Disco 4 V Landcruiser 200

[Disco4SE]

Thought some may be interested in my short story.
I bumped into a mate yesterday that has had his 200 Series for a couple of months longer than I have had my D4 and travelled the same Klm's.
We both came from Landcruiser 100 Series TD's purchased new at around the same time.
He opted for the 200 because his wife (maybe ex wife now) didn't like the square look at the rear of the Disco.
He has been back to Toyota several times which includes a recent tail shaft replacement. Yesterday he commented on how good mine looked and asked me if I am happy with it. Well, it took me about 10 minutes to stop singing the praises of the D4 and he walked away with his bottom lip dragging on the ground.
I am tipping he won't ask me again. Happy D4 ing.

[drivesafe]

Hi Disco4SE and that puts new meaning to “Oh what a feeling”

[oldsalt]

Maybe that should be "D'oh what a feeling"

[Disco4SE]

Hey, funny part is, he had a Disco 2 before his Landcruiser 100 :D:D

[mowog]

My Boss is looking at buying a new Prado, he keeps asking me how my Discovery 4 is going because he is thinking about turning to the dark side.

I think he and the Prado deserve each other.

[Disco4SE]

Nicely put Mowog

[mowog]

I might add that he is also a LC 100 series owner.

[brad72]

I like these stories. A mate of mine would never buy a Land Rover as the Prado/Cruiser can do no wrong. In fact I Put my foot in it when I was test driving vehicles when I said to him that the Prado would have to be the ugliest car I have ever seen and the interior was like the engineer got a hand full of buttons, threw them at the dash and where they stuck was where they were to be located (4x4 controls hidden behind steering wheel etc). I hadn't realized he was looking at a new Toyota.

Then , I proudly rock up in my new D4.

[mowog]

When I was looking for a new car the Discovery wasn't really on the list.

I ended up in a D4 by process of elimination.

1. No 4Wd's from Japan or Korea
2. 3500kg towing
3. Diesel

That only leaves a few choices. For me the best of those was the D4. Now I admit that horror stories of reliability were an issue for me and this is my first Land Rover.

A rare thing has happened for the first time in years I have a car that hasn't needed to go back for warranty work in the first couple of months (My Mini also hasn't needed work). That not going back thing doesn't count the dealer not listening to requirements.

[PAT303]

I laughed at my neighbour as he has a 200 series and spent 6 months travelling with his mate that drives an Audi QE7,he was worried about the Audi having trouble,in the end his 200 visited many of the dealers in northern WA as it had the recalls done including the tailshaft repair and four for oil consumption,none worked and Toyota now will top up your oil no questions asked and he needed it as it used 20ltres per 100,18 of diesel and 2 of oil. Pat

[Watpub]

I noticed the new Great Wall fourbies are selling at the moment for about $26,990. Why don't you folk recommend them to your L200 mates as an alternative to their Toyotas... :D

[PAT303]

The company I work for has had a great wall for 12months,55,000's and it hasn't missed a beat,no Toyota they have ever ran can match that. Pat

[Neil P]

.... as it used 20 ltres per 100,18 of diesel and 2 of oil.

Are you sure , 2 litres per hour of oil ? That wouldn't run .......

[brad72]

Are you sure , 2 litres per hour of oil ? That wouldn't run .......

That put a smile on my face for a Friday afternoon

[mowog]

Are you sure , 2 litres per hour of oil ? That wouldn't run .......

Never let the truth get in the way of a good Toyota bashing.

[tempestv8]

I bought a DII V8 auto 10 years ago when it first came out and still have it till today.

I considered the D4 and bought the LC200.

I'll be the first to say that the Toyota looks like very poor value for money for what you get from the same $$$ that you'd spend on a D4.

But if you are a big big bloke (not that I am) the LC200 does have more width, and some people do value that.

When you get behind a LC200 steering wheel, you steer the vehicle. When you get behind a D4 steering wheel, you drive the vehicle.

If you need big towing rig, the LC200 V8 diesel still wins, compared to the 3.0 TDV6. But it's a handful around town and not really good for dropping kids off at school because it doesn't have ride height control (no air suspension for Aussie spec vehicles anyway)

And if you need a vehicle that cossets you in luxury, the D4 takes the cake. Whilst a top of the line Sahara will have leather and stuff in it, the faux wood and silver trim really puts me off. Toyota don't seem to have access to interior designers of the same calibre as Land Rover.

The D4's interior even makes the P38A Range Rover feel very quite ordinary. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Range Rover drivers would have purchased a D4, unless they are badge slaves.

[gps-au]

Toyota don't seem to have access to interior designers of the same calibre as Land Rover.

Would have to definately agree with that !!

Considering the average type apartment/house the japanese live in, you would definately think they could do better.

Mind you, I wonder if the LC500 (in years to come) will come equipment with a full bathroom ? :cool:

[Disco4SE]

Hi tempestv8,
I tend to disagree in some areas. When I bought my D3 (before my D4) I compared the D3 with the 100 Series Landcruiser.
The D3 had more rear leg room when the drivers seat was set at normal driving position, more room in the rear of the wagon (exactly the same height) and only 30mm narrower inside the vehicle, meaning that if there are 3 adults in the back seat, they would miss out on 10mm of space each (hardly noticable).
I also compared the D3 to the 200 Landcruiser. Although on paper the 4.5 V8TD has way more power & torque, the 2.7TD D3 was actually more responsive towing, but couldn't quite match the torque.
Now that I have the 3.0Lt D4 I would dare any LC200 owner to match mine towing on hills (or anywhere for that matter).
The LC200 does have slightly more interior room than the 100 that I was comparing too, however you will find that Landrover have made far better use of interior space.
My two bobs worth, Craig

[CaverD3]

Saw what looked like a Great Wall in front but as I got close realised it was a LC200. :o

[sniegy]

Well,
Yesterday Afternoon i had the pleasure to be able to have a sit, fiddle, play & have quite a good drive of a friends TDV8 LC200 (Thanks TempestV8-you still should of not gone to the dark side:D).
We did a quick comparison of both our vehicles; -
LR D4 2.7 TDV6 & LC200 TDV8, not really fair as i would of liked the 3.0ltr for a better comparison, but it was a bit of fun anyway.

First thoughts-BIG!:D
The LC is a big vehicle no matter which way you look at it. Inside, outside, all points its just big, especially when both vehicles are parked next to each other & you glance from one to another.
As TempestV8 has said the interiors are miles away from each other in quality, comfort, design & fashion, LC "Fantastic Plastic" is the theme here where ever you look. But on the plus side it is all functional & reasonably works well.
There are a few quirky things which makes you just think "What were they thinking":angel:. But all in all its a typical Japenese vehicle.
Unfortunately it misses the little things that you would "expect" in a sub $80k bracket of motoring, leather steering wheel, gearknob, maybe even leather/part leather seating!!??:eek:
While i drove the vehicle i was impressed with the sheer grunt, compared to my vehicle, well you can tell its a V8, its as simple as that. Not that my vehicle was a slug, but you can just feel the torque pulling you into the back of the seat & hear the lovely V8 rumble into motion.
I dont know much of the foils of owning a LC200 & what little quirks they have but the vehicle handled quite well for a large vehicle, TempestV8's beast was fitted with the KDSS system which is similar to the ACE in the D2 & i was pretty glad it was as i was expecting to be tossed around like being on a boat, but to my dismay it handled very well, the 17" rim/tyre package helped soak up a lot of the bumps on the not so quite perfect roads of Melbourne.
I havent driven a Std LC200 without KDSS so i really cant compare one to another, but did like it in this.
The 2nd row has a fair amount of room & the loadspace area looks huge, it is wider than the D4, but depth wise would be about the same, & again height wise similar, but the D4 is very square, as the LC is compramised by the seat that hang in the way of using the whole loadspace area(unless you remove:eek: them of course).
Dissapointing in some area's & surprising in others, not my cup of tea.

In the end i was surprised with the big beast, it drove ok, had enough grunt & a wonderful sound....

BUT

It wasnt a LANDROVER:p:p

And the girls love em'.......:wasntme:

[chuck]

I drove one recently as well.
Must admit it drove well & this one did not have KDSS.
The only thing I think it does better is sheer grunt.
The owner made a point of me not having standard bluetooth although this has been addressed in the D4.

Apart form being Landrover biased I would not have bought one as his 2 year old LC200 cost significantly more than my 09 demo D3.

Regards

Chuck

[drivesafe]

It’s amazing the number of times I’ve heard women say the D4 is ugly but the instant they get behind the wheel, you need a crowbar to get them out again.

My wife went from a then new Astra to a D3, she wanted the D3 because it was easier to drive and had far better vision all round, particularly when parking.

She reckons the D4 is just that much better again.

[Disco4SE]

Hi all, just thought I would let you know the overall dimensions (as per owners manuals) of the LC 200 V the D4.
Compared to the D4, the LC200 is: -
112mm longer
52mm narrower
35mm shorter in the wheelbase
15mm shorter in height
Rear track - 22mm wider
Front track - 35mm wider
Weight - 137Kg heavier
Goes to show that although the LC200 appears so much bigger than the Disco, in actual fact is is slightly longer and thats about it.

[roverrescue]

Hmmm,
just got back from a weekend camping fishing etc etc.

750km total including about 450km of Cape Development Road, 150km of bitimen, 100km station tracks, 50km of soft sand (20psi all round).

I drove the cruiser a bit - drives like a camry or a corolla - i hate that!
but the point of my ramble...

Defender 130 - 80ish litres.
Cruiser 200 V8 diesel - 140ish litres. (Cruiser goes quicker but burns the dieso)

S

[ramblingboy42]

I know a guy with a 200 v8, and he admits to getting average 26ltrs/100km, he tows a few boats regularly.....but he at least admits its fuel usage. he had a mitsubishi b4 that just couldnt do the job.

[tempestv8]

Hi all, just thought I would let you know the overall dimensions (as per owners manuals) of the LC 200 V the D4.
Compared to the D4, the LC200 is: -
52mm narrower

Goes to show that although the LC200 appears so much bigger than the Disco, in actual fact is is slightly longer and thats about it.

I went to check this out. The LC200's exterior dimensions are 1970mm width. The width of the D4 (excluding mirrors) is 2022mm.

Wow, the D4 is indeed wider than the LC200. When seated inside the vehicle, it just seemed narrower than the LC200.

[Disco4SE]

Hi tempestv8, the size thing is wierd isn't it. I read somewhere a while ago how Landrover had designed the Disco so that it looks smaller than it really is so that it appeals to a wider market.
I think that they have made better use of the interior space as well.
The rear of the wagon area is bigger than the LC100 yet seems smaller when looking from one to the other.
BTW: The Northern Territory bought 60 D3's last year to replace the LC.

[sniegy]

I went to check this out. The LC200's exterior dimensions are 1970mm width. The width of the D4 (excluding mirrors) is 2022mm.

Wow, the D4 is indeed wider than the LC200. When seated inside the vehicle, it just seemed narrower than the LC200.
That is very deceiving !:o

[tempestv8]

I am quite perplexed by how the D4's exterior width can be wider than the LC200 yet the interior width dimensions are less.

From what I have found via manufacturers' website:

Width:
D4 exterior: 79.6 in
D4 interior: 48.6 in (cargo area)

LC200 exterior: 77.6 in
LC200 interior: 59.8 in (seat width area)

I couldn't find dimensions of the width of the seating area for the D4, only the cargo area, as noted above.

[Disco4SE]

Hi tempestV8, The internal maeasurement in between arm rests on a D4 is 1400mm. Your measurement of 48.6 inches equates to 1234mm.
According to your calculations the LC is 1519mm. A difference in width of 119mm. I will check it out today as a mate has a LC200.
I know that the LC100 was only 30mm wider.

[Disco4SE]

Hi again, measured the LC200 today. It has 80mm more width between arm rests in the rear seats. Bit over an inch per person more shoulder room.
Cheers, Craig

[mowog]

More room maybe... But 10 years behind in design.

[Tombie]

LC200 vs D4 (3.0L)

LC - 195kw / 650Nm V8 4.5l
D4 - 180Kw / 600Nm V6 3.0l

PWR
LC - 13.95kg/kw
D4 - 14.7kw/kw

Total Max load:
D4 - 657kg
LC - 580Kg

(Based on this, a LC cannot carry 8x75kg passengers without being over GVM - Stock.... Bullbar and winch? Well now you can only carry 480kg)

Approach Departure angles
LC - 30 20
D4 - 32 27 (std height)
D4 - 37 30 (offroad height)

Dim (LxWxH)

LC - 4950x1970x1905
D4 - 4838x2022x1887 (std ride height)

Wheelbase:
LC - 2850
D4 - 2885

Track (F / R)
LC - 1640 / 1635
D4 - 1605 / 1612

Known fuel consumption (real world - based on records of owners)
**Not towing, combination of city/highway

LC - 14l/100 avg
D4 - 11l/100 avg



Nothing in it really... The LC costs more to buy, more to register and insure (V8)....
Shorter wheelbase, worse approach and departure angles offroad.
Worse fuel economy.

Less load capacity - particularly when towing... As Ball weight comes off of GVM

Less reliable - Multiple known failures of LC V8TD

Cumbersome without KDSS - KDSS IIRC also removes 1 fuel tank!

3rd row seats in D4 will take my fat backside and legs comfortably. The LC takes kids only (or adults you hate)


Seriously, how can one even consider an LC200? :angel:

[Disco4SE]

Hi Tombie2, looks like you covered just about everything.
I'll be sticking with my D4 in any case:)

[tempestv8]

Seriously, how can one even consider an LC200? :angel:

My purchase is an experiment to see if:

a. Toyotas are more reliable than Land Rovers
b. LC200 has better resale value than a D4

So far, it's still too early to tell.... ;)

[Disco4SE]

When I bought my D3 in April last year (since sold, now have D4) I checked out in the glass's dealers guide what a 2005 TD LC was worth compared to a D3 TD. They were almost identical and so was the original purchase price.
I think that you will find that the D4 will hold its value even better than the D3, and probably the LC200.

[Tombie]

My purchase is an experiment to see if:

a. Toyotas are more reliable than Land Rovers
b. LC200 has better resale value than a D4

So far, it's still too early to tell.... ;)

Problem:

Your experiment isnt under the same conditions :cool:

1. Your Cruiser hasnt gone offroad anywhere near like the Disco did.
2. It is completely stock.
3. It will not get used for the type of 4wdriving you used your Rover for :angel:

[drivesafe]

OK, to be totally fair to tempestv8, hows about we go to an LC forum and ask the same questions there AND, post the same answers.

Any takers ?

[tempestv8]

Oh, don't get me wrong, Mike. I'm not testing the LC200 against my DII.

I'm testing the LC200 against D4s that are used for what I am using mine for - onroad and dirt road driving, towing, etc. I don't expect the majority of D4 owners are going to trash their vehicles offroad like I did with my DII.

[Dorko]

I go offroad 2-3 times a week in my D4. Its a 4WD after all!

Dorko

[gghaggis]

Also note that even on it's tiny std tyres, the D4 has almost an inch more ground clearance. And be careful deriving the power/torque to weight ratios, as LR and Toyota use different standards for deriving their vehicle weights. In most road tests, the D4 3.0 ltr has left the LC200 V8 behind.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Dorko]

The D4 3L - 9.6secs and the L200 is 10.6secs to a 100

Dorko

[tempestv8]

I couldn't find any acceleration specs on the Australian website but on the UK Toyota website, it says that 0-62 miles per hour (which is 100 km/hr), the Toyota TDV8 achieves this in 8.2 seconds.

Acceleration (0 - 62mph) (secs) 8.2

Not that it matters at all - I didn't buy a sportscar, I am using mine as a tow vehicle.

[gghaggis]

I couldn't find any acceleration specs on the Australian website but on the UK Toyota website, it says that 0-62 miles per hour (which is 100 km/hr), the Toyota TDV8 achieves this in 8.2 seconds.

Acceleration (0 - 62mph) (secs) 8.2

Not that it matters at all - I didn't buy a sportscar, I am using mine as a tow vehicle.

The UK models quote a higher power figure (210KW vs 195KW), so perhaps they're tuned differently? Still don't see how that could make up 2.4 sec difference!

Cheers,

Gordon

[Disco4SE]

The figures that Dorko quoted, I believe are correct. Like you say, you are not drag racing.
FYI: I was reading a 4 x 4 mag recently and they tested 3 vehicles including the D4, on a dyno machine.
Flywheel figures and power / torque at the wheels are quite a different thing. What was interesting is the fact that the D4 had more power to the wheels compared to power at flywheel ratio, than the other 2 vehicles.
Meaning that the D4 probably delivers power to the wheels better than the LC. Less power loss through transmission, drive train etc.

[Tombie]

I couldn't find any acceleration specs on the Australian website but on the UK Toyota website, it says that 0-62 miles per hour (which is 100 km/hr), the Toyota TDV8 achieves this in 8.2 seconds.

Acceleration (0 - 62mph) (secs) 8.2

Not that it matters at all - I didn't buy a sportscar, I am using mine as a tow vehicle.

No problems TV8 :cool:

I was aware of your useage, just very different to the treatment your D2 received.

Hey, at the end of the day, if you're happy with the vehicle you drive, then that is all that matters ;)

And anyone who knows you, knows that on trips you need ALL the space you can get because you take the kitchen sink too :angel:

I hope your vehicle is everything you want it to be (and most likely will be).

[c.h.i.e.f]

dont hav either (prefer the D4) LC200 look extremely ugly prefer the look of the 80series or 100series (live front) considering the D4 is missing 2 cylinders compared to the LC200 i think that might show engineering wise who has the best way of thinking :angel: compare the old 4.2Td "6" cylinder to the tiny tdi 2.5td "4" cylinder and i dont think the 4.2 being almost twice the size is twice as powerfull as the LR :p once again shows the engineering has been thought about. alot say about the reliability of land rovers is the bad part but its only because everyone likes to turn a blind eye to the tojo's with the thought they are a trusty old workhorse that can do 400K and still be kicking but so has alot of LR's i can name 2 of the top of my head that hav done almost 1.3million K's and still kicking :o plus if you know the right LR mechanics or people with knowledge working on a land rover is no harder than working on a tojo!!!

can someone do a comparison of the range rover tdv8 compared to the LC200 tdv8 ??:D:D:D:D :twisted:

just my views :wasntme:

[jonesy63]

What was interesting is the fact that the D4 had more power to the wheels compared to power at flywheel ratio, than the other 2 vehicles.
Meaning that the D4 probably delivers power to the wheels better than the LC. Less power loss through transmission, drive train etc.
Thanks is probably courtesy of the more intelligent and better designed ZF 6 speed, compared to Tojo 5 speed.

[tempestv8]

A minor correction there - the Toyota LC200 turbo diesel comes with a 6 speed auto.

I say it's a "minor" correction because for all intents and purposes it's a 5 speed auto with a very tall 6th gear that is useless for speeds below 110 km/hr, and I'd leave it in 5th anyway, when I'm towing because the engine would be lugging in a gear that is too high if it's in 6th gear.

I don't plan on towing at more than 110 km/hr.... :nazilock:

Back to the discussion about performance between the LC200 and the D4 3.0. A friend of mine has driven both and he reckons that both vehicles are sluggish compared to his BMW X5 twin turbo 3.0 diesel. I didn't believe him so I took his vehicle for a test drive.

My verdict is that the LC200 and D4 *is* sluggish after driving the X5. Doh!!

[Disco4SE]

Hi tempestv8, you are correct about both vehicles being 6 speed autos and the fact that the LC200's 6th gear is too tall.
You may have read my previous posts about towing my 2.2 ton boat to Albury from Melbourne without a gear change. This is something that I am sure the LC could not achieve, making it a far more relaxed drive in the D4.
The twin turbo X5 is probably quicker off the mark being a lighter vehicle, however I think that the torque produced from the D4 at such low revs would make the D4 a more driveable vehicle, especially whilst towing.
As metioned soooooo many times, I'll stick with the mighty 3.0Lt D4.
Cheers, Craig

[Graeme]

...the torque produced from the D4 at such low revs...
Driving my D4 in 5th at 60 kph (about 1300 rpm) in traffic then applying some right foot certainly makes it move and with a lovely growl too.

[Disco4SE]

Sounds good doesn't it Graeme. I find the D4 a relaxed drive on freeway or in traffic

[zuno555]

All this thread does is make everyone who doesn't have a D4 feel extremely jealous........... :mad:


:)

[Watpub]

All this thread does is make everyone who doesn't have a D4 feel extremely jealous........... :mad:


:)

Easy fixed... hock the house, the wife, the kids, and the dog (hmm... perhaps keep the dog) - that's what I had to do!;). They certainly don't come cheap nowadays - D4s that is.

Regards, Ron

[mowog]

I must say it was a leap of faith for me to buy D4. As an outsider you hear the stories of major drama's and you wonder should I...

So I did I spent a lot of money brought a D4...

The simple truth is the D4 has exceeded my expectations. It is simply a bloody brilliant thing. I got mine January not a single warranty issue. And for me that is highly unusual for any new car I have brought over the years.

My Mini Cooper D (December) also falls into the no warranty issues

[Graeme]

.. not a single warranty issue.
Faulty headlights (possum lights), faulty CC (speed increases using decrease button), faulty water in fuel warning (driving through puddles), faulty clock (wont stay out of army mode), red triangle (faulty turbo solenoid?), fails to start sometimes, faulty trailer blinker indicator (doesn't work), tow-bar cover screw broke after a couple of uses. I wonder how this compares with the LC.

[drivesafe]

Hi Graeme, and sorry to hear the problems and sounds like a bit of a lemon.

My 03 RR was with out exaggeration, the most unreliable vehicle I have ever owned.

My wife’s old D3 had no major problems, with the worst being a faulty fuel sensor in the tank and was replaced in the first service.

My 08 RR only repair problem was a passenger mirror folding sensor needed replacing and the sound system needed a reprogram. and thats in over 70k.

The wife’s D4 has not had one single issue in 5 months.

In the last decade, LR have gone from having amongst the most unreliable vehicles to being outstandingly reliable vehicles of any form.

[tempestv8]

I wonder how this compares with the LC.

Hi Graeme,

Sorry to hear of these niggles! One thing to balance the equation is that Toyota is not without faults. I believe that the OMISSION of features that comes without even having to ask on a same priced category of vehicle like a Land Rover D4 SE puts the Toyota into shame.

Just the other morning, I worked out that the LC200 hasn't got heated side mirrors. How daft is that? I couldn't change lanes safely without cocking a look over my shoulders repeatedly until the glare from the reflected morning sun on the foggy/dew laden external mirrors cleared. :mad:

Faults so far are how practically every LC200 owner have experienced, so the classic Japanese build quality - if they get it wrong, it's wrong on all the cars.

Fault with the rear tailshaft spline causing a thump sensation when taking off from a stand still. Every LC200 first released in 2007 has this problem, and also 120 Series Prados. Toyota haven't worked out how to build a tailshaft, I think.

Fault with high oil consumption. Again, this seems to be a universal problemw with the Toyota V8. The early ones consumed as much as 3 litres per 10000 kms. Late model ones better, but still an issue.

No other issue to report thus far.

[mowog]

Faulty headlights (possum lights), faulty CC (speed increases using decrease button), faulty water in fuel warning (driving through puddles), faulty clock (wont stay out of army mode), red triangle (faulty turbo solenoid?), fails to start sometimes, faulty trailer blinker indicator (doesn't work), tow-bar cover screw broke after a couple of uses. I wonder how this compares with the LC.

Sometimes you can be unlucky.

My headlights are a little high but I don't drive much at night. And the D4 high beam is far better than the Mini high beam.

[Graeme]

Hi Graeme, and sorry to hear the problems and sounds like a bit of a lemon.
Oh, I don't consider my D4 is a lemon for one moment, mostly just that LR's software quality control isn't up to scratch. I suspect the headlight issue will turn out to be the light manufacturer's fault, the water in fuel light may just be the connector isn't connected to the sensor and the red triangle is a known software and sometimes solenoid problem. I can't figure out the trailer blinker indicator as the rear parking sensors are disabled with the trailer connected and the broken plastic screw - well, its only a plastic screw with a big head. No big deal with any of these so definitely not a lemon.

[Disco4SE]

Hi Greame, you hear good and bad stories about every vehicle. I had a new vehicle once that many people I know had, and it was nothing but trouble. Kept it 12 months and sold it. Wasn't a LR or LC but it did start with Nis and end in san.
Reliability aside the post was LC v LR. I'll stick with the D4

[drivesafe]

Oh, I don't consider my D4 is a lemon for one moment, mostly just that LR's software quality control isn't up to scratch. I suspect the headlight issue will turn out to be the light manufacturer's fault, the water in fuel light may just be the connector isn't connected to the sensor and the red triangle is a known software and sometimes solenoid problem. I can't figure out the trailer blinker indicator as the rear parking sensors are disabled with the trailer connected and the broken plastic screw - well, its only a plastic screw with a big head. No big deal with any of these so definitely not a lemon.

Hi Graeme and I didn’t word my reply that well, I was trying to comfort you in your hour of need, as I had had a real lemon but it’s good to see you view yours as teething problems.

[sniegy]

Graeme,
A lot of that will be rectified once the Q093 program is carried out.
Yours does have some quirky issued tho' but we will fix em' :p

Cheers

[Blknight.aus]

Are you sure , 2 litres per hour of oil ? That wouldn't run .......

yeah, fozzy can do that too, but only when I use engine oil instead of cooking oil as the fuel.

[gghaggis]

Well we had an interesting couple of training days this weekend. Sat was all LR - 4 D4's, 3 D3's and an RRS. Sun was a mix - 1 Prado Kakadu 2010, one Terracan, one Jeep Commander V8, one Kia Sportage, one Pajero, one 2009 Defender. And of course my RRS on both days.

It was fairly pelting down with rain Sat, and sunny and reasonably dry Sun. So here's the breakdown ...... ;)

On the largest sand dune (very steep, very long):

8/10 of the LR's made it up - a D3 2.7 and the Defender didn't quite make it. NONE of the non-LR cars made it! We were disappointingly surprised by the Prado, with it's "similar" Multi-Terrain-Response, locking centre and rear diffs, it just didn't have the torque-spread of the LR's to get to the top. The Jeep (due to power - V8 5.7 ltr) and the Kia Sportage (due to light weight) were the best performers other than the LR's.

In the mud and hill climbs:

Again, the Prado disappointed - the traction takes a little longer to kick in on the front axle, and there is such limited wheel movement that you need the lockers + TC. Crawl control didn't fair much better. Front clearance is pretty shoddy too. Again, the Jeep was the best of the non-LR's, good articulation and the TC only required two or three spins of the in-air wheel for it to grab. The Terracan TC was awful, the Pajero almost as good as the Prado and the Kia non-existent. But to put it into perspective, a coiler D3 (albeit with a 2" lift) with no terrain response was virtually identical to the Prado in performance.

All in all, the D3/D4/RRS cars were better all-round, but also in virtually every off-road situation. The only close competitor was the Jeep Commander, which was let down by it's long wheelbase and slower TC (it didn't have the top-of-the-line Quad-Drive system, which would have given it a lockable rear diff). The Prado was the most disappointing, which matches with my experience in the 2009 LC 200 Diesel V8 and the Lexus Petrol V8.

We're now knackered and off to bed!!

Cheers,

Gordon

[Disco4SE]

Interested and reassuring post Gordon, thanks

[tempestv8]

Not surprising, really. Land Rover has been developing electronic traction control systems as early as the late P38A Range Rover, whilst the Japanese crowd have been using rear LSDs. And Toyota's LSDs haven't been worth writing home about. ;)

Now that the Prados and Land Cruisers have traction control, they are only just catching up, and not anywhere near as optimised as Land Rover. The Prado also has a relatively underpowered 3 litre motor and the LC200 has to resort to big capacity to achieve what the Land Rover's 3.0 TDV6 motor does. But I suppose the capacity tax in most of the UK probably has something to do with European diesels being that powerful despite their small capacities.

[gghaggis]

Yes, I'd agree - I think one thing LR have got better than anyone else are the 4WD systems and their control. Still not perfect, but still the best. By far the most annoying trait in the Prado was the layout of the 4WD control systems. Buttons scattered everywhere! Some are in the centre console, some are under the steering wheel (where your knee hides them) and some you have to scroll through the message centre to find! It took 30 ~ 40 secs at each different obstacle to set the car up and check it.

The Pajero was the most surprising - it did almost everything the Prado did, was simple to set up and seemed less 'plasticy'. The Jeep did better, but then we were expecting that.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Dorko]

Do you have video from the day Gordon?

Dorko

[robbotd5]

Yes, I'd agree - I think one thing LR have got better than anyone else are the 4WD systems and their control. Still not perfect, but still the best. By far the most annoying trait in the Prado was the layout of the 4WD control systems. Buttons scattered everywhere! Some are in the centre console, some are under the steering wheel (where your knee hides them) and some you have to scroll through the message centre to find! It took 30 ~ 40 secs at each different obstacle to set the car up and check it.

The Pajero was the most surprising - it did almost everything the Prado did, was simple to set up and seemed less 'plasticy'. The Jeep did better, but then we were expecting that.

Cheers,

Gordon

I agree. Toyota are imitators. You hear a lot about "toyota reliability and build quality". Remember the IFS 100 series front diffs exploding and the suspension collapsing??? All I have to say about this is that they wait for Land Rover to develop a new model then they "borrow" the technology, call it something slightly different, then reap the rewards. My Uncle has toyotas. The older playdo he used to own did not impress me at all, sure is was cushie and comfy but the fake wood on the dash and the weak plastic rear door handle (plus the boring looks) turned me off. He then went out and bought a 200 sahara petrol. Flashy and all bells and whistles but if I had $100K to spend on a 4WD the last thing to look at is a Toyota landcrusher. And while i'm at it, I cant stand "them" referring to their cars as 'cruisers or hungys. The D4 is an incerdible vehicle in all respects, just as the D2 TD5 was back in 1999.
Regards Robbo.

[gghaggis]

Do you have video from the day Gordon?

Dorko

Yup, posting some of it on YouTube over the next few days

Cheers,

Gordon

[Celtoid]

Yes, I'd agree - I think one thing LR have got better than anyone else are the 4WD systems and their control. Still not perfect, but still the best. By far the most annoying trait in the Prado was the layout of the 4WD control systems. Buttons scattered everywhere! Some are in the centre console, some are under the steering wheel (where your knee hides them) and some you have to scroll through the message centre to find! It took 30 ~ 40 secs at each different obstacle to set the car up and check it.

The Pajero was the most surprising - it did almost everything the Prado did, was simple to set up and seemed less 'plasticy'. The Jeep did better, but then we were expecting that.

Cheers,

Gordon

Hi Gordon,

Loved your report.

I've bounced a fair few military 110's and Unimogs off trees, etc but have only just bought my first 4WD...an ex demo Disco D4 3.0 TD SE (with a couple of extras). I don't really know much about 4WD'ing and the technology but my D4 blew me away when I took it off road a few weeks after buying it. Ruts, water crossings, bumps and corregations were a yawn. But then I sat looking at a very steep hill, covered in gravel and soccer-ball sized rocks with numerous cut/wash-outs that appeared to me as close to vertical as I'd like to get, wondering how well my 2.5 Ton+ D4 with standard tyres would fair and how expensive it would be should it fail.:(

Selected Low Range, Grass-Gravel-Snow and the 4WD screen so that I could watch the gear do it's stuff. Hardly any throttle and away we went (3 adults and 3 kids on board). The front lock icon came on straight away and the rear only turned red momentarily at each wash-out. It was an absolute breeze....minimum accelerator, a tiny bit of wheel spin at the wash-outs and the truck appeared to steer normally.

I don't know what is actually locking when those icons go red but the traction was seriously impressive.....diff lockers?...don't diff lockers affect steering? Anyway, so impressed I had to go the other way. Hill decent on, foot off brake and throttle....a few small slides (gravel and gravity I suppose :)) but amazing poise.

VERY IMPRESSED!!!

Oh, I did tear a mudflap thou....

[ozscott]

Hey, funny part is, he had a Disco 2 before his Landcruiser 100 :D:D

He lost the plot when he lost the D2

Cheers

[beanie_205]

[QUOTE=robbotd5;1258180]I agree. Toyota are imitators. You hear a lot about "toyota reliability and build quality". Remember the IFS 100 series front diffs exploding and the suspension collapsing??? All I have to say about this is that they wait for Land Rover to develop a new model then they "borrow" the technology, call it something slightly different, then reap the rewards. QUOTE]

Yep, reading new Prado review recently, came across their "new" KDSS cornering enhancement- hydraulically controlled swaybar. Sound at all like ACE? released with the D2 in 1999. ;)

[rmp]

KDSS wasn't invented by Toyota, they bought it. It is kind of like ACE, but ACE itself has been replaced by the dynamic suspension system a la the high performance RRS variants and no doubt at some point the Discoverys once something even better is developed for the Sports.

When the diff icon goes red it's locked, and yes a locked diff on the axle especially affects steering. However, the advantage of the electronic lock in the way LR have designed it is that it can lock or unlock instantly, or anywhere in between, so as soon as you turn the wheel it permits sufficient differential action to make the turn.

A classic cross-axle locker doesn't do that, and those with dogclutches take a little while to engage/disengage so are not feasible for this sort of instant on/off operation which is what is really needed to optimise traction throughout.

[ADMIRAL]

Pros & Cons The 200 series was on my list, along with the Patrol and the D4. ( I came from the Patrol camp )

A case of weighing up what you intend to use the vehicle for and how it fits the purpose. The 200 is a big vehicle ( but surprisingly not as long as a Patrol with a spare mounted on the tailgate ) It is wide, or perhaps you could say wider than a D4. This was a minus for me. Anyone who has led a convoy through rough scrubby territory with the widest vehicle will understand.

In a shopping centre carpark the D4 scores above both other options. Very important for SWMBO.

The 200 has a serious issue with weight when fitted with the KDSS, and requires a GVM upgrade before you can load up for the outback trip. Another minus. ( for me )

The Patrol had fallen off the list long ago. ( still good value for money through )

Electronics and reliability. I rated the 200 and D4 about the same. They both have ( or have had ) issues, and realistically if you wish to buy a modern 4wd, you will not be able to avoid the extensive use of electronic aids.

So horses for courses. Everyone has different priorities, and has to make their own judgement call.

[Disco4SE]

Hey Admiral, the D4 is actually wider than the 200 series, but to look at them both you wouldn't think so.
I had the same decision without the Patrol in the equation.
My mate went for the Patrol. After just 47,000Klm's it is in today to have the clutch replaced.
He has the 3.0Lt 4 cyl TD and hates the lack of power, but puts up with it as he doesn't do many Klm's or towing.
Another mate went for the 200 mid last year and has had a tailshaft replaced already. He is now regreting his decision. Not only the tailshaft thing, but other issues as well.
As you said, you have to choose the vehicle to suit your purpose.

[ADMIRAL]

Hey Admiral, the D4 is actually wider than the 200 series, but to look at them both you wouldn't think so.
I had the same decision without the Patrol in the equation.
My mate went for the Patrol. After just 47,000Klm's it is in today to have the clutch replaced.
He has the 3.0Lt 4 cyl TD and hates the lack of power, but puts up with it as he doesn't do many Klm's or towing.
Another mate went for the 200 mid last year and has had a tailshaft replaced already. He is now regreting his decision. Not only the tailshaft thing, but other issues as well.
As you said, you have to choose the vehicle to suit your purpose.
Yes the Patrol didn't impress. I had an attachment to them from my previous ownership. By coincidence my brother in law purchased the latest common rail version during my decision period. I was unimpressed and so is he now. More power and torque...but uses a lot more fuel. No change to anything else. Probably very much like buying a Puma after a 130. Great if that's what you are after.

[Disco4SE]

My mate also says about the poor fuel economy in his Patrol. At Christmas we did the same trip both towing our boats. My boat is 2.2 ton, his is 1.5 ton. He used 18Lt per 100 Klm's, I used 13.
Cheers, Craig