D5 tow-ball weight - can this be true?

[GregMilner]

Several of us L322 owners are a bit keen on replacing them with the new Disco. (In my case, as a long-term long-distance tow tug as the bride and I figure out more ways to goof off in our camper trailer in the next few years.)

But I just went through the exercise of doing a 'dream build' on the LR website. 20 inch wheels - the smallest size available. Not good.
But worse, the build print-out shows max tow-ball weight of 200kg.

Really?? Our camper trailer is more than that loaded up. And the out-going Disco specs 350kg tow ball weight.

Surely that 200kg spec must be a mistake....

[Chrisnussey]

Just put a few buck down on one but I didn't see the 200 max ball weight. Won't get too excited untill the Aust specs arrive. The UK books state the same brake sizes as the D4 so hopefully the GOE wheels will fit.

[GregMilner]

I might be unduly worried. Just been informed that Australian cars will get the 350kg Hayman Reese hitch.

[Tombie]

D4 is the same in all markets except Australia..

[Garfield]

Same as Chrisnussey, I hope the 18" compomotive wheels fit the new D5, as plan to swap over to D5 in say 4 years time and take my 18" rims with me :)

[Tombie]

Same as Chrisnussey, I hope the 18" compomotive wheels fit the new D5, as plan to swap over to D5 in say 4 years time and take my 18" rims with me :)



According to LR the D5 will have the option to come with 18s [emoji41]

[Garfield]

Wish they had had that option with the D4 :angry:

[cripesamighty]

Several articles have mentioned various specs/versions of the D5 family with one version optimised more for off-road work. Forgive my memory, but I think it mentioned the 18" wheels came with the ingenium engine and had a smaller brake package.

[PerthDisco]

According to LR the D5 will have the option to come with 18s [emoji41]



In 2.0 litre engine 4cyl option I think. Will be an interesting SV tough version. Going to a 4cyl would be sad I think after V6 regardless of power. The Toyos sound like Milk Trucks.

[Garfield]

Page 90 and 91 of the Discovery 5 brochure ( http://www.landrover.com.au/Images/L462_17MY_MB_INT_ENG_V8a_tcm296-307857.pdf ) don't see to show a 18'" wheel option.

[BMKal]

Page 90 and 91 of the Discovery 5 brochure

don't see to show a 18'" wheel option.

Try here. ;)

https://www.4x4australia.com.au/news/1610/new-land-rover-discovery-to-get-some-off-road-cred

[Garfield]

Thanks BMKal - very interesting article. Well I guess I can feel a bit better after forking out the $$$$ for my current 18"compomotive wheels if I can reuse them in the future on a Disco 5 TDV6 ! :) :)

[90 Rangie]

Rang local dealer to talk about the 200kgs, they are trying to get it upgraded but do not know if they can. As I told him myself and many more will not be able to buy it if this stays at 200kg. Would be a huge mistake by Land Rover. Makes the decission real easy about upgrading. Also still no news on how tow hitch will attach.

[Melbourne Park]

Why would the D5 allow 18" wheels when the current RRSport will not? Aren't they much the same vehicles as before when the RR Sports were really fashionized Disco's? Isn't the D5 a volumized RRSport?

[Melbourne Park]

Rang local dealer to talk about the 200kgs, they are trying to get it upgraded but do not know if they can. As I told him myself and many more will not be able to buy it if this stays at 200kg. Would be a huge mistake by Land Rover. Makes the decission real easy about upgrading. Also still no news on how tow hitch will attach.

Same as with the Range Rover Sport - its maximum for a non hybrid is 200kg tow ball weight. The hybrid is 150kg. Both though tow 3,500kg. I guess the allow monocoque is indeed different to having a chassis. The strange thing is that most people who tow recognise a heavy ball weight improves safety. Perhaps the trailer / towing smarts in these computer controlled vehicles handle trailer sway etc better than the old school. IMO 200kg is not much, but then, many Prados are limited to 250kg. Normally a 3500kg towing capacity though, would have a tow ball weight maximum of 350kg, or 10%. But not the Land Rover Sport. Which I presume is much like the D5 underneath.

[PhilipA]

Our Land Rover Liaison officer in the NSW Range Rover Club was told by Land Rover Australia that all Ingenium engined D5 for the first year will be single range only.
This went down badly at our last meeting.
So 200Kg with single range will be a great tow vehicle.NOT
Regards Philip A

[Melbourne Park]

Our Land Rover Liaison officer in the NSW Range Rover Club was told by Land Rover Australia that all Ingenium engined D5 for the first year will be single range only.
This went down badly at our last meeting.
So 200Kg with single range will be a great tow vehicle.NOT
Regards Philip A

I was at an Australian Off Road rally at Sheepsflat near Mt Bulla two weeks ago. Their trailers typically have a GVM of 2.2 to 2.5 tonne. And with ball weights often over 250kg - it depends on the layout and the options and gear included in the trailers.

There was a chap there with a VW Amarok which has a 2 litre diesel producing 420NM @1750 RPM, and 132kw. His had the 8 speed auto, which does not come with a low range. It's towing capacity was/is 3,000kg and a tow ball limit of 300kg. He said it performed great, and he has been all over.

The issue really is how low is the first and second gear IMO. The VW has a very low first gear, and likely a low second gear too.

The Land Rover's base 2 litre 4 produces the same power and torque as does the VW 2 litre diesel. While if one steps up to the SD version of the 4 cylinder, one gets 500NM and a lot more power. The SD would perform around the same as the TD V6 diesel in theory ... although for towing, many say capacity helps a lot if you towing something with some weight and aero drag. With big caravans, the preferred vehicle is not a 200 series Landcruiser, its a 5th wheeler 6 litre diesel sitting in a GM or Ford build thing.

I suspect for most the upper level SD 4 cylinder will do the job, presuming the gear rations are appropriate.

The ball weight though is a killer, and I presume that the all alloy monocoque is never going to last the way a chassis does. After all a chassis takes the stress off the body, and steel doesn't fatigue. Maybe for heavy ball weights, LR will come up with something different in the Defender class? And maybe in most of the world, heavy ball weights are uncommon? Perhaps in Europe, caravan ball weights are getting lighter? Maybe the same with horse floats?

I looked at sales volumes of the new all alloy Range Rover sport, and they increased over the previous chassis based vehicle by over one third. That's a huge marketing success. Clearly the lack of ball capacity is not affecting sales worldwide. Maybe LandRover don't see their market as towing 350kg ball weights. Such work is a very small minority probably. A shame since the air suspension makes life very easy - its amazing how fussed 200 series people are about their ball weights. Whereas with an LR, we can just about forget about it, the vehicle handles the changes in weight automatically. And attaching a trailer is a pieces of cake with that air suspension.

[101RRS]

I looked at sales volumes of the new all alloy Range Rover sport, and they increased over the previous chassis based vehicle by over one third. Clearly the lack of ball capacity is not affecting sales worldwide. Maybe LandRover don't see their market as towing 350kg ball weights.

You seem to think the current RRS has a low tow ball weight - the Aust spec is 350kg for all models except the hybrid (is that sold here yet).

http://www.landrover.com.au/Images/NEW_LR9651_15MY_RR_Sport_eSpec_Sheet_300x215_Con_L R_tcm296-126820.pdf

[MR LR]

The ball weight though is a killer, and I presume that the all alloy monocoque is never going to last the way a chassis does. After all a chassis takes the stress off the body, and steel doesn't fatigue.

Planes are an alloy monocoque, have been since they stopped making them from timber and canvas, not too many of them fall out of the sky, and they have huge amounts of flexure in their frames, particularly the wings.

Fatigue is only an issue with poor design.

[Melbourne Park]

You seem to think the current RRS has a low tow ball weight - the Aust spec is 350kg for all models except the hybrid (is that sold here yet).

http://www.landrover.com.au/Images/NEW_LR9651_15MY_RR_Sport_eSpec_Sheet_300x215_Con_L R_tcm296-126820.pdf

Maybe I will ring my dealer and ask.

But I have been using Land Rover Australia stats for 2017.

I have been referring to page 96 of the E brochure for the L494 Range Rover Sport Australian edition. Downloadable from here:
http://www.landrover.com.au/Images/ebrochure_-L494-_17MY_tcm296-302461.pdf
page 96: Technical Details
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, PERFORMANCE AND KEY DATA

Unfortunately the weights say 200kg ... which is better than what the media said in the UK, about the 3 litre SDV6, which had a reported maximum toe ball weight of only 150kg:
Range Rover Sport | Tow Car Awards (http://www.thetowcarawards.com/tow-car/range-rover-sport/)

Concerning the hybrid, the current figures are published as being 150kg if the vehicle is loaded.

Perhaps there is an error from 2015 to 2017, or perhaps the 2015 data is not right????

I checked the USA specs though, and there, it is 350kg. The tow weight also is 3,720kg for the petrol, but the diesel is 3,500kg. Strange since the petrol has much less torque ... I guess the diesel motor and gearbox are heavier, and the maximum might be the axles capacities.

[Melbourne Park]

Planes are an alloy monocoque, have been since they stopped making them from timber and canvas, not too many of them fall out of the sky, and they have huge amounts of flexure in their frames, particularly the wings.

Fatigue is only an issue with poor design.

The timber airplanes were also monocoques really - one might say wooden space frames I guess.

The DC4 followed the reliable DC3 - the DC4's tails would drop off. The Electra plain that our Air Forces still use for radar tracking / defence (being replaced though) - also their tails would fall off. My Mum flew DC4's to Vancouver, from Melbourne. It took her a week. My dad flew Typhoons and Spitfires in WWII.

As far as alloy goes - it really does fatigue. Just ask a racing yachtsman, who uses an alloy mast. These fatigue. An example is a close friend of mine - Hugo Ottaway from Insail in Melbourne. He races a J24, an international small racing keelboat. He has been to many world championships, representing Australia. He replaces his costly alloy mast regularly - because the mast moves or flexes, in order to control the sail shape. And when it moves, it fatigues, it hardens. This results in it loosing its elasticity - and its "spring". This slows the boat down. So he replaces his masts, because its necessary. This all happens because aluminium really does work harden.

Meanwhile steel is much less subject to work hardening. Caste iron itself suffers this issue much less than steel. Perhaps why our Lr's still use a high spec chrystalline or compacted / vermicular graphite iron for their V6 engine blocks. While lesser loaded motors use aluminium. I am guessing iron is better than alloy in a high load diesel engine. I think due to good design.

I don't know of any alloy chassis based vehicle.

For towing, I'd rather the vehicle weighed 150kg more, and had a chassis. And I'd be worried about it having an alloy chassis. Without towing or doing off road stuff, an alloy monocoque and also composites, promise much more efficiency. The new RRS is heaps better for most people. 90K for the base model seems great value too IMO. But I suspect for my usage, its not as good.

[MR LR]

The timber airplanes were also monocoques really - one might say wooden space frames I guess.

The DC4 followed the reliable DC3 - the DC4's tails would drop off. The Electra plain that our Air Forces still use for radar tracking / defence (being replaced though) - also their tails would fall off. My Mum flew DC4's to Vancouver, from Melbourne. It took her a week. My dad flew Typhoons and Spitfires in WWII.

As far as alloy goes - it really does fatigue. Just ask a racing yachtsman, who uses an alloy mast. These fatigue. An example is a close friend of mine - Hugo Ottaway from Insail in Melbourne. He races a J24, an international small racing keelboat. He has been to many world championships, representing Australia. He replaces his costly alloy mast regularly - because the mast moves or flexes, in order to control the sail shape. And when it moves, it fatigues, it hardens. This results in it loosing its elasticity - and its "spring". This slows the boat down. So he replaces his masts, because its necessary. This all happens because aluminium really does work harden.

Meanwhile steel is much less subject to work hardening. Caste iron itself suffers this issue much less than steel. Perhaps why our Lr's still use a high spec chrystalline or compacted / vermicular graphite iron for their V6 engine blocks. While lesser loaded motors use aluminium. I am guessing iron is better than alloy in a high load diesel engine. I think due to good design.

I don't know of any alloy chassis based vehicle.

For towing, I'd rather the vehicle weighed 150kg more, and had a chassis. And I'd be worried about it having an alloy chassis. Without towing or doing off road stuff, an alloy monocoque and also composites, promise much more efficiency. The new RRS is heaps better for most people. 90K for the base model seems great value too IMO. But I suspect for my usage, its not as good.
I understand the engineering side of it quite well... and I didn't say fatigue and hardening didn't exist, even with steel it exists.

BUT, good design can engineer fatigue factors out to a point that they will not be reached in a machines reasonable lifespan. As you alluded to with DC4 vs. DC3.

The alloy chassis would not be a factor in the tow ball down load, it's plenty strong enough.

[101RRS]

Maybe I will ring my dealer and ask.

But I have been using Land Rover Australia stats for 2017.

I have been referring to page 96 of the E brochure for the L494 Range Rover Sport Australian edition. Downloadable from here:

page 96: Technical Details
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, PERFORMANCE AND KEY DATA

Unfortunately the weights say 200kg ... which is better than what the media said in the UK, about the 3 litre SDV6, which had a reported maximum toe ball weight of only 150kg:
Range Rover Sport | Tow Car Awards (http://www.thetowcarawards.com/tow-car/range-rover-sport/)

Concerning the hybrid, the current figures are published as being 150kg if the vehicle is loaded.

Perhaps there is an error from 2015 to 2017, or perhaps the 2015 data is not right????

I appreciate you downloaded that from the LR Aust site but it is the UK brochure - see the Local Supplement under (really an options pricing list) that but unfortunately it does not actually list the tow ball weight. Thinking about it logically why would the tow ball limit be downgraded for the 17MY compared to earlier versions.

The LR site also says this
"Range Rover Sport The Australian Range Rover Sport local specification sheet should be read in conjunction with Land Rover brochure Publication number: LRML 4905/15 (Range Rover Sport eBrochure), but it is important to note that Land Rover brochure LRML 4905/15 only represents a general global specification, and in the event of any inconsistency, the details contained within the Australian Range Rover Sport local specification sheet apply in Australia."

The same issue arose with the D3/D4 and equivalent RRSs. The Handbook lists ball weights much lower than 350Kg (I thing 150kg) but you had to go to the Aussie Supplement to see that the Aussie Cars had 350kg.

The current RRS is 350kg just as the D4 is (even though the basic handbooks say differently). With the D5 I am sure the same will apply - Uk around 150-200kg but in the Aussie Supplement will say 350kg. Certainly for the little engine D5 there may be differences but I am sure the full engine size - full 4wd versions will have a 350kg ball weight.

I think we are all getting bent around the axle about nothing - lets wait for the Aussie Supplements and then comment.

Garry

[Graeme]

And I'd be worried about it having an alloy chassis.The D5 has steel sub-frames, unlike the L494 RRS which has alloy sub-frames.

[Hugh Jars]

I don't believe the "tails fell off" any L-188 Electras (or the P3 derivative as used by the RAAF). [bigsmile1]

[90 Rangie]

This is all sorted D5 spec is 3500kg and 350kg nose weight in Australian supplement.
Even has the right tag on tow bar stating this.

[JDNSW]

I don't believe the "tails fell off" any L-188 Electras (or the P3 derivative as used by the RAAF). [bigsmile1]

No. Actually it was the wings, in three accidents. Attributed by the Civil Aeronautics Board to a whirl mode resonance. Rectified by changing the engine mounts and some structural changes. This was done before any were operational in Australia, and before the Orion was in production.

I've always found it interesting that both the UK and USA managed, in roughly the same time frame, to develop a very successful maritime patrol aircraft from a disastrously accident prone airliner (Electra -> Orion, Comet -> Nimrod).

The Comet was the first turbojet airliner, and the Electra was the first US turboprop. In the Comet, the fuselage broke up as the result of a poor understanding of fatigue, and the Electra the wings fell off because of a poor understanding of vibration modes. Both represented a major increase in operational speed.

[Hugh Jars]

No. Actually it was the wings, in three accidents. Attributed by the Civil Aeronautics Board to a whirl mode resonance. Rectified by changing the engine mounts and some structural changes. This was done before any were operational in Australia, and before the Orion was in production.

I've always found it interesting that both the UK and USA managed, in roughly the same time frame, to develop a very successful maritime patrol aircraft from a disastrously accident prone airliner (Electra -> Orion, Comet -> Nimrod).

The Comet was the first turbojet airliner, and the Electra was the first US turboprop. In the Comet, the fuselage broke up as the result of a poor understanding of fatigue, and the Electra the wings fell off because of a poor understanding of vibration modes. Both represented a major increase in operational speed.
That is correct, JDNSW [smilebigeye] whirl mode resonance is a completely different animal to 'fatigue'....

Having square cabin windows didn't help the Comet, either [bigsad]

John.

[JDNSW]

That is correct, JDNSW [smilebigeye] whirl mode resonance is a completely different animal to 'fatigue'....

Having square cabin windows didn't help the Comet, either [bigsad]

John.

No, you have to wonder that the designers did not round the windows to minimise stress concentrations anyway - they did on the Comet 2, which was flying before the Comet 1 disasters. I wonder to what extent the problems related to the fact that when Comet design started, DeHavilland had never designed an all metal aircraft - and its aerodynamic predecessors (Albatross and Mosquito) were all wood, which is notably resistant to fatigue. (They had, though, during the war, built a lot of metal aircarft and parts to other manufacturer's designs - but I'm pretty sure none of these were pressurised.)

[PAT303]

You need to remember that aircraft went from biplanes that peeked at 180-200 miles an hour to monoplanes that hit 350, later those same planes were hitting 460-470 in level flight and compression reversal in a dive and then jets,all in the space of 15 years or so.You can't expect designers to get everything right. Pat