LR3 Ownership Update - Eight Weeks

[Jwestpro]

1) I own two Jeeps and one Land Rover, and have no 'pride' involved in either.

2) You're all missing the point and telling anecdotes. If an off road purpose built solid axle performs better than an on road purpose built IFS, that doesn't make solid axle better than IFS. Seriously, stop regurgitating old wives tales and read up on suspension geometry, function, flex, wheel travel, etc. Solid axle's sole advantages are simplicity of design and low cost. Both Jeep and Land Rover have proven that there's nothing a solid axle is capable of that an IFS isn't when they're both properly designed with off road driving in mind.

I'll post some pictures of the new wheels and tires to get this back on track.

Well, I think YOU might be missing the POINT. (smiley for "don't get wound up, I'm just poking fun") The Lr3 does not have the type of IFS that WOULD be superior to a solid axle in difficult off road situations. The Baja trucks do but the LR3 does not. Even the construction of what we do have is almost junk in my opinion with it's welded stamped steel and bits that people break in light use.

Now, I must admit that I do LOVE my lr3, even though I also hate it.... I bought it new in 2007. I also have some strong opinions about the design of these vehicles due to all the ways I've used mine over the past 15 short years. For example, I think the "lift" rods are idiotic.... because they don't actually increase anything in the maximum limits. These rods are only slightly less ridiculous than how the engineers built a vehicle only allowing such small tires. The rods only put you in higher zones more often while also making the vehicle more dangerous more often and placing additional stress on suspension all the time. The electronic methods for "lift" are vastly superior. Again, none of these actually provide more maximum height than is already available by means of the factory system. Anyone going on and on about all of this "capability" crap should step up and install the "right stuff" or just get on with going places.

Anyway, this was ironic timing: http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/24/chrysler-tipm-module-complaints/

Chrysler investigating complaints of vehicles with faulty power modules
2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee

 

[Jwestpro]

As I mentionned earlier, being blinded by pride of ownership is one thing , but such declarations takes all credibility away from the owner.

But all in all, both vehicles are much more capable than I have guts to put them through. So in my case, the LR3/4 would be the best all around vehicle for me to own. But the reliability dictates otherwise, which is a real shame.

"Reliability"? Of the LR? In almost 100,000 miles, mine has never even had me worried it would not get me to my destination. To me, "reliability" is just that, and only that. It is reliable because I've never been let down. In fact, I have 3 of my 4 primary owned land rovers with a cumulative mileage of 410,000 miles and no towing, no let downs, no roadside bivouacs Many items have been replaced either due to untimely failure covered by warranty on the lr3 or simply very old worn out parts on the 1996 Discovery.

If I were choosing another brand it would be either Toyota/Lexus Land Cruiser/LX or Mercedes G with 33" tires from the start. For now though, I love that my 2nd fuel tank provides 51 gallons below the body and the LLAMS interface provides on-the-fly -20mm, +30mm, or +50mm. Combined with the Britpart tool it has an adjustable range of 8" allowing for the very lowest garage tuck or the highest snow rut crawling with chains.

I would have considered the LR4 already just for the 5L engine and transmission but have invested too much into the lr3 with multiple sets of 18" wheels and custom installed systems.

 

[Angry_Man]

My point at the beginning is that factory to factory, a 2006 LR3 and a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited have the same ground clearance, same size tires, factory lockers, and outstanding 4x4 capability. Where the LR3 is taller, wider, and heavier, it turns a circle about six feet smaller which leads to maneuvering the rubi can't match. A factory version of Jeep's off road capable, unibody, IFS rig (the Grand Cherokee) is also equally capable.

Once you go into aftermarket debates it's only a question of how much you want to spend. There are plenty of guys across the pond running 37s on LR3s. Wranglers have the most, the LR3 comes in second, and the WK/WK2 Grand Cherokee comes in third for availability and cost to play, but again it's just a question of how much you want to spend and what you want the truck to be capable of.

 

[Jwestpro]

. A factory version of Jeep's off road capable, unibody, IFS rig (the Grand Cherokee) is also equally capable.

Once you go into aftermarket debates it's only a question of how much you want to spend. There are plenty of guys across the pond running 37s on LR3s. .

The Grand Cherokee is most definitely NOT "equally" capable. Why do you keep trying to say this? Even if all you did was compare them on paper it doesn't hold up. The GC is a car, just like the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne. The GC does not have the same amount of articulation so is therefor not possible to be as "capable", aside from any other aspects. Yes, they can "go places" but they are most definitely not in the same capability level as the Land Rover design.

Regarding LR3 on thirty SEVEN inch tires....again, not true, definitely not "plenty" of anyone. That size tire does not even fit in the wheel fender space without massive lift which the LR3/4 is not capable of providing using it's suspension arms.

As you can see here, the lr3 would have to be lifted roughly 10" in order to even allow the horizontal diameter of a 37"
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=...a=X&ei=29T8U5zPCcSe7Ab5tYDgAQ&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAQ

 

[unseenone]

As you can see here, the lr3 would have to be lifted roughly 10" in order to even allow the horizontal diameter of a 37"
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=...a=X&ei=29T8U5zPCcSe7Ab5tYDgAQ&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAQ

I'm not sure the relevance of the RC models quoted is, or has this entire thread been about RC models?

:lurk:

 

[Jwestpro]

I'm not sure the relevance of the RC models quoted is, or has this entire thread been about RC models?

:lurk:

Because it's the only LR3 on 37" tires

 

[unseenone]

There is in fact one I am aware of.. But then again, is it really a D3/LR3 anymore?


Ok, OK... two

 

[Angry_Man]

1) Learn what the trail rated badge means, and what factory conditions of a Rubicon JK vs an OR adventure 2 package WK2 are. They are equally capable out of the factory. Learn the brand.

2) Learn that when it comes to mods, trimming body work to fit 37s is a lot easier than rebuilding a suspension that already allowed 12+ inches of travel ... but most importantly anyone can do anything with anything, it's a question of money and willpower.

I can build a 1964.5 original body mustang that will run circles around the best built ORV Jeep from 2014. It doesn't mean the Mustang is better, or the Jeep is worse, it means someone with deep pockets built something for the purpose I wanted it.

 

[Jwestpro]

1) Learn what the trail rated badge means, and what factory conditions of a Rubicon JK vs an OR adventure 2 package WK2 are. They are equally capable out of the factory. Learn the brand.

2) Learn that when it comes to mods, trimming body work to fit 37s is a lot easier than rebuilding a suspension that already allowed 12+ inches of travel ... but most importantly anyone can do anything with anything, it's a question of money and willpower.

I can build a 1964.5 original body mustang that will run circles around the best built ORV Jeep from 2014. It doesn't mean the Mustang is better, or the Jeep is worse, it means someone with deep pockets built something for the purpose I wanted it.

Actually, it's becoming clear you can't back up the stuff you are saying. You never answered the GC articulation question. You cannot prove there are lr3's running 37's. Now you just talk about trimming as if there is any body work to be trimmed on an lr3 which would even then allow 37's. No, that amount of "trimming" would actually be trimming the body shell, i.e., leaving large holes into the cabin.

None of this was about what can be "built" with unlimited resources. You don't seem to like being asked to prove your ideas though regardless of the topic.

 

[dwvninety]

OK I gotta chime in. The LR3 with HD is extremely capable but the downside to it is that you cant turn off the center and rear lockers as they engage automatically per the computer/ecu. With the Rubicon you can manually turn on the center (engage 4W low) rear, and front. With a programmer you can turn on the front or rear in LOW or HIGH 4WD. You might think so what? Well if you do a lot of off-roading there are some circumstance were you do not want front or rear lockers engaged but the center locked. You might say bulls....hit! Try to do Forest Service Road 648 in Colorado while its raining or in snow with full lockers on. If you don't know what Forest Service Road 648 is then you need more experience. And yes I do own a 2003 Discovery with center, front, rear lockers. 2006 LR3 with HD, and 2012 Jeep Rubicon and I wheel all of them.

 

[Jwestpro]

And yes I do own a 2003 Discovery with center, front, rear lockers. 2006 LR3 with HD, and 2012 Jeep Rubicon and I wheel all of them.

You sound like someone who would appreciate the new lockers from ARB for the front and rear in LR3.

I wish we could selectively run the lr3 in rear 2wd for general travel fuel economy.

Regarding snow and any forest road with some side slope, can't you just choose a terrain setting and DSC combo which keeps the rear unlocked? Hell, it has a "snow/slippery surface" setting. Have you experimented with that plus high range? Most snow driving, even deep, doesn't really need the low range anyway. Do you use the RUD 4x4 snow chains on that route? Sounds like they would be a good idea but most tires people use on an LR3 will require spacers to clear the upper control arm. A 245/70x18 would be perfect but I don't think any good ones exist in that size.

 

[dwvninety]

Yes I have experimented with the trail response on the LR3. Problem is the center lockers are not engaged unless the computer\ECU thinks it is necessary. Doing that road needs center engaged at all times and no rear lockers. Doing it with open differentials in the rain or snow can cost you your life which I am not about to chance. I don't own any snow chains so I can't comment on those.

As far as air lockers from ARB for the LR3, I thought about those but the shear investment needed I decided to pass. My Jeep Rubicon or my Disco is good enough for me for the harder trails.

 

[Jwestpro]

I'm thinking about making my 04 discovery more fit for outings than dumping any more $ into the lr3 for now. Lucky8 mentioned some interesting KAM lockers that use a solenoid rather than air.

 

[Jwestpro]

There has got to be something wrong with this person because the Jeep Cherokee must be more capable in the right hands. funny video found on lucky8 facebook, a bit of swearing : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=56a_1407813773

 

[dwvninety]

E lockers are great so are air lockers. Just go with the one that fit's your budget. Justin from Lucky8 will not disappoint you. The Disco is my preferred choice followed by the Jeep and then the LR3. The Disco in my opinion gives you more manual control and less electronics to deal with. Although you have to deal with the 4.6 not overheating and the front drive-shaft not cratering on you.