I saw this thread, and I just had to relply! I drive an 89 Range Rover and my Dad drives a 2001 Discovery. Let me start of by saying that I am by no means a rich *****, and I have paid for the majority of my vehicle, and all the modifications. Land Rovers are not all that expensive, everybody just thinks they are.
I think that it is cool that you guys are modifying your Explorers, it is definately a rare thing.
But as far as Rovers go, in stock form they are are one of the most capable brands made. A few weeks ago, I drove a new Range Rover, Discovery, and Freelander threw stuff that I think no other stock vehicle could make it through besides a Gelaendewagen. The capabilities of these things amaze me.
As far as the aluminium goes, it keeps the weight low, and keeps a low COG. When I get a scratch I don't have to worry about it rusting, and the aluminium is pretty stout. Land Rovers pretty much have the strongest SUV frames made. Like on the Discovery, Defender, and pre '03 Range Rovers.
You guys complain about the heavy weight? Well that comes from having SOLID axles front and rear, along with the super strong frame. I will have to say that the engine doesn't have the most power, but it is a proven design, and has done well for Rover for the past 33 years.
You talk about RTI? Hmmm...Check the Four Wheeler records and see what vehicle has the highest stock RTI score...Yup, it is a Land Rover Discovery II. Scoring in the mid 700's not to much touches it, except for ofcourse other Land Rover vehicles.
As far as the Camel goes, it is considered to have been the Olympics of off-road driving. The vehicles got seriously abused, but most made it through with out to many problems. The only mods the vehicles had were heavy duty springs (to cope with all the expedition weight), snorkel, roof rack, winch, Michelin mud tires and underbody protection. Stock drive train, engine, tranny etc...
Donkey,
I am glad to see that you know about Rovers!
As far as ride goes...Well I think they ride pretty good. Considering solid axles, I think they ride excellent. I know the IFS does great on road, but unless it is moddified a lot it's not so hot off-road. For the '03 Range Rover, it recieved fully independant suspension, but off-road it acts like a solid axle. There are air valves that conect the air bags together. For example, when the right drivers side wheel gets pushed up, the air in it air bag on that side goes to the airbag on the passenger side, thus immitating a solid axle. What other manufacturers have gone to these lengths to retain off-road ability while still having excellent street manners?
As far as Ford owning Land Rover...Well that is not so good. Ford wants volume...Thus they cater to the soccer Moms. Hince the new X having Fully Independant Suspension. I would hate to see Land Rover hoared out just so Ford's wallet can get that much fatter. Ford has very little care for what Rovers can do off-road, and Land Rover's heritage as an excellent off-road vehicle.
You say, "Why would you take a $40,000 vehicle off-road?" Well why not? Taking a vehicle four wheeling doesn't meen beating the living crap out of it, a decent driver can get a stock Rover in some pretty nasty places, and come out without a dent. Plus, Land Rovers are well designed for off-roading. Each Land Rover dealership host off-road events for its customers. While they are by no means "hard core," the events teach the basics of off-roading, and have gotten many involved with four wheeling. I can't qoute an exact percentage, but it has been calculated that Land Rover owners take their vehicles off-road more than any other SUV owners. This has to say something about the vehicles right?
I know that GU Marcel's approach wasn't the most couth, but his questions were valid. Fell free to IM me at Trekboyy5
Will
