Came across an article in Consumer Reports that talked about an upcoming review of our beloved FL2/LR2. Unfortunately, it revealed a potential major safety issue with the vehicle. For fear of copyright issues, I'll just include the section they listed with regards to the problem:

"The vehicle includes electronic stability control (ESC) with roll stability control as standard equipment. The latter is supposed to trigger at a certain body angle and prevent a rollover. However, in a run through our avoidance-maneuver course at 53 mph, the vehicle momentarily lifted both right-side wheels several inches off the ground. That did not happen in any other runs, but because we think that no vehicle should ever display this behavior, we've rated the LR2's emergency handling as poor. The vehicle?s fastest successful run through the course was a decent 51.5 mph. In 2003 we experienced a similar behavior with the previous generation BMW X5 3.0i. A software change fixed the problem."

I figure it's in the public interest to post this, and that CR will understand ; ) All kidding aside, this is a major issue as far as I'm concerned and I for one am praying that Land Rover does the right thing and issues a software fix, ala BMW.

very interesting read, i beleive the Merc A Class had this problem, but needed more that a software up date to fix  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

For me the fact that a Land Rover does not have as high a cornering speeds as an X5 is a selling point. I accept it limitations / compromises for the improved on road comfort and off road ability. I don't understand the X5 market, wanting an off road car with sports car handling at the expense of off road ability, it sound to me like a car that has lost its focus, or had none to begin with.

The law of physics dictate how the FL2 takes corners, and drivers should be aware of the vehicle they are driving, its already a shame we have to have stickers on the sun visors, lets not go down the route of limiting the machine further.

Chris.

PS I prefer, no ABS, no ESB, no Servo Assistance on braking systems, no Airbags, pure an simple motoring ( read Lotus. Caterham )

I agree in part with ChrisC that the LR2/FL2 is not an X5, and do accept that it has to have some limitations given the design choices made to ensure its off-road capabilities. There's a saying that you can't make something foolproof, because you'd be surprised at how ingenious fools can be; you can't engineer every crash out of existence. I am also not saying that these safety mechanisms should allow one to drive recklessly or beyond the capabilities of the vehicle. However, there's no denying the utility of these safety mechanisms (ABS, traction control/DSC, airbags) in saving lives during emergency maneuvers. The rollover mitigation system should not be kicking in during routine driving to reduce the fun of driving on a daily basis. But if I need it because of a true emergency to avoid an accident, I want to know that every safety feature I believed I was getting with my new vehicle is working to help me and my family- and those around me- to survive.

The fact is, Land Rover has seen it fit to include this as a safety feature, and it's one that I was glad to have on the car; it's a problem that needs to be remedied.

I'd like to think that Land Rover's testing of the system was extensive, so would be interested to hear LR's reaction to this test.

Also would want to know more about the consumer reports test method and if the car was checked for faults.

I've had the stabiltiy control kick in on my car, when travelling about 65mph, seemed quite effective to me, though quite a scary experience!

riverr02 wrote:

I agree in part with ChrisC that the LR2/FL2 is not an X5, and do accept that it has to have some limitations given the design choices made to ensure its off-road capabilities. There's a saying that you can't make something foolproof, because you'd be surprised at how ingenious fools can be; you can't engineer every crash out of existence. I am also not saying that these safety mechanisms should allow one to drive recklessly or beyond the capabilities of the vehicle. However, there's no denying the utility of these safety mechanisms (ABS, traction control/DSC, airbags) in saving lives during emergency maneuvers. The rollover mitigation system should not be kicking in during routine driving to reduce the fun of driving on a daily basis. But if I need it because of a true emergency to avoid an accident, I want to know that every safety feature I believed I was getting with my new vehicle is working to help me and my family- and those around me- to survive.

The fact is, Land Rover has seen it fit to include this as a safety feature, and it's one that I was glad to have on the car; it's a problem that needs to be remedied.

riverr02 wrote:

Came across an article in Consumer Reports that talked about an upcoming review of our beloved FL2/LR2. Unfortunately, it revealed a potential major safety issue with the vehicle. For fear of copyright issues, I'll just include the section they listed with regards to the problem:

"The vehicle includes electronic stability control (ESC) with roll stability control as standard equipment. The latter is supposed to trigger at a certain body angle and prevent a rollover. However, in a run through our avoidance-maneuver course at 53 mph, the vehicle momentarily lifted both right-side wheels several inches off the ground. That did not happen in any other runs, but because we think that no vehicle should ever display this behavior, we've rated the LR2's emergency handling as poor. The vehicle?s fastest successful run through the course was a decent 51.5 mph. In 2003 we experienced a similar behavior with the previous generation BMW X5 3.0i. A software change fixed the problem."

I figure it's in the public interest to post this, and that CR will understand ; ) All kidding aside, this is a major issue as far as I'm concerned and I for one am praying that Land Rover does the right thing and issues a software fix, ala BMW.

The results of the test can aloso have other causes. I remmember a test done by a German paper on a Romanian made Renault (Logan) in which they said that the car capsized after brousque manoeuvers at 65 Km/h. There were several speculations : alloy wheels beeing too weak, a.so. After replicating the test after Renault protested it was discovered that the reason was that the tyres were worn out during the previous tests.
As long that this so called problem is not properly documented I think that we should not take it at face value.
Anyway when was this test made ? Just after TATA took over ? FREELANDER 2 TD4 SE (XS UK) IZMIR BLUE SIDE STEPS COLD PACK BI-XENON TINTED WINDOWS - AND PROUD OF HER

I think this is a big issue and problem for Land Rover. They built in the Roll Stability Control system which should prevent this, and they advertise this, but obviously it doesn't work, So this is one more 'issue' that should be fixed but not as a rettle or some other other inconvenience but major safety issue. CR would not test if it was a situation that 'never' happens. It didn't rate it 'poor' for nothing.

riverr02

Is the report online , if so can you post a link to it  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

npinks wrote:

riverr02

Is the report online , if so can you post a link to it

See here:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7348541.stm

This may be a problem

I agree with those of you who believe that this is a potentially serious problem. Sure, the argument could be made that they were going too fast for the rollover mitigation system to be effective. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that Consumer Reports, which is usually quite knowledgeable about safety features, did state that this is not normal behavior or in keeping with the behavior of other similar vehicles. That in itself tells you that there is likely a very real safety issue here. Now that's not to say that Consumer Reports has not erred before; look back to their retraction of their findings on car seats about a year ago. Nevertheless, they are usually correct in their assertions and I think that if this finding is confirmed, then we have a significant safety issue on our hands that has to be rectified.

Land Rover advertises heavily in the US that their vehicle is prepared to handle the unexpected, more so than other sport utility vehicles. But I'd trade all the off-road prowess in the world for a vehicle that rfunctions within reasonable expectations, lives up to its purported safety features relative to other vehicles, and most importantly, can keep me alive in the truly unexpected scenario of an accident.

Quote:

The vehicle includes electronic stability control (ESC) with roll stability control as standard equipment. The latter is supposed to trigger at a certain body angle and prevent a rollover. However, in a run through our avoidance-maneuver course at 53 mph, the vehicle momentarily lifted both right-side wheels several inches off the ground. That did not happen in any other runs, but because we think that no vehicle should ever display this behavior, we've rated the LR2's emergency handling as poor. The vehicle's fastest successful run through the course was a decent 51.5 mph. In 2003 we experienced a similar behavior with the previous generation BMW X5 3.0i. A software change fixed the problem.

ChrisC wrote:

Quote:

The vehicle includes electronic stability control (ESC) with roll stability control as standard equipment. The latter is supposed to trigger at a certain body angle and prevent a rollover. However, in a run through our avoidance-maneuver course at 53 mph, the vehicle momentarily lifted both right-side wheels several inches off the ground. That did not happen in any other runs, but because we think that no vehicle should ever display this behavior, we've rated the LR2's emergency handling as poor. The vehicle's fastest successful run through the course was a decent 51.5 mph. In 2003 we experienced a similar behavior with the previous generation BMW X5 3.0i. A software change fixed the problem.

The important word here is "WE". The vehicle successful run through the maneuver at 51.5mph, but was this speed already beyond the limit for the car? What is missing from the text is if they managed to trigger the stability control at that speed, if they did pushing to 53 was foolish. WE means we think it should perform the maneuver faster, but is that what Land Rover think, and is that within the design constraints of the car, if it is then is a problem with the car, if not there is no issue here.

All electronic stability aids ABS, ESC, Roll Stability Control etc can't change the laws of physics, they are purely an aid for the lesser driver (like me) to maintain the control of the car on or around IT'S limit. It's limit is a factor of many
things design, tyres, condition, environment, and many many more, all of which effect the speed at which maneuvers can be performed. Pushing beyond the limits will result in loss of control, have a look at the Handbook under "Stability Control" in particular the warnings give to illustrate my point.