Yeah I've heard not nice things about Land Rovers. They do have a lot of potential as an offroad rig though... I was up underneath one once and they build them pretty solid in terms of metal.

 

The Rovers are great if you have plenty of cash and don't mind leaving it at the dealership.

 

Both will be more expensive to maintain when out of warranty. If my new to me H3 were not still under warranty I would have gone off the deep end in how much it would have cost me to keep on the road. The LandCruiser is a really nice ride, but will nickle and dime you to death.

 

I didn't realize ppl were having warranty issues with their Hummers? The dealer did quote me cost of $4600 for two years of coverage.which I thought was insane

 

The Land Cruiser is pretty nice but I don't think it has more or the same capability as the H3 or H2.(Stock)

 

Well... You aren't going to like this, but...

I ended up getting the Land Cruiser. I put some serious thought into the Hummer and hoped it would turn out for the best but in end the Land Cruiser won out. By quite far, hate to say...

I test drove both a 1992 Land Cruiser (selling for $1.9k) and a 2001 H2 (for $12k) frequently over the course of three days.

I was originally totally sold on the Hummer despite the higher price. It was newer, it was nicer, it had way more power and had only 98k miles on it.

The Land Cruiser was appealing to me as well because it was a very simply built vehicle, only $1.9k and I figured I wouldn't care as much if I scratched it or got the inside filthy. It had 194k miles on it.

After test driving for a while though, I just ended up liking the Land Cruiser way better. I really took notes of every little detail I could come up with comparing the two vehicles and the Land Cruiser ended up being way more appealing. Here are my thoughts:

Suspension. I liked the H2's smoother ride, a feature of the independent front suspension. In the Land Cruiser (solid front axle) I really got a feel for every little bit of gravel in the road. But doing some comparison, I preferred the solid front axle due to the fact that even if I managed to break it while doing some hardcore wheeling I could still limp home. The size of the axles was a no-brainer in this area... The Land Cruiser's stock axles are comparable in size to Dana 60s, if not slightly bigger

Engine and transmission. Yes, the Hummer had an insane amount of power, and this is the area that really hurt me. The 4.0L straight 6 in the Land Cruiser was just slow. It had an incredible amount of torque but it's just a slow vehicle, no doubt. But I looked over the service records for both vehicles and whereas the H2 had gotten its oil pump and cam bearings replaced, the only thing that had been done on the Land Cruiser was the alternator, belts and hoses (which are typical of a 19-year-old vehicle).

The part that really turned my decision was learning the H2's transmission had been replaced a year ago. Even though the Land Cruiser's transmission is an old hydraulically controlled unit and it's kind of clunky, it is original and has been regularly flushed.

In the end I was really happy with my purchase. I figured the extra $10k would've only gotten me a nice (if not slightly overdone) interior, a smoother ride and more acceleration at the expense of some durability and ease of working under the hood...

So yeah, it's kind of sad, but I'm pleased. Thanks for all your input guys. See you out on the trails!

 

since u were close to buying the h2, and comparitivly speaking the $2k is pocket change i would suggest that u go buy the h2 as well and have the best of it all.

if the high mile cruiser breaks ,u can fix or toss it with no great loss!

 

Good point. I just might

 

I know the choice is difficult to make but i'l suggest you to go with my personal favorite- Hummer
I own a Hummer H2 and i hardly remember any incident when it did not give its best
Hope it helps