2020 Toyota Land Cruiser vs. 2020 Lexus LX 570 Suspension Flex Test: A 200-Series Frame-Twist Battle (1 Viewer)

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

KDSS rocks. Except for SWB Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, i think LC200 KDSS has the most flex of any current production vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Same guy, just the video content for the Autoblog piece.

Yes, it was Dan Edmunds who authored the article and video.

Dan (suspensiontuna) is also the dude who did the original test too back in 2017. With what looks like the same ramp equipment. He's keenly aware of the masked capability that exists in a non-sport LX. If you watch with that in mind, you can really understand his shaded commentary.

He was with a different employer back with the earlier test and he's looking to rebuild the RTI score board under the new employer.

Knowing the Land Cruiser HE that was tested here, if we assume everything else to be the same, it puts up a nominally better score than the past 647 of the standard LC. 661 to 647 can very well be within the test noise as it's only a 2% difference (~1.5" further up the ramp). It could also be the bespoke HE suspension which is suspected to be slightly taller but softer, perhaps aiding in this test.

1590853265136.png
 
Last edited:
I’m still trying to figure out whether HE has a thinner rear sway bar.. though I’m not sure if it even impacts flex on account of KDSS.

Either way, good stuff.
 
Very interesting test. Could someone please tell me how this applies in the real world. I currently run a built 100 series and am looking at moving up. Living in Utah, most of my use is finding that "gatekeeper" obstacle that keeps most of the world away from good camping spots. No more Kane Creek Canyon type wheeling for me.
Thanks in advance.
 
I was curious how much more vertical distance the LC HE 661 score represents over the previous LC 645 score. Working geometry backwards on a 20* ramp. Knowing it went ~1.5" further up the ramp.

Some quick trigonometry says the HE was able to lift its front tire .5" further in the air while keeping all the other tires on the ground.

Applying to real world, the massive RTI scores of the 200-series speaks to why I believe it wasn't offered with a locker. It didn't need it. Didn't need it to meet the objective performance requirements of the design. Keeping all tires on the ground means more positive obstacle clearing traction. With ATRAC and CRAWL further augmenting its capability. I've seen this flex play out in my own off-roading with mixed other vehicles.

Of course, we're always looking for that next level performance.
 
I was curious how much more vertical distance the LC HE 661 score represents over the previous LC 645 score. Working geometry backwards on a 20* ramp. Knowing it went ~1.5" further up the ramp.

Some quick trigonometry says the HE was able to lift its front tire .5" further in the air while keeping all the other tires on the ground.

Applying to real world, the massive RTI scores of the 200-series speaks to why I believe it wasn't offered with a locker. It didn't need it. Didn't need it to meet the objective performance requirements of the design. Keeping all tires on the ground means more positive obstacle clearing traction. With ATRAC and CRAWL further augmenting its capability. I've seen this flex play out in my own off-roading with mixed other vehicles.

Of course, we're always looking for that next level performance.

LC100 (in USA) did not offer axle lockers either...and LC100 had significantly less flex than LC200.

I think that CRAWL and MTS are the main reasons why we don't have a strong need for axle lockers.

I don't think that Toyota views the big/heavy/wide/expensive LC100/200 as pure rock crawlers. Toyota views the narrower/cheaper/lighter weight 4runners/Tacoma as more accessible vehicles for your rock crawlers.

CRAWL and MTS are more than enough for 99.5% of LC uses.

Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
To be fair I don’t think toyota builds anything with rock crawling as a big priority.. it’s just that other good off road attributes allow it to some extent.
And the 100 was offered with a rear locker in the US for a couple years.
 
I don't believe for a second that Toyota considers 4Runner's and Tacoma's as rock crawlers. The latest ones have optional CRAWL and MTS as well. With available lockers.

Since I have all these scores compiled, some from Dan's older RTI board, for reference:

'18 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon JLUR (bar off): 724
Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon JLUR (bar off): 718
Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon JKUR (last gen, bar off): 687
Toyota Land Cruiser Heritage Edition: 661
'17 Toyota Land Cruiser: 647
'17 Lexus LX570: 645
Jeep Gladiator Rubicon (bar off): 607
'17 Ford Rapter Supercab: 603
Lexus LX570 Sport w/chin spoiler (AHC high): 588
'10 Toyota 4runner w/KDSS: 584
'17 Land Rover LR4: 560
Mercedes G63 AMG (last gen): 534
Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon JLUR (bar on): 523
Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon JKUR (last gen, bar off): 518
'17 Land Rover Discovery: 516
Toyota Tacoma TRD Pro: 492
Chevy Colorado ZR2: 489
'14 Toyota Tundra TRD Pro: 484
'17 Land Rover LR4 (high mode): 457
Jeep Gladiator Mojave: 476
Toyota Tacoma TRD Off-Road: 468
Jeep Gladiator Rubicon (bar on): 449
'15 Ford F150: 420
'14 Ram Power Wagon: 412
Chevy Colorado Z71 (air dam removed): 410
'17 Land Rover Discovery (high mode): 377
'17 Nissan Armada: 362
 
Last edited:
To be fair I don’t think toyota builds anything with rock crawling as a big priority.. it’s just that other good off road attributes allow it to some extent.
And the 100 was offered with a rear locker in the US for a couple years.

Was there a LC100 with ATRAC and rear locker at the same time? I think that in 2000, LC100 got ATRAC and no more rear locker. Thus, elimination of locker is due to ATRAC implementation, not due to suspension articulation.

LC200 lack of axle lockers is due to availability of CRAWL and MTS, not so much due to KDSS / AHC suspension flexing. I think that CRAWL really made axle lockers expendable.

What i meant to say above is that people who abuse the crap out of their vehicles.......are more likely those in 4runners/Tacomas than in LC because those vehicles are simply more agile on the trails, cheaper, and have a much larger off-road (?young/reckless?) crowd following. So, naturally, those vehicles will come with rear locker. But are they as durable, reliable, and well-designed as LC? No.

Don't quote me on this....but i read a long time ago that CRAWL on 4runners cannot function beyond 5-8 minutes of continuous use. The LC200 can function continuously for 15 minutes or so. Maybe that is why 4runners come with rear locker to supplement CRAWL???
 
Last edited:
Old with SFA. Doesn't have purported legendary chops when measured this way.

1590989567512.png
 
Old with SFA. Doesn't have purported legendary chops when measured this way.

View attachment 2326081

I wonder if the AMG model has stiffer springs and/or thicker anti-roll bars??

EDIT: not sure about the new G-wagen, but the previous model used ridiculously stiff anti-roll bars due to its narrow track and super tall box design. I guess that this was the compromise Mercedes made to keep the tall G-wagen from just flipping over or losing control around corners.

The new G-wagen is wider and has IFS...and supposedly has better suspension travel than the old model. So it will be interesting to see how the new model flexes.
 
Last edited:
Cool test! I'm wondering how a European spec 200 would do on this test - given I think in Europe the 200 has KDSS and AHC. I believe mine does. Any views on that? It is a pain getting parts for the European model - such as sliders, as while it is the LC, has the LX AHC system - weird. I bought some ARB, but they don't fit wit AHC given all the bits blocking access to the frame. Hopefully the Slee ones for LX will work - once I'm brave enough to pay for international shipping :-(
 
Was there a LC100 with ATRAC and rear locker at the same time? I think that in 2000, LC100 got ATRAC and no more rear locker. Thus, elimination of locker is due to ATRAC implementation, not due to suspension articulation.

LC200 lack of axle lockers is due to availability of CRAWL and MTS, not so much due to KDSS / AHC suspension flexing. I think that CRAWL really made axle lockers expendable.

What i meant to say above is that people who abuse the crap out of their vehicles.......are more likely those in 4runners/Tacomas than in LC because those vehicles are simply more agile on the trails, cheaper, and have a much larger off-road (?young/reckless?) crowd following. So, naturally, those vehicles will come with rear locker. But are they as durable, reliable, and well-designed as LC? No.

Don't quote me on this....but i read a long time ago that CRAWL on 4runners cannot function beyond 5-8 minutes of continuous use. The LC200 can function continuously for 15 minutes or so. Maybe that is why 4runners come with rear locker to supplement CRAWL???


Lockers appear to be available for the 200 series outside of the US based on a thread in the 200 section. At least the rear is available
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom