That is an interesting assessment. Where do you feel the G-Wagen falls short? Ground clearance? Approach/Departure? Traction? Gearing?
Given that I own a G-Wagon (463) and also own a 70 series, I am curious of your experience on the difference of off-highway performance between the G-Klasse and a Land Cruiser 76.
I should preface this whole thing with that fact that I think any difference between these vehicles is largely splitting hairs. They are all fantastic and have a great feature set to bring to anyone looking to complete an overland trip and are all very capable off-road, especially when fitted with a small lift and more aggressive tires.
I should also give a little background about my first hand experiences with these vehicles, which is somewhat limited. I had a 200tdi 110 that I put about 13k miles on from NH to Colombia, 3" lift and 33" tires. No experience with the J8 but PLENTY of experience in the JKU platform offroad, mostly through spotting and watching them on the trails every year but also with a fair amount of time behind the wheel. They are by far the most popular vehicle that we see on our trips. My first hand experience with the G is with the 463 in the form of a 2008 G500 and a 2013 G550, both stock with street oriented tires (G55 as well, but never saw dirt in that). I have limited second hand experience via spotting and being on the trails a handful of times with a stock 77 (I think, it is the same as the 76, just the previous years) and also with a 76 that had a small (2-3"?) lift and slightly larger than stock tires but I've never actually driven one. I have no experience with the Patrol but am familiar with the Xterra and Titans with gas motors and a diesel Pathfinder (R51). Not enough to really know how a Patrol is, but maybe enough for a 100 foot feel of how it might be.
In stock form, I think all of these vehicles suffer from a horrendous lack of wheel travel and ground clearance, especially considering the fairly long wheelbases. I had to double check to make sure, and I am completely disregarding the Patrol here, but they all appear to be right about 116" wheelbase, save for the 110 at an obvious 110". Each type of terrain and part of the world is different, but the 116" wheelbase class of vehicles does really well here in the Northeast, where we have a pretty wide variety of terrain and obstacles. I don't think wheelbase is a detractor to the G at all and in fact, I think it is a perfect wheelbase for an all-around vehicle. Approach/departure were also pretty much a non-issue for me. Gearing has never bothered me off-road in anything I have ever driven, as long as it had a dual speed transfer case. To me, gearing is only an issue on the street. Off-road I am in 4LO and with that multiplier, any axle gearing change isn't a massive game changer, especially when spun through an auto trans. Mercedes does some good work with traction aids (my daily is an S-class) but when dual locked, those go out the window. The G and JK are nice because larger tires can be fitted with minimal lift. Lower COG and roll center is always better.
It is hard to compare stock to stock, since they come very differently equipped. The G starts with locking diffs at front and rear which put it miles ahead of a stock D110, open/open. I think that to make it a fair comparison we need to add lockers to the other vehicles where they lack them. Once everyone is dual locked, the playing field is a lot more level. I understand that this adds to the budget and takes away from factory reliability, but considering the base cost of even a used G vs a 110, there is some money to play with and hopefully ARBs will be reliable enough. I think we also need to add a small lift to each of these to fit larger tires. The G only needs about 1-1.5", the D110 about 3" and the 76 maybe 2".
When modified to this point, I think suspension designs, geometries, and some of the nuances that don't show up in spec sheets come into play. The G seems to bounce more and struggle to put pressure to the ground to find traction where the JK, 110, and 70 always seem to spin a half revolution and somehow find traction every time. I know that tires play a big part in this, but I am trying to be as objective as possible and am trying to only compare characteristics of equally equipped vehicles. The G also exhibits a definite lack of wheel travel, in my experience. I know people will jump up and down and shout, "but it has lockers!"... I know that lockers do make up for this to some extent, but there is certain value added when you have more tires on the ground at any given point. Predictability, stability, traction (even if it is minimal due to weight transfer), smoothness, and control-ability are all improved by letting the opposite tire touch down. Even with lift kits, the G seems to lack the travel that other vehicles have. Obviously the JK excels in this area with the Rubicon package and the electric sway bar disconnect, but even disconnecting the swaybar on a G doesn't net much more for travel. It's just an inherent downfall to the suspension design. The Toyota with the correct shocks and springs shows some impressive wheel travel and the 110 isn't
too bad either.
To sum up this ramble about the minute differences between extremely capable vehicles, I think the G falls short because of lack of wheel travel and the seeming struggle to find traction in areas where it's competitors don't struggle as much. I don't think it is a poor performer off-road, actually the opposite, once fitted with proper tires, but if a clear winner needs to be declared from a field of 5 very capable vehicles, the small differences are what will determine the outcome.
Also keep in mind that my current overland rig is an Excursion on 37" tires, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. :elkgrin:
)
