I disagree. In my opinion new Discovery 2 was designed not purely for off-road, rather for both. Many new features and improvements were made to new Discovery's on-road capabilities (especially in the handling and passenger comforts). The added length in the rear and the temporary removal of the CDL made for disadvantages in off-road situations. Many people on here agree that the former Disco 1 was more capable off-road whereas the new Discovery 2 is more comfortable on road. Opinions differ.

 

The Discovery II was really a stop-gap measure as Land Rover prepared to respond to the changing market. The Discovery I featured the original Range Rover suspension, the best suspension for offroad ever fitted to a production 4x4. For the market conditions around the turn of the millenium, off-road didn't mean anything. Car companies had been making big profits from low-cost body-on-frame trucks fitted with luxury features that satisfied consumer demand for vehicles that portrayed an image of affluence with an expression of excess. But the competition was getting tough with the Mercedes M-class, BMW X-series, Lexus and others joining the Grand Cherokee and leather-appointed Suburbans and Tahoes, soon to be followed by the Escalade. Land Rover needed to make drastic changes to its vehicle lineup if it was to stay in the lucrative luxury SUV market. The only other option was to compete with the Chinese Hi-lux copies that had long since overtaken the export market for farmer's utility vehicles where the Land Rover had originally attained success some 50 years earlier.

Solid axles and body-on-frame had to go, and go they did. But more immediately at the time, the Discovery needed more cargo room, a more realistic 7 passenger option, and a decisive answer to consumer advocate criticisms of SUV "rollover" danger. Land Rover plotted to drop the truck-style design, but what could they put into production immediately? They increased cargo room by extending the rear and lowering the floor by discarding the a-arm and going to a transverse (watts) link. That kept the side-to-side control of the rear axle neat and tidy, but by itself it wouldn't have controled the axle's twist, so the rear links became radius arms. They came up with a Rube Goldberg-inspired contraption to limit body roll and called it ACE.

It wouldn't be fair to say that they were only paying lip service to "offroad" at this point. It's pretty clear even from the LR3 and 4 that even long after Land Rover departed from it's roots to pursue the luxury SUV market that it still builds very credible offroad capability into the vehicles. But it's also obvious that offroad is not the main intention at all.

 

Whats the point of buying a Land Rover, if you arent going to take it off road? Maybe Im just the oddball out, but the whole intention of me selling my fast little sports car, and buying the best 4x4byfar was to be able to go where I wanted, road, or no road. I know there are a few LR owners on this forum who agree with you about it being more of a road "car", and I am interested to know why? Why in the hell would you buy a permanently engaged 4X4, that gets 15 miles to the gallon on a good day with no headwind, if the only thing you were going to do with it was brag about the ACE system and polish the scratch out that the renegade shopping cart put into it? I mean, seriously. Discoverys aren't the best in anything, except going wherever you want. Maybe I have just been riding around in some ****ty D2's, but the build quality isnt the best, its really not that good looking of a truck (in your case a car) like previously stated, the gas mileage sucks, there really isnt enough room (unless you want to get tricky and/or smash half your eggs) to make a trip to Costco and get everything you need.....So really, what is the point???? I am not trying to step on anybodies toes, but it just seems like a silly buy to me. Like previously stated, a 2 wheel drive Suburban, or Tahoe could get you everything you wanted, and with less hassle and money involved.

So honestly, why? I understand that everyone has their own personal opinion, and thats exactly what I am asking for.

Edit: Binvanna just pointed out, and I agree, that although the newer models are more luxury, they can still keep up with my D1 off road, and honestly, I dont understand the point in buying the newer ones if you arent ever going to use them for their intended purpose either.

 

There doesn't have to be a point. Why do people buy G-wagons? It's totally irrational. They're over $150k for a tin box with seats out of a Mercedes sedan. It's just a Steyr truck with leather and a badge. They're not remarkable in any way, but people still covet them madly. The Land Rover brand was originally intended for practical utility including offroad use. But in the 90's it changed to pursue the irrational buyers that were willing to pay huge markups because they put leather seats in them, and then more and more of the same.

There are two types of real offroad vehicles. Work trucks and recreational. The pickup truck is by far the choice for work, and if it's modest offroad abilities aren't up to the task then an ATV is used. For recreational use, Land Rovers have a very small user base consisting mostly of people that bought them off dissatisfied luxury buyers after massive depreciation. There's almost no original owners that offroad them. The Jeep Wangler has the recreational offroad market in the US, besides the ATV's, UTV's, lifted trucks and two-wheelers.

 

Off-roaders are not the only people in need of a capable mid suze SUV. Alot of people in my area live on mountains and every winter we get snowed in. Cars would not be rational cause they are 2 wheel drive and to low to the ground and more prone to rot due to the large amount of salt used on the roads. I own a Land Rover because I believe in the company and I believe in the capabilities of my D2. I do not off-road, never have and will only do it afew times a year when I do. But its good to drive with confidence knowing that when natures strikes without warning my Disco will be there to get me where I need to go in one piece. Plus I love how it looks, where is made and all the features it has. There are at least 3 types of people who purchase 4x4/AWD SUV's:
1: off-road enthusiasts
2: irrational rich people who never take them off-road
3: people whpo live on unpaved roads in the countryside who depend on 4x4 capabilities to get them to and from work everyday, and to get their family to safety.

I used to own a Jeep grand cherokee, and Ive driven many newer ones. But they do not give me peace of mind and the feeling of security and off-road capability that my Land Rover does. I love how unique my Disco is compared to most other vehicles on the road today.

Life is not always so simple. Not always black or white, good or evil. There exist many variations and many reasons for all the things that we do and all the things that happen in life - best not to limit ourselfs to a black and white prospective.

 

and I do not doubt the off-road capabilities of my Disco. Im simply saying that in some respects the D1 was probably better suited. if I doubted my truck then I would never have purchased it.

 

The Discovery1 is a more rugged vehicle, simpler, and a little smaller. The D2 is a more refined luxury vehicle while still very capable. Either would suit you fine in a zombie apocalypse.


I've ridden in a 2003 Grand Cherokee. Nice SUV, good power and just from the way it felt riding in it, it seems to be faster and has better mpg than the Discovery. However it drives like a car, small lose feeling steering wheel. I like the tightness of the Discovery, maybe it's also psychological but you can really feel the weight of the Disco steering wheel. It makes me feel like I have more control over the vehicle.

 

I wheel my DII and I also drive it every day. It goes everywhere I want it to, and I'm in the process of making it more capable because I want to go more places.

This is my opinion.

Personally, I feel that at heart, Land Rover wanted to make a vehicle that was sort of the best of two worlds. One of the main competitors to the Discovery or Range Rover is the Toyota Land Cruiser. The LC is a tough, simple, reliable vehicle that is good off road, but it doesn't ride as well on the road and isn't as luxurious. That's why people buy a LR instead of a LC. Yes, it was built to fill a gap in the market, but it was designed to stand out in that market by being better than it's contemporaries at a lot of things. I think it does that rather well. And yes, people will argue differently, but in reality, everyone seems to get different results with the vehicles they drive. Maybe it's perspective, maybe it's just luck, but results vary.

I don't really see the point of buying a Land Rover if you're never going to take it off road. It makes me sad that so many people use it as simply a status symbol. That's not what the company is built on. Yes, I know they have strayed drastically from their roots, but I think at heart, they are still offroaders. If it was simply being built as a luxury SUV, then why go through all the trouble of the off road systems and promoting it as so off road capable? Why go through with something like G4, TReK, or the one millionth Disco Round the World Journey?

Charles Spencer King, the man who designed the original Range Rover, has been quoted saying that he is disgusted with the people that are using the best 4x4xFar as a mall crawler. He is dismayed that not enough people are using the vehicles for their original purpose.

And you know what? I'm with Chuck.

If you need a reliable source of transport that won't be stopped by the snow or ice or a dirt road, but otherwise never sees anything other than asphalt under it's tires, buy a Subaru.

 

That's exactly what the company is, and has been for some time.
In '93 I applied for a sales job at the dealership in Cleveland, OH. Part of the interview process was a mock sales and I blew it because I didn't make "Land Rover is a luxury status symbol" as the primary reason someone should buy one. Instead I put emphasis their ability off-road and long heritage. And this was when they were more off-road oriented than that are today.

 

I know that's what they're touted as now. I just don't necessarily think it should be.