Toyota releases extra tough Land Cruiser GX for Australia

[STAGE 2]

You've made your opinion abundantly clear but you never said anything substantial other than accuse them of being mall crawlers, ugly, or grocery getters. This is what you originally said...

I don't agree with you or the overwhelming evidence that you've presented to prove your point. Also, there is no more OS bar on the PS dash because it obstructs air bag deployment.

They are ugly in comparison. I'm not sure what else you want to hear. Most people on this board, mud, and elsewhere are of this opinion. Hell even wikipedia has said as much...

"The 200 Series encountered some criticism due to its bland body restyling, with some claiming that Toyota has 'overdeveloped' the classic trademarked Land Cruiser identity in its efforts to fit the Land Cruiser into modern 21st century motoring and vehicle design."

The same applies to the interior as well. If I cant tell the difference between sitting in a cruiser and sitting in a RAV4 then there's something wrong. As far as the OS bar, I'm sure that the enterprising little engineers over at toyota could find a compromise. That and apparently it was perfectly safe to not roll with any airbags in most of the world as late as 97 (and in south america till 2008). Undoubtedly some people will want them and thats both understandable and fine. However others like myself wont so an 'outback option' would have been nice.

Aside from styling preferences, they are extremely capable vehicles off-road. I've seen them do well - they aren't modified rock crawlers but they hold their own, just like any original FJ-60, FZJ-80, or UZJ-100. Besides, why would civilian and governmental agencies be using them world-wide now if they weren't any good in countries like Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and any other place with an undeveloped road infrastructure. Another forum member cited a 200 series Land Cruisers 47,000 mile use around his country on some of the most difficult terrain on the planet and then you differentiate 4WD vehicles vice real Land Cruisers? All Land Cruisers are 4WD. Just what is your definition of a real Land Cruiser?

You protest too much, and are starting to dabble in fallicies as well. I never said the latest cruisers "weren't any good". You can make just about anything competent off road with the right amount of parts. However anyone who states that these newest vehicles are as good in factory trim as earlier models is simply kidding themselves. First and foremost, is the IFS. Not only that, but the 100 series specifically has gained a reputation for cracked front suspension with only moderate use. Second, no option for lockers. Third is the weight. These things are pigs. A bone stock 100 weighs as much or more than a kitted out 60 or even 80. Fourth is no part time 4wd. And then there's the size. By the measurements, these newer cruisers are slightly bigger, but the problem is that they have the extra size in all the wrong places. They have less ground clearance, and poorer approach and departure angles than previous models.

And again, I'm not the only one that sees this. In one of the more recent issues of toyota4wdowner they had an article talking about how the 100 series isn't a true offroader but can be made to be 'capable' with a couple of good add ons.

If you have facts, provide them, we want to know them.

If you have a personal opinion not based on any facts than state it as so, but when presented with fact-based accounts and actual experience with the vehicle, I recommend reconsidering your opinion.

Addressed above. However it should be noted that the linked article praising this 'tough' new cruiser lists as one of the benefits a metal key. That, if nothing else, should prove my point about why these new cruisers aren't the real deal. When you have to brag about the fact that your rig actually has a key, then you know you've been heading in the wrong direction.

 

[STAGE 2]

Okay, what about the 105? Has the same "mall cruiser" look as the 100!

It does. But the fact that toyota decided to sell an identical model with a proper suspension setup should tell you exactly who the 100 series was marketed to and built for.

 

[STAGE 2]

As for the rest, relating to your concept of a 'real cruiser' - OK, sure - whatever. 'Real Cruiser' is a concept that lives in your mind, how are we to debate it. All TangoBlue and I seem to be saying in unison is that the 200 series is capable stock, and very capable with minor mods. I don't have one, so don't have a dog in a pointless Internet model-based troll war, but after my parent's experiences, and the experiences of the other 200 series drivers they met it is right up there on the top of the list. If you want to come back and say that KDSS isn't a real suspension solution, or that a vehicle with crawl control is cheating, well these are at least subjective points that can be discussed. The approach/departure angles comparison is reasonably fair: 38/25 for the 70 series, 30/20 for a stock Sahara. Not bad figures,not the best, certainly not the worst - still plenty of decent 4WD is being done by real people without getting hung up. Admittedly the Sahara is basically designed for the aftermarket industry (as with most other new 4WDs) and most everything gets upgraded out here if it is to go and see serious service, see WhatCharterBoat's point above (I chuckled at his "little 4WD" comment...). After an OME kit mum and dad's angles went up a few degrees, but suspension in Australia is normally about enduring washboards not 'lift'.
.
Styling? Please. The other car on the top of my list is a Defender 110/130 - I'm immune to styling conversations. Conversations about styling are for soccer mums to have by the football field, not people with vehicles that see serious overland duty.

So lets see. You just conceded that the design isn't as good (approach/departure/size), it relies on electrics for its offroad ability, and you dont have an opinion about its styling (which was my leading point). Then I honestly dont see where the argument is.

You keep harping on 'capable', but again I never raised the issue of capable. If capability is your sticking point, then it cant be argued that these latest models are more capable than their predecessors. Thats the point. The 'real cruiser' isn't some concept I've made up, its tangible standard and its measured by comparing the next model to the previous one. So toyota in that respect is going backwards in regards to the land cruiser and its off road heritage, because they are designing more for the grocery store than the bush.

That and regarding styling, both you and I know that if the most capable vehicle looked like a beetle (or some other feminine car) you and the rest of us would opt for the 2nd best.

 

[Pskhaat]

the 100 series isn't a true offroader...praising this 'tough' new cruiser lists as one of the benefits a metal key. That, if nothing else, should prove my point about why these new cruisers aren't the read deal.

I heard that about the 80 when it was first released. People hated it, too bubbly, not enough "truck," overhead cams were bad, EFI would still fail, &c.

I heard that about the 100 when it was first released. People hated it, too bubbly, IHS, V8 not an I6 (the only valid point! ), not enough lift capabilities.

Same story, different year, different model. I'll buy a 200 when the price is tenable for me, and you'll still see me on all the old trails I used to take, smiling the whole way.

measured by comparing the next model to the previous one. So toyota in that respect is going backwards in regards to the land cruiser and its off road heritage, because they are designing more for the grocery store than the bush.

Totally stock 60 vs. totally stock 200, both in new condition. You're saying the 200 is less capable?

 

[RMP&O]

I got to agree with pretty much everything Stage 2 says. However much of it is his opinion but he is also backing those opinions up with solid facts.

Oh and FYI: The LandCruiser History book sitting on my coffee table, it says the 80 series was the start of the "mall crawlers" and that the 100 series went much more torwards the mall crawler market. I am not quoting the book word for word as I don't have the book memorized but it is in there if you want to check for yourself.

The main things that kill the newer Cruisers for me, ie 100/200 series is the IFS and the body/interior styling. Bumpers are no longer real bumpers on the trucks rather big ugly plastic body parts, interior parts are fake wood grain trim and cheesy flashy chrome looking pannels. Yes we could argue about the IFS thing all day long. And yes independant suspension may be the wave of the future in 4wd trucks. However in it's current configuration that is supplied on most 4wds these days the IFS sucks. Toyota, Nissan or whomever didn't make independant suspension for better off-roadablity, they made it for better road handeling. And it is not like these IFS/IRS suspension systems or axles or diff centers are anywhere near as strong as a solid axle or anything like a $250k trophy racing trucks independant suspension set up. So to me pointing out that independant suspension systems can be good is moot and besides the point. As Stage 2 says....anything can be made capable if you toss enough money and high tech gear at it.

For most people and their uses it is fine and suits them plus they do not mind the ugliness of the trucks. Heck some people don't think they are ugly. I got to say too that the approach & departure angles on that black Cruiser blows big time. And why is it that people always try to cross a ditch straight on? I mean come on, that truck could probably walk through that (if locked) if the driver simply picked a line where he wouldn't get hung up on the body/bumper. Which in turn backs up the point that an solid axle truck is better because walking across a ditch or obstacle in a SFA truck is going to be easier no matter what line you pick.

No offense meant to anybody but I could drive a stock Subaru through these trails I often see mall crawlers driving on. Heck give me a mid-1980s Subi with some 30" rubber and I think I could take it more places then a 100/200 series.

 

[RMP&O]

Totally stock 60 vs. totally stock 200, both in new condition. You're saying the 200 is less capable?

I would say no it is not less capable if we are only comparing suspension in it's stock from. A stock 60 series flexes like total crap. A stock 80 series will flex a bit more but not much. Thing is you can get much more out of the suspension systems with much less work/money then you can on an IFS truck. And on top of that the axles and related parts plus the suspension systems themselves are much stronger to begin with on a SFA Cruiser. I honestly do not know how you could argue otherwsie....unless you do not know much about this stuff.

 

[STAGE 2]

I heard that about the 80 when it was first released. People hated it, too bubbly, not enough "truck," overhead cams were bad, EFI would still fail, &c.

I heard that about the 100 when it was first released. People hated it, too bubbly, IHS, V8 not an I6 (the only valid point! ), not enough lift capabilities.

Same story, different year, different model. I'll buy a 200 when the price is tenable for me, and you'll still see me on all the old trails I used to take, smiling the whole way.

I agree that the 80 is far more bubbly, and was the start of useless plastic parts. However most of the crap is easily removable, and it retains enough of an overall truck shape (and more importantly carrys over the standard independent headlights of the 60 series) to where you can see the lineage to the older wagons.

These new designers must have been thawed from the jellybean era of the 90s because there isn't any definitive shape. If you traced the outline of these new rigs you couldn't tell the difference between them and any other suv from any other car company.

Things like totally electronic starters however have no place on a true 4wd. My metal key is 100% waterproof. I can drop it, scratch it, leave it in the sun or other direct heat and it will work no problem. Thats not the case with these new transmitters.

Totally stock 60 vs. totally stock 200, both in new condition. You're saying the 200 is less capable?

Sure. If you give me a factory spec'ed diesel 60 with factory lockers I'd be willing to bet that I'd have a much more capable rig. More importantly I'd definately have a more reliable rig and one that is far easier to work on if something does break.

 

[hoser]

Modern Land Cruisers were designed for soccer moms and grocery getting'?? Toyota builds Land Cruisers for the people that will buy them and need them. And who are their customers? You would be hard pressed to find a soccer mom driver in Saudi Arabia.

Here are the LC Wagon Sales Worldwide for 2006.

Country/Sales/Percentage of Total
N. America 3605 4.36%
CS America 2519 3.05%
Europe 13405 16.21%
Africa 6781 8.20%
China 2793 3.38%
Asia 589 0.71%
Oceania (Aus) 9660 11.68%
Middle East 38831 46.96%
Japan 4,501 5.44%

So the Middle East buys 47% of all LC wagons. I'm thinking these LC200's are designed mainly for the Middle East.

However, these figures do not include the Lexus line. Add 5,595 LX470's for N. America. Not sure how many the rest of the world gets.

 

[TangoBlue]

My metal key is 100% waterproof.

You bring up some interesting points beyond just your opinion; not all of which I agree with but its all good. Although I'm still unsure why my quoted text you accused as being fallacious.

I'm curious - what does your metal key fit? I assume already it's not a Beetle.

 

[STAGE 2]

You bring up some interesting points beyond just your opinion; not all of which I agree with but its all good. Although I'm still unsure why my quoted text you accused as being fallacious.

Strawman. Stating that the new cruisers are not as good as the older ones is not the same as saying they aren't any good.

I'm curious - what does your metal key fit? I assume already it's not a Beetle.

An 85 hilux and an fj62.

 

[TangoBlue]

Strawman. Stating that the new cruisers are not as good as the older ones is not the same as saying they aren't any good.

Strawman? You can't be serious. The problem with internet forums is we can read what you previously said and remind you of those words. Specifically, this is what you said...

"Meh.. the 80 series (non US version) was the last of the real cruisers. Everything beyond that has the styling only a soccer mom could love. Besides, if it aint got an oh **** bar then its not a real cruiser."

"Maybe I'm not making myself clear. The 40, 60, 70 and 80 series cruisers are the "real deal". Models that have come after (100, 200, and anything else in the works) are mall cruisers and ugly to boot."

STAGE 2, if anyone is trying to employ a "strawman" debating technique to refute an opposing view by misrepresenting the opposing side, and then attribute that deliberately misrepresented view to the opponents it's you.

If your and Wikipedia's opinion is that they're ugly that's fine, but then you go on to misrepresent Toyota 4WD Owner Magazine (the actual title of this publication is 4WD Toyota Owner Magazine) claiming they, "had an article talking about how the 100 series isn't a true offroader but can be made to be 'capable' with a couple of good add-ons." Please, reference that article. As a long time subscriber I don't recall ever reading that remark made by them. To be sure, I just scanned through this years publications and re-read the 100-series related articles. In 2011 that was never said in any of the articles about, "JT's UCA's for 100-series," where the author concluded that the "100-series is fast becoming the weapon of choice for overlanders;" or, "100-series DTS Turbo," or, "ASFIR 100-series armor," or, "100-series Land Cruiser Project." I could go back earlier but I'm thinking you might have misinterpreted what you thought you read.

Making unsubstantiated claims or misrepresenting sources to prove your opinion is not a good strategy. Saying that US spec 80-series, 100-series, or 200-series Land Cruisers are not "real cruisers" portrays them as less capable as their predecessors and is "the same as saying they aren't any good." Your argument, while articulate, is still filled with holes and really amounts to nothing more than an opinion, not fact.

An 85 hilux and an fj62.

You are lucky! Both classic and legendary Toyota's and both among my favorite trucks. Butt-ugly, IMHO, but I love them. I suppose you haven't performed any modifications to them since they are out-of-the-box capable. Why don't you share some pictures with us.

OBTW - you mentioned what people think on the IH8MUD forum. Like others have posted even in this thread you either love them or hate them. FWIW Woody thinks the black 200 I included in pictures earlier is pretty nice. Here's what some MUD forum members actually think... http://forum.ih8mud.com/200-series-cruisers/

 

[hoser]

This post pretty much sums up Stage2's view:

Meh.. the 80 series (non US version) was the last of the real cruisers. Everything beyond that has the styling only a soccer mom could love. Besides, if it aint got an oh **** bar then its not a real cruiser.

Paraphrased, "The US version of the 80 series is not a "real LC" because its accessories like alloy wheels, leather seats and a sunroof. "Real LC's" have certain look. Real LC's have an OS bar."

Well... The US market 80 series is identical in terms of drivetrain, frame and body to the LC's you can find in outback, Middle East, Africa, etc. It does have a few "luxury" accessories and different trim. Does that make it NOT a Land Cruiser? Do accessories define Land Cruiser or is it a certain look?

Stage2, the 100 series may not have an OS bar, but it does have 9 Grab Handles. By your definition, wouldn't that make it more of a Land Cruiser?

I own or have owned (2) 70's, an 80 and a 100. I didn't buy them for that "look." I bought them for quality, durability and reliability. My 100 doesn't even have a Land Cruiser badge, it's a Lexus. But it does have the same LC parts, quality and durability... therefore in my mind, it is a REAL Land Cruiser.

I would like to own a 200 one day. It may not look anything like a 40,60 or 70 Land Cruiser. Designed to sell in todays world, it still is a high quality, durable and reliable Land Cruiser.

The 70 series troopie which is arguably the epitome of the "Land Cruiser" does not even have "capability" on the top of it's list.... as you speak of approach angles and track width. It is top heavy, narrow and the rear (and often front) leaf springs don't provide the greatest articulation. Take a brand new 200 and a brand new 40 and I would bet the 200 would go further and faster on a washboard road without trouble.

I do like my non-all-metal key. I feel a little bit safer knowing that my LC won't be stolen with a simple dent puller because I live within walking distance of thieves. The fact is, thieves are smarter nowadays. Had I lived on a farm 200 miles from civilization, I might prefer that all metal key (with no chip).

I am also happy Toyota USA sells these blinged-up LC's as this is the only way we would get them today. Toyota would not be as successful in the US if they sold bare-bone, leaf sprung, 40 series type SUV's in 2012.

 

[STAGE 2]

Strawman? You can't be serious. The problem with internet forums is we can read what you previously said and remind you of those words. Specifically, this is what you said...

"Meh.. the 80 series (non US version) was the last of the real cruisers. Everything beyond that has the styling only a soccer mom could love. Besides, if it aint got an oh **** bar then its not a real cruiser."

"Maybe I'm not making myself clear. The 40, 60, 70 and 80 series cruisers are the "real deal". Models that have come after (100, 200, and anything else in the works) are mall cruisers and ugly to boot."

STAGE 2, if anyone is trying to employ a "strawman" debating technique to refute an opposing view by misrepresenting the opposing side, and then attribute that deliberately misrepresented view to the opponents it's you.

I stand by my statements. There are plenty of 4x4s that are capable. Land rovers and patrols come to mind. They obviously aren't cruisers. The same applies to these new toyotas. They can be capable, but they aren't the real deal for a variety of reasons.

If your and Wikipedia's opinion is that they're ugly that's fine, but then you go on to misrepresent Toyota 4WD Owner Magazine (the actual title of this publication is 4WD Toyota Owner Magazine) claiming they, "had an article talking about how the 100 series isn't a true offroader but can be made to be 'capable' with a couple of good add-ons." Please, reference that article. As a long time subscriber I don't recall ever reading that remark made by them. To be sure, I just scanned through this years publications and re-read the 100-series related articles. In 2011 that was never said in any of the articles about, "JT's UCA's for 100-series," where the author concluded that the "100-series is fast becoming the weapon of choice for overlanders;" or, "100-series DTS Turbo," or, "ASFIR 100-series armor," or, "100-series Land Cruiser Project." I could go back earlier but I'm thinking you might have misinterpreted what you thought you read.

Edit: The particular quote I'm talking about is in the july 2010 issue. Havent found that one yet, but some of the others are Jan 2010 "as we take this luxury soft roader to a serious off roader" and May 2010... "The 100 series was the first cruiser to have the front bumper that attached to the body of the vehicle giving it a distinctly minivan look. The look was bulky with mediocre approach angles."

So there you go. According to them in stock form the 100 series is a "soft" roader, built for luxury, and looks like a minivan. Kinda sounds like what I said doesn't it.

Making unsubstantiated claims or misrepresenting sources to prove your opinion is not a good strategy. Saying that US spec 80-series, 100-series, or 200-series Land Cruisers are not "real cruisers" portrays them as less capable as their predecessors and is "the same as saying they aren't any good." Your argument, while articulate, is still filled with holes and really amounts to nothing more than an opinion, not fact.

Did you miss the list I gave you that demonstrates that these new cruisers are less capable? Is it your position that making a vehicle heavier, larger, with less ground clearance and worse departure angles, giving it IFS and cancelling the option for lockers makes for a better vehicle?

 

[STAGE 2]

This post pretty much sums up Stage2's view:

Paraphrased, "The US version of the 80 series is not a "real LC" because its accessories like alloy wheels, leather seats and a sunroof. "Real LC's" have certain look. Real LC's have an OS bar."

Another strawman. My biggest complaint about the US 80 series is that we never got the part time transfer case.

Well... The US market 80 series is identical in terms of drivetrain, frame and body to the LC's you can find in outback, Middle East, Africa, etc. It does have a few "luxury" accessories and different trim. Does that make it NOT a Land Cruiser? Do accessories define Land Cruiser or is it a certain look?

As I said above, the drivetrain is quite different. Even ignoring the diesel option, aussie 80s were available with manual hubs, part time cases, and manual trannys. Hardly what I'd call identical. And then there's the body. You could get an aussie 80 with rear barn doors. Not so in the US. Each aussie 80 had an entirely different front clip a la the fj62. Only single headlamps for the US version. There was a optional factory swing out tire carrrier to carry a 2nd spare if desired. Not a US option. And perhaps most importantly you could get a factory subtank in the aussie 80 cruiser. Of course they didn't offer that in the US either.

But yeah, they are virtually identical

I own or have owned (2) 70's, an 80 and a 100. I didn't buy them for that "look." I bought them for quality, durability and reliability. My 100 doesn't even have a Land Cruiser badge, it's a Lexus. But it does have the same LC parts, quality and durability... therefore in my mind, it is a REAL Land Cruiser.

Good. Now tell me which will be more reliable and more durable. A full time 4wd system or a part time one.

The 70 series troopie which is arguably the epitome of the "Land Cruiser" does not even have "capability" on the top of it's list.... as you speak of approach angles and track width. It is top heavy, narrow and the rear (and often front) leaf springs don't provide the greatest articulation. Take a brand new 200 and a brand new 40 and I would bet the 200 would go further and faster on a washboard road without trouble.

You really make this too easy for me. The troopie, i.e. troop carrier, i.e. vehicle designed to carry 11 people plus gear is not only narrower than the 200, its also 738 lbs lighter. But it gets better. The approach and departure angles (which you bemoan) for the troopy are 38 and 25 respectively. For the 200 they are 30 and 20. Dont even get me started on ground clearance. The troopy also has front coils, so articulation should be leagues ahead of the 200's IFS and toyota lengthened the rear springs around 97 to provide for more articulation in the rear. I could go on and talk about the factory lockers on the troopy, or its 90 liter auxiliary tank, but I think the above information should suffice.

I gotta say, for someone who is so adamant about opinions, you sure seem to have a funny definition of facts.

 

[hoser]

Barn doors and the option of inferior headlamps make it a REAL Land Cruiser? Barn doors do look cool but I would not trade the tailgate/hatchback for it unless I was building a camper. There really is no performance benefit and AFAIK, they don't seal as well, it's really just a preference. FT t-case was available to the rest of the world and is really non-issue in the US because it has been proven reliable. The sub tank was a nice option/accessory necessary in other countries but not really needed for 99% of the US buyers. Again, do accessories define a real land cruiser?

The 200 is not a replacement for the 70 troopie and this why they still offer both. But they do have commonalities and those commonalities is what defines a Land Cruiser. Your definition is obviously different and that is fine... that is what a forum is all about.