Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

Bullshit. Land rovers are plenty capable off road until they break down.

The Toyota/Lexus portfolio of off road vehicles though is vastly superior to junky redneck salt life wranglers

While I don't find Wranglers to be "junky," it's true that they're not the only rugged, off-road capable, non-crossover option.

Jeeps are fine. They are intended to be driven by someone who knows how to fix them, otherwise it’s a… poor match.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

Bullshit. Land rovers are plenty capable off road until they break down.

The Toyota/Lexus portfolio of off road vehicles though is vastly superior to junky redneck salt life wranglers

Exactly. Only Toyota, the storied maker of the Land Cruiser, is the same company from its heyday.

Jeep has changed owners 7 times , and the most recent owners are Fiat and Peugeot — hardly reliable hardy vehicles ever in their history.

Range Rover has had 5 owners, most recently Ford and Tata motors. Again not in the same league, and RR is being built on a Tata platform.

Meanwhile, Toyota has been the same company making off road capable vehicles since 1957: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g20901778/cruisin-for-a-bruisin-the-visual-history-of-the-toyota-land-cruiser/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

Bullshit. Land rovers are plenty capable off road until they break down.

The Toyota/Lexus portfolio of off road vehicles though is vastly superior to junky redneck salt life wranglers

While I don't find Wranglers to be "junky," it's true that they're not the only rugged, off-road capable, non-crossover option.

Anonymous wrote:Both look great sitting in mechanic bay for weeks on end. get yourself an old defender 90.

Loved the look of that vehicle.

I drove a Range Rover and it was nothing but a headache. But it was early in the new look cycle. So that might have been why.

I love the look of the Defender, but just can't go for another Land Rover vehicle. I'll probably go with the Lexus GX550. I see a lot of the small Lexus RX??

If I had to choose between the RR sport or the Discovery, I would go with the Discovery. As has been said, I don't like the squashed backside look. Though it definitely looks cooler than the Discovery.

Both look great sitting in mechanic bay for weeks on end. get yourself an old defender 90.

Anonymous wrote:I still can’t figure out why anyone will pay top $$ for automotive junk.

Every car is junk now. I don't think the RRS is worth $120k or whatever it is. Discovery, just no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

Bullshit. Land rovers are plenty capable off road until they break down.

The Toyota/Lexus portfolio of off road vehicles though is vastly superior to junky redneck salt life wranglers

I can’t fathom paying that much for a Tata-Rover

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Motors

https://carbuzz.com/jaguar-land-rover-tata-platform-happening-next-year/

Anonymous wrote:Neither, both are douche-mobiles.

Lol I made a similar comment and it looks like it got deleted.

I don’t really judge people by their cars but I make an exception for people who buy these because they are somehow so ridiculous and try hard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

What about a Cybertruck? I believe it’s off-road performance is unmatched.

Neither, both are douche-mobiles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

What off-road performance capabilities does the Wrangler have that the Land Rovers don't have, though, especially the Defender or the Discovery?

The ability to absorb trail rash in a vehicle that costs less than my first house.

Grandpa you need to realize that the world around you changes whether you like it or not. 70-90k for a car isn't really that crazy these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

What off-road performance capabilities does the Wrangler have that the Land Rovers don't have, though, especially the Defender or the Discovery?

The ability to absorb trail rash in a vehicle that costs less than my first house.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Virtually no one is offroading either of these in a meaningful way. If you want offroad performance, get a Jeep.

This.

Anything other than a Wrangler is just a pretender.

What off-road performance capabilities does the Wrangler have that the Land Rovers don't have, though, especially the Defender or the Discovery?