D4 v LC200

you guys must have some very progressive tyre dealers where you live. I recently got 2 sets of vogue wheels (16 inch) for the RRC and when I went to get mt's I was told it was unusual size and they are expensive. I was told I would be better off getting 15 inch wheels. In the end hancook had some awesome 8 ply LT mt's 245 wide for the vogue rim. They are awesome but also expensive at $300 ea.

After all this on 16 inch wheels you guys talking 17 18 and 19 seems insane. Imagine what my tyre dealer would say about that!

I think Overlander is right.

Have read the same article and agree completely with them. The D4 beats the 200 in every aspect, except for the the choice / availability of rim sizes and tyres.

Given the choice, I would still take the D4 of the two, but I would be looking seriously at either opting for the 2.7 or if I did buy a 3.0 I'd seriously consider installing the brakes off a 2.7 on it so that I could select a reasonable wheel / tyre combination.

If LR wish to produce a vehicle with 19" rims for city dwelling yuppies who love their "bling" more than the practicality of the vehicle - fine. But the decision NOT to offer the same vehicle with options more suited to the serious user, that to me is a very poor business decision.

And to those who ask WHY would I knowingly reduce the braking capacity of the vehicle - WHY NOT ? You can't seriously tell me that the 3.0 NEEDS bigger brakes than the same vehicle with a 2.7 litre engine. There's something seriously wrong with their thinking. Even when (if) better suited 19" tyres do become available, they will still NEVER be as good off road as a more conventional tyre aspect ratio, and it will be many years, if at all, before this size tyre is available with any choice outside of the larger metropolitan areas.

As I said, I'd still choose a D4 over a 200 LC any day of the week - but continue to be very disappointed with LR's lack of consideration for customers outside of the metro areas. They WILL lose sales over stupid decisions like this.

F4 it's time you " let your fingers do the walking" get the size you want written down and ring EVERY tyre dealer within 1.5hr's drive as you will save a fair amount of $$. worked every time for me, last set of 255/85 r16(33in) bighorns cost me $50 les per tyre than the highest quote I got! thats $200 for 20 mins of calling around. Also if your prepared to wait longer you could try and personal import some rubber from the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

F4 it's time you " let your fingers do the walking" get the size you want written down and ring EVERY tyre dealer within 1.5hr's drive as you will save a fair amount of $$. worked every time for me, last set of 255/85 r16(33in) bighorns cost me $50 les per tyre than the highest quote I got! thats $200 for 20 mins of calling around. Also if your prepared to wait longer you could try and personal import some rubber from the U.S.

---

I did call a few places, what I quickly found was they were all calling hancook (which is the tyre I asked for) and getting a price from them. This means that the only price difference would have been in the margin the dealer was willing to slash. There was a max of $30 difference. I did go the cheapest.

What I was really pointing out was that here we are talking about 19 inch being too big and 17 and 18 being more acceptable, well in my experience 15 inch is what tyre people use and 16 was not common, I would hate to have to fork out for 17 and larger muddies.

It crosses my mind that maybe one of the drivers for larger rims is not fashon but bigger brakes. The need for bigger brakes is not necessarily more stopping power bit longevity of brake components. Since we lost asbestos based pads braking systems have become less efficient and larger disks have been required. Maybe one of the reasons that LR are going to larger brakes is to stop people complaining that they have to fit disks every 50,000Km.
And after 100,00KM on 18" tyres I reckon that the cases where 17s are better are marginal at best and unlikely to be utilised by 90% of the purchasers of either a new disco or cruiser.

Regards,
Tote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F4Phantom

you guys must have some very progressive tyre dealers where you live. I recently got 2 sets of vogue wheels (16 inch) for the RRC and when I went to get mt's I was told it was unusual size and they are expensive. I was told I would be better off getting 15 inch wheels. In the end hancook had some awesome 8 ply LT mt's 245 wide for the vogue rim. They are awesome but also expensive at $300 ea.

After all this on 16 inch wheels you guys talking 17 18 and 19 seems insane. Imagine what my tyre dealer would say about that!

---

I find this comment almost unbelievable. I have never had any difficulty in getting 16 inch tyres. A wide range of profiles and brands at quite reasonable prices ranging from $195 upwards. But may be country areas have a more limited range ... but 15 inch - do people still use them? Most modern 4WDs use 16s or more. Perhaps 15s are used more for offroad because of the higher profile you can fit in a wheel arch?

Willem

Willem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by willem

I find this comment almost unbelievable. I have never had any difficulty in getting 16 inch tyres. A wide range of profiles and brands at quite reasonable prices ranging from $195 upwards. But may be country areas have a more limited range ... but 15 inch - do people still use them? Most modern 4WDs use 16s or more. Perhaps 15s are used more for offroad because of the higher profile you can fit in a wheel arch?

Willem

Willem

---

I am on your side here. Having a dealer tell me 16 inch was an unusual size did seem odd. Saying that I took what the dealer said at face value and just assumed most of his customers were patrol and LC people putting 15 inch wheels with 33 inch BFG MT's on all the time and so I was a bit "out there"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BMKal

<snip>
And to those who ask WHY would I knowingly reduce the braking capacity of the vehicle - WHY NOT ? You can't seriously tell me that the 3.0 NEEDS bigger brakes than the same vehicle with a 2.7 litre engine. There's something seriously wrong with their thinking. </snip>

---

I don't think their rationale is that the 3.0 needs bigger brakes as such. I'd say it's more a marketing oriented decision i.e. "if you upgrade to an SE, as well as a more powerful engine it has better braking performance characteristics".

If the 2.7 had the larger brakes there would be little incentive for the average buyer to upgrade to an 3.0 SE - much the same as if the D1 had been offered with the BW transfer case. There'd have been such little difference in the handling characteristics of the RRC/D1 to justify the extra price of the RRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tote

And after 100,00KM on 18" tyres I reckon that the cases where 17s are better are marginal at best and unlikely to be utilised by 90% of the purchasers of either a new disco or cruiser.

---

18" don't fit on a 3.0 D4. If down-sizing the brakes to fit 18", may as well buy 17" rims instead of 18" and get more sidewall height and cheaper tyres too.

As someone with a D3 and 18' rims, I have never come near a situation where I didn't go through something because of the rim size. I cannot get my self stuck in the thing. I chicken out before the car does.

I won't comment on the 19's as I have not driven on them. However, I feel the need to point out that if I only wanted an off road vehicle I would buy a tractor. The point is that it is a multi purpose vehicle. THIS is why we have vehicles that are set up to be great around town, great on the highway, good handling regardless of conditions and great off road. The 18s on the D3 are very much fit for purpose.
Now I will duck!!!!