Thread: Disco 4 V Landcruiser Prado

I'm sure the 3.0 litre goes better but so what if you are only doing about 90 kph when towing then why bother with the extra neddies and save a few bucks? A 2.7 version could also get rid of the 19's as well.

Don't mean to keep this thread going, but thought it was necessary to point out to Grumndriva that if you are intending to tow a heavy van, I would go for the 3.0Lt.
Sure enough, the 2.7Lt will do the job well, however the 3.0Lt will do it alot easier and you will feel more relaxed when you get to your next destination.


Must remember not to post any more utube comparisons
Cheers, Craig

I came into a D4 HSE out of a '06 100 Sahara Turbo. The 100 was a very good vehicle but you need polyairs if you put any more than 300 into the back of it or onto the ball (combined) or the auto leveling will give up and it will drop to the stops.

Tojo engine/gearbox combo was a pearler for towing but D4 better all round.

For mine the 200 was a missed opportunity on behalf of Toyota, technology of the D4 particularly in suspension and traction dept is a winner, plus overall refinement. Value for money is also an issue with the Tojo.

Just saying.

Must remember not to post any more utube comparisons
Cheers, Craig[/QUOTE]

LOL...I enjoyed it.

Cheers,

Kev

Originally Posted by Celtoid

Apparently LR don't make Disco utes and twin cabs either, so maybe that would limit them too. But maybe they could work on a jerry can holder....

I didn't comment for a second on your opinion of a D4....you've obviously seen the light....but you really couldn't be serious with your 'devil's advocate' comment could you?...you've read the threads, you know what I've stated above about LR's build capacity is true......you're stirring the pot...who's being prissy...what's with that Terry?

Useful comment or not?

Oh and BTW, what's this got to do with a D4 and a Prado sliding around in the snow and mud?

Land Rover do actually make crew cabs and utes, they are called Defenders though. They have base models and they are cheap in comparision to D4's and possibly even to mining spec 200's I would hazard a guess.

I'm not trying to insult you Celtoid but to say I've 'obviously seen the light' regarding the D4 is in itself condesending. Logical and open minded intelligent discussion is one of the main reasons why I'm proud to be a member of this website.

I believe the way Terry (Grumdriva) has been treated leaves a lot to be desired and just because he made comments where he offered another point of view. I would expect and have seen that kind of closed mind one eyed behaviour from other brand orientated websites but rearly have I witnessed it on here. The sad thing is while a number of peopla have played the man rather than the ball, few have tried to actually answer his relevant questions.

Re my Devil's advocate meents, the thing about playing a Devil's advocate is it is meant to put forward an opposing point of view to stimulate discussion and open thinking.

cheers,
Terry

Guys,

I have just read what has come in overnight, and this will be the last post from me.

Despite what has been claimed, my requirement has not changed from start to finish. I need a tug to carry me and my wife (160 kg total), 100 kg of gear and a 2.7 tonne van with 270 kg on the tow bar over a distance of 600km. That is all that is critical. Anything else is a nice to have, not a must have for me.

This is a fact, not a passionately held opinion: The 3 litre D4 can't do the required job with a standard tank. According to my maths, once you fit a LRT and rear bar and wheel carrier, there is only enough remaining payload to put about 20 litres of fuel in the two tanks. That gives a range of a little more than 100 km.

I have invited everyone to check my maths to find any error I have made in my payload calculations for the D4. No-one has offered any plausible correction and I have re-checked it many times. I can understand that many may not have gone through the exercise of checking actual weight vs maximum allowable weight, and I can understand that some who have, may have chosen to disregard the maximums and operate overloaded. But I am not prepared to.

Since no-one has taken up my offer to show how it can be done with a 3 litre D4, I must assume that my maths is correct, and a 3 litre D4 can not legally do what I want it to do, because of payload limitations. If it can't do what I want it to do, there is absolutely no point in my parting with over $100k to buy one, no matter how much better it may be in other regards than the other vehicle which can do it straight out of the box.

I do not believe that anything I have offered was critical of the Disco, or of those who chose to buy one. If I have offended anyone in that regard, please accept my apology.

As a pure vehicle, I still prefer the D4, but it can't do what I want it to.

My sincere thanks to all who have contributed constructively and factually to what has been a very difficult decision.

I have greatly appreciated my time on the AULRO forum. I have had a great deal of help from many, and have been pleased to offer what limited help I could in return. Most of all I have enjoyed everyone's company and shared their passion for the green oval.

Best wishes to all,

Terry

Grumdriva - have a look at this mate - 4WD Comparison - Bush Icons At War - Vehicle Tests - Overlander 4WD Magazine - Australia's leading four wheel drive magazine

Its a 2.7 D3 HSE versus the V8 TD 200 series 2009. Whilst they were not towing the 2.7 performed really well in comparison - though not as fast as you would expect, as the 200 series.

Off road the 200 was said to be more comfortable but on road the in cabin refinement the D3 won.

Cheers

Originally Posted by TerryO

Land Rover do actually make crew cabs and utes, they are called Defenders though. They have base models and they are cheap in comparision to D4's and possibly even to mining spec 200's I would hazard a guess.

I'm not trying to insult you Celtoid but to say I've 'obviously seen the light' regarding the D4 is in itself condesending. Logical and open minded intelligent discussion is one of the main reasons why I'm proud to be a member of this website.

I believe the way Terry (Grumdriva) has been treated leaves a lot to be desired and just because he made comments where he offered another point of view. I would expect and have seen that kind of closed mind one eyed behaviour from other brand orientated websites but rearly have I witnessed it on here. The sad thing is while a number of peopla have played the man rather than the ball, few have tried to actually answer his relevant questions.

Re my Devil's advocate meents, the thing about playing a Devil's advocate is it is meant to put forward an opposing point of view to stimulate discussion and open thinking.

cheers,
Terry

Mate there was nothing wrong with Grumdriva's questions/concerns....the first time round. It was just very much a case of déjà vu, which myself and obviously others saw as pointless. It was so similar to the first time round it could almost have been a cut and paste...I had to take a double-take and check the dates, to see if something was amiss. I thought that I was reading the original thread. I thought the original concerns were well and truely addressed the first time round.....unfortunately some were shown then and again this time round to be based on very little fact, or were highly subjective or personal. You need to take a hard look at the one eyed and open minded comment, I'm not sure who isn't listening.

Terry copped a flaming cause we'd been here before....it's just like the Sand Driving thread and the 19" Tyres thread....done to death. It covered no (or little) new material, brought him no closer to being helped in a decision and derailed the original post which was never really discussed. That was my point and probably others who flamed him.

Nobody was attacking him personally but you have to question the motive of repeating the exercise. Nobody would deny it's a big D to sink $100K into a car but asking or raising the same concerns two or three months later will not help....you'll get the same answers.

I know the written media can often be misinterpreted but Terry's comments/opinions sounded like a disguised D4 beating attempt. Which probably didn't help when others on this thread opened fire.

My D4 comment was once again light hearted....biased maybe but not to be taken too seriously. Terry should buy whatever he feels is right for him and nobody will really care or say otherwise, it's just the way this thread played out.

I'm sorry if you or the other Terry have taken this personally, that isn't my intent and I'm sure it wasn't others....I think you are missing what bothered people.

Cheers,

Kev.

Terry,
My only comment on your maths; my understanding is that weight of the vehicle includes a full tank of fuel and a 75kg driver?? If that's right you can carry 657kg on top of that. I could be wrong but if you are still in 2 minds you could check that out - I'm sure someone will correct me....
Otherwise as you have indicated the D4 may not be able to do what you want it to do. As you can see there are a lot of very passionate people here who love the D4, if it could do what you wanted I'm sure you'd love it too. Having said that the LC200 is a very good vehicle.
Kind regards
Marty
PS There was some comments on interiors which was a big dislike of mine in regard to the LC200, quoting myself from a previous post "the velour looks like it came from a 1990s Avalon!" The D4 2.7 with only 5 seats has cloth, I've seen one and I can tell you they use a nice modern hard wearing fabic. I'd be more than happy to have if you could get it in 7 seats.