Thread: Can't help a good stir

they both came in shades of white, green and baby-poo brown?
they both had 4 wheels and a spare?

That's interesting - what was the straight 6? Never saw that in the UK as far as I know....just the 2.25l in the series and the V8s for petrol.

The straight six was the 2.6 litre inlet over exhaust valve version of the Rover Saloon engine. To my knowledge they were available in the UK the general consensus of opinion seems to be that the 2.25 litre 4 was the better engine.

Originally Posted by barney

they both came in shades of white, green and baby-poo brown?
they both had 4 wheels and a spare?

See. They are the same. Same steering, same pinion lengths, same chassis width, same seat covering, same offset diffs including full float, same windscreen material, same same suspension, same body modular body build. I can even bolt a LC40, LC60 or Hilux axle under series with a couple of tricks to connect it up. Heck, even half of the name is the same.

Originally Posted by Slunnie

See. They are the same. Same steering, same pinion lengths, same chassis width, same seat covering, same offset diffs including full float, same windscreen material, same same suspension, same body modular body build. I can even bolt a LC40, LC60 or Hilux axle under series with a couple of tricks to connect it up. Heck, even half of the name is the same.

So in the famous words of the wog boy. "they're different, but same"

Originally Posted by p38arover

Yes, he has owned Landies in the past.

The man is no fool. I think he's an ex-schoolteacher. He grew up on a sheep property, has been a miner. He's had a varied life.

People who haven't met us see us by our writings. Some think I'm a DH, others think I'm OK. My posts don't always agree with theirs so they may form an opinion based on those.

Ron

Ron would I be covered if I thought you were an Ok DH

Originally Posted by Slunnie

See. They are the same. Same steering, same pinion lengths, same chassis width, same seat covering, same offset diffs including full float, same windscreen material, same same suspension, same body modular body build. I can even bolt a LC40, LC60 or Hilux axle under series with a couple of tricks to connect it up. Heck, even half of the name is the same.

The steering in the Landcruiser was significantly different (and worse) than the Series Landrover steering - for instance, the drag link went onto the track rod, not the steering arm, so the first bit of movement on it rotated the track rod rather than moving the steering. In addition the bearing separation on the relay was about two inches rather than eight inches, with the vertical separation coming from up and down bends on the arms - this meant that as soon as the bearings wore the slightest, there was a lot more steering slop.

Can't comment on pinion length, never compared them.

Landcruisers had a tapered chassis, unlike the Landrover with a parallel chassis.

Both had vinyl seat coverings - the difference was the Landrover material by the sixties lasted a couple of years in Australian conditions - the Landcruiser material you were lucky if it lasted a couple of months.

Both diffs were offset to the right, so there was similarity there - copied from the Jeep! Full floating rear axles were a late development on the Landcruiser.

Both used the same windscreen material - toughened glass, like almost every other car on the road at the time - but Landrover had a two piece screen where Toyota was single piece, more like their common ancestor the Jeep.

Both had, in fact very similar suspension, with long leaf springs and live axles front and rear - again, both copied form Jeep, although normal for utility vehicles at the time.

Although there were some similarities in the body build, there were also differences. Series Landrovers, like the Defender had the body built from a large number of smallish pieces, bolted together. the Landcruiser had a basic welded body, designed for a soft top, with clip or bolt on assemblies to convert to a hard top. The utilities had a different lower body for the cab, and a separate rear tub, longer than the hard top. Landcruiser bodies were steel with some hardtops having fibreglass roofs, and Landrover bodies were aluminium with some steel.

You can put Landcruiser axles on a Series Landrover - but they are wider track, although the steering arrangement and the fact they are designed for leaf springs makes it easier than putting Rangerover (or other coil spring ones) ones on.

The name Landcruiser was adopted by Toyota after Willys threatened to take legal action over their use of the word "Jeep". The use of the word Landcruiser was an obvious copy of "Landrover", but different enough to avoid any possibility of legal action. (Rover" as most know, but some may not, was the name of the independent car company that first produced the Landrover, "Land" being added to the name as an allusion to their intended market as farm vehicles. Rover was introduced as the name of their new model safety bicycle by Starley and Sutton in 1885; this is generally considered the first modern bicycle. The company changed its name to Rover as a result of the success of the new bike in the late 1890s, before they produced their first car in the early 1900s.)

The similarities?

Both are conventional layout four wheel drives following the layout of the enormously successful Bantam Jeep of WW2 (most made by Willys and Ford).
This includes the offset of diffs to the right, transfer case bolted to the back of the main gearbox, transmission handbrake (but Landrover used a lever coming out of the seatbox, Toyota used an umbrella handle under the dash like the Jeep).

Like the Jeep, both provided for a folding windscreen, but rather than the Jeep setup with hinges below bonnet level, Toyota used a setup similar to Rover, with the hinges just below the glazed section. Both had flat windscreens.

Both had pendent pedals, with hydraulic clutch operation - but then so did probably 75% of cars and utilities at the time.

The overall design philosophy was quite similar, although it should be noted that the Landcruiser started as a military vehicle, where the Landrover started as a farm vehicle. This shows for example in the lack of provision for PTOs on the Landcruiser compared to the Landrover. In Australia they competed for exactly the same market, which was NOT the current market for four wheel drives. It was almost entirely farmers, miners, and government departments, the market now shared pretty much by Toyota and Nissan, which Landrover have largely withdrawn from.

Other Differences
While Landrover had three separate seats across the front, Toyota had a 60/40 split, still seating three people but with the driver's seat adjustable.

Landrovers have always had flat, parallel sides, with a slight taper above the waistline from 1958 on. The Toyotas in question had the cab tapering to the front, with separate mudguards and running boards or steps. This allowed them to have a vent at foot level, somewhat protected by the mudguard, which allowed large quantities of bulldust to enter if you unwarily left them open.

At this time Landrovers came with central instruments with open shelves each side. Toyota had the instruments in front of the driver, with the space on the other side being a small glovebox with a steel lid. (both had the entire cab furnishings in painted metal except for the seat cushions)

Standard colours for Landrover were green, grey or a yellow ochre. Landcruisers commonly came in a somewhat paler green, pale brown (stone) or a blue (other colours existed for both, but were rare)

I could go on indefinitely, but there is not a lot of point.
John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

I could go on indefinitely, but there is not a lot of point.
John

I think there is a point.
I don't mind reading other people's recollections and impressions.
My small offering to this comparison is in two parts.

In the 1960's, the University of New England had as part of its vehicle fleet a Series IIa LWB which was used by researchers on field trips. As a student I took part in several trips with the prehistory lecturer to survey aboriginal sites and to excavate a number of occupation sites. A couple of us students were the drivers on these trips and really enjoyed driving the LR offroad and were prepared to accept its shortcomings on the highway.
For some reason in the late 60s, the University bought a LWB Tojo. We hated it. It had a three speed box, on rough dirt roads the wheels felt as if they were only loosely connected to the sloppy suspension and when we drove through a steep gully each day near our excavation site, the carby obviously couldn't handle the angle and the engine surged and carried on as if it wasn't designed for that sort of work. Compared with the LR, it felt like driving a truck. At that time the LR was much better sorted for offroad work.
We used to name the Landrovers after gods from Greek and Roman mythology. We named the Landcruiser "Tokyo Rose". Anyone who knows WWII history will have an idea of how much that meant we disliked it.

On another trip down the Paroo Channel, we stayed at Paroo Station. The owner or manager there had some interesting observations about 4WDs.
His personal impression after having tried a number of different makes was that the LRs were a great vehicle, but they used to wear the engine out dragging the body around; the International Scout just shook to pieces as did the Landcruiser. He reckoned the best 4Wd for his purposes was the Nissan Patrol. His philosophy was that when he was travelling around the property, if he got out of the vehicle and walked, he then had to walk all the way back to the vehicle, so he preferred to drive if the vehicle would take him there, so he loved his Haflinger but it was just too slow for the distances out there. He also made the observation that property owners had converted to Toyotas because the LRs wore out and broke down. They then found that the Toyotas wore out and broke down just as the LRs had, but they couldn't see much point in changing back again.

A point I would like to raise here is lets not get to hung up on what other brands people drive. Yes I am very landy orientated and love taking the **** out of jap 4wds but a bit like harley riders and jap crap, so long as we are using our vehicles to get off the tarmac then who really cares what we drive (or ride)

Roothy writes in such a manner so as not to be taken to seriously, some times I think he goes overboard particularly when he goes close to advising workman ship that I personally think is bordering on dangerous.

Ultimately owning a 4wd of any brand marks all of us as different so we are all brothers and sisters regardless of brand.

Blythe