Here we go again. Comparing a 4Runner to a 100? No comparison. A TOY vs a CRUISER. A V8 doesn't mean they compare and they do not.
98-99 Lc?
- Thread starter lurker
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
ShottsUZJ100 said:
Got to agree
more bang for the buck with the 4runner. The runner is faster, gets better MPG and based on how it's equipped it can have as much luxury as the LC. Plus it comes with all of the latest traction control equipment. Now if you are talking "off road" then I would get a 98-99 LC with over 100K miles on it for around $15-17K and it would make a great trail rig. Unless you have more money then brains no one takes a late model LC or new 4runner off road too rock crawl. Just because the LC cost $60K+ does not mean its a good deal. It has not kept up with the market. It's a 98 design with some traction control improvements and some other electronic upgrades. It needs a design upgrade along with a bigger engine with 300+ hp to demand anything near $60K+. We are talking apples and oranges but the apples are "NEW" and the oranges are "OLD" and getting mushy. 
Pit! Haven't seen you around much lately. Made it to Springfield last weekend to go Infiniti shopping.
Have to agree with you. Bang for the buck, I'd go with the 4-skinner. No doubt the 100 is better but is it $30k better?
Have to agree with you. Bang for the buck, I'd go with the 4-skinner. No doubt the 100 is better but is it $30k better?
Man, some of you guys must be easy to please? If that's the case why are you in the 100 forum? 
Pitbull: "more bang for the buck with the 4runner?" Depends whats important. If I was in a Pathfinder and Explerer Forum I'd agree. Comparing to a 100, but sorry, it doesn't.
"The runner is faster, gets better MPG"? So what? So does a Durango and neither compare to a Cruiser. WAKE UP!
"on how it's equipped it can have as much luxury as the LC."? You are fairy tale land!
"Plus it comes with all of the latest traction control equipment.? So what. It's dialed in about as badly as the Sequioa requiring too much wheelspin to engage. LEARN the vehicle before you make these statements?
"talking "off road" then I would get a 98-99 LC"? Again, speak after experience Pitbull. Overall the 2000+ models are better off-road (though not by much...and it does depend on conditions....I say overall.) If you add ARB locker(s) then 2000+ destroy a 98-99.
"Unless you have more money then brains no one takes a late model LC or new 4runner off road too rock crawl."? My god, you really don't know anything about these vehicles do you? No Cruiser "except a 40" really can "rock crawl". They're too big! My 100 drops off 4-foot ledges (like on the other post quite well....LX470 upgrades) and makes easy work of 4-rated trails though.
" Just because the LC cost $60K+ does not mean its a good deal. It has not kept up with the market. It's a 98 design with some traction control improvements and some other electronic upgrades. It needs a design upgrade along with a bigger engine with 300+ hp to demand anything near $60K+. We are talking apples and oranges but the apples are "NEW" and the oranges are "OLD" and getting mushy."? To somebody like you Pitbull maybe. My truck doesn't need more power, my truck doesn't need any feature upgrades, my truck doesn't take second place to ANY other SUV in it's class overall. No, my truck will be selected first in a side-by-side with ANY 4Runner. It's a Cruiser and that's my point. Go talk on the middle-ground SUV forums against Durango's, and Explorers, and the like. I'll agree with you 100-percent. If you don't have the money for a Cruiser, quit trying to lower it's quality and reputation to the 4Runner level.
Pitbull: "more bang for the buck with the 4runner?" Depends whats important. If I was in a Pathfinder and Explerer Forum I'd agree. Comparing to a 100, but sorry, it doesn't.
"The runner is faster, gets better MPG"? So what? So does a Durango and neither compare to a Cruiser. WAKE UP!
"on how it's equipped it can have as much luxury as the LC."? You are fairy tale land!
"Plus it comes with all of the latest traction control equipment.? So what. It's dialed in about as badly as the Sequioa requiring too much wheelspin to engage. LEARN the vehicle before you make these statements?
"talking "off road" then I would get a 98-99 LC"? Again, speak after experience Pitbull. Overall the 2000+ models are better off-road (though not by much...and it does depend on conditions....I say overall.) If you add ARB locker(s) then 2000+ destroy a 98-99.
"Unless you have more money then brains no one takes a late model LC or new 4runner off road too rock crawl."? My god, you really don't know anything about these vehicles do you? No Cruiser "except a 40" really can "rock crawl". They're too big! My 100 drops off 4-foot ledges (like on the other post quite well....LX470 upgrades) and makes easy work of 4-rated trails though.
" Just because the LC cost $60K+ does not mean its a good deal. It has not kept up with the market. It's a 98 design with some traction control improvements and some other electronic upgrades. It needs a design upgrade along with a bigger engine with 300+ hp to demand anything near $60K+. We are talking apples and oranges but the apples are "NEW" and the oranges are "OLD" and getting mushy."? To somebody like you Pitbull maybe. My truck doesn't need more power, my truck doesn't need any feature upgrades, my truck doesn't take second place to ANY other SUV in it's class overall. No, my truck will be selected first in a side-by-side with ANY 4Runner. It's a Cruiser and that's my point. Go talk on the middle-ground SUV forums against Durango's, and Explorers, and the like. I'll agree with you 100-percent. If you don't have the money for a Cruiser, quit trying to lower it's quality and reputation to the 4Runner level.
I thought I'd chime in before Shotts for a change of pace but damn he's quick!!! I think that Pitbull grossly shortchanged the 98-00 LX in the value department. I think the fact that the design is grossly unchanged is b/c it is a conservative, nice looking, more timeless design; much like the design before it for the 80. It is easily recognizeable and is not brash or intrusive like many of todays harsh angular design elements; for instance goofy trapezoidal wheel wells that require 3" of lift just for 33" tires. I would say in the apples vs. oranges line of comparison, curves always outlast harsh lines as being more tasteful, more functional and age way better. Look at identical model year Tacoma vs. Colorado; an outgoing toyota design that has been around a long time and even in it's last year looks better than recently introduced competition. The same goes for the LC, the design has been around for a long time and still looks better than the comptetion. The new 4Runner looks decent but can't hold a candle to the previous styling's flow nor well-aging styiling. Those that disagree are still in the minority but at least it is growing on most by now. 
The fact that they were introduced with the hideous Chevy Avalanche reminiscent gray fender flares shows the depth of thought that was put into that styling. I see no reason whatsoever to go and buy a new 4runner that mimics the latest grand cherokee when a 98-00 LX can go as well off road easily; cruise down the highway quieter; cruise down the highway smoother; cruise down the highway with either more gear or more people who are more comfortable; and cruise down the highway for HALF THE PRICE. That is the definition of bang for the buck. Wait did I say half? I meant less than half if you want a new 4runner optioned anywhere close to an LX.
The vehicles are in different size segments and different luxury segments. If you think the 4Runner is better b/c of newer design and platform than the LX fine; then the GX is obviously superior to that with more options, same prowess and better manners. All with obvious Lexus craftsmanship in the interior and external fit and finish. This will be an awesome bang for the buck vehicle in a few years.
The fact that they were introduced with the hideous Chevy Avalanche reminiscent gray fender flares shows the depth of thought that was put into that styling. I see no reason whatsoever to go and buy a new 4runner that mimics the latest grand cherokee when a 98-00 LX can go as well off road easily; cruise down the highway quieter; cruise down the highway smoother; cruise down the highway with either more gear or more people who are more comfortable; and cruise down the highway for HALF THE PRICE. That is the definition of bang for the buck. Wait did I say half? I meant less than half if you want a new 4runner optioned anywhere close to an LX.The vehicles are in different size segments and different luxury segments. If you think the 4Runner is better b/c of newer design and platform than the LX fine; then the GX is obviously superior to that with more options, same prowess and better manners. All with obvious Lexus craftsmanship in the interior and external fit and finish. This will be an awesome bang for the buck vehicle in a few years.
MY GOD TAD! WAS THAT WELL SAID. I'M BOWING IN RESPECT FOR YOUR WRITING.
Different segments exactly! Speaking of segments and what is best for whom.......let's take a Sequoia for a moment. I'll be the first to admit it's the best "buy" over a 100 or LX for 95 percent of the people. It's bigger, more powerful (well...now it is), extremely nice inside, runs and rides very quiet, has all the features, it's a Toyota, AND, it sells for $15-20 less. Sure, that's the common sense buy. What it's not though is what a Cruiser and LX are. Structurely far more solid, more reliable, a true off-roader, even more luxurious, and on, and on.
I don't put down Seq, 4Run, Rover's, Jeeps, or any vehicle. We all have different wants and needs. Yesterday I ran difficult trails with friends in Rovers. They were in AWE over my 100. I dwarfed them all in capability, comfort and reliability. Did I mention it to them? NO! And besides, their rigs were still VERY capable too. If I had, I'd a made an xSS of myself. But to have 4Runner, Explorer, a Discovery owner compare their vehicle to a 100 overall....I say they make an xSS of themselve. Range Rover and 100 is more like it. Get it Pitbull (and others)?
Different segments exactly! Speaking of segments and what is best for whom.......let's take a Sequoia for a moment. I'll be the first to admit it's the best "buy" over a 100 or LX for 95 percent of the people. It's bigger, more powerful (well...now it is), extremely nice inside, runs and rides very quiet, has all the features, it's a Toyota, AND, it sells for $15-20 less. Sure, that's the common sense buy. What it's not though is what a Cruiser and LX are. Structurely far more solid, more reliable, a true off-roader, even more luxurious, and on, and on.
I don't put down Seq, 4Run, Rover's, Jeeps, or any vehicle. We all have different wants and needs. Yesterday I ran difficult trails with friends in Rovers. They were in AWE over my 100. I dwarfed them all in capability, comfort and reliability. Did I mention it to them? NO! And besides, their rigs were still VERY capable too. If I had, I'd a made an xSS of myself. But to have 4Runner, Explorer, a Discovery owner compare their vehicle to a 100 overall....I say they make an xSS of themselve. Range Rover and 100 is more like it. Get it Pitbull (and others)?
Man you guys protest way too much. You would think I was talking about your wife or kids Like I said, apples vs oranges. I could of bought another LC and I may buy another in a couple of years. They are the best SUV out there. But they are not the best bang for the buck. I still love you guys even though you don't like my ride.
Like I said, apples vs oranges. I could of bought another LC and I may buy another in a couple of years. They are the best SUV out there. But they are not the best bang for the buck. I still love you guys even though you don't like my ride.
Who's protesting? Your the 4runner owner on the 100 board 
I like your ride Pit; hell I've owned 3 4runners, an 86 turbo, 87na, and a 92. I just didn't want to sit idly by while someone is pitbull-headed repeatedly infering the superiority of there very different and thus incomparable vehicle while ignoring the parameters of the thread. It's a good vehicle, and new vs. new does have better bang for the buck in any category; but used vs. new an 04 or even an 03 can't hold a candle when its 38k vs 15k new vs used. I just think that ya lost sight of the fact it is a new vs used comparo in this thread. In conclusion, I agree in a new vs new thread the 4runner is great bang for the buck; I don't bring that same argument up about a tacoma but thats not a direct comparison either right? I wouldn't dare come to the 4ROC boards and say that because it doesn't equate fairly and its a bit rude.
I like your ride Pit; hell I've owned 3 4runners, an 86 turbo, 87na, and a 92. I just didn't want to sit idly by while someone is pitbull-headed repeatedly infering the superiority of there very different and thus incomparable vehicle while ignoring the parameters of the thread. It's a good vehicle, and new vs. new does have better bang for the buck in any category; but used vs. new an 04 or even an 03 can't hold a candle when its 38k vs 15k new vs used. I just think that ya lost sight of the fact it is a new vs used comparo in this thread. In conclusion, I agree in a new vs new thread the 4runner is great bang for the buck; I don't bring that same argument up about a tacoma but thats not a direct comparison either right? I wouldn't dare come to the 4ROC boards and say that because it doesn't equate fairly and its a bit rude.Same here Tad. Well said.
On a side note for these 4Runner owners: If it was my style, gimme the smallest Toyota SUV I can buy......with the V8 and S/C, stick some big meats on it and tear up Road Rockets from the red lights. Hmmm, take me back 10-15 years and maybe.........??????????
On a side note for these 4Runner owners: If it was my style, gimme the smallest Toyota SUV I can buy......with the V8 and S/C, stick some big meats on it and tear up Road Rockets from the red lights. Hmmm, take me back 10-15 years and maybe.........??????????
Your right it gets down to what you want the vehicle for and what you are comparing. When I looked at new 4runners and used LC/LX's it was the same price for my New 2004 4runner SE AWD V8 as it was for model year 2000 LX470's with 60-70K miles on them or a 2000 LC with 50-60K miles. You know how I picked. If I could of found a used LC with less than 40K miles on it I would of picked the LC. Like I said next time I might pick a LC/LX if the price is right. Hope I don't have to pick some kind of hybrid 
First let me repeat what I said before,
"To be honest though if someone is looking for a LC, get an LC. The 4Runner is great, love it, wouldn't trade it for anything.
But I cringe a bit when you throw that in there as an alternative to a 100- the 4Runner is a great $30-40K suv, the best on offer imo. The 100 is a $50-60K ingot. I would call the 4Runner a "value-intense" alternative."
People looking at a 4Runner are NOT looking at 100's. I got my 4Runner new. New means many things to me and there is great value in a new Toyota product for me. That is not to say a used vehicle is bad or anything. For my criteria, it worked out.
I agree the 80 is a beautiful design but at intro it was not conservative nor considered "timeless". It is as Toyota always makes their products, they don't change their philosophy (unlike Honda). Whether it's the 80, 4Runner, or Prado.
The 4Runner owes it's design cues to the original 4Runner. To the dismay of many designers, anything different is always met with resistance. However, I happen to like the fact Toyota looked to do something different with the 4Runner. The design doesn't affect tire clearance any more than a GX. You would have to do the same modifications to run 33's or 35's on both vehicles.
In general curves don't outlast harsh lines, function any better or age better. That is just a wrong generalization. I think any 45 or 60 owner would agree with me.
Well I am not going to slam anyone for disliking current styling trends. As for aging well, that is something that cannot be determined until...it ages.
Yes, they are all designed for different segments. The GX and 4Runner are mechanical twins (actually the 4Runner has more in common with the LC Prado than GX) and they have the same build quality. The GX obviously uses higher grade materials for it's market and a used GX is going to be a sweet buy- but then all luxury models are better buys used because of the depreciation, but then everyone knows that.
"To be honest though if someone is looking for a LC, get an LC. The 4Runner is great, love it, wouldn't trade it for anything.
But I cringe a bit when you throw that in there as an alternative to a 100- the 4Runner is a great $30-40K suv, the best on offer imo. The 100 is a $50-60K ingot. I would call the 4Runner a "value-intense" alternative."
People looking at a 4Runner are NOT looking at 100's. I got my 4Runner new. New means many things to me and there is great value in a new Toyota product for me. That is not to say a used vehicle is bad or anything. For my criteria, it worked out.
tabraha said:
I agree the 80 is a beautiful design but at intro it was not conservative nor considered "timeless". It is as Toyota always makes their products, they don't change their philosophy (unlike Honda). Whether it's the 80, 4Runner, or Prado.
The 4Runner owes it's design cues to the original 4Runner. To the dismay of many designers, anything different is always met with resistance. However, I happen to like the fact Toyota looked to do something different with the 4Runner. The design doesn't affect tire clearance any more than a GX. You would have to do the same modifications to run 33's or 35's on both vehicles.
In general curves don't outlast harsh lines, function any better or age better. That is just a wrong generalization. I think any 45 or 60 owner would agree with me.
tabraha said:The new 4Runner looks decent but can't hold a candle to the previous styling's flow nor well-aging styiling. Those that disagree are still in the minority but at least it is growing on most by now.
Well I am not going to slam anyone for disliking current styling trends. As for aging well, that is something that cannot be determined until...it ages.
tabraha said:The vehicles are in different size segments and different luxury segments. If you think the 4Runner is better b/c of newer design and platform than the LX fine; then the GX is obviously superior to that with more options, same prowess and better manners. All with obvious Lexus craftsmanship in the interior and external fit and finish. This will be an awesome bang for the buck vehicle in a few years.
Yes, they are all designed for different segments. The GX and 4Runner are mechanical twins (actually the 4Runner has more in common with the LC Prado than GX) and they have the same build quality. The GX obviously uses higher grade materials for it's market and a used GX is going to be a sweet buy- but then all luxury models are better buys used because of the depreciation, but then everyone knows that.
- Thread starter
- #36
Even thou I started this post about a 98 vs 99, some people have used the word "distroy" when mentioning an 2000 model, yet they just initially glossed over these points, why?
Value speaking I can pick up a 2000 for a little more $ than a 99, but I'm still in the dark why it will distroy a 99? Not beat, not wax, but distroy?
Can anyone elaborate exactly why, with a bit more info than a list of e.g. anti-skid?
Value speaking I can pick up a 2000 for a little more $ than a 99, but I'm still in the dark why it will distroy a 99? Not beat, not wax, but distroy?
Can anyone elaborate exactly why, with a bit more info than a list of e.g. anti-skid?
Destroy? No, not destroy. Have significant advantages? Yes. YES! Let me point some out:
98-99: Rear Locker advantage. Depending on the type of obstacle (off road) the rear locker will be adequate for most situations. Keeps wheel spin down, is stable, is a great asset off road. The 98 and 99 was rated unsafe in testing by Cons Rept's because they tipped on two wheels in abrupt situations.
2000+: Rear locker was deleted, ActiveTrac and ASC came in it's place. The following improvements came with it:
1. The Cruiser no longer tipped on 2 wheels as the ActiveTrac maintained control. For the first time the 100 was a "recommended vehicle" by Cons Rpts.
2. In slippery conditions like rain, snow, and ice, the electronic technology offered amazing drivability improvements (as others have agreed in this forum). Instead of slipping and sliding and not moving, the system works amazingly well to offers the most "normal" possible ride....and it works. You have to experience it to believe it. Even in the rain, should you corner too quickly the system kicks in and straightens you right out..and all on it's own!
3. On dirt roads, washboard and non-washboard.....if you go too fast around a turn the system does the same. If the rear end goes, it comes RIGHT back keeping you from nailing the ditch.
4. Off-road....IMO it's a trade off as to which is best....rear locker of ActiveTrac. In every traction-controlled rig I've seen on the trail BESIDES the 100, I'd take the rear locker. With the 100 it depends on the obstacle type. Before adding lockers to my 2001 I ran 3-4 rated trails behind locked 80's and was never stuck. Occasionaly I would hesitate while the system was working though it carried me through it all. I say it's a wash. This is why I highly recommend a 2000+ model for almost EVERY application.
NOW, HERE'S THE KICKER:
With a 98 and 99 you can't add the ActiveTrac/ASC to gain those strengths offered above.
With a 2000+, you have those advantages, AND.....IF you wheel even more difficult trails you can add a locker or lockers! Then you have the best of BOTH...no....ALL worlds and you gain stronger diffs.
Lastly: In the BAD stuff, it's always a concern about locking the front diff while wheeling. Not only can you bust things but you can't turn well. With as tight as the ActiveTrac system is I almost never lock the front. You lock the rear and ActiveTrac still works up front moving power to the wheel with traction. PLUS....you have full turning capability while it's providing you that added traction. You can't have that with a locked front.
If I had to go back.....I THINK I'd give up my lockers (heck didn't have them the first 70K miles) but I'd never give up the ActiveTrac/ASC. That's the great thing though. I don't really have to make that choice in a 2000+.
Hope this helps? Come on though, you gotta luv the wars? HEE HEE. Look what we all learn about the different vehicle types? Hey, we owe YOU for starting the tread. Kidding of course! J
98-99: Rear Locker advantage. Depending on the type of obstacle (off road) the rear locker will be adequate for most situations. Keeps wheel spin down, is stable, is a great asset off road. The 98 and 99 was rated unsafe in testing by Cons Rept's because they tipped on two wheels in abrupt situations.
2000+: Rear locker was deleted, ActiveTrac and ASC came in it's place. The following improvements came with it:
1. The Cruiser no longer tipped on 2 wheels as the ActiveTrac maintained control. For the first time the 100 was a "recommended vehicle" by Cons Rpts.
2. In slippery conditions like rain, snow, and ice, the electronic technology offered amazing drivability improvements (as others have agreed in this forum). Instead of slipping and sliding and not moving, the system works amazingly well to offers the most "normal" possible ride....and it works. You have to experience it to believe it. Even in the rain, should you corner too quickly the system kicks in and straightens you right out..and all on it's own!
3. On dirt roads, washboard and non-washboard.....if you go too fast around a turn the system does the same. If the rear end goes, it comes RIGHT back keeping you from nailing the ditch.
4. Off-road....IMO it's a trade off as to which is best....rear locker of ActiveTrac. In every traction-controlled rig I've seen on the trail BESIDES the 100, I'd take the rear locker. With the 100 it depends on the obstacle type. Before adding lockers to my 2001 I ran 3-4 rated trails behind locked 80's and was never stuck. Occasionaly I would hesitate while the system was working though it carried me through it all. I say it's a wash. This is why I highly recommend a 2000+ model for almost EVERY application.
NOW, HERE'S THE KICKER:
With a 98 and 99 you can't add the ActiveTrac/ASC to gain those strengths offered above.
With a 2000+, you have those advantages, AND.....IF you wheel even more difficult trails you can add a locker or lockers! Then you have the best of BOTH...no....ALL worlds and you gain stronger diffs.
Lastly: In the BAD stuff, it's always a concern about locking the front diff while wheeling. Not only can you bust things but you can't turn well. With as tight as the ActiveTrac system is I almost never lock the front. You lock the rear and ActiveTrac still works up front moving power to the wheel with traction. PLUS....you have full turning capability while it's providing you that added traction. You can't have that with a locked front.
If I had to go back.....I THINK I'd give up my lockers (heck didn't have them the first 70K miles) but I'd never give up the ActiveTrac/ASC. That's the great thing though. I don't really have to make that choice in a 2000+.
Hope this helps? Come on though, you gotta luv the wars? HEE HEE. Look what we all learn about the different vehicle types? Hey, we owe YOU for starting the tread. Kidding of course! J
Which dude is Scott lurker?