Sell me on a Land Rover

Status
Not open for further replies.

stevenmd

Expedition Leader
In the final analysis it comes down to this... if you want one, get one. Simple. Just be prepared for a love/hate relationship. We have a semi-local NorCal forum ( www.lrrforums.com ) and we can help you with almost anything you encounter. If you get a series, TeriAnn can help you with every aspect of it. And we have a great NorCal club (see NCLR link in earlier post) you can join and meet some great people.

In fact, if you know what you want - year, model, how much you want to spend, condition, etc. - we can probably help you find it.

If you don't want one, don't get one. Simple.

If you're not quite sure, come to one of our trail runs and drive a few.:friday:
 

Andrew Walcker

Mod Emeritus
stevenmd said:
In the final analysis it comes down to this... if you want one, get one. Simple. Just be prepared for a love/hate relationship. We have a semi-local NorCal forum ( www.lrrforums.com ) and we can help you with almost anything you encounter. If you get a series, TeriAnn can help you with every aspect of it. And we have a great NorCal club (see NCLR link in earlier post) you can join and meet some great people.

In fact, if you know what you want - year, model, how much you want to spend, condition, etc. - we can probably help you find it.

If you don't want one, don't get one. Simple.

If you're not quite sure, come to one of our trail runs and drive a few.:friday:

Now that is some good advice! :26_7_2:
 

Ducks

Adventurer
Wow, thanks for all the replies. I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I am thoroughly addicted to my fj60 land cruiser and am not planning on getting a land rover. But it completely boggled my mind as to why they were so popular (forgive my ignorance). Now I understand their appeal. Like everyone has said, each vehicle has its strengths and weaknesses. I would love to join up with the Land Rover group and see first hand how great they are.

Cheers.
 

Green96D1

Explorer
Ducks said:
Wow, thanks for all the replies. I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I am thoroughly addicted to my fj60 land cruiser and am not planning on getting a land rover. But it completely boggled my mind as to why they were so popular (forgive my ignorance). Now I understand their appeal. Like everyone has said, each vehicle has its strengths and weaknesses. I would love to join up with the Land Rover group and see first hand how great they are.

Cheers.
We have Monthly off road gathering. at Hollister hill California.

The NCLR club. If you could make it that would be great.

You'll be amazed. I remember my First Try out I was a nervous wreck but after a few hours of trail riding and climbing what seemed to be unpossible climbs I was hooked and this was all done on stock tires.
 

Scott Brady

Founder
I have read some really silly, brand centric and even year centric replies in this thread. It appears that most of them only serve to reinforce the posters choice (and investment) in a particular brand or model, not to add any real dialog to Ducks original question.

"The CJ was better in the mud": Well, because it has a much higher HP to weight ratio and was likely equipped with flotation tires.

Vehicles are not this great nebulous brand capability that somehow allows them to sail across the mud while the next vehicle sinks. Vehicles are an accumulation of designs and specification and variables that can provide a predictable outcome. A CJ7 will likely perform better in the mud than a 110 because it has higher HP to weight ratio and likely has a rear limited slip, what were the tires fitted to each vehicle? Ask those questions and formulate a logical, scientific response and then your comments will seem less like "My Ford is better than your stupid Chevy"

I just so wish people would post comments to questions like this in a logical and less self-serving and emotional way.

And sure, we can all agree that a Land Rover will experience more reliability issues in its life cycle than a typical Toyota, but it is NOT a 100 to 1 thing, or even a 50 to 1 thing.

For example, a 1995 Land Rover Discovery I has a failure incident rating of 7.7, while a 1995 Toyota Land Cruiser has a failure incident rating of 9.0. Which means that within 100K miles the Discovery has a likelyhood of 23% to experience a failure requiring service for the vehicle to continue to drive and the Land Cruiser has a likely hood of 10%. That is only the difference of 13% on the scale.

When I picked the 1995 Discovery up, I could have purchased any vehicle (just about). I could have bought the famous and deserving FZJ80 or any other Toyota for that matter. I mean, I drive and test cars for a living, and the one I wanted was the Discovery. I wanted a fun car that had a rich heritage, great style and had a manual transmission and solid axles and lots of modification potential. That is not a Toyota, at least not one capable of carrying 5 people down the road at 80 mph.

So then I read further through this thread and find this quote from ZOOROPA

The Land Rover may look pretty at a dinner party, but if your looking for substance, depth, and conversation; look elsewhere unless you let your emotions rule your finances, common sense, and over land plans

Why would you even post something like that? To bolster your argument by insulting peoples choices in vehicles? Are you suggesting that since I bought a Land Rover I let emotions rule my finances (my semi-retirement at age 35 proves that to be quite false), that I lack common sense (I will let others be the judge of that), and that I let emotions rule my Overland plans?

That statement is the most ignorant, self-serving diatribe I have ever read in relationship to a topic on vehicle selection. I am not calling you ignorant, but your statement was only written to be offensive and hurtful to people that chose a vehicle other than the one you chose. Is it the anonymity of a keyboard and screen name that drives people to be so rude? I guarantee he would not say that comment around a campfire.

On ExPo, we make an effort to respect others choices in vehicles, etc., because that is a sign of maturity and reason.

Significant expeditions throughout the globe have been accomplished in Land Rovers. Our very own Graham Jackson drove a Land Rover 30,000 miles from London to Cape Town, SA, and nothing assembled by Land Rover failed on his Defender (if I remember the story correctly).

The one point all of you Land Rover haters have missed, and you were greatly remise in not seeing, is that it DOES NOT MATTER what vehicle you take on some great adventure, it was the fact that the great adventure was taken in the first place! Variety of vehicle choice is what makes enjoying cars so cool. Can't we all respect the fact that others may make a choice other than yours? How boring would it be if ever picture on expo and every trip we took had only a white Land Cruiser?

If someone loves to drive a Land Rover and they drive it across Africa while you wax poetic about the great Toyota sitting in your driveway, then who is the one just sitting pretty at the dinner table?
 

Lynn

Expedition Leader
expeditionswest said:
"The CJ was better in the mud": Well, because it has a much higher HP to weight ratio

Actually, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

expeditionswest said:
and was likely equipped with flotation tires.

Nope.
 

4Rescue

Expedition Leader
While I'm clearly a Toyota Diehard kind of guy, and I do think that Toyotas have a more robust drive train, calling one better than another as far as 4x4's go is pretty moot. They both have two speed selectable t-cases, several comparably sized models(and that's a big part of the compro, let's comapre similar rigs of similar size etc) up untill the 80's demise they both had SFA's... really, there is not alot of difference between most 4wd vehicles (when compared with their peers) outside of SFA's and wheelbase (although one could argue that the lower t-case gears in the Rovers are quite an advantage). I agree with Scott that there is alot of brandcentric hogwash being thrown around here.

I have an old 4Runner, arguably one of the toughest little trucks ever made, and it still get's stuck... would a Rover get stuck earlier, or maybe get farther? That probably has more to do with who's driving than the trucks than who it was made by ;)

Personaly, I think old Rovers have alot of neat charectar that is either for you or it's not. Personaly I'm the kind of guy that looks at a weathered patina and a boxy utilitarian body(wether it be a 110 or a 70 series cruiser) and get's all giddy inside. I know I'm not alone in this hetre eh ;) I really like old Rovers for this exact reason, and I'm definately starting to get into the Disco's and Classics as well. In the classic 4x4 category (ie FJ40/D90/CJX/Patrol etc) it'll be more about the driver than the truck seeing as they all have so much in common. Actualy the Rover with it's deeper gearing and coil sprung suspension is probably the technical winner, the Toyota/Nissan is/are the workhorse/durability winner, and the CJ with it's V8's is the muscle winner, so to me they're all cool rigs.

What I'm trying to get at in all of that jabbering is it's up to you and wether you like them.
 

Scott Brady

Founder
Hey, my little 1995 moves down the road just fine at 80 (even a little more).

Once I bolt all the new goodies to it, maybe not... Once the diesel goes in, I am sure it won't, but then again, I will be getting nearly 30mpg too :)
 

Ducks

Adventurer
I guess I was looking for some technical comparisons as well. Of course, driver's skill is the main thing. Reading about the 2wd toyota drivers on the Camel Trophy pre-scout in OJ comes to mind. And it doesn't entirely matter what you drive as long as you are out there. Pride in a brand you feel invested in is kind of a weird thing. I naturally want to have strong feelings about Toyota since the fj60 is my first real 4x4 and I'm investing money and time into it. It is also taking me places that I have never been before. But I was looking for maybe more technical viewpoints as well.

For example, the early G-Wagens have great axles, stock hydraulic lockers, great forward visibility, and seem well put together. Their engines in the early models seem under powered. They are heavy. There is limited support for them in the US.

The land cruiser seems to have a robust drive line with aftermarket chromoly axles available. I like the engine in the fj60 and would love to put a 1hz diesel in it one day. But it is big in comparison to the g-wagen and the forward visibility isn't as good. I put in an aftermarket seat that gives me a higher seating position that helps but it still doesn't compare to the g-wagen or an fj40.

The lower gearing in the t-case for the land rover sounds like a great advantage. I hope to put a dual-case toybox in my land cruiser but that takes more time and money. The forward visibility sounds great too. Is it lighter? Can you compare how a vehicle is balanced? How is the strength of the axles? I had a buddy of mine in college that was always breaking axles in his land rover. But he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed either.

I think most of the top-tier 4x4 vehicles will take me places in stock form beyond what I would imagine. I also don't know anything about Jeeps other than the guide I had hated them because they kept breaking and he felt they had some design flaws in the steering.

I am not trying to start a brand war or any such nonsense. Just wanted to hear from the people that have driven them to there and back why they liked them.

:beer:
 
Last edited:

Ducks

Adventurer
expeditionswest said:
For example, a 1995 Land Rover Discovery I has a failure incident rating of 7.7, while a 1995 Toyota Land Cruiser has a failure incident rating of 9.0. Which means that within 100K miles the Discovery has a likelyhood of 23% to experience a failure requiring service for the vehicle to continue to drive and the Land Cruiser has a likely hood of 10%. That is only the difference of 13% on the scale.

While I agree in general with what you said in your post Scott. I think the mechanical reliability difference is significant. It could also be stated that the land rover is 2.3 times more likely to fail than the land cruiser. That almost 1 out of every 4 land rovers will fail in the first 100,000 miles versus 1 out of every 10 land cruisers. When you are relying on it for solo expeditions, that reliability would seem important. I wonder what the numbers are for 1984? (I have a 1984 land cruiser and tend to gravitate toward vehicles of that vintage.)

That said, regular maintenance for any vehicle is the key and attending to known problems areas, I would assume, you could anticipate certain failures. (I'm not going to defend the 1FZ head gasket issue here. I own a 2F. Yet one more way to separate ourselves, I guess.)

Anyways. Everything has its strengths and it weaknesses. I guess it is personal preference as to which strengths you want and what weaknesses you are willing to deal with.
 

Scott Brady

Founder
Ducks said:
When you are relying on it for solo expeditions, that reliability would seem important.

I could not agree more, which is why I drove a Toyota to the Arctic.

There was another group attempting nearly the same expedition, but with three Land Rovers. In fact, we passed them on the Alcan. If you read their story of nearly the same trip, it was filled entirely with mechanical issues. Our Tacoma experienced zero issues at all. In fact, my Tacoma has NEVER had even the smallest of issues, not even a loose trim piece in 70k miles.

You do not buy a Land Rover because of it's strengths as a solo expedition vehicle... That skill is owned by the Toyotas, Patrols and Troopers of the world. That does not mean you cannot use a Land Rover as a solo expedition rig, but even the most diehard of roverphiles would agree that reliability is not the first reason they chose one.

However, Land Rovers do make great trail vehicles and daily drivers and vacation mobiles and super cool exploration rigs. Which is why I own one :)
 

Michael Slade

Untitled
expeditionswest said:
There was another group attempting nearly the same expedition, but with three Land Rovers. In fact, we passed them on the Alcan. If you read their story of nearly the same trip, it was filled entirely with mechanical issues.

Link please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,296
Messages
2,905,088
Members
229,959
Latest member
bdpkauai

Members online

Top