Thread: Curious - IYHO how do you think the D1 stands up to similar era Cruisers/Patrols?

Originally Posted by big guy

Not even in the ballpark mate.

Leaf springs, little articulation and plain awful on road manners.

Have driven them too often sadly.
Stick with the D1.

GQ and 80 series had leaf springs as much as Disco's had utes

Originally Posted by trobbo

please people stop embarrasing yourselves. This is always a lovely topic to discuss and the merits of one vehicle over another gets done to death on every forum but if you know nothing of the vehicles being discussed it's best not to comment on them.

The D1 ran from 92/3 to 98/9. Excluding commercial vehicle (as the Disco didn't have that variant so we are comparing like with like) in this era the Patrol ran through the GQ, GQ II and the first of the GU. Extra's like leather, abs and air bags could be found. They all ran coils front and rear and could be had in petrol 4.2 up to 4.8 or diesel 2.8 up to 4.2. Turbo's were fitted stock to some diesels and they could be had in auto and manual. They came basically on a 31 inch tyre. The Toyota had the 80, 100 and 105 series wagons and pretty much were similiar in spec to the patrols, except it was also constant 4wd and so had a centre diff lock in the 80.

Of the two the toyota was always considered a much nicer car to drive on the road. The patrol was more of a truck for the bush.

They of course were much bigger than the D1 and so filled a different market segment. The D1 was small and better suited to urban and tight bush environments. The patrol and cruiser were well and trully far better suited to touring.

In stock form I think the d1 drove nicer but once you put bigger wheels on to keep up through the ruts that benefit started to disappear.

please continue...

Please, no pragmatic input whilst jap vehicle bashing is occuring

Originally Posted by rovercare

GQ and 80 series had leaf springs as much as Disco's had utes

I think you are right, could it be that the utes had leafes though?

I am pretty sure I noticed one of that vintage with sheets of bent steel.

P.S I just drove the new Amorak, the rears have leaf springs!!!

Originally Posted by big guy

I think you are right, could it be that the utes had leafes though?

I am pretty sure I noticed one of that vintage with sheets of bent steel.

P.S I just drove the new Amorak, the rears have leaf springs!!!

I thought most modern utes had leaf springs in the rear.

So...how did the Amorak stack up to the Disco, Patrol and the Cruiser

The base amorak is exactly that but for close too $37K for rubber floor mats, steel wheels, 2 speaker radio and rear wheel drive only, its just not me. $48 drive away for something decent.

I never looked if what cars had leafs tbh.
I just went by memory on the patrol which I awas sure had them but as Mad cow sets in I do confuse matters a bit lately.

So, the Amorak (wolf) is a no go for me. I didnt blow me away plus leaf springs just sounds to antiquated for me.

I owned a new 1988 GQ while living in Thailand.

Funny the things that annoyed me about it were different to most above.
I found the MOST annoying thing was the absolute non integrity of the body. Every door and the rear door flexed away in its aperture and the rubbers squeaked and groaned, unless I got out with Armourall every month. And the door with the tyre on it rattled all the time on a new car.
The seats were uncomfortable
The handling was poor with "corkscrewing" on LH curves at speed. This was reduced by fitting Konis.
Fuel economy on the highway was about 17MPG .
Mine had a rear locker and I also liked the detachable rear stab bar, so it was good offroadand I have been bogged in many places in Thailand

Otherwise it was OK but I always regretted selling my 81 Rangie in Saudi Arabia and not taking it to Thailand, but the idea of LHD to RHD conversion in a country with few Range Rovers was the clincher.

The proof of the pudding I guess was that I bought a 77RRC when I got home.
Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by PhilipA

I owned a new 1988 GQ while living in Thailand.

Funny the things that annoyed me about it were different to most above.
I found the MOST annoying thing was the absolute non integrity of the body. Every door and the rear door flexed away in its aperture and the rubbers squeaked and groaned, unless I got out with Armourall every month. And the door with the tyre on it rattled all the time on a new car.

Don't recall that ?
SWMBO's was new in late '91.

The seats were uncomfortable

Worse IMO.
God I felt awful after even only a short trip. Flat and shapeless.

The handling was poor with "corkscrewing" on LH curves at speed. This was reduced by fitting Konis.

Don't recall that either ?

Roadholding, etc improved immeasurably with HD Bilsteins, but geeze the ride was horrible.
I copped it from SWMBO about the harsh, jiggly Billie ride right up until we offloaded it to get the GU ute.

Fuel economy on the highway was about 17MPG .
[snip]
The proof of the pudding I guess was that I bought a 77RRC when I got home.
Regards Philip A

Yep, fuel economy of the big six is pretty bad, but it does go and go and go.

Also forgot that early ones had a bad habit of one of the bolts holding the front panhard rod going ta ta too.
Fixed/redsigned pretty smartly, but it happened to a friend of ours and he ended up in a ditch (and thankfully not hurt or too much damage)