Sell me on a Land Rover

[Lynn]

Lynn,

My point is not to argue your interpretation, but to draw out the details. I certainly appreciate your feedback and contributions to the thread. What may make a CJ better in the mud can also make it suffer in other areas, like on the highway. I was a proud owner of a 1983 CJ7, and I can tell you that other than tight trail performance, or HP specific tasks (which there are few), a CJ7 has nothing on a 110. A 110 has a stiffer frame, long travel coil sprung suspension, lower gearing, better COG and much better highway comfort.

Scott,

As I pointed out in my first post of this thread, there are certainly people on this board that have more experience with the LRs than I, and you are definitely one of them. Maybe that’s because you like ‘em enough to own ‘em, and I dislike ‘em enough that I never would.

Matter of fact, you probably have far more wheel time in 4x4s than I ever will.

However, my opinion on highway driving of these two vehicles is 180* out from yours.

I have driven a 110, 130, and a CJ7 many miles on the highway (I’ll give specifics below). While I found the CJ7 to have all the ‘normal’ short wheelbase challenges on the highway, the seats, ergonomics (seating position, steering wheel position, elbowroom etc.) to be far more comfortable than the series LR. With the hard-top CJ7, road noise was comparable, but maybe slightly better. Being narrow vehicles, they all had the same problem being pulled back and forth from one truck rut to the other, but the heavier LRs may have a slight advantage there.

I think I disagree with you, as well, on the ‘horsepower specific tasks.’ While the CJ has more horsepower, it is generally too light to effectively apply it. I am thinking specifically of tasks like towing, and that’s why I mentioned before if I were stuck in a CJ I wouldn’t mind a LR coming along to pull me out. I guess for winching, a LR would also make a better ‘anchor.’

In addition, the 110 has better brakes, a larger fuel tank, more storage, better forward visibility and the full-time 4wd (and no, Quadratrack doesn't count on the CJ).

Can’t argue most of that.

In order to properly compare a vehicle, it must be a stock truck to a stock truck evaluation, or you are just comparing mods

Ha! you know, I was going to say something similar! Mostly because my view of the Series trucks is based on their stock configuration. A LR with a MB engine and Toyota pumpkins is a different beast indeed. If you could put decent seats in it, as well, I might actually like it. Well, that and figure out a way to keep from hitting my elbows all the time...

However, I believe that an overland vehicle should be as close to stock as practical for serviceability and parts availability.

By the way, where were you that a 110/130 and a CJ7 were both present on the same day? Just curious.

I was in the USAF stationed in Spain in ’89 and ‘90. We were maintaining a seismic array that stretched over quite a bit of land, so field trips included highway driving to get to the seismic array, then ‘light’ off-roading to access the individual sites.

I had shipped my ’83 CJ7 Laredo (258, hardtop, high-back buckets) over with me, and one of our work vehicles was a 110. Contrary to normal USAF policy, I was allowed to use my POV for Gov. field work. I was really excited to drive the 110 when I got there, but came to loathe it. For two years I switched back and forth between the two vehicles, and often on the same day and in the same terrain. Even multiple times in the same day.

I separated from the USAF in ’95. Most of the overseas seismic sites had been turned over to contractors, and in 2000 I accepted a one-year job working for a USAF contractor in Ankara, Turkey. Our work vehicles were a 110 and a 130. In Turkey, due to encroachment of the city, one of the two arrays had been relocated about an hour and a half away from Ankara. That meant trips to those sites involved a 3-hour round trip on the highway, followed by really light off-roading. I was really happy when we got our Mitsubishi 4x4 pickup truck, and didn’t have to drive the LRs any more. Unfortunately, that was just a month before I left.

Your mileage obviously varies, but I hope I never have to drive or ride in a Series LR for more than about 15 minutes again.

And I guess to further fill in the blanks: I owned the CJ for several years, and besides the short highway trips in Spain that I implied above, I drove it from Toledo, Spain to Wiesbaden, Germany, and several times back and forth from Sacramento, CA to my boyhood home in Cortez, CO.

Again, I know that the 110 (and especially the 130) compared to a CJ is not an ‘apples to apples’ comparison. However, as I mentioned, the CJ and 4-runner are pretty much the only 4x4s I have experience. And, as I said before, I do not believe that a CJ is a good choice for overlanding outside the US. WRT the 1st gen 4-runner, it isn’t what I would choose, either.

However, I have ridden and sat in a few Landcruisers, and that’s what I recommended earlier, since I could see myself sitting in one for many many miles. And Toyota’s reliability reputation is really hard to argue with. I think a true ‘apples to apples’ comparison can be made between similar models of Landcruiser and Landrover, (say, a LR 110 v. a LC 80) and my choice would always be the Landcruiser. Worldwide parts availability is going to favor one over the other, depending on where you are, but, overall, I think would be similar.

Sorry for the length of the post, but you did ask for more info.

 

[Alaska Mike]

Defenders and Series Rovers are very different animals, despite the similar looking sheetmetal.

I remember when Scott and I drove up to the Boise Land Rover dealership and test drove a Defender 90 they had on the lot. I think it was used, but since this was around '93-'94, it couldn't have been that old. All I remember is that is rattled everywhere and I watched the dust filter through the door seals. They were asking around $30K for it, which for two young enlisted guys was waaaaaayyyy too much. We were also Jeep/Toyota guys at the time, and could have bought our vehicles several times over for that kind of money. I wasn't impressed.

Scott and I used to watch Camel Trophy videos we borrowed from that same dealership (nice guys), and we still sing the theme song from the '93 Malaysia video when we go wheeling. It's part of our shared history.

I remember riding in Scott's Disco II and being amazed by how well it articulated and how comfortable it was on a hot Arizona day. No dust and the A/C was vented to us through the various climate zones. It almost felt like we weren't wheeling at all. I understand he had issues with it later, but it was nice while it lasted. Too nice.

Now Scott has the Disco I and I have the Series III. Neither one of us is content with the vehicles in stock form, but we recognize the platforms are ripe for modification. There is extensive aftermarket support, although you often have to pay a premium for it or ship from overseas. Not quite as good as Jeep or Toyota, but not nearly as bad as a Montero (which I wanted to build for a while). There's a lot of things you can do to a vehicle with a body on frame construction.

I agree- if you question whether or not a Land Rover is right for you, you should probably look elsewhere. I personally like having them on the trail with me, because its a nice change from the usual diet of Broncos, Jeeps, and Toyotas. I have the bull-headedness and capability to transform my Rover to suit my needs. I have yet to find a vehicle that met my requirements straight out of the box (short of a Rubicon) and still had the character that bonded me to the vehicle. It's a personal connection for me.

If they don't meet your needs, that's fine. They meet somone else's.

 

[Michael Slade]

Scott and I used to watch Camel Trophy videos we borrowed from that same dealership (nice guys), and we still sing the theme song from the '93 Malaysia video when we go wheeling. It's part of our shared history.

I get that song stuck in my head occasionally too! I loved that video. Possibly the best CT vid. I own. :clapsmile :rockon:

 

[gjackson]

Well, in general terms, this is a pointless argument. It's emotional. Those who already don't like LRs aren't going to suddenly like them and visa versa.

But just for the record:

1. When I lived in Lesotho back in the 70s and wasn't old enough to remember anything, my Dad many times said that he only vehicles that were worth anything were the LRs (series IIa and IIIs). Why? Because the frames on everything else, including FJ45s would break. Lesotho was a country with few roads and many mountains. Home of the Roof of Africa rally which my father helped create, and some really terrible (fun!) roads.

2. While I have never owned a Land Cruiser, I have put a 1965 IIa 88, a 1995 D90 and a D110 through the paces of overlanding and wheeling. I took an almost stock (except for sliders) D90 over Pritchett Canyon in Moab, and a fully stock IIa down Black Bear and up Pearl Pass in Colorado with no problems at all. And my D110 has seen the length of Africa. I have never been stranded, but I have had numerous breakdowns. A Land Rover is what it is. A very capable vehicle that may have been put together badly at the factory. After a couple of years of ownership you can spot those problems, fix them and have one of the most dependable, capable off-road rigs in the world. Not for everyone, but invaluable to those who are willing to invest the effort.

Is the 70 series LC better? No. It is just as dependable as you make it. They can be equally abused and destroyed. They may start off better from the factory, but after you start an overland trip, they are the same (or should be). What you get out of the truck is what you put into it. If you care, you can make it work, if you don't it will fail you.

Buying any vehicle to modify and make a home-on-the-road is emotional. Go with what you want. Make it work. Defy the doubters. And don't accept any advice that is either wholly positive or negative.

cheers

 

[AndrewP]

We have a Rover (discovery I) guy that goes with us every year on our trips to Death Valley. Other than the first year when he had a failure to start, his rig has run the entire week with no issues. Reliability is 94% maintenance in my book. He did bring a Disco 2 one year and almost died because of it.

Where the Disco falls short, is suspension articulation. It just does not have the suspension flex that a 60 or 80 series Land Cruiser does. It also does not have the over built axles and drive train that allow almost every run to be made with out breakage. Get under a Land Cruiser, then get under a Rover and tell me which one you want on a long or difficult trip!

I like the looks of the Discovery, but I'll take the substance of a Land Cruiser any day. Plus, those years of the open center differential were simply irresponsible and inexcusable on the part of Land Rover--that almost cost our friend and his sons their life. (That video used to be posted on the web, not sure if it still is). Desert Dude was there and can tell you how close a call it was. The extra weight of a Cruiser is put in all the right places, allowing you to run 35 inch tires on stock drive train components. I would not try that in a Rover with it's Dana 30 sized parts.

Anyway...the 60 series platform has to be about the best of all time for an overland trip. The 80 series is a close second, but falls short with it's reliance on electronics and it's excessive weight. It is more comfortable, though, and as I get older, that is getting more important!

I'm not bashing Rovers, I'm just pointing out they are not in the same league as a Land Cruiser. Strength, reliability, capability, longevity, which brand would you rather have?

 

[kellymoe]

The best vehicle I ever owned and regret ever getting rid of was my 1988 Toyota 4 Runner. When I sold it it had 220k on it. The only work I ever did on it was oil changes and brakes. It still had the same clutch which showed no signs of giving up. Toyota holds the prize for dependability. That being said I could never bring myself to sell my Defender. It leaks like a collender, it's noisy, no A/C, horrible gas mileage and is slower than a sloth. But, it has never let me down. No mechanical problems and is tough as nails and it wheels great for a truck it's size.

Land Rover is not the best off road, it's not the most dependable. But there is just something infectious about it. I would never recommend a Land Rover to someone unless they were looking for a vehicle they wanted a relationship with, if that makes sense. I really look forward to driving my truck every day. It's just fun to drive and the smell of gas and 90wt is intoxicating

 

[MuddyMudskipper]

Flogging a Dead Horse

I'm not bashing Rovers, I'm just pointing out they are not in the same league as a Land Cruiser. Strength, reliability, capability, longevity, which brand would you rather have?

Neither. I prefer Hondas.

 

[Green96D1]

Where the Disco falls short, is suspension articulation. QUOTE]

Not really. A factory discovery actually articulates very good off road. That is one the reasons why that land Rover never installed lockers in their vehicles.

Keeping all 4 wheels on the ground was done thru using long travel suspension. The Range Rover beat out all the competitors when it came to stock articulation.

The Drivetrain of the Discovery is very tough the LT-230 T-case alone is one the best bulit and bombproof T-cases ever. I agree with you the axles could have been stronger but then we would have nothing to build up lol

Strength wise. Land Rovers have proven to be some of the strongest truck ever produced. The frame alone is probably the toughest made for a Light Truck.

Capability wise. Land Rovers are very capable more so that their given credit for and can go places that others would find impossible.

The thing is they both can be bulit to withstand whatever is throw at them. If fact the Land Rover and Land Cruiser are in the same leauge as they are pretty much are similar in how they are bulit and used. Plus both vehicles if abused can destroyed as nothing is indestructable. However if both maintained well they both can give many good years of service.

to say one is better than the other is a understatement as both have their up and downs.

in otherwords nothing is perfect

Peace!

 

[Spikepretorius]

I agree. The Disco's have fantastic OEM articulation.

 

[michaelgroves]

Where the Disco falls short, is suspension articulation.

Wow, you pick the one thing that Land Rovers are known for - excellent axle articulation!

He did bring a Disco 2 one year and almost died because of it.
...
Plus, those years of the open center differential were simply irresponsible and inexcusable on the part of Land Rover--that almost cost our friend and his sons their life.

I can't take this too seriously as a criticism of a vehicle type. No-one should ever die of an open centre diff!

In the first place, never blame your vehicle for putting your life at risk. No matter how dependable or capable you think it is, your preparation and contingency arrangements should take into account any shortcomings it may have or develop, and the conditions of the terrain you'll be visiting. And regardless of statistics (or the level of vehicle preparation), any truck of any brand can break down, or prove unable to cope with a particular set of conditions.

I'm not bashing Rovers

You are entitled to dislike them - but if you are slating them, then don't say you are not!

Strength, reliability, capability, longevity, which brand would you rather have?

For me, it was a tough choice, but I chose a Defender for my purposes. To the extent that the qualities you mention are meaningful to compare, I'd put the TLC ahead on strength and reliability, and the Land Rover marginally ahead on capability and longevity. There are lots of other qualities to take into account too, all of them equally subjective, and mostly at odds with each other - versatility, comfort, ease of working on them, payload, parts availability, simplicity, safety, speed, dimensions, cost, etc. etc. etc.

Toyota's sales figures are testament to the wide appeal of their 4x4s compared to Land Rovers. Yet despite their known foibles, the latter are still also great vehicles - it's just a matter of personal preference.

 

[AndrewP]

I can't take this too seriously as a criticism of a vehicle type. No-one should ever die of an open centre diff!

In the first place, never blame your vehicle for putting your life at risk. No matter how dependable or capable you think it is, your preparation and contingency arrangements should take into account any shortcomings it may have or develop, and the conditions of the terrain you'll be visiting. And regardless of statistics (or the level of vehicle preparation), any truck of any brand can break down, or prove unable to cope with a particular set of conditions.

It is true, that what we were doing at the time had 3000 feet of downside risk. And if 100% of the Land Cruisers had not made it to the top, I'd agree it wasn't the fault of the truck. However, there was a long loose shaley climb, with a potential very long drop. We stationed a truck at the top to serve as a winch anchor, or tow strap. There was a bit of a hole at the top of the climb where there was no choice but to flex a wheel into the hole. When the Rover ran out of flex, it lost traction, slid sideways, and started to lift the outside tire. A couple of guys ran down the slope and jumped on the lifting side of the truck and stabilized it while we got a tow strap on it. You can argue that were were taking a risk, but you can't argue we were not prepared. Bad things sometimes happen. Maybe my view of Rovers is colored by a few incidents, but even our token Rover friend will tell you he'd rather have a Cruiser.

(We actually have 2 Rover dudes in our little band of travellers, since it's about the people, not the truck, anyway.)

Even more ironically, the very next year, the same guy in a Disco I had nearly the exact problem in the same place, only this time he stayed straight to the hill due I think to a locked center, so even though he was stuck, he was not in danger of rolling 3000 feet down into a canyon.

On his 3rd attempt the next year, he went up and over.

 

[Scott Brady]

Where the Disco falls short, is suspension articulation. It just does not have the suspension flex that a 60 or 80 series Land Cruiser does.

Andrew... What testing did you conduct to come to this determination?

I will tell you that I have tested the articulation on those three examples and the Discovery will out-articulate a 60 and 80 by a wide margin. The 60 especially (I owned a beauty of a 1985 FJ60).

Land Rover was the pioneer of the traction advantage of axle articulation. From a design perspective, they chose to forgo lockers and limited slip diffs and use long travel. This is achieved with coils at each end, longer shocks, light swaybars, etc. The original Range Rovers came from the factory with NO swaybar to ensure the maximum compliance on the trail.

Here is my bone stock 1995. All swaybars still connected and it still had more flex left:

And a few more examples...
Note quite stock here, but interesting:

 

[Scott Brady]

I just have a general comment here: I was having a little chuckle while enjoying my coffee this morning.

I am seeing some gross inaccuracies posted on this thread from people who have never owned or tested, or even driven a Land Rover. I am trying to figure out why this mass of Land Cruiser owners has felt compelled to post in "Sell me on a Land Rover".

Have you noticed all of the kind comments by Land Rover owners towards the Legendary Land Cruiser, yet nearly every Land Cruiser owner that has chimed in here has made it their goal to bash the Land Rover as much as their very limited knowledge of the subject can allow... What is going on here?

I really am in shock at the amount of negative posting, brand bashing, etc. The title of this thread is not TLC VS. LR., it is simply, "Sell me on a Land Rover", not "Sell me on a Land Cruiser" or "Bash a Land Rover", etc.

Come on guys... You all know that ExPo is about different and cool trucks, so lighten up.

 

[FourByLand]

I think the part I find most humerous is the fact that my choice of Rover isn't really worthy to wear the badge because it has dual climate control and leather seats or doesn't have the same door panels as the Defender.......Not really impressed with this thread or the uneducated comments thrown around... just doesn't feel like home anymore.

 

[grahamfitter]

On that lightened up note...

Toyota: Loyal servant who does everything asked of him. (Her?)

Land Rover: Friendly and capable team member albeit somewhat eccentric.

Jeep: Brash and loud with a bit of a belly but gets the job done.

VW (Camper): Smart but unpredictable teenager who you can't live with but can't live without.



Cheers,
Graham