Zero factual basis for this post.
200 reliabity compared to 100? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ESnyder
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Zero factual basis for this post.
Dude I drive and own both. That’s my objective opinion. I have a combined 400k Miles in a 100. The 200 still has to prove itself to me.
Don’t get your pantys in a knot. I love both.
“Dude” I’ve ridden in both and owned 5 200s starting with my ‘08 LC if you include the 2 I have now, a ‘16 LC and ‘17 LX. It’s your subjective opinion, not your objective opinion.
And what is your long term experience in a 100?
Rust
That’s some real good input to this thread. So again, my input spanning 20 years of 100 ownership trumps your opinion of your garage full of 200s. None of which are over 10 years old.
Yeah feel: I led into the post with “hunch” and that is not steeped deep fact just my observation through researching numerous service histories and paying attention to consumables replaced at very low mileage, warranty claims and the various posts on this forum.
My point was mainly my impression of OES part durability replacement interval between the two platforms- starters, brake pads, rotors, suspension components etc. I noticed looking at service records the early replacement of starters on 200 platform (at around 100k) vs 200k+ on the 100, and on LX's several warrantied leaking shocks under 60k, many brake pad replacements at 30k etc. So not a scientific study just observation of a small ownership sampling. Makes me wonder if the quality standard for OES parts on production 200's is lower than it was 10-15 years ago on the 100 platform.
Your post is simply your subjective opinion. A 100 genrally does not use nicer materials nor as you “dare say” have nicer leather than a US 200.
If you wish to provide some actual analysis of the materials rather than your sentimental attachment to having driven a 100 for a very long time, please do so. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion. It doesn’t matter how long you owned a 100.
I’ve also owned a FJ 40 and an 80. Can I “dare say” that those have better quality of materials “objectively” than your vaunted 100, the best vehicle ever made in the history of the world?
Opinions are like rear ends. Everyone has one. It doesn’t make your statement fact.
Now, I don’t really care that much. But you are on a 200 forum saying a 100 is higher quality in ways. It’s not.
P.S. - the thread was about reliability. You gratuitously started taking about the leather and dashboard and door panels being nicer in a 100, which they are not, and then irrationally cited having driven one for a long time as the basis for your opinion, which was not what the OP asked about. He asked about reliability. You then became defensive when I pointed out your post was not objective.
Last edited:
Like I said, reliability is literally not a discriminator worth pissing over. They're both Land Cruisers, the definition of robust and reliable, yet with a few platform specific nits.
What is a meaningful discriminator is that the 200 has greater capability, capacity, and technology over the 100-series.
80 < 100 < 120 < 200 series
What is a meaningful discriminator is that the 200 has greater capability, capacity, and technology over the 100-series.
80 < 100 < 120 < 200 series
Markuson
SILVER Star
I owned my 100 series til it was 16 years old...and my 200 series is now 11 years old—and I’ve beat the living poo out of it...not to mention it’s well over 8000 pounds on 35’s.
I just TODAY replaced my front rotor...but only because I was in the complete boonies when I realized how bad my brake pads were...meaning inevitable damage of metal on metal. Otherwise, I’d still be on all four original rotors at 115k miles.
The starter, water pump and radiator on my 100 series all failed EARLIER in it’s life than the same items on my 200.
My 200’s weight and the strain of 35” tires mean the OEM rotors are EXTREMELY robust.
Compared to my 100 series...which I did NOT beat as hard as my 200...and did not have massive weight, nor 35’s went through waaaay more rotor by now and it’s not even close
My 100’s CV boot had burst twice by now (115k) with less lift and less abuse—even with a diff drop to help CV angles...and yet my 200 CV’s are original with zero issues and boots are fine...and without help from a diff drop
The 200’s coilover front suspension is FAR preferable to my 100’s torsion bars.
The 5.7 V8 on my 200 vs. the 4.7 in my 100 is night and day. 5.7 is an absolute beast...compared to the 100’s merely adequate 4.7.
All that to say... I actually think you’ve got it backwards. The 200 is every bit as reliable if not more, and in my 19 years LC experience, it bests my 100 in every category I can think of.
I LOVED my 100 til the day it was gone...but would never trade my built 200 for my built 100–even if I could magically make them the same age. That’s not a knock on the 100. Rather just a compliment to two fantastic trucks.
You don’t have to agree with my personal assessment...but I am speaking from many years experience with the 100, and quite a few now on my 2008 200.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #32
For the past 6 months I have had an 80, a 100, and a 200 in the driveway. Has been fun to drive and compare and see the evolution. 80 sold, and 100 is next. Given low miles of the 200 series I have I think that will be my next long term truck. You guys have made it clear maintenance is not an issue.
A few final thoughts just for kicks:
I liked the level of electronics in the 100 series best. 200 has too many options typical of Japanese cars.
Sat radio antenna is TERRIBLE on 200 at least compared to bmw. Stereo sound not that impressive actually think sound better from 100.
Seats dont seem as durable in 200 i think it due to softer foam which allows leather to flex more. Also “softer” leather not as strong. Wifes x5d at 96k has way better condition leather than either truck because of less flex in bmw seats.
Had a hard time finding a silver 2013 or newer w gray interior and had to settle for black, makes me worry more about interior upkeep.
Each generation gets progressively harder to modify, same thing happened to LandRover. The manufacturers have traded electronic traction control, etc for the ability to build a serious rig. Anyone who thinks they have a serious rig with a 100 or 200 has never really wheeled a Seriously built 80. I had one years ago and it was virtually unstoppable. (Just my .02).
I like that the power has radically increased between each generation While gas mileage has stayed about the same.
I think the 100 is most fun to drive. Most responsive brakes, feels lighter on its feet, etc. Way more comfortable driving it fast on back roads for example.
200 will make a much better tow rig for my d90.
Addition of high range diff lock a positive over the 80, loss of elockers a negative.
I was able to run 285/75s on both an 80 and a 100 stock. Cannot do that on 200 and that is frustrating.
No one comes up and says “nice Land Cruiser” when driving a 200 like they have when driving every single other Land Cruiser I have ever owned.
As we get older and family trips become more important than wheeling trips priorities change, tax brackets change, and we are where we are. My first 40 bought in 95 cost less than 10 percent of the 200. And I got a good deal on both!
Anyway, Thanks for everyones thoughts. I will buy some high end seat covers, weathertech floor liners, a low profile roof rack, figure out the biggest tire I can fit with no lift and Cruise On. I can always change my mind, just dont tell my wife.
Cheers!
A few final thoughts just for kicks:
I liked the level of electronics in the 100 series best. 200 has too many options typical of Japanese cars.
Sat radio antenna is TERRIBLE on 200 at least compared to bmw. Stereo sound not that impressive actually think sound better from 100.
Seats dont seem as durable in 200 i think it due to softer foam which allows leather to flex more. Also “softer” leather not as strong. Wifes x5d at 96k has way better condition leather than either truck because of less flex in bmw seats.
Had a hard time finding a silver 2013 or newer w gray interior and had to settle for black, makes me worry more about interior upkeep.
Each generation gets progressively harder to modify, same thing happened to LandRover. The manufacturers have traded electronic traction control, etc for the ability to build a serious rig. Anyone who thinks they have a serious rig with a 100 or 200 has never really wheeled a Seriously built 80. I had one years ago and it was virtually unstoppable. (Just my .02).
I like that the power has radically increased between each generation While gas mileage has stayed about the same.
I think the 100 is most fun to drive. Most responsive brakes, feels lighter on its feet, etc. Way more comfortable driving it fast on back roads for example.
200 will make a much better tow rig for my d90.
Addition of high range diff lock a positive over the 80, loss of elockers a negative.
I was able to run 285/75s on both an 80 and a 100 stock. Cannot do that on 200 and that is frustrating.
No one comes up and says “nice Land Cruiser” when driving a 200 like they have when driving every single other Land Cruiser I have ever owned.
As we get older and family trips become more important than wheeling trips priorities change, tax brackets change, and we are where we are. My first 40 bought in 95 cost less than 10 percent of the 200. And I got a good deal on both!
Anyway, Thanks for everyones thoughts. I will buy some high end seat covers, weathertech floor liners, a low profile roof rack, figure out the biggest tire I can fit with no lift and Cruise On. I can always change my mind, just dont tell my wife.
Cheers!
Look at the husky floor liners, I was always a weathertech dude until I tried the husky in the 200.
Dead pedal liner/cover - my attempt at fixing WeatherTech's shortcoming.
Dead pedal liner/cover - my attempt at fixing WeatherTech's shortcoming.
What rim size are you talking about? Most 80 and 100 guys are putting on 285/75/16s just like I did on my 100, and the only reason they won't fit on the 200 is because you can't put that small of a rim on a 200. A 285/75/16 KO2 is 32.8"x11.2", and that would absolutely fit on a stock 200 if not for rim size. I have a 34"x11" KO2 on my bone stock LX570, and it works perfect.
Markuson
SILVER Star
What Matt said.
285/75/16 is a *full inch shorter* than a 285/75/17.
The brakes on the 200 are bigger (another 200 improvement, btw) than the brakes on the 100...so 17” wheels are the smallest possible.
Markuson
SILVER Star
OK...One thing I do NOT prefer on the 200 is electronic shifting to 4Lo/4Hi. I liked the manual shifter of the 100.
Last edited:
Markuson
SILVER Star
A 200 in 07...?
Markuson
SILVER Star
