Thread: D4 v LC200

Originally Posted by Disco_owner

Wouldn't it be lovely if Landrover released a New Defender with the 3.0L TDv6 and an auto option , It would stop a lot of this Non-sense threads

or a TDV8 would even be more desirable

I'd have one in a heartbeat!
Only reason I ended up with the D3 id that I need an auto transmission - so my search options were limited to LC 100/200, Patrol wagon, or D3/D4. And I will be taking it off road.
Ian

Boy, there are so many topics floating around in this one thread that it's hard to know where to focus!!

So to get back to the original 'topic' - the Overlander comparison. I too thought it was a pointless and poorly thought-out conclusion. The D4 out-performed the LC. On _and_ off-road. Simple. To then pick the LC because of a potential issue with _one_ aspect of only _one_ of the vehicles, was a cop-out. There are plenty of issues with the LC200 that will lead to disaster in the bush that a simple tyre-swap won't address.

Going further, the tyre size issue with the D4 is not insolvable, and frankly the tyre choice on your new car is a bit like choosing the colour - it's what suits you. If you want to do more extreme touring/offroading, order it with MTR's. Anywhere they won't take you, you'll be in panel-bending, axle-breaking country. And no standard car will take you that far.

In fact, I doubt any pre-2010 standard LR will keep up with a 3.0 ltr D4 with MTR's on _any_ terrain (which is a dealer option, made specifically for LR, so be thankful for that at least). If you want to cut panels and lift a D4, you can. If you want to fit 35" tyres, you can. It'll cost more than doing a 1985 Land Cruiser, but then what do you expect? And if you travel remotely without bringing your own spares, it really doesn't matter whether you're running 17", 18" or 19" tyres. You're stuck!

Cheers,

Gordon

Originally Posted by gghaggis

The D4 out-performed the LC. On _and_ off-road. Simple. To then pick the LC because of a potential issue with _one_ aspect of only _one_ of the vehicles, was a cop-out.

Not just *any* issue, one of the most important ones. Also note the article compares off-the-shelf vehicles, not with different tyres. I agree it should have noted the availability of offroad tyres, but that doesn't entirely fix the problem. The problem with press cars is they come with the standard tyres and the puncture prevalence is more due to the high speed rating of the tyre than the profile, although profile remains a problem.

As for offroad, personally I do not think the D4 is a clear offroad winner over an LC200. Both are superb and both have areas where they have advantages over the other. Flex, tyre diameter and traction control are 200 advantages for example. Onroad the case is very clear, D4 all the way, every way.

Originally Posted by gghaggis

There are plenty of issues with the LC200 that will lead to disaster in the bush that a simple tyre-swap won't address.

Assuming this means LC200-specific -- please give examples?

Originally Posted by rmp

Not just *any* issue, one of the most important ones.

Well, lets discuss that below ....

Originally Posted by rmp

Also note the article compares off-the-shelf vehicles, not with different tyres. I agree it should have noted the availability of offroad tyres, but that doesn't entirely fix the problem. The problem with press cars is they come with the standard tyres and the puncture prevalence is more due to the high speed rating of the tyre than the profile, although profile remains a problem.

My point is that I think 'off-the-shelf' doesn't allow for the owner's ability to re-spec tyres at purchase, much the same as they re-spec colours. So it's unfair for the press to use this one criterion to dismiss a car.

Originally Posted by rmp

As for offroad, personally I do not think the D4 is a clear offroad winner over an LC200. Both are superb and both have areas where they have advantages over the other. Flex, tyre diameter and traction control are 200 advantages for example. Onroad the case is very clear, D4 all the way, every way.

Sorry, but I don't agree. I've driven a TDV6 D3 across the same terrain as an LC200 and the upmarket Lexus V8 version. The D3 was quite competent in this line-up, and having since driven the D4 and D3 side-by-side, well I think you'd have to be giving the LC more than the benefit of the doubt to say it's traction control is better. On flat ground the 'crawl' is pretty good. On steep hill climbs it's rubbish - erm, well, not as good

Originally Posted by rmp

Assuming this means LC200-specific -- please give examples?

Breaking a diff, using up oil, dropping tranny boxes, are not quite the same as spiking a tyre. I'd venture that the LC 200 has far more of those kind of problems than the D4.

Cheers,

Gordon

Car comparos have to be done stock otherwise you'd never end the mods. The D4 range isn't all that great but you can fit a long-range tank. The car should still get pinged on its range in a comparo.

However in this case, as I said I agree a nod should have been made to the change of tyre possibility given it's such an important issue as tyres are so crucial to performance.

As for Disco vs LC200 I think we'll just agree to disagree. I've said my piece already and I think the 200's ETC is superb, better even than Land Rover's in the D3, D4 and RR (2007) and all those are very good.

I know about the 200's oil issues (which are fixed now) from multiple sources including personal experience. This is the first I've heard they were breaking diffs or dropping tcases. Maybe I've not been paying attention. The LC100s were certainly known for front diff breakages.

Originally Posted by PAT303

OK thats about 4 people that take thier 100K vehicle offroad,only about 100,000 left!!.Just for the record I have no intention of bush bashing my L322. pat

5. And all my friends so that makes 6 total ;-)

Originally Posted by gghaggis

My point is that I think 'off-the-shelf' doesn't allow for the owner's ability to re-spec tyres at purchase, much the same as they re-spec colours. So it's unfair for the press to use this one criterion to dismiss a car.

Cheers,

Gordon

Isn't the main issue, LR,with the D4 3.0l,have made a missjudgement,or what ever you want to call it,by not making 17" rims a re-spec option,for those that want them.

I know we can go on & on about different mods people may want,but this mod would be simple,paticularly at factory level.

The vehicle may be highly capable,but it won't be going far with a shredded tyre.With 17" rims it is a lot more capable.


And we are not talking about extreme 4wDing.

And as for taking spares into remote area's,if your running 19 or 18" rims,your going to have to take a few more,than if you are running 17's.

A cape trip is a good example,i have done two long trips up there in the last 3 yrs,old tele track up & back ,Pascoe river tracks,etc,etc.Stock D2 stock size tyres,A/T's.Not extreme 4wding,no panel damag.Didn't change a tyre.

I stand to be corrected,but i wouldn't think a D4 with 19" rims would be capable of that kind of trip without tyre trouble,even with MTR's.

Originally Posted by scarry

A cape trip is a good example,i have done two long trips up there in the last 3 yrs,old tele track up & back ,Pascoe river tracks,etc,etc.Stock D2 stock size tyres,A/T's.Not extreme 4wding,no panel damag.Didn't change a tyre.

I stand to be corrected,but i wouldn't think a D4 with 19" rims would be capable of that kind of trip without tyre trouble,even with MTR's.

With decent 19s it would do it. That's Gordon's point. My point is that it'd do it *easier* on 17s because you can safely air them down further.