Talk:Land Rover Discovery

Article Wording - Tense
The main article, mostly in the Disco 3 section, has several conflicting uses of tense, e.g. is/was, will/did, has/had. I feel that it should be brought into conformity. Is there a consensus of which tense should be used? —Travis C / T \ U  15:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Specifications
Is the width right? 86.2 inches is wide - I've read it's 75.4" Are the other specs correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.53.19.25 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Classification of cars in the chart
Possibly a need to review the classification "full size" and "mid size" etc... given

- the Discovery I when it arrived was larger than the then current model Range Rover - the Range Rover Sport is based on the Discovery chassis/pan

so to call one "full size" and the other "mid size" seems somewhat misleading.

Ccomley (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help!
As an authority on the history of the Land Rover Discovery, and someone who is in the process of writing a book about same, I'd be happy to help with this page to improve it where required and to keep it up-to-date as far as possible.L-R-D-EU (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Discovery Concept Vision
I would like to see some write-up on the Discovery Concept Vision, unveiled on April 14th, 2014: Discovery lineup will be extended with the creation of a smaller LR Discovery Sport - similarly to the Range Rover & Range Rover Sport lineup; not sure if that would warrant a separate article, or if Discovery Sport would be described here...
 * Press Release on the official US website
 * UK mini-site

I'm happy to put something together, but wasn't sure if someone wasn't already looking into this... Mstruzak (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The one millionth Discovery ...
... should be part of the Discovery 4 / LR4 section, not a section on its own... Mstruzak (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A matter of judgement
I do not understand why this picture:



has been replaced with this picture



In my opinion, for one of the pictures the photographer stood much too close, and set his zoom to maximum distort. Also he angled it oddly for no obvious reason, which gives rise to an image rather different from what you would see if you were there at the time and saw the car.

(And the car's a tad dusty.  And it's got some distracting reflections along the side.)

In my opinion the other picture is not too bad.

However, I appreciate that what you see when you look at a car has as much to do with the processes unfolding inside your brain as it has to do with what is objectively in front of you. Also, I've noticed we all see things differently. And I should point out that one of these pictures was taken by me, so if no one else shares my opinion on this I'll shut up.

Happy days Charles01 (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the subject, framing, etc. are all superior in the first photo. --ColinMB (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Charles. I changed the photo as the white car is not in original condition. The wheels appear aftermarket (there is no LR badge) and the driving lamps and their mounting bar are surely non-stock. This is in accordance with WP:CARPIX: "Avoid pictures of customized cars (e.g. incorrect wheels or other aftermarket components like bodykits or conversions for police or taxi applications) as they are not representative of the vehicle's factory specification". OSX (talk • contributions) 07:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

New Discovery 5
And now we have the first pictures of the Discovery 5 in testing, due out 2017 but may be revealed later during 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.160.50 (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no citation for the last paragraph of this section: "A mid term update with a refreshed interior and new engine range was launched in 2021. Larger infotainment screens and revisions to the layout of the Commercial variant including more underfloor storage were the main highlights. Mild hybrid engines with automatic 2WD/4WD switching was now introduced as standard across the range. The smaller 2.0 litre engines have been deleted from the range. All engines are now 3.0 litre size." PennyTraps (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the wording of the second last sentence is not quite correct: "The smaller 2.0 litre engines have been deleted from the range." The word "deleted" is usually used in the context of destroying or removing text or digital media. I suggest using the word "removed" instead. PennyTraps (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Land Rover Discovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061225050206/http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2190/ to http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2190/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)