2008 Toyota Land Cruiser Found!

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

projektdotnet said:
100 series a "real" cruiser? When did this happen? IMO the last "Real" LAND CRUISER was the 80 series (speaking of US models only)...Sorry but the 100 series IMO isn't a REAL LandCruiser and neither is the FJC. They're nice but they aren't the LandCruiser that I love so much. ih8IFS...does me no good off road and yes I have had an SFA vehicle for offroad before.

That's why real is in quotation marks...

I think land cruisers went down the tube in 1991. While the fzj80's are probably the toughest built land cruiser, their design cues are more marshmallow than rugged. I think Toyota would love to call the FJ Cruiser a land cruiser, but it would screw up their price points (I know, I know, it's really just a 4runner in disguise). The Prado is more 4runner than land cruiser, but they call it a land cruiser purely for marketing purposes.

Flame on.
 
landcruiserspy16.jpg

lcrear.jpg

hmmm, looks pretty similar to me
 
you know your right, looking at the 2006, and 2008 side by side, or back to back, really shows how similar they do look.
 
When, in subsequent generations, the Land Cruiser becomes a Fully Independent Suspension station wagon with 3" of clearance, 1" of wheel travel, 22" rims, and low-profile Continental road racing tires, will the LC community accept the FJ Cruiser as their retarded (but well-loved) brother?

BEHOLD.......THE FUTURE!!!
urban.jpg
 
bwbski26 said:
you know your right, looking at the 2006, and 2008 side by side, or back to back, really shows how similar they do look.

Do that with the Nissan Armada and this newcomer. Similar headlights, bulging fenders, roofline. Nothing against the Armada, I'm just not a fan of the Lego look.

-Spike
 
LandCrusher'70 said:
When did Toyota and VW team up:
landcruiserspy16.jpg

vw_back.jpg


I think its s***ty. Where'd the Land Cruiser go?

In those two pics the VW is much more attractive. The rear end on that Cruiser is fricking hideous.


However, the VW is a copy of the Land Cruiser look, just like every other SUV on the road is. Most sporty hatchbacks are copies of the Celica from a few years earlier...

lcrear.jpg

vw_back.jpg
 
Shahram said:
When, in subsequent generations, the Land Cruiser becomes a Fully Independent Suspension station wagon with 3" of clearance, 1" of wheel travel, 22" rims, and low-profile Continental road racing tires, will the LC community accept the FJ Cruiser as their retarded (but well-loved) brother?

BEHOLD.......THE FUTURE!!!
urban.jpg
If they try to call that a LandCruiser then I would be more apt to say the FJC was a Cruiser...yeesh that is wrong!
 
yooper said:
However, the VW is a copy of the Land Cruiser look, just like every other SUV on the road is.
lcrear.jpg

vw_back.jpg


I'm calling BS on that quote IMO. :D I seriously doubt eveyone copied the LC look when they made a suv. Touareg looks nothing like a TLC. Two totally different beast.
 
Trollhole said:
I'm calling BS on that quote IMO. :D I seriously doubt eveyone copied the LC look when they made a suv. Touareg looks nothing like a TLC. Two totally different beast.


This entire thread is BS!


AKA "Chat"

:cheers:
 
The only thing constant about design is the need to change... creating new trends or possibly resurrecting trends from the past. Some designers are in touch and hit the mark.. others follow suit just to play it safe.

A few auto designers have released new vehicles that incorporate older design cues... the Porsche Cayman and Ford GT are perfect examples. These are considered hot designs in the two-seater category.

I believe the new trend is to have a nostalgic look, but with a modern flair—my personal design preference.

I think the 2008 Toyota Land Cruiser has deviated too far from the core design elements to effectively maintain its heritage... however it will probably appeal to the mainstream---not necessarily a bad thing if the business plan is to increase sales and market share---it’s just not something I would consider.
 
i think they took a lot of styling cues from the range rover, atleast from the side profile
 
Instead of fighting with each other, why don't we make fun of the obvious ford/gm fans on that forum who are clearly pissed off that Toyota is putting them out of business?
 
Landcruiser should change

You know all the talk about there not being much diff. between LC and the Lexus model. I don't know why Toyota doesn't just move the Fancy Luxury crap up to the Lexus dealers and just give us a barebones LC with rubber floors, seats with washable heavy duty material (or even vinyl), no navigation crap to break, no auto climate control, no heated seats, or any of that other CRAP that makes it cost so damned much. I want an LC because it is still built in Japan. When you drive one, it feels ROCK SOLID, but I don't want to have to pay 60K for that build quality. I just want a good vehicle. You drive a Seq. and it feels pretty well built, but it isn't a cruiser. My wife and I drove a Honda Pilot the other day to get for her possibly, and it feels like it is just waiting to flex and have the doors fall off. The only two vehicles I can even get to meet my needs are the 4runner or the LC. Anyway, just ranting.
 
This is probably why the 2008 Land Cruiser resembles a 2006 Nissan Armada... it currently ranks no. 6 on the "Top 10 Most Appealing Vehicles"...

The Porsche Cayman is no. 1 ..

Yahoo Weekend Business, Friday 9/15/06:
http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/appeal_1.html
 
Mr. Toad said:
It's OK. Kinda looks like the spawn of a Subie Forester mated with a 1998 Montero.

Exactly the side shot made me think forester... I seriously hope that is the new 4runner or something and not the new cruiser...
 
its a big rav 4 with bulging lights.

toyotas a big boy now. thers just not a big enough market for an industrial passenger vehicle converted to a cushycruiser. why do you people expect them to make one? the fj cruiser was thier token handout to us, so embrace it. its all yer gonna get.
 
madams557 said:
That works only if the assumption is that people with $60,000 to spend are wanting to get the longest, roomest truck for their money.

That isn't always the case. Its possible that if you don't need the length and room, that you would be willing to pay for refinement, style, and comfort.

Not only is Madams557 correct... but...


Do this:
Get somebody to put a Land Cruiser and a Sequoia (new ones) up on two hydraulic lifts.
LOOK CAREFULLY underneath them both.

You *won't* need to ask which is the LC and which is the Seq.
You'll *know*.



That's how hubby's previous Boss - the PO of my LC - showed me (back in... June, I think) the difference between the two beasties, when I asked him about it. He also put his own LX470 (forget if it's a 2004 or a 2005) on the garage's 3rd lift, for comparison.

His LX and my LC looked alike. (well - other than mine's older, and a bit rusty in places); Not so the Seq.

The Seq didn't have the off-road suspension the LC and the LX had. The Seq (I beleive) also didn't have center diff locking; the LC & LX do. The Seq's wheelbase isn't nearly as good for wheeling/off-roading as either the LC or the LX.

We test-drove the Seq. (Boss told them that I was looking to buy new, to replace my '92 LC, and couldn't decide between the LC and the much-cheaper Seq.) It rode harder, less smoothly, and was a less pleasant ride than either my old LC or his newer LX. He & I both agreed on that.


Finally, mistaking me for Boss' daughter or step-daughter (since I call him by his first name) -- the salesman asked me what I used it for. Was I a soccer Mom, would it be used to haul the kids & their friends?

Nope, I said, I don't have (and cannot have) kids.

Salesman then asked me if I really needed the "luxury extras" of the LC? Or would I be happy with the Seq, and enjoy it's extra space?

I go camping a lot, I told him.

Salesman then asked me if I camped on "real off-road codition places" or campgrounds?

THe former, I told him.

Apparently deciding that money was no longer the issue (after all, my "father"/"stepdad" had a LX, and had given me his old LC), the salesman then told me to forget the Seq, because it wouldn't do the job off-roading, and I wouldn't be happy with it.

he then got a crafty look in his face. He said, "Come with me, you two. I have something brand new to shoew you..."

And, as he led us out to the off-side of the lot, he casually asked us if "dad" had ever owned any of the "old LCs".

He showed us the just-delivered FJ Cruissers.

He insisted we take it out for a test-drive, over some marginally boggy swamp just off of I-80. (we live in northeastern NJ, there's plenty of bog/swamp all around!)

Boss let me drive it, telling the salesman in the back seat that I drove off-road far better than he did. (not true - he taught me)

Thought the salesman would have a FIT when I took it thru the local branch of the Raritan River. hehehe :flipoff2: *SPLASH*

We went back to the dealership.

I pointed out that it was LOVELY to drive, and that I LOVED the fact that I could just over the CD player with plastic and hose out the whole daarn thing. BUT --- it was too darn small for my camping needs. (all true - even if I was going to buy, I couldn't have bought something so tiny to replace my FJ80)


Point is - I learned that the Seq IS NOT "as good as" LC/LX .


And the dirty looks the sales manager gave us when we returned with a filthy, muddy once-pristine-white FJ Cruiser was priceless! :flipoff2:
(we were only the 2nd or 3rd people to take it out for test-drive)
Wonder how badly the salesman got chewed out? *thinking*


So, go do what I did and see for yourself.
(compare the Seq and the LC side-by-side up on hydraulic lifts, that is...)

(unless you're up for some fun and don't care if you tick off the local Toyota dealership folks... lol)
 
I own a 2005 Sequoia and a 1999 UZJ100. I agree, except my Sequoia does have a CDL. The Sequoia is my wife's vehicle and she loves it. My 100 with 116,000 miles on it drives just as smoothly as the nearly new Sequoia. Pretty amazing. The Sequoia is faster though, with about 40HP more power and only about 100 more pounds of curb weight...
 
yooper, I'll say this: I didn't get to really try taking the seq up to speed, since the nervous-nellie salesman was in the backseat, backseat-driving. :rolleyes:

It may be faster, and surely must be faster than my 1992 beastie. Remember - the'92 was - and still is - underpowered.

I live just outside (west) of Newark, NJ. As soon as you get to the end of the street, and onto I-280 westbond (just a few blocks from my house), you must go up thru the Watchung Ridges. First Mountain (yeah - we still use the old Indians' name for it) is a 6% grade. Second and Third Ridges are slightly less steep. First Mountain is the Killer for most vehicles. I usually take my 1980 Olds Cutlass Brougham (with a heavy-duty truck engine and tranny that I dumped into it decades ago, when it was fairly new and I was still young) up First Mountain in the far left lane, at about 80 mph -- when traffic allows, of course. Just coz I can. :D While I often can use the far left lane to hightail up First Mountain's 6% grade in the LC ... I must drop it into 3rd to get it to go up the hill at a goodly clip. (usually about 70 mph or so) Can't make it up much faster than that; I think my tops record is currently 74mph. Once over the crest, of course, I shift back to D... until I hit Second Ridge. Ditto going down and back up Third Ridge.

I have been flagged and tagged doing 97 mph up First Mountain in the Cutlass. (Every once in a while I like to give the stateys a run for their money)
They can't catch me, of course... but they all know me personally, and know where I live. So it's moot. They just come to my front door, later, and hand me my ticket. Or my lecture, more often than the ticket. I haven't actually been ticketed in... oh, I guess it's been about 7 or 8 years, now...

I'll never have the pure joy of racing up First Mountain in my '92 LC. It simply can't do it. It just wasn't built to race like that.




But, do you think I characterized the "LC vs Sequoia issue" fairly well?

The Sequoia's a fine beastie for it's job; It's just not a LC. The Seq just wasn't meant to go seriously off-roading the way LCs were. It's fine and fab for urban/suburban drivers.
 
92LC_good2go said:
But, do you think I characterized the "LC vs Sequoia issue" fairly well?


Yeah, I already said so. They way I look at it, and explained to my wife, is the engineering design principles are different.

The Land Cruiser is designed foremost for durability and reliability worldwide, operating in the harshest environments available. In short, it's built to cross Africa without stranding you.

The Sequoia was designed to be marketed in the U.S. and be comfortable, fast, and have huge cargo space and all the little conveniences of modern life. It's the ultimate long distance family hauler. Our 2005 will happily cruise at 95mph all day and you'll arrive well rested as well as early, and the kids will be happy because they just watched a bunch of movies on the DVD system. It's great for what it is, the best choice out there for its purpose, but it's no Land Cruiser...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom