Opinions about Land Cruiser 200 ?

[ShottsCruisers]

Like what? The frame is supposed to be stronger, that seems good. Didn't they beef up the front suspension after the cracking lower control arms or whatever they found with the 100 series IFS? How is a 200 series any more or less of a platform to start with than your 100? I'm asking genuinely, there's a lot of hinting and whatever, but no specifics as to why. Is assumed to be because they brought out that new 4 door troopie 70 series and so the 200 series is thought to be watered down? It's now the same truck in all markets that get it, there is no 105 series solid axle variant like the 100 series IFS.

Answers based on what I said....for "harder core" drivers:

Even longer
Even wider
Reduced app and dep angles
I'm sure heavier though I have not looked at the spec
Smaller wheel wells for large tire fitment
Less running ground clearance

Those are some main issues. Longer, wider, and poorer angles really hurt it for my use. The ground clearance and tire fitment issues might get solved IF a new and taller lift becomes available (4"+).

OH...and no UZJ100 vehicles had cracked lower arms. The arms were not under-built.

 

[ChuckB]

And you guys think that the Tacoma or Jeep or Xterra have critical systems that you'll be able to keep running forever?

I understand that you don't literally mean "forever", but if you're buying a 7-10 year old truck, it seems logical that it would be easier to maintain a vehicle with significantly less electrical components.

I'd like to give toyota the benefit of the doubt, as I would not mind having a 200 in 5-7 years. Only time will tell how realiable the elctronics really are.

If I had my way, I would drive an FJ60 the rest of my life...

 

[DaveInDenver]

You're right, it's a monster compared to the previous two generations. In inches, just some quickly compiled specs. I'd guess the breakover and approach angles might be worse and it is wider by quite a bit. I trust that what you say about the wheel wells being smaller is true, but seems to me that a OME kit and you'll be fine with 33" tall tires.

I'm sure people said similar things about the 100 series and you seem to do just fine, that's all my point is. IMO all 80 series and newer Cruiser wagons seem really big...

URJ200:
Wheelbase 112.2
Length 194.9
Width 77.6
Height 74.0
Track 64.8/64.3
Min. Clearance 8.0

UZJ100:
Wheelbase 109.8
Length 185.6
Width 73.8
Height 75.6
Track 63.2/63.0
Min Clearance 9.0

FZJ80:
Wheelbase 112.2
Length 189.8
Width 76.0
Height 73.6
Track 62.8/63.0
Min Clearance 8.1

 

[ShottsCruisers]

You're right, it's a monster compared to the previous two generations. In inches, just some quickly compiled specs. I'd guess the breakover and approach angles might be worse and it is wider by quite a bit. I trust that what you say about the wheel wells being smaller is true, but seems to me that a OME kit and you'll be fine with 33" tall tires.

I'm sure people said similar things about the 100 series and you seem to do just fine, that's all my point is. IMO all 80 series and newer Cruiser wagons seem really big...

URJ200:
Wheelbase 112.2
Length 194.9
Width 77.6
Height 74.0
Track 64.8/64.3
Min. Clearance 8.0

UZJ100:
Wheelbase 109.8
Length 185.6
Width 73.8
Height 75.6
Track 63.2/63.0
Min Clearance 9.0

FZJ80:
Wheelbase 112.2
Length 189.8
Width 76.0
Height 73.6
Track 62.8/63.0
Min Clearance 8.1

100 numbers are wrong.

And a small lift and 33's (or bumpstopped 35's) will please many four-wheelers though again, not the harder-core ones. Of course that holds true for a 100-series as well (2" lift, 33's).

 

[DaveInDenver]

I understand that you don't literally mean "forever", but if you're buying a 7-10 year old truck, it seems logical that it would be easier to maintain a vehicle with significantly less electrical components.

I'd like to give toyota the benefit of the doubt, as I would not mind having a 200 in 5-7 years. Only time will tell how realiable the elctronics really are.

If I had my way, I would drive an FJ60 the rest of my life...

This is really the crux of my line of reasoning. Electronics in and of themselves are not a problem, it's poorly designed electronics that will not be reliable. OTOH, if you integrate well thought out complexity and add self healing and diagnosing functions, a newer car might run better when it has to adapt to a failed part or bad fuel. Parenthetically the 200 might be more reliable in the long run and is actually more fault tolerant than a close-in-complexity, but one generation older in development 100 series. Unlikely given that each addition of hardware or software also increases potential errors, but possible that it could handle more marginal problems that are known.

 

[DaveInDenver]

100 numbers are wrong.

And a small lift and 33's (or bumpstopped 35's) will please many four-wheelers though again, not the harder-core ones. Of course that holds true for a 100-series as well (2" lift, 33's).

Sorry, please do correct the numbers.

As far as the hard core, I'm guessing that 33" or 35" and all that doesn't matter. Who's planning a truggy with a 100 or 200 series anyway? Short of Christo's with the SAS, yours is pretty much as pushed at they come. Sliders, skid plates, good spotting and a patient driver go a long way to overcome lifts and tire size.

You know as well as I that beyond a certain point the Sawz-All and welders are gonna make a truck into whatever vision the builder has anyway. Just seems like we fault manufacturers for not seeing that 1% or less of their SUVs and pickups are gonna be beat silly on the Rubicon when the other 99%+ are perfectly content with A/Ts and dirt roads and quite good at that. Everyone complains about the poor gas mileage and one way to help that is to lower the truck and have the sheet metal hug the wheels tighter, better air flow. So Toyota gets dinked for trying to give people what they want, better gas mileage. Shrug.

 

[ChuckB]

This is really the crux of my line of reasoning. Electronics in and of themselves are not a problem, it's poorly designed electronics that will not be reliable. OTOH, if you integrate well thought out complexity and add self healing and diagnosing functions, a newer car might run better when it has to adapt to a failed part or bad fuel. Parenthetically the 200 might be more reliable in the long run and is actually more fault tolerant than a close-in-complexity, but one generation older in development 100 series. Unlikely given that each addition of hardware or software also increases potential errors, but possible that it could handle more marginal problems that are known.

That's a good point. I'm all for redundancy! The funny part is that I'm part of the generation that should be embracing all this technology. However, I just can't do it in this case (yet...), maybe it's because the rear window in my 55 stopped working a couple weeks ago

 

[DaveInDenver]

That's a good point. I'm all for redundancy! The funny part is that I'm part of the generation that should be embracing all this technology. However, I just can't do it in this case (yet...), maybe it's because the rear window in my 55 stopped working a couple weeks ago

Trust me, I work in high reliability electronics (think stuff that it would be very hard to work on once they are put into service) and still prefer tube amps and manual focus film cameras.

Your Pig back window is a good example, though. That was a motor and system designed in the 1960s and is a very common failure on Cruisers and early 4Runners. By the mid 1990s having failed rear windows is almost unheard of and by the 2000s the rear windows not only are very reliable, but also have sensors that keep them from squishing people's hands. Just because it's not simple doesn't always mean it's bad.

 

[ginericLC]

Well I was thinking of having heater and AC controls integrated into the NAV unit. Not having a key. Having proximity sensors, etc... Way too much to go wrong. I don't even like the stupid chips in the key in the 100. A guy I know just had his 04 NAV system go down in his 100. It was $4600 by the time it was all said and done. That is only 4 years to make it better and the 200 unit is a lot more complicated than than the 100. Give me manual cable actuated heater controls and I'll be happy. Seriously! The DCs do not have NAV and the integrated controls. They are a simpler beast. More electronics in a 4wd is not what we need. I'm all for having a stand alone GPS or computer in the rig. If it goes bad, I can still have heat :suning: And if a cable breaks you can get out a pair of pliers and fix it. I'm not sure an electrically activated solenoid could easily be jumped in the field. I know I couldn't do it. But I could find a pair of pliers to open a stuck valve with a broken wire.

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

DaveinDenver,

The 200 has the same wheelbase as the 100 and 80.
The 200 is about 2.4" longer and 1" wider and 1" taller

The electronics are not an issue imo. The atrac/dac is simply re-using the abs system in a different way. It is not adding anything except more sensors, which in turn makes for better abs.

the KDSS, which is brilliant, is a purely hydraulic system. It is not electronic in any way. That is reserved for the LX570, which doesn't need ultimate reliability. That was Toyota's goal with the LC.

The 200 is beefier in every way and more capable than the 100. The size will make it tough on tight trails but you have to deal with that in any wagon of this class. I think it would make a great vehicle for offroad travel all over the usa

My only complaint is that the interior just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the price.

 

[spressomon]

DaveinDenver,

The 200 has the same wheelbase as the 100 and 80.
The 200 is about 2.4" longer and 1" wider and 1" taller

The electronics are not an issue imo. The atrac/dac is simply re-using the abs system in a different way. It is not adding anything except more sensors, which in turn makes for better abs.

the KDSS, which is brilliant, is a purely hydraulic system. It is not electronic in any way. That is reserved for the LX570, which doesn't need ultimate reliability. That was Toyota's goal with the LC.

The 200 is beefier in every way and more capable than the 100. The size will make it tough on tight trails but you have to deal with that in any wagon of this class. I think it would make a great vehicle for offroad travel all over the usa

My only complaint is that the interior just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the price.

I was able, this past March, to casually inspect a 200 on the rack at Christo's. Every part of the front suspension looked significantly "beefier" compared to my 100. I went there not wanting to like it. But from a HD perspective only it looks much more robust than my 100.

Haven't driven one...and it wouldn't matter if I thought it was the best rig for me on the planet. Don't have 70 large to drop and then add another 10 large or more to get it dialed in...to beat the crap out of it...

 

[DBS311]

the KDSS, which is brilliant, is a purely hydraulic system. It is not electronic in any way. That is reserved for the LX570, which doesn't need ultimate reliability. That was Toyota's goal with the LC.

Seems like a pain though to have to open the bleed valves every time you want to jack the vehicle up to change a flat, rotate tires, etc. If you miss a step, then you are in to the dealer to have them reset the system??? As quoted by a tech on 'Mud "the procedure to level the vehicle is to locate the actual kdss pump, which, on australian models is under the floor pan, just behind the drivers' seat, ensure the vehicle is sitting on flat ground and crack the two bleed nipples on the pressure lines, this lets fluid move internally in the pump and allows everything to return to normal."

So 200 owners, make sure when changing something out in the field that you have a nice patch of flat, level ground.:xxrotflma

 

[mrbishi]

Landcruiser 200s in my opinion are damn ugly. Here is Aus they have a reputation of being a soccer mum / shopping trolley.

Give me a new 76 Series Workmate or a 78 series troopy anyday

 

[spressomon]

Landcruiser 200s in my opinion are damn ugly. Here is Aus they have a reputation of being a soccer mum / shopping trolley.

Give me a new 76 Series Workmate or a 78 series troopy anyday

:drool: I WISH we could get those here! It sure is nice to have our government serving and protecting us from all evil isn't it?

 

[4Rescue]

I like Older trucks for the most part, and I'd rather take the money I would spend on such a truck and build my dream rig from something else... That said... I think this thing looks pretty sweet.

Give it the 4.5 TD V8 and I'd really be interested.
-EDIT: I should say I'd web drool over it more and read more about it, because I honestly don't think I'll ever spend that much money on a vehicleunless it comes stock with a Victorias secret model riding gates...

Look most of us would agree, I think, that MORE electronics, from a field fix standpoint, are not an advantage. I also really don't agree with Toyotas massive departure from a maker of simple, basic trucks. BUT, if anyone is gonna make all this technology work and last, it's going to be Toyota. Nobody makes a 4x4 that is as trouble free in harsh usages/environments.

To paraphrase my own blathering: "Time will tell"...

Cheers

Dave