Printable View
Remember where LR makes its money. It's not froms sales to Aussie offroaders and most of our mods are offroad-specific. Very few non-offroader owners would even consider the items we list disadvantages, and some would consider them negatives such as taller tyres.
That said it doesn't hurt to flick it on. However, car manufacturers are very bad at reading forums, they've not really caught up with the Internet in general as of yet.
More info please.. and yes this is what I would like on the D5,Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme
plus a larger fuel tank,
a better tow hitch,
an Air Compressor fitting to access the on board compressor as standard,
better access to the front tow point,
and flexable mud guards
Hopefully available within 6 weeks with proper info as it gets closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guss
Why? It's like doing your tax return, a whole lot of effort for very little return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco4SE
I note that one item everyone mentions - bigger fuel tank. This is something that is applicable to the well heeled inner city dweller who is their primary customer - these occasionally drive long distances, and even if they do not, the fluctuations in fuel costs in Australian cities makes a large tank a valuable asset. And far too many cars sold here over the years (including most Landrovers - both my Landrovers have extra tanks!) have had far too small a tank.
John
I agree the range is too short (better way to think than tank too small) but for everyone else it's not a concern, and even less so in Europe. Aussies and offroaders are a tiny Disco market. LR would sell more cars, or be able to charge a higher price if they invested in other features than the ones we are describing many of which can be fixed aftermarket. Also, how many people are not buying the car because of these features? It is a slightly different question to 'what do you want' -- as we've moved on to 'what should LR do'.
I do not agree that this is a limiting factor for 99% of the buyers and particularly city owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
The fact you can pack a D3 with the family and gear, fill the tank and drive 700 - 800 km means you can get to the snow and part way back on one tank, up to the Hunter and back, the Blue Mountains, that beach house 2 -3 hrs from the city etc, i.e do almost everything you the majority would want to do noting you drive past numerous service stations along these routes.
Realistically this is probably the extent of most owners "long distance" driving and I think most city owners would scratch their heads about need a bigger tank.
My prior car was a Subaru Forrester, 400 -500 km saw that out so from a range point of view the TDV6 is excellent, if I came from a Prado I might have a different point of view.
Now when I start thinking and planning outback travel and real long distance touring then sure a bigger tank would come into my wish list, just as a roo bar, 2nd battery etc would however as RMP said, there real is is only a very small number who need this capacity on a regular basis.
This is a very similar argument as to why LR went to 19" rims and not 18 or even 17" rims for the D4, most buyers do not see this as a limitation as most vehicles really only ever see blacktop.
Now if a bigger tank was a no cost option then it would be a box I would tick but otherwise it would not influence my buying decision.
Not meaning to put reality into the wish list but my 2c worth ?
George
As RMP said Aus is a very small market. Most of what we need for touring here in OZ only applies to us and the SA market.
LR Aus should be pushing for these changes; instead when a modification is proposed they try to stop it:
An independent journalist interviewed me about my adjustable rod ("Air-Up") system and an article was published in Overlander magazine saying the system is in development and will be available from Mitchell Bros when ready.
The system defaults to factory specification when off or if it fails. Gives an extra 30mm of height in all settings and is controlled from a switch on the dash (next to the light switch, but can be installed anywhere) Also has a nitto fitting to plug in an airline for the tyres (on MY05-MY08; bung at the front of the tank was deleted in the MY09 model).
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...010/06/376.jpg
The result of this was that LR set their lawyers onto me.
LR claimed the modification was illegal using VSI50 to justify their position and threatened to take an injunction out to stop the development or sale of my modification demanding I agree not to develop any system for LR air suspensions. (particularly ironic given that VSI50 also would have made all LR air suspension systems illegal)
When challenged as to what legal basis they intended to use to precede they finally admitted that the device was not illegal (as VSI50 was never enacted) and just said they would take no responsibility etc. (which is the situation for all aftermarket modifications and accessories)
It is up to the regulatory authorities to enforce regulations not LR. LR stated in their final response that they had spoken to the RTA and confirmed it was not illegal.
What surprised me and frankly I cannot understand was Overlanders attitude when they published what I take was a response to LR Aus contacting them. In it they advised that in their opinion you should not change the air suspension on a Land Rover. They quoted LR as saying they opposed the modification and it was illegal. Overlander did not approach myself or Mitchell Bros for a response to LR accusation or investigate the issue further.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...010/06/377.jpg
LR are within their rights to refuse a warranty claim if they believe a modification caused the failure (fair enough). It should be at your own risk but a manufacturer cannot void your whole warranty if you modify the vehicle.
Previously Overlander had pointed out the problem of the vehicles lowering at 50kph and suggested it should be a higher speed. This was denied in their response. Also they had also written in opposition to VSI50.
LR implied in their response to be careful before advertising in magazines like Overlander. :o :confused::mad:
So as long as you don't advertise or publish modifications in a national magazine you should be OK.
A sobering experience, and one to keep in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaverD3
I recall someone on a couple of the D3 sites several years ago claiming to be an LR engineer looking for input on revising the specs for the next car (what became the D4). It was a similar list to the ones presented in this thread. I think the only thing that made it through was the repositioning of the terrain response control - not what you'd call a major update!
Cheers,
Gordon
LR really do not listen.
They lost a lot of the 4WD of the year comps because they didn't listen. (I wonder how many sales that lost them).
19 inch minimum wheels and no place for a second battery lost it a lot of points in bushability. Both easily fixed by small design change.
The only reason why LR Aust changed the tow hitch on the D4 was because Mitchell Bros making a better one.
What they produced was the best they could with the specs from LR head office.
They also oppose the Mitch hitch as well. :angel:
Don't hold your breath for the height at speed change.:angel:
Land Rover are the only manufacturer to take such an attitude to aftermarket additions.:mad:
They clearly did not read the article properly and reacted without thinking. Their lawyers also jumped the gun using regulations before they were enacted. But it gives some idea of what Land Rover would do if they were. It would also have made some spring mods illegal as well.
I think the guy was probably fired for using his initiative asking on a forum.:Rolling: