Landcruiser TDV8 V Range Rover Sport TDV8

[Disco4SE]

Was playing around on the internet on the weekend and found these interesting facts favouring the Rangie compared to the Toyota Landcruiser: -

40 Kw extra power.
90 Nm extra torque.
73mm Longer wheel base.
50mm wider track front & rear.
600 Kg lighter.
1.6 Seconds quicker to 100 Kph.
1.1 Lt per 100 Klm's better fuel economy (Actually better than this in real life tests).


And they say that Landcruiser is the king of the road and the ultimate tow tug!

Cheers, Craig

[scarry]

One does cost a hell of a lot less than the other,and one has numerous aftermarket accessories available,where the other has virtually none.

One is a family off road wagon,the other a luxury around town vehicle with off road ability.

One has fantastic resale compared with the other

Comparing apples and oranges.

[rar110]

My L322 tdv8 is a family off road wagon.

Toyota’s LC hold value much better than a new L322. But I’d much rather buy a good used L322 tdv8 than a same age LC which costs more and has less.

[Vern]

One has a good motor, the other is a toyota[emoji1787]

[CSBrisie]

L322 SDV8 is incredibly underrated 4WD. Brilliant tow car, off road, family wagon, comfortable and unbelievable economy for a V8. Oh - and reliable. Yep - Toyota owners would hate to hear that ofcourse but mine was incredibly reliable too.

[Disco4SE]

One does cost a hell of a lot less than the other,and one has numerous aftermarket accessories available,where the other has virtually none.

One is a family off road wagon,the other a luxury around town vehicle with off road ability.
Comparing apples and oranges.
Hey Paul,
I agree with you on the price difference and the availability of aftermarket accessories, however disagree with your view on the Range Rovers off road capabilities.
I have proven this first hand against Landcruisers and Patrols. The two big things going for the Range Rover are 1. It's unmatched traction control system. 2. No diffs to get hung up on.

Toyota do a great job of covering up their faults, especially engine problems.

Not sure about other Rangie owners, but I would choose it over the Landcruiser any day.

Cheers, Craig

[scarry]

Hey Paul,
I agree with you on the price difference and the availability of aftermarket accessories, however disagree with your view on the Range Rovers off road capabilities.
I have proven this first hand against Landcruisers and Patrols. The two big things going for the Range Rover are 1. It's unmatched traction control system. 2. No diffs to get hung up on.

Toyota do a great job of covering up their faults, especially engine problems.

Not sure about other Rangie owners, but I would choose it over the Landcruiser any day.

Cheers, Craig

I don’t think I mentioned anything about off road capabilities.

In fact I would think with a good set of heavy duty off road tyres these late model Land Rovers probably are more capable than any other similar vehicle on the planet.

But the issue is finding a set of heavy duty off road tyres with a descent sidewall height that will fit without going oversize.

As for comparing vehicle faults,reliability,etc,I think that has been done to death in other threads.

But seriously,a new GXL 200,even without fleet discount can be had for quite a bit less than $90K,a Sahara,less than $110K,so the two vehicles are in completely different classes,and not really comparable.

[101RRS]

But seriously,a new GXL 200,even without fleet discount can be had for quite a bit less than $90K,a Sahara,less than $110K,so the two vehicles are in completely different classes,and not really comparable.

Yes really the comparable Toyota product to the RRS/RR TDV8 is a Lexus TDV8 - now while the LC may hold its resale value, the same vehicle in Lexus livery depreciates as much as the LR opposition.

There is nothing wrong with the 200 series TDV8 in LC and Lexus versions - they are just different from the LR product - comes down to preference.

Garry

[Disco4SE]

I don’t think I mentioned anything about off road capabilities.
Here was your quote.....One is a family off road wagon,the other a luxury around town vehicle with off road ability.

My original post mentioned facts favouring the Range Rover Sport compared to the Landcruiser which actually surprised me.

Each to their own I suppose [wink11]

[modman]

I would not risk a family holiday towing almost 2t of camper across the Gibb or down the canning in a RR.

Dc

[SPROVER]

Why?

[scarry]

I would not risk a family holiday towing almost 2t of camper across the Gibb or down the canning in a RR.

Dc

With a good set of high load rated A/T's you may be OK,if a set can be found in the correct size.

Its the tyres that are the weak point in these "off road" vehicles

Done Desert trips,etc,in my D4,no worries at all.

[Graeme]

For the current batch of full-size LRs and RRS, 275/55R20 is only slightly over-size and is available in LT form in at least the BFG AT.

[trout1105]

For the current batch of full-size LRs and RRS, 275/55R20 is only slightly over-size and is available in LT form in at least the BFG AT.

Compared to a set of 265/75/16 Mickey Thompson ATZ P3's ( which are a pretty much standard size) the BFG 275/55/20 AT's are pushbike tyres and there is No comparison whatsoever when it comes to an off road touring and towing set of boots and there is No way possible to fit a really decent set of off road touring tyres to a RRS.
This is what makes the Toyota offerings a far better platform as an off road touring machine, Sure the RRS goes like the clappers and is worlds away in the comfort and refinement stakes But when it comes to pulling a van or a big boat through the rough stuff the cruiser wins out simply because the tyre choices are pretty much endless.

[Graeme]

The LC200 runs 18" minimum rims although 285/65 IIRC but the OP didn't state which LC.

[scarry]

The LC200 runs 18" minimum rims although 285/65 IIRC but the OP didn't state which LC.

Almost all models,OEM 17's will fit.

GX and GXL come with 17" rims.

[Graeme]

My SIL/daughter has one and I understood that 18" was the minimum.

[trout1105]

My SIL/daughter has one and I understood that 18" was the minimum.My 79 series has 16's fitted

[101RRS]

But we are not comparing with 79 series - the OPs discussion is a 200 series. If we do that then we might as well compare your crapota tyres with a Defender tyres.

[trout1105]

But we are not comparing with 79 series - the OPs discussion is a 200 series. If we do that then we might as well compare your crapota tyres with a Defender tyres.

The title of this thread is Landcruiser TDV8 vs Range Rover Sport TDV8, My 79 Series is a LANDCRUISER TDV8 [bigwhistle]

[101RRS]

Was playing around on the internet on the weekend and found these interesting facts favouring the Rangie compared to the Toyota Landcruiser: -

40 Kw extra power.
90 Nm extra torque.
73mm Longer wheel base.
50mm wider track front & rear.
600 Kg lighter.
1.6 Seconds quicker to 100 Kph.
1.1 Lt per 100 Klm's better fuel economy (Actually better than this in real life tests).


And they say that Landcruiser is the king of the road and the ultimate tow tug!

Cheers, Craig


The title of this thread is Landcruiser TDV8 vs Range Rover Sport TDV8, My 79 Series is a LANDCRUISER TDV8 [bigwhistle]

Try reading the first post rather than just the heading - A RRS has far more than 40kw more than you 79 TDV8, it has far more than 90nm more than your 79 TDV8 - even my 2.7 TDV6 has more torque than your 79 series.

The numbers in the OP are talking about a 200 series twin turbo not your asthmatic 79 series.

[cripesamighty]

Me thinks Trout has Tongue.Firmly.Planted.In.Cheek...
[biggrin]

[trout1105]

Not much good having all that torque if you cant put it on the road because of the pushbike wheels and tyres fitted to the truck[bigwhistle]

[scarry]

Not much good having all that torque if you cant put it on the road because of the pushbike wheels and tyres fitted to the truck[bigwhistle]

Its a bit weird,isn't it,LR produce probably the most capable vehicles on the planet,EAS,coupled with a fantastic traction control system,yet every model that is available new is shod with low profile around town tyres.

And fitting anything else is virtually impossible unless you go oversize or fit an aftermarket rim,which is available for a limited few models.

Lets hope they have listened to the market and the new Deefer can be fitted with proper off road sensibly sized,commonly available tyre.

If you look at the opposition,vehicles in the same class,mainly the big T,all models can be fitted with a sensibly sized, commonly available, high load rated off road tyre on the OEM rims.

[Disco4SE]

Try reading the first post rather than just the heading - A RRS has far more than 40kw more than you 79 TDV8, it has far more than 90nm more than your 79 TDV8 - even my 2.7 TDV6 has more torque than your 79 series.

The numbers in the OP are talking about a 200 series twin turbo not your asthmatic 79 series.
Yes you are right.
I was referring to the twin turbo TDV8 in the 200 Series. The single turbo diesel in the 79 produces 49Kw less power than the 200 series & a whopping 220Nm less torque............. or, 89Kw less than the Rangie SDV8 and 310Nm less torque.

I have had an ECU tune which is a different beast all together and not a fair comparison to the twin turbo TDV8 in the 200 series, however it now produces 91Kw more power than the 200 and 170Nm more torque.

Cheers, Craig

[trout1105]

The range rover sport TDV8 and the 200 series TDV8 are both at least 500kg heavier than a 79 series ute so the extra HP and torque is a Moot point due to the power to weight ratio difference.
The 200 series comes with 17 inch rims The Sahara has 18 inch fitted) and the RR Sport comes with 20 inch rims so the tyre choices for the RRS is severely limited.
Landrover have always made superb off road vehicles But in the last decade or so they have been designing them with stupid low profile tyres that are great around town but are pretty "Lame" in the bush yet a 200 series can be fitted with pretty much any tyre you want on it.
I am Not saying that the Range Rover Sport is an inferior vehicle because it isn't it is an engineering masterpiece But the silly 4X4 wheels fitted to it and the severely limited options to improve that situation that let it down badly as an off road touring vehicle especially if towing heavy loads.

[101RRS]

Its a bit weird,isn't it,LR produce probably the most capable vehicles on the planet,EAS,coupled with a fantastic traction control system,yet every model that is available new is shod with low profile around town tyres.

The same also applies to a greater or lesser extent to all "luxury" 4wds. My brother has a 200 series Sahara from new and straight up off the floor he had to replace the standard "road biased" tyres with BFG ATs and replaced the front suspension that started to sag as soon as he drove it out the showroom - yes he could have got it fixed under warranty but it is a design issue so he just paid for aftermarket front suspension.

On tyre sizes - I dont disgree with comments on larger tyres diameters, however there is a Ford Ranger Dual cab that gets around near me - it has 20" rims with real chunky mud terrains on it (Mickey Thompsons I think) - now I have obviously never driven in it but just looking at the vehicle in the car park - I could not see an issue with it airing down, and I doubt that within reason it would have any issues offroad - they are a mean set of tyres and are 20".

When I first started 4wding Toyos, Landies and Patrols still came with their narrow 16" rims but the money was on 15" rims and tyres - I certainly had 15" sunraysias on my 54 series 1. Even in the early 90s we still had narrow 16" on discos etc and when I went aftermarket I put 15" on my new Disco as they were still flavour of the month. Even the then new 80 series Cruiser came with 15" rims.

This was the time we started to change to 16" for serious offroad work and I can remember the discussion about 16" not having sidewall height. Jump forward 15 years and 17" were all the go for serious offroad work with the same issue about sidewall height being raised.

Soon after I got my RRS with its standard 255/55R18 tyres with small tyre walls - offroad they seemed fine and I often aired down to 10psi no issues.

I now have 265/50R18s and again no issues - would have been heresy 20 years ago to have 18s.

Same applies now - for sure 20" HT tyres are not suitable offroad but these 20" muddies that I see on this Ranger look fine. I think that much of these issues are more in people's minds rather than based on actual experience.

Now I have been driving for nearly 50 years and and 4wding for over 40 - got the the 101 on 315/75R16 Muddies (or 9.00x16 sometimes), the Haflinger on 195/85R14AT and the RRS on 265/60R18 ATs - all have their own strengths and weaknesses but I would be happy taking my 18s where I take my 101 16s.

If the Ranger 20" muddies are the way of the future for big diameter wheels then I dont think we will actually have an issue.

Garry

[Disco4SE]

The range rover sport TDV8 and the 200 series TDV8 are both at least 500kg heavier than a 79 series ute so the extra HP and torque is a Moot point due to the power to weight ratio difference.
The Kerb weights for each vehicle are as follows: -

79 Series (single cab) ute - 2,165 Kg.
Range Rover Sport SDV8 - 2,398 Kg.
Landcruiser 200 Series TDV8 - 2,635.


Power to weight figures: -

79 Series - 69.74 Kw per Ton.
Range Rover Sport - 100.08 Kw per Ton.
Landcruiser 200 Series - 75.90 Kw per Ton.


Cheers, Craig

[Geedublya]

The Kerb weights for each vehicle are as follows: -

79 Series (single cab) ute - 2,165 Kg.
Range Rover Sport SDV8 - 2,398 Kg.
Landcruiser 200 Series TDV8 - 2,635.


Power to weight figures: -

79 Series - 69.74 Kw per Ton.
Range Rover Sport - 100.08 Kw per Ton.
Landcruiser 200 Series - 75.90 Kw per Ton.


Cheers, Craig



200 Sahara is 2,705.
RRS SCV8 - 2,310kg


RRS SCV8 power to weight - 162 Kw per Tonne. I just like to throw that in there.....

Because I'm currently incapacitated and my wife has never towed we had a friend tow my 21ft Jayco Basestation back from Canberra with his 200 series. I was surprised that he reported his DSC was activating. The RRS has always been extremely stable and I have yet to have DSC activate when towing, I rate it better than my previous D4.

I've had the RRS for 13 months now and my wife had driven maybe 20km in that time, she didn't like the previous D4 as it was too big and cumbersome (her car is a VW Golf GT TDI) and thought the RRS would be the same. Since I was injured and we were stuck in Canberra she has been driving the RRS and has since driven it back to Sydney. She reports that it is very nice and maybe we should swap cars.

Once I wear out the current 255 55 20 tyres I'll be putting on 275 55 20 (probably Pirelli ATR +) and I expect they will be fine off-road if driven with consideration just like the 265 50 20 were on my D4.

I can understand why Landrover has gone for bigger wheels and bigger brakes on the V8s these cars are very quick and I think the smaller brakes would be inadequate for both braking and traction control. I noticed on my previous D4 V8 that the motor could overpower the brakes (smaller 2.7 discs) fairly easily.

The reality is why provide tyres and brakes that are optimal for maybe at most 5% of the time it is used.