Whenever I go out with a 4x4 club or group for a run, I am, with my Discovery, consistently the one with the smallest tires (33's) and lowest ground clearance. It's not just the big-tire-envy, but I've had trouble with the diffs hanging up on rocks, getting high-centered on dunes, buried in snow, just trying to keep up. It seems like everyone local has 37's or larger with the occasional exception of a much shorter wheelbase jeep on rock runs. On some more difficult trails, besides the small tires and limited ground-clearance, lack of flex from the radius-arm front end is the biggest limiting factor compared to the more capable rigs I've wheeled with that can flex and climb obstacles better. I dread being the drag on the group. I hate that feeling when I’m the first one to get stuck on a run.

To be fair, the Rover does amazingly well for its list of equipment. In the group of rigs, it looks out of place, like someone brought their station wagon, but I'll be darned if it doesn't get through with the big boys most of the time. There are times when I have to opt for a bypass on some rock obstacles though. Sometimes the limited approach angle doesn’t even allow an attempt, and other times its obvious there would just be severe body damage. Even with a relatively large JK Unlimited, the doors come off and instead of vulnerable metal quarter-panels they have much bigger rubber tires and plastic fenders in the same spot. On the Discovery, you can protect the sill with sliders, but the doors and quarter panels will still get beat.

Now on longer-distance, "overland" trips, my Discovery 1 is by contrast small and cramped and the diminutive tire size and weight is actually a benefit. It's better than rock-crawlers or a two-door jeep for traveling and camping, but not much. The wheelbase, at 100 inches is quite short compared to most of the vehicles in this class which are 110 to 120 inches, many with larger rear-overhangs. I believe the rear A-arm on the Land Rover also limits cargo space dramatically compared to leaf-springs on Land Cruisers or even the radius-arm/panhard rod on the rear of the G-wagon. I know the Disco 2 has like 10 inches more overhang but it also has rear radius-arms and a watts link which could give it a lower floor in the rear as well if they didn’t use that space for ACE. I don’t have one so I don’t know how much better they are. Either way, these vehicles are cavernous inside compared to the Disco 1. I can only imagine the rear axle doesn’t articulate quite as well on radius arms or leaf springs, but camping out of one has got to be far more comfortable.

Because of these experiences, I’ve found the Discovery is sort of a middle-ground between a trail jeep or ton-swap XJ or SAS Taco with 4d’s, and an expedition vehicle like the Land Cruiser, 110, G-wagon etc. As such, it’s more capable on the tough trails than a Land Cruiser, but far more cramped overlanding. It is less capable than even a basic crawler with 1-ton swaps and big tires, but more comfortable and often with more space for longer trips. Sometimes it can be frustrating not being especially good at anything, getting shown-up on the trails, and suffering more camping on the long routes. But I still get to do both with the same vehicle.