Disco 4 / Landcruiser 200 Tow Test

[Disco4SE]

Hi all,
Just finished reading my Overlander magazine dated April 12.
Noticed at the back that there is a tow test in next months issue between the LC200 and the D4.
Will be an interesting read for those of us that chose the D4 3.0 over the LC.

Cheers, Craig

[seano87]

Why? Do you actually expect it to be a fair, even and unbiased article?

Body of article : D4 so good, comfortable, tows great, etc.

LC200 not as sure footed, not as good, etc.

Verdict : LC200 wins. D4 cannot have a WDH therefore is useless, and has low profile tyres which is its persistent non-relevant downfall.

That's about how it usually goes, right?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[CraigH]

It will be interesting, but I have to agree with Sean's comments...

[Disco4SE]

Why? Do you actually expect it to be a fair, even and unbiased article?

Body of article : D4 so good, comfortable, tows great, etc.

LC200 not as sure footed, not as good, etc.

Verdict : LC200 wins. D4 cannot have a WDH therefore is useless, and has low profile tyres which is its persistent non-relevant downfall.

That's about how it usually goes, right?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

Who know's how it will go????
I expect the D4 to criticised because of the WDH issue, however I can't see that the wheel size would effect its towing ability.

Either way, I think it will be an interesting read.

Cheers, Craig

[mowog]

It will go the way of the LC200.

I watched a video review that included a Range Rover Sport and an LC200 all through the review the RRS was stated as being better better then at the end they pick the LC200.

The core excuse of poor dealer coverage was one of the excuses. But what none of them say is you can do 24000klm between services in a 3.0l RRS or D4 if the LC isn't burning oil you can only do 10000klm or 5000klm if it is burning oil. Based on the service needs Toyota needs dealers all over the country if they didn't people couldn't tour around the country because of the low distances between services.

[Glynhouse]

Ian I think you have a thing about 200s and oil consumption !!?, we now have 3 of these motors - single turbo in 79 traytops, The first 2 used probably a litre a thousand for the first 50-80K neither now use any, one has just gone past the 200K mark ! Picked the 3rd up this week be interesting to see what it does.

As an aside my 80 series petrol with 300K on it has never used any, and the D3 td that I picked up this month with now 90K has not used any in the 3500klms that we have done in it .

DD



It will go the way of the LC200.

LC isn't burning oil you can only do 10000klm or 5000klm if it is burning oil. .

[mowog]

Ian I think you have a thing about 200s and oil consumption !!?, we now have 3 of these motors - single turbo in 79 traytops, The first 2 used probably a litre a thousand for the first 50-80K neither now use any, one has just gone past the 200K mark ! Picked the 3rd up this week be interesting to see what it does.

As an aside my 80 series petrol with 300K on it has never used any, and the D3 td that I picked up this month with now 90K has not used any in the 3500klms that we have done in it .

DD

The need to visit a dealer more often if your LC200 is burning oil is true. But the 10000klm interval means they need more service centers than a car that can do 24000klm between services.

In the case of a break down there is no benefit to the Toyota or Land Rover both are complex 4x4's that can't be fixed by a bush mechanic.

So the whole dealer available-ability argument is a poor reason to chose one over the other. However people and magazines make choices based on this.

[bcl]

So we all know that the majority of editors look at the WDH not being supported by landrover as being a downside.

Has anybody actually tried using a WDH. I would be interested in some factual responses in regards to your findings of towing large loads using the WDH on the Disco. My first question would be does this affect the trailor stability control and make it dangerous.

[mowog]

So we all know that the majority of editors look at the WDH not being supported by landrover as being a downside.

Has anybody actually tried using a WDH. I would be interested in some factual responses in regards to your findings of towing large loads using the WDH on the Disco. My first question would be does this affect the trailor stability control and make it dangerous.

What I also find strange in these reviews is they never mention that the LC200 dose not have trailer stability assist... Why is that?

The whole WDH thing is an ugly can of worms.. Not Supported, Not Needed...? Is it really a limitation? Or is it a limitation that a modern tug actually needing to use one?

I did see a D4 with a sway control system attached.. I asked the guy why he was using on a D4 and he said he just likes the idea of having it fitted. But he also didn't understand what the trailer stability system was.

[101RRS]

So we all know that the majority of editors look at the WDH not being supported by landrover as being a downside.

Has anybody actually tried using a WDH. I would be interested in some factual responses in regards to your findings of towing large loads using the WDH on the Disco. My first question would be does this affect the trailor stability control and make it dangerous.

Do a search there is heaps on this - ad nausium.

Garry

[bcl]

Do a search there is heaps on this - ad nausium.

Garry

So is it a disavantage then or an advantage as mowog asks? Definatly an advantage for simplicity and time of hook up!

[SBD4]

So we all know that the majority of editors look at the WDH not being supported by landrover as being a downside.

Has anybody actually tried using a WDH. I would be interested in some factual responses in regards to your findings of towing large loads using the WDH on the Disco. My first question would be does this affect the trailor stability control and make it dangerous.

take look at post #66 and as Garry said the WDH topic has been done to death.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/d3-d4-rrs/135077-discovery-4-second-rate-tow-vehicle-7.html

[gghaggis]

And the earlier, longer post:

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/d3-d4-rrs/50412-weight-distribtution-bars-disco-3-a-5.html

Cheers,

Gordon

[CSBrisie]

if only the (off road) magazines would test these cars with off road tyres fitted. Most (majority?) readers of Overlander use their cars off road at least some of the time dont they?. I feel like writing to Landrover Australia and suggesting they keep a set of 19inch rims and MTR's for use with all RRV, RRS and D4's they lend to Overlander etc They can have the car - but here are the wheels you get with it. Give the option to all other manufacturers - I'd bet they'd follow suit. Oh well.

[101RRS]

Are the OEM tyres fitted to the Cruiser any better than the OEMs on the D4?

[SBD4]

Are the OEM tyres fitted to the Cruiser any better than the OEMs on the D4?

hmmm... good question. I looked at their website, the tyre specs are 285/60 R18 116V and looking at a few reviews they talk about road tyres being "out of their depth".

That's about all I could dig up not having one handy.

Oh and came across this in my travels:
The Toyota Landcruiser 200 "Oh What a Lemon..." (http://members.iinet.net.au/~oldenglish/default.htm)

[discotwinturbo]

The disco would have to win the race in attaching trailer and heading off.

No messing around with wdh has been so much better for the wife and I. When you use a 750 pound version like we did, you really appreciate the airbags.

I have so far found it smoother on the road with the air bags with much less pitching from the trailer ball weight, as opposed to using the wdh.

This will be interesting. I think they would go with the yota.....just because.

[scarry]

This will be interesting. I think they would go with the yota.....just because.

Umm,correct......no particular reason,just because...

I hope they also don't forget to do a braking test,the D4 should pull up way better.
Or they may do it & then forget to publish it...........

[Mike&Loz]

I think the OP makes the obvious point that the majority of 4WD magazines are heavily biased toward Toyota. Rarely do I read a review that highlights any failings of the LC and if they do it is downplayed as being "heavily outweighed" by such and such a feature.

Didn't one magazine exclude the D4 from it's 4WD Of The Year because there was insufficient difference from the D3. Whether this is the case or not I am unsure.

Things that aren't mentioned are bangs for bucks. The LR is still the most capable family 4WD straight off the showroom floor whereas the others have to have aftermarket equipment fitted to match them. Suspension and tow hitch immediately come to mind. Okay the tow hitch is poorly designed but it is still fitted.

The LC comes with a long range tank so they have the advantage there.

Then the price difference. According to redbook.com.au, the HSE is $95,600 while the LC Sahara is $116,400. I'm pretty certain you can get a lot for $20K. Offroad rubber on smaller rims, long range tank, ECU remap, mitch hitch, bull bar etc, etc.

Anyway that's my 2 bobs worth. I still have the D3, it's costing heaps to get stuff fixed because it is 6 years old and it needs to be fixed but it tows a 3 tonne van like a dream without a WDH. Would I like a new D4 or LC? I'm not sure. Toyota have been trading off their reputation for too long and LR are now owned by a company that makes, in my opinion only, probably one of the worst cars in world.

[lpj]

Which car is that?

[Mike&Loz]

Which car is that?

The Nano. I'm not sure who came up with the concept of the LR DC100 either but once again in my opinion only, BLECH.

[CaverD3]

Tata's owner is actually a great fan of LR and Jags which is why he bought them. He has a a passion to see them suceed. LR are highly profitable now which is a good thing especially in this economic climate.
Remember the Nano is probably the cheapest car in the world so it is bound to be crap.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

...
Then the price difference. According to redbook.com.au, the HSE is $95,600 while the LC Sahara is $116,400. I'm pretty certain you can get a lot for $20K. Offroad rubber on smaller rims, long range tank, ECU remap, mitch hitch, bull bar etc, etc.

...I just had a quote from Opposite Lock for a winch bar, rear bar and wheel carrier, long range tank, dual battery system and snorkel fitted, just over $6,000. (Mind you the winch is extra, but same on the LC)

So by your RedBook figures $101K for the D4 and $116K for the LC. Pretty easy choice to my mind.

[TerryO]

The core excuse of poor dealer coverage was one of the excuses. But what none of them say is you can do 24000klm between services in a 3.0l RRS or D4 if the LC isn't burning oil you can only do 10000klm or 5000klm if it is burning oil. Based on the service needs Toyota needs dealers all over the country if they didn't people couldn't tour around the country because of the low distances between services.


Because LR says the service interval for the 3.0 is 24000 k's doesn't mean that is a good thing for the engine or a proven advantage over the Cruiser. In this case at least Toyota are putting a realistic service interval on changing the oil in their engines.

Personally there is no way I would go 24,000 ks between changing oil no matter what LR or any other manufacturer says to try and get people to buy their product.

Its the quality of the oil that protects the engines internals not much else and there is nothing to special about the recommended oil. Is there?

As for WDH's in another topic here on the D3/4 section I recently put up a cut and pasted email that I received from the Haymen Reese head Techo where he said the D3/4 did not need a WDH because the vehicles design put enough weight on the front wheels even when towing not to need a WDH.

I would have thought if Haymen Reese themselves, the makers of WDH's, say that ones not needed for a D3/4/RRS then that should basically end this ongoing debate with owners of other brands that actually do need one.

cheers,
Terry

[mowog]

I do get mine serviced at 12000klm anyway because most of its life is spent towing.

Now if an LC200 owners applies the same heavy use servicing methodology then they are looking at 5000klm between services...

[TerryO]

Have you driven a new V8 diesel LC200 Mowog?

I have and they are a very nice bit of kit and they do go extremely well. Personally I would prefer a Disco, but that is my choice based on my requirements, just like it is for others who choose a Land Cruiser.

Thinking about it I'd be happy to own either if the deal was right. Not really sure why you would think a LC would need a oil change at 5k?

cheers,
Terry

[gusthedog]

My folks own a 200 series Sahara which I have driven quite a bit. I was talking to SWMBO yesterday whilst out and about in our D2 and asked her if she had the choice between the 200/D2 which would she choose. She said "If they were the same price, I would have the Disco (Stu) anyday!" The only and I repeat only benefit of a 200 (or D4 for that matter) for us would be in towing. For me, my D2 does everything else I need. So I guess I'll stick with my 10k car! That leaves 100k for accessories. I wonder if I can get a flux capacitor.....

[mowog]

The service intervals of 10000klm are based on normal domestic travel. Most cars have reduced intervals for hard conditions. EG... dusty dirt roads. towing....

Generally these condition half the servicing interval. Even if the owners manual dose not call for it any sensible owner would/should service there car more often under harsh conditions. So the already low 10000klm for the Toyota is further reduced.

I have never driven the LC200 It wasn't even in the list of tugs being considered. At the time I brought the D4 there were wide spread reports of numerous problems with the LC200. But that's not the reason why I didn't buy one. I have owned Toyota's in the past. The single thing that keeps me away from them and Ford & Holden is the service departments. I have never had to argue with the Land Rover dealer to get things done or to deal with damage done to my car. Ford/Toyota/Holden dealers have all managed to screw me around damage my cars and duck and deny they did it. All have also argued at one time or another over warranty claims. I have never had that with Land Rover. Sure I have had issues but the key is the Land Rover dealer has always resolved the issues fully without argument.

[TerryO]

It wouldn't matter if I owned a Cruiser or any Land Rover product, including a 3.0 D4. If I was going seriously off road or towing a van I would change the oil at the same intervals on both brands, being no more then 10,000 ks. If it was a very hard trip then I would change it sooner.

As far as I know there is no brand of vehicle that has some magic formula for less engine ware and tear between oil changes.

At least Toyota don't make daft claims that oil changes should be at 24,000 kilometres, a bit like the auto being sealed for life on the D3/4. Look where that got plenty of people who believed that BS.

cheers,
Terry

[mowog]

Terry

Sounds like we do agree with each other. 24000klm is to far for my comfort zone and many others as well. But Land Rover must have reasonable confidence that the D4 can do that distance under normal circumstances and for a soccer mum who never goes off road or tows anything that probably works.

For my D4 it's primary use is towing the caravan it sits in the garage most of the time and comes out some weekends. But in 2 years it still has 40000klm on it most of that out on the open road on trips with the van attached. So it gets serviced evey six months sometimes it is lucky to have covered 5000klm between services.

If I owned something with 10000klm intervals and did the same kind of work with it I would get the oil changed at 5000klm.

I also have 2 Mini's neither get extra services I stick to the recommended service times and distance both are daily drivers.

With the D4 when its time to sell I believe the extra attention to services will be a benefit if its compared to one that had only 24000klm servicing.

[Dorko]

I have driven the 200, and its such a over rated car. It drives like a boat, drinks fuel like its going out of fashion and eats oil. I believe its unforgiving with a $100k price tag. Further more it has no more luxury than a defender.

A good point made earlier was the disco being the best off the showroom. yes the LC has more fruit available but stock vs stock Disco wins hands down.

[Meccles]

Being 100 series owner we were waiting for the 200. Very disappointed when it came out, harder to see out of, very ugly, bigger. Yes good engine. If you want a cruiser I think the pick is late 100 series. For all sorts of reasons.
However, none of the cruisers drive like my TDV8 RRS, or make you feel that you are in something quite special.

[Mike&Loz]

I just had a quote from Opposite Lock for a winch bar, rear bar and wheel carrier, long range tank, dual battery system and snorkel fitted, just over $6,000. (Mind you the winch is extra, but same on the LC)

So by your RedBook figures $101K for the D4 and $116K for the LC. Pretty easy choice to my mind.

I was in ARB some time back and saw this great looking rear bar with dual carrier. I asked the sales guy how much and he said "This one's for a LC 200 and will set you back around $3,200.00". "Bugger" I said, or words to that effect out of hearing range of my dearly beloved. :eek:

[rmp]

if only the (off road) magazines would test these cars with off road tyres fitted. Most (majority?) readers of Overlander use their cars off road at least some of the time dont they?. I feel like writing to Landrover Australia and suggesting they keep a set of 19inch rims and MTR's for use with all RRV, RRS and D4's they lend to Overlander etc They can have the car - but here are the wheels you get with it. Give the option to all other manufacturers - I'd bet they'd follow suit. Oh well.

No they wouldn't

[discotwinturbo]

Review was not too bad. Overall the comments were favourably until the conclusion "there is no doubt the 200gx is the perfect starting point if you wish to build up an outback tourer", then they rabbit on about the service network (because they need it).

Saying that it lacks all round practicality contradicts the overall review.

With the $11k difference you could spend on the D4, the comparison is....well there is no comparison. The D4 craps all over the 200gx as a "ready" outback tourer. The 200gx would not be ready at all.

Review was better than expected though.

Brett

[parksy]

if you want unbiased verdicts go buy 4wd action and look on the cover what vehicle do u see . either landcruiser or patrol . unbiased ? they should start calling it landcruiser and patrol monthly mag . thats y i stopped buying it

[discojools]

Yeah I agree about 4wd drive action. Unfortunately the publishers of that mag now own Overlander and I am beginnning to go off that one too!

[CaverD3]

Interesting... when the D3 won the Overlander 4x4 of the year twice running the Tojo and Pootrol lovers started calling it 'Roverlander'.
Of course bias has nothing to do with Toyota's marketing budget. :angel: The marketing Budget for the Kluger is more than the whole Land Rover/ Range Rover brand.

[ramblingboy42]

base model comparo....the LC200 did not do a single thing better than the D4 on test. They suggest the D4 is harder ride offroad and they feel the LC200(nothing whatsoever to do with the test)is a better towing vehicle. But they would not make the decision...."leave it up to you"....anybody read it? Is there bias?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

There's a whole thread on the article with almost 40 posts! http://www.aulro.com/afvb/d3-d4-rrs/145339-disco-4-landcruiser-200-tow-test.html

[p38arover]

Threads merged

[PAT303]

I suppose it depends if you think a base model vehicle is worth $90,000. Pat

[Glynhouse]

Which month is this test in ? Never buy it, but will if I can find this one, cannot find it yet in the shops ?

DD

[Disco4SE]

Which month is this test in ? Never buy it, but will if I can find this one, cannot find it yet in the shops ?

DD
Hi Glynhouse,
The issue that I was referring to when I started this post is not out in the shops as yet.
It is the Overlander magazine, due out at the end of this month.

Cheers, Craig

[Glynhouse]

Thanks Craig as I thought, but checked just in case I missed it

DD

[Disco4SE]

Hi all,
Received my Overlander magazine this afternoon and read through the tow test.
The main points that I picked up were as follows: -

D4 was praised for the power output from a 3.0Lt.
Airbag suspension was smooth & quiet on road and was positive when negotiating tight bends. Body roll was minimum.
LC was criticized for sand driving.
D4 had good suspension travel and was praised for its electronic aids.
LC towing power & torque was praised.
D4 adjustable suspension is an advantage when hitching on a camper.
LC interior is more conservative.
D4 power rivals that of the LC and has an on road advantage.
Towing economy was D4 13.7Lt per 100Klm's, LC 14.6Lt per 100Klm's.
D4 is $10,000 cheaper.
LC has better aftermarket accessories and offers 17" wheel option.
The overall test was neither one way or the other.
It would have been good to see some more tow test figures & results.

Cheers, Craig

[scarry]

Hi all,

[/LIST]The overall test was neither one way or the other.


Cheers, Craig

Which means,the better vehicle for the job is probably not the Tojo,but they didn't wanna say it................


I remember another tow test, they put the D3 2.7 against the 100 series,the D3 flogged it in nearly all area's.Lot's of figures.

[gghaggis]

I find it annoying - these magazines are constantly trumpeting how the next "giant" comparison will find the "best" of this and the "best" of that, but in the end, there is never a conclusion :mad:

Cheers,

Gordon

[ozscott]

I recall the Overlander tow test with the d3. It killed the 100 series and GU patrol in all their forms and yep all thE figures were there also. Cheers

[discojools]

Don't forget that Overlander is now published by the same people that publish 4x4Action and seems to be going the way of that mag which is almost all Toyota and Nissan so they couldn't put the D4 on top of the Landcruiser. What made me laugh is that they described the LC200 as nimble!

[TerryO]

I find it annoying - these magazines are constantly trumpeting how the next "giant" comparison will find the "best" of this and the "best" of that, but in the end, there is never a conclusion :mad:

Cheers,

Gordon


The simple way to sort out mags that write BS is not to buy them.

cheers,
Terry

[Disco4SE]

Its a pity Overlander didn't print a 'real life' towing experience.

I was lucky enough to have the LC200 & D4 for a whole weekend, in which I towed my 2.2 ton boat & tool trailer with both vehicles.

Overlander praised the LC for its low down torque coming in at 1600rpm, yet the D4 was the quickest to 100Kph with my boat...........starting from the bottom of a steep hill, or on the flat. Overall, the D4 seemed happier towing.

May have to have a think about my subscription if they continue to side with Tojos etc.


Cheers, Craig

[connock]

The simple way to sort out mags that write BS is not to buy them.

cheers,
Terry


Isnt that the truth, I would not buy one of these mags as I see" Ruthy " and his followers as enviromental vandles with there Do as I sey not as I do attitude to our land. Its people like them that have a lot to answer for regarding track closures. I have watched a couple of there vids that come with mag and the last one was there Hay river trip , what a bunch of rude inconciderate bunch of nobs pity they didnt get fined for driving on closed roads. :twisted:

the reason I dont buy these types of mags

connock

[Meccles]

I have the mag, this was the 2.7 motor, not the 3.0, as both these were the "base" models. However, the LC still had the 4.5 V8. And yet the D4 was still extremely competitive. Say's a lot about the smaller motor. If they had used a 3.0 then there really wouldn't have been a comparison.

[Disco4SE]

I have the mag, this was the 2.7 motor, not the 3.0, as both these were the "base" models. However, the LC still had the 4.5 V8. And yet the D4 was still extremely competitive. Say's a lot about the smaller motor. If they had used a 3.0 then there really wouldn't have been a comparison.

Not sure which mag you were referring to Meccles, but the latest Overlander tested the 3.0Lt.

Cheers, Craig

[Meccles]

Oops:eek: This review is in April 4x4 which has comparo with D4 2.7 with new base LC200 Cruiser. Very similar summary, neither vehicle getting overall gong, the LC 200 being best for "perfect starting point for building outback tourer, Toyota's network etc etc," with Disco "refinement, balance, practical interior, cleverer than LC200". Final words -neither will disappoint.

[Mungus]

Overlander praised the LC for its low down torque coming in at 1600rpm,

Cheers, Craig

How can this be? I thought the 3.0lt had 500nm, just 500ms off idle!

[Disco4SE]

How can this be? I thought the 3.0lt had 500nm, just 500ms off idle!
This is true Mungus. The 3.0Lt produces 85% of its torque at idle which equates to 510Nm.
There wouldn't be too many engines that could produce that % of torque at idle, yet Overlander magazine forgot, more like ignored to mention this.

Cheers, Craig

[Celtoid]

How can this be? I thought the 3.0lt had 500nm, just 500ms off idle!

I rarely read these mags and the last one I bought was Jan 2012 comparo of 6 or 7 4WDs.

The guys clearly didn't do their homework on the D4 (and probably the other vehicles too).

They stated completely false information or inaccuracies that I suspect were more based on not being familiar with the facts rather than blatent lies.