Best 4 by 4’s on Earth is Land Rover?

Jeep anyone? I'm sure a Wrangler Rubicon is much better off road than a Range...

Unless they meant "SUV". 4x4 in the US means off-roader.

Is it even right to put the word SUV and 4x4 together ?? hahahaha

Sorry mstangpny07....the entire Land Rover line (including the non US available Defender 90) is far superior to the Rubicon.

Now I will say that the Rubicon is a very capable machine and very well put together for something from Jeep (about the only thing), but I would take a 90, or LR3, or Range any day over a Jeep or anything else.

Agree with pony boy. I saw a Range Rover Sport the other day and the exhaust looked as if it ran under the rear axle. This made it look like it had about 3 inches of ground clearance. Don't get me wrong I truly love a Defender both 2 door and the huge 4 door, I saw many of the 4 door when I lived in Honduras. Planet 4x4 funded by PAG?

They forgot to mention the most unreliable 4x4.



I'll take a Wrangler any day, dependable and inexpensive.

Rocker:

Could it be that the Range Rover was at the lowest setting with its air supension, so hence the low ground clearance? But 3 inches off the ground does seem too low.

Possibly but should it look like a lowrider in that mode. That vehicle was not made for offroading. Or as us good ol' boys would say "muddin'".

Mark-
Haven't you read the article ( I forgot which one, maybe C&D or Automobile) where they take the new Wrangler and the old Wrangler on the Rubicon trail? Well if you rememer, the new Wrangler got beat up pretty bad with trail rash due to it's larger width. The fenders were torn, the roof gashed. There is no way in the world that any Land Rover would escape out of there unharmed. They are just to big. So take your Ranger Rover on this trail, and trust me, it won't make it. Its too tall, way too wide, and too long. I'm positive Chop will back me up on this..

As for on road use, obiously the Ranger will kick the Wrangler's **s.

Oh, and my local Land Rover dealer sells Defender 90's. I don't see much on the road though. Weird.

That also depends whether you have the money to purchase a range rover =). If you have a budget then the Rubicon would be sufficient enough for your daily off-road expeditions.

Is this article correct? I checked their website and not a mention, not even a picture of any Range Rovers. It looks like a hard core off road site. Also there is not a link to that website within the article attached to this post.

"Sorry mstangpny07....the entire Land Rover line (including the non US available Defender 90) is far superior to the Rubicon."


Mark:

Do you even offroad? Have you taken the entire Land Rover line offroad? Have you ever heard of the Rubicon Trail? Have you ever taken a stock Wrangler over big arse rocks or up hills so steep you'd see nothing but blue skies out of your front fold-down windshield? Cause I have done a couple of the later in my mostly stock '99 Wrangler Sahara. My Wrangler and I have tackled more obstacles, cratered landscapes, and flooded backroads than grocery-getting moms and California metrosexuals have driven over parking lot blocks in their late model Landrovers.

I wasn't a member of this forum and was ok with just skimming through the stories and watching you all flame each other over whether the Japanese or the Germans had the better cupholders and such, but your comment made me spit my coffee out this morning. I have joined this forum solely to retort to your uninformed statement.

Having nice cupholders, leather interior, and a bigger price tag do not make a superior vehicle. Being lighter, more maneuverable, and having better departure angles than all the late model Land Rovers, including the Defender 90, I'd say the Wrangler Rubicon (Specifically the new 2007) can more likely hit terrain unpassable by Land Rovers. Hell, I'd pit my Sahara with a couple of lockers against any of the current Land Rovers. You'll see who'll be pulling who out of a bog!

But don't take my word for it. Here are what some better known publications have to say about the new Wrangler's offroad prowess:

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/11867/2007-jeep-wrangler-unlimited-rubicon.

http://www.4wheeloffroad.com/roadtests/131_0611_2007_jeep_wrangler/ (Check out the log shot! Try that in a bis-arse Defender)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=4019

Oh, and where do you think the "superior" Land Rovers originally came from? That's right! They are descendants of the original Jeep:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_rover

"The first Land Rover was designed in 1947 in the United Kingdom by Maurice Wilks, chief designer at the British car company Rover on his farm in Newborough, Anglesey. It is said that he was inspired by an American World War II Jeep that he used one summer at his holiday home in Wales The first Land Rover prototype 'centre steer' was built on a Jeep chassis."

well said ChopChop

THANK YOU

I, too, was going to respond to those statements, but I could not have said it any better than you. I love wheeling and mudding just as much as driving the Benz and Porsche. My very first car was a Jeep and I have kept at least one in my garage ever since. I bought an Unlimited Rubicon last year for something fun to wheel in and RIGHT FROM THE FACTORY, the thing kicked ass! Front and rear locking differentials, HD rear limited slip differential, Dana 44 axle....etc.

Plus I use it to tow (3500lbs) and do dirty work (pulled a tree stump out of my front yard with it!) the extended wheelbase is also very useful for cargo. All for under $30K!!!

The RR might be more plush, but when it comes to durability, reliability, off-road prowess, and price, NOTHING beats the Rubicon.

Its' official. The biggest piece of junk Ford has ever built(besides the Excursion) wins best 4 x 4. That is when the 4 x 4 is actually working.

Wow, I'm getting sick of you...

You're officially Audi's "logical".

And I'm an Audi fan.

The Range Rover is beautiful, no matter how unreliable it is.

Is this a British publication?

Actually I think it is a hoax made up by someone that drove his Range Rover thru a construction site and got wood while doing it.

LOL everyone is deemed the "logical" for each brand. It's funny how that guy has turned into such a legend on this site- his horrific posts showed us what a real fanboy is like.

BIAS!

mstangpny07 is right, Nowadays, SUV and 4x4 dont belong together.

and
"The awards were hotly contested by other manufacturers such as Audi, Nissan, Lexus and BMW" Where is Landcruiser?

CHop 110 also has a good point. But if I remember right, The Landcruiser ate up most of the market share of Land Rovers when it was introduced in the 60s or 70s in Australia. I think reliability was the problem.
In terms of off road ability, (not hard core), most 4x4s on the market are quite capable. To me, the Range Rover is a tall, super luxury station Wagon that has 4wd but again, reliability and servicing costs is a major issue compared to say Toyota or Jeep.

Some great comments!My good friend had a Defender 90 and you are right they are unreliable! he spent $10,000.(Canadian) on his transmission to be fixed!I like the Defender but I couldn't justify the maitnence expense!The Jeep Rubicon would out wheel this capable Defender anyday! The Rubicon comes with two lockers,4 to one transfercase.The Jeeps weak spot is the low and exposed oil pan!I couldn't believe it!I am shure the aftermarket will find a fix.Range Rovers belong in beauty pagents not on the trail!Look at those low profile tires!Rover as an off-road vehicle is merely marketing for rich uninformed people.