Thanks to everyone for their input.
I am sorry I sparked so much emotion.
I originally considered a switch to the LC was because I personally love the truck. I was probably hoping secretly there would be overwhelming consensus to switch. More rationally, the LC has a host of better features which individually seem to be minor but I was concerned that in aggregate (or by some factor unknown to me) there would be a critically important difference. I have heard many issues brought up - including the importance of driver skill. So far it seems these are both great vehicles that can be built to perform better than I can drive. The 80 series has seems to have countless fans and no one who feel it less than stellar off road. For me the big drawback to the 80 is that I tow at 10,000 feet.
The "best" comment so far was the Old Spice commercial. Funny. Perfectly playing my emotion to go for LC.
Anybody else know Rod and his LC for sale?
Henry, I also live in Colorado and several years ago was trying to decide between 4th gen 4R and 100 series LC for family camping, touring, and a DD. I was also trying to decide between a newer 4th gen 4R and an older 100-series LC. I first purchased the 4R and then switched to the 100 a little bit later. Despite the financial lumps, I am very happy with that decision.
First, you say that you are unhappy with your 4R’s performance, and you received some suggestions about better tires, removing the running boards, and improving your driving skill. While I can’t argue with improving driving skill, I will say that I found a stock 4th gen to be an awful trail vehicle here in CO (implied comparison with the other stock SUV’s I’ve owned and where the 4R can go). While it’s version of ATRAC/traction control is quite good, the chassis design and clearance are very poor. In fact, if you look at iconic 4x4’s – LC’s, the older Rover’s, G-Wagons, you won’t find any of them with such a poor chassis design (parts hanging down from the frame) as the 4R/120’s. The most important clearance area for the moderate on up trails here in CO is not the approach or departure clearance, but the area around the rear control arms. The 4th gen with its low slung gas tank does not do well here – even with a 3” lift, and in my experience get’s hung up a lot. By contrast, the 100 has a much cleaner underbody and higher breakover angle without sacrificing stability. My 3” lift lifted 100 has much more clearance in this area than a 3” lifted 4th gen. And, I find my clearance just barely adequate for 90% of the trails here. To be fair, it looks like the 4R suspension market now has higher than 3” lift options available than when I had my 4R. So, if you were willing to lift the 4R higher than the 100 and replace more components, you could achieve parity or surpass the 100, but I’m not familiar with the tradeoffs with these more extreme lifts.
My second reason for preferring the LC over the 4R is the sitting position, visibility, and driving comfort. I found the 4R’s on the floor seating very uncomfortable on long drives to Utah and Telluride. By comparison, the LC has comfortable upright seating and a much better view that makes touring more enjoyable to me. For me personally, this reason is very large. I’m willing to make tradeoffs in terms of reliability, cost, and capability for it. But thankfully I only had to trade cost going with 100.
Third, cargo space. Nothing really to argue about here. I can backpack camp, but my family can not (all girls).
Last by not least, fun factor. I found the 100 more inspiring to drive than the 4R, but to be honest, neither of them would I qualify as ‘fun’ cars in the own right.
So, if you are interested in seeing and driving a built 100 (more than Rod’s), you are more than welcome to swing by, kick the tires, and drive mine. Just shoot me a PM; I'm in the NorCo front-range.
Lucky though, most of us with our 80s are sweating profusely.
