D4 v LC200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme

My D2's brakes with original rotors and front pads all in good condition after 215k kms were more than adequate for anything I've towed and I would be checking with my insurer before deciding to take such a step. At this stage I'm checking-out all aspects.

---

I would love to listen in to that conversation.....

Graeme: "I am planning to remove my brake calipers and replace them with inferior ones, will that void my insurance?"

Insurance rep: "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!.........Yes"

:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmp

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.

---

Well, as they _made_ it such an important, show-stopping issue, I would have thought that the responsible thing to do would be to point out that more appropriate tyres are available - a large proportion of potential buyers would not know this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmp

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.

---

Yes, I agree we'll just disagree, so let's leave it at that :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmp

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.

---

I hadn't heard about the fix - when was that implemented?

Cheers,

Gordon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmp

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.

---

And wouldn't a MTR,for example,in a 17' be a more robust tyre than a 19'?

As for costs,well there is also a massive price increase as rim sizes increase & profile lowers.:(

Anyway,we will all agree to disagree,if we all agreed,the place would be boring:D:D:)


Bring on the new Defender,it'll give us something new to agree to disagree about:p:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scarry

And wouldn't a MTR,for example,in a 17' be a more robust tyre than a 19'?

As for costs,well there is also a massive price increase as rim sizes increase & profile lowers.:(

Anyway,we will all agree to disagree,if we all agreed,the place would be boring:D:D:)


Bring on the new Defender,it'll give us something new to agree to disagree about:p:)

---

The 19 and 17 tyres would be equally robust, but the 17 would better protect the rim. That's part of robustness of course so it's a fine distinction I'm making.

After weighing up the pros and cons of both the D4 and the 200 all things considered I would have a new model NT Oka with 20" rims, pop top camper jobby $157K + $7k for the allison 6 speed auto, unbeatable

IMHO changing a 19" tyre from the stock low profile size to the same section 19" size in an MTR isn't a solution. The big problem is tyre with that low a profile are not particularly suitable when aired down off road, no matter what tread pattern or construction.

In NSW and QLD at least, you can not legally increase tyre diameter by more the 15mm - the comment about fitting 35" tyres is just silly.

The other silly thing is the cost and availability of tyres in the larger rim sizes.

If Land Rover can't fit adequate brakes with 17" wheels then something is seriously wrong.

It may not be your solution... but going from a road tyre to a offroad MTR tyre makes a huge difference to the performance offroad. Without a more aggressive pattern... you simply wont be going through certain terrain.

Yes the rim is larger... due to the brakes, however the brakes do the job extremely well.

Remember LR still does the 2.7 with smaller brakes.. solution solved for you die hard offroaders... oh and wait we also have a defender as a option available too!

Second if cost is such a big drama... dont buy a $90k 4WD... buy a defender or a LC and throw all the offroad fruit on to it.

Personally i put MTR on my D4 and i absolutely love them! I'm sure that i can still keep up with most of the boys offroad. My experience offroad might lack, but the D4 capabilities dont.

A good driver can take these cars the same places as those with 16 inch rims, but may have a few scratchers on the rims!

This particular thread is made up off some many comments from people that probably havent even been in a 3L D4. All i have to say about this is... unlucky because you are the ones that are missing out!

AND also for those who has been out with a Land Cruiser... they do alright offroad! The problem is they dont have luxury, similar to a defender. But the defender has character.

**End vent

Dorko

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmp

The 19 and 17 tyres would be equally robust

---

In the context of MTRs in 17" & 19", I strongly disagree. MTR in 245/70-17 is LT construction with a load index of 119 and has Kevlar sidewalls, whereas MTR in 255/55-19 is passenger construction load index 111 and does not have Kevlar sidewalls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frenchie

I would love to listen in to that conversation.....

Graeme: "I am planning to remove my brake calipers and replace them with inferior ones, will that void my insurance?"

Insurance rep: "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!.........Yes"

:D:D:D

---

In which case its a shame you weren't there, and again the same day listening to the conversation with the insurer's head office person, as it might have been an education for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme

In the context of MTRs in 17" & 19", I strongly disagree. MTR in 245/70-17 is LT construction with a load index of 119 and has Kevlar sidewalls, whereas MTR in 255/55-19 is passenger construction load index 111 and does not have Kevlar sidewalls.

---

my point was that if both are equal construction and tread then they are equally robust, rim protection point excepted. Of course a LT is stronger than a P.