LR4 vs RRS offroad

[danrhiggins]

Umberto, wouldn't someone be able to modify those default ground clearance numbers with GAP's IIDTool?

 

[umbertob]

Yeah, but that would be cheating... Just going with moderately oversized tires - like most of us going off-road do - would change those numbers substantially on both vehicles of course, mine is just an apples-to-apples, bone stock comparison between the two.

 

[Lgibson]

We, too, are empty nesters out west who chose the LR4 for exactly the same reasons. The search for a vehicle with six feet of flat floor plus 4wd ground clearance turned up no other option.
It is a truly excellent choice.

 

[Surfrider77]

Umberto, wouldn't someone be able to modify those default ground clearance numbers with GAP's IIDTool?

Yea, that is not really a valid argument because you could simply do the exact same thing to the LR4 for lift. The starting point in the RRS is always going to be lower though.

The lack of aftermarket off-road gear with the RRS is reason enough for me to stay away.

 

[jwest]

...The search for a vehicle with six feet of flat floor plus 4wd ground clearance turned up no other option.
It is a truly excellent choice.

Toyota:
Land Cruiser more than the lr3/4 length front center consol to tail gate. Even more so in Sequoia with 7 ft. Both very much 4x4 platforms. Both can take 33" tires in stock form prior to any of the numerous lifts available. Lockers available for both, front and rear diffs. Seats have to be removed for optimal cargo space.

Lexus: 570 (Same as Land Cruiser, but nicer seats and some other options)

Mercedes GL has the 4wd "clearance" but not the 4x4 ability. Longer flat floor though with similar to LR seats folding "into" cargo floor level.

Mercedes G: just barely 6' with seats removed but then resulting in much taller overall floor to ceiling cargo area than lr3/4. Square shaped interior is much easier to modify for camping uses. Old style but stronger gutters allow more versatile use of roof than our lr3/4. Spare tire is already in a sensible location. Stock vehicle can fit 33" tires easy, 35" with hardly a modification and pretty much 100% reliability. No IIDtool needed!

There are certainly other suv's with 6ft clear cargo and 4wd.

 

[danrhiggins]

Toyota:
Land Cruiser more than the lr3/4 length front center consol to tail gate. Even more so in Sequoia with 7 ft. Both very much 4x4 platforms. Both can take 33" tires in stock form prior to any of the numerous lifts available. Lockers available for both, front and rear diffs. Seats have to be removed for optimal cargo space.

Lexus: 570 (Same as Land Cruiser, but nicer seats and some other options)

No so fast! Front console to tailgate is not a measure of cargo floor space. Trust me. I didn't just research the Land Cruiser/570, I owned a Land Cruiser. The problem is that all you can do with the middle row is roll it forward up against the front seats leaving shortening the cargo floor space by about a foot. Then you need to consider the space taken by the 3rd row which in current models is a PITA to remove and on the 570, given that it is power fold (well, partly fold), they really, really don't want you to remove it. And if you do then, well, you don't have a 3rd row you can quickly/easily use when you need it.

NO, the Land Cruiser/570 do NOT have the same length of useable, flat cargo floor space.

On the topic of 3rd row seats, do the following comparison. with the 3rd row deployed, "stand" in the footwell in front of the 3rd row seat.

I highly recommend spending some time inside of each. Take your tape measure and do your own measurements. (Car makers try to find clever ways of making the dimensions sometimes look better on the marketing brochure than in real life.) But also sit, stand, enter, exit. Imagine loading. If it is important lying down. Deploy the seats. Fold them up. Consider the variety of ways you can configure the cargo area for your needs and how easy (or not) it is to do so. I knew what a LC was capable of. But to be sure about the LR I took some of my gear down to the dealership and put it inside - on the showroom. I needed to see how it would fit. For what I needed, it wasn't even close. And having lived with the LR4 now for nearly a year and 30K on all sorts of chores and adventures I will never go back to Toyota until they address there cargo space issues.

As for off road capabilities it is about more than just ground clearance. As for ground clearance the LC has 8.9". The LR4 has 9.5" and can go to 12 if necessary. Yes, that is stock on the LC and you could put on larger tires and lift it. Approach, departure and ramp angles are not as good. Turning circle is a foot longer. It is 5" longer.

Are the LC/570 bad offroad? Of course not. But they don't match the LR4 in specs. And for the added length on the outside, you get worse space on the inside and the system for flattening/moving/removing the seats is ancient. A number of other vehicle makers have found far more clever and useful means of doing away with the seats when you don't want them.

 

[Lone Star landy]

I agree with Dan. The LC and LX570 have significantly less useable interior space than the LR4. This is primarily due to the way the seats fold and store. Also third row seats in both LX and LC are not great, due to the fact that there really is no foot well due to the solid rear axle design of those vehicles. They also do not fold into the floor and take up a lot of cargo space when folded to the side. I am 6'3" and I can comfortably ride in the LR4 third row. The only other vehicle I have ever ridden in that has a comfortable third row for adults is the Mercedes GL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colorover]

Agree with the comments about the Toyotas. Same holds true for the GL, you don't wind up with a truly flat floor as you do with the LR3/4. I have't tried with the G but I would be shocked if you can get 6' of flat space. Not to mention they start well over $100k and were designed in the 70s...

The Expedition is an alternative with a flat floor and loads of space but doesn't have near the offroad chops as the LR.

 

[jwest]

No so fast!

I have put 100,000 miles on my lr3. I had a 2006 LC before that and have carefully compared with my measuring tape and body the inside of the new model and LX. However, I was swayed long ago by the folding seat design in the LR3. So no need to sell me on it. There are however pros and cons in both.
One con in the lr3....up to roughly $14,000 in repairs during the last 50,000 miles. What's that worth?
Off road, the paper comparisons are useless. The LC is equally capable off road.

 

[manoftaste]

Very interesting read. Dan hit it on the nail in his "When you say "off road", what do you mean?" post.

As far as comparing to Land Cruiser or 570, I never owned any of these, but a few months ago I did check them out at local dealerships. Yeah, the cargo space is not the same. There is nothing on the market at the moment with such an offroad capability but with equally amazing smooth on-road driving manners, and flat cargo floor with three rows of seats and without having to physically remove any seats.

Plus we have not even mentioned here LR3/4's Integrated-Body-Frame design that offers best of both worlds. That built like a tank feel is because of this chassis design. No other vehicle on the planet as of this writing (either an SUV or a sedan, etc) has that type of chassis design. Because of this, the cabin is as safe for occupants as it could ever be.

During the last few months, and even yesterday during my regular service visit, how many times I have tried to convince myself for the RR but the moment I sit inside, it feels more like a cross between a car and an SUV. I miss the clear and expansive view out that I get from my LR4.

If only these jokers at LRNA could actually understand what they have and marketed it appropriately.

Case in point, the only vehicle in their entire model line-up that could actually benefit from and needed the diesel motor more than any other model (including its customers who actually have been asking for the diesel motor for ages now), gets neglected, and instead the diesel motor is announced in the RR and RRS first.

The sound of chu ching dictates everything.