No.
98/99 Vs 97 80
- Thread starter landtoy80
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
No.
Kurt,
I can't answer your question, but I have felt very confident in my '98 LC. So far it is the best vehicle I ever had. The debate among Shotts, Mark and others is interesting to say the least.
To me, it is driver first. Almost all accidents are a result of driver error. It may be excessive speed, lack of situational awareness, or just plain stupidity combined with speed and lack of situational awareness.
Weather is also a factor too. Although too often the news gets it wrong. The accident was not due to ice, rain, poor visability or any other inclement conditions. The accident occured because the driver made a decision to go out and drive in those conditions. Everyone who lives or has lived in snow country gets this. Sometimes you have to go to work, sometimes you have to go the doctor. Sometimes it just doesn't look so bad. At any rate, tens of thousands of decisions to drive are being made in any given geograpic local at any given time, and all are being made by individuals with differing abilities and vehicle types.
I think the driving world would be a lot better if people acted lile aircraft pilots and made an honest assesment of both their skills and aircraft (vehicle) prior to mission. If every one did that we would all be a lot safer on the roads.
All the above gets back to two things. Shotts is right and so is Mark. A vehicle with VSC is like an aircraft with anti-icing capability. It lets the pilot/driver attempt more difficult missions. That's really it. Even with anti-icing a plane can come down if the accumulation is too great for the system. Just like a roll over can occur an a Crusier with ASC if the dynamics are such that it is beyond ASC to prevent it.
Knowing that, you simply change your driving habits/style to match vehicle performance and conditions. In Shotts case it has saved his tail more than once. If Mark or I (I have 98 LC) were driving in those same situations, we may have driven them differently with equally sucessful/safe results.
What is really dumb about cetain tests is that they take 10 different vehicles through an obstical course at the same speed and then rate them. Well reality says the Porche 911 is going to be solid compared to the Toyota Sienna Mini van. Bottome line is that most people adjust their driving lest they win a darwin award.
All that being said, give me the aircraft with de-icing and ballastic parachute over the stock Cessna 172 any day that I have an extra $25 to $50 thousand dollars. Until then, I won't fly into icing conditions and I'll continue to scan for good places to land if the prop should decide to stop spinning in front of a 20 year old Cessna.
Everyone drive accordingly.
rantin Rob out.
I can't answer your question, but I have felt very confident in my '98 LC. So far it is the best vehicle I ever had. The debate among Shotts, Mark and others is interesting to say the least.
To me, it is driver first. Almost all accidents are a result of driver error. It may be excessive speed, lack of situational awareness, or just plain stupidity combined with speed and lack of situational awareness.
Weather is also a factor too. Although too often the news gets it wrong. The accident was not due to ice, rain, poor visability or any other inclement conditions. The accident occured because the driver made a decision to go out and drive in those conditions. Everyone who lives or has lived in snow country gets this. Sometimes you have to go to work, sometimes you have to go the doctor. Sometimes it just doesn't look so bad. At any rate, tens of thousands of decisions to drive are being made in any given geograpic local at any given time, and all are being made by individuals with differing abilities and vehicle types.
I think the driving world would be a lot better if people acted lile aircraft pilots and made an honest assesment of both their skills and aircraft (vehicle) prior to mission. If every one did that we would all be a lot safer on the roads.
All the above gets back to two things. Shotts is right and so is Mark. A vehicle with VSC is like an aircraft with anti-icing capability. It lets the pilot/driver attempt more difficult missions. That's really it. Even with anti-icing a plane can come down if the accumulation is too great for the system. Just like a roll over can occur an a Crusier with ASC if the dynamics are such that it is beyond ASC to prevent it.
Knowing that, you simply change your driving habits/style to match vehicle performance and conditions. In Shotts case it has saved his tail more than once. If Mark or I (I have 98 LC) were driving in those same situations, we may have driven them differently with equally sucessful/safe results.
What is really dumb about cetain tests is that they take 10 different vehicles through an obstical course at the same speed and then rate them. Well reality says the Porche 911 is going to be solid compared to the Toyota Sienna Mini van. Bottome line is that most people adjust their driving lest they win a darwin award.
All that being said, give me the aircraft with de-icing and ballastic parachute over the stock Cessna 172 any day that I have an extra $25 to $50 thousand dollars. Until then, I won't fly into icing conditions and I'll continue to scan for good places to land if the prop should decide to stop spinning in front of a 20 year old Cessna.
Everyone drive accordingly.
rantin Rob out.
- Thread starter
- #63
There is a 97 LX450 and a 98 LC at dealer about 2.5 hrs away, I may just have to drive over there and check them out side by side. It would be cool if they had a 2000+ too.
It would be more cooler if the price of gas went to $6.50/gal, the price of SUV's would drop like a rock and then gas go back to $0.98/gal
It would be more cooler if the price of gas went to $6.50/gal, the price of SUV's would drop like a rock and then gas go back to $0.98/gal
I guess (1) impatiently tailgating, then (2) cutting WAY too closely in angrily passing, followed by (3) swerving in front of previously-tailgated vehicle and braking hard right in front of it "just to show that #&$@% slowpoke", falls into the "stupidity" category, right?
If I woke up one day and witnessed that on the road, I'd think I was stuck in a real-life "Twilight Zone" episode.
No, vehicle manufacturers build more safety systems to help reduce accidents caused by the people who are impatient incompetent fools. (80% of drivers in USA)
Side note, related to the aviation observations: Can you imagine what the air would be like if "The Flying Car" was actually mass-produced and put into the hands of the public driving population in the US? It would be mass carnage and destruction, in 3D, including stationary property and bystanders. The general public is so incompetent and foolhardy in driving road-bound vehicles that over 40,000 people die every year in vehicle accidents in the USA, but someone thinks it would be a good idea to give the public Flying Cars, to let them fly around in swarms in the air? (I always chuckle when I read a Popular Science or similar article touting The Flying Car concept. What are those people smoking?)
Do you happen to recall what tires were on the 99? Reason I ask, is that I've been quite impressed with how my 98 has handled the snow without the center or rear diff locked. I have never had any issues whatsoever getting started in the snow (not using the 2nd gear start either).
I had originally thought that with all the diffs open it might revert to a 3 ton one-wheel-drive paperweight, but it just hasn't been the case. Possibly the tires were more to blame for your experience?
rich
Matador98
SILVER Star
It can be done. NASA has two programs which have changed shape over the years, and I have designed PAVS (Personal Aerial Vehicles) to fit within them for NASA as a contractor over the years. They are the HITS (Highway in the Sky) program and the SATS (Small Aircraft Transportation System) program. The SATS program has transitioned over the years from focusing on flying cars, to generally trying to equip general aviation aircraft and VLJ (Very Light Jets) with the best and most innovative electronics, like collision avoidance, etc. It had to transition because the HITS program, which was specifically for flying cars, has pretty much been put on hold. NASA realized that the technology readiness was not what they anticipated in regards to autonomous flying cars. So ultimately, the goal with the "flying car", or more technically PAV, is to not allow the common asshat to fly. They tell the vehicle where they are going and it takes them there, as instructed by the HITS system. Basically, an automated air traffic control.
It will come. I'm not saying now, but it will. There are enough people out there with money doing it privately (trust me, I worked for one) that the technology will mature. I don't know what kind of form it will be, but it will come. The success of VLJ so far are heading in that direction.
You can equate TRAC and VSC systems to HITS. They are all there to take control from the idiot driver because people don't know how to drive, or fly.
Sorry for the off topic, I just had to say that I'm not smoking anything!
But on topic, I love my 99 and believe it is 99% dependent on the driver.
You wouldn't believe what a 2000+ can do in the snow and expecially ice. With VSC, the tracking and handling improvements are to the level where the driver needs little input or experience. My 80's are slop hounds on the ice. The lockers are near worthless. The 100 just seems to go where you point it. If things start to get squirrly....beep beep beep and you're back on track.
VSC/ESC, (Whatever) isn't becoming standard just because of idiot drivers. It's because it assists even the best dirvers in bad situations....moreso than without VSC and the same driver. I find it a priceless option.
Shotts, I 100% agree. Technology that helps idiots from hitting me without VSC is a good thing. Jokes aside, I think most here are on the same page:
1 Land Cruisers in general are safe, capable and reliable vehicles
2 Newer Cruisers are generally safer than older Cruisers
3 Future Cruisers are going to be safer still
4 Future Cruisers will not make existing Cruisers any less safe
5 Drive the Cruiser you got within its and drivers abilities and call it a good day
--
Rob
uHu
Bridgeburner
Incidentally, that's exactly what gas costs in Norway. (btw a major oil producing country)It would be more cooler if the price of gas went to $6.50/gal, the price of SUV's would drop like a rock and then gas go back to $0.98/gal
Luckily, most LC here are diesels.
OT drift continues a bit:
hehe...
Swarms of flying cars...in the air...
hehehe
...automatically flying themselves around with nary a glitch, controlled by a super automated air traffic control system, blanketing the entire airspace and operating without a hitch?
OK...gotcha.
Note that the severity of a minor hiccup in the flying car system or the air traffic control system would likely be very severe (think: flying cars crashing and burning) - unlike a minor hiccup in, say, the Engine Control Module on your LC, driving down the road. (Has anyone ever had a minor hiccup in a control system? Indeed.) Aircraft are fairly reliable - but that reliability is very expensive, which kinda rules out mass-market vehicles. (And aircraft are sparse in the airspace, not the scenario with swarms of flying cars.)
BTW, did anyone look at comparative fuel economy of flying cars, vs. road vehicles?
(Sorry...OT drift...)
Last edited:
Matador98
SILVER Star
Yes, flying cars can get up to 40mpg, turbine and/or diesel piston powered.
How do you think airplanes fly. The pilots tell the plane where they want it to go and the plane goes there. Same with landing, they can land themselves now, after given clearance. You'd have just as much fxxx up with a "glitch" as you would with an idiot ATC person not guiding planes on the ground or in the air correctly. So it probably wouldn't be any worse.
How do you think airplanes fly. The pilots tell the plane where they want it to go and the plane goes there. Same with landing, they can land themselves now, after given clearance. You'd have just as much fxxx up with a "glitch" as you would with an idiot ATC person not guiding planes on the ground or in the air correctly. So it probably wouldn't be any worse.
- Thread starter
- #72
Don't know what the tyres were but we didn't like the vehicle at all.
I almost bought a 98 last year, we liked that one.
I have no idea how someone buys a vehicle sight un seen (internet) without driving it first, heck I wouldn't even buy a new vheicle without driving it first.
I almost bought a 98 last year, we liked that one.
I have no idea how someone buys a vehicle sight un seen (internet) without driving it first, heck I wouldn't even buy a new vheicle without driving it first.
QUOTE
Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100
Good advice, though I'd believe it in this case. It was a Land Cruiser they tested and the photos don't lie. I'd not own or drive a 98-99 especially if lifted.
Gosh!!! 99's unsafe. I guess they ARE likely to roll over if you do something stupid. I recall when I had a 78 jeep CJ-7 and 60 Minutes did an article on how unsafe they were. I never knew how I survived 100K miles of hard highway and off road miles in that rig!!! And all that without all the expensive traction control. You kind of have to know when you've pushed something to it's limit.
Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100
Good advice, though I'd believe it in this case. It was a Land Cruiser they tested and the photos don't lie. I'd not own or drive a 98-99 especially if lifted.
Gosh!!! 99's unsafe. I guess they ARE likely to roll over if you do something stupid. I recall when I had a 78 jeep CJ-7 and 60 Minutes did an article on how unsafe they were. I never knew how I survived 100K miles of hard highway and off road miles in that rig!!! And all that without all the expensive traction control. You kind of have to know when you've pushed something to it's limit.
I'll trust Consumer Reports and NHTSA. CR's deemed the 98-99 Cruiser unsafe and I believe in the testing. I also believe had I had a 98-99 (or my 80) when I hit the dip on the dirt road (going to fast) we would have rolled over. 90% certain.
So I'm glad you can control 100% of your driving situations. I cannot. I'll demand VSC and pay extra for it.
I'm sure all that stuff is safer, but it encourages people to think they are infallible drivers. i recall a friend blaming his daughter's wreck on her car because it didn't have anti-lock brakes when the real truth was she was simply following too close.
Now, it seems Volvo, and maybe others, are designing something that brakes the car for you when you get too close to the car in front of you.
I prefer to do my own driving.
Now, it seems Volvo, and maybe others, are designing something that brakes the car for you when you get too close to the car in front of you.
I prefer to do my own driving.
Matador98
SILVER Star
You could have easily controlled the dip behind the steering wheel, for free, then you wouldn't have to worry about going too fast on a dirt road. What are you gonna do when you drive off a cliff 'cuz you were going too fast and didn't notice it, buy one of those flying cars?
