Thread: Range Rover V'S Land Cruiser

Originally Posted by long stroke

To date im not shore i've seen the 200series beet the d3 in any of the 4wd mag tests
It is still winning awards now, it just won the 'open road test'!!
In one of the mags they put the rangie against the lexus/200 series thing, the rangie won without a worry


CHEERS TIM.

AND its getting on for 4 plus years old

That 200 series looks like a Kluger on steroids damm UGLY

I say go for a drive in one of each,you will then be able to compare........

Who wears the pants in your house hold , I thought most women control the purse strings
If it,s going to be your car 90% of the time you should be allowed 90% of the input
Leave him then live your dream

I do not undertsand for the life of me why anyone would want a 200series landcruiser... It is just beyond me... completely baffled.

I drive around in a 1990 range rover and its got better offroad handling (in the highspeed gravel) then a 100series. Now the 200series is just the same, only it hit a few more steel rods in the ugly factory!

Sorry, but damn the toyotas of late are uglay peices of...

Originally Posted by drivesafe

Not sure what you mean there, the D3 and FFRR are astronomical on and off road.

They are indeed, and they are fully indie. The OP indicated the LC200's IFS as a bad thing. I was pointing out the LRs are fully indie.

the range rover is the king of lux 4wds, an king off the road, (part from my defender) the range rover will blow your mind when you realy get it into the hard stuff were people start needing a locker, the rangie will keep up, trust me i no it will you will love it, just watch the door seals

there is one resion not to buy the 200,, ITS A TOYOTA

Originally Posted by Scallops

OK - rush of blood - so it's the 76 with the logic defying wheel arrangement? Yes - some LR have IS - but when we talk "good off road" I compare the opposition to the King - the Fender.

I still don't buy what's so good about an offroad vehicle that has a payload of 600 odd kg. Put on a bunch of accesories, a family and camping gear - and you can't even add a long range tank legally. So how is that good?

But OK - it might be capable off road per say - but so it should be - that's hardly any bonus - it is supposed to be good off road - it's a four wheel drive vehicle. Put it against a RR or D3 or Fender - and it's nothing special.

The Defender is definitely not the best stock offroader on the market.

(oh god I've done it now)

Agreed the 200's payload is terrible. That's why there are four companies offering GVM upgrades. But the original point was about offroad capability.

I also think the D3 is a better car than the 200. But that doesn't make the 200 a bad car. It makes the D3 superb.

Yes i agree, the 200series would come in close to the most ugly 4wd ever made
Not shore you could make it anymore ugly

Originally Posted by rmp

The Defender is definitely not the best stock offroader on the market.

(oh god I've done it now)

I guess it depends on what your priorities are. No other 4 wheel drive can carry over a ton and go where a Defender can with that ton on board - none.

So for me and many others - the Defender is the best stock offroader on the market.

The old Rubicon / best stock offroader is an argument I also don't buy - and here I'm guessing at your opinion of best offroad vehicle.

So it's got lockers stock - so would the punter buy it because of that alone or might they just add lockers at a minimal (when compared to overall vehicle cost) price penalty and get the multitude of advantages a Defender offers over that vehicle?

But in regard to the original poster's issue - I reckon you should drive the Cruiser then drive the Rangie - you will be able to make the choice yourself then. And welcome to the forum, Belle.