200 Series Quality/Reliability and Next Vehicle

[stonepa]

My cousin reached out to me about 6 months ago and was just about to trade his wife’s 2024 Honda passport (with 15k miles) for a 2015 LC with ~110k miles on it. He could have sold the Honda for about (~$40k) price of the LC. He was completely convinced that in the long run the LC would be vastly more reliable. I told him the hard truth, the 10 years from now the 2024 Honda will highly likely have been more reliable and much less expensive cost of ownership then the 2015 LC. But if you really want a 200 don’t justify it to your self based on a most likely false belief.

Maintenance may be cheaper for a Passport (maybe) although I have not found that to be true. Oil changes, plugs, fluid changes, etc are the same for like intervals and oil costs. Brakes and batteries are the same as well. Of course, the Passport does not have a transfer case so no maintenance there.

Reliability wise, my well maintained 2015 LC200 has been perfectly reliable (i did need to replace the rear AC o rings) even with almost 200k miles So my 200 has been extremely reliable. If we were talking about the 100, I would agree with the higher cost given the additional maintenance requirements like hand packing the wheel bearings.

 

[4runner556]

What would you get instead a 700h? I just want a 300 GR

 

[coleAK]

What was your cousin going to do with the LC?

I don't think the LC is bulletproof like people make it out to be but all in all, it has issues that are known and fixable. You put up with it for the other durable aspects.

They l would have Daily drive it in place of said Honda as a family hauler.

 

[Mingus Dew]

What really is there that is truly comparable right now? You could argue the 700h is a different sort of vehicle with the hybrid setup although I’d happily buy one for the right price.

A G500? They seem pretty bombproof but that’s a big check to write.

Maybe a Grenadier but jury is out on how reliable those things are at this stage as they are more expensive than most used 200s.

 

[MRego]

What really is there that is truly comparable right now? You could argue the 700h is a different sort of vehicle with the hybrid setup although I’d happily buy one for the right price.

A G500? They seem pretty bombproof but that’s a big check to write.

Maybe a Grenadier but jury is out on how reliable those things are at this stage as they are more expensive than most used 200s.

The 600/700 are the 300 series and so the successors to the 200 series. Folks that are skeptical about the hybrid can get the 600. Others and off-road enthusiasts have the 700 and 700OT. To me, the OT is the ultimate off-road focus Land Cruiser currently available to buy new in the US.

 

[bloc]

They l would have Daily drive it in place of said Honda as a family hauler.

The difference in fuel costs alone would justify the Honda in this experiment.

 

[coleAK]

The difference in fuel costs alone would justify the Honda in this experiment.

I mentioned that to him as well.

 

[TeCKis300]

We often conflate terms IMO and possibly generalize too much.

I'd agree the LC is probably more reliable than it's competitive set from other manufacturers. But it's not inherently more reliable than other Toyota models, which has the benefit of being simpler, at least in regards to the way 200-series are optioned in the states.

What it does hold the title on IMO is being more robust than just about everything else. Putting up with abuse while still being reliable.

If we're talking about the least amount of maintenance, service, and general repairs, nothing comes close to the new kids on the block with the mainstream Tesla Model 3 and Y.

Nissan's are great, but a cheap Toyota is the way I look at them. Get underneath one and it's obvious they're making trades for cost with smaller diffs, simplier designs, and less complex architectures. I've spent some time wrenching on a friends late model year Xterra Pro-4X.

 

[Zill]

Well said. I think another problem is the mythical demigod misinformation status the Landcruiser holds on the internet. Many people justify the purchase based on the notion LCs are built/engineered to be 100% reliable for >1million miles entirely off road, are aviation grade wired, ….

My cousin reached out to me about 6 months ago and was just about to trade his wife’s 2024 Honda passport (with 15k miles) for a 2015 LC with ~110k miles on it. He could have sold the Honda for about (~$40k) price of the LC. He was completely convinced that in the long run the LC would be vastly more reliable. I told him the hard truth, the 10 years from now the 2024 Honda will highly likely have been more reliable and much less expensive cost of ownership then the 2015 LC. But if you really want a 200 don’t justify it to your self based on a most likely false belief.

You’re right the LC would likely cost more to operate, but it would also probably hold its resale value better, and the LC just feels better to drive and is a safer rig. The bank vault aspect is worth the gas cost and not many cars give you that feeling now. New cars are glorified aluminum cans nowadays (not to mention the incessant nannies baked in them).

 

[coleAK]

You’re right the LC would likely cost more to operate, but it would also probably hold its resale value better, and the LC just feels better to drive and is a safer rig. The bank vault aspect is worth the gas cost and not many cars give you that feeling now. New cars are glorified aluminum cans nowadays (not to mention the incessant nannies baked in them).

Another thing that gets repeated a bunch on here that 200’s are “safer” I’ve never seen any data to back that up and from what can find the 200 (LC or LX) never was a IIHS top safety pick. It had good crash test scores but not better than other 3 row SUVs. The it’s bigger and heavier so it must be safer logic gets thrown around here a lot, however there were many massive, heave vehicles from the 1960’s/70’s that were complete death traps. Now this is an oversimplified generalization but many sturdier, more solid vehicles are less safe as they don’t absorb energy from crashes, then that energy is transferred to the passengers.

 

[04UZJ100]

Another thing that gets repeated a bunch on here that 200’s are “safer” I’ve never seen any data to back that up and from what can find the 200 (LC or LX) never was a IIHS top safety pick. It had good crash test scores but not better than other 3 row SUVs. The it’s bigger and heavier so it must be safer logic gets thrown around here a lot, however there were many massive, heave vehicles from the 1960’s/70’s that were complete death traps. Now this is an oversimplified generalization but many sturdier, more solid vehicles are less safe as they don’t absorb energy from crashes, then that energy is transferred to the passengers.

This is slightly incorrect.

Crash test ratings are based on vehicle impact energy displaced and absorbed by the CRASH TEST VEHICLE. This means a 3.5k pound vehicle’s crash rating is ONLY against an accident where the level of kinetic energy is that of the test subject’s weight.

Crash a 3.5k pound car into a 7k pound cruiser and it is a different story entirely.

I will take weight and size/mass/fully boxed frame any day over being in cars that are low to the ground and that weight far less.

 

[rexington14]

This is slightly incorrect.

Crash test ratings are based on vehicle impact energy displaced and absorbed by the CRASH TEST VEHICLE. This means a 3.5k pound vehicle’s crash rating is ONLY against an accident where the level of kinetic energy is that of the test subject’s weight.

Crash a 3.5k pound car into a 7k pound cruiser and it is a different story entirely.

I will take weight and size/mass/fully boxed frame any day over being in cars that are low to the ground and that weight far less.

Crash fatality risk and unibody versus body-on-frame structure in SUVs - PubMed - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24821629/

tldr; In two-vehicle collisions involving compact SUVs, unibody structure was associated with lower risk of death both in occupants of other vehicles in the crash, and in SUVs’ own occupants.

 

[kindoflikerambo]

My 200 is getting long in the tooth and I’m starting to think about its replacement. I find myself hesitating on a newer 200 or 300. No doubt I will get flamed for this, but I’ve had substantially more problems with my 200 than either my 100 or 80. Off the top of my head:

Failed radiator
Failed starter
Valley plate leak
Leaking water pump
Failed blower motor
Failed radio headunit
Failed audio amplifier
All four AHC shocks leaking/weeping
Leaking power steering system
Lazy transfer case actuator

I’ve dutifully repaired everything with OEM, but truthfully my 200 has not lived up to one of the main reasons I’ve always driven a cruiser: the peace of mind from a superbly engineered, highly reliable vehicle.

The 300 may be worse, with engines destroying themselves at low miles. To me, that kind of problem is the very opposite of why I love these trucks.

After daily driving a cruiser for the better part of two decades, I feel they’ve lost a key part of their appeal as they are no longer as bulletproof reliable as they once were. Am I going crazy?

Sorry for your pain mate. Sounds like it's time to get an fj40. I just purchased my first IFS Cruiser 100 series and paid 270% more on repairs than I purchased it for in month two of ownership. It better run for another quarter mill! That's why I find myself going back to my 40 and '94 Pickup with a 22RE.

 

[Zill]

This is slightly incorrect.

Crash test ratings are based on vehicle impact energy displaced and absorbed by the CRASH TEST VEHICLE. This means a 3.5k pound vehicle’s crash rating is ONLY against an accident where the level of kinetic energy is that of the test subject’s weight.

Crash a 3.5k pound car into a 7k pound cruiser and it is a different story entirely.

I will take weight and size/mass/fully boxed frame any day over being in cars that are low to the ground and that weight far less.

Exactly, they don’t want to test vehicles that weight twice as much and collide with a unibody econobox. Just look at what happens when these cruisers crash. They hold up exceptionally well in the real world when other cars run into them.

One cannot beat physics and mass wins.

 

[stonepa]

Personally want my vehicle absolutely destroyed and deconstructed in a bad crash. I want the tires, engine, and any other heavy part to leave the chat, taking crash energy away from me and my family. If all that remains is an intact passenger compartment with my family in good shape, then the vehicle has done its job.

I doubt that is true of any body on frame vehicle. It will stay relatively intact, and significant energy will remain. This is why we often take my wife’s BMW for family trips.

 

[coleAK]

This is slightly incorrect.

Crash test ratings are based on vehicle impact energy displaced and absorbed by the CRASH TEST VEHICLE. This means a 3.5k pound vehicle’s crash rating is ONLY against an accident where the level of kinetic energy is that of the test subject’s weight.

Crash a 3.5k pound car into a 7k pound cruiser and it is a different story entirely.

I will take weight and size/mass/fully boxed frame any day over being in cars that are low to the ground and that weight far less.

So then, why is it that the landers are being one of the heaviest full-size SUVs does not have the best crash tests rated?

I can also tell you epidemiological Data and every state that I’ve been involved in including here in Alaska. Half to pick ups followed by three-quarter ton pick ups, have the highest crash fatality rate as well as the crash injury rate across the board, despite being some of the heaviest passenger vehicles on the road.

It’s also important to know that in the US approximately half of the traffic fatalities involve no other vehicles except for the one involved. Here in Alaska we are a much higher percent. Now this is all very nuanced, but if you look at the raw data, it doesn’t support the bigger and heavier is better. Look at Subaru, statistically they are the safest vehicle brand on the road in terms of fatalities and injuries when looking at normalized data. And they barely even make a three row SUV. Most of their vehicles are considered midsize.

 

[Zill]

Personally want my vehicle absolutely destroyed and deconstructed in a bad crash. I want the tires, engine, and any other heavy part to leave the chat, taking crash energy away from me and my family. If all that remains is an intact passenger compartment with my family in good shape, then the vehicle has done its job.

I doubt that is true of any body on frame vehicle. It will stay relatively intact, and significant energy will remain. This is why we often take my wife’s BMW for family trips.

I’d rather take the slightly larger energy impact and be knocked out than have my legs crushed and be in misery for my last breaths. A fully boxed frame will have a much less likelihood of having something actually protruding into the passenger compartment.

 

[Zill]

So then, why is it that the landers are being one of the heaviest full-size SUVs does not have the best crash tests rated?

I can also tell you epidemiological Data and every state that I’ve been involved in including here in Alaska. Half to pick ups followed by three-quarter ton pick ups, have the highest crash fatality rate as well as the crash injury rate across the board, despite being some of the heaviest passenger vehicles on the road.

It’s also important to know that in the US approximately half of the traffic fatalities involve no other vehicles except for the one involved. Here in Alaska we are a much higher percent. Now this is all very nuanced, but if you look at the raw data, it doesn’t support the bigger and heavier is better. Look at Subaru, statistically they are the safest vehicle brand on the road in terms of fatalities and injuries when looking at normalized data. And they barely even make a three row SUV. Most of their vehicles are considered midsize.

Right, a larger vehicle will have more kinetic energy due to its mass in an impact with a stationary object, but if I am getting into a wreck without another vehicle involved, then that’s on me and my driving abilities.

I’m more worried about vehicles running into me than how I am driving. That’s something I can’t control.

There’s no way a LC 200 would lose against a “safer” Subaru in a collision. The LC would simply bulldoze right through the Subaru. The LC is not abruptly slowing down… the Subaru would.

 

[stonepa]

I’d rather take the slightly larger energy impact and be knocked out than have my legs crushed and be in misery for my last breaths. A fully boxed frame will have a much less likelihood of having something actually protruding into the passenger compartment.

Yeah if the safety cage fails in a way to hurt my legs it isn’t doing it’s job.

 

[Sajan]

The bulletproof landcruiser is giving me AC troubles at 100K miles.
Ok that's all.
Back to crash test ratings.