Ok, I don't know where to start with this, but to start off by saying that I love my Land Rover Discovery I and Land Rovers in general. I've worked on this Disco a fair amount and a little bit on my buddy's ..so I have a pretty good feel for the hardware and engineering. I take it to the mountains now and then but I don't wheel it hardcore. It's a great vehicle for what it is and I have a lot of fun driving it. But I'm not deluded either. I've owned so many other 4x4's over the years from late 60's 4x4 trucks, to 70's/80's/90's and 00's 4x4 Bronco's, Blazers, Full-sized and mini pick-up trucks, Toyota trucks, Jeep Cherokees, Grand Cherokees, Explorers and so on. But I have never owned a 'Series' Land Rover, I admit that.

I enjoy reading the L/R magazines and books but it always BLOWS ME when I read things like the following:

- "The L/R Discovery created a whole new type of off-road vehicle"
- "The Range Rover Classic (RRC) created a whole new class of off-road vehicle"
- "Land Rover 4x4's and the new Discovery soon dominated the world"
- "Toughest off road vehicles"
- "Most capable off-road vehicles"
- "Powerful and smooth V8" (well, my L/R v8 certainly is smooth ..one of the smoothest engines I own. But it aint so powerful and I have driven 1970's full-sized Blazers and GMC's and 302 Bronco's that had more power and near equivalent gas mileage ...long before EFI Discos. And late 80's Jeep Cherokee straight 6's had more get up and go with better economy and those motors were super smooooth - not knocking L/R, just sayin others have good engines too. The engines CAN be very powerful indeed but the L/R Engineer Geoff Miller back in the day basically said they derated the Buick V8 because they didn't think the drivetrain would handle a more powerful motor)
- "Super strong frame." The frame is ok, glad it has one ..but I'm not so sure how strong it truly is and if it's REALLY stronger than other competitor's frames or class-leading like some pundits tout. It's basically welded together tin. Not that thick either. Am I missing something? Older trucks, Bronco's, Blazers, Tahoe's and Toyota, Trooper frames seemed to be as thick or thicker metal and equally or more robust appearing but often less prone to rust. I'm glad it HAS the box frame, but doesn't seem as strong or as thick as claims seem to indicate. Look at the thickness of a late Blazer or early Tahoe frame.
...The list of claims goes on and on.

As much as I love my Disco, I don't know if ANY of the typical enthusiast's claims are true at all. You'd swear some of these guys were born in a cave with blinders on. The Disco 1 which many claim 'saved' Land Rover (which is probably true) was a derivative of the Range Rover Classic which debuted in 1970. It was new and fresh and definitely set trends. The Defender and Discovery use the same essential Rover frame, chassis, axles and so on. The Disco 1 even uses the same windshield pillars, windshield, and front doors. But even the RRC was derivative of earlier 4x4/s. And was it REALLY fresh and new? Maybe the rear A-frame/coil spring design was unique and yes it was/is nice, but I can't say others didn't try that in the past. Certainly it is a great combination with front coil springs (maybe not a deal-breaker off road as the right leaf springs seem to work ok too). Perhaps Land Rover lovers need to consider the following bits of information I've assembled to put 4x4 history and the market into a larger perspective. Again, this isn't to minimize L/R accomplishments, but just to debunk some things I keep hearing.

1) Jeep Station Wagon 4x4 - 1949
2) Jeep Wagoneer 4x4 family sedan - debuted 1963, seated 6
3) International Harvestor Travelall debuted 1953 4x4, seated 6
4) IH Scout 80 4x4 - 1963
V8 available 1966
4 cyl with turbo avail 1966-1967
5) IH Scout II 4x4 - 1971 (almost the same size as a Disco w/100" w/b, but 18 years earlier!!!)
6) Ford Bronco I available fall 1965 (first 4x4 I know with coil spring front suspension), 5yrs before the RRC, 24yrs before the Disco 1!
7) Bronco full-sized was 104" wheelbase and front coil spring suspension in 1978.
8) Jeep Cherokee (XJ - the 'small' one) debuted in 1984, front coil springs but more car like, unibody construction. Solid axle and the quadra-link front suspension handled great and still had really good articulation. Front axle snap almost unheard of ...but rear springs were leafs. The L/R with the hockey stick arms are longer and probably a lot more robust, but the vehicle is heavier too. No doubt the L/R axles are STRONG. But looks like a copy of the Bronco I axles to me.
9) 1980 Bronco debuted with Twin Traction Beam which was a hybird that touted solid axle toughness with independent suspension quality ride and coil spring articulation. Had it's positives and negatives (center spline joint wear), but was an innovative design nonetheless.
10) 415,000 Disco 1's were produced in all years from 1989 to 1998 (as outlined in the "Land Rover Discovery" book by James Taylor)
11) Ford sold 433,000 Explorers in 2002 ALONE!! Get this: 6,584,459 so far since it's introduction to 2013!!
12) Jeep sold 3,847,133 Grand Cherokees since 1994
13) I don't have solid numbers but I read Ford sold like 700,000+ trucks in one year

But I was so refreshed last night when I was reading a excerpt in a Land Rover book, this excerpt having been written by Geoff Miller himself who was added to the L/R engineering team in the early development stages of the Range Rover (derivative of the Disco's). He basically lays it out by saying he and a number of engineers personally evaluated all sorts of 4x4's in really tough conditions at the grounds of Eastnore Castle that included an early Bronco with front coil springs and a IH Scout with leaves to come up with what they felt was the most sensible and best off-road system. He comes right out and indicates patterned the RRC coil spring front end after the Bronco and came up with the brilliant a-frame and coil spring rear end design to enhance the rear suspension. They also went full-time 4x4 which I'm not so sure is actually as great of a feature as enthusiests tout. I've owned so many part-time 4x4's and can't ever really say I've ever gotten stuck because I was caught unaware and didn't have 4x4 when I needed it, and we get tons of snow where I live. It might have made more sense on the RRC at the time just because of the new market of up-scale buyers they were targeting.

Again, I love my Disco and Land Rovers in general as I also really like a lot of other vehicles domestic and import. L/R fans aren't the only ones with rose-colored glasses. You read the Mitsubishi material and they swear the Montero (Pajero/Shogun) changed the world ...same with Land Cruisers too (even though it's clear to a lot of people the Japanese at the time and Toyota wholesale lifted proven engine and drivetrain engineering almost verbatim ...just like some Chinese mfgrs have been known to do with machine tools today, from other (mostly domestic) manufacturers in the 50's to the 70's). Mitsubishi used to produce licensed Jeep vehicles including wagons for many, many years till they came out with their Pajeros, which were great vehicles and a definite step forward in design from the Jeep Wagons.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, I appreciate Land Rovers and love my Disco 1. I'm a fan too. My Disco does well off-road and fine as a daily driver. But so does my Jeep Overland (with a heck of a lot more power and better fuel economy), my full-sized P/U, or Toyota Tk or the myriad of other vehicles I've owned in the past like full-sized blazers and Broncos. I dont' know that ANY of them are better or worse than the other ..or more successful, or world trend setters on their own. Each has good points and engineering flaws.

 

There's 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Was there a point in there somewhere?

 

Ditto!

 

And on the 8th day God created Land Rover

 

All I know is the bone stock 1967 Ford Bronco pickup (170cid straight six with three on the tree) that I once owned was far better in every aspect (other than A/C) then this 98 Disco. Easier to do maintenance, better off road and FAR more reliable. The only major repairs were wheel bearings, u-joints and a valve job in a little over 300,000 miles.

 

That dude has been known to be quite the jokester. I mean a platypus? Really??

 

The only 2 things that would realty make my d1 better is a higher HP engine with better economy and an electrical system that was NOT designed by the British

As far as the lr3, just needs an non Brit electrical

I would love to see a mid 90's bronco or blazer or cherokee run some of that camel trophy stuff, pushing the truck over small waterfalls etc with the same minimal suspension and tire mods, I've owned em and not so sure they would fair as well as a d1

But I do agree that is 8 minutes of my life I will not get back

 

It's a Jeep thing, we'll never understand.

 

Only took fish three minutes, you get'n old?

I guess that was supposed to be the debunking of the Rover myth but I never knew there was a myth....meh.

Drive what you want, don't drive what you don't. Nobody here is say'n Rovers are the be all end all to off road live'n. As far as marketing hype - who beiieves that crap?

 

if the 3.9 was more like LT1 or ford 5.0 i'd be a LOT happier w the power train. and K5 blazer? that would def take the abuse. S10? probably. XJ cherokee? it would make it but you'd have to drop it off at the scrapyard on your way home.