Anybody here ever gone from an LR 3/4 to a 200 series Land Cruiser?

bjowett

Adventurer
LR3/4 is better compared to a GX470/460. The LC is a heavy duty vehicle with a very beefy chassis... The Rovers are light duty in comparison.
 

Colonal Angus

Adventurer
^pretty goofy question about tools. I thought this was a serious discussion.

Mine 2007 lr3 has not needed any of the sort of tools you are implying so far in 67,000 miles. In fact, my 1996 Discovery never needed me to use tools either. It never left me stranded but I also follow good prevention maintenance. The stock Lr3/4 is more ready to go more places than the LC is.

Drove a lc200 again today....such a sweet ride!

My post seemed perfectly acceptable after the tumbler of MM46 that I had. Didn't mean to diminish the seriousness of the thread. We're back on track now.
 

Jwestpro

Explorer
ok, that's funny enough. Here you go then: :coffee:

Anyway, regarding tools. I just discovered a shreaded rear air suspension strut cover/boot. No codes, no change in function, just a ripped apart dirt cover. It's just one of the reasons an lr3/4 bugs me, too many little cool things to ultimately fail or keep up with. Obviously one solution is to change air struts out and replace with steel spring kit, which I would never do because I like the ability to drop the suspension for making the roof rack a stable photography platform. I suppose I could do steel springs and ad a couple leveling jacks or a pair of high lifts on 2 corners for the ultimate stability kit.
 

Eric Edwards

Adventurer
Ok just got back from Overland Expo 2013 and did the obstacle course in both my LC200... and immediately afterwards in the brand new 2013 Range Rover. Couple thoughts:

1. The new RR is nice... as in very nice (fit, finish, styling, etc.)
2. The new RR went through the obstacle course cleanly, and cruised through a spot that I saw even a nicely equipped Defender get stuck in
3. The new RR's interior is awesome... maybe too nice
4. My LC200 did the course a little more easily

I was lucky enough to take the driving course with a former Range Rover Camel Team leader (had to have a RR driver with us even in our own vehicle) and he commented repeatedly on how well built (solid) the LC200 felt, how smooth it was over the bumps and how he was surprised that so few were sold in the US.

Soooooo here is my perspective. Firstly, of the thousands of attendees at OX 2013 I don't think I saw anything from Land Rover but Discovery I-II's and LR3-4's. Certainly no Range Rovers that were 2008+. I think it ultimately depends on what you are going to use your vehicle for. If you want a luxurious daily driver that can take you skiing and on long road trips to the golf course get the RR. If you want to do the same (in less style) but be able to go anywhere in bullet proof confidence (minus rock crawling or narrow trails) pick the LC200. Lastly, modding is part of the whole 4x4 experience for me. There is a very large and growing aftermarket parts market for the LC200, which will continue to grow as these vehicles come off of lease. Pick a basically new LC200 with 70,000 miles on it for around 45K and add 10-15K in mods and be confident you will have a bullet proof truck for another 200K... or buy a Range Rover and do you best to unload it before its original 50K warranty expires. = D
 
Last edited:

Jwestpro

Explorer
4. My LC200 did the course a little more easily

I was lucky enough to take the driving course with a former Range Rover Camel Team leader (had to have a RR driver with us even in our own vehicle) and he commented repeatedly on how well built (solid) the LC200 felt, how smooth it was over the bumps and how he was surprised that so few were sold in the US.

I agree with your last bit about longevity however on the course, the RR likely had factory/street tires? Not exactly a fair comparison with you running real tires. From what I have read, the new RR has a lot more wheel articulation than previously and the actually continuous ground clearance on the RR is probably more than yours due to your rear diff.

Keep in mind the RR could fit a 31.5-32" tire bringing it up another .75-1" from stock. If you went with a 35" though, it might be a short argument ;)
 

Eric Edwards

Adventurer
Yes the RR had stock tires... but they were aired down a bit. :smiley_drive:

With that said, even with those stock tires, the RR beat out a nicely equipped Defender with MT 33-34's. It was one of those weird sections of the track where there is a series of alternating mounds and potholes that test articulation and traction control at the same time. I'm running 285/70/17 (33's) AT tires, so definitely had a bit of an advantage, though they were not aired down at all. I think I can go up to 34's without rubbing, but that would require some re-gearing to maintain low end torque.

I can't wait to see the 2014 LR5's though. My understanding is they will also have aluminum frames just like the 2013 RR, so should shed 6-700 pounds of weight. And not to start a rumor, but the RR guy from HQ in London said they might also make it a diesel option! If that's the case my LC200 is going bye-bye real fast.

The current Discovery uses the 3.0 litre TDV6 diesel, which offers economy of around 32mpg (we managed 26.6mpg when we reviewed the Discovery 4 in 2010), so with the weight loss promised it looks like Land Rover will manage to offer the Discovery with headline economy of better than 40mpg and a 0-62mph in the 7-8 second regio

Read more: http://www.carsuk.net/2014-land-rov...e-weight-than-2013-range-rover/#ixzz2U9IwacOe
 

Jwestpro

Explorer
I can't wait to see the 2014 LR5's though. My understanding is they will also have aluminum frames just like the 2013 RR, so should shed 6-700 pounds of weight. And not to start a rumor, but the RR guy from HQ in London said they might also make it a diesel option!

I would not hold my breath on that one. Doesn't it seem more likely they would just bring one engine for the Discovery 5 and make it the SC V6? I don't really care as much what it is anymore, just as long as it has at least 400 lb-ft and an easy to attain highway 20mpg or better. You know what's sort of cool about your LC, that it uses standard 87 octane. 87 is on average 7-10% cheaper. The LC engine already does about 5-10% better mpg than my lr3 and by being able to run 10% larger tires, the combined better $/mpg is easily in the 20-25% range compared to my lr3.
 

Jwestpro

Explorer
None seems to take into consideration the fact that a new LR4 can easily be $20,000 less than a new LC200. Or, even just comparing loaded to loaded pricing, the LR4 still tops out around $64k. Too bad you can't order a new LC without paying for the silly DVD in the headliner.

Obviously you would spend $5000 or more of that on a LR extended warranty. I have never seen a thread on Toyota forums going over all the various sources for good extended warranties ... I wonder why? ;)
 

Jwestpro

Explorer
I cannot find a single discussion on fuel octane (87) regarding if this is more versatile for out of the US such as south of the border, remote Canadian areas, and of course shipping to other places.

I have been considering other vehicles compared to the LC200 and all others state required premium octane.
 

reece146

Automotive Artist
My experience in Canada is that every remote location has 87 and it's hit or miss whether a place will have 91 or not. It seems to depend on how good the local snowmobile trails are as the most of the hot sleds nowadays take 91.

I really wouldn't worry about it up here. If you are stuck in a "gas up or be stranded" situation then load up with 87 till the next station. Any modern-ish truck that requires 91 will dial back the timing and let you get to the next filling station.

I can't speak to the situation in .mx.

 

Eric Edwards

Adventurer
Yeah I dig only having to use 87 octane... I know that putting higher octane in a 87 does not provide any benefits, but it also doesn't degrade performance. Not so sure about putting 87 into an engine that requires premium, as knocking will eventually damage your engine.
 

bjowett

Adventurer
Some folks that use their 3UR-FE 5.7L equipped Tundras to tow long distances have found using mid grades (89 or 91) gets them appreciably better mileage. Enough so that the mid grades save them money over 87. The 3UR does run just fine on 87, though.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
186,317
Messages
2,884,472
Members
226,200
Latest member
eclipse179
Top