I don't see much 200 series here, any particular reason?

[zimm]

they crossed the weight limit line for me. the 100 was a bit portly set up for wheeling too, but i dealt with it. the 200 stock has my 100 weight with armor. its lost too much float at that size.

also if i wanted that level of refinement as a DD i'd buy a luxury car.

as such, i went back to an easier truck to modify, a 60. its lighter, narrower, usable space is great, yadda yadda. its just friggin old, but that doesnt bother me. i like old.

i dont see the cheaper 4runner based units as a class comparison, its range rovers or G's. i think if i was to spend another 40 on a luxo/wheeler, a used G 500 is better mix of talents and offroad design.

 

[LJFTW]

In the face of overwhelming evidence that it is as capable as its predecessors people still refuse to treat the 200 as a bona fide Land Cruiser. That's why 200 owners don't frequent this joint.

A used G Wagon money pit better than a Land Cruiser. Give me a break.

 

[Dalko43]

In the face of overwhelming evidence that it is as capable as its predecessors people still refuse to treat the 200 as a bona fide Land Cruiser. That's why 200 owners don't frequent this joint.

I don't think Toyota enthusiasts refuse to acknowledge the LC 200 as a bona fide LC, at least I don't. I think where the disagreement lies is in defining the word capable in this context. A 4runner or LC 100 wouldn't likely perform any better articulation-wise in the situation depicted above. However, a LC 80 or LC 70 (slightly modified or stock) likely would. So while a LC 200 is light years ahead of those older or more traditional LC models in some aspects, I'd also have no problem saying that it isn't as capable in other aspects.

BTW, these are all opinions being expressed here. All forums, even LC 200-biased forums, are full of opinions. If you can't stomach an opinion that's different from your own, maybe you should stop frequenting forums all together...just a suggestion.

 

[tacollie]

200s are freaking heavy for hard off-road performance. I feel 100s are also to pretty heavy. I'm not saying they can't do it but they aren't ideal. Even built 80s start to get heavy for hard use handling wise. I want to stress that I know they are capable but they are just heavy for hard off-road use. They sink, slide, and hang up. As an all around rig they are pretty sweet. This site is about all around use so logic dictates there should be more of them. This goes back to my first post about numbers. There aren't a lot of them and people buying 4runners are financing and new vehicles have better rates. Also, a lot of people working $40k don't want a used vehicle. Even with how reliable modem cars are people tell me I'm crazy for buying vehicles with over 100k miles on them. Just my .02

 

[Jeffrey Patrick]

Traded my 4Runner in for a 2013 200 Series. Just wrapped up some mods, ARB bumpers, OME suspension and BFG AT KO's. This thing is a beast. I still have/love my 60 but my wife and I can really cover some ground in her. Looking forward to taking her to Wyoming for vacation next week. Man what an upgrade this is over my 4Runner! Great and active bunch of 200's on Mud.

 

[zimm]

In the face of overwhelming evidence that it is as capable as its predecessors people still refuse to treat the 200 as a bona fide Land Cruiser. That's why 200 owners don't frequent this joint.

A used G Wagon money pit better than a Land Cruiser. Give me a break.

as an expedition truck where paved roads are a secondary function, i would take the G500 over the 200. and no "break" need be given, as you dont have to ********** the corners (or drag the ***) on G. if carnage is a success, i guess that pic you posted really is the picture of success.

this isnt a fanboy site. yea, there are section for trucks, and people do like what they own, but there are many here that have owned and traveled and wheeled with a variety of trucks, and they are able to give opinions based on experience. mud is unsurpassed for LC technical knowledge, and if you like being in a fanboy bubble, stay there.

 

[MTSN]

as an expedition truck where paved roads are a secondary function, i would take the G500 over the 200. and no "break" need be given, as you dont have to ********** the corners (or drag the ***) on G. if carnage is a success, i guess that pic you posted really is the picture of success.

this isnt a fanboy site. yea, there are section for trucks, and people do like what they own, but there are many here that have owned and traveled and wheeled with a variety of trucks, and they are able to give opinions based on experience. mud is unsurpassed for LC technical knowledge, and if you like being in a fanboy bubble, stay there.

I honestly can't tell if you're serious in claiming the G wagon is a better choice for a vehicle to be driven where there aren't roads, but I think you'd be in the minority there. I met one of the Toyota test drivers for the 200 when it was being developed, and he confirmed it was literally designed to live a "normal" life in countries without roads and is the toughest vehicle Toyota has ever sold in the US. I think the G is pretty cool, and I'd like to own one someday. But if I had the choice between the 200 and a G to take on an expedition or ship to a third world country, there wouldn't be any hesitation the Toyota would be it. I'm no fanboy of any brand (as my track record of having owned 41 different vehicles so far can show), but I call a spade a spade.

 

[toylandcruiser]

In the face of overwhelming evidence that it is as capable as its predecessors people still refuse to treat the 200 as a bona fide Land Cruiser. That's why 200 owners don't frequent this joint.

A used G Wagon money pit better than a Land Cruiser. Give me a break.

I've noticed that the previous generation of whatever it is is the last of the real whatever it is.

 

[Taco2FJ]

I rock crawl a 200 Series(I know, right, but I started as a rock crawler, and somehow found my way here), and have found it to be the most capable Toyota 4x4 I've driven. I've wheeled every Series since the 40, mini trucks, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th gen 4Runners, 1st and 3 gen Tacomas, my work truck is a built 5th gen 4Runner, and my last truck was an FJ with Total Chaos long travel, front and rear air lockers, and a BudBuilt tummy tuck (gains 4" of ground clearance in the center of the truck, the frame rails are the lowest point basically)

I will say that all toyota 4x4s are wonderful vehicles, amazingly capable, and just a joy to own. There is however something about the 200. The engineers nailed it. Some how it just can take the biggest ledges and the 3' boulders with ease. It's like ever little angle was put there to make it work just a bit better.

Those pictures are from a 37" tire up rock course, and a 200 with front and rear air lockers and the KDSS is somehow absurdly stable when going down 30-40" staggered boulders. All I hit the whole time was one rim. The rear end never tapped the ground.

Is it perfect? No, I'm sure the next generation will be better, but man, the 200 is my favorite so far. This truck has done the rubicon and hells revenge. It's not too big as some would believe. Trust me, I was very sceptical too, but a few years with this thing, and it just keeps impressing me.

 

[Jeffrey Patrick]

Those Bud Built skid plates look sweet! Tough to remove for an oil change?

 

[Taco2FJ]

You don't remove the skids for an oil change. They have two small recessed armored doors that unbolt from the skids for access to the oil filter and the engine oil drain plug.

So until you need to change front differential or transfer case, they stay on. But its a 5 piece design to distribute the impact load, so it makes handling them individually not bad. Plus I never hit my front skid, so that is 1/4" aluminum and weights like 15 pounds or something like that. But my engine, transmission, and transfer case skids are 3/16" stainless steel. Then my fuel tank is back to 1/4" aluminum as it's already tucked up much higher into the frame than other Toyota's, so I tried to save some weight there.

 

[LJFTW]

as an expedition truck where paved roads are a secondary function, i would take the G500 over the 200. and no "break" need be given, as you dont have to ********** the corners (or drag the ***) on G. if carnage is a success, i guess that pic you posted really is the picture of success.

this isnt a fanboy site. yea, there are section for trucks, and people do like what they own, but there are many here that have owned and traveled and wheeled with a variety of trucks, and they are able to give opinions based on experience. mud is unsurpassed for LC technical knowledge, and if you like being in a fanboy bubble, stay there.

You can keep the "Go away, kid, ya bother me..." attitude. You shared no objective evidence of why the G is better. "Because" isn't a valid argument.

Manufacturers make and people buy skids, sliders, and steel bumpers for a reason. If your measure of success is never dragging your truck maybe you ought to just stick to the pavement.

 

[coledudley]

I was on the trip -- but not the same trail (Golden Spike) on that day -- where the photo above was taken. We all had a blast and came away with some good stories but it was really about hanging out and simply enjoying the day. Most of the trails we went on the 200s did with ease. There were a couple trails that aren't suited for the 200s that I would not recommend without rear armor, though the stock bumper covers take hits pretty well and usually pop back out with ease. If there's any downfall to the 200 it's that it makes driving trails so easy and comfortable that without knowing you just keep on pushing the vehicle to do more... and sometimes you take it too far.

 

[Taco2FJ]

I was on the trip -- but not the same trail (Golden Spike) on that day -- where the photo above was taken. We all had a blast and came away with some good stories but it was really about hanging out and simply enjoying the day. Most of the trails we went on the 200s did with ease. There were a couple trails that aren't suited for the 200s that I would not recommend without rear armor, though the stock bumper covers take hits pretty well and usually pop back out with ease. If there's any downfall to the 200 it's that it makes driving trails so easy and comfortable that without knowing you just keep on pushing the vehicle to do more... and sometimes you take it too far.

Cool, you did the Moab and then Breakenridge trip a couple weeks ago? I wanted to do that but... work and all. Those pictures above are from Barnwell Mountain Recreational Area in Texas.

Completely agree about how easy it is to wheel a 200. It somehow able to stay so much more level than a lot of other vehicles. I figure KDSS along with a little wider platform and travel than a 4Runner is what makes the difference. My 200 when stock could go further up a RTI ramp than my long traveled front and rear with no sway bars FJ Cruiser. That was a pretty big surprise to me, and a testimate to the engineers behind the land cruiser.

At the end of the day, the 200 is on the verge of becoming afortdable for people to start really pushing them. That's why you see companies like BudBuilt building real armor and bumpers for them.

I bought my 200 with 75,000 miles on it for $35,000. And if it's like any other Toyota I've ran, I'm not worried about reliably seeing over 300,000 miles. But unlike the other Toyota I've ran, 400 hp is pretty nice for long pulls up a mountain.

One of my favorite times of the 200, was I had my famil and my wife's sister and her kids, so 8 people, wheeling up some pretty rediculoua studf, while dragging a friends Chase for one heck of a cool wheeling/camping trip. I couldn't do that in my rock buddy.

 

[Ryanmb21]

4runner rti 584
https://instagram.com/p/BWjTHMKANRY/

Land cruiser 647
https://instagram.com/p/BRwi-4SgISR/

4Runner ~10% less flexy by that measure. It's track is about 3% narrower and wheelbase is 2% smaller


More on the tale of tape comparison here: http://forum.expeditionportal.com/t...nner-v-2017-Landcruiser?p=2235440#post2235440

Additionally, the LC has about a 15% higher horsepower to weight ratio and is 17% less efficient (MPG combined)