200 over a 100?

[kreiten]

No kidding? What's the width/length difference? Height is obviously variable! Where does all the extra room people are talking about come from?

not too sure on extra room, I had a 2003 LC 100 series and I now have a 2013 LC 200 series, I can tell ya the interior room is very close to the same, maybe just a hair more leg room in the back seats... The wheel base is the exact same 112.2... The 200 is just a natural evolution of the 100 series, they just made the frame stiffer, gave it a more powerfull engine, some added traction control features(Crawl) and better suspension travel(KDSS) but as far as overall size difference, you'll have to get the laser beams out to really be able to measure .6 inches on each side of extra sheet metal

 

[BTUMAN]

Have to disagree on the last post. The 200 has substantially more leg room in the front. I'm 6-4 and I own both. I think I can tell since I have both with the seat all the way back.

 

[kreiten]

Have to disagree on the last post. The 200 has substantially more leg room in the front. I'm 6-4 and I own both. I think I can tell since I have both with the seat all the way back.

is that more leg room in the front at the cost of the back seat room? the 100 had a bit more hip room and more head room than the 200, although they are really close, not enough to complain about... I'm also 6'4 240lbs, both rigs are comfortable and have plenty of space, one may have an extra inch here where as the other will have an inch there... When your wheelbase is 112.2 there's only so much you can do to increase leg room space... I don't doubt ya on the 200 having an inch or two more in the front, I think the rails in general on the 200 have more travel...

 

[sptsdn]

According to the specs, the front leg room is the same for both the 200 and the 100:

2008 200-series Interior Specs (inches):
Front Head: 38.3
Front Shoulder: 61.0
Front Hip: 59.8
Front Leg: 42.3 <-- tie

Rear Head: 38.9
Rear Shoulder: 61.1
Rear Hip: 58.5
Rear Leg: 36.0

2007 100-series Interior Specs (inches):
Front Head: 39.2
Front Shoulder: 62.4
Front Hip: 58.6
Front Leg: 42.3 <-- tie

Rear Head: 39.1
Rear Shoulder: 61.2
Rear Hip: 57.9
Rear Leg: 34.3

I think it's interesting that the 200 is wider around the waist but narrower in the shoulder and head area.

 

[kreiten]

According to the specs, the front leg room is the same for both the 200 and the 100:

2008 200-series Interior Specs (inches):
Front Head: 38.3
Front Shoulder: 61.0
Front Hip: 59.8
Front Leg: 42.3 <-- tie

Rear Head: 38.9
Rear Shoulder: 61.1
Rear Hip: 58.5
Rear Leg: 36.0

2007 100-series Interior Specs (inches):
Front Head: 39.2
Front Shoulder: 62.4
Front Hip: 58.6
Front Leg: 42.3 <-- tie

Rear Head: 39.1
Rear Shoulder: 61.2
Rear Hip: 57.9
Rear Leg: 34.3

I think it's interesting that the 200 is wider around the waist but narrower in the shoulder and head area.

well I hadn't seen the exact numbers, thanks for posting them! I have owned 2 80 series, 2 100 series and now own a 200 series, and I have to say the 200 is by far my favorite of the rigs, but I just get so confused with all of these people posting how giant it is, it's just not, my gut feeling and my wifes on the front seat area was pretty much right, about the same in the leg room space and a bit tighter in head room etc... People who are debating between a 100 and 200, which is what this thread is about should not buy a 200 for massive more space, it's just not there, buy the 200 because it is the 100 series with a massive amount of refinements and extra's!!!

 

[jwestpro]

Have to disagree on the last post. The 200 has substantially more leg room in the front. I'm 6-4 and I own both. I think I can tell since I have both with the seat all the way back.

I had a 100, and the 200 doesn't seem much different. It is possible the seat just slides further back now.

Overall, the interior seems longer, where it matters like cargo width and cargo length. Not sure on height.

 

[BTUMAN]

I get what the specs are, but the hip and feet room feel a lot bigger in the 200.

 

[tsallen]

I own and drive the last four land cruiser body styles, 60, 80 100 and 200 series, family of four all driving now. purchased about every 7 years. Here are my thoughts: 60 getting old but still fun to drive to the beach. 80 by far the most robust. 100 best looking of the bunch and still a very nice vehicle. 200 by far the nicest, lots power, best highway milage and plenty of room in the back seat if you care but a little wider than the rest, be careful on the narrow trails.

 

[THEROK]

***Buy the newest you can afford***

5forfighting's prime example makes the 200 series the best looking LC released to date in my eyes (OK, maybe not the 80):



500 miles on my '14 LC - my thoughts so far:

-Active cruise control is a very handy feature. It's not just for long hwy cruising. It's actually more useful when there is some traffic. Very smooth and well integrated. Super easy to use.

-JBL is the best sounding factory sound system I've owned to date. I listen to a mix of hip-hop, R&B, techno and classical. Had the Harmon Kardon in the '11 and '13 Range Rover, Mark Levinson in the Lexus, the sports car I won't even bother... awesome.

-There's a good amount of power from that smooth and torquey 5.7 though I haven't yet romped on it cuz break-in period

-MPG is par for the course at low 13s, but I'm very glad it runs on regular unleaded as I know some econoboxes these days that require premium

-Surround cameras are handy if you don't want to curb wheels, but this is less valuable in the LC since it's a proper truck with proper sidewalls. The Range Rover had this as well called the Vision Package - much more useful given their 20"+ factory/aftermarket common setups. Resolution could stand to be better this day/age of HD tablets and retina displays.

-HID headlights are nice and bright to be expected (won't own anything without them) - it's stepping back into the 70s that halogen thing

-LED DRLs serve only as decoration unless you rig them to turn on when low-beam off and dim to half when low-beam on (haven't bothered to do the digging on this one as I just keep headlights on whenever truck on)

Overall, it's a very comfy cruiser with all-world off-road capabilities. I wouldn't want any bigger or smaller space wise (width of a full-size, not length of a bus). I wouldn't want AHC or any of the tire limiting nonsense Land Rover throws at you these days by equipping their SUVs with huge brakes where you have to run 20s or bigger.

Toyota knocked it outta the park with the 200 LC. I'm really glad they sell in such low volume in the US esp in comparison to the 100-series. The Special One.

 

[Reckless]

My suggestion is save your money and get 4 100's ($15k/ea) for the price of 1 used 200 ($60k+). I don't believe the difference in price is worth it and I personally prefer 16" wheels. For me the 200 is better in every way inc looks but not enough to warrant the extra cash.