This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Muddy Bean
Breaking something or fixing something
Definitely a '98! I thought everyone knew that!?!?
Sent from my iPhone. Clumsy fingers may contribute to mistakes.
Sent from my iPhone. Clumsy fingers may contribute to mistakes.
What is IIRC? Were all pre 2004's made in Araco?
My feelings as well. I wanted a 2003 for the side shoulder air bags (saved me once before) but didn't want to spend $10k more for it. I got my LX with 79k miles black/tan for $15k and no tax!
With all the money I saved I am supercharging my LX and looking for a 2nd LX470 2001-2004. I am tempted to buy a 200 but I don't think I will be satisfied as the 100 seems built better to me even though its lacking amenities.
mcgaskins
SILVER Star
06+ did not have a bigger engine. VVTi was added which changed the power curver adding more horsepower, but every 100 is a 4.7 liter V8.
The 100 is all Landcruiser. The 200 is built on a modified Tundra frame, just one example of Toyota cutting costs. I am not saying that a Tundra frame is an inferior frame but when a company starts parts bin swapping you don't end up with the same vehicle that was originally designed to survive 25 years in a third world country. Might as well buy a new Sequoia and save $$$.
wow, I'm guessing you don't own a 200 or you would not say that, I've owned a dozen LC's, 2 of which have been 100 series, and I do think they are proly better looking than the 200 in many ways, they are not even close as far as build quality and attention to detail, IMO taking a frame from a solid full size pickup truck, and then cutting it down to size and then adding 20 percent stiffness to it is not a bad thing, it's just plan smart, they still kept the exact wheel base(112.2) that they have always had etc.. They didn't adjust the LC around the Tundra frame, they simple modded the Tundra frame to work for the LC
and the 100 is not all LC by your definition, they used the 4.7 liter V8 out of the Tundra, and here I thought the 100 was all LC
My 98 has 276k miles and is going strong. Who could argue with that kind of success?
and the 100 is not all LC by your definition, they used the 4.7 liter V8 out of the Tundra, and here I thought the 100 was all LC
Why do you think the 4.7 was designed for the tundra and then used in the 100 series?. Also the build quality on the 100 series is better then the 200 series.
what makes you think the build quality is better on the 100 then the 200 series? I"ve owned both and would say both of them have outstounding build quality! In my opinion the interior fit and finish etc seems better in the 200! And at speed while on dirt roads the 200 definatly seems stiffer with less rattles etc... I"m not saying the 100 is a bad rig at all, proly one of my favorite all time rigs I've owned, but for you to say mine as well go buy a Sequoia seems to me to be a very ignorant statemant!
Last edited:
This was my impression but I haven't driven a 200 yet. I have been contemplating getting one but not sure if I can justify the extra $30k+ for one. I do love my LC/LX but I need alot more if I going to spend extra cash for one. Otherwise in my view it's better to buy 2 100's in place of 1 200.
as for the question of the 4.7 liter, it's hard to say without knowing the behind the scenes at Toyota what came first the chicken or the egg, but I'm guessing when they are selling 100,000 Tundra's give or take a year and far less LC's per year they would be design the engine for the rig they sell more of, but then again the LC usually has a longer period of testing and design then the average Toyota vehicle, so yah, guess my answer is I don't really know, but either way the 2 rigs came out the same year and share the engine in common, that doesn't make the 100 a non LC, it just means Toyota came out with a great engine and wanted to use it in multiple rigs, just like the frame on the Tundra/LC... The LC 200 went through 5 years of development and testing, the New Tundra came out in 2007, so obviously, they did not take a rig that was already developed and grab the frame and cut it, both were being developed at the same time, it just happened to work for both rigs... I know it's cool to always cut down the latest LC, trust me 10 years ago I was hearing the same stuff about my 100 series from the 80's guys
If that is your argument then dont you seem to have much history regarding Toyota. Toyota has been doing 'chassis sharing' for decades. The 105 was built on 80 chassis. The 4runner and Prado share same chassis and same with the Hilux etc. And there is alot of difference between a Sequioa and Land Cruiser when it comes to built quality apart from chassis mods.
You 200 turds take it to the 200 board! 
mcgaskins
SILVER Star
and the 100 is not all LC by your definition, they used the 4.7 liter V8 out of the Tundra, and here I thought the 100 was all LC
The 2UZ-FE 4.7 V8 in the 100 series was designed for and first used in the 100 series in the 1998 LC/LX 470. It did not appear in Tundras until 2000, and it's not the exact same motor. The LC motor is built in Japan vs the US for the Tundra and there are other differences in terms of forged vs cast connecting rods and various ancillary differences too.
I stand corrected... but if you couldn't tell that's why I put that
at the end of my sentence, I think people are splitting hairs to find reasons to "prove" that some LC's are not LC's, that just seems weird to me... The 5.7 liter engine in the LC is also different from the Tundra(from what I've read on here) but I really don't think any of this makes it an LC or not an LC, Toyota's build quality is across the line, the LC just happens to be at the top of the line IMO... If people want to say the new LC is over priced etc, I can understand that argument, but when people just start throwing around ignorant comments about how it's not an LC or that it's build quality doesn't hold up without any stats to back that up, pretty sad to see on an LC forum IMO.... just saying
