Thread: D4 v LC200

Originally Posted by ADMIRAL

The few owners I have met that chose the 3.0lt over the 2.7lt, went that direction for the towing ease the 3.0lt would deliver. I think that includes brakes. When there is a 3 plus tonne load on the back, you need all the stopping power available, and downsizing brake capacity is not an option.It is no good bleating about what LR should do. Remember Oz is a poofteenth the size of any other market, and there are enough compromises in the design already without adding more.
If you want off road, go 2.7. If towing is your thing, go 3.0 lt
The 200 series was on my short list, and may have gone to the top if I was only looking for a tow vehicle. Off road it is just too damn big. Oh and they are not perfect...ask the next 200 owner you meet about drivetrain snatch. Probably diplomatic not to get into oil consumption or limp home mode though. Nothing is perfect.

I hardly think that is a valid argument, given that the same model is available with smaller brakes from new, and correct me if I'm wrong, but is there any difference in the towing capacity for the two engines.

If I was to buy one, it would be used both for towing and for going off road, so I would like to be able to opt for the larger engine. However, I don't have the luxury of living in or on the doorsteps of a capital city. Show me where I can buy 19" tyres off the shelf if I need them outside of Perth and you might have a point. Where I'm likely to be travelling, you have no chance of getting hold of these tyres if you need one - at least 17" are a bit more readily available - apart from the fact that they are far less likely to be damaged off road in the first place.

Personally, I'm blowed if I can see the need for big wheels and licorice strip tyres in the first place. There's a Mazda in my shed that has them (my young bloke's). Yeah - they look real flash, but the ride on them is as harsh as buggery. Granted the handling on bitumen is better with them - but that's in an RX7 - a Landrover aint no sports car. Me - I'll stick to something that offers a bit more comfort and practicality any day.

There's a couple of 4WD's running around up here with 19 or 20 inch tyres (mainly blinged up LC 200's). They run around town, drop the kids off at school and are generally seen in the main street on a Saturday morning. I've never seen one of them off the bitumen. And they won't match the Mazda in handling either. (although they'll no doubt do little better getting over speed humps).

Seriously people...

If you are worried about tyres, buy a new defender...

Get over it. If that is the biggest problem with the D4, then I simply wouldnt buy one

Originally Posted by Graeme

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.

Fair point and I can see where you are coming from. My comment was mainly directed at the OL mag article where they seem to get all wrapped up in what is a pretty minor difference in most people's utilisation of the vehicle.
Dosen't mean that there aren't situations when an individual's use dictates different tyres.

Regards,
Tote

Originally Posted by BMKal

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.

X2,well said

I also recon we can't be the only country that has people complaining about this situation.Hopefully LR will get the message.........

The one thing i hate is tyre trouble....
After 80k, on one set of 16's on the D2,including two cape trips,desert trips,etc,etc & not changing a tyre,going to 19's is a big step backward for me.


It's a step i am not prepared to take at the moment.

As for wearing out disc rotors,i am sure there would be more people complaining about 19' rims & having tyre problems than about wearing out rotors.Good brakes,particularly on heavy vehicles ,sacrifice rotors,thats just the way it is,tojo rotors wear out quickly as well.

Maybe people that wear out brakes quickly need to change their driving style.

As for getting a defender,i don't want a truck to drive around town,& i need an auto.

The D2 actually ticks all the boxes,the D4 with 19's doesn't.

Umm,& if i am gonna spend 80k plus i want the latest engine,maybe i am just fussy.

If it wasn't for this tyre PITA,there would be a good chance there would be a D4 in the garage at the moment,as the D2 needs to be moved on.

My D2 is a 'Classic',which came with 18's as standard.As part of the deal with the dealer when i bought the vehicle,i had them changed to 16's,as i didn't want them.Could only see problems with the 18's.

Not sure what the problem is...
Larger rims opens more options than it closes. I think on my next D4 I will actually go UP in rim size to 20 by 9s and then put a set of these on. May have to trim the guards but thats one of the small sacrifices you just have to make some times.


365/85R20 - 11,000lb load rating at 115psi should be just enough for the lardy D4 and wont have any staking issues.

Originally Posted by roverrescue

365/85R20 - 11,000lb load rating at 115psi should be just enough for the lardy D4 and wont have any staking issues.

Has Lardy downgraded from a Defender to a D4?

I am unaware of AULRO member "lardy"s BMI but in the above post I was using the term in its following meaning:

lardy [ˈlɑːdɪ]: (adj) fat; obese

Like all new large 4wd/SUwhatevers, vehicles with 75 airbags, 300kg of sound deadening, 122 computers and associated power supplies... the D4 is lardy. IMHO anyways.

S

Originally Posted by ADMIRAL

The few owners I have met that chose the 3.0lt over the 2.7lt, went that direction for the towing ease the 3.0lt would deliver. I think that includes brakes. When there is a 3 plus tonne load on the back, you need all the stopping power available, and downsizing brake capacity is not an option.
.

Don't agree here. With electric brakes on a caravan adjusted correctly, there should be no extra load on the vehicle's brakes.

With a good brake controller properly calibrated, you should not even notice the extra load on the back and if you over calibrate you can have the caravan brakes pulling too hard, which in effect would lessen the amount of brake force on the tow vehicle.

Dave.