Thread: Land Rover Engineer Requires Info

Originally Posted by Bush65

I've never understood why anyone would have/want Terrain Response.

If they do need or want it (presumably because they can't drive a 4x4, or else don't like the exertion of changing gear, locking diffs etc.), why don't they just take the next logical step and stay home and watch it on a dvd.

I'll wager those people wouldn't have enough experience/knowledge to air down tyres, carry recovery gear and know how to use it - they should stay home and watch a dvd.

Why can't Land Rover produce something we don't have and do need?

I agree that TR has significantly less use with diff lockers and big lifts, but what about those that never get that serious? TR is a good solution for the masses. Not perfect, but the choice to upgrade/modify is all yours. TR is simply something YOU dont need.

Cheers!

"I've never understood why anyone would have/want Terrain Response.

If they do need or want it (presumably because they can't drive a 4x4, or else don't like the exertion of changing gear, locking diffs etc.), why don't they just take the next logical step and stay home and watch it on a dvd.

I'll wager those people wouldn't have enough experience/knowledge to air down tyres, carry recovery gear and know how to use it - they should stay home and watch a dvd."

It was difficult not to reply very aggressively to this comment. You don't know me at all so making this kind of statement just shows your own ignorance. You have no idea what my knowledge or experience are you just know that you don't want TR.

To answer the original posters questions since I do have a D3 -

I did a lot of researching of forums, magazines and reviews and test drove a couple of the cars that I was interested in. I could have got a much better deal on a new Pajero but still decided to go with the Disco as I felt it was just a much better all round vehicle. I was sick of the compromises required to have a car that fulfilled four distinct purposes and the D3 seems to do all of them pretty well. This is firstly as a daily driver round the city, secondly as a touring vehicle going to outback areas including places like Cape York, Uluru and Fraser as well as just to Sydney or Melbourne, thirdly as a tow vehicle with an offroad trailer or the boat and lastly as a true offroad vehicle to have some fun in. I have had the car offroad properly only once since I bought it and frankly it performed extremely well in some interesting mud and up a few decent hills. The addition of Terrain Response makes all these diverse puposes more achievable in the one car. Frankly I am not interested any more in a vehicle that is a pig to drive around town or on a touring trip just because I have got it all set up for the occasional bit of rock climbing or mud.

Things that still could be better on the Disco are the ability to raise the height at higher speeds and some better options on the tyres from the dealer. And of course I really would like some more country dealers same as everybody else. Why do Toyota need so many country dealers? - because they break down too.

Tim.

Originally Posted by blitz

Nar Sleepy, arguably is simply a polite way of saying others may disagree and I dont have a problem with that.

Actually I would love to be involved with a head to head between a 90 and a rubicon. On paper the lockers in the Rubicon put it in front.

Hopefully I will be able to let you all know about the Rubicon soon as my brother is going to buy one when he gets back from his next stint on the NW shelf.

Blythe

I agree.

Originally Posted by Timj

"I've never understood why anyone would have/want Terrain Response.

If they do need or want it (presumably because they can't drive a 4x4, or else don't like the exertion of changing gear, locking diffs etc.), why don't they just take the next logical step and stay home and watch it on a dvd.

I'll wager those people wouldn't have enough experience/knowledge to air down tyres, carry recovery gear and know how to use it - they should stay home and watch a dvd."

It was difficult not to reply very aggressively to this comment. You don't know me at all so making this kind of statement just shows your own ignorance. You have no idea what my knowledge or experience are you just know that you don't want TR.

To answer the original posters questions since I do have a D3 -

I did a lot of researching of forums, magazines and reviews and test drove a couple of the cars that I was interested in. I could have got a much better deal on a new Pajero but still decided to go with the Disco as I felt it was just a much better all round vehicle. I was sick of the compromises required to have a car that fulfilled four distinct purposes and the D3 seems to do all of them pretty well. This is firstly as a daily driver round the city, secondly as a touring vehicle going to outback areas including places like Cape York, Uluru and Fraser as well as just to Sydney or Melbourne, thirdly as a tow vehicle with an offroad trailer or the boat and lastly as a true offroad vehicle to have some fun in. I have had the car offroad properly only once since I bought it and frankly it performed extremely well in some interesting mud and up a few decent hills. The addition of Terrain Response makes all these diverse puposes more achievable in the one car. Frankly I am not interested any more in a vehicle that is a pig to drive around town or on a touring trip just because I have got it all set up for the occasional bit of rock climbing or mud.

Things that still could be better on the Disco are the ability to raise the height at higher speeds and some better options on the tyres from the dealer. And of course I really would like some more country dealers same as everybody else. Why do Toyota need so many country dealers? - because they break down too.

Tim.

Tim, I apologise if you took my post as judging you or other Land Rover owners. It was late and I should have put it differently.

I have seen Land Rover adding more complexity (and more things to fail) to each incarnation to take the need for driver experience away.

I saw this person from Land Rover (allegedly ) more interested in going further in this direction.

The point I hoped to make, was how I thought Land Rover must view their customers (victims ). The rot started when they fitted north American and Japanese discos with an electrical interlock in the LT230 that prevents changing between low and high range unless your foot is on the brake pedal - they apparently think British and Australian owners have more nouce.

I don't have a vehicle with TC, and have never driven one.

My vehicles are not pigs to drive on road. Granted they would not keep up with a D3 on the blacktop, but they are not too shabby and the legal speed limit is a good equaliser.

I see deficiencies in what Land Rover are producing, and know not one person who would by a Land Rover because it has TC - most would see it as a good reason not to buy Land Rover.

Land Rover need to offer options, like larger fuel tank capacity, 6 and 8 cyl diesels (and 4 cyl) across the range (including Defender). Also Salisbury axles and selectable lockers.

I'm leading a Simpson trip in July - following most of Madigan's line, with a diversion to Geosurveys Hill. I invite the Land Rover person who started this thread to borrow a Land Rover from the dealers and join us.

He would learn a lot - I nearly said love the experience, but not if he has to leave the vehicle out there as a monument to Land Rover folly, after it runs out of tyres or fuel, or the electronics fail.

He could make comparison to:

300Tdi disco with maxi-drive axles and tru-tracs
300Tdi 110 Defender with maxi-drive lockers
4.2 old tech diesel, short wheelbase Nissan GQ
V8 diesel Landcruiser 200

not only do aircraft have all the above mentioned things they also have several hours spent on per and post flight checks for every flight and if one person misses something on a vital systems it goes foun in the second, third or final preflight check by the aircrew. And having brought my 06 defender new and having to deal with land rover warranty (12 trips in 10 months)they probadly should only make matchbox cars.but a plus in the last 8 months no problems fingers crossed.




Kev

06 defender

Hi John (Bush65),

Yes, I did take offence with the way it came across to me so thanks for the apology and the explanation.

I do have a few questions though about the logic in your post. All vehicles that you mentioned as the ones that you are leading into the Simpson appear to be non standard yet you expect a standard Landrover of some description to come along and then get the fingers pointed at it as being somehow inadequate if it fails. All the vehicles that you mention have considerable electronic controls even if just for the fuel injection on their engines. Why do you believe that the electronics are such a weak point when all the vehicles have some? The D3 has been out since 2005 and while there were some programming issues in the early models they appear to have been sorted out and the vehicles have now got a reputation for reliability. Would the other vehicles you mention be in the same kind of trouble if their computers failed? If so why do you not see that as the same kind of problem. What would happen to the Toyota if the front diff failed (not sure if this is still a weak point with the 200 in the same way it was with the 100) and it had to limp home in 2wd through the dunes? There are many other more traditional weak points that may cause a vehicle to fail just as catastrophically as the electronics. Do some of the old bush remedies still work with a D3 such as using a branch to support broken suspension as you would a leaf spring, maybe they do, maybe not.

I have worked with computers all my life (since before the IBM PC was first built) so I have something of an affinity for them and they can be extremely reliable pieces of equipment. I think you will find that your whole life relies on them in many more ways than perhaps you realise. Next time you get taken into a hospital you will certainly be relying on electronic gadgetry as much as on the human staff. The control systems on the D3 were certainly one of the reasons I bought it, not the only one, but I saw them as being pretty much the best way to get the multi purpose vehicle I wanted. So now you do know someone who bought a Landrover because of the TC .

And that brings me to the whole issues of traction control, terrain response, electronically locking differentials and whether they are somehow acceptable additions to a vehicle or if they take away the required skill that somehow proves we are real men (or something like that). First question is how are these kinds of aids different to an automatically locking differential such as a Detroit? How are they different to raised suspension? The only difference between them and the manually operated diff locks is that they are always on. Once you are in a situation then what is the difference? With manually operated locks and other mods you are now in a vehicle where the required skill level to traverse a given obstacle is less once they are engaged. The electronic aids enable the use of things like independent suspension that do give the on road performance I appreciate while still allowing me to traverse some very interesting tracks. I can't understand what you are so vehemently opposed to. If it all comes back to the electronics being unreliable then you may need to go to an old carburetted vehicle since that is the only way to get away from them.

I certainly hope to one day cross the Simpson in my D3. It will have adequate fuel with an auxilliary tank and jerry cans (same as most vehicles need), it will have good tyres (probably on 17" rims) and it will have what is probably the simplest way to get a suspension lift anywhere and that is just to run shortened sensor rods. I will have a car that actually has been tested in extreme conditions unlike the 200 series and I think it will do the job just fine. Same as any other vehicle I went in I would also have company, an EPIRB and a Sat Phone.

I will now step off the soap box .

Tim.

Originally Posted by Timj

All vehicles that you mentioned as the ones that you are leading into the Simpson appear to be non standard yet you expect a standard Landrover of some description to come along and then get the fingers pointed at it as being somehow inadequate if it fails.

All the vehicles that you mention have considerable electronic controls even if just for the fuel injection on their engines.


Why do you believe that the electronics are such a weak point when all the vehicles have some?

I am not John - but I agree with everything he posted, so excuse me for commenting...

A pre TC land rover with diff locks isn't much different to a more modern one with TC (in terms of traction aids).

The top 3 vehicles in that list have NO ELECTRONICS - they have one wire to open/close the fuel supply. You could run them quite happily without a battery or alternator.

I have been impressed on recent trips on how a D3 with a decent set of tyres can work, but that was only up to the level of a stock standard (open-diffed) 110 with equivalent tyres. And OMG the idiocy of these silly plastic covers over the recovery points...

Tim - how often do you replace your computers/electronics? I am lucky to get one that will last 3-4 years. I don't want to have to change vehicles that often. Only LR could have a vehicle which leaks oil into electronics!!! I am amazed at all the electrical niggles that D2 owners are finding as the vehicles get a bit older.

Also - Why oh why is the Air Suspension compressor mounted so low that it needs a guard! And WHY is the guard plastic??? On one trip, a D3 smashed the plastic guard to pieces halfway up a hill, dislodging the power connector to the compressor - the result - was like trying to drive a ferrari up a 4x4 track.

Personally, there is no way I would take a vehicle with all those design faults to any remote areas.

On another note, some (aftermarket) companies/users here have proven that LSDs in conjunction with traction control is almost equivalent to diff locks. It would be great if LR offered that as an option.

Originally Posted by Timj

Hi John (Bush65),

Yes, I did take offence with the way it came across to me so thanks for the apology and the explanation.

I do have a few questions though about the logic in your post. All vehicles that you mentioned as the ones that you are leading into the Simpson appear to be non standard yet you expect a standard Landrover of some description to come along and then get the fingers pointed at it as being somehow inadequate if it fails. <snip>

Tim.

I think that's the point of this whole thread, that the vehicles in standard form aren't up to what most of us feel they should/could be, and hence need modification to meet our needs or even equal the Japanese 4wd's in key areas.

Without trying to second guess John's thoughts, I feel that the OP's response re TR and pretty much ignoring what most of us on here feel are fundamental engineering/design issues is a bit of a worry.
Is this an indication of L/R's future design philosophy ?
Re-programming some software is a hell of a lot cheaper than installing a better front diff assembly (which in Land Rovers are considerably weaker than the 100/200 Series Land Cruisers ) so possibly......

As Ben points out above, both the 300Tdi's and Patrol mentioned in john's post above use mechanical injection. Not a chip or ECU on any of those vehicles engines, controls or drive mechanisms.

Read through the first six pages or so of comments.

Most concentrate on basic engineering issues.