Sloth

When I was shopping the LR3, the Toureg is really what I was comparing it to. They are more similar simply due to the price point... but even then the LR3 is cheaper than a similarly equiped Toureg.

jhunt@huntinter

The LR3 is know as the Discovery in the rest of the world. Some idiot decided the US market did not have a clue about the "Disco" branding and figured it was easier to start from scratch with "LR3".

Torags

jhunt:

The old Discovery we had seemed like it was a shorter wheelbase vehicle, than the RR or LR3.

jhunt@huntinter

Could be on the old model. But the LR3 is the new Disco.

Check out this link to the British Land Rover site

http://www.landrover.com/gb/en/Vehic...y_overview.htm

then follow this one to the USA site

http://www.landroverusa.com/us/en/Ve...k__Thumbnail_3

Regards,

John

ADias

Pretty stupid to have different designations (LR3 vs Discovery) for the same truck in different regions.

mudman2

Its not the first time, doubt it will be the last, eg Rabbit > Golf

Ray H

My understanding is that Ford/Land Rover North America wanted to distance itself from the troublesome history of the Discovery. IMO the LR3 has nothing in common with the Discovery anyway.

I must say that the design for the third row seat is very nice. Relatively easy in and out and very good leg room.

mudman2

Have you tried the third seat, its a 2 handed job, a pain.

Torags

Sometimes names have undesirable connotations in different languages. For example: The old *Discovery means pig in American. Hence the LR3?

Ohhh......... I couldn't help myself - sorry.....

Ray H

I did not see it as a pain, if you are referring to putting the seat up or down or gaining access.

Sitting in it and and riding in it, was better than any other third row seat I have seen on this type of vehicle. Granted I have not seen or used them all.

mudman2

ok granted

Paul K

Interesting discussion. I had a '96 Discovery, and now drive an '00 Range Rover 4.6 HSE. I love the RR- nothing else rides like it. I really liked my D1 too. Both have excellent off road capabilities, are comfortable and very solid. BUT. They are plagued by niggling little faults. (I could list them, but I would exceed our monthly allocation of bandwidth!) It seems to be one thing after another. Wife and I drove the LR3 and she really liked it, but I thought it was boxy and too plain. I drove the Mklll Range Rover and loved that too- but I refuse to spend such a lot of money on something that will let me down time and time again. (No evidence that LR has improved...) I had planned on eventually replacing my RR with either the LR3, Mklll or possibly RR Sport, but am now swaying towards a CS. I must admit that I haven't driven a Cayenne S yet- looking forward to that. If only Land Rover could bring its reliability standards up to those found in comparable vehicles, I'd stay with them. I'd also like to add that comparing the LR3 with the CS is somewhat unfair. I see the LR as an Sport Utility Vehicle, The CS is a Performance Utility Vehicle. The CS is bound to be superior on road, but the LR has more room and apparently (press, 'Top Gear', what I've heard) is way better off road. Worst of it is, I replaced the D1 with the RR so I could buy a Carrera Targa next. Now it looks like I'll have to replace the RR sooner than expected, thus denying me 911 ownership for even longer... and that really bites!
Cheers,
Paul.

BenLee

Different designations in different regions makes a lot of sense. Japanese car manufacturers do it all the time and it works. Canon also does it with their cameras.