That actaully sounds like alot of fun, but I didnt mean to be rude. The coment was relating to another thread on the forum about a guy known as net-jaws whos truck looks quite simular to that.. the only differance is that hes not in this comp.
Land Cruiser Vs. Land Rover
- Thread starter hks3sgte
- Start date
You were'nt rude....hopefully my reply was'nt taken wrongly....they do look similar...just less duck tape...
i started driving FJ60s quite a bit early last summer for military training and have been more than impressed with their abilities. these are for the most part stock trucks with a few having 2" lifts fitted with cheap MT tires. in total about 6 FJs, 3 4runners and one Jeep Cherokee (RIP).
these trucks are not driven by experienced drivers by any means. many are young Marines with their only experience being the backwoods of Georgia with their Dodge pickup. some are M1 tank drivers, HUMVEE drivers, Bradley drivers, etc, so you get the picture.
they are not here to trash trucks and have a good time and they very much understand that. but regardless the Toyotas take a REAL beating day in and day out.
getting rolled on their sides, bouncing off trees, deep water, deep mud and heavy underside abuse from rocks and boulders.
not to metion about 15% of the students have experience driving 5 speeds, so redlining trucks on slick slopes is common place.
i'm not sure an early RRC would fair as well as the FJs. actually i am 99% certain they wouldn't. the diffs alone would not survive a three day class with these guys.
when i get home i am still thrilled that i own Rovers and i will always keep it that way. this does not make toyotas "better". i don't know shit about FJ80s or 100s. they are more of a direct comparison to the DI and DIIs.
regardless it's hard to talk shit about a Toyota product. not that that's what we are doing here.
these trucks are not driven by experienced drivers by any means. many are young Marines with their only experience being the backwoods of Georgia with their Dodge pickup. some are M1 tank drivers, HUMVEE drivers, Bradley drivers, etc, so you get the picture.
they are not here to trash trucks and have a good time and they very much understand that. but regardless the Toyotas take a REAL beating day in and day out.
getting rolled on their sides, bouncing off trees, deep water, deep mud and heavy underside abuse from rocks and boulders.
not to metion about 15% of the students have experience driving 5 speeds, so redlining trucks on slick slopes is common place.
i'm not sure an early RRC would fair as well as the FJs. actually i am 99% certain they wouldn't. the diffs alone would not survive a three day class with these guys.
when i get home i am still thrilled that i own Rovers and i will always keep it that way. this does not make toyotas "better". i don't know shit about FJ80s or 100s. they are more of a direct comparison to the DI and DIIs.
regardless it's hard to talk shit about a Toyota product. not that that's what we are doing here.
Land Rovers and Land Cruisers are similar vehicles. The Toyota is probably the only direct comparison you can make to a Rover. A Jeep just isn't the same thing.
I don't have a problem in the world with a Land Cruiser. The Toyota just doesn't do it for me, though, not like the Rover does.
I'd say overall the Rover is tops, especially in new models. Toyota is a little behind. That said, you find just as many Toyotas in remote areas as Rovers. Land Rover opened the door, but Toyota went through behind them.
It's a matter of personal preference between these two, though I find the new Cruisers to be a bit bloated.
Cheers,
Kennith
I don't have a problem in the world with a Land Cruiser. The Toyota just doesn't do it for me, though, not like the Rover does.
I'd say overall the Rover is tops, especially in new models. Toyota is a little behind. That said, you find just as many Toyotas in remote areas as Rovers. Land Rover opened the door, but Toyota went through behind them.
It's a matter of personal preference between these two, though I find the new Cruisers to be a bit bloated.
Cheers,
Kennith
G
gil stevens
Guest
in all this rover vs. cruiser stuff as of late, the big thing that nobody has mentioned is value. there are very few vehicles out there that hold their value like the land cruiser does. thats half the reason i drive one as a DD.. i can pile 100 miles a day on it and i will still get a return on my initial investment. my 99 cruiser with 125k miles is still worth more then an 02 disco with 60k miles. that half the reason i own it, the other half is that it is an appliance, and even an appliance has its place.. i never have to think twice about it starting, i never have to worry about it marking its territory, i never have to look under it to see whats leaking.. it requires no thought. when i want a more adventurous driving experience i drive the rover..
and as kennith said, the 100s do look sort of bloated, but half of that is the ridiculously small OE tires toyota puts on. the truck swallows a 285/75 with no modification, and that eliminates some of that bloated, body over the tires look of the newer crusiers.
and as kennith said, the 100s do look sort of bloated, but half of that is the ridiculously small OE tires toyota puts on. the truck swallows a 285/75 with no modification, and that eliminates some of that bloated, body over the tires look of the newer crusiers.
Why is it that the only comments about the megacruiser are about it's looks?, it's true, it looks a LOT like the Hummer, but what did you think about it's tech specs?
gil stevens said:
dude.
the things are huge.
If it "swallows a 285/75" it's a big big truck.
I think even the FJ80 pushes the limits for size. My real problem with this styling is that it goes for the ever popular gigantasour american-market SUV look, but really affords little extra in the way of interior space. Is a FJ80 bigger inside than a Disco2? A little. Is it proportional to the larger exterior dimensions? Nope. that's why typically a Rubicon ready FJ80 will be on 34-35" tires with those ridiculous handicapped rails wrapping the front fenders where as a Disco2 can tackle the trail with 32s.
Too big.
G
gil stevens
Guest
oh man.. its absolutely to big for trails. especially tight trails like the east coast stuff or the sierra stuff. the 80 is actually quite tight inside, the 100 has much more space. its a tahoe sized vehicle.. no doubt. thats why i dont use it on real trails, just fire roads, dirt roads.. exploratory stuff where i know its not going to get technical, its great. ive only had to lock the rear diff once, thats how little trail action it sees. but as a reliable DD that can double as a 7 passenger people mover, and still turn decent mpg, it works.
the point i was making with 285s is that toyota put a 29" inch tire on it when it can easily take a 33".. and thats why they look stupid and bloated. it "looks" right with a 285/75.
the point i was making with 285s is that toyota put a 29" inch tire on it when it can easily take a 33".. and thats why they look stupid and bloated. it "looks" right with a 285/75.