Australia’s Best Car 2007

Hi F4

Neither the Cayenne or Disco 3 have the wheel articulation to be in the top group in capability off-road.

But they do make it to second level where all the wheel control gadjets work

the cayene 4x4 package is optional but has double diff locks and body protection. It also has a ride height as stock higher than an LC stock. I am not sure the LC would have better articulation stock but I am sure with a few mods it could be made to do so. basicly I think the cayenne is a far more capable 4x4 than the LC. This assumes you forget every other issue. The cayenne is in the top group in capability.

All-around independent suspension with *TONS* of electronic gizmos around each hub is easier for tweaking then two rigid axle one? May I ask you what did you smoke today?

Or probably I smoked something on each and every my trip to such extend that I have paranoid delusions and can see only LC/Patrols and cannot see Cayenes in my dreams?

Sorry, mate, but courses for horses and does not matter how good Cayenes on road they surely total cr@p off bitumen. They just show-off machines – been built like this and going to be used like this.

Cheers
Serg

I stand by what I say, however its not really a relivent discussion only a "if I had all the money in the world one". The thing is, a cayenne would not stand up to things a patrol or LC can, pounding day after day of tough hard and hot temp work, towing etc..

What I am actually trying to say is that its all very well to see what a 4x4 is like on a muddy test track for half an hour, its very different clocking up hundreds of thousands of k's over many years which is really what we want from a 4x4. So I do not doubt the cayennes ability off road but repeat the same off road track for 4 years each day and I would probably put my money elsewhere.

I place the D3 in the same category - good on a test day but not the best car to own longer term.

Hi F4
I guess having test driven one over a week (Cayenne) well it just can't follow my Patrol , similarly with the D3, it has beautiful control of its wheels but on real tracks where I monitored them closely, at the end of the day 4 wheels on the ground beats 3 down 1 left not spinning in the air.

I have never driven a cayenne and you have so I am always happy to listen to someone who has experiance over speculation. I did mention that the cayenne I was talking about had the special 4x4 pack, did the one you tested have this pack because it was this which really makes it a lot more capable.

Great car F4 - and its capability has been subject of much speculation and testing by myself and brother in law who does the testing for Porsche in Melbourne.

The one I reported on earlier this year did not have the 4X4 pack with the disconnecting axles which makes them equivalent to a double locked axles on my patrol.

Porsches own conclusion, which was independant of mine, is that it cannot match the patrol in the really hard going where ground clearance and axle articulation are king, assuming same tyres.

It also cannot wade as deep as patrol (no snorkel).

The track I went on the weekend "Red Hill" is an example of where the Cayenne could not follow.

I have a current open challenge for a "winner take all" hard drive I am conducting in 2 weeks and am hopeful that a Cayenne may yet be there .

Robin - How much of that is down to tyres?
from memory the D3 and cayenne especially come with useless offroad tyres and due to size probably difficult to get decent ones.
However it would make a HUGE difference

i reeely get peed of with the mag tests when they bag out a 4bys capabilitys because of the stock tyres.
anyone intending on using it would put decent tyres on it so crap stockers are just par for the course and shouldnt be taken as a reflection of capability

Your right there Davoe - always do what I can to get genuine comparisons here, and do often end up with compromises and have to make allowances .

In the above two I was lucky to have at's on each occasion. Because I have 4 sets of tyres in various states of wear I can usually pick one that makes a test reasonably fair.

The comparisons I have done are often lacking for sandy surfaces but are generally ok for my main driving conditions which are steep/rocky or slick clay.

Thats an important point Craig if your really trying to get the best as opposed to the "best new car".

Hmmm. Look at this Finalists for 2007

Although agree all this stuff is BBS (i.e. Big Bull Sh1t) - I would never put any importance to those test. As least because RACV tester Greg Hill(?) – his tests appears in all RACV magazine issues – just hate manuals. I mean how person with passion to cars can hate manuals? Thus I conclude that he also hates cars, so what kind of tester he is then?
As for me all this stuff it is no more then curiosity.

Cheers
Serg

Serg.
I agree. The test I was on about are the AGE not RACV .
The RACV ran a comparison of running costs about a year ago, the conclusion was that the ford territory was cheaper to run than a VW golf diesel. I had to read the article 3 times to find out how they had fiddled the figures. Eric.

As someone said above – 4 wheel on ground always better even without traction-aid then 3 on ground and 1 in air. Disco’s independed all-around suspension when pumped in full height became absolutely inflexible. Well, body should flex because no frame here LOL.
On mud and on sand probably, but on heavy rocky terrain – forget it.
Besides I can not imagine myself sit in car where I even not given right to play with small stick, but rather should select on dash dial “Sand”, “Mud”, “Gravel” etc. But what would happens if one wheel on gravel and another on mud – what should I select then?
Give any competent driver solid axels with difflocks anytime over super-duper-puper gizmos and I bet they can get out of trouble easier and quicker. Different story though with losers – and this car clearly aimed on them.
Cheers
Serg.

A common problem with these forums is that people often comment on things they have no personal experience in. KSV, your argument sounds great in theory; however, in practice it's just not true. I've actually spent the weekend going to hell and back on the 'heavy rocky terrain' you describe. I was in a S2 Disco, live axle front and rear, long-travel suspension, BFGs let down to 20psi and I was struggling to keep up with a S3 Disco running 46psi, road rubber and traction control. You could argue that maybe I'm one of the 'losers' you so generously and humanely describe; however, as an ex Army off-road driving instructor, I don't think I'm a mug when it comes to driving off-road. Yes, maybe a vehicle with twin diff-locks would've gone as hard as the S3 Disco - but there wouldn't be too many people on this forum who have twin diff-locks...and the fact is that a factory spec S3 Disco will do better on any terrain than a factory spec Patrol or 100 Series Cruiser and ALL the road tests confirm this. As I said before, the issue with the Disco is potential (hopefully now resolved) reliability problems - there is no question about its unbelievable ability which seems to defy physics (I have to say I was a bit confused how 46 psi could make it up the terrain we went up...and yes, you could rightly argue that he should've let his tyres down to preserve the track, but there wasn't any wheel slip and therefore no track damage - truly incredible...)

Serg - I might add that your comment:

'Disco’s independed all-around suspension when pumped in full height became absolutely inflexible.'

demonstrates that you don't actually understand how the system works. The airbags actually push the wheels onto the ground, so in most cases all four wheels are on the ground which is what your suggest to be the ideal situation...

Pathfinder,

They test traction control vs diff-locks if 4WD monthly a month ago or so and found out that on sand they almost the same capacity (although only one vehicle smarty dig itself in was traction control one) and on rocky terrain there is no comparison. Even if traction control vehicle keep moving it happened with much jerking manner. It is understandable – for traction control start to work we need wheel to spin! While with diff-locks spinning never happened at first place.

Regarding independent all-around suspension. They claim that ground clearance in Disco3 is 185mm. In Patrol it is 230mm. Now 185 mm in Disco3 only achievable when suspension is fully pumped up, thus not much if any left for articulation, while with Patrol scenario there is always room for moving.

Can “out-of-the-box” Disco3 be better off-roader then LC100? Yep, take IFS LC100 without any traction-aid and this can be the case. Can it beat any PatroCruser with mild lift, both solid axels and two diff-locks? I don’t recon so. Modification required? But it is actually not such bad things, because we can tailor out PatroCrusers for what we need or like! Furthermore – I do not like to own vehicle that is incredibly resistant to any modifications – it takes lots of fun out of this game.

And last things. You like, trust and admire all this gismos? I have no problem with this. I just fail to see any vehicle like this in outback and thus much skeptic that it is really best all-terrain 4WD. Like I have not seen even one Merc ML in VHC, despite Mercedes claims that it is “state of the art fully capable 4WD”. And this is not money issue – entry level ML not much more expensive that middle LC – it is something else. If this going to be our 4WD future, IMHO it will be sad and boring future when we will know nothing and do nothing, just steer. And when it gets broken down we also can do nothing – just wait until help arrives.

Regards
Serg.

I agree Serg - I'm wary of excessive electronics myself, and would not feel as comfortable taking my TD S2 Disco through the Simpson whereas I had no problems doing this in my TD S1 Disco which was as mechanically simple as a tractor.

However, I should also point out that you can't use 'traction control' as a generic term/comparison as there is a huge difference in the quality of different systems. E.g. my S2 Disco has one of the first TC systems and it's pretty crude - over-active, stops momentum and resulted in my scrabbling up rocky sections despite 20psi. The S3 TC system is truly unbelievable - as I said before, I still can't believe how it went up things without any wheel slip despite 46psi! But yes, these things will probably prove to be a maintenance nightmare in years to come, but the new 200 Series Cruiser also has a heap of electronic gizmos, so they too will be a source of unreliability.

In terms of what you see in the bush; a lot of it comes down to tradition which tends to be self-perpetuating - e.g. there have always been more Cruisers in the bush and therefore more Toyota dealerships which in turn sell and service more Cruisers. 4.2 TD Patrols and Pajeros are two of the most reliable 4WDs available, but there will still always be more Cruisers in the bush!

Agree – LC200 became no more then Toorak Tractor and this car not to my taste at all. But we still have 76 with optional factory lockers that I am aiming in 5-10 years time.

And you right about “chicken-egg” situation, but yet plenty of Patrols and Pajeros around. Also although not as common, I have seen some Disco and Jacaros. Some Defenders, although not many in numbers also around. And what truly amazes me there are quite a few 40 series LC! Also I saw very new LC in very improper place – not common think to see, but still. But yet no even one ML. Probably just image. Or probably Merc-oriented people not really bush oriented. Do not know real reason, but you can guess what I think easy.

Cheers
Serg.

PS you make me curious to try one :-)

Just an interesting test I did a week or 2 ago. Got my mates TDI ML 2.7L, excellent engine with loads of power and unreal eceonomy for a 2.2t car. I got my TDI pajero and we aimed at an off camber steep incline. The ML got up no probs but did spin the wheels quite a bit due to articulation issues. I dont know if it has electronics but it does have a button saying EPS or something. The pajero went up in hi range full open diffs and very slow with zero slip, I even got up in 2wd with a tad of wheel spin.

The conclusion was the pajero was much more capable than the ML (by a long shot) and since then my mate went and got the same pajero as mine in manual. He will use the ML on road and the pajero for off road.

This does not detract that the ML is still very reliable and that 2.7L is better than most diesels. It is also a proper 4x4 with quality drive train and hi low box. I would say it will do 60 to 70 % of what any top 4x4 can do but the thing is its such a nice car to scratch!

As always you can debate the pro's and con's of the various vehicles tested.
In the end the winner will still comes down to the manufacturer who is prepared to sign the biggest advertising contract with the magazine in question.