which would you pick and why?! would be your DD.

>>16453884
easy, land rover defender 130. both are going to have problems eventually but I'll take almost anything over FCA garbage

>>16453884
A land cruiser
Both those are shit vehicles

Of these two the Landy.

>>16453902
not a fan of the looks of them. was more curious at just how shit the jeeps were.

>>16453884
you should probably check out the Toyota fj cruiser as another option.
toyota reliability aside, it seat 5 easily and can go offroading no problem

File: images (76).jpg (32KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 470x313px

>>16454580

File: IMG_2068.gif (879KB, 250x198px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 250x198px

>>16454580

>>16453884
Wrangler, except a 2 door and a YJ or TJ with the god-tier AMC 4.0 instead of the recent Chrysler garbage Wrangler.

>>16453884
I live in the USof A so the wrangler, it'd be cost prohibitive to operate a landrover defender

>>16453884
Neither, they're obviously defective. Wheels on the wrong side of the car, innit.

>>16454657
i mean sure it looks like a tonka toy (which to me aint a bad thing) but it works and its fairly reliable, also it should be fairly cheap by know

I don't need an offroad. I prefer small manual hatch.

File: 1480218440185.png (312KB, 389x386px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 389x386px

>>16454730
>also it should be fairly cheap by know

>>16453902
this is the correct answer

>>16453884
I'd probably prefer the Land Cruiser, but the Jeep would somehow attract girls and may be easier to get parts or repairs. I also know nothing about them

Depends on what you're using it for. The Defender would be a better overlander, but the Wrangler (specifically the Rubicon) is a superior off roader.

>driving any post-AMC Jeep
I'd have to go with the Rover