[shivaprasad]

Nice write up.Thank u bro.The new Land cruiser looks horrible,but what a beautiful interior,superb. Brother how do you compare the performance and off-road ability of the new Land Cruiser with Audi Q7?

[benbsb29]

The interiors look really good for an SUV, and that too one which has amazing off-road prowess. Thanks for the pics.

I just cant seem to digest the exterior looks, despite how much ever i try.

[Brosreview]

Hey all,

@vasudeva - Hey there, umm, it is "high-pricing" of the Range Rover that makes us uncertain cause all love to save some cash when possible. We found that the Land Cruiser could do all a Range Rover could and cost less (comparatively speaking). But, yes there is an absence of class in the Toyota, all say so.

@razor4077 - Hey there, thanks for reading and appreciating. Exactly, we dislike the "evolving" (nice usage!!!) of the exteriors. Firstly, we find them purposeless. Secondly, as you mentioned, it sweeps away the appeal. We readily agree when you say the older-gen Pajero is better looking than its younger brothers. And, the same implements for the Land Cruiser.

And, yes, technology-wise it has got to be the current versions. But, then older 4X4's could do a lot of stuff these present ones manage to do.

Since it is an SUV first and then an off-roader, it has all those flashy, drop-down interior facilities.

[Brosreview]

@shivaprasad - Hey there, thanks for reading and appreciating. To be fair, we shall answer your inquiry comparing the Land Cruiser tested with the 4.2L, V8 Audi Q7 Quattro.

The Q7 is cheaper, approximately 5 grand cheaper. It is more economical as it is less powerful 350hp, 325ft-lbs of torque and lighter (approx. 100 pounds).

For heavy duty stuff, forget the Q7. The Land Cruiser can carry how much ever you want and do the school-run at the same time without complaining (3000 pounds more towing capacity than Q7 AND 7cu.ft. more cargo volume than Q7).

A slightly smaller fuel tank in the Toyota means you need to fill it more often (1 litre difference). However, the mileage is the same.

The Q7 provides more head and leg room than the Land Cruiser. But, to some of our group members the difference seemed so minimal that it wasn't worth mentioning. As one says, "Trim 1-1.5cms off your hair and you'll be fine man, huh".

Since, the dimensions are more or less the same, you will find it equally easy /hard parking it.

Now, since the Q7 is lighter, it can outrun the Land Cruiser both in a drag race and in insurance premiums.

Both the vehicles also handle equally well on tarmac. But, again as an off-roader Land Cruiser will be more impressive.

To sum it up, if you want something for a family usage with good performance which isn't anything to boast about, go for the Q7. I (the writer) personally dislike it but since Brosreview is a team, so I am forced to say, "We like it". I would rather have the X5.

But, if it is the utility factor you are looking for and sporty to you means going off-roading, then it has to be the Land Cruiser.

[vasudeva]

Originally Posted by Brosreview

Hey all,

@But, yes there is an absence of class in the Toyota, all say so.

Yes that may be true, but it gets the work done in a predictable, efficient, and uncomplaining manner without too much road side adventures or frequent cash withdrawals. More like a wife whom you look forward going home to every day, and get a sweet feeling whenever she enters your thoughts.

[GTO]

Nice concise review. I do recollect discussing the new LC on some other thread. The general consensus was that she has grown too big and too luxurious. Compare that to the 80 series (and prior) which were the epitome of all that the Landcruiser brand stood for. Nevertheless, the latest generation is a fabulous machine. I would love to own a modern LC someday.

Originally Posted by Steeroid

I love this vehicle, but I'd prefer it with the V8 D4D (800+ nm of torque - YUMMM!) and the older looks. I'm not a fan of the new look.

Hahahaha! +1 to that. The torque on the V8 diesel would be mind-boggling. To me, big SUV = Diesel only.

[Brosreview]

Originally Posted by benbsb29

The interiors look really good for an SUV, and that too one which has amazing off-road prowess. Thanks for the pics.

I just cant seem to digest the exterior looks, despite how much ever i try.

Hey there, truly written. The interiors are very neat for an off-roader. But, remember it is so because it is primarily classified as an SUV.

One more reader disliking the exterior looks - The list is getting longer.

[Brosreview]

@GTO - Hey there, thanks for reading and appreciating. Yes, we too are heading towards the same conclusion - obesity. But, we didn't find it to be "too" luxurious. No one complains of the Range Rover or the Merc or the Lexus being "too" luxurious. It could probably be because of the brand name. It is like when Audi made R8 that many car journalists speculated it to go wrong or disappointing. But, it ended up great!!! People do not or better say can not accept a very luxurious Toyota. Mind you, the earlier series too was very / "too" luxurious during its time of release.

And/or, since the Land Cruiser is mainly targetted for the Saracens (like me, partly) who want a luxurious chariot while at war or a air-conditioned tank with X-Boxes fitted in them; we mean with all the possible options - basically, larger than life. They realise it may be pointless but they need it anyway. That is why it fully-loaded with stuff which may prompt people to call it "too" luxurious.

Having said that, we like you still prefer the older models in terms of exterior looks.

"big SUV= Diesel only" - swell!!!

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Brosreview

To sum it up, if you want something for a family usage with good performance which isn't anything to boast about, go for the Q7. I (the writer) personally dislike it but since Brosreview is a team, so I am forced to say, "We like it". I would rather have the X5.

Another crucial factor : Reliability. Over the long run, the LC will work out infinitely more reliable than the Q7. LC's have developed the strongest fan following for paramount dependability. In the worst of driving conditions.

Originally Posted by Brosreview

No one complains of the Range Rover or the Merc or the Lexus being "too" luxurious. It could probably be because of the brand name.

But then, United Nations hasn't bought over 10,000 Merc M-Class' / BMW X5's for their third-world operations either!

Mind you, the earlier series too was very / "too" luxurious during its time of release.

Agreed. The 100 changed the direction of future Landcruisers. The LC was a pretty basic workhorse until the 100 series, and now the 200.

[/quote]"big SUV= Diesel only" - swell!!![/quote]

How about TD'ing the V8 diesel!

[Brosreview]

@GTO - Hey there, the reliability factor pointed out is very true.

We shall try posting a report on the diesel variant of the LC in a few weeks' time. We are currently testing other automobiles. Sorry about that. But, we assure to post it.

[Brosreview]

@Vasudeva - Hey there, very well put.

[Brosreview]

As requested, the comparative images of both the vehicles:
(Range Rover image by Zane Merva)

NOTE: In the image, LR-RR appears taller because of the suspension been heightened during off-road driving. The LC wasn't heightened for the photograph.

[shivaprasad]

I believe Audi Q7 comes with Advanced air suspension also Quattro four wheel drive system.Bro,what kind of suspension they use in Land Cruiser?
is this Quattro four wheel drive system beeter than Land cruiser four wheel drive?

[Brosreview]

@shivaprasad - Hey there, well, we can't quite compare between the two. For one, both handle well. The difference is that the LC can do stuff that a Q7 can't.

[Brosreview]

He is larger than a Hummer. He weighs more than two and a half tonnes and still can conquer any terrain that comes his way. He is kind to the atmosphere (emits less CO2 than petrol model), kind to your wallet (more mileage) and he is called the Toyota Land Cruiser GXLTDV8 costing around AUD 79,990 – 104,990 as supposed to the petrol variant costing around AUD 69,990 – 94,990.

As you unlock it and climb into it, you instantly get a feel of already being on top of the world; as if on a hilltop. As you start it, you only get one hint of its engine. No, it is not the sound. The slight barely felt shake in the seats as if having a massage reveals that it is a diesel engine.

It is quite effortless to drive as it has a super-light steering, strong reliable brakes and commendable acceleration. The only issue one may face in the civilian usage of this vehicle is the size. One may find it hard to park. Sure, for an extra bob, you will get rear-parking sensors. Still, you will feel as insecure as driving a supercar when you enter underground parking spaces. Parallel parking the 5-metre long, 2-metre wide gigantic body does require a lot of concentration. But, for our off-road test driver, it wasn’t much of an issue.

It carries a 93 litre main and 45-litre secondary fuel tank totalling to a 138-litre fuel tank capacity. Apart from this, it also renders a decent 9kms a litre mileage. While towing a 1700-kilo weight, it delivers decent 6kms/lire. And during inclines, you needn’t compromise on speed too. So, this is civilian in every way. And, it has not compromised on its ruggedness either. Read on.

Once you take it off-road, you get this reaction from the Toyota as if it is relaxed, as if it is feeling at home. The soft suspension that might have been scary on the road while cornering will be appreciated here. With over 220mm of land clearance, inhospitable terrains are dealt in a light-minded fashion. 261hp and 650nm of torque available at as low as 1600rpm enables the 4.5 litre, 8-cylinder twin-turbo diesel to plough through any landscapes as long as you keep using the accelerator pedal.

While the petrol variants get CRAWL, the diesel gets the DAC – downhill assist control. Keep your foot off the brakes and trust the DAC. It will surprise you by its controlled descent. Keep this option “on” as it serves better than the 6-speed auto-transmission. But, the DAC does make the brakes hot which gradually reduces its effectiveness. This wouldn’t have been a problem if the 200 series Land Cruiser was given a manual gear-box which prompt buyers to opt for the Prado instead.

The remarkable 285/65 R17 wheel articulation allowed by the suspension makes the deepest, the steepest, the uneven-est parcel of land capable of being driven on. The stability and traction control come with the vehicle that can be turned off. But, it is to be noted that Toyota has optimised their functionality for both on and off road activities. So, leave them on.

The diesel engine has more torque than the petrol V8 variant. That is exactly what you need to tackle difficult situations. This diesel variant is expected by Toyota to outrun the sales of the petrol variant. They claim it to be their best diesel engine.

Frankly, the diesel engine would be advised. Even though you pay an extra while driving it off the showroom, the practicality and packaging of the diesel variant seems more impressive. If it is possible, it is also suggested that you opt for the KDSS package as it is what decreases the body roll (+AUD 2500). With a towing capacity of 3500 kilos, this is quite a purposeful vehicle and with the amount of torque, it could conquer terrains with more ease than its petrol brother.

Chop a tree, fill up the tow cage, drop your sullen kids to school, kiss your wife goodbye at her urban workplace and take yourself for work in ease and comfort. And, notice the LC will not say a word. Of course, there are cheaper off-roaders that might perform these tasks. But, they will not do it in ease like the LC. Besides, after these daily routine which any other SUV could do, it is very re-assuring to know that in times of need the LC can/will handle the extra pressure with ease and style.

(Its safety and interior equipment is similar to the petrol. So, kindly read our petrol variant review for this info.)

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-d...requested.html

Images in Australian terrain. Last pic of a petrol LC variant.