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

Originally Posted by p38arover

Some may claim that ending a sentence with a preposition is bad grammar.

How about "Land Rover built the roads on which other 4WDs drive" ?

I don't agree with any of you as the point of the exercise is reminding Toyota they didn't build the Snowy as they claim.

There is too much softly softly going on today as it is, say what you mean or say nothing, grammar is useless if it defeats the purpose of the message.

Hey Dobbo, we are not talking about building any roads, they are already there mate , read the post.

Originally Posted by McDisco

I thought it was amusing that they banged on about how the 200 Series was "the most anticipated 4wd of the last decade"!! Gees, give me a break!

I think the D3 was more anticipated and definitely more innovative than the 200 series! All Toyota have ever done s steal other peoples ideas. Sure they implement them quite well, but they are not ground breakers and they certainly dont offer value for money 4wd's!

Angus

Hi Everyone,

It's interesting to read your thoughts. Yes as I stated upfront the Toyota DVD was funded by Toyota. i agreed to do the DVD because the LC 200 was the most anticipated new 4WD of late-in Australia-where Land Cruiser sells in far greater numbers than the Discos and Defender.

I never said that the 200 was better or worse than any other 4WD. The aim of the test was to offer our many interested readers a good look at the ways in which the features of the 200 worked in the real world in Cape York. I did just that. I flogged it hard too and whilst that was only one short term test it had no problems. I can't say how it will hold up over the years but suggest not as well as previous models. I told no lies about the Cruiser and if you read the accompanying LC 200 mag I produced on the same issue you'll find a balanced article on my thoughts. No 4WD is without its negatives and the Cruiser has several. Which are printed for all to see.

We didn't test the Defender in the Best 4WD as it wasn't available then and we had to hold the test when we did to beat the wet season and publishing schedules.



I agree that Land Rover is one of the most innovative 4WD manufacturers. I can see that in my 85 Rangie's design and in the numerous new D3s I've tested plus certain aspects of the new Defender. Yes Toyota as with most Japanese manufacturers borrow other people's iseas and refine them.

We haven't tested the D3s for a while because I have had genuine issues with them on all 3 occasions I've tested them. One in Cape York in last year's best 4Wd where I had to leave it behind and twice along the Darling River run.
As I have stated in the mag previously. No other 4WD comes close to the Disco 3 while it's going. Unfortunately the Disco stopped on me on 3 occasions.

I have a soft spot for Land Rovers and am understanding more and more what attracts so many 4WDers to them as I go about building my Rangie. It's very advanced for it's time and embarasses many other vehicles in the tough stuff.

Thanks

Originally Posted by RoverOne

Totaly agree on all points,

ACE next time someone wants to throw Toyota built the Snowy lie at you, remind them "Land Rover built the roads that Toyota drove on"

Just putting aside brand loyalty for a moment.

As far as the Snowy goes; isn't it the case that both Land Rovers and Toyotas and maybe also Nissans were used? I seem to recall that from conversations with old-timers.

I know Len Beadell used Land Rovers, read his books. So the 'roads' claim probably does stack up, did Len ever use anything other than a Land Rover?

I can't believe you blokes are still crapping on about this, who bloody cares, the mag is a business run to make money like all the other mags (Land Rover ones included) and all this rubbish about who built the Snowy, well all the 4WDs that were around at the time were used, even Jeeps, Land Rover just happened to be used first, Holden, Ford, Bedford, Austin, Morris, Chevs and so on and so on were used too, it was a combined effort really, not just one make of vehicle.

My view of it.

Baz.

Originally Posted by RoverOne

There is too much softly softly going on today as it is, say what you mean or say nothing, grammar is useless if it defeats the purpose of the message.

[soapbox/]

Just off thread for a moment but this is my pet rant. The message is useless if bad grammar makes it unclear. That is what the rules of grammar are about, making a point clearly and concisely.

There are a lot of great contributors here at AULRO and Ron's grammatical advice posts are up there with the most useful technical posts in my humble opinion.

[/soapbox]

Back on thread, I hate to see history re-written and Toyota's stealing of the Snowy in its advertising really irks me.

Originally Posted by Glenn

Hi Everyone,

It's interesting to read your thoughts. Yes as I stated upfront the Toyota DVD was funded by Toyota. i agreed to do the DVD because the LC 200 was the most anticipated new 4WD of late-in Australia-where Land Cruiser sells in far greater numbers than the Discos and Defender.

I never said that the 200 was better or worse than any other 4WD. The aim of the test was to offer our many interested readers a good look at the ways in which the features of the 200 worked in the real world in Cape York. I did just that. I flogged it hard too and whilst that was only one short term test it had no problems. I can't say how it will hold up over the years but suggest not as well as previous models. I told no lies about the Cruiser and if you read the accompanying LC 200 mag I produced on the same issue you'll find a balanced article on my thoughts. No 4WD is without its negatives and the Cruiser has several. Which are printed for all to see.

We didn't test the Defender in the Best 4WD as it wasn't available then and we had to hold the test when we did to beat the wet season and publishing schedules.



I agree that Land Rover is one of the most innovative 4WD manufacturers. I can see that in my 85 Rangie's design and in the numerous new D3s I've tested plus certain aspects of the new Defender. Yes Toyota as with most Japanese manufacturers borrow other people's iseas and refine them.

We haven't tested the D3s for a while because I have had genuine issues with them on all 3 occasions I've tested them. One in Cape York in last year's best 4Wd where I had to leave it behind and twice along the Darling River run.
As I have stated in the mag previously. No other 4WD comes close to the Disco 3 while it's going. Unfortunately the Disco stopped on me on 3 occasions.

I have a soft spot for Land Rovers and am understanding more and more what attracts so many 4WDers to them as I go about building my Rangie. It's very advanced for it's time and embarasses many other vehicles in the tough stuff.

Thanks

Glen,

Thanks for taking the time to compose such a civilised reply. A few on here do get hot under the collar when Toyotas are mentioned, so it's not always easy to do

However, I think the basic points that have been raised here against the DVD are still valid. And taken in context, you can see why many are seeing it as just one more advertising campaign for Toyota. It is this bias, unintentional or otherwise, that annoys owners of other brands:

1. Toyota did not solely contribute to the Snowy Mountain Scheme. They weren't even there when the hardest (initial) parts of the project (from a transportation point of view) were under way. It is misleading at best, to imply (as the DVD did) that Toyota 'built' it. Ditto with the 'Toyota made the roads of Australia' comment. Yes there's a lot of them - but that doesn't give Toyota the right to re-write history.

2. The comments from the RACQ workshop owner up the Cape were simply ridiculous, and shouldn't have been left as they were. Toyota LC is also an imported vehicle, and the fact that he only stocks Toyota parts is irrelevant in terms of the vehicle's reliability - which was the implication (logically, if they're so reliable, why does he need to stock parts in the first place - surely he'd make more money on Nissan/LR/Mitsubishi bits!!). Regardless, I bet he doesn't stock LC200 parts!

3. You mention at one point that the traction control is the best on any vehicle. I seriously doubt that (and your comments above about the D3 "when it goes", seem to agree), and seeing as Roothy (in the other test) stated that you have to turn it off to get the car to perform in either sand or mud, it is obvious that it is not as sensitive to the surrounding conditions as the D3/RRS systems. The mud setting on the LR traction system is truly amazing.

4. The DVD does _not_ mention any of the LC200's issues that most other magazines have thought of as glaringly obvious examples of poor design - the third row seats don't fold flush, the poor GVM and the spare tyre location (which you were quick to fault on the D3), the poor visiblity, and lack of features for the price (especially compared to the D3 HSE). As most viewers would be aware of these issues, this leaves the DVD sounding highly biased.

Yes the magazine article was a little more balanced, but that's not the point. They are separate forms of media and can (and will) be referenced separately for information.

And as for the D3 breakdowns on your trips - no other mag has had this issue, and they've taken them up the Cape, across the centre etc etc, so perhaps it's simply bad luck. Magazines have certainly had LC's fail on tests (broken front diffs, springs etc), but that doesn't stop them re-testing Toyotas, so why are you seemingly shunning LR products?

One final point - the RRS TDV8 would certainly give an LC200 a run for its money, both on and off road, and although the RRS is smaller, they both have similar towing capacity. Wouldn't a comparison be reasonable? It might be more costly, but no more so than the LC200 is when compared to a Patrol - and you seem to think that comparison was relevant?

Cheers,

Gordon

Edited to add: I understand that Toyota funded the DVD story, but that shouldn't mean an abrogation of a journalist's duty to fair coverage. You could have still praised the LC without the overt bias and side-stepping of negative issues.

Well said Gordon!

Originally Posted by gghaggis

4. The DVD does _not_ mention any of the LC200's issues that most other magazines have thought of as glaringly obvious examples of poor design - the third row seats don't fold flush, the poor GVM and the spare tyre location (which you were quick to fault on the D3), the poor visiblity, and lack of features for the price (especially compared to the D3 HSE). As most viewers would be aware of these issues, this leaves the DVD sounding highly biased.

This is because it was funded by Toyota. You are expecting a review from someone that you hope is impartial which they are not. Once you start accepting money for favourable outcomes credibility and integrity diminish.

If you want a DVD on Land Rovers and why they are so great just send some cash their way and you will have a great piece of media stating that LR is the best in the world and has no faults what so ever.

Toyota is definitely better at one thing and that is making sure money reaches the right people to ensure they are seen favourably in the market place. It's a question of ethics for the journalist, some believe in telling the real story while others are partial to modifying their opinions based on their bank account.