On location, hunting for dinosaurs! While waiting for a massive Sauropod to wander across the barren...
Vehicle Tests > 4WD Comparison - Bush Icons At War
4WD Comparison - Bush Icons At War
Issue: January 2009
Words by Fraser Stronach Photos by Phil Cooper
Land Rover and Toyota define the very essence of 4WD but take a different approach to building the definitive family 4WD. So who's heading in the right direction?
Late November, less than 150km from Sydney, and it's snowing. I thought that we were experiencing 'Global Warming'. This is more like the New Ice Age.
At least it's no longer raining as it has been since we kicked off around 6am this morning. The farmers out this way in the NSW Central Tablelands may appreciate the rain but it's not what we want right now. And any minute the snow could make way for more rain.
Most of the 4WD tracks have already turned into muddy skating rinks. We may have two of the most capable showroom-standard family 4WDs on the planet but that counts for nothing as their high-speed road tyres lose the fight against the mud.
Right now I'm in the LandCruiser 200 Series and despite my best efforts with the wheel, throttle and brake I'm a mere spectator as the big Toyota slides down a muddy incline. Behind me in the Disco 3, Nikolic isn't fairing any better. At least he's a safe distance behind so our two icons of the bush won't be kissing bumpers.
The track, with a surface that looked more gravel and rocks than mud, seemed innocent enough and had been up until this point. But all that changed quickly and unexpectedly. I called him on the UHF radio but it was too late.
This episode could have ended in disaster, with vehicle damage or worse. Or we could have been stuck at the bottom of the hill until further notice with little hope of driving back out.
As it turned out the 4WD gods were on our side today. What looked like an escape route turned out to be one.
Dollar Dazzlers
The Toyota I'm driving is the least expensive diesel 200 but it still costs $81,328. Add the $2648 KDSS suspension that every 200 bar the GXL diesel has as standard, but is fitted to our tester, and you are looking at $83,976.
Is the KDSS worth the money? Well, we don't really know as we have never driven a non-KDSS 200 but we suspect it is, especially off road. That's just the way that Toyota supplies its test vehicles.
Once you cough up for all the extra on road costs, and depending on what state you live in, I guess you wouldn't have too much ice-cream money, if any, left after $90,000.
Not that the Discovery 3 HSE we are driving is a budget buy. Unlike the 200-on-a-budget GXL, the HSE is the most expensive model in the Discovery 3 range and starts at $86,590. Our tester has an additional $20,355 worth of optional equipment the majority of which is more sizzle than sausage, save for the must-have $1050 rear self-locking (electronic) differential. Putting aside for the minute all the added bling ('Premium' leather, sun roof, sat-nav/TV, etc) you call the HSE with the rear locker option an $87,640 vehicle. Add $1800 if you want metallic paint. On road costs will see it spill over into the 90s but still only $3664 more expensive than the 200 when comparing GXL plus KDSS with HSE plus rear locker.
V8 versus V6
These prices may be close but there's nothing too similar in the two engines on offer here, at least in terms of capacity and on-paper power and torque figures. The 200 is powered by Toyota's 4.5-litre twin-turbo V8 diesel that claims 195kW (at 3400rpm) and some 650Nm of torque that is already on tap by 1600rpm. While this engine features technology such as high-pressure common-rail injection, air-to-air intercooling and variable-vane turbochargers, it's in a relatively mild state of tune.
In a considerably higher state of tune is the 2.7-litre V6 turbo diesel that powers the Discovery 3. Like the Toyota engine it features common-rail injection, a variable vane turbocharger, and air-to-air intercooling. But, in an important departure from the Toyota, it has fast switching piezo crystal injectors that help with power, economy and noise suppression.
Given that both these vehicles are around the same weight (a portly 2700kg) and both use six-speed automatic gearboxes, the on road performance is largely defined by their respective power and torque outputs. That makes the 200 the drag-race king and, from a more practical perspective, the better of the two in terms of overtaking performance. It is both effortless and fast.
In the company of the 200's 4.5-litre V8 you would think that the Disco's 2.7-litre V6 would feel very second rate, but that's not how things play out. In terms of effortlessness it's every bit a match for the Toyota and while it's not as fast or as punchy as the 200 it performs far better than its 'numbers' would suggest. We have often made the point that the TDV6 fights above its weight even when asked to haul 2700kg+ worth of Disco and contents, and every time we revisit this engine we come away with this impression confirmed.
The TDV6 is also a quieter and generally smoother engine than the at-times almost truck-like 4.5 in the 200. The Toyota's engine just sounds and feels more like a diesel, where the TDV6 is, dare I say it, more petrol-like. Driven in isolation this isn't an issue for the 4.5, it's just something you notice stepping from the TDV6.
Another refinement issue, again a relative thing, stems from the auto transmissions and the way the two vehicles are geared. With a much taller sixth gear, the Toyota will often shuffle back a gear on a freeway hill that the HSE takes in top, despite the Toyota's torque advantage. This is most noticeable using cruise control and it leaves you thinking that the 200 would be much happier on undulating freeways if the speed limit was more like 120 or 130km/h rather than 100/110.
read on below advertisement
In the past we have said that we didn't think the 200's tall sixth (and fifth for that matter) is a problem. We still don't think it is, but we would have to say that the Disco 3 TDV6 is geared more appropriately for our conditions...
As we have found in the past, the TDV6 also bettered the 200 for fuel economy, 13.6L/100km verses 14.9 in this instance. No surprise that these numbers are much higher than the ADR combined-cycle fuel figures, which are 9.4 and 10.3 respectively, again in favour of the Discovery. Our test was on demanding (read hilly & winding) back roads, the wet weather turning much of the dirt sections into mud. Plenty of low-range as well. There was some freeway driving to even things out but then again little to no urban driving. We have driven these two around town enough to know stop-start driving is no recipe for low consumption numbers. A big plus for the 200 in the whole fuel issue is the generous touring range afforded by its 138-litre fuel capacity. Sure does beat the Disco's piddling 82.3-litres.
On-Road Dynamics
While the HSE may be shaded in terms of pedal-to-the-metal engine performance it turns the tables on the 200 in terms of its general on road dynamics. The Land Rover, with its fully independent suspension, is a far crisper steering, more stable, yet at the same time more responsive vehicle than the 200 with its more 4WD-traditional live rear axle. The 200 doesn't handle badly but it doesn't do much that pleases either. It feels bigger, heavier, and more ponderous than the D3 and more readily loses its composure on bumpy roads at speed. While the 200's suspension is softer and more forgiving at low speeds than the slightly edgy HSE, at high speeds on the rough stuff it's too easily flustered with both the stability and ride comfort suffering. It's at this point that the more firmly sprung Brit actually adds better quality ride to its always superior dynamics.
Off Road
Okay, let's just forget for a minute how the high-speed road tyres, either the 18s on the HSE, or the 17s on the 200 perform in the mud, and concentrate more generally on how these two fair in the bush.
As mentioned, our GXL is fitted with the optional KDSS suspension that automatically decouples the sway bars for maximum off road articulation. There's no electronics involved, the system is purely hydro-mechanical and the most obvious benefit occurs off road when maximum articulation on diagonal wheels is called for. With its live rear axle, the 200 would better the articulation of the D3 anyway, but the optional KDSS ensures the 200 is well and truly the articulation king. This suspension fluidity is really the key factor behind the 200's off road success.
Not that the HSE is overshadowed by the 200 in the rough. It has a few tricks of its own, not least its height adjustable air suspension that affords ground clearance the Toyota could only achieve via an aftermarket suspension lift. And then there's the D3's optional rear locker that's instrumental in helping to overcome its lesser articulation.
Which is more capable off road? Well, that depends on the individual circumstances. A matter for argument.
Where there's no argument is with the question of which is more comfortable in the bush. Thanks to its soft, long-travel suspension it's the 200.
The D3 isn't bad at standard ride height but even moderately difficult trails will find you dialling in more clearance. And the higher you crank the D3 up, the rougher and less accommodating is the ride.
Cabins And Equipment
Two, big and spacious cabins here. The Toyota seats eight in three rows, as against the D3's seven and the Toyota also has the advantage of a slightly roomier second-row seat. The HSE responds with a better third-row seat for two full-size adults and a more flexible seating arrangement where all of the seats fold flat and independently of each other.
More telling here is that the HSE has a much better equipped cabin and has the feeling of a luxury vehicle whereas the GXL feels more utilitarian. The HSE's leather seats, complete with armrests, play a big part in purveying this sense of luxury as does the fact that both front seats have electric adjust, and the driver's seat has memory. Then there's the quality sound system and the extra cabin airbags. For its part the Toyota's driver's seat isn't even height adjustable...
Sum-up
Thankfully for the 200, this comparison is more than a question of equipment. The Land Cruiser is more than a sum of its parts and much of its appeal doesn't come down to what it does or doesn't do, on or off the road, it's more a matter of what it represents as an ownership proposition. If its forebears are anything to go by the 200 should be a long-lived and reliable machine. Among other things that means strong resale value. Then there's the extensive dealer network and the service backup provided by the same.
All of which doesn't diminish the fact that the HSE offers better equipment for the money, is a far more rewarding vehicle to drive on the road and, thanks to its technology, can match the Toyota in off road ability, even if it falls short of the Toyota's off road practicality.
Which is best will simply depend on what direction you are coming from.
Words by Fraser Stronach Photos by Phil Cooper
Land Rover and Toyota define the very essence of 4WD but take a different approach to building the definitive family 4WD. So who's heading in the right direction?
Late November, less than 150km from Sydney, and it's snowing. I thought that we were experiencing 'Global Warming'. This is more like the New Ice Age.
At least it's no longer raining as it has been since we kicked off around 6am this morning. The farmers out this way in the NSW Central Tablelands may appreciate the rain but it's not what we want right now. And any minute the snow could make way for more rain.
Most of the 4WD tracks have already turned into muddy skating rinks. We may have two of the most capable showroom-standard family 4WDs on the planet but that counts for nothing as their high-speed road tyres lose the fight against the mud.
Right now I'm in the LandCruiser 200 Series and despite my best efforts with the wheel, throttle and brake I'm a mere spectator as the big Toyota slides down a muddy incline. Behind me in the Disco 3, Nikolic isn't fairing any better. At least he's a safe distance behind so our two icons of the bush won't be kissing bumpers.
The track, with a surface that looked more gravel and rocks than mud, seemed innocent enough and had been up until this point. But all that changed quickly and unexpectedly. I called him on the UHF radio but it was too late.
This episode could have ended in disaster, with vehicle damage or worse. Or we could have been stuck at the bottom of the hill until further notice with little hope of driving back out.
As it turned out the 4WD gods were on our side today. What looked like an escape route turned out to be one.
Dollar Dazzlers
The Toyota I'm driving is the least expensive diesel 200 but it still costs $81,328. Add the $2648 KDSS suspension that every 200 bar the GXL diesel has as standard, but is fitted to our tester, and you are looking at $83,976.
Is the KDSS worth the money? Well, we don't really know as we have never driven a non-KDSS 200 but we suspect it is, especially off road. That's just the way that Toyota supplies its test vehicles.
Once you cough up for all the extra on road costs, and depending on what state you live in, I guess you wouldn't have too much ice-cream money, if any, left after $90,000.
Not that the Discovery 3 HSE we are driving is a budget buy. Unlike the 200-on-a-budget GXL, the HSE is the most expensive model in the Discovery 3 range and starts at $86,590. Our tester has an additional $20,355 worth of optional equipment the majority of which is more sizzle than sausage, save for the must-have $1050 rear self-locking (electronic) differential. Putting aside for the minute all the added bling ('Premium' leather, sun roof, sat-nav/TV, etc) you call the HSE with the rear locker option an $87,640 vehicle. Add $1800 if you want metallic paint. On road costs will see it spill over into the 90s but still only $3664 more expensive than the 200 when comparing GXL plus KDSS with HSE plus rear locker.
V8 versus V6
These prices may be close but there's nothing too similar in the two engines on offer here, at least in terms of capacity and on-paper power and torque figures. The 200 is powered by Toyota's 4.5-litre twin-turbo V8 diesel that claims 195kW (at 3400rpm) and some 650Nm of torque that is already on tap by 1600rpm. While this engine features technology such as high-pressure common-rail injection, air-to-air intercooling and variable-vane turbochargers, it's in a relatively mild state of tune.
In a considerably higher state of tune is the 2.7-litre V6 turbo diesel that powers the Discovery 3. Like the Toyota engine it features common-rail injection, a variable vane turbocharger, and air-to-air intercooling. But, in an important departure from the Toyota, it has fast switching piezo crystal injectors that help with power, economy and noise suppression.
Given that both these vehicles are around the same weight (a portly 2700kg) and both use six-speed automatic gearboxes, the on road performance is largely defined by their respective power and torque outputs. That makes the 200 the drag-race king and, from a more practical perspective, the better of the two in terms of overtaking performance. It is both effortless and fast.
In the company of the 200's 4.5-litre V8 you would think that the Disco's 2.7-litre V6 would feel very second rate, but that's not how things play out. In terms of effortlessness it's every bit a match for the Toyota and while it's not as fast or as punchy as the 200 it performs far better than its 'numbers' would suggest. We have often made the point that the TDV6 fights above its weight even when asked to haul 2700kg+ worth of Disco and contents, and every time we revisit this engine we come away with this impression confirmed.
The TDV6 is also a quieter and generally smoother engine than the at-times almost truck-like 4.5 in the 200. The Toyota's engine just sounds and feels more like a diesel, where the TDV6 is, dare I say it, more petrol-like. Driven in isolation this isn't an issue for the 4.5, it's just something you notice stepping from the TDV6.
Another refinement issue, again a relative thing, stems from the auto transmissions and the way the two vehicles are geared. With a much taller sixth gear, the Toyota will often shuffle back a gear on a freeway hill that the HSE takes in top, despite the Toyota's torque advantage. This is most noticeable using cruise control and it leaves you thinking that the 200 would be much happier on undulating freeways if the speed limit was more like 120 or 130km/h rather than 100/110.
read on below advertisement
In the past we have said that we didn't think the 200's tall sixth (and fifth for that matter) is a problem. We still don't think it is, but we would have to say that the Disco 3 TDV6 is geared more appropriately for our conditions...
As we have found in the past, the TDV6 also bettered the 200 for fuel economy, 13.6L/100km verses 14.9 in this instance. No surprise that these numbers are much higher than the ADR combined-cycle fuel figures, which are 9.4 and 10.3 respectively, again in favour of the Discovery. Our test was on demanding (read hilly & winding) back roads, the wet weather turning much of the dirt sections into mud. Plenty of low-range as well. There was some freeway driving to even things out but then again little to no urban driving. We have driven these two around town enough to know stop-start driving is no recipe for low consumption numbers. A big plus for the 200 in the whole fuel issue is the generous touring range afforded by its 138-litre fuel capacity. Sure does beat the Disco's piddling 82.3-litres.
On-Road Dynamics
While the HSE may be shaded in terms of pedal-to-the-metal engine performance it turns the tables on the 200 in terms of its general on road dynamics. The Land Rover, with its fully independent suspension, is a far crisper steering, more stable, yet at the same time more responsive vehicle than the 200 with its more 4WD-traditional live rear axle. The 200 doesn't handle badly but it doesn't do much that pleases either. It feels bigger, heavier, and more ponderous than the D3 and more readily loses its composure on bumpy roads at speed. While the 200's suspension is softer and more forgiving at low speeds than the slightly edgy HSE, at high speeds on the rough stuff it's too easily flustered with both the stability and ride comfort suffering. It's at this point that the more firmly sprung Brit actually adds better quality ride to its always superior dynamics.
Off Road
Okay, let's just forget for a minute how the high-speed road tyres, either the 18s on the HSE, or the 17s on the 200 perform in the mud, and concentrate more generally on how these two fair in the bush.
As mentioned, our GXL is fitted with the optional KDSS suspension that automatically decouples the sway bars for maximum off road articulation. There's no electronics involved, the system is purely hydro-mechanical and the most obvious benefit occurs off road when maximum articulation on diagonal wheels is called for. With its live rear axle, the 200 would better the articulation of the D3 anyway, but the optional KDSS ensures the 200 is well and truly the articulation king. This suspension fluidity is really the key factor behind the 200's off road success.
Not that the HSE is overshadowed by the 200 in the rough. It has a few tricks of its own, not least its height adjustable air suspension that affords ground clearance the Toyota could only achieve via an aftermarket suspension lift. And then there's the D3's optional rear locker that's instrumental in helping to overcome its lesser articulation.
Which is more capable off road? Well, that depends on the individual circumstances. A matter for argument.
Where there's no argument is with the question of which is more comfortable in the bush. Thanks to its soft, long-travel suspension it's the 200.
The D3 isn't bad at standard ride height but even moderately difficult trails will find you dialling in more clearance. And the higher you crank the D3 up, the rougher and less accommodating is the ride.
Cabins And Equipment
Two, big and spacious cabins here. The Toyota seats eight in three rows, as against the D3's seven and the Toyota also has the advantage of a slightly roomier second-row seat. The HSE responds with a better third-row seat for two full-size adults and a more flexible seating arrangement where all of the seats fold flat and independently of each other.
More telling here is that the HSE has a much better equipped cabin and has the feeling of a luxury vehicle whereas the GXL feels more utilitarian. The HSE's leather seats, complete with armrests, play a big part in purveying this sense of luxury as does the fact that both front seats have electric adjust, and the driver's seat has memory. Then there's the quality sound system and the extra cabin airbags. For its part the Toyota's driver's seat isn't even height adjustable...
Sum-up
Thankfully for the 200, this comparison is more than a question of equipment. The Land Cruiser is more than a sum of its parts and much of its appeal doesn't come down to what it does or doesn't do, on or off the road, it's more a matter of what it represents as an ownership proposition. If its forebears are anything to go by the 200 should be a long-lived and reliable machine. Among other things that means strong resale value. Then there's the extensive dealer network and the service backup provided by the same.
All of which doesn't diminish the fact that the HSE offers better equipment for the money, is a far more rewarding vehicle to drive on the road and, thanks to its technology, can match the Toyota in off road ability, even if it falls short of the Toyota's off road practicality.
Which is best will simply depend on what direction you are coming from.