A word on weight, angles, frame, and Low gearing (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter 4WD Toyota Owner Magazine
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
We're just old school, Shotts... that's why we don't like buttons. 
We're just old school, Shotts... that's why we don't like buttons.
That's A-OK with me. To discount or discredit an entire series/vehicle because of a button is rediculous though.
Man, this board is funny sometimes
. The push-button 4wd is just one thing that I don't like, but the vehicle is great overall. I really like this new series, but there are some aspects that I wish were at least optional. Similarly, I love my 62, I just wish they had retained some aspects of the 60, i.e. not changed things that didn't need to be changed or didn't add any utility.
A button has to connect to a component(vacuum, hydraulics, whatever) to then engage 4wd. So the cost is 2 components more complexity and more heavy, and the benefit is you are spared from making a 4 inch movement with your hand? It's true these are just old-school preferences like roll-up windows, manual transmission, no AC etc, etc...
Empirically speaking each Land Cruiser generation is tougher and more capable than the last and I'm sure this one will be the same.
. The push-button 4wd is just one thing that I don't like, but the vehicle is great overall. I really like this new series, but there are some aspects that I wish were at least optional. Similarly, I love my 62, I just wish they had retained some aspects of the 60, i.e. not changed things that didn't need to be changed or didn't add any utility.A button has to connect to a component(vacuum, hydraulics, whatever) to then engage 4wd. So the cost is 2 components more complexity and more heavy, and the benefit is you are spared from making a 4 inch movement with your hand? It's true these are just old-school preferences like roll-up windows, manual transmission, no AC etc, etc...
Empirically speaking each Land Cruiser generation is tougher and more capable than the last and I'm sure this one will be the same.
Man, this board is funny sometimes
A button has to connect to a component(vacuum, hydraulics, whatever) to then engage 4wd. So the cost is 2 components more complexity and more heavy, and the benefit is you are spared from making a 4 inch movement with your hand? It's true these are just old-school preferences like roll-up windows, manual transmission, no AC etc, etc...
Empirically speaking each Land Cruiser generation is tougher and more capable than the last and I'm sure this one will be the same.
I wish the new ones still had the old rotary switch to the left of the steering wheel. It said RR and FR. What was that for?
I wish the new ones still had the old rotary switch to the left of the steering wheel. It said RR and FR. What was that for?
I prefer the levers by the center console!
DCM36- cable diff locks I guess?
The manual lever is much better than solenoid activated switch. The GX470 is one-up on this for sure. There is a reason they kept it on the 'rough n tough' FJCruiser. The FJC is the wheeler in the product lineup, not the LC. But the switch isn't too problematic- slow to engage sometimes and possibly not at all (if you go by problems encountered by 4R's w/ the switch) albeit a small minority of owners.
The only advantage the switch has is freeing up dash space and the sense of refinement- something the LC now shares with the 4Runner.
Brian4x4, interesting stats on payload!
The manual lever is much better than solenoid activated switch. The GX470 is one-up on this for sure. There is a reason they kept it on the 'rough n tough' FJCruiser. The FJC is the wheeler in the product lineup, not the LC. But the switch isn't too problematic- slow to engage sometimes and possibly not at all (if you go by problems encountered by 4R's w/ the switch) albeit a small minority of owners.
The only advantage the switch has is freeing up dash space and the sense of refinement- something the LC now shares with the 4Runner.
Brian4x4, interesting stats on payload!
Every generation people want to talk about how huge the new vehicles are. I have found they are amazingly similar in size whenever I park next to another model. Frankly, some of the built 80's I've seen seem huge next to my little 100 series
Here are some interesting dimensions:
Tacoma (double cab, short bed, 4x4, automatic)
wheelbase: 127.8"
length: 208.1"
width: 74.6"
height: 70.1"
curb weight: 4090
GVWR: 5450
Payload: 1360
FZJ80
wheelbase: 112.2"
length: 189.8"
width: 76.0"
height: 73.6"
UZJ100
wheelbase: 112.2"
length: 192.5"
width: 76.4"
height: 72.8"
UZJ200
wheelbase: 112.2"
length: 196.5"
width: 77.6"
height: 74.4"
Payload?
The 100 series and probably the 200 series are grossly undersprung from the factory. My 100 series is still undersprung with OME medium springs in the rear. This affects the "payload". From an engineering standpoint, the 100 and the 200 have progressively stronger frames so spring rates is really the major thing affecting the factory "payload" rating. The axles on all these wagons are also plenty strong to handle more payload.
Of course we all upgrade our payload with heavier duty aftermarket springs.
Basically, the whole discussion of payload is subjective at best, since nobody who has upgraded their springs really knows what their payload is. At least this is my thinking on the subject.
Here are some interesting dimensions:
Tacoma (double cab, short bed, 4x4, automatic)
wheelbase: 127.8"
length: 208.1"
width: 74.6"
height: 70.1"
curb weight: 4090
GVWR: 5450
Payload: 1360
FZJ80
wheelbase: 112.2"
length: 189.8"
width: 76.0"
height: 73.6"
UZJ100
wheelbase: 112.2"
length: 192.5"
width: 76.4"
height: 72.8"
UZJ200
wheelbase: 112.2"
length: 196.5"
width: 77.6"
height: 74.4"
Payload?
The 100 series and probably the 200 series are grossly undersprung from the factory. My 100 series is still undersprung with OME medium springs in the rear. This affects the "payload". From an engineering standpoint, the 100 and the 200 have progressively stronger frames so spring rates is really the major thing affecting the factory "payload" rating. The axles on all these wagons are also plenty strong to handle more payload.
Of course we all upgrade our payload with heavier duty aftermarket springs.
Basically, the whole discussion of payload is subjective at best, since nobody who has upgraded their springs really knows what their payload is. At least this is my thinking on the subject.
and the 80 wasn't? I have no idea all the factors that determine payload but they are were all equally soft sprung... it would be interesting to see if the LX470 w/ air rear is any different.
also, you know those numbers are just part of the story w/ dimensions. there is a big difference between a 80's width fender flare to fender flare than a 200 bodyflank to bodyflank being that wide. On the same wheelbase it is over half a foot longer.
Also, dimensionally, anyone will tell you that the 100 is much larger than the 80 because it is. Interior comfort, 2nd row, 3rd row are all much roomier and more comfy. the cargo area is noticably larger as well.
and in automotive talk, an inch in width or half a foot in length is a big change!
You are right that every gen is larger than the last but at some point, it's just not what you think it is. I think the FJC has given Toyota the freedom to make the LC more lux focused and cater to the demands of the "Escalade" mentality.
Also, in it's product lineup, it makes sense. It has to be larger, more powerful and have more...everything compared to the GX470 and the 100 series it is replacing...
