Anyone have both LC and LX 200s? Equally refined? (1 Viewer)

[OregonLC]

You mean replacing the stock shocks On LC? That’s pretty cheap. Do LC springs and KDSS go bad at 180k? There plenty of people here with high mileage LC still on original shocks.

There are also plenty of people here with high mileage LX's on all original parts.

Does 35 require sensor lift? If so, then will that make ride/handling worst? Does that put more pressure on AHC? Will that affect AHC component durability down the road?

Any mod can have collateral effects. That doesn't negate the benefits of the mod or make it comparatively better/worse than other mods. However, there are no 'Sensor Lifts Killed My Suspension' threads...

The arguments you make are all reasons why I purchased a Cruiser over the LX. In hindsight, I would have gone the other direction. And for three primary reasons: 1) Availability. Much easier to find a quality LX that is close vs LC simply because of volume sold. 2) Price. I had found that you could buy an similar year/miles LX for $3-5k less than an LC. Supply/demand and market perception drive this. 3) AHC. Having owned (and still own) an 100 LX I wasn't crazy about that system. From all I've read, the 200 LX is an order of magnitude better. And it saves a $3-5k suspension mod. It's a hard argument that an LC is a better truck when you can get a more quiet truck with a starting point that is $5-10k less (if you include the cost of suspension mods). True, you may have some baseline maintenance to do, depending upon age and miles. But for a moderate touring build the LX is a really good value in the market. Now if you're going to push the limits on trail usage and want to maximize travel then, yeah, a King 3.0 (or whatever) will get you that last mile of trail. But that's where we need to be careful on differentiating 'better'. If you look at the LCDC thread, most of those lean toward the touring side of the spectrum. And those boys covered a lot of cool trail. For that type of use, the LX scratches a lot of important itches.

 

[Madtiger]

There are also plenty of people here with high mileage LX's on all original parts.



Any mod can have collateral effects. That doesn't negate the benefits of the mod or make it comparatively better/worse than other mods. However, there are no 'Sensor Lifts Killed My Suspension' threads...

The arguments you make are all reasons why I purchased a Cruiser over the LX. In hindsight, I would have gone the other direction. And for three primary reasons: 1) Availability. Much easier to find a quality LX that is close vs LC simply because of volume sold. 2) Price. I had found that you could buy a similar year/miles LX for $3-5k less than an LC. Supply/demand and market perception drive this. 3) AHC. Having owned (and still own) an 100 LX I wasn't crazy about that system. From all I've read, the 200 LX is an order of magnitude better. And it saves a $3-5k suspension mod. It's a hard argument that an LC is a better truck when you can get a more quiet truck with a starting point that is $5-10k less (if you include the cost of suspension mods). True, you may have some baseline maintenance to do, depending upon age and miles. But for a moderate touring build the LX is a really good value in the market. Now if you're going to push the limits on trail usage and want to maximize travel then, yeah, a King 3.0 (or whatever) will get you that last mile of trail. But that's where we need to be careful on differentiating 'better'. If you look at the LCDC thread, most of those lean toward the touring side of the spectrum. And those boys covered a lot of cool trail. For that type of use, the LX scratches a lot of important itches.

TBH, and this is just MY view, IF i were to NEED 35” tires and clearance angles of a billygoat, then i would not use LC as a platform. I would get a Wrangler Rubicon or Ford thingy. I would get maybe a G-wagen, like i have done in past with my G500.

LC is heavy as hell. Wide as heck. And no axle lockers. CRAWL is great (i am a big fan) but is not a complete substitute for lockers.

I bought the LC because it was very capable, good travel companion on the road, and extremely durable/reliable. I have just added AT tires (in stock size) and sliders. The “stock” clearance is plenty good for mild-moderate trails as long as i watch my line and have good spotter(s). And this is where a stock LC is superior to LX.

I am considering maybe a 33” tire…265/70/18 Michelin LTX Trail. But i am doing as much reading as possible.

When you add 35”, then does that necessitate re-gearing? How does that affect reliability/durability? Not just AHC or LC’s shocks…but how about transmission? And this applies to both AHC sensor lift and Kings or whatever lift you install. When you do these things, there are collateral effects as you stated…and that kinda destroys the main reasons i bought LC. Wouldn’t it better to get a vehicle that can do 35” or have angles of a Rubicon/Bronco?

For me, neither Kings nor AHC sensor lift makes much sense. I get it. LC200 is overbuilt and great but you’re pushing the envelope quite a bit. And if you have the $$ and a 2nd (or 3rd) vehicle to drive your family in, then more power to you. My LC is my “weekend” car…but even then i want to preserve the very reasons why i bought it.

Just my 1 cent.

 

[TeCKis300]

There's not many enthusiast LCs that build without swapping the stock suspension. It's practically the first thing to upgrade

In contrast, there's many LX builds that retain AHC. Even for full up full armor builds, hauling, or heavy towing. It doesn't lose height and maximizes clearance even when loading for trips.

If one desires, could similarly rip it out.

Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the LX can spin slightly larger rubber stock due to the lack of the DS KDSS bracket? True, you can get the Slee relocation kit, but with a sensor lift I believe you can turn 35s on an LX with just some plastic trimming?

Yes, 35s can drop in with stock AHC without sensor lift and minor clearancing mods. Half the fun is taking AHC further for weight handling, height, and long travel articulation. While keeping all the drivability and goodness of an OEM developed suspension.

There's many LXs now that have taken this further, using AHC for 37s and 40s.

One great thing with larger and larger tires is the kneel function. A suspension lifted 200-series on big tires can get pretty tall. Getting in/out, loading, or accessing an RTT can help when the suspension can kneel. Also helps with fwy MPG, handling, and access to standard height garages.

 

[OregonLC]

Crawl and lockers are entirely different tools. ATRAC would be the comparison. And, to that point, I've had a triple-locked LC before and it really didn't buy me much. If anything it got in the way. The current ATRAC is a fantastic tool for trail use.

The re-gearing question would be the same LC vs LX. The point with the 35s is that the LX can give a lower barrier-to-entry point for someone going down that path.

 

[MrX]

Even though the Tundra shares a drivetrain, the experience is different. It doesn't have close to the level of refinement. Just shifting from forward to reverse sometimes solicits a lurch. Tuning is in the spectrum of truckish and doesn't have the level of refinement and butter. It's likely tuned differently as there's ECU mods and flash tunes available for that platform that doesn't carry over to the 200-series.

Yeah? I need to drive one. So just the engine and transmission don't feel as refined in a Tundra? V8 feels properly Lexus refined in LX, burly but refined. Like I said, almost like car makers used to put engines in that we'd actually want as if they knew we didn't want downsized crap thanks to CAFE. Goes for all cars.

 

[MrX]

Lol, it’s the same truck, made on the same assembly line. They make fantastic vehicles. The rest is all marketing. I do think that the LC has the heritage that speaks to the burley overlanding crowd while the LX is associated as a lux mall crawler driven by rich old ladies.

Lol see this just reiterates how we're all different with differing opinions, which is cool. To me personally, LX has every single bit of Land Cruiser cachet because it is one, PLUS flagship "L" level Lexus luxury which is very legit, as an owner I can tell you. LX is a rebadge but the most respectable one out there pretty much.

LX has PLENTY of heritage, though no, not like a LC. LC goes back to 1995. People off road them like crazy, that crowd. I off road mine way harder than I would anything else, but am barely scratching the surface capability wise of an LC/LX. Can't wait for Moab.

 

[Madtiger]

Lol see this just reiterates how we're all different with differing opinions, which is cool. To me personally, LX has every single bit of Land Cruiser cachet because it is one, PLUS flagship "L" level Lexus luxury which is very legit, as an owner I can tell you. LX is a rebadge but the most respectable one out there pretty much.

LX has PLENTY of heritage, though no, not like a LC. LC goes back to 1995. People off road them like crazy, that crowd. I off road mine way harder than I would anything else, but am barely scratching the surface capability wise of an LC/LX. Can't wait for Moab.

Didn’t Lexus LX450 come out in 1996? That’s plenty heritage IMO.

Personally, heritage is not why i bought LC over LX. I bought LC (new) over LX for other reasons.

 

[tacoduck]

Didn’t Lexus LX450 come out in 1996? That’s plenty heritage IMO.

Personally, heritage is not why i bought LC over LX. I bought LC (new) over LX for other reasons.

You don’t see Lexus’s in the bush in Africa and Australia. Just saying. People pay for the badge, and it’s reputation is well deserved.

 

[Redbull]

Some of the arguments in this thread make me think we’re discussing Ford vs Chevy not the same manufacturer platform that is the 200.

Theres a million dudes on here who are Landcruiser or nothing and that’s cool, but pointing out the LX has its merits doesnt denigrate the Landcruiser. For God’s sake they’re both Landcruisers.

some observations:

1. If AHC were available on the LC here, 99% of the criticism of AHC would be absent.
2. @TeCKis300 is the guy who reminds us the LX is also worthy and in some ways superior in this Landcruiser echo chamber.

I get excited about seeing any Landcruiser or LX. I take a pic of them every chance I get. I love this platform. Just because one works for you more than another doesn’t make the other inferior.

@tacoduck LX isn’t in the bush because all of the stuff it adds - for a significant premium mind you - which doesn’t give it any more utility.

 

[Madtiger]

1. If AHC were available on the LC here, 99% of the criticism of AHC would be absent.
2. @TeCKis300 is the guy who reminds us the LX is also worthy and in some ways superior in this Landcruiser echo chamber.

AHC is available here…in LX. There are many of us (including me) that bought a new LC instead of LX for various reasons. For me, one of the main reason is due to lack of AHC. Others may find that AHC is great. But for my purpose, AHC is a hindrance with minimal benefit.

I can appreciate Teckis300 profuse enthusiasm, but he needs to stick to facts and not exaggerations and fake news. When you equate LX handling to a coiled-over Porsche 911, i will call BS every single time. Wouldn’t you? I would call BS even if he compared it to a Camry!!

 

[TeCKis300]

2. @TeCKis300 is the guy who reminds us the LX is also worthy and in some ways superior in this Landcruiser echo chamber.

Thank you.

Any win for the LX has always been a win for the LC and vice versa. They are the same fine vehicle, with a bit of tailoring.

 

[TeCKis300]

I can appreciate Teckis300 profuse enthusiasm, but he needs to stick to facts and not exaggerations and fake news. When you equate LX handling to a coiled-over Porsche 911, i will call BS every single time. Wouldn’t you? I would call BS even if he compared it to a Camry!!

While you're too busy being mad.

The point is if I stuffed you in my Porsche 911, it'd be slower with the added weight. That wouldn't make it a bad handling car. Because handling is as much qualitative as it is quantitative.

The 200-series is a solid handling car, for its weight, size, and capability level, and that's what we're both saying. One doesn't take away from the other. For this type of vehicle, there are many cars that handle far worse.

 

[Madtiger]

While you're too busy being mad.

The point is if I stuffed you in my Porsche 911, it'd be slower with the added weight. That wouldn't make it a bad handling car. Because handling is as much qualitative as it is quantitative.

The 200-series is a solid handling car, for its weight, size, and capability level, and that's what we're both saying. One doesn't take away from the other. For this type of vehicle, there are many cars that handle far worse.

Stuff me? My BMI is under 25 thank you!

Your definition of solid handling is different from mine. I am not the expert driver like what you claim you are, but I do have past experience with good handling cars and have visited the track a few times…..and my LC is not at the top of any of my list as a driver’s car.

 

[MrX]

You don’t see Lexus’s in the bush in Africa and Australia. Just saying. People pay for the badge, and it’s reputation is well deserved.

Yes, you do see them lol.



Here the AHC is in all its glory, dealing with heavy activity/abuse. Some people act like AHC is this fragile thing that has to be babied, just change the fluid every 60-80k and it should last the life of the vehicle. This LX would do desert runs like that all day long, hell I wish I could go there with mine. Like I said I towed for the first time this weekend about 4500lbs, the AHC kept the ride pretty damn close to identical as unloaded....impressive, and clearly AHC is heavy duty.. AHC alone is worth the upgrade to me. The Lexus just looks bossy, but I totally get how LC appeal is to go under the radar.

 

[MrX]

The 200-series is a solid handling car, for its weight, size, and capability level, and that's what we're both saying. One doesn't take away from the other. For this type of vehicle, there are many cars that handle far worse.

Absolutely, let me quote a Motor Trend article.

That said, five of these dudes run our figure eight in the 27-second range. (The GL's the quickest at 27.3 seconds, with the QX80 not too far behind the pack at 28.3 seconds.) To give you some context, a Mazda6 needs 27.3 seconds, whereas a Kia Optima requires 28.3. They ain't athletes, but neither are they dancing hippos.

The LX was one of the five vehicles in the 27 second range they mention. Look at what they compare these numbers to for perspective.

200 is just an outstanding vehicle in pretty much every way. Except precious efficiency. The horror.

 

[Bludozer]

"Oh dude!!! But one has active height control and different wheels and the other doesn't have those things dude!!! One is officially way better than the other!!"

Lets make sure this thread goes another 11 pages, I'm sure we'll get to the answer soon.

 

[Madtiger]

Yes, you do see them lol.



Here the AHC is in all its glory, dealing with heavy activity/abuse. Some people act like AHC is this fragile thing that has to be babied, just change the fluid every 60-80k and it should last the life of the vehicle. This LX would do desert runs like that all day long, hell I wish I could go there with mine. Like I said I towed for the first time this weekend about 4500lbs, the AHC kept the ride pretty damn close to identical as unloaded....impressive, and clearly AHC is heavy duty.. AHC alone is worth the upgrade to me. The Lexus just looks bossy, but I totally get how LC appeal is to go under the radar.

If you are so much in love with the LX, then why are you asking about LC? I am confused. Actually, my bad, i misread the initial post by you. I did not know that you own LX already. I thought that you were thinking of buying LC vs. LX.

Are you trying to justify your LX decision?

 

[MrX]

"Oh dude!!! But one has active height control and different wheels and the other doesn't have those things dude!!! One is officially way better than the other!!"

Lets make sure this thread goes another 11 pages, I'm sure we'll get to the answer soon.

View attachment 3087605

Wow, chill. I never said one is better I just explained my choice. My initial request was about refinement. I assume the LC drives equally refined (damn well should) but the interior isn't as nice, etc.

 

[MrX]

If you are so much in love with the LX, then why are you asking about LC? I am confused. Actually, my bad, i misread the initial post by you. I did not know that you own LX already. I thought that you were thinking of buying LC vs. LX.

Are you trying to justify your LX decision?

Are you kidding? I am obsessed with this thing. There is nothing I don't like about it, literally nothing. Except the power rear door works all the time except when I open it myself from the back, then I have to lift it. The interior isn't quite as cushy, the wood isn't as nice as the LX470 but it's nice enough for sure. But the 5.7 makes up for it, it's a monster.

I just would hope a LC would drive the same as LX, which is refined. I assume it does.

 

[MCtree]

My half cent:

I compared and test drove both a new LC and a new LX when I purchased my LC.

To respond directly to the OP’s question; yes, I think the LX is the more refined of the two. Nicer leather and sound system. And that kneeling is awesome for dogs and old people.

But maybe this thread has diverted to the question of why one picks one over the other…..

I kind of preferred the idea of driving a Toyota over a Lexus (image-wise). Especially when 50 miles down a dirt road in the middle of nowhere. My previous ride was a Lexus GX and I always felt it got more attention than I liked when I was camping.
(Heck… maybe Houston is quickly becoming a place where you also don’t want your fancy ride to be noticed.)

One other giant issue for me with the LX was that horrible mouse-thing to control the info system. I know it’s dumb to consider such a small part of a giant auto, but man I found that thing hard to use.

Also, it was pretty hard to find a new LX without the third row - something I definitely didn’t want. Maybe that’s changed by now though.