Disco 4 V Landcruiser Prado

[Disco4SE]

Thought this interest some.
2010 Toyota Land Cruiser vs Land Rover Discovery 4 video (http://www.zercustoms.com/news/2010-Toyota-Land-Cruiser-vs-Land-Rover-Discovery-4-video.html)

Cheers, Craig

[Grumndriva]

Very interesting. There are some similarities with my own experience. I am in the last stages of considering options to replace my D2. I wanted a D4SE, but had to consider alternatives to help justify my decision. For what I need the vehicle for, a remote area caravan tug, unless you want a truck or an exotic vehicle, there really are only three options: Jeep Cherokee Limited, LC200 and D4. (The diesel auto Patrol can't legally pull more than 2.5 tonnes.) The Jeep was quickly eliminated, and that left the LC200. Compared with the D4, the LC200 is more powerful (both power and torque), is at least as comfortable, has better range, has better payload, has better road clearance at typical outback speeds, and has outback compatible wheels as standard. Since it uses a larger engine, all other things being roughly equal, the LC200 engine is likely to last longer than a more highly tuned smaller one. Toyota also has better support throughout the country. Both vehicles have integrated tow hitch receivers, but the D4 cannot use a WDH, which is a major limitation. TSA on the D4 appears to be primarily of benefit in those markets, like the UK, which rely on over-ride rather than electric brakes. The D4 has better approach and departure angles, but that is not particularly relevant when towing a caravan. The D4's 3rd row seat stowage is also better, but we don't need them and so for my intended use that is not particularly relevant. The LC200 LE comes out of the box ready to go for this job, whereas I would need to spend a considerable sum and lose a lot of payload (124kg) to option the D4 to do the job. This was not what I wanted to hear, as I really wanted to buy a D4. But for my particular application, the LC200 is by far a better choice. If only it had a green oval on the front and back it would be near perfect!

[djhampson]

. Both vehicles have integrated tow hitch receivers, but the D4 cannot use a WDH, which is a major limitation.

The D3\D4 doesn't need a WDH because the air suspension will self-level the car when you put weight on the tow ball. I think thats a major advantage because it saves time and effort when attaching your caravan \ boat because you don't have to attach the springs.

[Ace]

That comparison is the D4 with Prado not the 200 series.

Eitherway, i'd prefer the D4 based on looks, the prado and 200 series are butt ugly. Both very capable vehicle however, but the engine in the 200 series isnt winning fans everywhere, there have been documented issues of oil usage and excessive fuel consumption.

[mowog]

No WDH is most certainly not a limitation.

The simple truth is that tugs that need a WDH are simply a flawed design. They are clearly not designed to tow it is just a function they can perform.

Also consider if you are doing remote towing on poor roads you will need to remove the WDH from the LC 200 or you will rip the tow bar off the car. That is a huge flaw in the capability of the LC 200 in real world off road towing.

No such limitation exists for the D4.

I have towed with a WDH on my old Territory and they are simply a pain to used. They transmit noise into the cabin they limit turning and if setup wrong they can actually cause more problems than they solve.

[Tombie]

Very interesting. There are some similarities with my own experience. I am in the last stages of considering options to replace my D2. I wanted a D4SE, but had to consider alternatives to help justify my decision. For what I need the vehicle for, a remote area caravan tug, unless you want a truck or an exotic vehicle, there really are only three options: Jeep Cherokee Limited, LC200 and D4. (The diesel auto Patrol can't legally pull more than 2.5 tonnes.) The Jeep was quickly eliminated, and that left the LC200. Compared with the D4, the LC200 is more powerful (both power and torque), is at least as comfortable, has better range, has better payload, has better road clearance at typical outback speeds, and has outback compatible wheels as standard. Since it uses a larger engine, all other things being roughly equal, the LC200 engine is likely to last longer than a more highly tuned smaller one. Toyota also has better support throughout the country. Both vehicles have integrated tow hitch receivers, but the D4 cannot use a WDH, which is a major limitation. TSA on the D4 appears to be primarily of benefit in those markets, like the UK, which rely on over-ride rather than electric brakes. The D4 has better approach and departure angles, but that is not particularly relevant when towing a caravan. The D4's 3rd row seat stowage is also better, but we don't need them and so for my intended use that is not particularly relevant. The LC200 LE comes out of the box ready to go for this job, whereas I would need to spend a considerable sum and lose a lot of payload (124kg) to option the D4 to do the job. This was not what I wanted to hear, as I really wanted to buy a D4. But for my particular application, the LC200 is by far a better choice. If only it had a green oval on the front and back it would be near perfect!

Puzzled about these comments.. Some are quantifiable others not.. And some are absolutely false in the real world.

Max payload for LC 200 = 670kg
D4 2.7l payload = 754Kg
D4 3.0l payload = 657Kg (less, but only by 13kg)

Toyota support in regional areas is A JOKE... They dont carry the parts in Australia anymore let alone regional - I see this everyday with out Toyota fleet... Even simple stuff is often 2-4 weeks.
This means the LR is now worse in this regard. You can also obtain a diagnostic unit to carry in the vehicle for the D4 for ~ $2k... Just a modern version of a tool box.

Better range... Well more fuel capacity yes...
But I have yet to see a 200 series V8 use sub 15l/100km - We have several here. And thats NOT towing... We have a few boat owners who tow with 200s and they get high teens (18+) to low 20's. The 2.7L tows my 2300kg boat at 13l/100km @ 110km/h...

Therefore the fuel *range* is very similar if not better.

The 200 eats oil like its going out of fashion.

As for suspension out of the box... Tow with a 200 and its but will drag like a worm ridden dog... Tow with a D4 and it will ride smooth and level - there is no comparison between the 2... I have towed with both.


Tyres and rims... I remember when people thought 16" tyres were 'rubbish', too thin etc...

LC200 has a sidewall of 185mm (7 1/4")
D4 2.7 has sidewall of 153mm (6")
D4 3.0 has sidewall of 140mm (5 1/2")

as a comparison - a D2 has a sidewall of 164mm (6 1/2") (on 16's) and NO-ONE had an issue with them :cool:

Tyres are now available most areas and a 5 1/2" sidewall is more than ample for all but the worst rock hopping scenarios.

No, from experience with both I'd say you are way off the mark.

The D4 will tow better, its gearing is brilliant.. Torque is fine, but gearing makes the difference (think trucks).

The D4 needs no WDH, is more refined and "out of the box" far exceeds the LC200 for towing.

This has been written in some of the leading motoring magazines also.. The Disco is a better 'tug' than the LC200..

[ozscott]

Why is the 3.0 so far reduced in payload from the 2.7 - cant be the weight of the extra turbo surely ?:) It seems counter intuitive.

How do the above comments about no need for a WDH reconcile with the Overlander tow test (where the D3 whipped the butts of LC100 series, Patrol etc) where the D3 had a nervous bum with 2050kg on the rear and needed the WDH tightened a few links to cure it? See Tow Test: Part 1 - Large Wagons - Vehicle Tests - Overlander 4WD Magazine - Australia's leading four wheel drive magazine (http://www.overlander.com.au/vehicle_tests/index/full/289/Tow-Test:-Part-1---Large-Wagons).

The fact is that there are many many vans in Australia that excessively load up the rear of a tow vehicle. While Coilright bags etc (and therefore D3/4 bags and air suspended D2 bags) certainly help they do not do the job of a WDH that levers the weight to the front of the tow vehicle to restore front end braking and steering weight and stops waggle (and you can also fit anti-sway bars if necessary). Whilst trailer control on the D4 would help with stopping a sway problem developing or getting out of control (and is very clever) it, nor air bags address the source of the problem.

I am keen to hear from owners who have D3/4 and have had sway or nervous rear end issues (surely some would have because there are vans from from the factory cause issues - see above with overlander as an example) and have tried WDH to address the issue.

Cheers

[mowog]

I would say the nervous rear end issue is a Caravan Design flaw not a problem with the D3/4.

There are certainly some very badly designed caravans out there. I towed the same 21' caravan with my Territory and my D4 on both it was super stable. With the D4 I towed that van to Undara Lava Tubes over some very average roads the whole rig performed without fault and without the need for a WDH. We free camped a fair bit so the water load over the trip went from almost empty to full. The tanks on that van were slightly forward of the center line the changing balance did not affect the D4 at all.

I just had another read of the article... They used a WDH on the D3 from the start of the test...! Clearly they didn't try without it...?

[MartyJB]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. They were going against the explicit instruction of LR and were using a WDH, not wonder it wasn't handling like it should!

Back to the orignal post which was between a Prado and a D4; I think the fact that this discussion jumped to comparing the D4 with the LC200 is enough said - the Prado doesn't stack up, the LC200 is a closer match. I've been a Crusier man before, but In my mind the LC200 was not as good as the D4 on top of that I got an SE, which is much highter specced for less than I'd have to pay for a GXL with terrible velour trim that looks like it came out of a 1990s Avalon! And while I'm on the interior, I'm quite tall (6'7") and the windscreen was way too low, I'd never need the sunvisor, which also ruled me out of getting a VX as there's no head room with the sunroof that can't be optioned out. The other big issue in my mind with the cruiser other than the oil usage is the auto box which has a too tall 6th gear and is just not as smooth, the ZF boxes in D4s work seamlessly with the engines. I think this is what make the D4 SE feel quicker that a LC200 even though it has a higher power to weigth ratio.

[Grumndriva]

Well, I expected there to be some passionate debate: we wouldn't be on the forum if we were not passionate about the green oval. However, credit where credit is due.

I took the risk of posting what I did to get a debate because this will be the last vehicle I will ever own, and I don't want to go wrong. My heart is saying D4, but the quantifiable facts say LC200 for my specific role. This isn't about which is the better vehicle for normal use.

Taking the issues raised so far.

WDH. There is a huge misconception about what a WDH is there for. Regardless of what its original aim may have been ("load leveller"), the primary purpose of a WDH now is to restore the effective CG position of the tug: to transfer weight back to the front wheels to restore traction and therefore braking and handling. To suggest that the fact that a standard LC200's rear will drop when you put 270 kg on the tow bar is a disadvantage is not right. Any passenger vehicle will do that unless you have a self-levelling device like the D4, or a manual levelling device like the Polyair bags at the rear of my D2, or a WDH which will level the vehicle as a by product of its proper job. I can easily level my current rig using just the Polyair bags, but the difference between doing that and using a WDH is like chalk and cheese. Virtually without exception, those that use WDH (from experience by far the majority of experienced heavy van towers) believe them to be a major safety tool. I have been using them for three years with my D2, and there is no doubt that the rig handles and brakes far better. It is also quieter and more comfortable and less prone to pitching. I can't say that no LC200 has ever had a problem with a WDH on dirt roads, but I have never heard of such a problem from owners I have met or on a forum, so if it is a problem it has been well hushed up. The inability to use a WDH with the D4 remains for me a major safety disadvantage.

Air Suspension. Just a quick point on air suspension. While it is great in normal use, it is not a positive for caravan touring. A fixed suspension height is probably preferable, particularly when you want to leave the rig coupled overnight.

Range. I accept that there is a lot of discussion about how much fuel the LC200 TD burns. My fellow caravanners with LC200s with whom I have discussed it all claim around 18 LHK with vans of similar weight to mine cruising at around 90kph which is a good speed for a heavy van. I can't speak for what anyone's work place gets, but then until you quantify driving style and speed, a raw figure doesn't mean much. If you "drive it like you stole it", then it will burn a lot of extra fuel. The quoted ADR (?) combined figures for each are 9.3 vs 10.4. No-one in the real world gets those figures, but their relativity is still a useful guide.

Payload. I need a safe van range of 600 km. The D4 can't do that out of the box, so I am up for long range tanks and a spare wheel carrier. Total around 112 kg. The residual payloads are then 130 kg different. (545 vs 675). Sure I can then theoretically go further with the possible 180 litres in the D4 vs the standard 138 litres in the LC200, but with the optimum 270 kg on the towball, 160kg of driver and passenger, and absolutely nothing else, I can only lawfully put 115 kg more in the D4. I need to carry a fridge, aux battery, water and some other stuff in the tug. Let's say that is 100 kg total. (It will be more than that, but the extra can offset the weight saving from removing the plastic rear bar). That would leave a total of 15 kg for fuel (about 20 litres). It seems to me that there just isn't enough payload for a D4 to tow a van lawfully over any meaningful distance once you fit the LRT, bar and wheel carrier, otherwise I would probably do it. If anyone can find a problem with my maths, please let me know, because range is a show stopper for the D4 at the moment.

Oil Consuption. Excessive oil consumption remains for me an issue to be resolved. I have found about half a dozen owners dissatisfied with their oil consumption. Toyota's position seems to be that they have fixed the problem with the MY10 vehicles, but there aren't enough out there yet to confirm it. In any event, having had the original plus two factory new replacement engines in my D2 fail catastrophically due to design/manufacturing faults, I think that excessive oil usage is rather a minor issue which will undoubtedly be fixed with time if it isn't already.

Appearance. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The LC200 is certainly not a particularly attractive vehicle, but then neither is the D4. One is a bubble and one is a box, but it doesn't matter. What I am after is performance in terms of range/payload/cost. The D4 looks a lot better with an OME bull bar, but then the payload is reduced even further.

Product Support. Where is the LR support when you need it? Thread after thread on traveller forums refer to the lack of LR capable mechanics to fix LR vehicles in the bush. The same is not as true of Toyota. However I accept that availability of spares is a different issue. Based on my experience though, Land Rovers do tend to consume spares at a higher rate than most other common vehicles.

Longevity. I have probably about 10 years of driving left: 15 if I am very lucky. I want this vehicle to last, and I want to spend as much of my time in the more remote areas as I can. My analysis strongly suggests that the LC200 is the most suitable vehicle for towing a heavy load in the more remote areas. I could be wrong, but those who have lived and worked or travelled extensively in outback Australia will know that outback Australia is very definitely Land Cruiser country. It is perhaps unlikely that all the people who live there and own Land Cruisers are wrong too. There has to be a reason why no other brand gets a look in. A couple of station owners I was chatting with recently made the point that some other cars might be good for a trip through the area once or twice, but nothing else lasts on the roads out there.

Tyres. Tombie might well be right that the 19 inch wheels are acceptable for the bush, but at least 10 D4 owners on this forum have shelled out rather a lot of money to replace them with the 18 inch wheels that ghaggis had made. My scepticism is clearly shared by other D4 owners.

I value well reasoned and factual input. If anyone can tell me how I can lawfully get a 600 km range out of a D4 towing 2.7 tonnes and with 170 kg of people, 100 kg of goodies in the back, and the desired 270 kg on the tow ball, I would love to hear it, because I don't think it can be done.

And let me stress again, this is not about which is the better vehicle. It is about which is the best for a specific job.

[mowog]

Sounds like your mind is made up..

Enjoy the LC 200.

http://www.goseeaustralia.com.au/article/589/

"A Toyota Customer Relations team member said today that the Toyota Owners manual was not necessarily ambiguous as it had a world-wide application. He said that LandCruisers were not built as a tow vehicle and once purchased it was up to the owner how the vehicle was used and what was fitted and added to the vehicle in terms of accessories. "

[Ace]

I could be wrong, but those who have lived and worked or travelled extensively in outback Australia will know that outback Australia is very definitely Land Cruiser country.

I would say you are wrong. Well I would disagree, there are plenty of vehicles that can survive the outback just as well as any land cruiser. But if you are doing alot of outback travel your maintenance scheme needs to reflect this, as it does if you are constantly towing heavy loads. The whole "You need a toyota to travel the outback" is a load of one eyed media hype and brand biased dribble.

D4 or 200 series, doesnt really matter, both are on the higher tech end of the scale and if either breaks down I would suggest that you would have tow wait a similar length of time for parts to arrive and the vehicle to be fixed. There might be a heap of old 80 series cruisers lying around that parts can be scavenged off, but modern vehicles are all in the same boat, you will have to wait for parts.

[gghaggis]

Please search the forum re the WDH issue - it's been done to death. By your use of the D2 with polybags as a comparison, it's obvious you don't understand the D4 system. In a nutshell - I and many other D4 owners have owned both systems - WDH and D4 EAS. We can tell you from real-world experience which is better. You've had WDH experience only, and so have your LC-owning mates. How can you make that call? The Overlander article you cite was seriously flawed in that they actually used the WDH on an EAS D3. The two systems 'fight' each other.

And what's wrong with jerry cans on the van? I use my 2.6T van with 4 jerries. Gets me an _easy_ 600km

Cheers,

Gordon

[gghaggis]

To the OP (Disco4SE),

In my experience, the Prado, especially the diesel, will not keep up with a D4 off-road. Apart from virtually nil front articulation, no TC when diff lock engaged, the strangest "terrain response" settings you could imagine ('sand' and 'rocks' in the same setting??) and minimal clearance, the diesel is just plain gutless.

Not that I'm bagging the 'Yota :angel:

Cheers,

Gordon

[Disco4SE]

Bloody Hell...........looks like I may have opened up a can of worms.
For what it is worth, here are my thoughts.

I too have had Landcruisers and it was a hard decision between the D4 3.0 and the 200 Series. After having both demo vehicles at the same time over a long weekend of towing, off roading etc, my mind was made up to go with the D4.
The towing aspect is important to me along with reliability. The D4 generates more power and torque 'to the wheels' not to be confused with flywheel figures. This shows in the figures 0 - 100 Kph. D4 gets there in 9.6 seconds, Landcruiser 10.5 seconds. Best of all, the D4 produces 85% (500Nm) of torque from idle, just where you want it. I found the gearing in the D4 alot better spaced. The Landcruiser was in and out of 6th gear while towing, even on the flat, whereas the D4 was happy to sit in 6th all day long, up hill and down. I'm not interested in being the first one to 100Kph but I do enjoy a relaxed trip while towing.
FYI: In late 2009 there were 17....yes 17 Landcruiser 200 Series stuck up in NT with blown motors as a result of overheating from towing vans in the heat. Not alot of people found out. Not sure if they have fixed the problem as yet?

The self adjusting air suspension was also a points winner for me. It meant that I can load my vehicle up with tools / equipment etc, hook up the boat or trailers, and it will stay level the whole time. Went to Tasmania last year with 1/2 ton of tools in the vehicle mainly to one side of the car because of other luggage etc. It rode dead level and handled bends like no tomorrow. I had a LC100 and fitted polyair bags. The ride was great while towing, but as soon as you unhook the boat / van, it rode like a bastard.

In summary, I think you have to weigh up exactly what overall percentage of the vehicles use is actually towing. I'm tipping 3% - 5% maybe?

For me, I'm happy with my D4.
BTW: My mate went for the LC200 instead of the D4. He has already had a tailshaft replaced and travelled 1/2 the Klm's.

Cheers, Craig

[Ace]

BTW: My mate went for the LC200 instead of the D4. He has already had a tailshaft replaced and travelled 1/2 the Klm's.

Cheers, Craig

Has your mate driven the D4? Would be interesting to hear his views, or is he a died in the wool yota man?

[DiscoWeb]

I value well reasoned and factual input. If anyone can tell me how I can lawfully get a 600 km range out of a D4 towing 2.7 tonnes and with 170 kg of people, 100 kg of goodies in the back, and the desired 270 kg on the tow ball, I would love to hear it, because I don't think it can be done.

And let me stress again, this is not about which is the better vehicle. It is about which is the best for a specific job.

Grumndriva,

Simple, get the 2.7 Tdv6.

Using your own assumptions the payload difference with the LC200 is only 28kgs and the payload/capacity post loading up with van, people, LRFT etc (again using your own numbers) is a payload of 112Kg for the D4 2.7tdv6 V's 140 kg's for the LC200.

My calcs
Vehicle 2.7 D4

Payload 754
Less
LRFT/Wheel Carrier 112
Passengers 160
Van 270
Fridge Etc 100
TOTAL LOAD 642

Unused P/Load 112kg

Vehicle LC200
Payload 670
Less
LRFT/Wheel Carrier 0
People 160
Van 270
Fridge etc 100
TOTAL Weight 530

Unsued P/load 140 kg

So should provide more than enough fuel for a range of 600km.

The 2.7tdv6 D4 also comes with 18 inch rims so you can sort your tyre issue at the same time.

Think "outside the box" rather than "living in the bubble".

Hopefully my maths is correct and my thoughts well reasoned but either way just some food for thought.

Regards,

George

[big guy]

I just came back from Robe with a mate and his Cruiser with 4.7L V8.
I towed my Jet ski and 4 people roof racks, air con and very strong head wind.
Sat on 95km/h and got 14L/100 from my 300tdi.
My mate in his got 34L/100 there and 28L/100 back towing a single axle caravan at same speed.
His range was shocking plus the amusement at watching the fuel gauge drop and hearing his feedback over the radio was priceless.
His last car was a Prado Kakadu or something which he though be too small for towing?
I do believe he regrets it now.

1st hand experience at fuel consumption and owner feedback.
I do recall him saying that it towed pretty well though.
He is not a fool and has travelled a lot.
He did not look at Land Rover because of their reliability history and little gremlims.
His words not mine.;)

[Disco4SE]

Has your mate driven the D4? Would be interesting to hear his views, or is he a died in the wool yota man?
Hi Ace,
No, my mate hasn't driven mine as yet. We keep talking about it. Let you know when he does.
He went from a Disco 2 to a LC100 (brought the LC when I brought my LC100) and now the LC200. He wanted the D4 but his wife didnt like its 'bottom'????
Or was it the bottom on the the Toyota saleswoman that convinced my mate?????
Cheers, Craig

[ozscott]

As far as I can tell there is a big debate about it but ultimately isnt it a difference between levering and levelling. You cannot lever suspension the way a WDH does from inside the perimeter of the vehicle - only from outside. The D3/4 uses load levelling (with front and rear) but not load levering. Load levering can only be achieved from outside the vehicle. However WDH would fight against the active load levelling in the Disco...so the short answer is that if you dont mind some weight coming off the front axle of a Disco and like its character with a very heavy load on go for it....if you dont like that idea or cant risk it (ie its hard to say unless you have a trusted person with the same weight tow van and D3/4 who can tell you honestly) then you go for another tow vehicle where WDH can be used.

I must say after reading all the stuff on here and other forums I cannot see in a physics sense how the self levelling D3/4 suspension front and rear can lever load back to the front - mere levelling simply will not fully achieve this, only partially. Having said that many on this forum tow heavy and love the characteristics of the D3/4 when towing so the fact that load comes off the front probably doesnt really matter....having said that there might be a noticeable lightening of the front end at the limits - ie around 3.5 tonns and 350kg ball weight, and IF that occurred you cannot correct it with a WDH.

I take the point about the fact that the wdh should not have been used from the start by overlander, but one wonders if it was doing anything much at all until tightened anyway but who knows.

I would certainly consider a D3/4 for towing heavy, but ideally I would like to have one for a night and would hitch up my boat at 2 tonns and my brothers van at closer to 3 tonns and go for a good run. That would be the simply answer. I remember when my local LR dealer had the sign (they pulled out when LR told them they had to build a multi-million dollar new facility to service only D3/4 and couldnt use the same shed to also service Mitsu...) you could get a vehicle for a couple of days...be nice if other dealers offered that.

The trouble with one or 2 people towing 3 to 3.5 tonns saying that all is good is that it is not your particular load, however that comment of course applies to all potential tow vehicles of any brand.

Cheers

[frantic]

Grumndriva from memory you have at least 3 of the major suspension chains offering GVM upgrade kits to the LC200 as when you add in a few extra items, such as bullbar, winch, 4 passengers and a large tow ball weight such as a van or multiple horse float, it also exceeds the payload (OME, pedders are 2 I can recall). Perhaps before you shell out you should enquire if you could upgrade the GVM on a disco4 or as has been pointed out get the 2.7 and your 100kg's better of already with tyre issues solved as well. One other point given your implied age("10-15yrs driving left") is the ability of the d4 to lower itself for ease of entry/exit which may help you to keep 4x4ing a while longer;)

[Redback]

OK my thoughts, seeing as I'm doing the same as Terry, looking for a new tow vehicle to replace my D2, I thought I'd say why we decided on a D3, I won't bag the Toyota because in all fairness they are a great car and well it is out of our price range for a start and I just don't like the look of the vehicle, so why a D3, well because I have driven the D3 that is used at my work, it is only a coiler but still handles the sweeper and trailer with 4 big blokes and all there gear, all up around 2.5tonne +, the sweeper alone is 1.4t, in all honesty it wasn't obvoius at first that it had all that weight on behind, which really impressed me, and, after taking the trailer off, well lets just say WOW, compare it to my chipped D2, the D2 does not even come close.

Having driven a few different 4Bs now, the closest comfort wise to the D3 in my opinion, is the Pajero, it is also a very good tug, tows a camper with relative ease, it was considered, they are great value for money and come standard with a rear electric locker.

Now unlike Terry I'm only going to be towing 1.5t + gear, so not a lot of weight and really any of the current diesel 4WDs could tow this weight, but I like the look of the D3, I love how they ride, they are amazing offroad, having followed one or two over the last few years.

So for me it's an easy decision.

On one note that may interest some, the oil consuption of the 200 and 76series, Toyota have a fix for it, but will only do this fix if for one you ask or it uses over 800ml between service intervals, it is a simple fix, a second gasket on the oil scavenger pump in the sump:eek:

Anyway my 2 cents

Baz.

[Disco4SE]

Grumndriva from memory you have at least 3 of the major suspension chains offering GVM upgrade kits to the LC200 as when you add in a few extra items, such as bullbar, winch, 4 passengers and a large tow ball weight such as a van or multiple horse float, it also exceeds the payload (OME, pedders are 2 I can recall). Perhaps before you shell out you should enquire if you could upgrade the GVM on a disco4 or as has been pointed out get the 2.7 and your 100kg's better of already with tyre issues solved as well. One other point given your implied age("10-15yrs driving left") is the ability of the d4 to lower itself for ease of entry/exit which may help you to keep 4x4ing a while longer;)
Hey Frantic, talking of the D4's ability to be able to lower itself. I had to take a new client and her elderly mother around to show her a few of our building projects this morning. The mum had difficulty getting out (same problem getting in) of her daughters Pajero, so I lowered the suspension to make it easier for her to climb into mine. Well......both mother and daughter were that blown away, the daughter is now looking at buying a new D4, as her Pajero is up for replacing anyway.
Another Landrover moment.

Cheers, Craig

[gghaggis]

(I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another ... Oh bugger ............)

Look, we went through this exercise months ago. Someone asked for real-world experience towing large loads with the D3/D4/RRS. Quite a few of us responded, all in the affirmative - the LR product was streets ahead in towing when compared to the std WDH setup. All correctly set-up media tow tests have said the same. So in the _real_ world, there is ample evidence that the combination of electronic aids + EAS in the D3/D4 is amongst the safest and easiest to tow with. We're not all lying, or making it up.

Why does this not seem to gel with the theoretical physics people claim gives WDH an advantage? Because the model used for what the WDH does is not realistic. In the real world, the angle between the vehicle and the van varies constantly, and often quite violently and normally with a lag in phase. In those common instances, the leveraging effect of WDH will compromise the pitch of the towing vehicle, multiplied by the leverage being provided. There are yet-more-complications that can be added to attempt to reduce this. But it is far less problematic in a properly set-up D3 or D4.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Rockylizard]

(I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another WDH argument. I will not enter into another ... Oh bugger ............)

Cheers,

Gordon

Gday...

I'm with Gordon above ... but this quote from our mate who feels the LC200 is his 'better choice' causes me to respond....
QUOTE:The inability to use a WDH with the D4 remains for me a major safety disadvantage. Air Suspension. Just a quick point on air suspension. While it is great in normal use, it is not a positive for caravan touring. A fixed suspension height is probably preferable, particularly when you want to leave the rig coupled overnight.END-QUOTE

I tow a 23ft van - ATM 2680kg with D3 2.7TDV6 Auto. Before the D3 I used a vehicle that did it very well, but without WDH, it poked its eyes into the sky when the van was connected. WDH kept the van and tug level - BUT - on undulating roads it groaned and sometimes 'pitched' the vehicle through dips. The WDH groaned around corners especially when setting the van up (reversing etc). The WDH bottomed out through driveways such at servos when refuelling. Despite all that it certainly was better to tow with WDH with that vehicle.

I was quite apprehensive when told not to use WDH with the D3. However, having now towed the van over 13,000km through outback NSW and QLD on very average back roads with the D3 and no WDH has been an amazing experience. We have felt the safest we have felt in a tow vehicle in over 20 years of caravanning.

OH yes ... and we often bush camped and left the rig coupled to the D3 ... the ability to use either access/standard/offroad to level the van and then whack on the jockey wheel was very useful.

As they say - Horses for courses ... and the choice will always be an 'emotional' one ...

The D3 (and I am sure the D4) are exceptional vehicles.

Cheers
John

[Celtoid]

Man, I'm having a serious case of Déjà Vu.....

Did'n't we do this to death ages ago....wasn't it the same people and the same 'facts' being presented?

As soon as someone writes an LC200 is as least as comfortable to ride in as a D4, you have to wonder whether they have even seen one, let alone been in one....LOL!!! :wasntme:

Wheels..I suspect Gordon organising wheels for ten people has nothing to do with a towing shortfall....much more to do with a perception of rugged terrain capability.....terrain that you couldn't take a van into.

And yeah, get some gerry cans..

Getting back to the original video....did I watch the wrong one? How did that lead to "similar concerns I've been having"? My take on the video was that they were surprised that the Prado did so well but the D4 did it with more...comfort, ease...something like that. He did mention that the Prado did seem to have better grip at times.....I'm thinking tyres....as in OEM. Yet they both got stuck in the same spots.

I'm thinking he was pretty brave to go in all that slippery snow and mud with the OEM Wranglers at all.....LOL!!! I've been in a fair bit of slippery mud with mine and whilst I've managed to get through, the tyres slick up pretty fast and you do a fair bit of skating....as you would expect.

And on road.....no competition at all......... D4 hands down. :)

[Grumndriva]

Man, I'm having a serious case of Déjà Vu.....

Did'n't we do this to death ages ago....wasn't it the same people and the same 'facts' being presented?

As soon as someone writes an LC200 is as least as comfortable to ride in as a D4, you have to wonder whether they have even seen one, let alone been in one....LOL!!! :wasntme:

Wheels..I suspect Gordon organising wheels for ten people has nothing to do with a towing shortfall....much more to do with a perception of rugged terrain capability.....terrain that you couldn't take a van into.

Getting back to the original video....did I watch the wrong one? How did that lead to "similar concerns I've been having"? My take on the video was that they were surprised that the Prado did so well but the D4 did it with more...comfort, ease...something like that. He did mention that the Prado did seem to have better grip at times.....I'm thinking tyres....as in OEM. Yet they both got stuck in the same spots.

I'm thinking he was pretty brave to go in all that slippery snow and mud with the OEM Wranglers at all.....LOL!!! I've been in a fair bit of slippery mud with mine and whilst I've managed to get through, the tyres slick up pretty fast and you do a fair bit of skating....as you would expect.

And on road.....no competition at all......... D4 hands down. :)

Suggest you re-read what I wrote.

[StephenF10]

Re the WDH, while I am a WDH user and would not be without one on my D2, to say that the inability to use a WDH on a D4 is a safety issue is open to debate.

As you say, a WDH transfers weight forward to the front wheels to compensate for the weight taken off them by plonking a couple of hundred kg on the towball. Whether the lack of a WDH is a safety issue or not depends on how much weight is taken off the front wheels as a proportion of the vehicle's weight and whether it would compromise steering and braking. I suggest that for a heavy vehicle like the D4 the weight taken off the front wheels would have little or no effect on safety. The long wheelbase compared to body length of the D4 would also reduce the effect of ball weight. Don't forget that the D4 was designed in the UK where they have never heard of WDHs but still tow heavy loads.

While I would not be without a WDH on my D2 I would be quite happy to accept LR's advice and not have one on a D3/D4.

Stephen.

[Grumndriva]

Please search the forum re the WDH issue - it's been done to death. By your use of the D2 with polybags as a comparison, it's obvious you don't understand the D4 system. In a nutshell - I and many other D4 owners have owned both systems - WDH and D4 EAS. We can tell you from real-world experience which is better. You've had WDH experience only, and so have your LC-owning mates. How can you make that call? The Overlander article you cite was seriously flawed in that they actually used the WDH on an EAS D3. The two systems 'fight' each other.

And what's wrong with jerry cans on the van? I use my 2.6T van with 4 jerries. Gets me an _easy_ 600km

Cheers,

Gordon

Thanks Gordon. I think I do understand SLS, but I was not comparing it with airbags: just making the point that all pax vehicles will drop at the rear when you put a load on the tow ball without something to lift them up again. LR chose its SLS system for the D3/4, and that is fine. But it doesn't restore weight to the front wheels. A recent test by C&MH showed that the van tested (I can't remember what weight) reduced the front wheel load on a D3 by 5%. That may seem small, and it may be insignificant in real world situations. But it might also translate into a 5% loss of braking - perhaps someone here who is qualified can enlighten me - and that would worry me. It could make the difference between being scared or being hurt. But it isn't a show stopper, just a consideration in the big mix.

By the way I didn't cite any Overlander article. You have confused me for someone else. As far as I know I also don't have any LC owning mates: just people I have met on the road.

As far as I know, fuel filled jerry cans on the outside of a van are no longer legal, but I will check.

Thanks for your input.

[Grumndriva]

Re the WDH, while I am a WDH user and would not be without one on my D2, to say that the inability to use a WDH on a D4 is a safety issue is open to debate.

Stephen.

Yep, hence this one. I appreciate the input.

[Grumndriva]

Grumndriva from memory you have at least 3 of the major suspension chains offering GVM upgrade kits to the LC200 as when you add in a few extra items, such as bullbar, winch, 4 passengers and a large tow ball weight such as a van or multiple horse float, it also exceeds the payload (OME, pedders are 2 I can recall). Perhaps before you shell out you should enquire if you could upgrade the GVM on a disco4 or as has been pointed out get the 2.7 and your 100kg's better of already with tyre issues solved as well. One other point given your implied age("10-15yrs driving left") is the ability of the d4 to lower itself for ease of entry/exit which may help you to keep 4x4ing a while longer;)

Thanks. All valid points. It was the LR dealer who advised me that I would never be happy with the 2.7 due to the reduced torque. The lower rated gearbox also worried me a bit. Shades of ZF4HP22 vs HP24 in the D2.

[mowog]

If I had to go back to a tug that needed a WDH I would sell the van and give up caravaning.

[ozscott]

By the way I didn't cite any Overlander article. You have confused me for someone else. As far as I know I also don't have any LC owning mates: just people I have met on the road.



.

Yep Grum - that was me who cited that and responded to Gordon.

The fella above with the 2.7 odd tonn van - that there is excellent real world feedback. There must be lightening of the front end (cant see anyone who has shown the levelling versus levering theory to be wrong) with that load, BUT irrespective his anecdotal evidence is that it tows really well. Taken at face value that would make me seriously think Disco over Cruiser. Please keep the feedback coming people with big loads!

If people with 2.7 to 3.5 tonns notice no loss of braking or steering (ie steering lightening and not biting to change directions in a hurry in say wet weather) then overall the system must work well enough. I suppose its a case of a bit of string - if the D3/4 still turns better at speed in the wet and brakes better than a 200 series when both are towing the same heavy load - say 3,000kg, then irrespective of whether or not the D3/4 would be better again with load transferred back to the front (which it cannot have because of the SLS) then the D3/4 is STILL a better vehicle for towing than a 200 series with a properly fitted and adjusted WDH.:)

Cheers

Cheers

[Grumndriva]

Sounds like your mind is made up..

Enjoy the LC 200.

Toyota warranty requirements leave towing owners damned if they do and damned if they don''t - Information Articles Go See Australia Directory (http://www.goseeaustralia.com.au/article/589/)

"A Toyota Customer Relations team member said today that the Toyota Owners manual was not necessarily ambiguous as it had a world-wide application. He said that LandCruisers were not built as a tow vehicle and once purchased it was up to the owner how the vehicle was used and what was fitted and added to the vehicle in terms of accessories. "

Thanks mowog, but if my mind was already made up I would not have spent this much time on this thread. My heart wants the D4, but I just can't see how it can do the job. The range is a show stopper it seems.

The quote is a standard first legal response where product liability is being questioned, and it probably is not much different from what LR would say if their product was being questioned. I wouldn't put too much store in it. In my former life I saw many such responses.

But thanks for the input both here and by PM. If I thought I knew all the answers I wouldn't be asking.

[ozscott]

Thanks mowog, but if my mind was already made up I would not have spent this much time on this thread. My heart wants the D4, but I just can't see how it can do the job. The range is a show stopper it seems.

The quote is a standard first legal response where product liability is being questioned, and it probably is not much different from what LR would say if their product was being questioned. I wouldn't put too much store in it. In my former life I saw many such responses.

But thanks for the input both here and by PM. If I thought I knew all the answers I wouldn't be asking.

I dont like Toyotas much either Mowog but we cant though take those quotes and go all green oval about them. The fact is that no manufacturer builds their 4X4s AS tow vehicles, but they certainly do build them with towing in mind and test them towing (certainly Patrol, Cruiser and Disco at least).

Cheers

[Rockylizard]

.........There must be lightening of the front end (cant see anyone who has shown the levelling versus levering theory to be wrong) with that load, BUT irrespective his anecdotal evidence is that it tows really well.
If people with 2.7 to 3.5 tonns notice no loss of braking or steering (ie steering lightening and not biting to change directions in a hurry in say wet weather) then overall the system must work well enough. ...........:)

Cheers

Cheers
Gday...

Just like the advice to set up the WDH I did the same when I hooked the van up to the D3.... ie - measure distance from road to bottom of front and rear mudguard arch BEFORE hitching up the van and then measure the same distance AFTER hitching the van. Set van up as level with jockey wheel.

With WDH, you then adjust how many links you apply to level the vehicle ie returning weight to front wheels from the rear.

With D3, I hook on from Access height, raising to Standard putting the ball into the ball coupling. I then set the suspension to Standard height to drive off. When the D3 is at standard height the D3 returns to level (pre-van) distances.

The tow hitch needs to be correctly fitted for height of level van and level vehicle - WDH or no WDH.

A great system - which keeps 'adjusting' itself depending on the terrain you tow over.

Cheers
John

[Ace]

Thanks mowog, but if my mind was already made up I would not have spent this much time on this thread. My heart wants the D4, but I just can't see how it can do the job. The range is a show stopper it seems.

Will the dealers not let you take the vehicle on a test drive and tow your van? Surely if you are spending the best part of 80-90k then they should let you test what you want it to do.

[Celtoid]

Suggest you re-read what I wrote.


Which part Grum,

"Compared with the D4, the LC200 is more powerful (both power and torque), is at least as comfortable, has better range...."

"Very interesting. There are some similarities with my own experience"

These are your words aren't they.....what am I missing? Did I miss a few posts...?

[Celtoid]

Loved the bit in the video when the LR driver gives the truck a bit of a squirt (for the camera I recon), slides, over-corrects, brakes and then boots it again....

All those Sir Isaacs....LOL!!! :)

[Disco4SE]

Thanks. All valid points. It was the LR dealer who advised me that I would never be happy with the 2.7 due to the reduced torque. The lower rated gearbox also worried me a bit. Shades of ZF4HP22 vs HP24 in the D2.
Hi again Grumndriva, the 3.0Lt v 2.7Lt is the like the old saying 'you don't miss what you haven't got'.
I had the D3 2.7Lt and it did a great job towing boats, trailers etc and would have been happy with it, but when upgrading to the D4 and having a choice, I went for the 3.0Lt.
600Nm of torque V 440Nm, bigger breaks and better transmission won me over.
Cheers, Craig

[gghaggis]

Thanks Gordon. I think I do understand SLS, but I was not comparing it with airbags: just making the point that all pax vehicles will drop at the rear when you put a load on the tow ball without something to lift them up again. LR chose its SLS system for the D3/4, and that is fine. But it doesn't restore weight to the front wheels. A recent test by C&MH showed that the van tested (I can't remember what weight) reduced the front wheel load on a D3 by 5%. That may seem small, and it may be insignificant in real world situations. But it might also translate into a 5% loss of braking - perhaps someone here who is qualified can enlighten me - and that would worry me. It could make the difference between being scared or being hurt. But it isn't a show stopper, just a consideration in the big mix.


I didn't read the C&MH test, but I imagine it must have been a static test, which really doesn't tell you much when you're trying to compare a dynamic system like the Land Rover T5 EAS and a statically-designed system such as WDH. It would only be vaguely relevant when comparing one WDH vehicle to another. On an average road, where you need it most, the WDH-fitted vehicle is going to pitch around far more than a D3/D4 - and that equates to a significant variation of weight on either the front or rear axles. That's where you may see a loss of braking effect.



As far as I know, fuel filled jerry cans on the outside of a van are no longer legal, but I will check.

Thanks for your input.

I don't think that applies to diesel containers?

Cheers,

Gordon

[Grumndriva]

Will the dealers not let you take the vehicle on a test drive and tow your van? Surely if you are spending the best part of 80-90k then they should let you test what you want it to do.

Sadly no, they won't, as no-one has a vehicle fitted for towing. It is hard enough just getting a test drive vehicle. By the way, the LC200 with the extra battery is just a few hundred dollars under the 100,000. With the satnav, rear view camera, I-pod connection (all standard on the LC) and extra battery, extra tank, bar and carrier, the D4 is around 104,000. It isn't chicken feed and I am disappointed that I can not tow the van before committing, but that is life.

[Grumndriva]

I just came back from Robe with a mate and his Cruiser with 4.7L V8.
I towed my Jet ski and 4 people roof racks, air con and very strong head wind.
Sat on 95km/h and got 14L/100 from my 300tdi.
My mate in his got 34L/100 there and 28L/100 back towing a single axle caravan at same speed.
His range was shocking plus the amusement at watching the fuel gauge drop and hearing his feedback over the radio was priceless.
His last car was a Prado Kakadu or something which he though be too small for towing?
I do believe he regrets it now.

1st hand experience at fuel consumption and owner feedback.
I do recall him saying that it towed pretty well though.
He is not a fool and has travelled a lot.
He did not look at Land Rover because of their reliability history and little gremlims.
His words not mine.;)

Thanks big guy, but I am looking at a diesel (4.5 litre). Much different beast. Even a different gearbox.

[Ace]

Sadly no, they won't, as no-one has a vehicle fitted for towing. It is hard enough just getting a test drive vehicle. By the way, the LC200 with the extra battery is just a few hundred dollars under the 100,000. With the satnav, rear view camera, I-pod connection (all standard on the LC) and extra battery, extra tank, bar and carrier, the D4 is around 104,000. It isn't chicken feed and I am disappointed that I can not tow the van before committing, but that is life.

Im sure you'd find someone on here who would be happy to help you out.

[roamer]

Hi Grumndriva,
my real world experiences
I towed a 3t loaded off road van to alot of remote spots in my D3 (remapped to tow), and around oz as well (40k towing total). No WDH, no problems. Fuel range is a worry, but was not a problem, use to work on 450k a tank, and I have kayak, surfboards and 2 spare tyres(tyres only) on roof.
Now have had D4 3lt for over 12mths , towed same rig for awhile and range was 500k (3lt and gearbox are better),just in case I carry 2x20lt jerry can on van.(only ever used 1 can)
Have sold van and now tow a KK Karavan loaded 2t (they go just about any where the car goes), had a bit of van sway once , had come outof a track and was too lazy to change EAS rods for short hiway drive, so was in normal off road height and doing 110kph, but trailer assist was pulling it back into line. ;)
I was a Toyo man for 20yrs before the D3, and have now got a D4, I'm happy with them :)
The adjustable height is great for overnight stays, you can always get it close enough, I don't worry about jocky wheel.
Dealer networks are a problem with all modern cars, seemed to happen when they stopped being mechanics and became technicians :wasntme:


Its a hard call and alot a money, go with ya gut feeling. :cool:


Cheers Ken

[CSBrisie]

Hi Grumndriva,
my real world experiences
I towed a 3t loaded off road van to alot of remote spots in my D3 (remapped to tow), and around oz as well (40k towing total). No WDH, no problems. Fuel range is a worry, but was not a problem, use to work on 450k a tank, and I have kayak, surfboards and 2 spare tyres(tyres only) on roof.
Now have had D4 3lt for over 12mths , towed same rig for awhile and range was 500k (3lt and gearbox are better),just in case I carry 2x20lt jerry can on van.(only ever used 1 can)
Have sold van and now tow a KK Karavan loaded 2t (they go just about any where the car goes), had a bit of van sway once , had come outof a track and was too lazy to change EAS rods for short hiway drive, so was in normal off road height and doing 110kph, but trailer assist was pulling it back into line. ;)
I was a Toyo man for 20yrs before the D3, and have now got a D4, I'm happy with them :)
The adjustable height is great for overnight stays, you can always get it close enough, I don't worry about jocky wheel.
Dealer networks are a problem with all modern cars, seemed to happen when they stopped being mechanics and became technicians :wasntme:


Its a hard call and alot a money, go with ya gut feeling. :cool:


Cheers Ken


I think this is the first mention in this thread of two important issues (for me) when towing - the D4/RRS's Trailer Stability/ Sway Assist which is class leading safety item; and the ability to use air suspension to raise and lower the car when putting the van etc on and off - I bet every D3/D4/RRS owner has done this more than once and smiled at how damn handy it is!

[Grumndriva]

Which part Grum,

"Compared with the D4, the LC200 is more powerful (both power and torque), is at least as comfortable, has better range...."

"Very interesting. There are some similarities with my own experience"

These are your words aren't they.....what am I missing? Did I miss a few posts...?

Perhaps you didn't pick up on the bits where I stated what I wanted the vehicle to do: remote area towing of a 2.7 tonne van with a minimum range of 600km.

You suggested I haven't "even seen one, let alone been in one". I thought being in the last stages of making the decision that it would be understood that I have driven both. I have, and neither my wife nor I could pick between them in the comfort stakes. The fully electric front seats (standard in the 200LE) help to make a difference. The slightly better driving position (for me) makes the 200 possibly more comfortable. But neither has a problem. They are both very comfortable vehicles. The D4 may be more comfortable in serious off road work, but I am not proposing to do that. I did try to rent a 200 to see how the comfort held up over a full day in the saddle, but no-one rents them (or the D4) here.

You suggested I had mistaken the reason for Gordon getting new wheels. I hadn't. I was talking about their suitability for remote area work. 19 inch wheels are probably better than the 17s standard on the 200 for towing with their lower sidewalls, but I am not convinced that they are as good for gibbers etc.

The words about my own experience related to the fact that the video tester expressed surprise that the very basic (I think he said agricultural) Prado performed equally as well as the D4 off road. While I was looking at the 200, not the Prado, I had a similar experience. I was also surprised, and I remain so. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by experience.

You suggested that the D4 is the best hands down on the road. That might be true for many or even for most users, but if it can't give me the 600 km range with what I want to carry, then sadly the 200 will win hands down for me.

[Naks]

Tyres. Tombie might well be right that the 19 inch wheels are acceptable for the bush, but at least 10 D4 owners on this forum have shelled out rather a lot of money to replace them with the 18 inch wheels that ghaggis had made. My scepticism is clearly shared by other D4 owners.

I was under the impression that you could not fit a smaller rim on the D4 due to the large brake calipers?

[gghaggis]

Grum,

You seem to have settled on the fuel range as the deciding factor? Can I take that you are reasonably comfortable with the owners' experiences here with the D4's ability to tow a heavy caravan and that this is no longer an issue for you?

Regarding the fuel range - admittedly this is the one area where the D4 lags behind the LC200. You can fit a long-range tank + wheel carrier, but there is obviously a cost involved. However, the weight penalty isn't really an issue, as if your defining criterion is 600km range, you'll only need to carry an extra 20 ltrs or so. Or as I mentioned - one jerry can! The upside is that if you _do_ fill a long-range tank, your range is in the order of 1200+ km. Also note that, if as you mentioned you have no need for the 3rd row seats, you can remove them and save some 60kg or so.

With respect to the relative off-road prowess of the D4/Prado/LC200, the LC200 is a better off-roader than the Prado. The test the OP linked to was not sufficient to show up the limitations of the Prado. Yes they both got stuck at the same spots, but those spots were likely impassable anyway. The rest of the tracks looked doable in a Sportage! The D4/LC200 on the other hand, are much closer in ability. I'd personally give it to the D4 in overall off-road performance, but there are others who disagree. Suffice to say it is unlikely in the extreme that you would ever push either one to their limits.

For long-distance on-road and gravel travel there is no such close competition. The D4 wins it every time. And if you're concerned about the 19" rims, you can always order a set of 18" rims off me ;)

In the end, go with what you're happy with, but don't base that feeling on misleading info or meaningless comparisons.

Cheers,

Gordon

[ozscott]

Grum,

You seem to have settled on the fuel range as the deciding factor? Can I take that you are reasonably comfortable with the owners' experiences here with the D4's ability to tow a heavy caravan and that this is no longer an issue for you?

Regarding the fuel range - admittedly this is the one area where the D4 lags behind the LC200. You can fit a long-range tank + wheel carrier, but there is obviously a cost involved. However, the weight penalty isn't really an issue, as if your defining criterion is 600km range, you'll only need to carry an extra 20 ltrs or so. Or as I mentioned - one jerry can! The upside is that if you _do_ fill a long-range tank, your range is in the order of 1200+ km. Also note that, if as you mentioned you have no need for the 3rd row seats, you can remove them and save some 60kg or so.

...

Cheers,

Gordon

Good one Gordon.

You would of course have to take the long range tank when full off the payload rating. But of course a jerry can of diesel is a breeze (smelly but not explosive like petrol).

Nice idea about removing the rear seats and saving some weight. You could save say 40 litres worth and the tank (if a 60l tank is say 20kg dry...just guessing here) if you removed them.


Cheers

[Celtoid]

Perhaps you didn't pick up on the bits where I stated what I wanted the vehicle to do: remote area towing of a 2.7 tonne van with a minimum range of 600km.

You suggested I haven't "even seen one, let alone been in one". I thought being in the last stages of making the decision that it would be understood that I have driven both. I have, and neither my wife nor I could pick between them in the comfort stakes. The fully electric front seats (standard in the 200LE) help to make a difference. The slightly better driving position (for me) makes the 200 possibly more comfortable. But neither has a problem. They are both very comfortable vehicles. The D4 may be more comfortable in serious off road work, but I am not proposing to do that. I did try to rent a 200 to see how the comfort held up over a full day in the saddle, but no-one rents them (or the D4) here.

You suggested I had mistaken the reason for Gordon getting new wheels. I hadn't. I was talking about their suitability for remote area work. 19 inch wheels are probably better than the 17s standard on the 200 for towing with their lower sidewalls, but I am not convinced that they are as good for gibbers etc.

The words about my own experience related to the fact that the video tester expressed surprise that the very basic (I think he said agricultural) Prado performed equally as well as the D4 off road. While I was looking at the 200, not the Prado, I had a similar experience. I was also surprised, and I remain so. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by experience.

You suggested that the D4 is the best hands down on the road. That might be true for many or even for most users, but if it can't give me the 600 km range with what I want to carry, then sadly the 200 will win hands down for me.

No mate, got all that, as well as the power & torque and other 'factors' (even though I think the way the 3.0L D4 works negates that concern as the LC is heavier and doesn't (can't) spool as quickly as the D4), was merely focussing on those two points.

I was tongue in cheek when I made the comment about seeing a D4 but they just do not drive like an LC. Your point about driving posi, etc are all valid, I was talking about the whole comfort package. The D4 drives like a big luxury sedan and just eats corrugations, bumps etc. The guy on the video was not exaggerating on how well it does that.

I think the main issue with the 19s with the exception of seriously sharp, really rough stuff (which may chew your rims) is the quality of the tyre. No sidewall strength, so they say.

Not sure where you are going with the agricultural comments, isn't that like saying you'd be surprised that a Deefer can go anywhere a D4 can? I think with the Prado, it's more perception than fact...they are not a Deefer, they just lack the refinement of a D4.

"Equally as well" in pretty easy circumstances has been alluded to......and was clearly stated that they don't get from A to B the same way, they get there...physically....but the D4 does it better. Change tyres and toughen the test and let's see what happens.....It's been clearly stated and alluded to that the Prado is inferior. However, nobody is saying the Prado is crap off-road, we're talking about differences.

One jerry can of fuel???.....you've generated this convo in the past with similar results......are you serious about this activity?

If you are, good luck with the LC, keep us posted.

Cheers.

[Tombie]

The LC at 95km/h loaded like you say gets 28-30l per 100

The 2.7 disco towing 2.3t of SharkCat - with bimini up at 115km/h used 15l/100km (The Cat is twice the height of the vehicle)

Was rock solid stable.
Overtook with ample power.

15x6=90 litres
30x6=180 litres

Seems the range doesn't work!!!


Bullbars LR tanks and bumpers:
Any tourer without a bar is crazy so the Tugmota would need one too. And IIRC they are heavier bars.
So basically irrelevant.

Contrary to the myth - Toyotas can NOT be serviced in the bush any better than any other brand.


Now the soap box...
"my grandpa used a WDH and they work etc etc........"
Well they have come a long way since a HR Holden and tear dropper.
Sorry people, old ideas in a new world....

As for "it's a big van and 95km/h is good"
Bull ****e !!!
Vehicles are now far more powerful, stable and capable. Tow at the bloody minimum that a semi travels (100) get over the BS and move at a speed that means your moving WITH the majority of traffic.

And buy a van that's built right.
WDH are no replacement for a poorly engineered shack on wheels.

One Caravan designer at a Van&Camping show actually commented that they 'built the van and then welded the axles where it gave them the right ball weight' when asked how the calculated ball weight.

As for drive it like you stole it driving.
Our mine vehicles are tracked, not a good idea to flog the arse out of them.

We also spin off the 200s from the fleet before 150,000km so we don't wear the fuel system replacement costs.

But I'm done... I'm fed up trying to explain from facts and experience.

Go buy what you want.

If its to tow a lot, get a Light Truck, it will last longer and carry more.

[ozscott]

As for "it's a big van and 95km/h is good"
Bull ****e !!!
Vehicles are now far more powerful, stable and capable. Tow at the bloody minimum that a semi travels (100) get over the BS and move at a speed that means your moving WITH the majority of traffic.
....

We also spin off the 200s from the fleet before 150,000km so we don't wear the fuel system replacement costs.

But I'm done... I'm fed up trying to explain from facts and experience.

Go buy what you want.

If its to tow a lot, get a Light Truck, it will last longer and carry more.

Tombie - I think from memory in NSW the max when towing more than 750kg is 90kph. Does the Disco 3/4 handbook say anything about max speed when towing beyond a particular weight?

I agree though that if legal and with in manufacturer's specs towing at the speed limit of 100kph on main highways is sensible if the vehicle and trailer work well at that speed - with a good tow vehicle and a well set up trailer with good electric brakes and good controller it would be better to tow at that versus getting people upset at 90-95.

As for the fuel system in the 200 I have heard that it is huge cost at 150k so having it as a long term proposition is going to be costly.

A light truck...you mean a Defender...now there's an idea:wasntme:

Cheers

[mowog]

As far as I know WA is the only state that limits towing to 90k.

The D4 book states 100k is the max while towing.

[Tombie]

As far as I know WA is the only state that limits towing to 90k.

The D4 book states 100k is the max while towing.

Hehe! Oops.

So overtaking to 140 wasn't a good idea? :)

[discowhite]

Tombie - I think from memory in NSW the max when towing more than 750kg is 90kph. Does the Disco 3/4 handbook say anything about max speed when towing beyond a particular weight?


just some clarification. other states may be different.
NSW road rules
NSW Legislation (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+fn+0+N)

21 Speed limit where a speed limit sign applies


(1) The speed limit applying to a driver for a length of road to which a speed limit sign applies is the number of kilometres per hour indicated by the number on the sign.

Note. Length of road is defined in the Dictionary.

(2) However, if the number on the speed limit sign is over 100 and the driver is driving a vehicle with a GVM over 4.5 tonnes or a vehicle and trailer combination with a GCM over 4.5 tonnes, the speed limit applying to the driver for the length of road is 100 kilometres per hour.

Note 1. Combination and trailer are defined in the Dictionary, vehicle is defined in rule 15, and GCM and GVM are defined in the Act.

Note 2. This subrule is not uniform with the corresponding subrule in rule 21 of the Australian Road Rules</I>. Different rules may apply in other Australian jurisdictions.

cheers phil

[irondoc]

Grumndriva, can I just commend you on your behaviour on the forum. A lot of blokes here have been giving you a bit of curry, and you haven't bitten back or lowered the level of the debate.

good stuff, I am reading with interest, and it is interesting to hear your views, as i have just sold a LC100 and am looking at a D4

cheers
lucas

[roverrescue]

I know this is heresy but in my opinion Grumndriva should just buy a low kilometre 1HDFTE sahara 100series and be done with it.

Less fancy options, great diesel, great range, ****es all over a 200series in so many ways AND every cocky up north & out west has one so they must be good ;)

S

[ozscott]

Apart from breaking front suspension the 100 are a very good rig in their own right and the after market stuff for them is fantastic range wise. Some good bargains too. However their payload is ordinary from memory.

Cheers

[ozscott]

Grumndriva, can I just commend you on your behaviour on the forum. A lot of blokes here have been giving you a bit of curry, and you haven't bitten back or lowered the level of the debate.

good stuff, I am reading with interest, and it is interesting to hear your views, as i have just sold a LC100 and am looking at a D4

cheers
lucas

Yes I agree. Grum is a very helpful member. I dont see any need to give him curry. Its a bit precious to do so frankly.

Cheers

[Celtoid]

Sorry gents, have to disagree,

I don't think it's helpful when the same territorry is covered over and over and over again......this was done to death months ago with Grumndriva.

Same 'concerns', little authenticity and it feels like Groundhog Day...I can't keep track of what the issues really are supposed to be, as they change with every post.

When I was about to shell out the best part of $100K, this sort of stuff frustrated me no end.

Nobody is intentionally flaming anybody but....let's keep this real and genuinely informative....good or bad, warts and all!

[Lyonbyrd]

didn't exactly see any challenging terrain in that video.. lets see who's king when the disco's traction control kicks in on some steep rock climbs:D

[TerryO]

We also spin off the 200s from the fleet before 150,000km so we don't wear the fuel system replacement costs.



Hey Tombie I'm gonna play devils advocate here for a moment.

Considering it is best to get rid of the Crusiers before 150k why doesn't the mining company buy some other brand of vehicle like the D4?

I hate to say it but it would seem to me that the mining company has decided even with the 200's short comings that it is still the best large 4x4 vehicle for what they do.

cheers,
Terry

[Disco4SE]

I know this is heresy but in my opinion Grumndriva should just buy a low kilometre 1HDFTE sahara 100series and be done with it.

Less fancy options, great diesel, great range, ****es all over a 200series in so many ways AND every cocky up north & out west has one so they must be good ;)

S
I have heard this advice quite a few times. Instead of buying the 200 Series, buy a 100 Series in good condition.
Cheers, Craig

[roverrescue]

I have heard this advice quite a few times. Instead of buying the 200 Series, buy a 100 Series in good condition.
Cheers, Craig

Maybe because it is sound advice!!! For a caravan tug the whole front suspension front diff thing is irrelevant - a 1HDFTE 100series will do the job with less upfront cost, less hassle and much much less wastage of Incs bandwith ;)

S

[TerryO]

Sorry gents, have to disagree,

I don't think it's helpful when the same territorry is covered over and over and over again......this was done to death months ago with Grumndriva.

Same 'concerns', little authenticity and it feels like Groundhog Day...I can't keep track of what the issues really are supposed to be, as they change with every post.

When I was about to shell out the best part of $100K, this sort of stuff frustrated me no end.

Nobody is intentionally flaming anybody but....let's keep this real and genuinely informative....good or bad, warts and all!


There is an old and in this case relevant saying Celtoid ...it takes two to tango.

If Grumdriva is going over old ground and you and some others see no merit in his comments then why not just ignore him. No one is forcing you or anyone else to get into any debate with anyone.

In fact he didn't start this thread he merely responded to it and then replied to other peoples comments. He then asked several questions and invited everyone to come up a solution so he could consider a D4 and all that happened was he got bagged by various people for it.

I will have a go at trying to come up with a possible solution for his questions and everyone is invited to correct me if I'm wrong.

Terry, I think I read that the 3.0 litre D4 has a lower carrying weight then the 2.7 D4. If that is the case why not consider the 2.7 which if I remember rightly it has been said has an extra 100 kg carrying capacity? Is an extra 100 kg enough?

My understanding is the manufacturers maximum stated carrying capacity of a vehicle is effected by the size of the rims fitted at the factory. From memory a Holden Ute with 17's can carrying quite a lot more then one with 19's.

Having test driven a 2.7 D4 I would have to say it is the nicest 4x4 I have ever driven by far and it is not short on power to say the least. I'm sure the 3.0 litre goes better but so what if you are only doing about 90 kph when towing then why bother with the extra neddies and save a few bucks? A 2.7 version could also get rid of the 19's as well.

Just a thought...

cheers,
Terry

[Celtoid]

Hey Tombie I'm gonna play devils advocate here for a moment.

Considering it is best to get rid of the Crusiers before 150k why doesn't the mining company buy some other brand of vehicle like the D4?

It would seem to me the mining company has decided even with the 200's short comings that it is still the best large 4x4 vehicle for what they do.

cheers,
Terry

Have you seen a D4 TerryO, as in the insider of one?...the leather is easy to clean...but.

We're not even having the same conversation here are we? Do mining companies buy Sahara's with all bells and whistles, as their every-day worker trucks? I don't know...maybe they do!!! If they did then maybe they should consider the D4.!? I suspect, the entry level for a D4 is not quite the same as the entry level LC...

[Celtoid]

There is an old and in this case relevant saying Celtoid ...it takes two to tango.

If Grumdriva is going over old ground and you and some others see no merit in his comments then why not just ignore him. No one is forcing you or anyone else to get into any debate with anyone.

In fact he didn't start this thread he merely responded to it and then replied to other peoples comments. He then asked several questions and invited everyone to come up a solution so he could consider a D4 and all that happened was he got bagged by various people for it.

I will have a go at trying to come up with a possible solution for his questions and everyone is invited to correct me if I'm wrong.

Terry, I think I read that the 3.0 litre D4 has a lower carrying weight then the 2.7 D4. If that is the case why not consider the 2.7 which if I remember rightly it has been said has an extra 100 kg carrying capacity?

Having test driven a 2.7 D4 I would have to say it is the nicest 4x4 I have ever driven by far and it is not short on power to say the least. I'm sure the 3.0 litre goes better but so what if you are only doing about 90 kph when towing then why the need for the extra neddies? A 2.7 version would also get rid of the 19's as well.

Just a thought...

cheers,
Terry

Terry,

Your mate may not have started the thread but it was derailed in an irrelevant instant.

As I said before, it would be great when somebody wants to get to the bottom of myth and rumour that there are facts to depend on. There are lots of people on this site (reading the posts) that would make very bad and expensive decisions based on hearsay and BS if these comments, new or repeated weren't challenged.

Isn't that the whole point of the site, to separate the rubbish from the facts so that people can make informed choices? And then if there are problems, help deal with the real issues, supply advice and help?

That is the point isn't it? I don't see how bringing up the same, previously explained/addressed issues, again and again, benefits anybody.

There are lots of old sayings...some include, if you have nothing to say....

[TerryO]

Have you seen a D4 TerryO, as in the insider of one?...the leather is easy to clean...but.

We're not even having the same conversation here are we? Do mining companies buy Sahara's with all bells and whistles, as there every-day worker trucks? I don't know...maybe they do!!! If they did then maybe they should consider the D4.!? I suspect, the entry level for a D4 is not quite the same as the entry level LC...


Come on Celtoid a base line D4 actually comes with cloth seats, most or maybe all of the Aussie ones might come here with the optional leather pack but so what?

If a large mining company put in a decent sized order they would get their D4's with any options or not they wanted no problems at all.

Sorry to say it but I think your being a bit prissy in your comments. I clearly stated that I have driven a D4 and I said it was the nicest 4x4 I have ever driven.
I would like to see all the bells and whistles you speak about that a base model D4 comes with, because the ones I have driven didn't come with many at all, definately not to Sahara spec as you infer.

Anyway you have a nice day and hopefully calm down a level or two.

cheers,
Terry

[Celtoid]

Come on Celtoid a base line D4 actually comes with cloth seats, most or maybe all of the Aussie ones might come here with the optional leather pack but so what?

If a large mining company put in a decent sized order they would get their D4's with any options or not they wanted no problems at all.

Sorry to say it but I think your being a bit prissy in your comments. I clearly stated that I have driven a D4 and I said it was the nicest 4x4 I have ever driven.
I would like to see all the bells and whistles you speak about that a base model D4 comes with, because the ones I have driven didn't come with many at all, definately not to Sahara spec as you infer.

Anyway you have a nice day and hopefully calm down a level or two.

cheers,
Terry


Mate I'm not argueing that if it was do'able they should. I haven't seen a D4 with cloth seats....I thought that ended in the D3...but I hear they have de-specc'ed the MY10's and 11's....so maybe! The bells and whistles of a D4 V's GLX or another LC derivative....really, you can't tell? I admit that my bells and whistles comment was a little misleading but a leather specc'ed GXL...which I've seen plenty of, is not the same as a leather specc'ed D4. The whole cabin is not in the same class. The drive is not in the same class...that's what I mean. Look at the standard safety features, the list is long....that's what I really meant.

But yes LR could take away half of the features of a D4 and make it a fleet or mining spec, but they don't have the capacity to do so....maybe once they start their China operation up....then it might be time to buy a Toyo...hahaha.

Apparently LR don't make Disco utes and twin cabs either, so maybe that would limit them too. But maybe they could work on a jerry can holder....;)

It's back to that old supply and demand issue thou...LR make more money supplying higher specc'ed vehicles. They can't keep up on demand, so how could they meet vast fleet options, with less bottom line? Not saying it's right....but!

I'm sorry Terry, read the threads, I'm far from the only one who is getting peaved with the ill informed...he, says, she says stuff.

I didn't comment for a second on your opinion of a D4....you've obviously seen the light....but you really couldn't be serious with your 'devil's advocate' comment could you?...you've read the threads, you know what I've stated above about LR's build capacity is true......you're stirring the pot...who's being prissy...what's with that Terry?

Useful comment or not? ;)

Oh and BTW, what's this got to do with a D4 and a Prado sliding around in the snow and mud?

[Tombie]

If you saw the price we get Toyotas for then you would know why the mines buy them!!!

However the cheaper deals in Dual Cab LVs are now Triton and Rangers.

For bigger vehicles and tax benefits it's 200s with a Dual Cab conversion.

For Idiots with degrees attached (engineers and managers) it's 200s in GLX or VX spec for top level.

Lower level managers get Prados.

And compared to public pricing they are dirt cheap.

[Disco4SE]

I'm sure the 3.0 litre goes better but so what if you are only doing about 90 kph when towing then why bother with the extra neddies and save a few bucks? A 2.7 version could also get rid of the 19's as well.

Don't mean to keep this thread going, but thought it was necessary to point out to Grumndriva that if you are intending to tow a heavy van, I would go for the 3.0Lt.
Sure enough, the 2.7Lt will do the job well, however the 3.0Lt will do it alot easier and you will feel more relaxed when you get to your next destination.


Must remember not to post any more utube comparisons :wasntme:
Cheers, Craig

[outbacktourer]

I came into a D4 HSE out of a '06 100 Sahara Turbo. The 100 was a very good vehicle but you need polyairs if you put any more than 300 into the back of it or onto the ball (combined) or the auto leveling will give up and it will drop to the stops.

Tojo engine/gearbox combo was a pearler for towing but D4 better all round.

For mine the 200 was a missed opportunity on behalf of Toyota, technology of the D4 particularly in suspension and traction dept is a winner, plus overall refinement. Value for money is also an issue with the Tojo.

Just saying.

[Celtoid]

Must remember not to post any more utube comparisons :wasntme:
Cheers, Craig[/QUOTE]

LOL...I enjoyed it.

Cheers,

Kev

[TerryO]

Apparently LR don't make Disco utes and twin cabs either, so maybe that would limit them too. But maybe they could work on a jerry can holder....;)

I didn't comment for a second on your opinion of a D4....you've obviously seen the light....but you really couldn't be serious with your 'devil's advocate' comment could you?...you've read the threads, you know what I've stated above about LR's build capacity is true......you're stirring the pot...who's being prissy...what's with that Terry?

Useful comment or not? ;)

Oh and BTW, what's this got to do with a D4 and a Prado sliding around in the snow and mud?


Land Rover do actually make crew cabs and utes, they are called Defenders though. They have base models and they are cheap in comparision to D4's and possibly even to mining spec 200's I would hazard a guess.

I'm not trying to insult you Celtoid but to say I've 'obviously seen the light' regarding the D4 is in itself condesending. Logical and open minded intelligent discussion is one of the main reasons why I'm proud to be a member of this website.

I believe the way Terry (Grumdriva) has been treated leaves a lot to be desired and just because he made comments where he offered another point of view. I would expect and have seen that kind of closed mind one eyed behaviour from other brand orientated websites but rearly have I witnessed it on here. The sad thing is while a number of peopla have played the man rather than the ball, few have tried to actually answer his relevant questions.

Re my Devil's advocate meents, the thing about playing a Devil's advocate is it is meant to put forward an opposing point of view to stimulate discussion and open thinking.

cheers,
Terry

[Grumndriva]

Guys,

I have just read what has come in overnight, and this will be the last post from me.

Despite what has been claimed, my requirement has not changed from start to finish. I need a tug to carry me and my wife (160 kg total), 100 kg of gear and a 2.7 tonne van with 270 kg on the tow bar over a distance of 600km. That is all that is critical. Anything else is a nice to have, not a must have for me.

This is a fact, not a passionately held opinion: The 3 litre D4 can't do the required job with a standard tank. According to my maths, once you fit a LRT and rear bar and wheel carrier, there is only enough remaining payload to put about 20 litres of fuel in the two tanks. That gives a range of a little more than 100 km.

I have invited everyone to check my maths to find any error I have made in my payload calculations for the D4. No-one has offered any plausible correction and I have re-checked it many times. I can understand that many may not have gone through the exercise of checking actual weight vs maximum allowable weight, and I can understand that some who have, may have chosen to disregard the maximums and operate overloaded. But I am not prepared to.

Since no-one has taken up my offer to show how it can be done with a 3 litre D4, I must assume that my maths is correct, and a 3 litre D4 can not legally do what I want it to do, because of payload limitations. If it can't do what I want it to do, there is absolutely no point in my parting with over $100k to buy one, no matter how much better it may be in other regards than the other vehicle which can do it straight out of the box.

I do not believe that anything I have offered was critical of the Disco, or of those who chose to buy one. If I have offended anyone in that regard, please accept my apology.

As a pure vehicle, I still prefer the D4, but it can't do what I want it to.

My sincere thanks to all who have contributed constructively and factually to what has been a very difficult decision.

I have greatly appreciated my time on the AULRO forum. I have had a great deal of help from many, and have been pleased to offer what limited help I could in return. Most of all I have enjoyed everyone's company and shared their passion for the green oval.

Best wishes to all,

Terry

[ozscott]

Grumdriva - have a look at this mate - 4WD Comparison - Bush Icons At War - Vehicle Tests - Overlander 4WD Magazine - Australia's leading four wheel drive magazine (http://www.overlander.com.au/vehicle_tests/index/full/301/4WD-Comparison---Bush-Icons-At-War)

Its a 2.7 D3 HSE versus the V8 TD 200 series 2009. Whilst they were not towing the 2.7 performed really well in comparison - though not as fast as you would expect, as the 200 series.

Off road the 200 was said to be more comfortable but on road the in cabin refinement the D3 won.

Cheers

[Celtoid]

Land Rover do actually make crew cabs and utes, they are called Defenders though. They have base models and they are cheap in comparision to D4's and possibly even to mining spec 200's I would hazard a guess.

I'm not trying to insult you Celtoid but to say I've 'obviously seen the light' regarding the D4 is in itself condesending. Logical and open minded intelligent discussion is one of the main reasons why I'm proud to be a member of this website.

I believe the way Terry (Grumdriva) has been treated leaves a lot to be desired and just because he made comments where he offered another point of view. I would expect and have seen that kind of closed mind one eyed behaviour from other brand orientated websites but rearly have I witnessed it on here. The sad thing is while a number of peopla have played the man rather than the ball, few have tried to actually answer his relevant questions.

Re my Devil's advocate meents, the thing about playing a Devil's advocate is it is meant to put forward an opposing point of view to stimulate discussion and open thinking.

cheers,
Terry

Mate there was nothing wrong with Grumdriva's questions/concerns....the first time round. It was just very much a case of déjà vu, which myself and obviously others saw as pointless. It was so similar to the first time round it could almost have been a cut and paste...I had to take a double-take and check the dates, to see if something was amiss. I thought that I was reading the original thread. I thought the original concerns were well and truely addressed the first time round.....unfortunately some were shown then and again this time round to be based on very little fact, or were highly subjective or personal. You need to take a hard look at the one eyed and open minded comment, I'm not sure who isn't listening.

Terry copped a flaming cause we'd been here before....it's just like the Sand Driving thread and the 19" Tyres thread....done to death. It covered no (or little) new material, brought him no closer to being helped in a decision and derailed the original post which was never really discussed. That was my point and probably others who flamed him.

Nobody was attacking him personally but you have to question the motive of repeating the exercise. Nobody would deny it's a big D to sink $100K into a car but asking or raising the same concerns two or three months later will not help....you'll get the same answers.

I know the written media can often be misinterpreted but Terry's comments/opinions sounded like a disguised D4 beating attempt. Which probably didn't help when others on this thread opened fire.

My D4 comment was once again light hearted....biased maybe but not to be taken too seriously. Terry should buy whatever he feels is right for him and nobody will really care or say otherwise, it's just the way this thread played out.

I'm sorry if you or the other Terry have taken this personally, that isn't my intent and I'm sure it wasn't others....I think you are missing what bothered people.

Cheers,

Kev.

[MartyJB]

Terry,
My only comment on your maths; my understanding is that weight of the vehicle includes a full tank of fuel and a 75kg driver?? If that's right you can carry 657kg on top of that. I could be wrong but if you are still in 2 minds you could check that out - I'm sure someone will correct me....
Otherwise as you have indicated the D4 may not be able to do what you want it to do. As you can see there are a lot of very passionate people here who love the D4, if it could do what you wanted I'm sure you'd love it too. Having said that the LC200 is a very good vehicle.
Kind regards
Marty
PS There was some comments on interiors which was a big dislike of mine in regard to the LC200, quoting myself from a previous post "the velour looks like it came from a 1990s Avalon!" The D4 2.7 with only 5 seats has cloth, I've seen one and I can tell you they use a nice modern hard wearing fabic. I'd be more than happy to have if you could get it in 7 seats.

[feraldisco]

personally I don't think any vehicle is perfect out of the box for every intended purpose - they all require 'individualising'. The thing I like about LRs is that they have a few starting attributes that would be difficult to achieve, even through modification, in other vehicles:

. high seating position/low window frames

. the best offroad/onroad performance combo/compromise

. good fuel economy for a large 4WD (certainly better than Cruisers and Patrols)

. character! (and I don't just mean in terms of developing the character of the owner through mechanical "issues"...)

[ozscott]

...

. character! (and I don't just mean in terms of developing the character of the owner through mechanical "issues"...)

This thread has some character..or should that be characters:D:D

Good to see so much green eyed passion...or is that passion when looking through forest green coloured glasses!:D

Cheers

[gghaggis]

Quite a bit of posting overnight! Well, Terry (Grum) has made his choice, and good luck. Sorry I couldn't provide the figures he wanted earlier, but we were busy last night. I was rather disappointed that he didn't respond to my last post, because I thought I'd answered his remaining concern.

However, it's not right to say he didn't get answers to his questions, so at least all this to-and-fro seems to have been helpful. Look at his original list of cons for the D4 on page 1 of this topic. Although he never acknowledged an answer or correction, his objections were whittled down to one point - range vs load.

His objections were based on a payload figure of 670kg for the LC200 and 657kg for the D4. More on those figures later ........

Anyway, assuming the veracity of these figures, I've pointed out that range can be rectified and still keep the vehicle weight legal. Fit a long range tank or carry one jerry can. Simple. Terry had 127kg to play with after all his required weights were taken into consideration (versus 140 kg in the LC200 - not really much in it!). A long range tank weighs around 30kg. An extra 20 ltrs of diesel adds 18kg. So lets call it 50kg. Still leaves 77kg. With 100 ltrs of usable diesel that should see him to his 600km range requirements. There is no need for a rear bar (which adds significant weight) - there are several wheel carriers available that fit directly to the existing chassis points.

In the D4, he could add another 85 ltrs of diesel to his tank and still be legal. That would give him 185 usable ltrs of diesel, which towing a 2.7T load at 100kph, should see him get around 1100km. He could not do that in the LC200 and remain legal. He can't fit another tank to the LC200 (legally), so there's no room for improvement.

If he wanted to add more gear, he could easily remove the 3rd row seats, which he claimed he didn't need. He couldn't get that kind of range plus load out of the LC200 and remain legal.

Both cars would fail his requirements if a bull bar were fitted. The D4 with an alloy bar would come closest though.

Now to the quoted figures. This is where the argument disappears. The payload for the two was calculated by subtracting the manufacturers' stated kerb weights from the gross masses. However, the 'kerb weight' is not calculated the same for both companies. LR's kerb weight INCLUDES a 75kg driver. Toyota does not specify a driver - they claim the kerb weight 'varies' from 2630kg to 2700kg. Terry chose the 2630kg figure. So the reality is that the usable payload for the D4 SDV6 SE is 657kg + 75kg = 732kg. For the LC200 GLX diesel it is somewhere between 600kg and 670kg, depending on 'options'. This is assuming both are diesels.

So in the end there was no real merit to any of the points raised. The only consideration would be cost (ie adding a long range tank and wheel carrier) and personal choice. Nothing wrong with that.

On a final note though, I'd agree that all this had been thrashed out before and really didn't need going over yet again.

Cheers,

Gordon

Edit: In fact the payload for the LC could be even less than 600kg - Toyota do not specify if their kerb weight includes fuel. LR's does.

[ozscott]

.... LR's kerb weight INCLUDES a 75kg driver. ...

Gordon

Bloody skinny Brits...how many Disco 3/4 drivers in Australia would weigh 75kg:D

Cheers

[rocmic]

Bloody skinny Brits...how many Disco 3/4 drivers in Australia would weigh 75kg:D

Cheers

I think I object to the inference:D I weighed in this morning at 77kg and that's after putting on 4kg (I've alaready lost 1) over Christmas / New Year while staying with my wife's family in Peru - way too much beer:wasntme:

[TerryO]

Terry copped a flaming cause we'd been here before....it's just like the Sand Driving thread and the 19" Tyres thread....done to death. It covered no (or little) new material, brought him no closer to being helped in a decision and derailed the original post which was never really discussed. That was my point and probably others who flamed him.




All I would say is to all you D4 owners who don't like repeating yourselves is don't visit the D2 site because every week you get the same threads started. There would hardly be a page that didn't have at least one '3 amigo's' thread or 'why does my TD5 rattle and vibrate' and I have hardly ever heard anyone complain that the same questions are repeatedly getting asked and every time often the same members give assistance.

If the fact that this discussion was had at least in part a couple of months ago is driving some of you mad then I only hope your precious D4's don't develop some sort of regular failures like the D1 and D2's have or you will all run away forever or go completely mad as the same questions keep popping up. Maybe some of you have little patience with these types of threads because your first Land Rover experience is a D3 or D4.

By the way Terry didn't start the previous thread about 'Crossing Over To The Dark Side' I did. He contributed to it but he did not originate it like he has been blamed for and as I have said previously no one forces you to answer or comment on any thread, if you don't like a thread just ignore it and let those who are prepared to discuss it rationally have their little dabate.

Since that previous discussion some months ago he has had a brand new 4.6 engine with about 25k on the clock slip a liner, so he had to buy another reconditioned TRS engine just before Christmas. That was his second new 4.6 that had crapped itself, the first one lasted only about 7k from memory due to no fault of his. So I can understand why he was not feeling 100% confident in the Green Oval and his trusty D2 that he had spent an absolute fortune on building up into a very impressive bit of gear. This lead him to decide over Christmas to stop spending on the D2 and start to look for a new tug so he would feel more confident when on one of his long range trips out into the middle of nowhere.

He made several comments and asked for information to try and get a handle on what vehicle could legally do what and in part that knarked some of you because he was considering a Toyota and he copped it or as you admitted Celtoid you and others flamed him.

I consider that it is a real shame the he has decided to walk away from this site which he was a long time member of after how this has been handled by some.

While he was a member here he actively went out of his way to try and assist others when they had problems and when he had knowledge that could assist others. How do I know this? Because he assisted me on several occassions when I had questions and needed first hand experience.

Shame he wasn't given the same level of latitude and patience as he often showed others who were struggling with something to do with Land Rovers.

Regards,
TerryO

[gghaggis]

Shame he wasn't given the same level of latitude and patience as he often showed others who were struggling with something to do with Land Rovers.

Regards,
TerryO

I think that's a bit unfair. Personally I would have preferred he simply searched and found the previous discussions, but I still tried to the best of my abilities, time allowing, to answer his concerns. It's not my fault that the majority of them had no foundation in fact. He seemed unwilling to accept this.

The D4 WILL do what he wants, easily, safely and legally. But it requires a long range tank. That pretty much sums it up.

For those interested - if you check the Toyota UK site, where they have to use the same definitions of "kerb weight" as LR, we can infer that the LC 200 weighs in at 2700kg, meaning the figures to use which are comparable are:

LC 200 GLX Diesel: UK defined payload = 600kg
D4 SDV6 SE: UK defined payload = 657kg

Cheers,

Gordon

[Psimpson7]

According to the Toyota UK site Gordon, the kerb weight of the 200 series is actually even heavier at 2720kg, and as has already been mentioned there is no mention of whether that includes a driver or fuel.

(and to confuse it even more the brochure Ive just downloaded from the Uk site says 2615kg) - good to be consistent!

[Disomania]

Now I have a question that to me seems obvious. If you are NOT towing, and put 600kg in the back of your 4wd, you CAN NOT us a wdh to transfer the weight forward.

This begs the questions of why, for 250kg +/- you need a WDH. at all, other than makeing the car ride level.

[TerryO]

I think that's a bit unfair. Personally I would have preferred he simply searched and found the previous discussions, but I still tried to the best of my abilities, time allowing, to answer his concerns. It's not my fault that the majority of them had no foundation in fact. He seemed unwilling to accept this.

Cheers,

Gordon


I did say 'by some' Gordon. I didn't say by everyone who took part in the thread, in reality I was trying not to single anyone out for being either helpful or for flaming the man apart from Celtoid who through himself under the bus and admitted it.

Those who played the man instead of the ball know who they are.

cheers,
Terry

[gghaggis]

According to the Toyota UK site Gordon, the kerb weight of the 200 series is actually even heavier at 2720kg, and as has already been mentioned there is no mention of whether that includes a driver or fuel.

That's for the equivalent of the VX, not the GLX. But as the Australian site states the VX weighs "2675 to 2720", I think we can take it that the GLX should also be compared at its "maximum" in the range "2630 to 2700".

In other words, the MAXIMUM figure quoted by Toyota Australia should be used when comparing to LR products, as it's closer to the same weight procedure used in the UK.

Cheers,

Gordon

[mowog]

Now I have a question that to me seems obvious. If you are NOT towing, and put 600kg in the back of your 4wd, you CAN NOT us a wdh to transfer the weight forward.

This begs the questions of why, for 250kg +/- you need a WDH. at all, other than makeing the car ride level.

I would think any car/4WD with 600kg in the back and no SLS would drop the bum a fair bit.

[ozscott]

I have to add this. Whilst I have been the recipient of assistance on the D3/4 page, overall the general sense I glean from this part of Aulro is that those with these vehicles are a little more tender than those on the other areas - D1, D2 etc. It does not take much in this area to get belted. I have been on occasions - in fact most of the time I question the new shape vehicle, its systems, abilities, wheels, tyres, etc I get a pasting. Now I am thick skinned and I persevere and get some good advice, but I cant help but feel that any perceived questioning or criticism of the new shape is considered D3/D4 bashing

I think the new shape is an amazing vehicle, but its not without fault and its a very very complex machine and that, naturally, concerns people (me included). Whilst the faults on this site are not legion (park brake, ball joints, turbo issues - in particular loss of power when needed...) they are on the UK site which is a very well patronised site. I also struggle with the concept of 19 inch tyres on ANY offroad vehicle being used offroad for more than pansy work.

I have held off going to the new shape - for 4 reasons, I enjoy the old shape and its reliability to me to date, and its ability off road, I am concerned that for what I do the D2 is hard to beat in towing in deep soft sand (and I have been assured by Gordon in particular that my concerns about this are unfounded - thanks for that) and I own it and finally I hold my vehicles out of warranty and do have concerns about the long terms ownership of the new shape.

Having said that for work purposes I am able to lease a vehicle and this is the longest that I have owned a single vehicle for (ie 9 years this year...) and it works for me to lease (and I am years out of lease now)...so my reasons for holding back and keeping the D2 are not related to the high cost of new large 4wd vehicles (but with the new shape being 2 - 2.5 times the cost of my D2 when I bought it new it does stick in the throat a bit irrespective of a lease and tax implications). But these things ought not see flame comments coming in, and likewise Grum had issues with the D4 and ought not be belted.

I will continue to post in this area, and hopefully do so in a constructive way but I think some lessons could be learned by those new shape Disco owners in reading the D2/D1 thread. I dont want to be too critical, but I just get the impression sometimes that those on here would be quite happy if pesky D2 owners just went away and did their thing on their page and left the D3/4 page alone. That is not in the Aulro spirit as far as I understand it.

In the meantime, thanks for those who have helped me to date, including Gordon who has at times been frustrated by me I think. There may well come a day when I frequent this board after buying the new shape, but I will still help where I can on the other boards.

Cheers

[Celtoid]

I did say 'by some' Gordon. I didn't say by everyone who took part in the thread, in reality I was trying not to single anyone out for being either helpful or for flaming the man apart from Celtoid who through himself under the bus and admitted it.

Those who played the man instead of the ball know who they are.

cheers,
Terry

Hold the bus, let's not be using my name in vain....

When a man posts a thread that pretty much states...."I've done my research and the D4 is inferior to the LC200 for my purposes"....you've got to expect some scrutiny. When your research amounts to nothing, not once but twice....you have to expect to reap what you sow. Come on Terry...this is ridiculous. At least some of us have tried to explain what the concerns with that approach are.... Some wouldn't give you the time of day on any forum! It has nothing to do with the D4 or any Brand (Toyota, Nissan) whatsoever, it's the concern of not having facts to back anything you say.....twice. And the manner that the statement was presented in didn't help either.

Geez…..

[Celtoid]

I have to add this. Whilst I have been the recipient of assistance on the D3/4 page, overall the general sense I glean from this part of Aulro is that those with these vehicles are a little more tender than those on the other areas - D1, D2 etc. It does not take much in this area to get belted. I have been on occasions - in fact most of the time I question the new shape vehicle, its systems, abilities, wheels, tyres, etc I get a pasting. Now I am thick skinned and I persevere and get some good advice, but I cant help but feel that any perceived questioning or criticism of the new shape is considered D3/D4 bashing

I think the new shape is an amazing vehicle, but its not without fault and its a very very complex machine and that, naturally, concerns people (me included). Whilst the faults on this site are not legion (park brake, ball joints, turbo issues - in particular loss of power when needed...) they are on the UK site which is a very well patronised site. I also struggle with the concept of 19 inch tyres on ANY offroad vehicle being used offroad for more than pansy work.

I have held off going to the new shape - for 4 reasons, I enjoy the old shape and its reliability to me to date, and its ability off road, I am concerned that for what I do the D2 is hard to beat in towing in deep soft sand (and I have been assured by Gordon in particular that my concerns about this are unfounded - thanks for that) and I own it and finally I hold my vehicles out of warranty and do have concerns about the long terms ownership of the new shape.

Having said that for work purposes I am able to lease a vehicle and this is the longest that I have owned a single vehicle for (ie 9 years this year...) and it works for me to lease (and I am years out of lease now)...so my reasons for holding back and keeping the D2 are not related to the high cost of new large 4wd vehicles (but with the new shape being 2 - 2.5 times the cost of my D2 when I bought it new it does stick in the throat a bit irrespective of a lease and tax implications). But these things ought not see flame comments coming in, and likewise Grum had issues with the D4 and ought not be belted.

I will continue to post in this area, and hopefully do so in a constructive way but I think some lessons could be learned by those new shape Disco owners in reading the D2/D1 thread. I dont want to be too critical, but I just get the impression sometimes that those on here would be quite happy if pesky D2 owners just went away and did their thing on their page and left the D3/4 page alone. That is not in the Aulro spirit as far as I understand it.

In the meantime, thanks for those who have helped me to date, including Gordon who has at times been frustrated by me I think. There may well come a day when I frequent this board after buying the new shape, but I will still help where I can on the other boards.

Cheers


At the end of the day, nobody should have an issue with genuine concerns and I expect most would love to hear of potential issues.

You are right though, many would not want to hear of a flaw in a vehicle that they have spend $'ers on, especially a load of money on..but the same applies to all vehicles, regardless of cost (generally)..but I'm sure they will later, when/or/if they need advice.

However, this whole thread is none of that...in fact originally it was nothing to do with D4 problems at all.

There were no facts presented...."whittled down to nothing at all" was stated...roughly speaking. Nothing wrong with that at all.....but why twice by the same person and why challenge with "My research shows" when there was no such research at all? That's probably what makes people prickly.

I have driven shed loads of Military 110s, Unimogs, 113s and flown many helicopters but would be clueless on real aspects of their ability and specifications.

Would any forum appreciate me stating that my 4WD is better and then rattle off a lot of non-facts? I doubt it?

Can we please get back to business....?

[Disco4SE]

Hi Guys, I must say this has been an interesting thread with some slightly heated discussions.
Like me, alot of D3, D4 owners have owned Landcruisers (I had 3 of them prior to my D3, then D4) and can give their opinion first hand, instead of relying on comments / tests from magazines etc.
Hopefully those making the choice where to spend their hard earned $ have gained valuable information from those in the know.
Cheers, Craig

[Narangga]

Hi Guys, I must say this has been an interesting thread with some slightly heated discussions.
Like me, alot of D3, D4 owners have owned Landcruisers (I had 3 of them prior to my D3, then D4) and can give their opinion first hand, instead of relying on comments / tests from magazines etc.
Hopefully those making the choice where to spend their hard earned $ have gained valuable information from those in the know.
Cheers, Craig

Finally got around to watching it.

Thanks for posting the link. Most appreciated.

[D3Watty]

I have bitten my tongue and held off replying to comments on this post but think a post is now in order.

Terry O, I think you've missed the point that some are making here and your comments re people on this forum definitely unfair. It's not that Grumndriva questioned the abilities of the D4 that raised peoples ire, rather that when advice and reason were given he did not acknowledge it. In fact some advice was completely ignored.

Having viewed plenty of other 4x4 forums I think I can safely say that you couldn't get a more helpful, upfront and honest lot than those on this forum.

[CSBrisie]

Entirely agree. Well said!

[gghaggis]

I have to add this. Whilst I have been the recipient of assistance on the D3/4 page, overall the general sense I glean from this part of Aulro is that those with these vehicles are a little more tender than those on the other areas - D1, D2 etc. It does not take much in this area to get belted.
[SNIP]

....In the meantime, thanks for those who have helped me to date, including Gordon who has at times been frustrated by me I think. There may well come a day when I frequent this board after buying the new shape, but I will still help where I can on the other boards.

Cheers

You think right Andrew old chap:p But it's not flaming or belting in any sense - go to DiscoWeb or OuterLimits for examples of that! I think Terry's response of "I'm taking my ball and going home" was a little uncalled for - there was nothing that bad said here.

The "tenderness" you perceive is easily explainable. The technology shift these new platforms represent is an order of magnitude greater than any previous LR release. Or any 4WD for that matter. Many things that used to be relevant in the 4WD universe (think WDH, lockers, lifts etc etc) are either irrelevant or have to be thought of in a whole new light. Most seasoned 4WDrivers who have never had a D3/D4/RRS just don't get this. They continually ignore real-world experience from owners because it just doesn't "gel" in their frame of reference, which they understandably thought was justified over decades of learning. And when this is repeated again and again, with no factual basis, it gets "frustrating" :angel:

That doesn't happen as much in the other vehicle forums - they have their own specific problems! - and as such, I think this area of AULRO is more of a learning experience than most others.

You are _very_ lucky that you have a D2 that has been relatively trouble-free - it's probably the most unreliable car LR made. And I look forward to you questioning the ability of the D5/D6/D7 to tow in sand for the next decade or two :D

Cheers,

Gordon

[ozscott]

...
You are _very_ lucky that you have a D2 that has been relatively trouble-free - it's probably the most unreliable car LR made. And I look forward to you questioning the ability of the D5/D6/D7 to tow in sand for the next decade or two :D

Cheers,

Gordon

You jinxed me! My alternator just died at 170k! My D1 died at 200k, but everyone I speak to thinks I have been ripped - eg British Offroad are selling D2 alternators from vehicles with 230,000k on the clock that load test fine. Arrh well. I am lucky I guess - with technology comes problems. Mine is a manual V8 with no ACE and coils. Its a pretty simple truck in comparison with other Discovery 2's and 3/4's. That cant but help.

Cheers

PS. Im just glad I dont have a water cooled alt...

[TerryO]

Hold the bus, let's not be using my name in vain....

When a man posts a thread that pretty much states...."I've done my research and the D4 is inferior to the LC200 for my purposes"....you've got to expect some scrutiny. When your research amounts to nothing, not once but twice....you have to expect to reap what you sow. Come on Terry...this is ridiculous. At least some of us have tried to explain what the concerns with that approach are.... Some wouldn't give you the time of day on any forum! It has nothing to do with the D4 or any Brand (Toyota, Nissan) whatsoever, it's the concern of not having facts to back anything you say.....twice. And the manner that the statement was presented in didn't help either.

Geez…..



Celtoid I didn't use your name in vain ...in fact all I did was basically quote you.

You were the one who said you flamed Grumdriva, I only agreed with you that you did and from that I think what you did was unfair.

Regarding other websites forums and how people get treated, basically it is not relevant how other people behave on other websites when a prickly topic is raised, there is not here.

It would be a terrible shame if this website ended up down at the level of some other websites because that is how they behave.

While I have only been a member here a relatively short time I can say with some certainty seldom does anyone flame another member over Land Rover related discussions. Yes things can get heated but in nearly every case I have observed that has been about off subject discussions that are totally unrelated to Land Rovers and or any other 4x4's.

Anyway more than likely it is about time to move on from this topic. I very much look forward to having further discussions with D3 / D4 owners when I hopefully shortly purchase the replacement for my good old D2a.

cheers,
Terry

[Celtoid]

Celtoid I didn't use your name in vain ...in fact all I did was basically quote you.

You were the one who said you flamed Grumdriva, I only agreed with you that you did and from that I think what you did was unfair.

Regarding other websites forums and how people get treated, basically it is not relevant how other people behave on other websites when a prickly topic is raised, there is not here.

While I have only been a member here a relatively short time I can say with some certainty seldom does anyone flame another member over Land Rover related discussions. Yes things can get heated but in nearly every case I have observed that has been about off subject discussions that are totally unrelated to Land Rovers and or any other 4x4's.

Anyway more than likely it is about time to move on from this topic. I very much look forward to having further discussions with D3 / D4 owners when I hopefully shortly purchase the replacement for my good old D2a.

cheers,
Terry


Terry,

You inferred that I flamed him for considering a Toyo.....hopefully you'll see by now that that was never the case, it never had anything to do with his choice of car. He can buy what he likes, as long as he's happy.

And as Gordon stated...flaming and beltings are only terms...people were frustrated by the repeated nature and the 'solidity' of the same facts but I don't think anybody was intending to get personal or extreme.

But you're right mate, time to move on.

Cheers.

[TerryO]

I have bitten my tongue and held off replying to comments on this post but think a post is now in order.

Terry O, I think you've missed the point that some are making here and your comments re people on this forum definitely unfair. It's not that Grumndriva questioned the abilities of the D4 that raised peoples ire, rather that when advice and reason were given he did not acknowledge it. In fact some advice was completely ignored.

Having viewed plenty of other 4x4 forums I think I can safely say that you couldn't get a more helpful, upfront and honest lot than those on this forum.


Hello Wattie,

Are you speaking about the D3 / D4 forum in particular or the whole of AULRO?

I have not said that everyone or even most in the D3/D4 group are quick to arc up, far from it I have seen lots of members here and that includes Celtoid previously be very patient and helpful to others, including myself.

What I did say and I'm not the only one to notice it, there are few on here that are a bit thin skinned and appear quick to jump.
As I said maybe that is because some D3 / D4 members have only ever owned D3 onwards Landy's and have not experienced first hand how other long term members in other groups like the D1 /D2 / Fender groups interact.

There is no slight in or meant in what I said.

cheers,
Terry

[irondoc]

how about we close this thread, kiss and make up and someone please tell me what the correct response is when my wife says "I don't think we need a D4 at the moment - lets talk about it again in 6 months" ????? and i have to keep driving around in a red girlie toyota starlet !!!!

[Rockylizard]

You jinxed me! My alternator just died at 170k! My D1 died at 200k, ...

Gday ...

and to add a little twisted grin ..... ;) ... I too had my alternator die in the D3 TDV6 at 88,000km this arvo coming back from Melbourne ... bit young I would have thought ... oh well.

Oh Yeah - this thread sure has been an interested read from the sidelines ... spirited debate ... agree it should probably wind up now ... wonder how you blokes go around the BBQ :D
Cheers

John

[Graeme]

I waded through most of this thread but can't reconcile the nominated 3.0 D4's payload, as my SE's rego papers show tare 2434 and GVM 3240, giving a payload of 806kg.

[ozscott]

Gday ...

and to add a little twisted grin ..... ;) ... I too had my alternator die in the D3 TDV6 at 88,000km this arvo coming back from Melbourne ... bit young I would have thought ... oh well.

Oh Yeah - this thread sure has been an interested read from the sidelines ... spirited debate ... agree it should probably wind up now ... wonder how you blokes go around the BBQ :D
Cheers

John

That is young John. Its components that often let a manufacturer down. I once owned a new Commodore and it had power steer pumps and air con compressors failing left right and centre - all components from outside GMH. Same with LR but at least their stuff usually lasts better than Holden. Having said that I dont know of any Land Rovers that go to say 250,000k without some component failure - whether it be window regulations, alternator, clutch fan, etc.

Cheers

[John W]

Yes each to their own. There is no doubt that a WDH on a D2 with SLS is extremely useful in putting more weight up front with more stopping power and turning power particularly on a dirt road. Not even considering what is level.

With the extra weight of a D3/4 and the extra electronics up front it may well be superior as a tug to a D2 SLS with WDH. I can't help think though that if the D4 computer programmes were able to adjust for a WDH then it would be even better.

[John W]

That is young John. Its components that often let a manufacturer down. I once owned a new Commodore and it had power steer pumps and air con compressors failing left right and centre - all components from outside GMH. Same with LR but at least their stuff usually lasts better than Holden. Having said that I dont know of any Land Rovers that go to say 250,000k without some component failure - whether it be window regulations, alternator, clutch fan, etc.

Cheers

My 1999 D2 and my 2001 VX Commodore have done about the same Km. The Commodore has had to have engine mounts replace on top of normal service but not a thing else. This car has been the best most reliable car ever.

D2 starting at about 18 000km has had nearly every thing replaced. Engine (big ends) oil seals. radiator. alternator , auto box. turbo. compressor. air bags. starter , fuel regulator and on it goes. There is no reason to keep it just emotional stuff like love driving it. I am sorry but LR do not have runs on the board for " lasting"

[Celtoid]

My 1999 D2 and my 2001 VX Commodore have done about the same Km. The Commodore has had to have engine mounts replace on top of normal service but not a thing else. This car has been the best most reliable car ever.

D2 starting at about 18 000km has had nearly every thing replaced. Engine (big ends) oil seals. radiator. alternator , auto box. turbo. compressor. air bags. starter , fuel regulator and on it goes. There is no reason to keep it just emotional stuff like love driving it. I am sorry but LR do not have runs on the board for " lasting"

I've owned two VT Bombadors and they both needed rods replaced in the steering and had weepy P/steering pumps. One (the series 2 I think)needed new engine mounts. Other than that, they were great. Never missed a beat.

Crap fuel economy round town thou....LOL!!!

[Tombie]

But then the Commodore is just a road going cage.

No complex drive system, no offroad pounding, no dusty trails or corrugations or muddy water crossings.

These things wear parts out.

Road going LRs don't generally break. Off roaded versions wear out or suffer shorter component cycles.

We killed a new VN commodore in a week using it on gravel roads visiting numerous mines, back when they were new. It needed a new rack, ball joints, Windscreen, dash and a couple of window winders. The corrugations and dust killed it.

[Celtoid]

But then the Commodore is just a road going cage.

No complex drive system, no offroad pounding, no dusty trails or corrugations or muddy water crossings.

These things wear parts out.

Road going LRs don't generally break. Off roaded versions wear out or suffer shorter component cycles.

We killed a new VN commodore in a week using it on gravel roads visiting numerous mines, back when they were new. It needed a new rack, ball joints, Windscreen, dash and a couple of window winders. The corrugations and dust killed it.

I agree that would be the case but coincidently I was talking tonight to a mate I've gone camping with for years. Before we both entered into 4WD - Land (well, he bought a Prado....LOL), we had VT Commodores. We were just re-living some of the ****ty places we took those cars.

I guess when a car loses just about all of its resale value in a few years, you tend not to be overly concerned about dings underneath and scratches on the paint. Surprising some of the places we actually got them though.... LOL!!!

[Disco4SE]

Actaully, Tombie2 brought up an interesting point. Alot of wear & tear/ breakages etc depends on what you do with the vehicle.
The bloke who uses his for what it was built for (off road) will have more wear & tear than the wife who drops the kids off to school and does the shopping.
And there is the maintainance side. You could have two vehicles, same Klm's, same off road use, but one bloke doesn't keep up with regular servicing etc.
I had a 80 Series Landcruiser (petrol & gas) which had done 400K when I sold it. It has now done over 600K and not had a spanner near it. Mind you, it has been serviced by the book by Toyota from new and have used Penrite HPR Gas oil at each oil change.
I suppose the point I am getting across is that regardless of the brand of vehicle, regular servicing is so important. I bet that some of the stories we hear about parts / components breaking are due to just that.

Cheers, Craig.
BTW: Didn't mean to keep this thread running :angel:

[Ean Austral]

Seeing the direction of the thread has changed, I will join in .

We had our D2 and my AU 111 falcon ute, the falcon has 157,000ks on it and has had 6..yes 6 p/steering pump, 2 alts, and a head gasket, along with numerous other stuff,and all it does is drive around town taking stuff to and from the boat.

The D2 with 240,000ks went round the country god knows how many times,done the desert tracks, the kimberley's, gunbarrel and CSR, and the only part that failed on that car was the uni in the front prop shaft, and that was 1 I had replaced 10 mths earlier, and a collapsed inlet hose on the turbo when the car had 12,000 or so ks on it.forgot to add a seized belt tensioner bearing..
The fact that I replaced the Rad, intercooler, and spent $$$ in other area's was not a fault of the car, it was my choice to keep the parts up before I had an issue, or because I tried to get something more out of the car.

There is a big difference between spending $$$ because something has failed, and spending Because you want something better,or because someone had a problem and you feel you need to "just in case"

My 2c worth..

PS was interesting reading the 1st 100 or so post's in this thread.

Cheers Ean

[Rockylizard]

My 1999 D2 and my 2001 VX Commodore have done about the same Km. The Commodore has had to have engine mounts replace on top of normal service but not a thing else. This car has been the best most reliable car ever.

D2 starting at about 18 000km has had nearly every thing replaced. Engine (big ends) oil seals. radiator. alternator , auto box. turbo. compressor. air bags. starter , fuel regulator and on it goes. There is no reason to keep it just emotional stuff like love driving it. I am sorry but LR do not have runs on the board for " lasting"

Gday...

My first 4-bee was a Series III LWB petrol back in 1981... went everywhere and just loved it (except when touring and hills wif Cruisers on blacktop;)) .. have had HiLuxs and Cuisers since except for Hyundai Jerrycan before the D3.

Sure Jap stuff was very reliable (except for my last 100Series) but a little ruff etc and the Terry was excellent albeit a little 'soft'.

HOWEVER, after getting the D3 one realises just the sort of 4-bee you always should have. When I'm in it, purring along over and up and down anything ... ya jest gotta luv it. After 13,000km of ownership alternator has really been only whoopsee ... fingers etc remain crossed.
Cheers
John

[ozscott]

I purchased a VT Commodore S with the 5 speed getrag manual and V6 new in 97. It used to chew rotors like crazy and yet I ran pads longer (by far GM admitted) than average (using the engine braking...). It went through accessories also. Overall it cost me a lot more time in the service centre and heartache (even down to the display on the cheap crap stereo failing at 90k, k) in 100k with a very easy life on long runs on the road than my D2 has in 175k, 9 years and heaps of towing 2 tonns and off roading. Couldnt get me back into a holden (or ford).

Cheers

[Disco4SE]

Has your mate driven the D4? Would be interesting to hear his views, or is he a died in the wool yota man?

Hi Ace,
My mate drove my D4 for the first time today for about half an hour. Up and down hills, through bends as well as stop starting at a few lights.
Here are his comments (keep in mind he has had both Landcruisers & Discoveries): -

Ride - Better than his LC200. He mentioned that the suspension was smooth and didn't 'bump' at all (his wife has an injured back). His final comment on the suspension was that you could be blindfolded and taken for a ride in the D4 and swear that you were in a luxury sedan.
Noise - The D4 is quieter in the cab. You can hear less road and engine noise. He made particular mention of the lack of noise when under heavy throttle compared to the LC200.
Power - The D4 was more responsive both from a standing start and also once moving. We were leaving a 70Kph roadworks zone heading into a 100Kph zone up a steep hill when he decided to 'sink the slipper'. Not too far up the road I asked him to slow a bit as he was doing 120Kph. He couldn't beleive that he was doing that speed.
Driveability - He commented on the driving position and feel. Felt very comfortable for him.
Summary - He is still happy with his LC200, however if the choice was totally his and not his wifes, he would have gone with the D4.
It rode and drove much better than he expected.
Oh yeah, he mumbled something about 'Bloody Women'.

Cheers, Craig

[tempestv8]

Just got to the end of this 12 page thread.

I think the OP wanted to talk about comparing a D4 to a Prado, but the conversation seems to have focused on the D4 vs the LC200.

Which may mean two things:

1. A D4's true competitor is the LC200, not a Prado... We can have a discussion all on this topic alone... :angel:

2. There were not enough folks on this forum who previously owned a Prado and have now switched to a D4 (or D3) to be able to make a comment or contribution to this thread.

Anyways, it was interesting reading from start to finish.

BTW, I'm a Land Rover and Toyota owner - a D2 V8 auto and a LC200 TDV8. Like Gumdriva, my needs were to tow a caravan, not go offroading, so it was interesting to read that his requirements and saw how he drew his conclusions. Very similar thought processes and outcome on decisions.

But back to the original topic - now that there are heaps of Prado 120 Series and a growing number of Prado 150 Series drivers out there, how many have bought a Land Rover Discovery 3 or 4 and can comment on their experience when they changed badges? Or perhaps went the other way, i.e. from D3/D4 to a Prado.

I am not fishing for a debate, just interested in the topic and what the thought processes were. Admittedly, if someone has sold their Landie and bought a Toyota, they probably won't still be here on this forum to comment. ;)