Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Landcruiser TDV8 V Range Rover Sport TDV8

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    15,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Disco4SE View Post
    Was playing around on the internet on the weekend and found these interesting facts favouring the Rangie compared to the Toyota Landcruiser: -
    • 40 Kw extra power.
    • 90 Nm extra torque.
    • 73mm Longer wheel base.
    • 50mm wider track front & rear.
    • 600 Kg lighter.
    • 1.6 Seconds quicker to 100 Kph.
    • 1.1 Lt per 100 Klm's better fuel economy (Actually better than this in real life tests).


    And they say that Landcruiser is the king of the road and the ultimate tow tug!

    Cheers, Craig
    Quote Originally Posted by trout1105 View Post
    The title of this thread is Landcruiser TDV8 vs Range Rover Sport TDV8, My 79 Series is a LANDCRUISER TDV8
    Try reading the first post rather than just the heading - A RRS has far more than 40kw more than you 79 TDV8, it has far more than 90nm more than your 79 TDV8 - even my 2.7 TDV6 has more torque than your 79 series.

    The numbers in the OP are talking about a 200 series twin turbo not your asthmatic 79 series.
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Posts
    1,866
    Me thinks Trout has Tongue.Firmly.Planted.In.Cheek...
    Life is just a series of obstacles preventing you from taking a nap.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Geraldton WA
    Posts
    4,915
    Not much good having all that torque if you cant put it on the road because of the pushbike wheels and tyres fitted to the truck
    You only get one shot at life, Aim well

    2004 D2 "S" V8 auto, with a few Mods
    2007 79 Series Landcruiser V8 Ute, With a few Mods.
    4.6m Quintrex boat
    5.4m Trailcraft Sportscab Boat
    20' Jayco Expanda caravan

    2012 Navara twincab GONE

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Brisbane some of the time
    Posts
    8,448
    Quote Originally Posted by trout1105 View Post
    Not much good having all that torque if you cant put it on the road because of the pushbike wheels and tyres fitted to the truck
    Its a bit weird,isn't it,LR produce probably the most capable vehicles on the planet,EAS,coupled with a fantastic traction control system,yet every model that is available new is shod with low profile around town tyres.

    And fitting anything else is virtually impossible unless you go oversize or fit an aftermarket rim,which is available for a limited few models.

    Lets hope they have listened to the market and the new Deefer can be fitted with proper off road sensibly sized,commonly available tyre.

    If you look at the opposition,vehicles in the same class,mainly the big T,all models can be fitted with a sensibly sized, commonly available, high load rated off road tyre on the OEM rims.
    paul

    D4 MY12 white,2.7(with a few more killer wasps) rear air,e diff,xenons,arb bar,7 seat ,18" bfg KO2

    2009 Defender 110 (son's)ARB
    bar,snorkle,rocksliders,rack,KM2's,BAS chip, always needs a wash

    '56 S1,been in the family since...'56

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mount Martha
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by 101RRS View Post
    Try reading the first post rather than just the heading - A RRS has far more than 40kw more than you 79 TDV8, it has far more than 90nm more than your 79 TDV8 - even my 2.7 TDV6 has more torque than your 79 series.

    The numbers in the OP are talking about a 200 series twin turbo not your asthmatic 79 series.
    Yes you are right.
    I was referring to the twin turbo TDV8 in the 200 Series. The single turbo diesel in the 79 produces 49Kw less power than the 200 series & a whopping 220Nm less torque............. or, 89Kw less than the Rangie SDV8 and 310Nm less torque.

    I have had an ECU tune which is a different beast all together and not a fair comparison to the twin turbo TDV8 in the 200 series, however it now produces 91Kw more power than the 200 and 170Nm more torque.

    Cheers, Craig
    2014 RRS SDV8
    2008 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - Off Road weapon
    Ex 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Geraldton WA
    Posts
    4,915
    The range rover sport TDV8 and the 200 series TDV8 are both at least 500kg heavier than a 79 series ute so the extra HP and torque is a Moot point due to the power to weight ratio difference.
    The 200 series comes with 17 inch rims The Sahara has 18 inch fitted) and the RR Sport comes with 20 inch rims so the tyre choices for the RRS is severely limited.
    Landrover have always made superb off road vehicles But in the last decade or so they have been designing them with stupid low profile tyres that are great around town but are pretty "Lame" in the bush yet a 200 series can be fitted with pretty much any tyre you want on it.
    I am Not saying that the Range Rover Sport is an inferior vehicle because it isn't it is an engineering masterpiece But the silly 4X4 wheels fitted to it and the severely limited options to improve that situation that let it down badly as an off road touring vehicle especially if towing heavy loads.
    You only get one shot at life, Aim well

    2004 D2 "S" V8 auto, with a few Mods
    2007 79 Series Landcruiser V8 Ute, With a few Mods.
    4.6m Quintrex boat
    5.4m Trailcraft Sportscab Boat
    20' Jayco Expanda caravan

    2012 Navara twincab GONE

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    15,557
    Quote Originally Posted by scarry View Post
    Its a bit weird,isn't it,LR produce probably the most capable vehicles on the planet,EAS,coupled with a fantastic traction control system,yet every model that is available new is shod with low profile around town tyres.
    The same also applies to a greater or lesser extent to all "luxury" 4wds. My brother has a 200 series Sahara from new and straight up off the floor he had to replace the standard "road biased" tyres with BFG ATs and replaced the front suspension that started to sag as soon as he drove it out the showroom - yes he could have got it fixed under warranty but it is a design issue so he just paid for aftermarket front suspension.

    On tyre sizes - I dont disgree with comments on larger tyres diameters, however there is a Ford Ranger Dual cab that gets around near me - it has 20" rims with real chunky mud terrains on it (Mickey Thompsons I think) - now I have obviously never driven in it but just looking at the vehicle in the car park - I could not see an issue with it airing down, and I doubt that within reason it would have any issues offroad - they are a mean set of tyres and are 20".

    When I first started 4wding Toyos, Landies and Patrols still came with their narrow 16" rims but the money was on 15" rims and tyres - I certainly had 15" sunraysias on my 54 series 1. Even in the early 90s we still had narrow 16" on discos etc and when I went aftermarket I put 15" on my new Disco as they were still flavour of the month. Even the then new 80 series Cruiser came with 15" rims.

    This was the time we started to change to 16" for serious offroad work and I can remember the discussion about 16" not having sidewall height. Jump forward 15 years and 17" were all the go for serious offroad work with the same issue about sidewall height being raised.

    Soon after I got my RRS with its standard 255/55R18 tyres with small tyre walls - offroad they seemed fine and I often aired down to 10psi no issues.

    I now have 265/50R18s and again no issues - would have been heresy 20 years ago to have 18s.

    Same applies now - for sure 20" HT tyres are not suitable offroad but these 20" muddies that I see on this Ranger look fine. I think that much of these issues are more in people's minds rather than based on actual experience.

    Now I have been driving for nearly 50 years and and 4wding for over 40 - got the the 101 on 315/75R16 Muddies (or 9.00x16 sometimes), the Haflinger on 195/85R14AT and the RRS on 265/60R18 ATs - all have their own strengths and weaknesses but I would be happy taking my 18s where I take my 101 16s.

    If the Ranger 20" muddies are the way of the future for big diameter wheels then I dont think we will actually have an issue.

    Garry
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mount Martha
    Posts
    1,355
    Quote Originally Posted by trout1105 View Post
    The range rover sport TDV8 and the 200 series TDV8 are both at least 500kg heavier than a 79 series ute so the extra HP and torque is a Moot point due to the power to weight ratio difference.
    The Kerb weights for each vehicle are as follows: -
    • 79 Series (single cab) ute - 2,165 Kg.
    • Range Rover Sport SDV8 - 2,398 Kg.
    • Landcruiser 200 Series TDV8 - 2,635.


    Power to weight figures: -
    • 79 Series - 69.74 Kw per Ton.
    • Range Rover Sport - 100.08 Kw per Ton.
    • Landcruiser 200 Series - 75.90 Kw per Ton.


    Cheers, Craig
    2014 RRS SDV8
    2008 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - Off Road weapon
    Ex 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Disco4SE View Post
    The Kerb weights for each vehicle are as follows: -
    • 79 Series (single cab) ute - 2,165 Kg.
    • Range Rover Sport SDV8 - 2,398 Kg.
    • Landcruiser 200 Series TDV8 - 2,635.


    Power to weight figures: -
    • 79 Series - 69.74 Kw per Ton.
    • Range Rover Sport - 100.08 Kw per Ton.
    • Landcruiser 200 Series - 75.90 Kw per Ton.


    Cheers, Craig

    • 200 Sahara is 2,705.
    • RRS SCV8 - 2,310kg


    RRS SCV8 power to weight - 162 Kw per Tonne. I just like to throw that in there.....

    Because I'm currently incapacitated and my wife has never towed we had a friend tow my 21ft Jayco Basestation back from Canberra with his 200 series. I was surprised that he reported his DSC was activating. The RRS has always been extremely stable and I have yet to have DSC activate when towing, I rate it better than my previous D4.

    I've had the RRS for 13 months now and my wife had driven maybe 20km in that time, she didn't like the previous D4 as it was too big and cumbersome (her car is a VW Golf GT TDI) and thought the RRS would be the same. Since I was injured and we were stuck in Canberra she has been driving the RRS and has since driven it back to Sydney. She reports that it is very nice and maybe we should swap cars.

    Once I wear out the current 255 55 20 tyres I'll be putting on 275 55 20 (probably Pirelli ATR +) and I expect they will be fine off-road if driven with consideration just like the 265 50 20 were on my D4.

    I can understand why Landrover has gone for bigger wheels and bigger brakes on the V8s these cars are very quick and I think the smaller brakes would be inadequate for both braking and traction control. I noticed on my previous D4 V8 that the motor could overpower the brakes (smaller 2.7 discs) fairly easily.

    The reality is why provide tyres and brakes that are optimal for maybe at most 5% of the time it is used.
    Fuji white RRS L494 AB

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!