Thanks but not an option. J
200s off road pics
- Thread starter landcruisers4ever
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Put the 200 and 100 side by side in a comparo- the 200 will win in every respect except build quality (the 100 feels more solid to me, metal seems thicker, etc).
You can argue the 200 is away from the orig concept of the LC but if you look at the heritage, one can argue it falls right in line.
I am just stating the flipside. I don't necessarily think a 200 is 'better' but in some key aspects it is- coilover ifs, kdss,crawl, 5.7L,beefed up diffs..and look at that aftermarket already!
You can argue the 200 is away from the orig concept of the LC but if you look at the heritage, one can argue it falls right in line.
I am just stating the flipside. I don't necessarily think a 200 is 'better' but in some key aspects it is- coilover ifs, kdss,crawl, 5.7L,beefed up diffs..and look at that aftermarket already!
I find this comment interesting. I am not necessarily saying your assumption is incorrect, but have you compared the 200 and 100 side-by-side? Approach, Departure, Breakover, Width, Body Panel and bumper integrity and trail clearance, etc.
I will say the the swaybar disconnect system is revolutionary. It is the perfect solution and I hope that development trickles down to the 4Runner and Tacoma. It is the first "new" trail technology from an OEM in many years that I have found to be exceptional.
I've checked out a few 200's (LX showed up locally as well) and I like them. They are super nice but lack the uber-solid feel that the 80 & 100 have.
If I were building up the trucks, the 200 is a better platform for a luxury suv. It's got power, more capability & better suspension. I don't consider plastic bumpers the departure and approach angle. For actual wheeling, I think the 200 will easily win stock-vs-stock.
I do not feel the size (which is big, certainly) will affect the type of wheeling most 100 or 200 owners will do. If they do heavily mod & get into gnarly stuff, then any vehicle can get damage. That's just wheeling.
I'm not dogging the 100 either b/c it's a LC but you seem very slanted against the 200. Just like you dogged the 4th gen 4Runner before you did a long term test with it
I think they did their homework on the 200 but it is evident they did some costcutting and lacking a bit of the intangible. Maybe that's just a 'showroom' impression... but I certainly feel it is nice.
I can point to the tailgate storage- it's a great idea- however, I can't get over the feeling that in the 80 or 100, it would have been rated for 1000lbs of daily abuse whereas it seems to be pretty basic plastic doors.
edit- like i said, just the flipside. in honesty, i prefer the 100 b/c of cost-size-familiarity but then again, the GX w/ kdss is a super attractive proposition to me too.
If I were building up the trucks, the 200 is a better platform for a luxury suv. It's got power, more capability & better suspension. I don't consider plastic bumpers the departure and approach angle. For actual wheeling, I think the 200 will easily win stock-vs-stock.
I do not feel the size (which is big, certainly) will affect the type of wheeling most 100 or 200 owners will do. If they do heavily mod & get into gnarly stuff, then any vehicle can get damage. That's just wheeling.
I'm not dogging the 100 either b/c it's a LC but you seem very slanted against the 200. Just like you dogged the 4th gen 4Runner before you did a long term test with it
I think they did their homework on the 200 but it is evident they did some costcutting and lacking a bit of the intangible. Maybe that's just a 'showroom' impression... but I certainly feel it is nice.
I can point to the tailgate storage- it's a great idea- however, I can't get over the feeling that in the 80 or 100, it would have been rated for 1000lbs of daily abuse whereas it seems to be pretty basic plastic doors.
edit- like i said, just the flipside. in honesty, i prefer the 100 b/c of cost-size-familiarity but then again, the GX w/ kdss is a super attractive proposition to me too.
Check out this link for articulation:
LCOOL.org :: Log in
Good pick of 5 trucks going head to head. That KDSS makes a big difference.
I'm not dogging the 100 either b/c it's a LC but you seem very slanted against the 200. Just like you dogged the 4th gen 4Runner before you did a long term test with it
I hope it does not come across that way. Vehicles are a sum of their parts and result in some pretty measurable results. So far, the 200 has done well in all of our test scenarios, but no different than the 100. The 200 is more composed in heavy cross-axle terrain because of the swaybar system, it really is that good.
Ok... No more comments from me for now
I am going to go drive this thing to Sedona and try to keep the bumpers on... 
Pictures to come
It has been in the Lexus GX470 since 2004 as an option or part of the sport package. Unfortunately it is too expensive and intrusive to retrofit to the 4Runners/FJC with the same chassis as the GX.
It is defintiely a great system to have, what would be interesting to see is if it will hold back the vehicle with aftermarket suspension with longer travel shocks (especially the back).
The GX470 is a great truck. It is just as effective in that vehicle, but it does seam that the 200 is even more composed with it, most likely a reflection of the track width.
I hope the system is capable of downsizing and cost reduction to make it applicable for the FJ and 4Runner. An FJ with that technology would be very, very cool. Trail Team edition 2.0?
No it's not.
Unless you mean that you consider it a Land Cruiser. Which is fine, but it's not a Land Cruiser. It's a FJ Cruiser.
Well according to the people who build the FJ Cruiser -TOYOTA, it IS. As you can see from the official Toyota website, the FJ Cruiser sits right there beside the 100 in the Land Cruiser introductory timeline.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2007
- Threads
- 21
- Messages
- 522
Actually the FJ Cruiser is a FJ. Just like the 70, 80, 100 series. The 200 series actually is not an FJ, its classified a UR.
- Thread starter
- #55
Bingo!! no this would be a REAL FJ40 if Toyota decides to mass produce it,I would buy one!!TLC Icon Landcruiser - FJ40 Toyota Land Cruiser
Actually the Prado120, GX470 and 4Runner uses the exact same platform, the FJC uses a shorter version of the platform. They all have the exact same underpinnings, with slight variance to suspension setup for different purposes.
And last I checked Toyota called the Prado the Land Cruiser Prado. Just FYI.
So whether or not you like your elite club label, the FJC is build on a Land Cruiser platform, so is the 4Runner and GX470 for that matter.
Names are irrelevant to me, bit vehicle performance however is very relevant. Just thought that you should have all the info before making statements.
Similar to the 80/100/200 being Land Cruisers, not just the 40/60/70, etc.
The problem is that Toyota produces a line to make money, and currently regulation and customer demand forces them to make vehicles that are lower to the ground and with weaker angles stock than in the past. Yet how many people out there wheel their old 40/60/70/80/100 completely stock, and how many are modified? So it seems a lot of folks easily fall into the trap of comparing their modified older model rig to the completely stock new model.
If it were a Land Cruiser, it would be called a Land Cruiser. For example, regardless of what I might think, the 200 is a Land Cruiser, because that is what Toyota named it.
The FJ Cruiser is not called a Land Cruiser. It is not called a FJ Land Cruiser, or a Land Cruiser Sport, or a Land Cruiser Mini, or a Land Cruiser Junior, or a Land Cruiser Elite, or a Land Cruiser Short, or a Land Cruiser Basic, or a Land Cruiser 2, or anything like that.
Therefore, it is NOT a Land Cruiser.
QED
And, just so you'll know, in my family I have had a 55 series, an 80 series and a 100 series. I currently own only the 80 series. They are all Land Cruisers, because that is what Toyota calls them. Toyota could call a Corolla a Land Cruiser, and it would be a Land Cruiser. Wanting something very, very badly doesn't make it so.
If you are going to weigh in, the least you could do is have half a clue about what you're talking about.
Oh and FYI back: I'm not "comparing" anything. Don't put words in my mouth. Thanks.
No chance, and for the main reasons Scott pointed out.
Larger overall size and body overhangs
Inferior app, dep, and breakover and by a reasonble amount
Less ground clearance
Take them out and when the going gets tough and ground clearance is needed........the 200 takes the strap first, no doubt.