100 VS Discovery II - Articulation

[hks3sgte]

Originally Posted by spressomon

X2...I think you need to get your wife around a different group of LC owners

honestly, she thinks the 80 series guys are the problem... lol... not all, obviously.

[LandCruisers4Life]

ahhh..... damn that's a sweet RRC!!! I've been wanting a 94.......

[DallasFJ40]

What about gas mileage?

[LandCruisers4Life]

Should any of us care about gas mileage?

We're all sick in the head!

I think we really need to organize a march or rally against these outrageous gasoline prices. I think there is some sort of agenda against gasoline powered vehicles to tell the truth. Even Rover and Toyota are looking at building hybrids ... Toyota says EVERY vehicle they make will have a hybrid. I hate hybrids, and I want cheap gas!!

[spressomon]

Originally Posted by LandCruisers4Life

Should any of us care about gas mileage?

We're all sick in the head!

...and I want cheap gas!!

Better find a time machine then . If it wasn't for government subsidies we'd be paying $10/gallon.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by LandCruisers4Life

You took a basic conversation about a STOCK 100 and a Highly Modded Discovery and turned it into a "well an 80 can do this, and my buddies Discos can do that". We're not talking about 80s here man, we're talking 100s. My basis was that I got the goat of a Disco owner with a stock LC.

As well, who gives a shit whether I used to own a FJ Cruiser? I'd get another one!

Go easy on Ben. It was ME who included the 80 in with this 100 discussion ONLY because Jon's Disco can outflex the 100 and even 80 series unless the 80 has some very unusual mods to it.

I also didn't get the fact you were talking stock to stock. Had I, I might not have even posted. I seen it as which truck can out-articulate the other, period. The UZJ flex limits ends with my 100. That's as good as it gets (until shows they can do more). Well that's not as good as it gets with the Rovers due to SFA mods that are available.

[ShottsUZJ100]

As promised.....more pics of Disco flex:

BEN WANTED TO SEE THE FRONT END:


RTI.....There aint a 100 gonna do that nor any "normal 80":

[FJBen]

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

As promised.....more pics of Disco flex:

BEN WANTED TO SEE THE FRONT END:


RTI.....There aint a 100 gonna do that nor any "normal 80":

great front end flex I agree....BUT...


thats a 3 link front end Shotts



Jon Christensen's 3 link installation


Stock vs stock is a pretty moot game. The 100 flexes decent, the rover decent the 80 decent. None of these will just blow the doors off of eachother with mild mods...a few more mods and you can get the rovers/80's SFA's to flex more.

Why the modded Rover wouldn't outflex the 80 is beyond me. Maybe a wheelbase thing or poorly setup swaybars.

[FirstToy]

LOL
back to topic, I think Snook had a good post about the capability of the 100 in comparision. In the real world, it just works better.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by FJBen

great front end flex I agree....BUT...


thats a 3 link front end Shotts



Jon Christensen's 3 link installation


Stock vs stock is a pretty moot game. The 100 flexes decent, the rover decent the 80 decent. None of these will just blow the doors off of eachother with mild mods...a few more mods and you can get the rovers/80's SFA's to flex more.

Why the modded Rover wouldn't outflex the 80 is beyond me. Maybe a wheelbase thing or poorly setup swaybars.

Please don't "twist" things Ben. I never spoke stock to stock. I spoke of available bolt-on everyday mods one can add. You can mod a 100 to the suspension max (like mine) and do the same to a Disco and the Disco will eat the 100 (as it will any typical bolt-on 80 suspension).

[LandCruiserPhil]

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

Go easy on Ben. It was ME who included the 80 in with this 100 discussion ONLY because Jon's Disco can outflex the 100 and even 80 series unless the 80 has some very unusual mods to it.

I also didn't get the fact you were talking stock to stock. Had I, I might not have even posted. I seen it as which truck can out-articulate the other, period. The UZJ flex limits ends with my 100. That's as good as it gets (until shows they can do more). Well that's not as good as it gets with the Rovers due to SFA mods that are available.

John take a look at this
set up or how about this
set up It looks they both have you beat.

[FJBen]

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

Please don't "twist" things Ben. I never spoke stock to stock. I spoke of available bolt-on everyday mods one can add. You can mod a 100 to the suspension max (like mine) and do the same to a Disco and the Disco will eat the 100 (as it will any typical bolt-on 80 suspension).

there is no "twisting" We were talking about "mild mods" now it's bolt-on mods. When did this criteria come into play? How about "unbolting" the poor mans 3 link. Thats "UN-BOLTING MOD"

Did you forget about Outbackoffroad's Long Arm kit for the 80?

So you allow full modification/redesign to the factory Rover suspension, but you only allow a taller springs and "L"onger shocks for the 80/100?

You aren't comparing things fairly/objectively. You said my 80 was special because it has longer shocks and a bolt pulled. Ok, but you can redesign the front end on a Rover and that destroys my flex?

3 link them both, they flex the same.

SFA and 3 link a 100...hey I bet it flex's the same.

Should I post Action Jackson's $400 3 link and it's flex? What will that prove, that by totally changing the setup you can get it to flex more?

The 100 IS limited by the front. We all agree on that. The Rover/80 any SFA will always have better options for more flex up front when talking about our uses.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by LandCruiserPhil

John take a look at this
set up or how about this
set up It looks they both have you beat.

*Didn't know the arms were out. I just inquired. Thanks!
*I would not run the Fox Shock setup as they are not bolt-on and the lower mounts stick down to far.
*I have not seen an image with this setup that RTI's better than my current setup though I certainly hope it does because that's progress flex-wise. (Though again, I'll not have those low-slung mounts).

Thanks Phil. I might order those arms tomorrow.

[LandCruiserPhil]

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

*Didn't know the arms were out. I just inquired. Thanks!
*I would not run the Fox Shock setup as they are not bolt-on and the lower mounts stick down to far.
*I have not seen an image with this setup that RTI's better than my current setup though I certainly hope it does because that's progress flex-wise. (Though again, I'll not have those low-slung mounts).

Thanks Phil. I might order those arms tomorrow.

John check out All-Pro looks like they have a lower mount that is bolt on.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by LandCruiserPhil

John check out All-Pro looks like they have a lower mount that is bolt on.

I'll do that, however if it sticks down like the other setup I've seen it's a no-go. The last thing I want are parts that catch rocks just like the front lower arms on my 80's 6" lift. What a pain in the axx. I'm a crawling guy, not a fly over the sand guy.

[Tom B]

Originally Posted by FirstToy

LOL
back to topic, I think Snook had a good post about the capability of the 100 in comparision. In the real world, it just works better.

Snook was comparing the 100 and LR3. The LR3 is a completely different animal than the D2 which is what the original topic of this post was about - well articulation was, but we all love to diverge and rat hole . Without having any personal experience with the LR3, simple reasoning (the only reasoning I can do) would suggest that the 100 is a better real world vehicle than the LR3 because the latter is not even a scalable platform. Conversely, simple reasoning would suggest the D2 works better in moderately technical offroading (rocks, moguls) than the 100 because of it's size, better clearance, and SFA/suspension. So Rovers had it over the only imported LC's (100 series) from '98 to '04. I base my claim on my first had experience owning, modifying, and wheeling them on the same trails! In fact, I have wheeled my D2 (sold to friend) and 100 back to back on the same trails, with the same tire size and type, and both with OME lifts. To put it succinctly, I would not even consider them in the same offroad class in my environment. A 105/80 vs a D2 would be a more appropriate comparison IMHO.

[Snook]

Sorry, I should have been more specifc on which Land Rover model. The one I saw is a brand new silver Range Rover HSE, which is consider the top of the line, correct? Thier wheels is a wide rim and low profile which may prevent him from completing the obsacles course.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by Tom B

Snook was comparing the 100 and LR3. The LR3 is a completely different animal than the D2 which is what the original topic of this post was about - well articulation was, but we all love to diverge and rat hole . Without having any personal experience with the LR3, simple reasoning (the only reasoning I can do) would suggest that the 100 is a better real world vehicle than the LR3 because the latter is not even a scalable platform. Conversely, simple reasoning would suggest the D2 works better in moderately technical offroading (rocks, moguls) than the 100 because of it's size, better clearance, and SFA/suspension. So Rovers had it over the only imported LC's (100 series) from '98 to '04. I base my claim on my first had experience owning, modifying, and wheeling them on the same trails! In fact, I have wheeled my D2 (sold to friend) and 100 back to back on the same trails, with the same tire size and type, and both with OME lifts. To put it succinctly, I would not even consider them in the same offroad class in my environment. A 105/80 vs a D2 would be a more appropriate comparison IMHO.

The trails I've been on with Rovers (plenty)......my 100 makes most obstacles look like cake in comparison. That said, in the tight spots and certain obstacles.....that 100" WB and 32-33" tired up Rover makes it look easy too.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by Snook

Sorry, I should have been more specifc on which Land Rover model. The one I saw is a brand new silver Range Rover HSE, which is consider the top of the line, correct? Thier wheels is a wide rim and low profile which may prevent him from completing the obsacles course.

Since the subject of this thread is ARTICULATION.....be careful who you select as the winner.

The New Range Rover dwarfs a stock or modified 100 (and a stock and some modifed 80's).

The SUV has 10.5" front travel and 13" rear travel. RTI far surpasses the 100 and 80 in stock form.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

Since the subject of this thread is ARTICULATION.....be careful who you select as the winner.

The New Range Rover dwarfs a stock or modified 100 (and a stock and some modifed 80's).

The SUV has 10.5" front travel and 13" rear travel. RTI far surpasses the 100 and 80 in stock form.

New Range Rover RTI is 710. UZJ100 is 563. My 100 was measured at 723 by Jeeper buddies.

New Range Rover is the RTI King. LR3 has only one-inch less travel per axle so it is close to the NRR.

[Trunk Monkey]

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

New Range Rover RTI is 710. UZJ100 is 563.

Source?

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by Trunk Monkey

Source?

563 is Four Wheeler Magazine
710 was from a Rover History website (search for New Range Rover RTI)

The new Hummer HVX wheeler coming out in 2009 is also IFS/IRS

[FirstToy]

Originally Posted by Tom B

Conversely, simple reasoning would suggest the D2 works better in moderately technical offroading (rocks, moguls) than the 100 because of it's size, better clearance, and SFA/suspension. So Rovers had it over the only imported LC's (100 series) from '98 to '04. I base my claim on my first had experience owning, modifying, and wheeling them on the same trails! In fact, I have wheeled my D2 (sold to friend) and 100 back to back on the same trails, with the same tire size and type, and both with OME lifts. To put it succinctly, I would not even consider them in the same offroad class in my environment.

I would strongly disagree from my perspective of wheeling with D1 & D2s in the California terrain - in the area of "expeditionary" travel - the 100 is just plain better, more capable & negotiates obstacles easier. The tougher the trail becomes, the more it favors the LC.

While I think the Disco has some really cool features and I really like the interior design (I wish LC's copied their ideas!) and the cast front & lower rr control arms are impressive (just like the 80 fronts), it simply does not do anything better than a 80 or 100.
I think Discos are a solid vehicle w/ great style & features but are simply a step below LC's. Good but not great.

[ShottsUZJ100]

Originally Posted by Tom B

I have wheeled my D2 (sold to friend) and 100 back to back on the same trails, with the same tire size and type

Not a fair comparison. I missed this the first time. The longer the wheelbase the larger the tire you need to keep things fair. Fitting a 35 on a 100 is easy. Fitting a 32 on a Rover is easy. A 33 is even harder, plus the axle breakage.

The 35's give the 100 a huge advantage over the Disco's. It'an expensive task to upgrade a Disco to "100 w'35" status".