Thread: What would it take to make a land rover "toyota" reliable?

One of the reasons Land Rovers aren’t as reliable is they push the boundaries of technology far harder that Toyota and introduce new models far more often. 200 Series has been around for ever it seems and the latest Hilux is a 6 year old design based on a much older design.

Just an observation but when Land Rover do keep a model on sale for a lengthy period, they do become quite reliable - I’d use the D3/D4 as an example - while they do have known issues overall I’d consider the D4 to be a reliable vehicle IMO (and a **** load better in every respect)

Toyota’s have known issues as well - you only need to look at the V8 and the issues that’s had since it was first released - its just that Yota owners think it’s normal.

On older vehicles - the last model Defender for example - a few tweaks and mods which are well known makes them a reliable vehicle too.

Not saying all Land Rovers are reliable - I know they aren’t as I’ve owned a couple of them but that’s my input into what would make them better.

So we had this Head of IT at work and under him the network was never more reliable, but it was always a generation behind the latest.

I think Toyota are like that. There is nothing on a Toyota that really pushes the envelopes of technology and nothing in their design is something that you couldn't have got 15 years prior to the vehicle being desinged. Even the engines produce less power per litre than probably anything but a 2.25D and the gearboxes all still change like a gearbox from 1980. A 2021 Landcruiser still has a steel inner to the doors, the only other vehicle like that in the last 30 years was probably the Defender. You manufacture a vehicle like that in a modern context and it is a "Toyota" all over: Boring, underwhelming but solid. They do break though, CV, diffs, gearboxs etc. But, used normally you just do oil changes if you happen to remember and they'll just go.

I think the underlying premise of the thread is not correct, that is Toyotas are more reliable. While there are problems with both brands, I am not sure LR is worse than the other, though I agree that it does seem to be publicised more and Toyota problems are not talked about.

I can only relate my own family's experience. I bought my RRS in 2010 with 38,000km on it. One brother bought a new Hilux 3.0 at about that time and the other brother bought a new 79? single cab GXL Landcruiser also at about the same time.

My RRS experience has been extremely positive - the most reliable car I have owned in now 50 years of driving. Only had service issues, EGRs, compressor rebuild and a split CV joint boot (still split and wrapped in gladwrap) - now 14 years old and 200,000km and needs the lower control arm bushes - thats it.

The HiLux is still owned by my brother and has covered about 195,000km. Is not now used all that much and has generally been reliable. It rides like crap and chews through tyres - on standard rims and a 2" lift. The main issue has been steering columns - is now on its third, not sure of the issue but Toyota just replace them as a complete unit - all under warranty (the car is out of warranty but the steering columns fail before they run out of warranty). There were some injector issues early but fixed under warranty - so reasonably reliable just an awful vehicle to drive.

The other brother's 79? did not stay in ownership for long to develop major issues - was sold with about 30,000km as bro thought is crap and under powered. Sold to his neighbour. He then bought a 200 series Sahara - the front suspension sagged before the first service, he had not even got the bull bar and winch on. Suspension was to be replaced under warranty but brother new it would sag again so went after market all round. The 200 series was really bad on fuel and had trouble towing the caravan where fuel consumption went really bad so was sold on - dont believe resale values on Toyotas - the 200 series only had 60,000km and was 5 years old and only got 60% of what he paid. He now drives a HSV Chev Silverardo which he loves - has a great towing capacity but has a very low load capacity.

LRs and Toyotas have their strengths and weaknesses but dont believe the nonsense put out about both brands.

Garry

Daughters Camry is a ‘98 model with 330,000KM on and was used as a delivery vehicle for the first 300,000 around the City for a Printing company. Still drives great and is comfy and quite powerful for what it is. I’d have one in a heartbeat as a daily driver if I didn’t have a company car. Head lining dropped down the same as a Land Rover and the paint has faded but that’s about it.

My 6 YO Hilux has over 200,000 on it and has had DPF issues but nothing else.

Overall I’d say that Toyotas are more reliable but as mentioned they don’t push the envelope technically.

What a load of cods wallop!

Only vehicle on several decently challenging trips to
NOT have problems has been a LR.

And the number of Toyotas towed through here on flat beds is impressive!

An underpowered, technically dated vehicle will always appear reliable.

Originally Posted by 101RRS

I think the underlying premise of the thread is not correct, that is Toyotas are more reliable. While there are problems with both brands, I am not sure LR is worse than the other, though I agree that it does seem to be publicised more and Toyota problems are not talked about.

I can only relate my own family's experience. I bought my RRS in 2010 with 38,000km on it. One brother bought a new Hilux 3.0 at about that time and the other brother bought a new 79? single cab GXL Landcruiser also at about the same time.

My RRS experience has been extremely positive - the most reliable car I have owned in now 50 years of driving. Only had service issues, EGRs, compressor rebuild and a split CV joint boot (still split and wrapped in gladwrap) - now 14 years old and 200,000km and needs the lower control arm bushes - thats it.

The HiLux is still owned by my brother and has covered about 195,000km. Is not now used all that much and has generally been reliable. It rides like crap and chews through tyres - on standard rims and a 2" lift. The main issue has been steering columns - is now on its third, not sure of the issue but Toyota just replace them as a complete unit - all under warranty (the car is out of warranty but the steering columns fail before they run out of warranty). There were some injector issues early but fixed under warranty - so reasonably reliable just an awful vehicle to drive.

The other brother's 79? did not stay in ownership for long to develop major issues - was sold with about 30,000km as bro thought is crap and under powered. Sold to his neighbour. He then bought a 200 series Sahara - the front suspension sagged before the first service, he had not even got the bull bar and winch on. Suspension was to be replaced under warranty but brother new it would sag again so went after market all round. The 200 series was really bad on fuel and had trouble towing the caravan where fuel consumption went really bad so was sold on - dont believe resale values on Toyotas - the 200 series only had 60,000km and was 5 years old and only got 60% of what he paid. He now drives a HSV Chev Silverardo which he loves - has a great towing capacity but has a very low load capacity.

LRs and Toyotas have their strengths and weaknesses but dont believe the nonsense put out about both brands.

Garry

So it sounds more like how LR deal with (or don't deal with) warranty issues is the main problem.

I was sat round a camp fire in the High Country years back on a gold mine tour.
One of the guys started on about reliability of Land Rovers, didn't bother me as I always find their 'experience' is 'a mate told me'.
Suddenly a bloke with a 100 Series jumped to my defence.

He pointed out gearbox problems in the 100 Series, turned to a Nissan driver and pointed out the diesel motor that self destructed at 100,000 Km and went round most manufacturers and listed problems.
His final comment was 'leave the Land Rover bloke alone, all manufacturers have problems !'

I shouted him a beer and we got on with the general campfire chat.......


Colin

Recent camping trip (between lock-downs). Me in my L320 TDV8, uncle in his 3yo high-spec Hilux and mate in his very well-set-up basic 80-series. My tools came out several times. Not once to do anything on mine.... actually I did need to tighten up my sand-flag mount once, but I'm not counting that. Mine used the least fuel (!), was vastly the most comfortable, fastest, least fatiguing, most 'fun', proved to be every bit as capable as the others, and was just generally "the best". I had zero electrical issues, both of the others had ongoing problems. Daily arguing in the group as to who's turn it was to ride shotgun in mine as both the Toyota's were considered to be uncomfortable things to sit in. But I bit the bullet and did the hard yards when I got it at 110k and 10yo and did all of the preventative maintenance and known-issue stuff (new airbags, front hubs, bushes, front diff, etc). Not cheap but an investment IMHO and worth it for this sort of vehicle. The price we pay for cutting-edge is higher maintenance and having to be across the diagnostics, etc. The benefit we get is comfortable, easy capability on all terrain. LRs reliability improved markedly during the Ford era (mid-2000s) after completely tanking in the late 90s and early 2000s. I personally wouldn't own anything from that era, skipping from '94 to '08 and jumping that black-hole of despair. Finally the company had some heft (via Ford's global weight) and was able to insist that their suppliers stopped dumping rubbish on them and had to actually provide componentry that met the drawings and specification. Before that it was a free-for-all and the vehicle suffered. The cars were generally engineered well, but the supplied parts weren't to spec and so didn't work as intended. Nowadays the bulk of the reliability issues are niggling customer-facing electronics and this is fairly common to all of the companies pushing the envelope. Look at the infotainment issues seen by Ford as they rolled out their various Sync generations as one example. Huge 'reliability' issues as there were bugs that really annoyed customers. The cars still started, drove and functioned fine as cars but the customers were impacted highly by the fancy stuff not working correctly. Most late-model 'high-end' vehicles have these issues whether it's Mercedes Benz or Land Rover. Understand your vehicle, maintain it properly, and you'll enjoy it reliably. That's been true of all of the vehicles I've owned across a wide spectrum of brands and types. High end cars depreciate like a stone sinking in water because their complex electronics can get pricey to fix or maintain as they get older, especially for the disinterested lay-person that defaults to the dealer and resulting gouging rather than self-help and indy support. I am OK with that as that's my source of vehicles sorted

Originally Posted by Homestar

Overall I’d say that Toyotas are more reliable but as mentioned they don’t push the envelope technically.

Exactly,pushing the envelope causes reliability issues and often high maintenance costs.

Some manufacturers,and it’s generally the Japanese/Thailand/Korean,put reliability ahead of complexity,and technology,for that reason.

After running a fleet of Jap commercial vehicles for over 30 yrs,and having LRs for well over 20,there is just no comparison,when looking at the reliability of the two brands.
And it looks like the LC’s bought in the last couple of years are following the trend as well.

The main failures with later model LC’s are the modifications by the owners,with tunes,chips,etc,etc,leading the way.
There are many LC200 around,stock,with well over 400 000 on the clock and no real issues.

The D4 was probably the most reliable LR we had,but it still had numerous issues,mainly EAS and EPB,and it was serviced correctly.
The Puma was definitely at the other end of the LR reliability scale,with issue after issue.
The hopeless quality of workmanship at the dealer didn’t help either.