Thread: D4 v LC200

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I read Toyota is taking the 200 to 18s.

Interesting thread.

Given that Land Rover tends to be the brand that leads in the development of new technology, that sets the trends, which the rest follow a few years later, I wonder do they see something coming WRT tyres, or are pushing the development themselves. For of course the bigger the rolling diameter the better for off road performance. The trend has been to larger diameter wheels for some time now. Is LR merely leading the pack, forcing tyre manufacturers to catch up?

I remember 13 inch wheels on Holdens being standard; then came 14s, 15s ... tyre manufacturers eventually caught up.

Willem

Originally Posted by scarry

Umm,i stand to be corrected,but am pretty sure LC200 is available with 17" rims across the range,standard on some models,options on others,therefore giving a wide choice of tyres if needed.

And this is exactly the point highlighted in the original magazine comparison under discussion.

Other than for this shortcoming - the magazine found the D4 better than the 200 in pretty much every area. However, they found this point a showstopper in their reasoning for why they would not choose a D4.

In the current market, I agree with them - though I still wouldn't buy a LC200.

I dont think its about tyre tech catching up...for what I do, sand a low speed trails over rocks and such a smaller size rim with larger rubber sidewall height is the key - long footprint especially when aired down and much less prone to puncture and more able to mould around rocks for grip. At the end of the day it does not matter how good traction aids are,if you have actual traction you have a much better weapon....larger sidewalls allows that.

So,in summary I dont like the fact that the modern 4wd's use larger than 16 inch wheels. Even 17 is getting too large IMHO but 19 is insane.

At Straddie's Main Beach the other day there were trucks getting stuck left right and centre. Having low profile makes it hard to get through DEEP talcy sand...high sidewall aired down is a bit like a cat track...the 4.0 V8 with CDL and ETC in such conditions combines VERY well...even though the D4's TT has heaps more torque and about the same power (or a bit more - cant recall now) it cannot use the torque and power if it cannot get it too the ground. For example with road pressures I was struggling - sinking etc - not running out of torque/power at all...but aired down (which is useless on 19's) the 16 inch wheels (31 inch overall) just makes it so easy, including when snatching out other 2 tonn vehicles from the same muck. Towing 1.6 tonns in the same conditions is also something I would not like to do on 19's with black straps for tyres.

Cheers

A few points:

- the disadvantage of low profiles is rim damage, not a decrease in contact patch area. However, because LPs have stiffer sidewalls because they have less of a sidewall often in practice the contact patch is a little less than the equivalent high profile. LPs do ok in sand, but where the vehicle weight is not more or less on all four wheels (rocks, hills etc) then you dare not air them down very far lest you damage a rim, and not airing down means decreased offroad performance.

- what's of concern is the distance between the rim and the ground. The aspect ratio in % only gives an indication of that distance. Compare a 285/55 vs a 255/60 for example. The 200 has greater diameter tyres than a D4 hence the aspect ratio is not directly comparable, especially as both vehicles are close in weight.

- I wouldn't bet on the 19" tyre size being well supported any time soon. I think it'll come, although some industry people think it will be skipped direct to 20".

Originally Posted by ADMIRAL

Yes it was ! ....and where do you think the heavier 200 series would be on the rubber issue. That is, if it can fit on the same trails and tracks as a D4. When it comes down to it, the D4' 3.0lt's weaknesses are also issues on the 200.

You can go around and around, it still comes down to using the 3lt for towing & lt 4wd work, and accepting the 2.7 will do better overall off road with a wider choice of tyres available if required.

oh........and another thought ! Is the Toymota being considered because of ( past) reputation, or the current vehicle on offer ?

Count how many pages are advertising Toyota....then do the math!

Originally Posted by BMKal

And this is exactly the point highlighted in the original magazine comparison under discussion.

Other than for this shortcoming - the magazine found the D4 better than the 200 in pretty much every area. However, they found this point a showstopper in their reasoning for why they would not choose a D4.

In the current market, I agree with them - though I still wouldn't buy a LC200.

If I was looking to buy a LC200, I would probably head to JV Marine or somewhere similar that sells boats! Well, they do look like a wide ugly boat to me.

I always wondered what happened to the designers of the AU Falcon!

Originally Posted by scarry

Umm,i stand to be corrected,but am pretty sure LC200 is available with 17" rims across the range,standard on some models,options on others,therefore giving a wide choice of tyres if needed.

As for toyota's (past) reputation,it may be fading,while LR's reputation seems to be getting better & better.

Yes the 17's are available across the 200 range, but the the weakness off road is still there. It is a heavier physically larger vehicle. Off road I would expect it to be more difficult to stay out of trouble. I would send it out front of the convoy, much like an F truck. Clear the road, and pick up all the stakes and sharp rocks.

RMP said "the disadvantage of low profiles is rim damage, not a decrease in contact patch area. However, because LPs have stiffer sidewalls because they have less of a sidewall often in practice the contact patch is a little less than the equivalent high profile."


I agree with that mate but the converse is also true - high profile, even in light truck 8 ply sidewalls, when aired down sufficiently allow a very significantly increased contract patch, particularly lengthways (which is sand in particular is what you want - sideways not so much cause it sends up like trying to roll a log with a large face area like a wedge) whereas even at 5 pounds a very low profile does not lengthen out anywhere near as much.

Cheers