When all is said and done, tho' - who would want the Landcruiser anyway? - great ugly bulbous lump it is:p:p. Be embarrassed to drive around in it - I have had to for work and try to remain incognitoB)
Dave
Printable View
When all is said and done, tho' - who would want the Landcruiser anyway? - great ugly bulbous lump it is:p:p. Be embarrassed to drive around in it - I have had to for work and try to remain incognitoB)
Dave
Well, more people than want a Discovery ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by eezeetoo
The 200 has its good points.
Maybe so, mate, but hidden under that truly hideous exterior:eek::eek::eek:. I could never forgive myself if I bought one of those and inflicted such an eyesore on the general public:p:p:p:pQuote:
Originally Posted by rmp
Dave;)
world wide??Quote:
Originally Posted by rmp
I had to go through the exercise about 15 months ago of deciding between a LC200 and a (then) D3.
The big plusses of a Discovery 3 (or 4):
1. Super smooth V6 engine and powerful
2. 6 very effective gears on the ZF auto
3. adults can sit in the rear most seats
4. more "equipment" than the Cruiser for the same outlay
5. air suspension means variable heights achievable
6. more economical engine than Cruiser
The big plusses of a LC200:
1. smaller wheels means better tyre choices in the "LT" load range
2. Toyota supports the use of a WDH on the tow bar
3. Interior width is wider (yep I measured it)
4. 50 additional litres of fuel capacity
5. up to 8 seats (in the GXL trim specification)
It was fun to be able to have to pore through both vehicles and in the end I bought the Cruiser.
The two reasons why I didn't go for the D3 were:
a. I didn't like the tow bar arrangement
b. The tyre/rim combination
If I had to choose now between the D4 and the LC200, I'd still go for the Cruiser because the tyre/rim issue still is a show stopper.
If Toyota can make a big vehicle with a powerful engine and brakes that are good enough to stop it within a 17" wheel, so can Land Rover.
Having owned a Cruiser for 12 months now, these are the issues I've found with my vehicle:
a. High engine oil consumption
b. 6th gear on the auto is too tall for Australian road conditions
c. Poor equipment levels for the price
d. Rear most seats are for kids only
e. Not as refined in NVH as D3/D4
f. Bulky in size for many Australian city car parks
g. no cargo blind for cargo bay area
h. no factory diff lock option for Australian market (but available overseas)
i. no heated door mirrors
j. various warning chimes and dings very irritating
k. auto gearbox clunky in stop start traffic
l. despite the wider interior, due to the fold up rear seats, it's not possible to fit golf clubs sideways at the rear, so one of the 2nd row seats needs to be folded down to accomodate a full size golf club.
m. Middle row seats do not fold down flat like they do on the D3/D4 - hats off to Land Rover for seat stowing design.
n. alternator mounted fairly low and subject to mud contamination if driving through the Simpson during the wet season - and it's difficult to remove!
Couple of things...when you were saying originally comparing to a D3 and one of the issues was tyre/ rim options.....how so? The D3 came with 17's....same as the 200? Towing......all the reviews/ comparo's I have seen....the D3/D4 did well. As it stands you seem to have purchased the 200 with quite a list of issues.....in fact 14 of them. Doesn't sound like a satisfied customer.Quote:
Originally Posted by tempestv8
When I had my D3.....I had...umm.....errr........no issues at all...bar one......I had 19 inch rims...changed to 18's and got a decent AT for them...... problem solved.
Regards
Stevo
Hey TempestV8 - thanks for posting your thoughts after a years use of the LC. Good to see some followup comments.
thanks for the follow up and what appears to be a honest account of the LC200Quote:
Originally Posted by tempestv8
the few D3/4 owners that i know have not had an issue the the tyre/rim options
if i was lucky enough to be in the your position i would hope i would consider other makes considering the a. - n. list
might pass your review onto a mate that is starting to concede the D3/4 just might be suitable to replace his LC100
Hi All
The issue with the tyre/rim size for the D4 is a sales killer for Land Rover.
I would like to see Land Rover fit what has been available on farm tractors for the last 30 plus years, inboard oil immersed disk brakes! :cool:
The list of benefits is long! including smaller rim sizes.
Also the lack of decent roll over protection built into Land Rover bodies as standard, is a people killer.
Again the farm tractor has had this protection for years, the latest tractor cab's incorporating ROPS, beat the Defender bodies by a long way, for safety, noise levels, heat rejection and ride comfort.
Cheers Arthur
G'day Stevo,Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68
Good question re the D3 vs LC200 tyre/rim combination, and I'll explain. The LC200 are shod with 285/65x17" tyres. The D3 were fitted with (from memory) 235/70x17" which are marginally smaller. Given the uncertainty in the prevaling federal and state road laws concerning the fitment of oversized tyres, I decided that I wanted the biggest possible rolling diameter, and not deviate from it, in case the government decides to enforce some draconian rule about tyre size fitment. So the LC200 was ahead of the D3, simply because the rolling diameter was greater in stock standard form. The LC200 is 31.1" diameter, and the D3 is 30.0" diameter, if my calculations is right. I figured that 285/65x17" tyres may be more readily available across different tyre manufacturers than 235/70x17", i.e. more choices, but I haven't actually got factual data at this point in time.
And yes, I've identified a number of issues with the LC200 - no vehicle will ever be perfect in the eyes of another person, and even more so, what I personally think is a problem or issue may not necessarily be viewed to be even an issue to another person. Issues are, to a certain degree, a perception in the eye of the beholder. I'd love for Toyota to fix these issues that I've highlighted, but overall, I am a satisfied Toyota owner.
Yes, there's no refuting that a D3 or D4 will legally tow 3500 kgs (braked) just like the Toyota can. But I'd rather a 4.5 litre 8 cylinder under stressed motor to be doing the work than a more highly tuned 2.7 litre 6 cylinder motor - that's just merely a personal preference.
I still own and drive a 4.6 litre top hat liner petrol V8 Discovery II which I've had since brand new. I love that Land Rover to bits and no doubt in my mind it will probably go places the LC200 would fear to tread.
But when it came down to deciding between an LC200 and the D3, I couldn't resist the notion of a twin turbo V8 diesel compared to a single turbo 2.7 V6, even though the latter is heaps more refined and has a much better partnership with the ZF 6 speed auto gearbox.
Last, but not least of all, the biggest draw card, I felt, was the retained value of the Toyota vs the Land Rover. I'm no longer able to chuck away fistfuls of cash in depreciation cost if I had to part with the new purchase. So I picked the Toyota based on past performance of the 100 series Cruiser in the used market. Again, this may not be an issue or consideration for all 4x4 owners, but it is for my own personal financial circumstances.