100 series LC/Lx470 vs Land Rover LR3 vs 1st generation Sequoia

[ShottsCruisers]

The LC100 can apparently ? fit larger tires and it doesn't even have an air suspension.

33.5 inch tires can fit without rubbing on a STOCK 100-Series. (Spare tire included with or without a trailer hitch)

35 inch tires can fit without issue with a 2.75-inch suspension lift. (Spare tire included IF the trailer hitch is not installed.

The LR3's I've wheeled with have done really well on moderate rated trails. And boy those suckers can articulate...almost to my Cruiser's RTI with my longer-travel shocks and solid rear axle. The Rovers can go. I have not been on any difficult rated trips with LR3's for 4' yet. The Disco's could sure do it all.

 

[Jwestpro]

yes, wow, that's really nice tire size options. Not that I need to roll down the highway for 1000's of miles on 33 or 35" but my lr3 would much more easily deal with the deeper snow roads I find myself on sometimes if I had another couple inches. Currently I use the 31.5" bfg at 265/65x18.

lr3's are of course limited to 18" minimum wheel size in oem form. I think that should have been on the OP list of comparison features, it is a limitation even just in terms of tire choices. there are almost no 18" aggressive treads that fit into the lr3 wheel wells very well.

For tundra style snow excursions, the lr3 is again very limited by tire height and the width although I suppose you could use spacers and find an aftermarket wheel that is wider for a wide tire application. It just seems like there are however, almost no options for the lr3 compared to endless options for the LC.

In Land Rover, one has to step back to the Discovery 2 line to gain flexibility in all the above issues. I am currently looking into a diesel conversion of my 2004 Disco....

Another thing about all of these, is not just interior floor square footage, but to me it's just as important to consider height. I like height in my suv so above one layer of gear bins, drawers, etc, I can still sit up if on a bed/platform. This is one thing that I do love about my Discovery 2, it's so tall inside allowing a lot of cargo configurations without being too long/wide outside. The lr3 is sort of between the Discovery 2 and the LC in it's interior height.

For real custom layout the rear seats removed provides LOTS of volume that none of these can compare against. While the Sequoia is long, it is not tall inside and cannot be unless you have Sportsmobile replace the roof with a penthouse ---now that's a COOL idea! Or how about a giant suburban or Excursion with a penthouse and built in galley?

My arb 40L fridge is currently mounted to the floor between the 2, 2nd row seats with the center seat removed. I can sit ON it and get dressed to ski or snowboard inside the vehicle if I like. In this sense, interior space flexibility, the lr3/4 wins without question compared to the LC or Sequoia.

I don't do lot's of hard core 4x4 because I am generally alone and don't really want to be dealing with serious recovery, alone, so in some ways a Sequoia would be nice, lots of room to spread out and plenty capable for safe routes, but I don't think they drive as nice as the lr3 and parking anywhere is actually pretty easy in the lr3/LC size.

 

[Jwestpro]

The reason I chose these 3 trucks is their capacity for 7 passengers, their price, and of course their 4wd.

So, I missed the glaring oversight on your part. "7 passengers"

This is not an apples to apples comparison.

LC100 - Personally, I would not want to sit in the LC 3rd row jump seat, at all, maybe, maybe if I were stuck on the side of the road 40 miles from nearest town and my GF had enough of my crap and left my to walk, then, I'd gladly ride in the LC jump seat. I owned an 06 LC so I know the seat design. I DO wish I'd kept that vehicle!

Sequoia - I know from poking around in them that the 3rd row has more space, but is still not all that great.

LR3/4 - now, here is one are where the LR3 shines, the 3rd row is actually designed such that a 6-4 person can sit there and anyone 6' or under can be quite comfortable even on a long day trip. There is plenty of foot space and your feet are below your bum, not like in the LC jump seat where you're mostly on a cushion on a floor with knees in chest.

The lr3 really does well in the area of interior spacial design. Not only do you have a true 7 viable seats, but they are easy to access and the all fold away leaving the cargo volume open fully, unlike the Toyotas where the 2nd row seats are still right there in the way, just folded against the 1st row. To me, that is not very helpful.

Then if you compare all 3 with seats removed....the lr3 is just nuts for what it allows.

I guess you have to weigh the aspects of all 3 because the lr3 is clearly "better" in some ways. Is it reliable enough? I don't know. The people with 100,000 miles will say, "yeah sure" but what about the people who say "my extended warranty sure paid off".

Maybe the LC is honestly the best overall mix...

 

[Sawyer]

So, I missed the glaring oversight on your part. "7 passengers"

This is not an apples to apples comparison.

LC100 - Personally, I would not want to sit in the LC 3rd row jump seat, at all, maybe, maybe if I were stuck on the side of the road 40 miles from nearest town and my GF had enough of my crap and left my to walk, then, I'd gladly ride in the LC jump seat. I owned an 06 LC so I know the seat design. I DO wish I'd kept that vehicle!

Sequoia - I know from poking around in them that the 3rd row has more space, but is still not all that great.

LR3/4 - now, here is one are where the LR3 shines, the 3rd row is actually designed such that a 6-4 person can sit there and anyone 6' or under can be quite comfortable even on a long day trip. There is plenty of foot space and your feet are below your bum, not like in the LC jump seat where you're mostly on a cushion on a floor with knees in chest.

The lr3 really does well in the area of interior spacial design. Not only do you have a true 7 viable seats, but they are easy to access and the all fold away leaving the cargo volume open fully, unlike the Toyotas where the 2nd row seats are still right there in the way, just folded against the 1st row. To me, that is not very helpful.

Then if you compare all 3 with seats removed....the lr3 is just nuts for what it allows.

I guess you have to weigh the aspects of all 3 because the lr3 is clearly "better" in some ways. Is it reliable enough? I don't know. The people with 100,000 miles will say, "yeah sure" but what about the people who say "my extended warranty sure paid off".

Maybe the LC is honestly the best overall mix...

Thanks! Those are some really good points. The 3rd row in my LC SUCKS! I rode back there once before I completely removed the seats. I was so uncomfortable (I'm 6'-2"). I think it would be fine for kids. But, horrible for adults!

 

[khronus79]

Not trying to be mean, but if you've spent MONTHS reading and researching, why is a huge tuna boat like a Sequoia even being compared to a LC and/or LR3?

Have you not already concluded that:

*There are no "Sequoia off road clubs" because the trucks are not designed for that use.
*There is no aftermarket support for the Sequoia
*There are Land Cruiser clubs for dedicated off-road travel
*Aftermarket parts and mods abound
*Ever seen Sequoia Expedition vehicles other than ones witha roof rack?
*Seen and read about Dakar Cruisers

I could go on and on. Using ONE person's Sequoia as an example is plain crap. They are designed to haul people and gear on-road and in comfort. That's it and they're better than a Cruiser for that. If you want both on and off-road then you look at a Cruiser.

ShottsCruisers, I did spent months researching and if you read carefully, you would have already concluded that I made my choice and purchase before I made this thread.

I do not know why you insist on talking about a vehicle which you do not own, or am I mistaken and you are an actual Sequoia owner??????

But to answer your enquiry, the huge "tuna boat" Sequoia(even though is only 10 inches longer than an LC and 2 inches wider) is in this comparison because of its price point and capacity, which is what 90% of people look for when shopping for cars, price that matches their budget and the capacity that meets their needs. And whether you like it or not there are very few people, including the vast majority of the members of this forum, that will actually venture out into the wilderness and wheel the crap out of their SUVs.

That 1 sequoia I mentioned on one of the posts just happened to be a very well documented case, but if you want to see others, you can head over to any of the following forums, toyotanation.com, tundrasolutions.com, rme4x4.com, pirate4x4.com, toyotafans.net, etc...... I assure you there is more than 1.

Now, if we can please move on to the topic at hand, the LAND CRUISER 100 SERIES (although for some reason, I think you'll be coming back to talk about the Sequoia).

 

[khronus79]

Debate is always good.

The problem I have is you are quoting bad information. An '03 LX470 did NOT come from the factory with rear lockers and an '03LX 470 DOES have ATRAC.

To repeat what I said earlier:



Like I said, I am not trying to stir the pot here... just trying to make sure the correct information is posted.

Sawyer, all points well taken.
However, and I'm probably wrong, I was under the impression that you could have both aftermarket lockers and keep the ATRAC????.

So, I missed the glaring oversight on your part. "7 passengers"

This is not an apples to apples comparison.

LC100 - Personally, I would not want to sit in the LC 3rd row jump seat, at all, maybe, maybe if I were stuck on the side of the road 40 miles from nearest town and my GF had enough of my crap and left my to walk, then, I'd gladly ride in the LC jump seat. I owned an 06 LC so I know the seat design. I DO wish I'd kept that vehicle!

Sequoia - I know from poking around in them that the 3rd row has more space, but is still not all that great.

LR3/4 - now, here is one are where the LR3 shines, the 3rd row is actually designed such that a 6-4 person can sit there and anyone 6' or under can be quite comfortable even on a long day trip. There is plenty of foot space and your feet are below your bum, not like in the LC jump seat where you're mostly on a cushion on a floor with knees in chest.

The lr3 really does well in the area of interior spacial design. Not only do you have a true 7 viable seats, but they are easy to access and the all fold away leaving the cargo volume open fully, unlike the Toyotas where the 2nd row seats are still right there in the way, just folded against the 1st row. To me, that is not very helpful.

Then if you compare all 3 with seats removed....the lr3 is just nuts for what it allows.

I guess you have to weigh the aspects of all 3 because the lr3 is clearly "better" in some ways. Is it reliable enough? I don't know. The people with 100,000 miles will say, "yeah sure" but what about the people who say "my extended warranty sure paid off".

Maybe the LC is honestly the best overall mix...

Jwestpro, I must agree with your observations.

The LR3 backseat is by far the most comfortable for your average size adult, and its definitely great for kids. The fold flat seats and the taller roof gives you immense storage.

The LC third row seat was a bit uncomfortable for me(I'm 5'8) but bearable on short distances. Space wise, it has the least of the three unless you completely remove both rear seats, and even then you come up short compared to the other 2.

The Sequoia third row seat was equally uncomfortable, and although I had a few more inches of leg room, the rest of the seat was not up to the standard of the other 2. On the Sequoia I found myself constantly moving around to find my comfort spot.
The only place where the Sequoia excelled was in the cargo space behind the 3rd row, you can actually put a good amount of gear back there.

 

[nwoods]

Then if you compare all 3 with seats removed....the lr3 is just nuts for what it allows.

Exhibit A: All back seats down flat - removable cargo barrier in place

Exhibit B: Middle seats up, rear seats down (if equipped):

 

[2000UZJ]

Jesus.... LR3/4 and LC 100 are almost the same in terms of offroad. The LC100 has some pretty cheesy stock items (huge plastic running boards, huge flare on flare...silly, enough bug deflectors and visors to outfit 12 Civics) but once you strip those off and throw a nice set of tires under it you are fine. In reality both vehicles stock off the showroom floor are geared for highway use (admit it, how many LC100 and LR3/4 owners wheel theres? They come with highway slicks, big motors, leather top and bottom and big rims (100 stayed small with rim size which I like)). The 100 lacks in technology inside where the LR3/4 are years ahead. But that is a Landcruiser for you, everything overbuild, everything very very high quality and meant for long term abuse. The LR3/4 has lots of little things inside, many modes and gadgets (one can argue better or worse for both rigs). LR will have a larger price tag on it than the LC.

If you outfit a LC with the same thing as the LR3 I'm sure they can compete side by side. I've wheeled the hell out of both and they are great rigs, LR3 is much more fun on the highway, I find the LC much more fun offroad. To each his own. I'd go with my simple, overbuilt, single mode driving, and a manual transfer case selector. LR3 has to many things for me, between driving modes and height control,etc, I just want to have a simple offroad adventure. "Line up, lock up, power!!!"

 

[Sawyer]

Sawyer, all points well taken.
However, and I'm probably wrong, I was under the impression that you could have both aftermarket lockers and keep the ATRAC????.

If i am confusing thing I am sorry. What I was referring to is that Pilot over on Ih8mud was saying his LX came with a factory rear locker and did not have Atrac. Both of which would be incorrect. For me, that makes the whole comparison questionable. I dont doubt that a Sequoia can be wheeled hard. And I think he showed he did. I wonder though why he decided to sell it if it were that great though.....

To clarify,

LC/LX:
1998 - factory rear locker was standard
1999 - Factory rear locker was an option
2000+ - Atrac was introduced and standard on all vehicles rear lockers were no longer an option

Now Lockers can always be added. And yes you can keep Atrac with Lockers. Most people will re-gear at the same time. I dont have lockers because....well, I have never felt I really need them. The Atrac system has gotten me everywhere I want to go. Including running around MOAB. When I get to the point I cant go where I want I will probably re-gear and add them. Or if I ever blow a diff I will add them. Shotts has the best description of the Locker Atrac combo I have seen:

http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/V...s-Front-and-Rear/958461_h4RPhj#44071769_CMZwu

I hope this is clear and helpful to others. Cheers!

 

[khronus79]

LR will have a larger price tag on it than the LC.

I'll have to disagree with you here, it is the LC that has the larger price tag. If you look for same year models with similar features, the LC/LX are much more expensive, often by a large margin.

 

[khronus79]

I wonder though why he decided to sell it if it were that great though.....

I think he moved to Europe

To clarify,

LC/LX:
1998 - factory rear locker was standard
1999 - Factory rear locker was an option
2000+ - Atrac was introduced and standard on all vehicles rear lockers were no longer an option

Now Lockers can always be added. And yes you can keep Atrac with Lockers. Most people will re-gear at the same time. I dont have lockers because....well, I have never felt I really need them. The Atrac system has gotten me everywhere I want to go. Including running around MOAB. When I get to the point I cant go where I want I will probably re-gear and add them. Or if I ever blow a diff I will add them. Shotts has the best description of the Locker Atrac combo I have seen:

http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/V...s-Front-and-Rear/958461_h4RPhj#44071769_CMZwu

I hope this is clear and helpful to others. Cheers!

Great info, thanks.

 

[2000UZJ]

2006 LR3 w/ 50K in show room condition is 22,275. Overall Rating 4.1
2006 LC w 50K in show room condition is 34,350. Overall rating is 4.8


I guess your right. I thought the LR3 were more expensive.

Numbers are from KBB.

 

[ShottsCruisers]

2006 LR3 w/ 50K in show room condition is 22,275. Overall Rating 4.1
2006 LC w 50K in show room condition is 34,350. Overall rating is 4.8


I guess your right. I thought the LR3 were more expensive.

Numbers are from KBB.

Yes, and the Disco's were even worse. It's due to the poor reliability and massive repair costs of the Rover. Drive them off the lot and they are worth little.

 

[FireGuy]

35 inch tires can fit without issue with a 2.75-inch suspension lift. (Spare tire included IF the trailer hitch is not installed.

The above statement is incorrect as many experienced 100 series drivers will tell you. You WILL have issues such as rubbing, excessive CV angles, poor steering response, worn steering racks, etc. It is up to you to decide what you are willing to put up with. Shots will go nuts now over my statement, but I wheel with a ton of 100 guys, and they all have left 35's and gone back to 33's. These are guys who actually wheel their rigs on trails longer than a couple miles. Their rigs are heavy and well outfitted.

 

[ShottsCruisers]

The above statement is incorrect as many experienced 100 series drivers will tell you. You WILL have issues such as rubbing, excessive CV angles, poor steering response, worn steering racks, etc. It is up to you to decide what you are willing to put up with. Shots will go nuts now over my statement, but I wheel with a ton of 100 guys, and they all have left 35's and gone back to 33's. These are guys who actually wheel their rigs on trails longer than a couple miles. Their rigs are heavy and well outfitted.

Not going nuts. You're misleading the folks really bad here though. Of course there are always trade-offs when modifying vehicles. If the dude wants more info he can PM me or check my site.

For 10-years (longer than most everyone) I've run 35's without rubbing (zero rubbing)...CV joints last a long time (years)...steering is excellent...worn racks have been an issue every 40K-ish though I'm also a guy who has bent rear axles. Most have not had the early rack leakages like I have nor the bent axles.

Nope...if somebody needs 35's for the trails they run...it's a no-brainer thing to do on a 100. The obstacles on the trails I run require greater than that of a 33-inch tire for certain. It's not about how long a trail is...it's about how difficult it is.