Thread: Which is better Off Road a D3/4 or a late model Defender? ... Puma 110

I'm talking hypothetical with chopping etc
Ie. Maybe what the new defender will be, but with a tonne of bash protection and no front rear overhang etc
Or in other words, if the LR were given free range to build the ultimate beast

Originally Posted by TerryO

Don't believe you can fit 35's to a late model Disco, 33's is about it. Having said that if Portals were fitted then 35's should fit easy. But that all goes into the realms of fantasy land and is unlikely unless someone has the inclination and I reckon about $30k to play with. ...

It would be great if they did. At a guess they would go with 17 in wheels (anything is an improvement on what for the D5 would be 19/20 in) and high profile tyres to suit. And higher clearance as standard before any air suspension is raised. Cheers

Originally Posted by rick130

Err, no it hasn't.

Just because someone suggests something on the interwebs doesn't make it fact.
And has been already stated by a number of posters, there is a world of difference between torsional rigidity and actual load carrying strength.

I cannot believe for a second that a 130 chassis that is rated to easily carry 1300kg is weaker than a D4 chassis in terms of load carrying strength.
As for running gear, an LT230 t/case is possibly one of the strongest, if not the strongest t/case fitted to a production 4wd, with an excellent low range reduction ratio that is probably lower than most all competitors.
It's been favourably compared to the Atlas t/case, recognised as the strongest aftermarket t/case available and beloved of off road racers in the US.

I seriously doubt the Steyr chain driven t/case can even compare.

Of course some of us have Sals rear diffs too.

I'll see your dinky D4 CWP's and raise it with a mighty 9.75" lump of extreme toughness.
Who said size doesn't matter ?

Of course this comparison doesn't include the last LT230 fitted in the last of the Defenders that has that ridiculously weak centre diff.
Shame Land Rover, shame.

Errr OK. Let's say that even quotes from users, mechanics and LR themselves are subjective and open to interpretation. So let's look at it another way.


Folks are fooling themselves by looking at the load carrying capacity of each vehicle. At the end of the day the pertinent factor is how much it weighs in total. The laws of physics don't care how that weight is distributed, it's just a weight.


Stats straight off the 2016 Australian LR site quote a 130 'Heavy Duty' at max weight of 3,500KG. With the ability to tow the same weight. A D4 is quoted as a max weight of 3,240KG + 3,500KG tow. So there is only 260KG in max weight difference. A 110 is about the same weight less than a D4 max loaded and a 90 less again.


So unless I'm interpreting things incorrectly, there isn't much in it between a 130 and a D4. However, a D4 has significantly more power and torque and can go faster. So all that energy/force has to be absorbed, distributed, diverted somewhere. That is a physics fact that cannot be ignored. So the car has been engineered, designed and made to handle how its weight and power translate to energy/force in all circumstances. This is a really easy way to look at it. I'm sure Gordon can come up with the formulas to calculate an exact measurable.


So, I really doubt that a D4 is made of cheese or they would be spitting drivetrain bits and boxes all over the place. And I never said the Deefer was either.


My point was .... and only this, that after .... we are close to 1000 posts now .... some folks are still stating that a D4 is made of putty and cheese and is only suitable for Green Lanes and Hard Sandy beaches. Oh, my other point, which has been stated, was that it would be stupid of LR to make another D4. You'd think the new Deefer would stand out, really stand out in different ways.


You think they'd get it by now wouldn't you?


Maybe they think the D4 off-road prowess claims are subjective too .... LOL

The whole monocoque chassis thing being stronger is a load of BS!

yes i am going to refer to trucks here;

Things built to lug heavy loads day in and day out use ladder frame chassis not monocoque chassis. There is also a reason trucks have live axels, allows big loads to be carried day in and day out. A vehicle that is tough enough to carry a big load is a strong vehicle. Better yet is that the puma is 1/2 ton lighter than a d4 but has a 1/4 ton more pay load......looks to me like the defender chassis is plenty strong.

The weakest link in the puma is the rear diff and axels. $3000 for an elocker, hy tuff axels and hd flanges all round fixes this. Costs about the same as it does to fit a decent set of rims and tyres on a d4.

You have convinced me the d4 is capable but you will never convince me its tougher or more capable OFF ROAD than my puma. Yes it is more capable at speed, and on tarmac but that is not the comparison here.

I repeat the most important factors in a tough 4wd are: vehicle clearance, tyre size, supply carrying capacity and load, angles of approach/exit etc, easy to fix

The d4 has lower sills than a puma, cant fit bigger tyres at a reasonable price, smaller payload, smaller angles of approach etc, and needs a super computer to fix a million and one sensors!

My opinion, you dont have yo agree...but i refuse to sit here and read all the BS that is written on this site. God, if this site was half acurate you'd swear all LR's were pieces of ....!

Out of curiosity how many have ever seen a d4 personally on a tuff track with the big boys?
Besides Gordon and his great rig/set up id say he is the exception to my above statement. There wouldnt be many d4 drivers here that would have ever put theirs vehicles up to that sort of punishment. Its easy to sit at home and write crap on this site!

Also please Google monochrome chassis vs ladder frame and you will see that ttough rugged vehicles all require a ladder frame chassis.

A monocoque chassis is actually a liability off road due to its design. If you were to damage the vehicle lets say on a corner pillar gor example you would then be compromising that vehicles chassis strength! Now im no genius but serious 4wding can lead to some serious bangs ,dents and serious panel damage: this would make the d4 a risky prospect due to its monocoque chassis. This is why trucks and proper/real 4wds are built with ladder frame chassis, there stronger and fit for purpose!

Mmmm ....A D4 has a ladder and rail chassis.

The d3 was probably the strongest platform. I thought d4 dropped weight in chassis. Essentially both are mono on and around ladder. So both platform types in one. Cheers

Have you seen the list of 'modification' on Gordon's rig?


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the main ones are his 18" wheels and his rods.....so.....


And yes he is an exception but not alone and that was never the point of the convo .... it was all about the car. Facts about the car.