2004-5 vs 2006-7

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

S

spammer

10 Year
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Threads
21
Messages
65
I just stumbled across an ok 2004 Land Cruiser for sale without AHC. I was focused on a 2006-2007, but open to 2004-2005's as well.

The later cruisers got 40 more hp, and better fuel economy as well as led rear lights. These all sound nice but most came with AHC. I personally think I'd enjoy the AHC as I feel they probably offer a nicer ride.

Are there any advantages to a 2004-5 besides the fact that more came without AHC? Is MPG really different between the years?
 
See below for 06-07 Land Cruiser differences copied from the Slee 100 Series buyers guide: (complete guide with differences year to year here: http://www.sleeoffroad.com/newbie/newbieUZJ100.htm )

2006
Interior

  • The cruise control system was changed to keep the vehicle’s set speed in its memory even if the vehicle dropped below the low-speed limit.
Exterior

  • The design of the headlights and the grille where changed.
  • The design of the rear combination lights where changed.
  • The rear spoiler was introduced as optional equipment.
  • The taillight and stop light bulbs where changed to LEDs (Light-Emitting Diodes).
Drivetrain

  • 2UZ-FE Engine- The VVT-i (Variable Valve Timing-intelligent), ACIS (Acoustic Control Induction System), and AI (Air Injection) system are added to the 2UZ-FE engine to achieve a greater performance level and reduce exhaust emissions.
  • Active Height Control Suspension (AHC) is introduced as optional equipment.
  • The Brake Control System was updated (ABS with EBD, Brake Assist, A-TRAC and VSC System).
  • Tire Pressure Warning System is added.
2007

Drivetrain

  • 2UZ-FE Engine some (Diagnostic Trouble Codes) where added.
 
I've read that the 2004-2005's are 13/16 and the 2006-2007's are 13/17mpg. Can anyone verify that they do in fact get better mpgs?

VSC would be nice in the later models.
 
I was under the impression that the 06-07 actually dropped 1mpg due to the extra horsepower. The AHC is not so much about offering a better ride as it is letting you raise and lower the vehicle to get over obstacles.
 
I have VVT-I in a LS 430 and it's completely awesome
 
patrickfinley said:
I was under the impression that the 06-07 actually dropped 1mpg due to the extra horsepower. The AHC is not so much about offering a better ride as it is letting you raise and lower the vehicle to get over obstacles.
Click to expand...

Everywhere says 1+ mpg for the last two years which is very surprising considering the 40hp boost. I can't find any "real world" mpg numbers to corroborate that though.

Nottajeep said:
I have VVT-I in a LS 430 and it's completely awesome
Click to expand...

I'm still reading about the VVT-I, but I thought that was one system that could break. Gotta keep researching here.
 
spammer said:
Everywhere says 1+ mpg for the last two years which is very surprising considering the 40hp boost.
Click to expand...
  • The ~40 hp bump is primarily because VVT-i allows the torque to be maintained higher in the RPM band. Same displacement, same compression ratio, etc. There's not inherent fuel penalty in making more horsepower. Commanding more horsepower with the skinny pedal, however, does come with a penalty. Making power more efficiently through VVT-i is likely responsible for the slight MPG improvement.
spammer said:
VSC would be nice in the later models.
Click to expand...
  • VSC was available starting in 2000
spammer said:
I'm still reading about the VVT-I, but I thought that was one system that could break. Gotta keep researching here.
Click to expand...
  • VVT-i now exists across most (if not all?) models. Wouldn't worry about the longevity of the system one bit. The air pump on the other hand...
 
04-05 is definitely a good value. When you start talking 06-07 for 40 more hp, possibly better mpg, or lower miles, the 200 becomes really a no brainer for a little more money. Personally, I think 03 is the sweet spot for 100 bang for buck.
 
03's are at $13-17k, 04-05's are around $16-19k, 06-07's are about $21-25k. 200's are $35k+. I think 06-07's are the best value right now, but I guess that all depends on your budget. If 200's were under $30k I might be looking more into them, but I really want to use this off road so I think the 100 is right for me.
 
With heavy after market front and rear bumpers, winch and 33 inch tires, I have never been able to get over 13 MPG in my 2006. Most of the time I average around 12 if on level ground. I would not include gas mileage as a deciding purchase factor for these trucks.
 
Tire pressure monitoring system is a pain in the butt. I wish you could disable that feature when changing from street wheels to off-road wheels.
 
For the price difference of the later trucks you could add headers / exhaust and have similar power, possibly for less money and complexity.

IMO, just go shopping and buy the one that seems like a good deal regardless of year. You can't go wrong.
 
Only '06-'07 LC's had the option of AHC. '04-'05 LC's did not. All Lexus LX 470's have AHC. When I was searching it appeared that most '06-'07 LC's had AHC and I didn't want to deal with the maintenance and ultimate replacement of AHC so limited my search to '03-'05.
 
stonepa said:
Tire pressure monitoring system is a pain in the butt. I wish you could disable that feature when changing from street wheels to off-road wheels.
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what about it is a PITA. But did you know the car supports two sets of wheels with the monitoring system? Open the glove box. Notice that little switch?
 
. . . or a super charger. Wasn't one posted in the classifieds recently on here or ExPo. Can't remember though.
 
2006-7 air injection is a expensive problem if you have a problem. All years are slow, you got slow and slower. Complexity affects reliability. I replaced the AHC on my 2005 LX with OME 2" lift. With AHC if you try and maintain/fix using a dealer you will go broke. If you are like some members and want to fix yourself it will still cost you more then converting to OME in the long run.
 
patrickfinley said:
The AHC is not so much about offering a better ride as it is letting you raise and lower the vehicle to get over obstacles.
Click to expand...

I'd encourage the OP to learn more about AHC. It really gets a bad rap due to lots of general misinformation about it, but also due to those that don't know how to modify it to support hefty armor additions. It's a reliable system with examples going 200k+. No more unreliable than a standard suspension setup really, which can't carry armor without modification either.


Here's some official snippets from FSM documentation on the height control ->

During Lo Position:
When the vehicle speed becomes
higher than approximately
5 km/h (3 mph), the vehicle
height transfers to normal.
The normal vehicle height is
maintained even if the vehicle
speed becomes lower than 5
km/h (3 mph).

"During Hi Position":
When the vehicle speed becomes
higher than approximately
30 km/h (19 mph), the vehicle
height transfers to normal. The
normal vehicle height is maintained
even if the vehicle speed
becomes lower than 30 km/h (19
mph).

"During Hi Position with Transfer shifted in Low":
When the vehicle speed becomes
higher than approximately
50 km/h (31 mph), the vehicle
height transfers to a height that is
approximately 25 mm (1 in.)
higher than the normal vehicle
height. When the vehicle speed
becomes lower than approximately
20 km/h (12.5 mph), it
returns to the high vehicle
height.

Also on the topic of what the system does other than height control and explicit setting of the damping switch:
2) Thumping Sensitive Control
When the road surface condition does not require a damping force, this function controls the actuator
so that their damping force will not increase.
As a result, both flatness and a soft ride have been achieved.
3) Unsprung Vibration Control
If unsprung resonance is detected, this function controls so that the damping force will not decrease
below a certain level, in order to reduce the unsprung resonance.
As a result, excellent road-holding performance has been ensured without affecting riding comfort.
4) Speed Sensitive Control
To optimally balance the vehicle’s riding comfort and road-holding performance, the damping force is
increased along with the increase in vehicle speed, in order to ensure stability during high-speed driving.5) Anti-Roll Control
During cornering, this function makes the damping force firmer, thus restrating the body roll speed in
order to provide excellent stability and controllability.
6) Anti-Dive Control
During braking, this function makes the damping force firmer to restrain the body dive, thus ensuring
excellent stability and controllability.
7) Anti-Squat Control
During acceleration, this function makes the damping force firmer to minimize the changes in the vehicle
body posture to provide excellent stability and controllability.
8) Damping Force Control
The actuator uses a 16-step step motor to generate a continually variable damping force. This provides
a wide selection of damping force and enables a smooth transition of the damping force.
As a result, a minutely controlled damping force that accommodates various types of driving conditions
has been made possible.

"Right-Left Wheel Communicating Function"
Normally, an oil passage remains open between the shock absorbers for the right and left wheels. This
enables the suspension to contract and elongate smoothly when the right and left wheels move gradually
at opposite phases and provides excellent road-holding performance while driving on a winding road.
When the driver operates the steering wheel, the oil passage between the right and left shock absorbers
closes according to that condition. This restrains the increase of the vehicle body roll during cornering,
thus ensuring the vehicle’s stability and controllability.
Click to expand...
 
I personally don't find my '06 on 33's slow. It's in the ball park of suitable to good power for the weight. Better than adequate to state it another way which is what I expect for a top of the line SUV.

When comparing and test driving various models, I tried to save $10k by checking out a couple 2005s. I found that slow to the point of intolerable and was seriously reconsidering any land cruiser at all. Thank goodness I gave the '06 a chance. Pretty large difference from my experience, especially when pulling on the freeway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom