2002 vs. next gen 2004 (Help Please)

[hychamaz]

Hello everyone. I am still tryingto make my decision on a new (used) LC after my divorce... My 89 is tucked away... But I have a big decision to make that I posted before but cannot find my thread idk.
I am going crazy trying to make the right choice of trucks. I can buy a 2002 LC for 13K. It is whatI want in a diesel and manual model. OR I could buy a 2004 LC with slightly higher miles but they go for around 20K here in Finland... So do I save 7K and buy a lesser mile 2002 or pay 7K more for a 2004 with more mileage??? And both are diesel manuals..
Any comments would be appreciated. I am looking for pure reliability as I am alone with 2 little kids in the middle of nowhere Finland...
Diesals vs. Gas (in both generations)
Autos vs. Manuals in both gens
etc etc etc.. I really appreaciate you guys and your feedback. Thank you in advance!! Graham

 

[re_guderian]

You might want to edit the title to include Finland, diesel or manual, etc. The vast majority of the forum members here are in the US, and neither the diesel or a manual transmission were available. For the US market, other than cosmetic dash changes, the biggest change was a 5-speed auto tranny and side curtain airbags, so not sure we can relate real well to your choices, though we'd love to have those options here!

 

[Slickspawn]

Save the $7k and get the diesel w/ manual. Either model you buy will need preventive maintenance and some upgrades to keep your adventures trouble free. Alternator, starter spares and trail spares will prevent you from being stranded.

If the truck is in good shape and goes down the road well, jump on it.

 

[uHu]

If you compare 2002 manual with 2004 manual, the most noticable changes are side airbags and dashboard design. The earlier version HVAC control is much better than the newer "updated" one. That is if you don't have the navi, but I think that is more uncommon on manual versions.
There are other changes in the engine (turbo, ecu, valves, and a few other details) but not enough to pay anything extra.
The biggest difference is on the auto versions, where both the gearbox and the ECU are much better on the newer 5-speed.
And rust is more important than miles.

Edit (adding): talking diesel versions here, HDJ100.

 

[hychamaz]

Thank you all for your feedback. I really appreciate it all!

 

[hychamaz]

I am a bit confused by the answers though. Two members here say that the only changes were side airbag and dashboard design. To me the entire truck looks different between the years outside. I always thought that 2002 was the last year of that bodystyle before it got all rounded... Are they built on the same chasis?

 

[uHu]

You have posted this in the 100-series forum, so you get answers relating to the 100 only. You must be comparing apples to plums, or 100 series to 120 series. The 120 is marketed as Land Cruiser in some countries, and Prado in others. The 100 (and the 80 before and 200 after it) are Heavy Duty Cruisers, while the Prado (90, 120, 150) are Medium Duty, a bit lighter and smaller (and a bit less thirsty).

If you search for cruisers and want to filter out the smaller ones, add a criteria for engine size 4.2 litres (diesel), or more than 200 HP. that should filter out most of the Prados.

PS
In Norway, the 100 was sold as "Land Cruiser 100", while the 120 was the "Land Cruiser". For the newer ones, the 200 is the "Land Cruiser V8" and the 150 is the "Land Cruiser". Stupid. What's wrong with Prado? I suppose the name "Land Cruiser" was well known for quality and durabilty, while nobody had heard of Prado. Fun fact: when the first Medium Duty version of the 70 series was sold here, it was named "Land Cruiser II".