Ok folks, I have always admired the LR4 (but own a '14 Overland) and was wondering what specifically makes the JGC the tougher of the two trucks...for instance, who has the superior air suspension etc. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.
Tougher......that's a very amorphous term....like "luxury." I love the looks of the LR4 and I am sure it has very capable off road features. But does "tougher" include reliability/durability/dependability? What good are all the off road features if they don't work or keeps breaking down? If that's the case, then perhaps a nicely done Toyota Tacoma may be much "tougher." Does tougher include being bashable, abuse tolerant, and just neglect proof? Who bashes out an LR4 or JGC or Lexus GX460 or MB? I am sure someone in the boonies will shout out that his 20 year old Defender 110 diesel is the toughest----no a/c, no air suspension, solid axles front and rear, hand crank windows, military seats, can't go faster than 45 mph, and he carries all the spare parts he needs and knows how to fix anything on the spot.
I just don't think anyone can really say which vehcile is "tougher" just by measuring just one component or another, or which vehicle rises higher, or has steeper approach angles, nor can one say which is more better built by pointing to some isolated annecdotal example either.
Sorry for the long winded retort that leaves nothing answered, but I think a Socratic definiton of "tough" should be on the table before we move forward applying the word.
OK, fair enough. How about this then. What truck is better in deep snow, in rough off-road conditions etc. In deep snow or in some really rough terrain, which is the superior vehicle??? I have never seen a really good head-to-head comparison between an LR4 and a trail-rated JGC.
It certainly did not answer which does better in deep snow, or rough off road, or truly bad terrain. Tires can make a great deal of difference--the LR4 and the WK2 both come with street H/T tires or all season rubber. Changing out to good A/T tires can make all the difference. Deep snow----6"? 10"? 2 feet?" Fresh frozen, slush, wet "sierra cement", glazed ice, fluff Idaho/Montana powder (Eskimo Innuits have 20 words for snow beucase they can differentiate 20 types of snow.) Just like there are probably 10 major variants of mud from wet dirt and watery gravel to deep Mississippi mud or Alabama clay gumbo that can double as axel grease.
I believe that the LR4 is very similar to the GC in capabilities. Jeep designed the WK2 with a bullseye on the LR4/MB ML/Toureg in mind. I base this not on head to head comparisons, but searching and watching and reading videos or articles for each vehicle---and each vehicle performs similarly in similar conditions.
It's tough to make comparisons even in head to head runs. Driver skills are not the same, the terrain line differ from first vehicle to the second, running over a stretch of mud and dirt or snow compacts the terrain and can make it better or worse by churning and smoothing it down. The first driver may make mistakes the second driver may avoid and get better traction.
I would love to see a good full blown test with several of GCs competitors even with all the uncontrollable factors thrown in the mix and let's see who is the last man standing.
"I would love to see a good full blown test with several of GCs competitors even with all the uncontrollable factors thrown in the mix and let's see who is the last man standing."
I like 'em both, so am biased and even shopped the Rover against the GC but ended up with the GC.
I wonder if you'd want to run a Hemi Overland or a Diesel Overland against an LR4 on something a bit more difficult, such as from Moab Utah to Green River Utah, staying totally off pavement till you get to the bridge at Green River.
I suspect neither could make it over Rollins Pass Colorado.