As an owner of one, I know the reputation is greatly exaggerated.
I also know the toyota reputation is greatly exaggerated in the opposite direction.
Events/Trails 2008 USA Land Cruiser Pics and Test Drive Impressions (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter ShottsUZJ100
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
As an owner of one, I know the reputation is greatly exaggerated.
I also know the toyota reputation is greatly exaggerated in the opposite direction.
I think James is making the point that, in general (and this is borne out by too many sources to list), Rover products have been unreliable in operation. You may have a single example that has been fine, but so is the odd Dodge, and I still wouldn't characterize them as a quality brand. The key is the phrase "in general" and not a single example. I think the other guy was trying to make the same point, so there was no need to get defensive. If someone tells me that modern Mercedes are unreliable heaps, regardless of my brand loyalty, I'm not going to disagree with them because the proof is too overwhelming to deny.
I have acknowledged that LR has had it's fair share of issues but I will not classify the brand a a POS based on these "surveys". Like I have said before, if you have owned one and it has not been reliable then I will respect your opinion. For these "survey groupies" that have never owned the product (whatever it may be) their opinions are not worth the time it took to type this post. As far as MB's go I (my family) have owned MB's since the early 1970's ranging from 300SEL's, 6.9's to my current CL65 AMG. We have experienced quite a few eras that MB has been through over the past 30+ years. The automobile industry is quite different than it was in the 1970's. Sure MB, like many brands have had its own set of issues over the years but I, as an owner have NEVER deemed any MB product as being unreliable. Yes I have had some issues that weren't up to my expectations but like my quote in green says, nothing is perfect. I have had experience with Toyota/Lexus products. In fact, my mothers twin brother OWNS a lexus dealership. My family could drive a lexus for much less $$ than what we paid for our MB's but we simply are not that impressed with lexus. Sure, they are of the highest quality and reliability but there is a genericness (?) and or sterile feel about them that truly underwhelms us. Does that mean I will not consider a lexus in the future, absolutely not. Now, could we please get back to the topic of this thread and zip it with the LR bashing ??!!!
I agree, but in general terms, I don't think anyone could say that a Rover product will give you less trouble than a Toyota. I have never owned a Rover. I have friends and neighbors that do. Their experiences by far support the view that Rover can't build anything right, in general. Panels misaligned, failed air suspension on the trail (this was a really bad one), pools of oil on their driveways, electronics that can't make up their mind from day to day whether to work or not.
In one instance the door locking system malfunctioned on my neighbor's 4.0 HSE. He could not open the truck, and had to have it flat-towed to the dealership (still not sure how they got it on the tow truck). They had to order new locks from the U.K. His truck was stuck at the dealership for FOUR months while they resolved the problem. He got a crappy Chrysler loaner. Luckily he had an older County that he could drive around (now that one was fairly reliable).
edit: I think I remember now, I think they disconnected both drive shafts and winched it up onto the flatbed.
Last edited:
Now, could we please get back to the topic of this thread and zip it with the LR bashing ??!!!
Hehe, sorry, right before I saw this I commenced with more LR bashing!
BTW, my family has owned MBs as well, since long before I was born. I've seen the drop in quality with my own eyes. First the "biodegradable" wiring harnesses and interior trim panels, then the thinner sheetmetal, then the cheaper plastics, then the shoddy build quality, then the non-Bosch electronics. My dad's CLK55 AMG had trim panels both inside and out pop up on him. We've been left stranded by the old ML (admittedly first gen). I've never never been stranded by a Toyota, even when I only had three wheels! (That's another story...)
Anyway, back on topic. One of the local dealers got a 200, said it sold in less than an hour. It's the only one they've gotten so far.
Just for the record, I too have seen the various changes in what I call "old school" Mercedes (up to the 140 series) and everything after the 140's. I personally do not like for a automaker like MB to go down market. I feel it degrades the brand. Unfortunately, the company is there to make money and the more cars they build and sell is their chief purpose for being. It is this philosophy where I feel that started the big bad changes for MB. Anyway, Im not going to jump ship just yet because of some rough waters. They will pull through just as they did in the post war years. They do need to get back to the "Engineered like no other car" and "Form follows function" days !!
Now, about that new 200 series.......
Now, about that new 200 series.......
I assume you're referring to an early P38 (mid to late 90's). Yes there were problems which were generally solved when BMW took control. That's the downside of being on the bleeding edge.
Of course those vehicles were often smarter than the mechanics who tried to fix them, which compounded customer frustration.
Toyota seems to lag at least 5 years behind before copying landrover. They still haven't got to air suspension though.
Bleeding edge? Air suspensions have been used forever in the heavy trucking industry, certainly long before Rover ever thought about using them. Rover just couldn't get it working (don't know about the recent trucks).
I for one am glad Toyota never went to air suspension for the Cruiser. AHC is bad enough!
I'm afraid if you can't pick the differences between airbags in truck suspension and long travel with height control, then it's a waste trying to explain it further to you.
Air suspension has been in every rangerover since 1994.
I never said they were implemented in exactly the same way, only that the idea of air suspension was not a Rover innovation.
Let's see, both use air bladders. Both use air compressors to maintain pressure and thus load carrying capacity. Rover (Dunlop) shapes and constructs the bags to allow the long-travel capability. Big deal. Rover's almighty "innovation" was to add electronic control of the compressor to allow it add/remove air dependent on condition or driver desire. Two problems:
1.) The ECU throws a fault code, causing it to think there is a problem and go into limp-home mode, meaning: vent the air and drop the frame onto the axle. And if it faults, is it correct that you can't clear the fault, you have to unplug your ECU and ship it to a dealer? If so, that's a big problem. You are correct in that my frame of reference is the '94+ 4.0/4.6 Rangie.
2.) Air compressors seize up. A long-time Range Rover owner I know who has wheeled them in eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa while doing government contract work, told me one recommended method to deal with the seized compressor was to hit it with a hammer! WTF? When his system failed the second time, he swapped it out for coils.
Rangies are designed for the Kensington set. Air suspension is an easy way to get ride comfort and ride height control (so they can lower the vehicle when loading up the boot after a day of shopping at Harrods). The old Series trucks and the Defender, the the REAL workhorses of Solihull, the ones chosen by current and ex-Crown Colony militaries all over the world, don't have air.
I respect Range Rovers, but IMHO they are far from the ultimate, both on or off the road. IMHO, if Toyota put a smaller body on the 200 Series, with KDSS it would walk all over a Mk III Range Rover.
You're forgetting about the sensors of both ride height and pressure required for the active height control along with the controller. If you don't appreciate the complexity involved with active pneumatic control then it's unlikely you will understand.
I have designed and implemented servo pneumatic control systems in industrial applications, they are extremely difficult to program and control.
I understand it would take a sensor to die or air loss to drop the vehicle. Strangely the people I know who own such vehicles haven't had this happen.
If a code is thrown, removing the ECU is not required. If you've been told that then your source of info is highly suspect.
Compressors have electric motors in them. Hitting with a hammer often works on seized electric motors regardless of brand or application. I've helped toyota owners do that to their starters in the past.
The defender rides on the original rangerover chassis and suspension, many of them are fitted with aftermarket airbags for offroad trials. A rangerover of any era will beat any 100 or 200 series landcruiser offroad easily. I know because I've been there.
An 80 series with front and rear difflocks can go further than a rangie without traction control or difflocks.
KDSS is a toyota copy of the active swaybars implemented by landrover in their 1999 discovery series II.
Ultimate onroad? Of course not, it's a 4wd FFS!
Last edited:
Ahh this is totaly wrong.
The 1999 Landrover system was active with electronics, it was known as ACE Active Cornering Enhancement. There were 2 electronic accerometers in the body which drive 2 hydraulic pistons via a processor which push or pull on the sway bars depending on wether you are in low or high.
The Toyota KDSS on the other hand is totally passive and is speed / gear independant. It is based on patented technology by Kinetic Systems of WA and has been used in Rallying for 10 or so years. It uses simple valves to disconnect either side of the sway bar when the front wheels and rear wheels are not in the same plane. No power required. Same plane ( eg fast cornering) = stiff sway bars, different plane ( eg off road) = sway disconnect.
Given that KDSS is totally passive, "KDSS is a toyota copy of the active swaybars" can not be true.
Bit like saying a refridgerator is a copy of an icebox. Yep they both cool things but that's about it.
I'm not forgetting anything. All I'm saying is that Rover was not the first to implement systems of this kind in passenger vehicles (to your bleeding edge comment), and when they did it, they still F'd it up. Mercedes has had full air suspensions since the 60s. They've had ride control and automatic and adjustable ride height control since at least the 80s. I agree that it was thoughtful of Rover to add such a system, but don't call it bleeding edge when it simply wasn't. Rover likes to say they are the first in everything, but that's just not true. For example, they claim to have "introduced" coil springs to trucks in the 70s, when everyone else still had leafs. But Mercedes had been putting long-travel coils on light, medium, and heavy duty trucks since at least the 50s. Again, I acknowledge that Rover produces highly capable vehicles, but please don't characterize them as something they are not. I mean, Christ, the Rover V8 used in the Range Rover up until the Mk III (2002) is essentially the same old Buick engine from the early 60s!
Strangely, the people I know who own such vehicles HAVE had this happen. I don't know if they had to reprogram the ECU or not. That bit was just something I had read anecdotally, so long ago I don't even remember where. It might have even applied to a different generation (like a Classic with only the rear auto-leveling airbags).
Not all of them. The air compressors on my Unimogs are engine-driven. They feed the air-assist brakes and the onboard air system. So are the Yorks out there that a lot of guys run for onboard air. So, too, are most if not all commercial applications.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the 100. OEM to OEM, I agree that a Rover will probably beat a 100 off the pavement (marginally). As to the 200, you say you have seen this comparison in action. Please elaborate, as that is the kind of information this forum is looking for.
Again, many of us choose to buy Toyota over Rover for many reasons. You seem hell-bent on elevating Rover to the detriment of Toyota. Maybe you're a troll?
Who knows, maybe I'll have one some day. Like I said, I like the marque and respect the vehicles, but based on their reliability record, it may have to be a lease. Their current offerings are not what I would personally characterize as long-term purchases. Maybe I'll get a Mark II instead, and swap out the airbags.
They're certainly cheap enough (see comments above RE: resell value). Holy S#!t, I just checked Autotrader and I can get a 2001 4.6 HSE for less than $14K U.S.!!! That would be a great, cheap base for building a nice expedition rig.Agreed.
Not true.
Their marketing to the contrary...
Last edited:
BTW, I don't see how you can make blanket empirical statements like this with your one data point. OK, so using your logic, I submit:
As an owner of a string of Toyota Land Cruisers, I know the reputation is not greatly exaggerated.
I also know the Land Rover reputation is not greatly exaggerated in the opposite direction.
I remember the 300 SEL and the 6.9's air suspension was a constant headache for both the owner and the tech working on it!! I can remember going to the garage and the car being all but scraping on tne ground !! Personally, I am of the belief that the more complex you make something the more chance it has of causing problems..All the electronics in cars today makes "fixing" your vehicle like in the past, all but impossible. I have heard this from more than one source that they don't fix cars like they used to. Now they just pull the part and "plug" in a new one...
OK, why are we STILL talking about this???
Now then, about the new LC .........
OK, why are we STILL talking about this???
Now then, about the new LC .........
It's presumptious of you to assume one data point. I know a lot of people with both rovers and landcruisers as well as Nissans and even Ladas. Enthusiasts on all sides of the fence who know their vehicles extremely well.
Would you like the brand new landcruiser which had to have it's entire fuel pump replaced at 10,000km? The toyota CD player which eats CD's and won't give them back? The one that randomly flattens it's batterys.
Oh wait, it's all the same vehicle.
If you want a toyota diesel, you can take your pick between the ones that eat big end bearings and cranks or the ones which crack heads.
Regarding the 200 series offroad. It's longer, wider and heavier than the 100 series but lacks the AHC which the 100 series needed offroad to stop dragging it's chin, belly and backside. Without a lift kit it's a foregone conclusion.
There are a lot of people who like to think toyota's are perfect and everything else is junk. I keep a more balanced view as the toyotas I know and drive are slightly better than the average. A good choice for many people, but not perfect.
I remember the 300 SEL and the 6.9's air suspension was a constant headache for both the owner and the tech working on it!! I can remember going to the garage and the car being all but scraping on tne ground !! Personally, I am of the belief that the more complex you make something the more chance it has of causing problems..All the electronics in cars today makes "fixing" your vehicle like in the past, all but impossible. I have heard this from more than one source that they don't fix cars like they used to. Now they just pull the part and "plug" in a new one...
OK, why are we STILL talking about this???
Now then, about the new LC .........
I agree. Coils are simple!
Been looking at the new LX, still can't decide which looks better (OK, both are ugly, but it's all relative!
). I'm really concerned about the overhangs. I don't know yet what's under the tupperware, so not sure how easy it will be to fab bumpers to reduce those dimensions. I know i4c4lo was very successful on his 100 Series bumpers in that respect. Glad I get to own his prototype rear bumper!
Just going by what you wrote. You said you owned one (single data point), therefore you knew that that their reputation was exaggerated. Thank you for clarifying that that was not the case.
Well, we all have our one-off examples. I never said Toyotas were perfect. But on net, taking into account total production figures, if you're arguing that Range Rovers are even in the same ballpark, reliability-wise, as Toyotas in general and Land Cruisers specifically, I won't believe it until I see some better evidence.
The big end bearing issue was resolved on the 1HD series. Bad batch of bearings from the supplier. As for cracked heads, I can only assume you mean the B Series (I don't count the Prado as a real Land Cruiser)? OK, granted, though that is not a modern Toyota diesel and not available as an option in any vehicle after 1990. I could mention the cylinder sleeve slipping problem in that old Rover/Buick V8, which usually resulted in replacing the entire engine. There's a reason Buick canceled that engine after only two years of production.
That's why I said you'd have to put a smaller body on it. If we need AHC, we can get the Lexus version in the U.S. But I think KDSS will really make up for lack of AHC on the Cruiser.
I gather by this, that you actually have not seen these in actual use head to head (Mk III Rover vs. 200 Series)?
You're right, there are those people. I don't happen to be one of them. I like many different vehicles from many different marques. Even (gasp!) Rovers! (As I believe I have mentioned a few times.)
Just picked up the FJ62 from the stealership and had another look at the new 200...Definitely getting to like its "looks" more and more. Then I glance over at the new Sequoia parked right by it. Hmmm, the $16,000 I would save buying the Seq shure would pay for lots of mods, and other things for that matter. Is having those two words (land Cruiser) on the vehicle worth it to me ?? I know that comparing a LC to a Seq isn't quite like comparing oranges to apples, how about apples to pears !! Anyway, I really do have to say the Seq is a tempting alternative. At least to me it is. Here is another comparo..I could get an '06 CPO LX for pretty close to what a new Seq will cost. Now that might just turn the tables back towards the LC (LX actually) . Or, maybe I will keep what I have and shut up for a while !!! That would be the least expensive route, by far !! 
Dougal you have either a total lack understanding about how the suspension on a 100 with AHC and 200 works, or a total lack of experience.
Contrary to what you say here and in a previous post, the 100 with AHC ( whic doesn't work anything like a Landrover) had problems with maintaining height under load and off road. In addition the 100 had Torsion bar suspension at the front end which limited travel, the back end however sits up nice and high on coils. The 200 has coils and NO AHC. KDSS is a different thing and works on the sway bars.
