Land Cruiser converts, please weigh in on your post-conversion thoughts
- Thread starter Arya Ebrahimi
- Start date
Arya Ebrahimi
Adventurer
Well I went and sat in one today at a local mom and pop dealership. Unfortunately they already had a contract on it, so I couldn't take it for a spin.
Overall I was surprised at how tall and skinny it felt inside. The height was great(I have a long torso and often feel cramped for headroom in vehicles), but the skinniness was a bit claustrophobic feeling. I'm sure I could get used to it, but it's not a positive attribute in my opinion. I was also a bit disappointed with how small the cargo area is.
For my uses, I think a V8 swapped 80 with some interior refinements is going to be my best bet in the long run. Power, character, comfort and handling in a vehicle that will cost me half of what even a "cheap" G-wagon will cost me.
Overall I was surprised at how tall and skinny it felt inside. The height was great(I have a long torso and often feel cramped for headroom in vehicles), but the skinniness was a bit claustrophobic feeling. I'm sure I could get used to it, but it's not a positive attribute in my opinion. I was also a bit disappointed with how small the cargo area is.
For my uses, I think a V8 swapped 80 with some interior refinements is going to be my best bet in the long run. Power, character, comfort and handling in a vehicle that will cost me half of what even a "cheap" G-wagon will cost me.
Jwestpro
Explorer
So, I am a bit detail oriented on such specs because the cargo space and functionality is important to me. The G wins by 3 cubic feet. This does not even take into account that the LC 200 (which is bigger inside than the 100!) tapers up the sides when max widths are measured. This also leaves out the other tapering shapes inside the LC whereas the G is nearly vertical flat walls, roof lines, etc. I have not added in the 2nd row footwell depth volume as those are close enough to call it equal.
My calculations are assuming all 2nd and 3rd row seats removed. Length is center console to rear door face at 8" above floor. Width is "general" max at middle of actual cargo area above wheel bumps which both have. (while LC is empty at far rear behind wheels, G is enclosed but usable space. You could take back the 3 cubic feet but G still retains more dimensions above 24" from cargo floor). Height is max at middle of cargo area, the highest point in both, yet again, G maintains this height side to side, back to front 1/3, where it drops about 1" ( there are two little drops, but minor whereas LC ceiling is full of curving into side walls and pillars)
G=114.6 cubic feet
LWH 73x59x46
LC 200 = 111.6 cubic feet
LWH 84x56x41
So, if you like to have a cargo drawer system and still use the space above to sit straight up in bed, the G wins, or for other tall needs by being 5" full extra height window to window, front to rear.
If you like lengthy space uses, the LC wins being 11" longer from center console to rear door.
Hang on, my notes show LC 2nd row footwell to ceiling being 60" ! G same spot is 48.5". So, they are darn close in total volume with G clearly taller and little wider overall main space and LC much longer and deeper footwell for good storage under a false floor possibility.
Jwestpro
Explorer
Correction: The G "looks tall" because it is in fact taller. The flat slab sides only add to its already 4-5" taller height. The other thing is that the roof being nearly flat, you don't see the roof taper into it's height like on the LC. The G height is fully right there in your face.
So, the 2005 G is 78" tall to roof top. 2012 is still 78"
2006 LC 100 is 73" 2013 LC 200 is still only 74"
I like them both a lot so it's just an interesting exercise in comparisons. I had a 2006 LC100 and liked it but do see that the LC200 is built better underneath. It seems the LC100 got a little soft after the 80 and they brought it back up a bit. Aside from the wax job under the G, the new LC frame and some other aspects reminded me of the G.
krnnerdboy
Adventurer
Well I just sold my LC to have my g500 as my daily/ work/ expo mule. I'm loving it! I felt that having 2 4wd was excessive and this one won me out
mk216v
Der Chef der Fahrzeuge
Tell us more about your comparisons!
Jwestpro
Explorer
I came across a thread on Benzworld 11 years old titled "G-Wagen vs Land Cruiser". Pretty interesting how these types of questions recirculate every generation.
Here is the last post from January 2002 by someone with a lot of experience supposedly testing them, etc in varying environments:
"Koly, I run both a g-wagen and an FJ-80 in my driving school (as well as a d-90, Disco I, Disco II, LC FJ60, LC FJ40 and a LC 100). I have also experienced both vehicles worldwide on expeditions, etc. To cover a couple of comments made earlier. The LC has better articulation than the g-wagen stock and with quick disconnects on the LC’s sway bars the articulation is very impressive (better than my D-90 or Discos both with OME suspensions). <br> G-wagen sway bars are very stiff. Both vehicles are very tough and reliable, the LC is much easier to work on ands parts are much cheaper, God help you if you need to do a repair on the axle of a g-wagen. <br> <br> In terms of strength, I have found that the combination of the mass and torque converter on the LC ensures that axles, safts, etc break less often than the G-wagen’s. Again, this is very rare in both if driven well---not like a Land Rover). The power/torque of the LC (read, low-end-torque) is better for off-road use than the g-wagen (except for V8 g-500 and V8 diesel). If you can fine a LC 80 series with the turbo diesel than jump on it---bests off-road engine I have experienced). For instance, in Iceland where they run 38� or44� inch tires, they would never dream of do this on a g-wagen without upgrading the axle, while they stay with the stock LC axles.<br> The under-carriage of the g-wagen is the best design I have seen to date, everything is up and out of the way, diffs have fair clearance (less than LC stock however). The approach and departure angels of the g-wagen are better than the LC. However, the LC has a better break-over angle. All around visibility from inside the g-wagen is better than the LC. Both vehicle are very solid and I have found that LC around the world are used more often off-road and therefor tend to get more abuse than the g-wagen-- who’s owners fear the costs of repairs. My LC is as tight and solid as my new g-500 and it has 90,000 miles (much off-road).<br> Modifications for Off-road are much easier to do on the LC, less expensive, and with many more choices. One can get at least twice the articulation out of a LC with no other changes than springs and shocks, while the g-wagen needs break line extensions, removal of sway bar, and frame modification for drive shaft clearances. Both stock vehicles have “things� on them that need to be taken off for better off-road use, plastic stuff. LC will take larger tires (bigger foot print) than G without problems.<br> <br> G-wagen gearing ratios (better engine breaking) are superior to the LC stock and the g-wagen’s center diff can be locked in high, while the LC’s cannot---very important in sand and snow and sometimes mud!!<br> <br> Diff locks are great on both, the LC has electric lockers that are fantastic, the G’s are mechanical (very reliable) or air (I do not know how tough these are yet, but I do not like that the compressor runs contently while any of the three diffs are locked)<br> <br> It comes down to how much money you have and what you really want to do, and most importantly which one you would be most happy with over a long time. Here are the points:<br> <br> G is more money to buy, repair, and modify<br> G is more interesting (rare)--closer to unique (worth a lot in my mind)<br> G has better approach/dep angle<br> G has better viability<br> G has better under carriage clearances<br> G-500 very powerful and fast<br> G better gearing<br> LC power is better on or off-road (G’s V8s excluded)<br> LC has better articulation<br> LC better break-over angle<br> LC modifications are simple<br> LC modification choices better than G<br> LC parts available anywhere you can think of in the world<br> LC better on the road (not by much over g-500)<br> <br> Sorry for the long note, but I hope it helps. I have modified both and run then both many times. I find them both great, but if money is at all a concern, then the LC wins easily. If money is not a concern, the G is like a great combination of a LC, Land Rover, Jeep…---and it is hand made! <br> <br> -OEX (Bruce)<br> <br> "
http://www.benzworld.org/forums/g-class/167280-g-wagen-vs-land-cruiser.html
Here is the last post from January 2002 by someone with a lot of experience supposedly testing them, etc in varying environments:
"Koly, I run both a g-wagen and an FJ-80 in my driving school (as well as a d-90, Disco I, Disco II, LC FJ60, LC FJ40 and a LC 100). I have also experienced both vehicles worldwide on expeditions, etc. To cover a couple of comments made earlier. The LC has better articulation than the g-wagen stock and with quick disconnects on the LC’s sway bars the articulation is very impressive (better than my D-90 or Discos both with OME suspensions). <br> G-wagen sway bars are very stiff. Both vehicles are very tough and reliable, the LC is much easier to work on ands parts are much cheaper, God help you if you need to do a repair on the axle of a g-wagen. <br> <br> In terms of strength, I have found that the combination of the mass and torque converter on the LC ensures that axles, safts, etc break less often than the G-wagen’s. Again, this is very rare in both if driven well---not like a Land Rover). The power/torque of the LC (read, low-end-torque) is better for off-road use than the g-wagen (except for V8 g-500 and V8 diesel). If you can fine a LC 80 series with the turbo diesel than jump on it---bests off-road engine I have experienced). For instance, in Iceland where they run 38� or44� inch tires, they would never dream of do this on a g-wagen without upgrading the axle, while they stay with the stock LC axles.<br> The under-carriage of the g-wagen is the best design I have seen to date, everything is up and out of the way, diffs have fair clearance (less than LC stock however). The approach and departure angels of the g-wagen are better than the LC. However, the LC has a better break-over angle. All around visibility from inside the g-wagen is better than the LC. Both vehicle are very solid and I have found that LC around the world are used more often off-road and therefor tend to get more abuse than the g-wagen-- who’s owners fear the costs of repairs. My LC is as tight and solid as my new g-500 and it has 90,000 miles (much off-road).<br> Modifications for Off-road are much easier to do on the LC, less expensive, and with many more choices. One can get at least twice the articulation out of a LC with no other changes than springs and shocks, while the g-wagen needs break line extensions, removal of sway bar, and frame modification for drive shaft clearances. Both stock vehicles have “things� on them that need to be taken off for better off-road use, plastic stuff. LC will take larger tires (bigger foot print) than G without problems.<br> <br> G-wagen gearing ratios (better engine breaking) are superior to the LC stock and the g-wagen’s center diff can be locked in high, while the LC’s cannot---very important in sand and snow and sometimes mud!!<br> <br> Diff locks are great on both, the LC has electric lockers that are fantastic, the G’s are mechanical (very reliable) or air (I do not know how tough these are yet, but I do not like that the compressor runs contently while any of the three diffs are locked)<br> <br> It comes down to how much money you have and what you really want to do, and most importantly which one you would be most happy with over a long time. Here are the points:<br> <br> G is more money to buy, repair, and modify<br> G is more interesting (rare)--closer to unique (worth a lot in my mind)<br> G has better approach/dep angle<br> G has better viability<br> G has better under carriage clearances<br> G-500 very powerful and fast<br> G better gearing<br> LC power is better on or off-road (G’s V8s excluded)<br> LC has better articulation<br> LC better break-over angle<br> LC modifications are simple<br> LC modification choices better than G<br> LC parts available anywhere you can think of in the world<br> LC better on the road (not by much over g-500)<br> <br> Sorry for the long note, but I hope it helps. I have modified both and run then both many times. I find them both great, but if money is at all a concern, then the LC wins easily. If money is not a concern, the G is like a great combination of a LC, Land Rover, Jeep…---and it is hand made! <br> <br> -OEX (Bruce)<br> <br> "
http://www.benzworld.org/forums/g-class/167280-g-wagen-vs-land-cruiser.html
mk216v
Der Chef der Fahrzeuge
I'm not sure what size rotors the '16 G550 has. '03 G500's BARELY allow 16" wheels. I'm assuming minimum size for the G550 would be maybe 17", probably 18". Then size the tires from there.
