Advice for Disco 4 Buyers

[Disco4SE]

If you are looking at buying a Disco 4, I strongly recommend the 3.0Lt option and rear air conditioning.
I have had the 2.7 in the Disco 3 and had it re-mapped. Although I was happy with it, the 3.0Lt is sooooooooooo much better.
Pay the extra for the 3.0Lt. You wont be sorry.

[roamer]

x2 for above
Hey DISCO4SE have you tried to use your air suspension from access to off road more than once in a row, and have it take more than 2mins to rise second time
Cheers Ken

[Disco4SE]

Hi Ken,
No I havent tried that with the suspension as yet.
Must try.

Cheers,
Craig

[rmp]

OTOH, the 2.7 can take 17" rims, is considerably less expensive and has adequate power. The 3.0 is by no means an automatic choice over the 2.7.

[ADMIRAL]

If you are looking at buying a Disco 4, I strongly recommend the 3.0Lt option and rear air conditioning.
I have had the 2.7 in the Disco 3 and had it re-mapped. Although I was happy with it, the 3.0Lt is sooooooooooo much better.
Pay the extra for the 3.0Lt. You wont be sorry.

This has been raised previously. Yes the 3.0 litre is great, but apart from the dollars, it come down to what your intended use is. Notwithstanding the current research into 18" rims for the 3litre, being able to retro fit 17's to the 2.7 opens up the options for serious off road tyres.

Rear aircon? Kids in the 3rd row...yes I can see an advantage ! Not an issue for a lot of us though.

[Disco4SE]

Hi Admiral,
I was quoting the rear air conditioning more so for the 3 seats behind the drivers seat rather than the 6th & 7th seats.
The people in the 3 seats have their own controls and you dont have to wait for the front vents to filter through.
Had it in my Disco 3 as well. Works great

[gghaggis]

This has been raised previously. Yes the 3.0 litre is great, but apart from the dollars, it come down to what your intended use is. Notwithstanding the current research into 18" rims for the 3litre, being able to retro fit 17's to the 2.7 opens up the options for serious off road tyres.

A lot has been said about the inability to fit 17" rims to the 3.0 ltr RRS/D4. I'm not convinced that it's quite the show-stopper that is claimed, and I've certainly been investigating the issue closely!

Not-withstanding the rim size, you are limited to 32" max diameter tyres - period (unless you use shortened rods permamently, which is another can of worms). That somewhat reduces the choice of tyres regardless of the rim size, if you're talking serious off-road tyres. Basically Mickey Thompson MTZ's or Maxxis Bighorns in 17" sizes, and really only available as an oversized tyre - 265/70/17. Actually, if your talking serious off-roading, you can forget anything smaller than a 31" tyre anyway - no clearance, and very little tread depth.

If we're only considering AT tyres, then the current solution for D4 owners (won't work for the new RRS unfortunately) is to get 20" rims (LR or aftermarket), fit 285/55/20 LTZ's or similar and a set of SecondAir internal beadlocks. This will allow plenty of flotation at low tyre pressures (you can drop to 6psi with the beadlocks), and the beadlock itself protects the rim at low pressure. The sidewall is larger than the 255/55/19 tyres (in fact about equal to the 265/60/18 tyre size), so less rim damage at high pressure.

Not legal in all states of course, but then just fitting non-approved rim sizes (and the 17" rim is not approved for the D4, even if it fits) is a somewhat hazy area.

There's a lot more (and realistically, the Pirelli ATR or Goodyear MTR 255/55/19 is not a bad choice, still giving slightly more sidewall than the std fittings), but I'm on holiday and I've been told to log off and go enjoy the Great Ocean Rd, so maybe more later.

However, I AM in possession of the new Dynamic 4x4 18" rim, which I'll be trying on a new RRS (mine!!) when I get back to Perth.

Cheers,

Gordon

[rmp]

17s are approved for the D4. Check the placard on any of them, including the 3.0, and there will be a 235/70/17 tyre option.

What's legal vs what's approved are two different things. There are only four approved tyre size for the D4, but in fact there are many legal variations. The 285s would certainly be oversize in those states that limit diameter increase to 15mm. Whether owners care or not is a matter for the individual. Personally I'd always keep it legal, approved by Land Rover is another matter. Easier to talk your way into a warranty approval than out of an insurance decline.

I know people run oversize tyres on D3/D4 but there comes a point at which clearance is a problem and that may only be discovered a little too late, such as one owner who hit a bump at some speed and found some rubbing he didn't know existed.

Agree that larger tyres are required for 'serious' offroading, but IMHO for touring the stock size works just fine. I would only want oversize tyres if I was intentionally seeking out difficult tracks or competing, and only I do that in my Defender which has the stock standard size of 32" fitted. I do have this bigger-tyre argument on occasion with someone else who considers anything less than 35" as a toy car.

Just another opinion into the mix.

[gghaggis]

Wow - that was quick!! I was just going to edit my above post to say the 17" might actually be approved by LR for the D4 - it's on the placard (as RMP says).

Re oversize vs (near) std. If you are considering serious off-roading, in any Rangie or Discovery from the last few decades (and I suspect that this argument will turn on one's definition of 'serious'), you will need oversize tyres. LR has consistently fitted undersize tyres to these vehicles, when the competition fits 265/70 or 285/60 tyres. Their off-road prowess has suffered as a consequence, if only because of the size of the ruts made by other 4wds!

If you are considering touring or light-to-medium off-roading, then a decent AT tyre should be adequate. In which case, what's the real penalty of 255/55/19 ATR's vs 235/70/17's? Sidewall height is less by 1", but footprint at 16psi is similar. Rim damage is a little accentuated, but not onerous.

I think a lot of people are being swayed towards the argument that the new D4 is inadequate off-road (and there is some basis for the argument) by comparing the performance of HT tyres. On AT's, the difference between 17" rims (and std size tyres) and 19" rims is reduced significantly. I've had two clients come with us on training days with 255/55/19 MTR's, and they cruised through all and any obstacles that the 17" rimmed vehicles tackled, including sand.

Cheers,

Gordon

[rmp]

Yes, it turns on the definition of serious. For my part, I cannot think of a touring track anywhere in Australia I couldn't take my D3. Now if we go looking for trouble...that's Defender time but only because it's an older vehicle and I'm much less concerned about damage. I go out with cars that have larger tyres (had a car with 37s on my last tuff trip) and my Defender still gets places. Yes it would be more capable with taller tyres, but my approach is I want to challenge myself as a driver, not make the car more capable when it's already very good.

Yes good point -- the capability gap between 19 and 17 is reduced when the 19 has good offroad rubber. It's really the stock rubber is not very good offroad. Agree the contact patch is about the same for the same pressure, although the 17s do have an advantage.

It's not "only" 1 closer to the ground. That is true in absolute terms, but percentage wise we're talking from 126mm to 103mm. One inch makes a difference when there's so few inches to play with. Also, 19 and 20" tyres and rims are considerably more expensive than 17s.

On sand the vehicle's weight is usually about equally distributed and rim damage is not really a problem. Different story on rocks, or a tricky downhill where a lot of the weight is on one wheel.

For me the bottom line is 19s and 20s can and do work offroad, but not as well as 17s.