The Land Discovery II and its competitors
#41
12-14-2012, 01:02 PM
#42
12-14-2012, 01:16 PM
Good point...many (not all!) issues with the Discos result from the original owner who paid $40K+ and was probably not into the DIY mentality, but just wanted a showy ride to cruise around in and neglected performing the scheduled maintenance. Now prices have dropped (off a cliff!) and all of us are inheriting vehicles that weren't properly taken care of to begin with, which is giving them a bad rap. You probably got one of the few that was owned by someone who could afford it and took the time to keep it up, hence its reliability.
#43
12-14-2012, 02:05 PM
Beastly or "crude." As a D1 owner, I kind of agree with you but also don't fail to recognize the H3 is a far more modern chassis built with machines and technology that makes the D1 just crude. I can't go on to compare specifics, but I can tell you that the fully boxed D1 frame is heavy and while being fairly rigid it accomplishes this with brute force so to speak.
The LR3 by comparison is probably much stiffer and far lighter weight in this respect (it may be heavier overall but not owing to the frame). While the LR3's hybrid frame/unibody construction may be an unfair comparison, the GM's hydroformed frame is similar in that it was accomplished with modern methods. It may not look as brutal as the D1's frame but you can bet if you run the numbers, the torsional rigidity is very good and it's strength is outstanding for the weight.
Comparing the old Land Rover to much more recent GM frames isn't completely fair. GM is far richer in assets to produce this kind of thing, and the design and construction methods to be used were planned about 20 years into the future from the Land Rover effort.
I'm not extolling the H3 as greater, but for most drivers a modern car has undeniable advantages. The old Land Rovers have their virtues and their vices, but as they age they will be surpassed by modern technologies. Probably not from LR though who seem intent on pursuing the luxury market. Had GM continued to produce hummers, they may very well have introduced a next generation that was sufficiently interesting to capture some of the aftermarket interest that JK's get. Consider that Toyota came very close to doing so with the FJ Cruiser. If they get it right, and the aftermarket catches on, they're only one model introduction away from leaving the Discoveries in the dust. They will continue to be interesting primarily as a classic car would be to those willing to keep them in condition, or as low-cost 4x4 beaters like so many XJ's.
#44
12-14-2012, 02:12 PM
#45
12-14-2012, 02:19 PM
Beastly or "crude." As a D1 owner, I kind of agree with you but also don't fail to recognize the H3 is a far more modern chassis built with machines and technology that makes the D1 just crude. I can't go on to compare specifics, but I can tell you that the fully boxed D1 frame is heavy and while being fairly rigid it accomplishes this with brute force so to speak.
The LR3 by comparison is probably much stiffer and far lighter weight in this respect (it may be heavier overall but not owing to the frame). While the LR3's hybrid frame/unibody construction may be an unfair comparison, the GM's hydroformed frame is similar in that it was accomplished with modern methods. It may not look as brutal as the D1's frame but you can bet if you run the numbers, the torsional rigidity is very good and it's strength is outstanding for the weight.
Comparing the old Land Rover to much more recent GM frames isn't completely fair. GM is far richer in assets to produce this kind of thing, and the design and construction methods to be used were planned about 20 years into the future from the Land Rover effort.
I'm not extolling the H3 as greater, but for most drivers a modern car has undeniable advantages. The old Land Rovers have their virtues and their vices, but as they age they will be surpassed by modern technologies. Probably not from LR though who seem intent on pursuing the luxury market. Had GM continued to produce hummers, they may very well have introduced a next generation that was sufficiently interesting to capture some of the aftermarket interest that JK's get. Consider that Toyota came very close to doing so with the FJ Cruiser. If they get it right, and the aftermarket catches on, they're only one model introduction away from leaving the Discoveries in the dust. They will continue to be interesting primarily as a classic car would be to those willing to keep them in condition, or as low-cost 4x4 beaters like so many XJ's.
The LR3 by comparison is probably much stiffer and far lighter weight in this respect (it may be heavier overall but not owing to the frame). While the LR3's hybrid frame/unibody construction may be an unfair comparison, the GM's hydroformed frame is similar in that it was accomplished with modern methods. It may not look as brutal as the D1's frame but you can bet if you run the numbers, the torsional rigidity is very good and it's strength is outstanding for the weight.
Comparing the old Land Rover to much more recent GM frames isn't completely fair. GM is far richer in assets to produce this kind of thing, and the design and construction methods to be used were planned about 20 years into the future from the Land Rover effort.
I'm not extolling the H3 as greater, but for most drivers a modern car has undeniable advantages. The old Land Rovers have their virtues and their vices, but as they age they will be surpassed by modern technologies. Probably not from LR though who seem intent on pursuing the luxury market. Had GM continued to produce hummers, they may very well have introduced a next generation that was sufficiently interesting to capture some of the aftermarket interest that JK's get. Consider that Toyota came very close to doing so with the FJ Cruiser. If they get it right, and the aftermarket catches on, they're only one model introduction away from leaving the Discoveries in the dust. They will continue to be interesting primarily as a classic car would be to those willing to keep them in condition, or as low-cost 4x4 beaters like so many XJ's.
Makes sense, and I agree with you there. It is a case of strong by "brute force" and strong by modern engineering. Both can get the job done, and i don't mean to knock the h3.
The brute force method of land rover has some strange appeal to me though.
Last edited by zoso-; 12-14-2012 at 02:21 PM. Reason: spelling
#48
12-14-2012, 08:46 PM
2008 Hummer H3 moderate overlap test - YouTube
1999 Land Rover Discovery Series II moderate overlap test - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRUx...ature=youtu.be
1999 Land Rover Discovery Series II moderate overlap test - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRUx...ature=youtu.be
Last edited by Spike555; 12-14-2012 at 08:49 PM.
