Discovery 2 or Land Cruiser
#1
03-05-2011, 08:53 AM
Discovery 2 or Land Cruiser
Greetings,
I'm still looking at purchasing a Disco 2, probably a 2001. But I've also found that I can get a 1996-1997 Toyota Land Cruiser for the same money. I've always liked the Land Cruiser and I've found several that had the locking differential option for around $7,000 and had around 100-150k miles. I think the LC's are more reliable over the Rover, but I've never owned either.
My question is, does the Discovery 2 have anything that the 97 Land Cruiser doesn't?
I'm still looking at purchasing a Disco 2, probably a 2001. But I've also found that I can get a 1996-1997 Toyota Land Cruiser for the same money. I've always liked the Land Cruiser and I've found several that had the locking differential option for around $7,000 and had around 100-150k miles. I think the LC's are more reliable over the Rover, but I've never owned either.
My question is, does the Discovery 2 have anything that the 97 Land Cruiser doesn't?
Last edited by Big Jim Swade; 03-05-2011 at 10:07 AM.
#2
03-05-2011, 10:31 AM
4wd Low
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love my Rover but my 1997 Landcruiser has basically given me no problems other than standard maintenance,
Landcruiser 297,000 miles with 2,200 dollars in repairs other than schedule maintenance
Discovery 2 1999 189,000 with 11,000 in repairs besides schedule maintenance
Depending on miles and condition that 2001 Disco should be around 3,800 to 4,100 .
Landcruiser 297,000 miles with 2,200 dollars in repairs other than schedule maintenance
Discovery 2 1999 189,000 with 11,000 in repairs besides schedule maintenance
Depending on miles and condition that 2001 Disco should be around 3,800 to 4,100 .
#3
03-05-2011, 10:47 AM
The following users liked this post:
Hooverscon (09-24-2017)
#4
03-05-2011, 12:13 PM
#5
03-05-2011, 05:14 PM
It is really apples and oranges.. the LC is an awesome truck my buddy has one and it is fantastic. it is also significantly bigger. I do not find the LC to be nearly as comfortable on or off road as my LR. I do not need to haul very much so the shorter wheel base is better. The CDL is an option for both. You really need to figure out what you are looking for in a truck. I had thought about and looked for a LC in the same age as you but in the end I went LR. yes it can be more expensive but even my LC friend likes my truck better. likes the ride likes the height the perfomance with the larger engine. etc.... but he needs to carry more than I do. In the end you will have an awesome vehicle that can take to to many incredible places and that is all that matters..
#6
03-05-2011, 05:19 PM
TReK
#7
03-06-2011, 08:54 AM
My 94 Fj80 LC has sit since I bought my Disco. As said Apples and Oranges. Maintenance wise the LC is better but once you replace berkal joints which are the CV's (1000.00) and a MAF (575) you find parts are expensive also. Both are capable off road just a better ride in the Disco, and no comparison on road.
#8
03-06-2011, 09:48 AM
Overlanding
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parts to repair or upgrade the Land Cruiser FJ80 are just as expensive, and sometimes more than the LR Disco's.
I was in the same predicament last year before I bought my LR Disco. I have absolutely LOVED the Land Cruiser FJ80 for years, but after doing in depth research on forums (Yotatech.com is a good one) that the Disco was a better fit for me.
Gas mileage really is not an argument in this catagory as we all accept mpg in the teen's. But the relative SIZE of the Land Cruiser puts it at a disadvantage going through brush or tight squeezes. The Disco's thin frame is more agile, period.
However, the engine in the Land Cruiser is by far one of the best. On par with the 2JZ-GTE from the MKIV supra, its incredibly brute. And turbocharging them has long been a common ground for increased performance. And yes, the I-6 is very easy to work on. But parts for 'performance' tend to be far and few between here in the states and OE replacement parts are around the same price bracket as the LR Disco.
To be honest, I still want a Land Cruiser. But I love the parts availability for the LR Disco.
But this picture makes me think twice sometimes.
I was in the same predicament last year before I bought my LR Disco. I have absolutely LOVED the Land Cruiser FJ80 for years, but after doing in depth research on forums (Yotatech.com is a good one) that the Disco was a better fit for me.
Gas mileage really is not an argument in this catagory as we all accept mpg in the teen's. But the relative SIZE of the Land Cruiser puts it at a disadvantage going through brush or tight squeezes. The Disco's thin frame is more agile, period.
However, the engine in the Land Cruiser is by far one of the best. On par with the 2JZ-GTE from the MKIV supra, its incredibly brute. And turbocharging them has long been a common ground for increased performance. And yes, the I-6 is very easy to work on. But parts for 'performance' tend to be far and few between here in the states and OE replacement parts are around the same price bracket as the LR Disco.
To be honest, I still want a Land Cruiser. But I love the parts availability for the LR Disco.
But this picture makes me think twice sometimes.
#9
03-06-2011, 10:44 AM
I had the same quandry and I shopped and compared and researched for 2 years before I made my decision. As said above, both are very capable vehicles and I had personal history with Toyota and I new about the reliability. I work in the Auto industry and I also know about the less publicized problems which did not deter me. What it came down to for me is that exploration and the outdoors is about the journey. You should also consider the company you will keep on the trail, if you will be with others in Toyotas it will help to have commonality of parts and knowledge. Landcruisers are cabable but also very common in my area. I chose the path less traveled.
#10
03-06-2011, 11:47 AM