Thread: 4wd Action 200 Series Review DVD- this months edition

Originally Posted by gghaggis

Agreed on all points. Yes, the mag did state that the DVD was funded by Toyota. However, that is not the same as an advert - it is, in new-age jargon, an "infomercial" (think along the lines of the "Brand-power" ads on TV). So it still needs to pay a passing nod to factuality, and certainly doesn't give them the right to re-write history. The DVD claims that the Snowy scheme relied on Toyota - solely Toyota. It also claims several other things that are simply untrue or unsubstantiated - see my post on page 4.

Perhaps we _are_ being foolish thinking that a media source would value accuracy - and maybe it _is_ stupid to try and rally against a company like Toyota steam-rollering over Landrover's past, but I still live in hope ............



Cheers,

Gordon

not trying to say you are wrong, but have you seen Saving Private Ryan or any of a plethora of similar military "historical" movies in the last 20 years? I didn't know that D-Day only had Americans landing on the beaches - did you? but I saw it on TV so it must be real... (I'm takin the **** now, but you get my point).

I know a few professional journalists working for news agencies like Reuters and Bloomberg and I know they would never either write or get past editors a story not based on verifiable fact if they wanted to maintain employment, however this patently isn't always the case with specialist magazines... they tend to be produced by enthusiasts rather than professionals, hence the same checks and balances may not exist, or an (probably unintentional) bias creeps in. This is an endemic problem for all specialist magazines... if you want serious news, would you choose to look at the pictures in New Idea or read The Age (in Melbourne)? No disrespect to the title, but IMHO, 4WD Action is the New Idea of the Aussie 4x4 magazine world - it caters to a specific market, and that market love it, no harm in that

Originally Posted by EchiDna

not trying to say you are wrong, but have you seen Saving Private Ryan or any of a plethora of similar military "historical" movies in the last 20 years? I didn't know that D-Day only had Americans landing on the beaches - did you? but I saw it on TV so it must be real... (I'm takin the **** now, but you get my point).

...

I'm not stating that it's uncommon behaviour - but I still don't think it's right. And in this particular case the editor of the mag has come on to the thread and claimed there was _no_ bias. "Truthful", I think was the term used. Hence my initial post - I'm arguing that it _was_ biased; whether intentional or not, whether Toyota sat in the editing studio with a big stick or not, is irrelevant at this point.

RMP:

I had a look at your flex test pics in Overlander, and I think your using a pretty large brush to claim the LC200 outflexes _everything_ else - don't you? I didn't see an RRS, or a D3, or a Wrangler, or a Hummer etc etc there. Two further points regarding your test:

1. Did you have the traction control disabled on the 200? If not, your test results are already flawed, as the TC would push it further up the ramp.

2. Notice that the LC100 actually seems to have better front articulation than the 200? It seems it's only the rear suspension flex that is significantly better.

I guess when an LC200 turns up at the next comp and outflexes me on forward and backward runs, I'll take notice. Ditto with the "amazing" traction control - "Crawl" is not the catch-all solution:

http://www.4wdmonthly.com.au/forum/s...=35#post698811


Cheers,

Gordon

Can you spot the LC 200 among the Klugers ????? At least Land Rover have the balls to be daring and individual with their design for each of their range of vehicles. And the 'traditional' shaped Land Rovers retain real character. I can spot a County a mile away, yet I wont even notice a shiny new LC 200 because I find them so @#$%^&* BORING.

Originally Posted by rijidij

Can you spot the LC 200 among the Klugers ????? At least Land Rover have the balls to be daring and individual with their design for each of their range of vehicles. And the 'traditional' shaped Land Rovers retain real character. I can spot a County a mile away, yet I wont even notice a shiny new LC 200 because I find them so @#$%^&* BORING.

Not the best comparison, the 70 series have a pretty distinctive shape too, just like our beloved 110. But I guess you're right, it's just a big kluger

Well this ran away didnt it, good stuff. Thanks to Glen first off for taking the time to post.

I am in no way hang **** on the car, the 200 series is a good vehicle, all be it over priced as i have pointed out, knock 10-20k off the price tag and you are in the right price range for this vehicle, its not a luxury 4wd so it shouldnt be priced as one.

My sole gripe when i started this thread was the total tripe it was filled with. I appreciate the toyota land cruiser played a part in the snowy mountains scheme but its blatant false advertising to claim it built the snowy mountains scheme, they didnt. Plain and simple.

The RACQ guy needs his head read, what a pile of ****, i cant believe that was allowed to be left in the edit, its totally off the mark, many claim the Patrol to be simple and easy to fix, and now with more gizmos and gadgets on the cruiser the patrol its the least complicated in terms of technology left. Maybe everyone should buy one of those, cause technology is so bad after all.

As i said this wasnt a thread to hang **** on the land cruiser, it was posted because i believe that completely lieing to consumers shouldnt be allowed. Sure stretching the truth is fine, all companied do it in one way or another with advertising, but that DVD was so far away from the truth in some parts its not funny. Glens review of the 4wd was the only enjoyable part of the DVD, the rest was rubbish.

Originally Posted by gghaggis

I'm not stating that it's uncommon behaviour - but I still don't think it's right. And in this particular case the editor of the mag has come on to the thread and claimed there was _no_ bias. "Truthful", I think was the term used. Hence my initial post - I'm arguing that it _was_ biased; whether intentional or not, whether Toyota sat in the editing studio with a big stick or not, is irrelevant at this point.

RMP:

I had a look at your flex test pics in Overlander, and I think your using a pretty large brush to claim the LC200 outflexes _everything_ else - don't you? I didn't see an RRS, or a D3, or a Wrangler, or a Hummer etc etc there. Two further points regarding your test:

1. Did you have the traction control disabled on the 200? If not, your test results are already flawed, as the TC would push it further up the ramp.

2. Notice that the LC100 actually seems to have better front articulation than the 200? It seems it's only the rear suspension flex that is significantly better.

I guess when an LC200 turns up at the next comp and outflexes me on forward and backward runs, I'll take notice. Ditto with the "amazing" traction control - "Crawl" is not the catch-all solution:

http://www.4wdmonthly.com.au/forum/s...=35#post698811


Cheers,

Gordon

Couple of points. 'Everything' referred to the other vehicles compared. The D3/RRS wouldn't be close, I can assure you.

Traction control wasn't relevant. Each vehicle was driven up until the wheels were just touching the ground, so it was fair.

Possibly the only car that could touch it would be the Jeep Rubicon.

We didn't adjust for wheelbase, but the key thing for me was that the LC200 outflexed the LC100 live-axle. That was really the comparison, the others just happened to be there.

And you wouldn't be scraping bumpers as someone else said, as you'd put a small lift in it and a bullbar.

Originally Posted by rmp

Couple of points. 'Everything' referred to the other vehicles compared. The D3/RRS wouldn't be close, I can assure you.

Traction control wasn't relevant. Each vehicle was driven up until the wheels were just touching the ground, so it was fair.

Possibly the only car that could touch it would be the Jeep Rubicon.

We didn't adjust for wheelbase, but the key thing for me was that the LC200 outflexed the LC100 live-axle. That was really the comparison, the others just happened to be there.

And you wouldn't be scraping bumpers as someone else said, as you'd put a small lift in it and a bullbar.

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this:

1. Traction control activated will push the vehicle further up the ramp, because the unloading wheel would normally start spinning long before it leaves the ground - especially on dirt! The TC would probably give you at least an extra few inches. It's why we're always asked to deactivate diff locks or traction control when using flex ramps on a slippery surface - it's _cheating_.

2. All the other cars had 2" lifts. Why? You know as well as I do that suspension lifts can change the suppleness of a suspension system, and can actually decrease the cross-wheel articulation. That may or may not be the case here, but the fact that the other vehicles didn't have standard suspension makes your claim invalid. You can't quantitatively compare them (and as they had bull bars, the owners probably had heavier springs in the front). Apples and oranges and all that .....

3. I have no idea if a D3 would outflex the 200. And neither do you. I know it outflexes a D2 or an LC100, because I've competed against them.

Apologies in advance if I'm sounding pedantic here .....

Cheers,

Gordon

Originally Posted by gghaggis

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with this:

1. Traction control activated will push the vehicle further up the ramp, because the unloading wheel would normally start spinning long before it leaves the ground - especially on dirt! The TC would probably give you at least an extra few inches. It's why we're always asked to deactivate diff locks or traction control when using flex ramps on a slippery surface - it's _cheating_.

2. All the other cars had 2" lifts. Why? You know as well as I do that suspension lifts can change the suppleness of a suspension system, and can actually decrease the cross-wheel articulation. That may or may not be the case here, but the fact that the other vehicles didn't have standard suspension makes your claim invalid. You can't quantitatively compare them (and as they had bull bars, the owners probably had heavier springs in the front). Apples and oranges and all that .....

3. I have no idea if a D3 would outflex the 200. And neither do you. I know it outflexes a D2 or an LC100, because I've competed against them.

Apologies in advance if I'm sounding pedantic here .....

Cheers,

Gordon

Traction control or diff locks dont offer an advantage on a flex ramp. You drive up the ramp until the right rear wheel lifts off the ground, once its does this the vehicle is stopped and measurements taken. Yes having TC and lockers will help you go further but the measurements are a waste of time as the right rear wheel is off the ground.