2000 LX with 74K or 2003 LC with 122K. Your educated opinions requested

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

ColdWaterSteve

ColdWaterSteve

Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Threads
4
Messages
14
Location
Seattle WA
Website
solsunguard.com
Oh Mighty Forum Members,

I stand before your pondering the purchase of my next buildable rig. I have two nice candidates.

#1 2000 LX470. 74,000 miles. 2 owners. One fender bender on the carfax but repaired (cosmetic only). Needs 75K $ervice (estimate at my toyota shop is $1700). Likely will need brake pads as there is no record of any brake service. hopefully the rotors are still good and will last to 90K. Local car. Not an east coast auction car. Clean and everything works. This is the 4 bolt Front Diff. 230 HP 4 Speed auto. $18,500 (final price).

#2 2003 Land Cruiser. 122,000 miles. 2 owners, Auction car from east coast, brought to Seattle. 75K service done (timing belt etc). Will need brakes and cooling flush (dirty). no visable rust after I put it on the lift and gave it a good look see. Tranny and Diff seals look good. Steering a suspension show what I would expect for 122K does not look like it was driven hard. Interior is clean but not as new as the LX. 5 speed auto /235 hp.

Give me the good bad and the ugly.

Thanks

ColdWaterSteve
Surfing, freediving, climbing and overlanding in the PNW
 
Both are fine choices, with positives and negatives. Both are priced quite a bit over what I would expect here in the midwest. By the time you service the LX, it will be way over $20K. Wow! It's interesting that the dealer thought it was worthwhile to ship an east coast vehicle all the way to Seattle to sell it. That's an indication these 100s are worth quite a bit out there. If it was me, I'd get the '03.
 
I chose a 2000 LX specifically because of these things:

  • It was the only year available with A-Trac and non navigation head unit at the same time
  • I wanted the AHC system
  • I wanted the LX headlights
Had there been an option to get a model with the 5 speed transmission and a non-navigation head unit I would have paid more for that. To me the ability to make upgrades to the stereo, and no fear of a $$$$$$ head unit failure rendering my HVAC useless, were worth the "lesser" transmission. I've put around 7k miles on my 2000 since I bought it, it's currently at 204k, and have had zero regrets in my purchase. It had the things that were most important to me, and I was willing to take on the nuisances of a 16 year old vehicle that had some relatively expensive to maintain suspension components.
 
Sandroad said:
Both are fine choices, with positives and negatives. Both are priced quite a bit over what I would expect here in the midwest. By the time you service the LX, it will be way over $20K. Wow! It's interesting that the dealer thought it was worthwhile to ship an east coast vehicle all the way to Seattle to sell it. That's an indication these 100s are worth quite a bit out there. If it was me, I'd get the '03.
Click to expand...


LCs and LX470s are high demand on the west coast. They command a much higher price than the midwest or east coast. I can save a lot of money with a flight east to buy one but time will not allow.
 
ihadmail said:
I chose a 2000 LX specifically because of these things:

  • It was the only year available with A-Trac and non navigation head unit at the same time
  • I wanted the AHC system
  • I wanted the LX headlights
Had there been an option to get a model with the 5 speed transmission and a non-navigation head unit I would have paid more for that. To me the ability to make upgrades to the stereo, and no fear of a $$$$$$ head unit failure rendering my HVAC useless, were worth the "lesser" transmission. I've put around 7k miles on my 2000 since I bought it, it's currently at 204k, and have had zero regrets in my purchase. It had the things that were most important to me, and I was willing to take on the nuisances of a 16 year old vehicle that had some relatively expensive to maintain suspension components.
Click to expand...


Great info. I did not know about the head unit. I'm for "simple is better" if I could get roll up windows I'd go for that. You are right the head unit is clean and no NAV. I like this thinking.

2000 lx470 head console.webp
 
Without seeing them I'd have to choose the 03. Vehicles with excessively low miles like the 00 are usually just driven around town, tons of stop and go, possibly rarely even hit operating temp ..all of which are harder on the drivetrain and really the entire vehicle than a someone who commutes 50 miles of highway round trip, tapping the brakes here and there.

I know when I was looking I read several times on here to buy the newest, most well taken care of Cruiser you can afford within your budget ...miles aren't really even a concern with these.
 
I have a 2000 LC and I love the simplicity... but if I was in your shoes I would get the 2003, for the 5-spd transmission and lack of AHC. You may want the AHC, though. The difference in mileage is not that big of a deal between the two - they're both really low.

Unless the LX is a 2-tone blue on blue, in which case I'd be all over it.
 
I would agree neither is a bad choice, but by hesitating like this you may lose both. These things go quick now.

Jim
 
I have an 03 fully equipped. Came with rear TV and DVD player, navigation, mark levinson system which is one of the best oem radios. Mine has the AHC suspension. It's recommended to be flush every 60k miles. Never getting rid of it. Not to big, not to small. Perfect size & 0 problems. Had it 9yrs & still rides new.
 
I have owned my 2001 LX470 coming up two years now. Overall I love it, but there are three things that I wish I had that the later models (like your 2003 consideration) have. Relatively minor, but still:

- 5 spd vs 4 spd. Many's the time I wish I have just one more gear in there. There's a pretty big drop between 1st and 2nd. Would make driveability and fuel economy a bit better IMHO.

- Trailer brakes (or lack thereof). Might or might not be an issue. The stock rig is rated to tow 3000 kg, yet has no harness interface for a 7-pin trailer brake package. I had to install one myself (run cable down the chassis, wire up in the engine bay); kind of a fun project at the time, but the 2003 dashboard harness has a buried pigtail into which trailer brake controller units plug-and-play. Much simpler.

- Similar complaint about the radio. The 2003 and later units have an extra "AUX" input buried behind the dash. There is an off-the-shelf device by Parrot Electronics that plugs in between the stereo head and the amp (I think) to allow you to run an input cable for your iPod/MP3/whatever. No such easy option exists for the earlier units (at least not for the Mark Levinson unit I have). I either burn CDs to use in the stock head, or get a wireless speaker and bluetooth it - bypassing the stereo altogether. First world problems!!

Good luck with your purchase. I'm up in Vancouver BC and I hope to be doing more offroad trips in the future - maybe I'll see you on the trail!
 
Most people agree that the 03+ is more desirable for the 5 speed tranny. There are some negatives to the later models, the integrated HVAC/NAV unit being one. Many of us have not had problems but a few have, it's $3-400 repair. It's one of those things where you will see more people post about they problems they have compared to the ones who don't. The 02 and earlier are a little simpler, which can be a good thing depending on the type of person you are.

Aesthetics play a role too- I am not a fan of the 4 headlights on the LX compared to the 2 on the cruiser, but that is a personal opinion. And the AHC on the LX can be $$ to repair, unless you plan on lifting it, where you can do a delete. My 04 also had a the OEM tow package which I use as well, another plus.

That said, all things being equal, I'd go with the 03 LC. But it's really personal preference, both are excellent vehicles. The 2000, even with the low miles, does seem to be priced high based on the year and collision IMO. Don't worry about miles it's all about maintenance. These engines will easily go 400K.
 
The LC looks 100X better than the LX, and it has no accident history, and
arcteryx said:
Aesthetics play a role too- I am not a fan of the 4 headlights on the LX compared to the 2 on the cruiser, but that is a personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Same here. To me, the LX grille/front is unbearable looking so the choice would be easy in my case.
 
I can't argue the aesthetics - truth be told I'd have gotten a LC if an appropriate one was available, but no such luck. Plus my LX was so scrupulously maintained by its previous owner, that for the price I couldn't turn it down.

And ditto on the engine longevity comments - I am approaching 200K miles, and it literally burns so little oil between 5000km changes that I can not see any movement on the dipstick.

And no bumps, knocks, squeaks, rattles - nothing. Remarkable.
 
wpsfan said:
I know when I was looking I read several times on here to buy the newest, most well taken care of Cruiser you can afford within your budget ...miles aren't really even a concern with these.
Click to expand...
This statement FTW! I couldn't agree more.
 
2003 for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom