Isn't kdss a sway bar disconnect ? Or, is it much more than that ?? I've never bothered with the GX so it's foreign to me.
Events/Trails 2008 USA Land Cruiser Pics and Test Drive Impressions
- Thread starter ShottsUZJ100
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Isn't kdss a sway bar disconnect ? Or, is it much more than that ?? I've never bothered with the GX so it's foreign to me.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2007
- Threads
- 21
- Messages
- 522
I read in an Australian magazine that the chief engineer for the Land Cruiser wanted ulitmate reliabilty in the field and he want the Land Cruiser to be able to be fixed in the field in the event of a break down. The AHC is a bit of a gimmick, costly and from what I have read not all the reliable and very expensice to service and repair.
I think you need to reread my posts. I did not refer to load carrying in the 100 series and I did not compare AHC to ACE. One changes ride height, the other is an active swaybar system.
The AHC in the 100 allows it to ride higher offroad, reducing the number of occasions it drags it's front bumper, underbelly and rear bumper. How you can argue with this I do not know.
I was comparing KDSS to the discovery ACE. Both only affect the swaybars and neither affect ride height.
The suspension travel on the front of the 100 series is not limited by the torsionbars, it's limited by the geometry of the front arms. More articulation comes at the expense of CV and steering rack life.
The type of spring used (coil vs torsion bar) does not change the articulation available and the rear end of the 100 does not "sit up nice and high". It's sits level unless someone has monkeyed with the suspension.
Toyota has head cracking issues in the B series, L series and K series diesels which covers almost their entire light diesel production up till about 2003. There're still some excellent engines in those groups though and repairs are cheap due to the volumes required.
In the US they don't push the landcruiser brand on the 70 and 90 chassis, but out of Japan they were.
The official explation of big end failure is a bad batch of bearings, but it seems to be a recurring problem for some, possibly an oiling issue with the bearings being the official scapegoat. They seem to have solved it with the 1HD-FT and 1HD-FTE engines in the late 90's.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the L word, responsible for more damage to the british motor industries reputation than everything else combined.
L***s.
Just picked up the FJ62 from the stealership and had another look at the new 200...Definitely getting to like its "looks" more and more. Then I glance over at the new Sequoia parked right by it. Hmmm, the $16,000 I would save buying the Seq shure would pay for lots of mods, and other things for that matter. Is having those two words (land Cruiser) on the vehicle worth it to me ?? I know that comparing a LC to a Seq isn't quite like comparing oranges to apples, how about apples to pears !! Anyway, I really do have to say the Seq is a tempting alternative. At least to me it is. Here is another comparo..I could get an '06 CPO LX for pretty close to what a new Seq will cost. Now that might just turn the tables back towards the LC (LX actually) . Or, maybe I will keep what I have and shut up for a while !!! That would be the least expensive route, by far !!
I know what you mean. I was also at the dealer today getting an alignment done (after putting the lift in). They had a Platinum Edition Sequoia sitting in the forecourt. I gotta say, it looks a lot better than the old Sequoia. Dare I say it, I think it may even give the 200 a run for its money in the looks department. I didn't realize they went to four-wheel independent suspension on it.
Toyota has head cracking issues in the B series, L series and K series diesels which covers almost their entire light diesel production up till about 2003. There're still some excellent engines in those groups though and repairs are cheap due to the volumes required.
In the US they don't push the landcruiser brand on the 70 and 90 chassis, but out of Japan they were.
The official explation of big end failure is a bad batch of bearings, but it seems to be a recurring problem for some, possibly an oiling issue with the bearings being the official scapegoat. They seem to have solved it with the 1HD-FT and 1HD-FTE engines in the late 90's.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the L word, responsible for more damage to the british motor industries reputation than everything else combined.
L***s.
As I said, I discounted the L and K series used in the Prado. None of those engines were used in a proper Land Cruiser...
The last 3B intended for a Land Cruiser rolled off the line in 1990, probably in a BJ70. Unfortunately it wasn't headed to the U.S. because we don't get anything really cool here...What you say about oiling in the 12-valve 1HDT may be true. I haven't heard about this myself, but I don't doubt that it could be a legitimate issue.
Haha, OK, ...LUCAS... There, I said it...
Once BMW took over (and then Ford) did they go to Bosch or something? I'm genuinely interested in this because, as I said, I actually do like the marque and hope they can keep improving the breed. Forces other makers to get off their laurels and gives all of us more, and better, choices in the marketplace.
Isn't kdss a sway bar disconnect ? Or, is it much more than that ?? I've never bothered with the GX so it's foreign to me.
Sort of, but not exactly. How's that for a focused answer?
Here's their website:Kinetic Suspension Technology
Many, many thanks !! Will there be a quiz on all of this later ??
Haha, OK, ...LUCAS... There, I said it...
We'll have shout you a flight to japan and a screwdriver so you can prise the landcruiser plates from all the prados.
Yes I believe Bosch was the new engine management solution, but I don't know exactly what date you can find the changeover. The engines changed from having a plenum cover to having an inertia charged intake manifold. Thor I believe was the name of the new ones.
Honda also exerted their influence, you'll find instruments and indicator stalks from a 95 Accord in the dash of a 94 range rover classic.
I drive a diesel so it hasn't worried me much. But temp and fuel gauges which didn't follow each other would be nice.
The KDSS sounds like a cross between hydraulicly damped disconnects and hydraulic forced articulation, allowing full travel in slow movements but reacting to fast weight shifts and body roll like a swaybar should.
The 200 diesel I drove was much sharper handling than the 100 series diesels I have driven before.
You weren't comparing them you said
"KDSS is a toyota copy of the active swaybars"
This is not correct and they don't work the same way, regardless of your attempts to cherry pick quotes AGAIN.
How exactly did this thread go from "driving impressions of the 200" to where we are now? Oh, I remember, some smart assed newbie pulled up a random 8 week old post of mine to stir the pot by making a pointless, irrelevant (to this thread at least) stab at how LR's have horrendous resale values. Funny thing is, we haven't heard from that wanker 
flipoff2 in some time now.. Before that, if I can remember that far back, the topic of discussion was about diesels, I think !! Now we are picking apart 4x4 systems in LR's and Toy's. Kind of reminds me of that reoccurring dream where you are running from somebody but you never seem to get anywhere, no matter how hard you try ..
Is it just me or have we not heard from Shotts lately ???
flipoff2 in some time now.. Before that, if I can remember that far back, the topic of discussion was about diesels, I think !! Now we are picking apart 4x4 systems in LR's and Toy's. Kind of reminds me of that reoccurring dream where you are running from somebody but you never seem to get anywhere, no matter how hard you try ..Is it just me or have we not heard from Shotts lately ???
- Thread starter
- #274
Same thing was said about the 80-series.
Then, the same thing was said about the 100-series.
Now, it's being said about the URJ200.
- Thread starter
- #275
By the way....despite the URJ200's added front travel, the RTI score is down compared to a stock 100. This must be due to less rear travel on the URJ vs UZJ.
2008: 540 RTI
1998-2007: 563 RTI
2008: 540 RTI
1998-2007: 563 RTI
- Thread starter
- #276
No, I learned something a few posts ago, you just keep confirming it.
How exactly did this thread go from "driving impressions of the 200" to where we are now? Oh, I remember, some smart assed newbie pulled up a random 8 week old post of mine to stir the pot by making a pointless, irrelevant (to this thread at least) stab at how LR's have horrendous resale values. Funny thing is, we haven't heard from that wanker
Is it just me or have we not heard from Shotts lately ???
Thus the reason I abandoned this thread a while ago