some other people in the US. I've heard the Australian Long Ranger tank is available again through another US supplier. You simply need to contact them and spend $2000 or so including labor to make it happen.
Yes, the range is an annoyance, but it is elementary to deal with just like it always has been on a D110, Land Cruiser, etc. Like I said, jerry cans are easy to bring, very affordable, and anyone can accomplish it without any special parts or mechanic by simply buying tanks and putting them in the cargo area. Therefor it does not qualify as a "huge" drawback". Maybe $200 in common parts doubles the range.
However, you cannot just "bring" larger tires and resolve the clearance issues to go with them.
As for judging what is or is not "easy" based on what the lr4 "project" has done to it, the build does not represent everything readily available or worthwhile. It is one idea regarding priorities, preferences, and other factors. Just because this lr4 doesn't have a certain modification does not mean it is therefor difficult or impossible.
For example, I wanted an on board instant compressed air supply with a reserve. So I devised a solution and had the shop install everything. The next person may find almost no use for this feature but it was essentially a simple thing to have done. Same for choosing a much larger 2nd battery than the lr3 project vehicle. I wanted the longest reserve possible given the modifiable space in the engine bay (the factory 2nd battery tray was too small so we expanded it).
The beauty of a thread like this one is to get ideas rolling for all the different people and their own directions. Some people like how clean it is to leave the spare underneath while others don't mind adding that weight to the roof.
BFG has announced the new AT KO2 which will apparently be available in more 18" sizes than before. The one interesting size, also mentioned much earlier in this thread is a more ideal narrower but tall shape of 265/70x18 which will help with clearances at the control arms and during turns. It will be the same section width as the commonly used BFG 265/65x18 but will be 32.6" tall vs 31.5" tall.
Yes, the range is an annoyance, but it is elementary to deal with just like it always has been on a D110, Land Cruiser, etc. Like I said, jerry cans are easy to bring, very affordable, and anyone can accomplish it without any special parts or mechanic by simply buying tanks and putting them in the cargo area. Therefor it does not qualify as a "huge" drawback". Maybe $200 in common parts doubles the range.
However, you cannot just "bring" larger tires and resolve the clearance issues to go with them.
As for judging what is or is not "easy" based on what the lr4 "project" has done to it, the build does not represent everything readily available or worthwhile. It is one idea regarding priorities, preferences, and other factors. Just because this lr4 doesn't have a certain modification does not mean it is therefor difficult or impossible.
For example, I wanted an on board instant compressed air supply with a reserve. So I devised a solution and had the shop install everything. The next person may find almost no use for this feature but it was essentially a simple thing to have done. Same for choosing a much larger 2nd battery than the lr3 project vehicle. I wanted the longest reserve possible given the modifiable space in the engine bay (the factory 2nd battery tray was too small so we expanded it).
The beauty of a thread like this one is to get ideas rolling for all the different people and their own directions. Some people like how clean it is to leave the spare underneath while others don't mind adding that weight to the roof.
BFG has announced the new AT KO2 which will apparently be available in more 18" sizes than before. The one interesting size, also mentioned much earlier in this thread is a more ideal narrower but tall shape of 265/70x18 which will help with clearances at the control arms and during turns. It will be the same section width as the commonly used BFG 265/65x18 but will be 32.6" tall vs 31.5" tall.