2008 LC - US Pics (1 Viewer)

[twstrchasr]

I realize that I have been rather harsh (as have many of you ) concerning the EXTERIOR design of the 2008 LC. But, as I have said before, final judgement really should come only after seeing it in real life once it hits showroom floors....


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1989 FJ-62
2001 UZJ-100
2003 Mercedes Benz CL55 AMG
1991 Range Rover

 

[Cruiser_Nut]

It seems that the designers didn't want someone sticking on aftermarket bumpers. The integrated design doesn't lend itself well for 3/16" steel and a winch.

I am surprized to hear the 5.7 has camshaft issues. ouch . but it seems that most folks that drop 70K on a LC arn't interested in scraping or climbing over rocks.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

It seems that the designers didn't want someone sticking on aftermarket bumpers. The integrated design doesn't lend itself well for 3/16" steel and a winch.

I am surprized to hear the 5.7 has camshaft issues. ouch . but it seems that most folks that drop 70K on a LC arn't interested in scraping or climbing over rocks.

True on the bumpers.

I'd luv to read about new camshaft issues. Link anybody?

And what's wrong with scraping a $70K rig on rocks?

 

[chukardog]

I don't think they fire designers for making vehicles which appeals to the masses, and makes them the most profitable auto manufacturer in the world...

Ford makes a car called the Taurus, just looking at the numbers it must appeal to the masses becuase they have sold a lot of them. That doesnt mean Im going to go out and buy one. For the kind of money Toyota is asking for a new LC they had better come up with a better design than that. I dont know any 80 or 60 series owner that would plunk down their money on that turd.

 

[firetruck41]

Ford makes a car called the Taurus, just looking at the numbers it must appeal to the masses becuase they have sold a lot of them. That doesnt mean Im going to go out and buy one. For the kind of money Toyota is asking for a new LC they had better come up with a better design than that. I dont know any 80 or 60 series owner that would plunk down their money on that turd.

They may not have designed it for you, but if the taurus sells well, the designer was successful, will be the same with the 200, if it sells well.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

I dont know any 80 or 60 series owner that would plunk down their money on that turd.

You show your ignorance.

Most 80 and 60 owners on this forum live in the past. SFA, under powered motors, rattling frames and chassis.....are all old designs and offer outdated quality. What the 100 is an 80 and 60 can never be. The new 2008 should offer similar enhancements making it the best reliable driving solution on the planet.

I know I'll not lay any money down on 11-20+ year old quality/technology (80/60).

 

[uzj100]

No turbo diesel and Toyota/Lexus will not receive any money from me for an inefficient gas engine. This new truck should easily be able to achieve 20 mpg city and 30 mpg highway.

The 100 is better except for only offering one motor in the US market.

 

[2/40's]

I think they should bring back the 80 series with some more electronics. This new cruiser looks terrible. There is no distinctive lines to define it from a distance....

x's 2...

Though it may be technologically superior, it is seriously lacking in the style department.

 

[Cruiser_Nut]

x's 2...

Though it may be technologically superior, it is seriously lacking in the style department.

It would seem that the problem with it is not that it doesn't have style, but that the style it does have is the same as everthing else.

One of the nice things about Cruisers is that they have a distinct look.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

I think they should bring back the 80 series with some more electronics. .

It would be a US sales failure.

Poor pre-purchase test ride (SFA)
Powerless (6)
Rough and loud ride (at 2007 standards)
Too small, unrefined, powerless, and poor ride to justify it's $55K (est) price.

Die hards won't let go, but come on.....it's 16-year old technology! It's not rocket science why the 100 is improved in so many ways.

 

[2/40's]

It would seem that the problem with it is not that it doesn't have style, but that the style it does have is the same as everthing else.

One of the nice things about Cruisers is that they have a distinct look.

yes, it seems as the "style" of modern vehicles is converging, though i will admit the lines on this new cruiser are familiar with the old..

manufacturers will tend to steal design elements from the more successful body styles, ie the protruding rear deck on the BMW 750 & new Camry..

what ever happened to risk-taking design? ...oh yeah, the pontiac aztek!!

 

[Brit]

It would be a US sales failure.

Poor pre-purchase test ride (SFA)
Powerless (6)
Rough and loud ride (at 2007 standards)
Too small, unrefined, powerless, and poor ride to justify it's $55K (est) price.

Die hards won't let go, but come on.....it's 16-year old technology! It's not rocket science why the 100 is improved in so many ways.

This really is the truth. In '97 I decided I wanted to buy a Land Cruiser (knew nothing of the upcoming 100 series). I hadn't ever driven one or been around one but I knew I wanted a new Land Cruiser. The only Toyota I had ever been around was a '78 FJ40 my dad bought new that I grew up riding around in. I went to my local dealer where they had a whopping one to choose from - it was at least white. I test drove it and could not believe how rough, slow and old feeling it was. There was no way I was going to spend over $50K on it. I drove over to the LR dealer and bought a new Range Rover instead (a P38) - at that time the body style was new and it seemed light years ahead of the Cruiser in pretty much everything to me.

All that said I wouldn't complain if there was an 80 in my driveway right now.

I feel the same about my 100 now. If I needed to buy a new car today and couldn't wait for the '08 I wouldn't buy a 100. I'd do the same thing and get a new Range Rover again.

I've had at least one of every model Range Rover (and some Discoveries and a Defender). Every newer Range Rover I have is more comfortable, quiet, powerful and capable off road (in stock form).

I bought the 100 because I just wanted to try something different. I think it's a great truck and I'm glad I bought it...but they have to keep up. The key is making it desirable to the masses but still good for our types. I think Rover has been able to do this - Toyota shouldn't have a problem.

There will always be those that complain about newer trucks - I see them here just like in the Rover community - where some say real Land Rovers have leaf springs. And the rest that when word of a new model coming out scream "Buy one now! The new one won't be as good off road" And they're wrong - and then a few years later it's the same crowd saying the same thing when they change it again.

 

[Brit]

manufacturers will tend to steal design elements from the more successful body styles, ie the protruding rear deck on the BMW 750 & new Camry..

what ever happened to risk-taking design? ...oh yeah, the pontiac aztek!!

The E65 (745i/745Li) was a risk-taking design. Chris Bangle is the only automotive designer I know by name - and it's not because they were singing his praises on "Top Gear"

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

This really is the truth. In '97 I decided I wanted to buy a Land Cruiser (knew nothing of the upcoming 100 series). I hadn't ever driven one or been around one but I knew I wanted a new Land Cruiser. The only Toyota I had ever been around was a '78 FJ40 my dad bought new that I grew up riding around in. I went to my local dealer where they had a whopping one to choose from - it was at least white. I test drove it and could not believe how rough, slow and old feeling it was. There was no way I was going to spend over $50K on it. I drove over to the LR dealer and bought a new Range Rover instead (a P38) - at that time the body style was new and it seemed light years ahead of the Cruiser in pretty much everything to me.

All that said I wouldn't complain if there was an 80 in my driveway right now.

I feel the same about my 100 now. If I needed to buy a new car today and couldn't wait for the '08 I wouldn't buy a 100. I'd do the same thing and get a new Range Rover again.

I've had at least one of every model Range Rover (and some Discoveries and a Defender). Every newer Range Rover I have is more comfortable, quiet, powerful and capable off road (in stock form).

I bought the 100 because I just wanted to try something different. I think it's a great truck and I'm glad I bought it...but they have to keep up. The key is making it desirable to the masses but still good for our types. I think Rover has been able to do this - Toyota shouldn't have a problem.

There will always be those that complain about newer trucks - I see them here just like in the Rover community - where some say real Land Rovers have leaf springs. And the rest that when word of a new model coming out scream "Buy one now! The new one won't be as good off road" And they're wrong - and then a few years later it's the same crowd saying the same thing when they change it again.

The Rovers are nice vehicles. I could not own one due to the horrific reliabllity and on-the-trail breakage. Reliability is far my #1 requirement....then everything else.

 

[Brit]

The Rovers are nice vehicles. I could not own one due to the horrific reliabllity and on-the-trail breakage. Reliability is far my #1 requirement....then everything else.

While I'll make jokes about the Rovers I've owned 7 and have never had one that I felt was not reliable. I've never been left stranded by one. My '95 has 150K miles on it and never had a single warranty claim in the first 5/50 and I've spent about $4K over the last 100K keeping it up. My '00 has 102K and the same with it - no warranty claims and nothing other than wear and tear so far.

...so it's not because I buy them and only drive them a short time before getting a new one.

If they're built up right they're perfectly fine on the trail. The only time I ever broke was in my Defender 90. Before I upgraded the axles after installing ARBs I busted an axle shaft. They're full floating so I pulled the busted one out (without even having to remove the wheel) and drove the 200 miles back home in front wheel drive. I ordered new after market heavy duty shafts and never had another problem.

In our local club quite a few have problems with their Discoveries - but they typically do because they beat the crap out of them. They would have problems with an 80 or 100 as well if they had them.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

While I'll make jokes about the Rovers I've owned 7 and have never had one that I felt was not reliable. I've never been left stranded by one. My '95 has 150K miles on it and never had a single warranty claim in the first 5/50 and I've spent about $4K over the last 100K keeping it up. My '00 has 102K and the same with it - no warranty claims and nothing other than wear and tear so far.

...so it's not because I buy them and only drive them a short time before getting a new one.

If they're built up right they're perfectly fine on the trail. The only time I ever broke was in my Defender 90. Before I upgraded the axles after installing ARBs I busted an axle shaft. They're full floating so I pulled the busted one out (without even having to remove the wheel) and drove the 200 miles back home in front wheel drive. I ordered new after market heavy duty shafts and never had another problem.

In our local club quite a few have problems with their Discoveries - but they typically do because they beat the crap out of them. They would have problems with an 80 or 100 as well if they had them.

Just like this current one, the results have been the same for years.

 

[Brit]

I saw that. I was just sharing my own experience. A survey like that wouldn't sway my decision to purchase a car that I liked.

I'm sure that a Timex is a lot more accurate and reliable than a Breitling or a Rolex...but I'd rather one of the later.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

I saw that. I was just sharing my own experience. A survey like that wouldn't sway my decision to purchase a car that I liked.

I'm sure that a Timex is a lot more accurate and reliable than a Breitling or a Rolex...but I'd rather one of the later.

Rolex all the way. I've fallen on mine on the trail several times. No scratch to the face. The kicker....they (certain models) appreciate in value so it costs you nothing to own one.

Can't compare a watch to a truck though.

 

[Brit]

Sure you can

Maybe a Rolex is more like a Defender - tough but not accurate

And a Range Rover is more like a Patek Phillipe - drop it and it breaks

You're right - buy the right ones and they do. I think the price for my Submariner is around $5K US now...I think I paid about half that many years ago. No services and still keeps within COSC standards.

My ones probably have done well too...but I wouldn't call it a fast appreciating liquid asset by any means.

 

[OGBeno]

Analogies, analogies, analogies.

My 80 series is an old F1 Tag. Old, beat up, but still is accurate to the second.



-o-