Disco 4 V Landcruiser Prado

[Disco4SE]

Thought this interest some.
2010 Toyota Land Cruiser vs Land Rover Discovery 4 video

Cheers, Craig

[Grumndriva]

Very interesting. There are some similarities with my own experience. I am in the last stages of considering options to replace my D2. I wanted a D4SE, but had to consider alternatives to help justify my decision. For what I need the vehicle for, a remote area caravan tug, unless you want a truck or an exotic vehicle, there really are only three options: Jeep Cherokee Limited, LC200 and D4. (The diesel auto Patrol can't legally pull more than 2.5 tonnes.) The Jeep was quickly eliminated, and that left the LC200. Compared with the D4, the LC200 is more powerful (both power and torque), is at least as comfortable, has better range, has better payload, has better road clearance at typical outback speeds, and has outback compatible wheels as standard. Since it uses a larger engine, all other things being roughly equal, the LC200 engine is likely to last longer than a more highly tuned smaller one. Toyota also has better support throughout the country. Both vehicles have integrated tow hitch receivers, but the D4 cannot use a WDH, which is a major limitation. TSA on the D4 appears to be primarily of benefit in those markets, like the UK, which rely on over-ride rather than electric brakes. The D4 has better approach and departure angles, but that is not particularly relevant when towing a caravan. The D4's 3rd row seat stowage is also better, but we don't need them and so for my intended use that is not particularly relevant. The LC200 LE comes out of the box ready to go for this job, whereas I would need to spend a considerable sum and lose a lot of payload (124kg) to option the D4 to do the job. This was not what I wanted to hear, as I really wanted to buy a D4. But for my particular application, the LC200 is by far a better choice. If only it had a green oval on the front and back it would be near perfect!

[djhampson]

. Both vehicles have integrated tow hitch receivers, but the D4 cannot use a WDH, which is a major limitation.

The D3\D4 doesn't need a WDH because the air suspension will self-level the car when you put weight on the tow ball. I think thats a major advantage because it saves time and effort when attaching your caravan \ boat because you don't have to attach the springs.

[Ace]

That comparison is the D4 with Prado not the 200 series.

Eitherway, i'd prefer the D4 based on looks, the prado and 200 series are butt ugly. Both very capable vehicle however, but the engine in the 200 series isnt winning fans everywhere, there have been documented issues of oil usage and excessive fuel consumption.

[mowog]

No WDH is most certainly not a limitation.

The simple truth is that tugs that need a WDH are simply a flawed design. They are clearly not designed to tow it is just a function they can perform.

Also consider if you are doing remote towing on poor roads you will need to remove the WDH from the LC 200 or you will rip the tow bar off the car. That is a huge flaw in the capability of the LC 200 in real world off road towing.

No such limitation exists for the D4.

I have towed with a WDH on my old Territory and they are simply a pain to used. They transmit noise into the cabin they limit turning and if setup wrong they can actually cause more problems than they solve.

[Tombie]

Very interesting. There are some similarities with my own experience. I am in the last stages of considering options to replace my D2. I wanted a D4SE, but had to consider alternatives to help justify my decision. For what I need the vehicle for, a remote area caravan tug, unless you want a truck or an exotic vehicle, there really are only three options: Jeep Cherokee Limited, LC200 and D4. (The diesel auto Patrol can't legally pull more than 2.5 tonnes.) The Jeep was quickly eliminated, and that left the LC200. Compared with the D4, the LC200 is more powerful (both power and torque), is at least as comfortable, has better range, has better payload, has better road clearance at typical outback speeds, and has outback compatible wheels as standard. Since it uses a larger engine, all other things being roughly equal, the LC200 engine is likely to last longer than a more highly tuned smaller one. Toyota also has better support throughout the country. Both vehicles have integrated tow hitch receivers, but the D4 cannot use a WDH, which is a major limitation. TSA on the D4 appears to be primarily of benefit in those markets, like the UK, which rely on over-ride rather than electric brakes. The D4 has better approach and departure angles, but that is not particularly relevant when towing a caravan. The D4's 3rd row seat stowage is also better, but we don't need them and so for my intended use that is not particularly relevant. The LC200 LE comes out of the box ready to go for this job, whereas I would need to spend a considerable sum and lose a lot of payload (124kg) to option the D4 to do the job. This was not what I wanted to hear, as I really wanted to buy a D4. But for my particular application, the LC200 is by far a better choice. If only it had a green oval on the front and back it would be near perfect!

Puzzled about these comments.. Some are quantifiable others not.. And some are absolutely false in the real world.

Max payload for LC 200 = 670kg
D4 2.7l payload = 754Kg
D4 3.0l payload = 657Kg (less, but only by 13kg)

Toyota support in regional areas is A JOKE... They dont carry the parts in Australia anymore let alone regional - I see this everyday with out Toyota fleet... Even simple stuff is often 2-4 weeks.
This means the LR is now worse in this regard. You can also obtain a diagnostic unit to carry in the vehicle for the D4 for ~ $2k... Just a modern version of a tool box.

Better range... Well more fuel capacity yes...
But I have yet to see a 200 series V8 use sub 15l/100km - We have several here. And thats NOT towing... We have a few boat owners who tow with 200s and they get high teens (18+) to low 20's. The 2.7L tows my 2300kg boat at 13l/100km @ 110km/h...

Therefore the fuel *range* is very similar if not better.

The 200 eats oil like its going out of fashion.

As for suspension out of the box... Tow with a 200 and its but will drag like a worm ridden dog... Tow with a D4 and it will ride smooth and level - there is no comparison between the 2... I have towed with both.


Tyres and rims... I remember when people thought 16" tyres were 'rubbish', too thin etc...

LC200 has a sidewall of 185mm (7 1/4")
D4 2.7 has sidewall of 153mm (6")
D4 3.0 has sidewall of 140mm (5 1/2")

as a comparison - a D2 has a sidewall of 164mm (6 1/2") (on 16's) and NO-ONE had an issue with them

Tyres are now available most areas and a 5 1/2" sidewall is more than ample for all but the worst rock hopping scenarios.

No, from experience with both I'd say you are way off the mark.

The D4 will tow better, its gearing is brilliant.. Torque is fine, but gearing makes the difference (think trucks).

The D4 needs no WDH, is more refined and "out of the box" far exceeds the LC200 for towing.

This has been written in some of the leading motoring magazines also.. The Disco is a better 'tug' than the LC200..

[ozscott]

Why is the 3.0 so far reduced in payload from the 2.7 - cant be the weight of the extra turbo surely ? It seems counter intuitive.

How do the above comments about no need for a WDH reconcile with the Overlander tow test (where the D3 whipped the butts of LC100 series, Patrol etc) where the D3 had a nervous bum with 2050kg on the rear and needed the WDH tightened a few links to cure it? See Tow Test: Part 1 - Large Wagons - Vehicle Tests - Overlander 4WD Magazine - Australia's leading four wheel drive magazine.

The fact is that there are many many vans in Australia that excessively load up the rear of a tow vehicle. While Coilright bags etc (and therefore D3/4 bags and air suspended D2 bags) certainly help they do not do the job of a WDH that levers the weight to the front of the tow vehicle to restore front end braking and steering weight and stops waggle (and you can also fit anti-sway bars if necessary). Whilst trailer control on the D4 would help with stopping a sway problem developing or getting out of control (and is very clever) it, nor air bags address the source of the problem.

I am keen to hear from owners who have D3/4 and have had sway or nervous rear end issues (surely some would have because there are vans from from the factory cause issues - see above with overlander as an example) and have tried WDH to address the issue.

Cheers

[mowog]

I would say the nervous rear end issue is a Caravan Design flaw not a problem with the D3/4.

There are certainly some very badly designed caravans out there. I towed the same 21' caravan with my Territory and my D4 on both it was super stable. With the D4 I towed that van to Undara Lava Tubes over some very average roads the whole rig performed without fault and without the need for a WDH. We free camped a fair bit so the water load over the trip went from almost empty to full. The tanks on that van were slightly forward of the center line the changing balance did not affect the D4 at all.

I just had another read of the article... They used a WDH on the D3 from the start of the test...! Clearly they didn't try without it...?

[MartyJB]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. They were going against the explicit instruction of LR and were using a WDH, not wonder it wasn't handling like it should!

Back to the orignal post which was between a Prado and a D4; I think the fact that this discussion jumped to comparing the D4 with the LC200 is enough said - the Prado doesn't stack up, the LC200 is a closer match. I've been a Crusier man before, but In my mind the LC200 was not as good as the D4 on top of that I got an SE, which is much highter specced for less than I'd have to pay for a GXL with terrible velour trim that looks like it came out of a 1990s Avalon! And while I'm on the interior, I'm quite tall (6'7") and the windscreen was way too low, I'd never need the sunvisor, which also ruled me out of getting a VX as there's no head room with the sunroof that can't be optioned out. The other big issue in my mind with the cruiser other than the oil usage is the auto box which has a too tall 6th gear and is just not as smooth, the ZF boxes in D4s work seamlessly with the engines. I think this is what make the D4 SE feel quicker that a LC200 even though it has a higher power to weigth ratio.

[Grumndriva]

Well, I expected there to be some passionate debate: we wouldn't be on the forum if we were not passionate about the green oval. However, credit where credit is due.

I took the risk of posting what I did to get a debate because this will be the last vehicle I will ever own, and I don't want to go wrong. My heart is saying D4, but the quantifiable facts say LC200 for my specific role. This isn't about which is the better vehicle for normal use.

Taking the issues raised so far.

WDH. There is a huge misconception about what a WDH is there for. Regardless of what its original aim may have been ("load leveller"), the primary purpose of a WDH now is to restore the effective CG position of the tug: to transfer weight back to the front wheels to restore traction and therefore braking and handling. To suggest that the fact that a standard LC200's rear will drop when you put 270 kg on the tow bar is a disadvantage is not right. Any passenger vehicle will do that unless you have a self-levelling device like the D4, or a manual levelling device like the Polyair bags at the rear of my D2, or a WDH which will level the vehicle as a by product of its proper job. I can easily level my current rig using just the Polyair bags, but the difference between doing that and using a WDH is like chalk and cheese. Virtually without exception, those that use WDH (from experience by far the majority of experienced heavy van towers) believe them to be a major safety tool. I have been using them for three years with my D2, and there is no doubt that the rig handles and brakes far better. It is also quieter and more comfortable and less prone to pitching. I can't say that no LC200 has ever had a problem with a WDH on dirt roads, but I have never heard of such a problem from owners I have met or on a forum, so if it is a problem it has been well hushed up. The inability to use a WDH with the D4 remains for me a major safety disadvantage.

Air Suspension. Just a quick point on air suspension. While it is great in normal use, it is not a positive for caravan touring. A fixed suspension height is probably preferable, particularly when you want to leave the rig coupled overnight.

Range. I accept that there is a lot of discussion about how much fuel the LC200 TD burns. My fellow caravanners with LC200s with whom I have discussed it all claim around 18 LHK with vans of similar weight to mine cruising at around 90kph which is a good speed for a heavy van. I can't speak for what anyone's work place gets, but then until you quantify driving style and speed, a raw figure doesn't mean much. If you "drive it like you stole it", then it will burn a lot of extra fuel. The quoted ADR (?) combined figures for each are 9.3 vs 10.4. No-one in the real world gets those figures, but their relativity is still a useful guide.

Payload. I need a safe van range of 600 km. The D4 can't do that out of the box, so I am up for long range tanks and a spare wheel carrier. Total around 112 kg. The residual payloads are then 130 kg different. (545 vs 675). Sure I can then theoretically go further with the possible 180 litres in the D4 vs the standard 138 litres in the LC200, but with the optimum 270 kg on the towball, 160kg of driver and passenger, and absolutely nothing else, I can only lawfully put 115 kg more in the D4. I need to carry a fridge, aux battery, water and some other stuff in the tug. Let's say that is 100 kg total. (It will be more than that, but the extra can offset the weight saving from removing the plastic rear bar). That would leave a total of 15 kg for fuel (about 20 litres). It seems to me that there just isn't enough payload for a D4 to tow a van lawfully over any meaningful distance once you fit the LRT, bar and wheel carrier, otherwise I would probably do it. If anyone can find a problem with my maths, please let me know, because range is a show stopper for the D4 at the moment.

Oil Consuption. Excessive oil consumption remains for me an issue to be resolved. I have found about half a dozen owners dissatisfied with their oil consumption. Toyota's position seems to be that they have fixed the problem with the MY10 vehicles, but there aren't enough out there yet to confirm it. In any event, having had the original plus two factory new replacement engines in my D2 fail catastrophically due to design/manufacturing faults, I think that excessive oil usage is rather a minor issue which will undoubtedly be fixed with time if it isn't already.

Appearance. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The LC200 is certainly not a particularly attractive vehicle, but then neither is the D4. One is a bubble and one is a box, but it doesn't matter. What I am after is performance in terms of range/payload/cost. The D4 looks a lot better with an OME bull bar, but then the payload is reduced even further.

Product Support. Where is the LR support when you need it? Thread after thread on traveller forums refer to the lack of LR capable mechanics to fix LR vehicles in the bush. The same is not as true of Toyota. However I accept that availability of spares is a different issue. Based on my experience though, Land Rovers do tend to consume spares at a higher rate than most other common vehicles.

Longevity. I have probably about 10 years of driving left: 15 if I am very lucky. I want this vehicle to last, and I want to spend as much of my time in the more remote areas as I can. My analysis strongly suggests that the LC200 is the most suitable vehicle for towing a heavy load in the more remote areas. I could be wrong, but those who have lived and worked or travelled extensively in outback Australia will know that outback Australia is very definitely Land Cruiser country. It is perhaps unlikely that all the people who live there and own Land Cruisers are wrong too. There has to be a reason why no other brand gets a look in. A couple of station owners I was chatting with recently made the point that some other cars might be good for a trip through the area once or twice, but nothing else lasts on the roads out there.

Tyres. Tombie might well be right that the 19 inch wheels are acceptable for the bush, but at least 10 D4 owners on this forum have shelled out rather a lot of money to replace them with the 18 inch wheels that ghaggis had made. My scepticism is clearly shared by other D4 owners.

I value well reasoned and factual input. If anyone can tell me how I can lawfully get a 600 km range out of a D4 towing 2.7 tonnes and with 170 kg of people, 100 kg of goodies in the back, and the desired 270 kg on the tow ball, I would love to hear it, because I don't think it can be done.

And let me stress again, this is not about which is the better vehicle. It is about which is the best for a specific job.