Landcruiser vs. Land Rover Discovery

[TexasBadlands]

Cruiser VS. Rover

I read through most of the thread, and let me post my two cents here since I do own a Land Rover Discovery II, and own a Land Cruiser (will soon own two Cruisers ).

As far as reliability goes, you can chalk that up to the owners for the most part, driving, and not maintaining their vehicle. I have owned my Land Rover Discovery II and have taken it off road lots of times over the 4 years I have owned it and it has NEVER given me any problems, nor has it ever gotten stuck despite it's smallish stock tires it came with. I have wheeled in deep sand, rock and mud and it has always pulled through. I also do regularly scheduled maintenance, as I do with all my vehicles so I don't have problems some others might experience.

I don't feel the earlier Discovery I is as good a vehicle, but then that is why the Discovery evolved into the II. The II is more refined, better all around than the Series I.

In my opinion, I would say that you could not go wrong with a Land Cruiser, or a Land Rover, especially the Discovery II.

For the Land Rover, you can put ARB air lockers in it if you have the money and desire to do so. Without the lockers, the electronic traction control does a more than adequate job of keeping the rig moving through the rough stuff. If you want add ons, there are almost as many for the Land Rover as for a Land Cruiser.

The Discovery II has a 4 speed automatic BMW transmission which has a "Manual Mode" for 4 wheel low lock which means that you can shift the transmission like a manual - it keeps it in the gear you put it in. It's a good feature and I have used it a bunch off roading.

Don't let some guys here try to downplay the Land Rover, it is definitely an awesome off road vehicle and every bit as capable and modifiable as the Land Cruiser.

Good Luck.

 

[TiredIronGRB]

Don't let some guys here try to downplay the Land Rover, it is definitely an awesome off road vehicle and every bit as capable and modifiable as the Land Cruiser.

I would have to respectfully disagree, I wheel regularly with 4 D1s and a D2, and they are nice rigs but are continually having problems. Some are minor problems (sensors, other elec. problems, over heating) but I have seen two of them grenade the rear difs. I do like the Landrovers, I've owned several of them but they are no way in the same class as the 80s.

 

[Fromage]

Based on my findings as a toyota geek, Land-Rover repair service technician, Land-Rover modifier and owner of both marques...

Chassis - Land Rover. Stronger, much beefier, more rigid chassis. 40s, 60s and 80s have much weaker frames than any Land-Rover product from 2004 down.

Axles - Toyota. Land-Rover axles and diffs are pathetically weak, and gearing is awful. Aftermarket is out there but there are no real options for good strength, other than a Toyota swap.

Transfer case - Land-Rover. LT230 case has 3.32 low range, is the strongest mass produced 4wd light truck transfer case out there.

Suspension - Tossup. The series trucks are a fair match to the 40s, the 60s are definitely stiffer than old range rovers, and the 80 is about equivalent to the Discos. For both, lifts are relatively cheap till about 3" , then they get real $$$.

Transmissions - Standards, definitely Toyota. H55F is fantastic. R380s are complete s***, LT77s are even worse, and series transmissions are crap. Autos, Land-Rover. The 4 speed ZF auto that's used in the early range and disco is tough as nails.

Engines - Depends. I prefer the Rover V8 to the Toyota FZJ engine. Easier to work on. Nicer sound. Lighter. I'm not a big fan of the 2F/3F engines. They aren't as reliable as the Toyota diesels by a long shot. I have overhauled rover V8s with 300 000 miles. They are prissy and respond to talented mechanics. Toyota engines don't seem to care much.

Electrics - Toyota - No contest.

It all boils down to personal preference. If you're a miata kind of guy, go Toyota. If you're an MG kinda guy, go rover. If you're a masochist, take a Land-Rover series truck body and frame, a 5.9 Cummins, an LT230 transfer case, Toyota FZJ axles, and have everything hot dip galvanized.

 

[phxtlc]

Land Cruiser vs. Discovery...

First, I don't think it's fair to compare the flagship 4x4 from one company with the mid line entry from another. More realistic would be to compare a Land Cruiser to a Range Rover.

I'm also going to state that I love my TLC and would have a real hard time trading it for something else beside a newer one.

Also I think we need to compare stock with stock. Comparing a stock Rover with a modified LC isn't quite right. Anyway I believe the UK has a strict height restriction in order to pass inspection.

Now with the preliminary stuff out of the way.......

Durablity - hands down goes to the Land Cruiser. Every model LR has made since the Series I in 1948 has had issues, rust, electrical, etc. They have always been high maintenance vehicles. The major difference is that the older models were designed to be fixed with tools you would have on board. They were simple hard working trucks. Recently though especially since Ford and BMW has owned them they've dumped all this electrical crap in it that would probably be problems for any manufacturer. Some of this stuff is great others seem to be to make the soccer mom be able to handle a off road truck easier. The worst of these has to be the "ACE" option on the 2003 and up Discos.

Engines - To me it's a push.

Suspensions - (remember we're talking stock here) I'd have to give it to LR, they have plenty of articulation to spare across all models. if you doubt it try for yourself. Of course I'm the only one here with his stock suspension still in his LC and a modified LC evens things up. Keep in mind that the adjustable air suspnsions in these LR's work so great but are $$$$ money to fix and maintain, which you'll have to do quite often.

Exterior - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think the Defender is the coolest thing out there, pure adventure, what a Hummer wishes it could be. LC over Disco. LC and RR classic are a draw, RR looks top heavy and the LC has "an ass like a hippo" (quoth my wife) LC and the P38 RR I'd lean towards the LC. LC and the new RR, that's a tough one. At first I thought the RR was fugly especially the fish gills on the side, but it is growing on me, stiil have to go with the LC. LC vs. LR3, hands down LC. And by the way I HATE the inside tail lights on the Lexus! Add the Camel Trophy look to any Landy = bonus points.

Interior - LC all the way. Off the showroom floor the RR's are slick as can be, still pure Brit. Wait a few years though and half the buttons will stop working or come off in your hand. Also the LC has the only usable third row. Try and sit anyone over 4' in the back of a Disco. And sorry "Mate" the 109's etc. are not really over here in the states. Though if i ever hit the Power Ball one will be added to my stable!

Wow factor or "Coolness" points - Still have to give it to LR in stock form, for some reason, maybe heratige or marketing or the fact the showrroms scream adventure. Modified it's a draw, they all look pretty cool.

Speaking of this I never understood why Toyota has pretty much ignored the LC or for that fact any of there 4x4's and their off road prowess. Wouldn't it be slick to go into a showroom and see something similar to LR? I guess such few new LC buyers are interested that Toyota feels it's a waste. Hell most dealers only have one or two vehicles in stock anyway. Which is another point to remember, what were the latest sales on the LC? I looked back at a book for 1992 and they sold something like 4000 units. Compare that to the whole LR line and you can see that they have a much better chance to break down.

To sum it all up, I love my TLC, I aslo love the Defenders, Disco's and Classic RR's but as my wife said to me when I was trying to decide..."which one will start in the morning."

 

[phxtlc]

I think I also read somewhere in the thread about LC's and mud...A 6000lb vehicle is really not the best choice for this. Can it do it and excell? yeah sure. But in my opinion if this is what someone wants go and by a Jeep. I'd run circles around most other trucks in the red clay of Georgia in a stock 90 Wrangler with 30" BFG A/T's

In my mind I see LC's, RR's, Disco's and the like as more expedition vehicles. 2000 miles through the Simpson. Not doing donut's in hub deep mud.

 

[nickw]

Would not the more fair comparison be:
80 series Land Cruiser vrs 110 Defender?

 

[phxtlc]

Would not the more fair comparison be:
80 series Land Cruiser vrs 110 Defender?

Probably, but since they're rare down here in the states Id' say Range Rover. Have you watched their traction control system on the new ones? pretty impressive.

 

[expeditionswest]

The 80 takes the lead because of reliability.

I owned a 2001 Disco II from new and had over 30 failures in less than 30k miles. Took it to Mexico once and barely made it back across the border.

stock to stock, off-road performance is similar. Obviously, a factory e-locked 80would fair better. The LR does have some nice design touches like a really low geared t-case, thick steering wheel, better visibility, longer peddle travel for fine control, etc.

During the Outback Challenge, the 110's and 90's had no mechanical failures, where the 80's had major issues. So, you never know what to expect, but overall the LC's will be far superior in reliability.

Off-Road, unless you are comparing stock to stock, it is just a mod fight, which is silly.

 

[e9999]

well, the argument that you have to compare stock to stock is not obvious IMHO. I would think that since most of us are modding our trucks for utility reasons, the ability to do so easily and inexpensively is a big plus in my book.

 

[expeditionswest]

well, the argument that you have to compare stock to stock is not obvious IMHO. I would think that since most of us are modding our trucks for utility reasons, the ability to do so easily and inexpensively is a big plus in my book.

Have you found it easier to mod the 80 than the disco? I would consider them quite similar (being solid axle, coil sprung vehicles).

I would say that the Cruiser is probably cheaper to mod at the more extreme end of the scale with the easier fitment of 35" tires etc.

Bumpers, springs, sliders, etc. are all pretty similar in cost between the two models from my experience. However, I am certainly not as versed as many in this forum on the 80 platform, and would appreciate any wisdom to the contrary.

 

[landtank]

a friend of mine had an older range rover and that thing didn't mod well and drove like crap. We were in Death Valley and besides burning my foot on the floor boards because the exhaust manifold was right up next to them, we had to drive around with the heat on. Yup that was some fun times, 140* outside with the heater on full tilt.

Only broke down 3 times from Boston to black rock and back.

 

[NorCalSam]

The choice is clear.

TLC​

Either make there on your own in a TLC or wait for one of us to stumble upon you and pull you out.

 

[NorCalSam]

Would not the more fair comparison be:
80 series Land Cruiser vrs 110 Defender?

Yes

 

[Grouseman]

Do you hunt grouse with British shotguns?
Do you wear Barbour jackets?
If you answer yes, you're a Landrover guy. For one reason, you like things with character. For a second, you can afford the repairs!!!

No Sir I hunt with an American Classic Fox. No Barbour jackets either. Great point by the way.

Gman