Thread: D4 v LC200

Originally Posted by eezeetoo

When all is said and done, tho' - who would want the Landcruiser anyway? - great ugly bulbous lump it is. Be embarrassed to drive around in it - I have had to for work and try to remain incognito
Dave

Hi Dave,

Agreed! The LC200 is one "big arse" car especially compared to the elegantly styled D4.

Regrettable is the look of the rear end, but that's OK. I didn't buy it for looks and if I really wanted a nice looking 4x4, I'd rather be seen in a Defender anyways. But they don't make one with sound deadening and auto transmission and a big motor, so it wasn't to be.

Originally Posted by tempestv8

G'day Stevo,

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.

Thanks for that response. It is interesting though that you have 14 what some/most would consider pretty major issues.....based on that...if you had your time again...knowing those issues....would you have still bought the 200 over a D3? Considering you have 14 current issues with the 200 and you only had 2 with the D3......both which ultimately are a non issue now day's.

When I bought my D3..I looked at the other offerings......at that stage I knew SFA about 4wding etc....had I known more I would have bought the 2.7 diesel with 17's as opposed to the V8 with 19's ( though did love the grunt ). That aside......none of the others came close to what the D3 had to offer. If I was to upgrade now....it would be to a late model D3...Diesel with 17's as the 265/70/17 Bighorns sure look the business .

I guess ultimately for some it is about the car...for some about the marque.....as I just could never bring myself to own a toyota/nissan etc. I would just feel miserable and sad the whole time . If there were short comings and as I mentioned with mine at the time...I found a way around it. Even better these days with a much larger selection of tyre options for 18's....though I do prefer the 16's I have on Smokey,

Regards

Stevo

Originally Posted by wrinklearthur

Hi All

The issue with the tyre/rim size for the D4 is a sales killer for Land Rover.

Cheers Arthur

I haven't read anything anywhere that suggests that LR are struggling to sell D4's.....and judging by the waiting lists I've read about, I think it's the opposite, regardless of any reliability spectres or tyre limitation concerns.

A possible albeit heavy option for owners of 17'' equipped vehicles concerned about the cost and availability of tyres in remote regions would be to have a second set of wheels and tyres and get some custom 16'' split rims made up with the Disco stud pattern.
I've only got Toyota and Defender 16'' rims here, but a quick measure of both revealed that the minimum internal radius of the Toyota split rim is 7 5/8'' and the Defender well base rim is 6 11/16''. that's 15/16'' difference in wheel radius. If the well on a 17'' rim is the same depth as a Defender rim that would make the minimum internal radius of the 17incher 7 9/16'', which is actually slightly smaller than the Toyota split rim,so they should easily clear the calipers.
wagoo.

GGHaggis has come some way to solve the tyre problem with him sourcing 18" Wheels for the D4 RRS....so maybe there is some hope for those that need that bit extra.

A pain you have to pay after the fact though!

Cheers,

Kev.

Originally Posted by tempestv8

G'day Stevo,
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.

I have heard stories that the problems with LC 200 have pushed up second hand value of the LC 100. If this is true I'm sure LC 200 will not hold a good resale value.

Dave.

Originally Posted by stevo68

Thanks for that response. It is interesting though that you have 14 what some/most would consider pretty major issues.....based on that...if you had your time again...knowing those issues....would you have still bought the 200 over a D3? Considering you have 14 current issues with the 200 and you only had 2 with the D3......both which ultimately are a non issue now day's.

<snip!>

If there were short comings and as I mentioned with mine at the time...I found a way around it.

Hi again, Stevo.

For the LC200, I've learnt to deal with the issues that I've called out as follows:

a. High engine oil consumption - check the dip stick 5000 kms after a service.

b. 6th gear on the auto is too tall for Australian road conditions - just leave the gearbox in D and it is in 5th gear most of the time on the freeway - Toyota says in the manual that 6th gear cannot be used for towing, so for all intents and purposes, when I'm towing, I just leave it in D. For all intents and purposes the gearbox is effectively a 5 speed gearbox.

c. Poor equipment levels for the price - can't be helped, but for an offroader, sometimes less is more! I do wish it had a leather wrapped steering wheel though, which it doesn't.

d. Rear most seats are for kids only - adults don't mind if its just a short trip - and I only get 7 passengers maybe twice a year, so it's not too bad.

e. Not as refined in NVH as D3/D4 - the VX and Sahara have slightly better NVH, but I bought the entry level GXL.

f. Bulky in size for many Australian city car parks - I have to be more selective about where I park.

g. no cargo blind for cargo bay area - this is fortunately not a huge concern in the area that I live in, but if it were a concern, I'd tint the windows as dark as possible.

h. no factory diff lock option for Australian market (but available overseas) - ARB will have to come to the rescue

i. no heated door mirrors - this is REALLY a serious oversight for owners in the colder states who do not have a garage - and I fall into that category.

j. various warning chimes and dings very irritating - possibly a requirement to achieve a certain safety rating; my dealer has managed to get rid of half of the chimes via the computer, it's not too bad now.

k. auto gearbox clunky in stop start traffic - not all the time, just sometimes it makes a wrong shift and has to correct itself.

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 - perhaps the price to pay for having a larger fuel tank, and the workaround is acceptable if I don't have more than two middle row passengers.

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 - the flip side is that there's no exposed metal bits of folding mechanism, unlike the D3 and D4.

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! - I don't know how the D3 or D4 would fare in the same conditions, but possibly it would be better in this regard. I will simply avoid driving through the desert in the wet season, as best I can. And that's definitely the right thing to do, i.e. to minimise damage to the roads and tracks.

Would I buy another LC200 given that the D4 2.7 is out now with the 17" wheels?

I'd probably stick with the Toyota because of the same reasons why I chose the LC200 over the D3.

The D4 made advances in areas which were not an issue for me with the D3:

1. Interior redesign
2. Bigger brakes for a D4
3. Styling improvements
4. Better handling, tighter suspension with the use of RRS components

If the D4 is available with a 3.0 TDV6 with 17" wheels, large fuel tank, air suspension that stays up at all speeds if the user intentionally selects it, have demonstrably as good if not better reliability than the LC200, support the use of a WDH, then I'm sure lots of people in the market for a new 4x4 will sit up and take notice.

The sorts of folks who buy a 4x4 for towing their tandem axle caravans would be one such lot of people.

Originally Posted by tempestv8

Hi again, Stevo.

For the LC200, I've learnt to deal with the issues that I've called out as follows:

a. High engine oil consumption - check the dip stick every 5000 kms.

b. 6th gear on the auto is too tall for Australian road conditions - just leave the gearbox in D and it is in 5th gear most of the time on the freeway - Toyota says in the manual that 6th gear cannot be used for towing, so for all intents and purposes, when I'm towing, I just leave it in D. For all intents and purposes the gearbox is effectively a 5 speed gearbox.

c. Poor equipment levels for the price - can't be helped, but for an offroader, sometimes less is more! I do wish it had a leather wrapped steering wheel though, which it doesn't.

d. Rear most seats are for kids only - adults don't mind if its just a short trip - and I only get 7 passengers maybe twice a year, so it's not too bad.

e. Not as refined in NVH as D3/D4 - the VX and Sahara have slightly better NVH, but I bought the entry level GXL.

f. Bulky in size for many Australian city car parks - I have to be more selective about where I park.

g. no cargo blind for cargo bay area - this is fortunately not a huge concern in the area that I live in, but if it were a concern, I'd tint the windows as dark as possible.

h. no factory diff lock option for Australian market (but available overseas) - ARB will have to come to the rescue

i. no heated door mirrors - this is REALLY a serious oversight for owners in the colder states who do not have a garage - and I fall into that category.

j. various warning chimes and dings very irritating - possibly a requirement to achieve a certain safety rating; my dealer has managed to get rid of half of the chimes via the computer, it's not too bad now.

k. auto gearbox clunky in stop start traffic - not all the time, just sometimes it makes a wrong shift and has to correct itself.

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 - perhaps the price to pay for having a larger fuel tank, and the workaround is acceptable if I don't have more than two middle row passengers.

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 - the flip side is that there's no exposed metal bits of folding mechanism, unlike the D3 and D4.

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! - I don't know how the D3 or D4 would fare in the same conditions, but possibly it would be better in this regard. I will simply avoid driving through the desert in the wet season, as best I can. And that's definitely the right thing to do, i.e. to minimise damage to the roads and tracks.

LOL......do you not see that is a lot of issues that you have had to learn to deal with....and for the coin forked out? Also as I mentioned...knowing all this now.....would you have still made the same decision....and bought the 200 over the D3?

Regards

Stevo