Don't let them have your 200 (5 Viewers)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think those kinds of reflections are healthy they get us closer to the truth. When you say the new Land Cruisers might be riding the coattails of the Legend, I see it differently. I believe the new Land Cruisers are the Legend just in its future form. And I don’t think Toyota’s philosophy has changed. That mindset wasn’t born with Toyota it’s rooted in Japanese culture itself. I highly doubt that mentality has suddenly shifted when it comes to building these new Land Cruisers.

These hybrid Cruisers are the past combined with the future. The past is certain it's proven, it's safe. The future will always be questioned and doubted... until it proves itself. And then? The next leap forward will bring new doubts all over again. This is fun. I appreciate you entertaining these thought provoking discussions I'm all about it.

And that's the crux of this thread. Or what the LC250 pushers don't understand.

Truth is that the name Land Cruiser, to 200-series owners, refers to a specific model at the top of lineup. "Land Cruiser" for the LC250 contingent is a lineup built upon an aspirational reach for that same gloried legacy and heritage that previous Land Cruiser halo models established. Now available in a watered down commodity "Land Cruiser" model.

The OPs point and first hand experience of both vehicles is that the "Land Cruiser" doesn't measure up to the Land Cruiser 200-series. They are completely different models made for different price points and hence to different standards.

@rexington14 asked a great question of what makes or does not make a real 200-series or even 300-series Land Cruiser.

  • 200-series Land Cruisers are not aspirational. They are the top of the lineup.
1741827285509.png


 
''I guess we'll have to wait to find out.'' Agreed, Every time a new land cruiser is released these same old questions emerge. and I'm also sure the same proof will occur. Yes, we'll have to wait to find out.

''I am not convinced that Toyota is building today's Landcruisers with the same philosophy as 50 years ago, nor do I always believe the official Toyota line on what makes a Real LandCruiser as their criteria may be different than mine.'' I don’t believe for one moment that the Japanese workers and engineers have changed their philosophy. In fact it sounds like your criteria may be exactly what these new Land Cruisers the LX700h and 250LC are all about. Maybe the reason it hasn’t quite clicked yet is because your eyes are adjusting to something you haven’t seen in a Land Cruiser before the hybrid components.

I think your preference leans toward the old way and I can completely understand that it’s what we’ve grown to trust through experience. Futuristic stuff is, well... futuristic. But I believe we're in good hands with Land Cruiser name, Toyota's engineers, their materials, and their philosophy. They've built a solid track record, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. IMFO.
 
Or what the LC250 pushers don't understand.

"Land Cruiser" for the LC250 contingent is a lineup built upon
an aspirational reach

Now available in a watered down commodity "Land Cruiser" model.

"Land Cruiser" doesn't measure up to the Land Cruiser 200-series.

200-series Land Cruisers are not aspirational. They are the top of the lineup.

200-series Land Cruisers don't look like or share 4Runner parts underneath.
god damn

the amount of ownage @TeCKis300 is displaying is truly master class


1741831095796.gif
 
Last edited:
Wtf. Did you rear-end a Decepticon?
Not mine. I have no idea, but it looks like it was on the wrong end of a mortar or something. I can't imagine that it was survivable by an occupant in any of the seats.
 
Is the the goal of this thread to make new members of the Land Cruiser community feel s***ty about their not-cheap investment in a new 250 or GX? Because if it is, you guys are doing a hell of a job.

What a welcoming committee.
yes, @TeCKis300 @eatSleepWoof are the President of our welcoming committee. They won a fair election in this forum.

250/gx owners have their own section

“investment” = LOL

this is the 200 section- no obligation to welcome non 200 members

women dont welcome me in their bathrooms. i go to the mens bathroom
 
yes, @TeCKis300 @eatSleepWoof are the President of our welcoming committee. They won a fair election in this forum.

250/gx owners have their own section

“investment” = LOL

this is the 200 section- no obligation to welcome non 200 members

women dont welcome me in their bathrooms. i go to the mens bathroom

Exactly.
 
And that's the crux of this thread. Or what the LC250 pushers don't understand.

Truth is that the name Land Cruiser, to 200-series owners, refers to a specific model at the top of lineup. "Land Cruiser" for the LC250 contingent is a lineup built upon an aspirational reach for that same gloried legacy and heritage that previous Land Cruiser halo models established. Now available in a watered down commodity "Land Cruiser" model.

The OPs point and first hand experience of both vehicles is that the "Land Cruiser" doesn't measure up to the Land Cruiser 200-series. They are completely different models made for different price points and hence to different standards.

@rexington14 asked a great question of what makes or does not make a real 200-series or even 300-series Land Cruiser.

  • 200-series Land Cruisers are not aspirational. They are the top of the lineup.
View attachment 3859483

The 200 isn’t “above” the 250 it’s beside it. Three options Station Wagon, Practical, or Heavy Duty. Simple as that. Same standards, different roles.
1741864798487.png
 
Is the the goal of this thread to make new members of the Land Cruiser community feel s***ty about their not-cheap investment in a new 250 or GX? Because if it is, you guys are doing a hell of a job.

What a welcoming committee.
Well said, Twilly.

If the question is should I buy a 200 or a 250, I’ll tell you why I think you should buy a 200.

If the question is would you trade your 200 for a 250, I’ll tell you why I wouldn’t.

If the question is did the 250 owners buy the wrong truck or is the 250 a bad truck, I’ll tell you no. It’s a great truck. It looks great, and it is more capable than almost any new vehicle out there. It will bring its owner and his family joy, connection to nature, adventure, pride of ownership, and for the most part, safety and security.

Yes, it’s a little lighter duty, it’s got some newfangled features that are unproven, it’s got some newfangled features that are annoying (but can generally be turned off), it doesn’t have the aura of the older models (not yet anyway), and it’s pretty expensive.

But that is splitting hairs and nitpicking. Ultimately, it will be a vehicle that most of its owners will love owning and will have great fun in.

If the question is do I think the 250 is a cool truck that I ogle every time I see even though I have no intention of buying one or trading my 200 for it, I will tell you emphatically Yes.
 
@rexington14 asked a great question of what makes or does not make a real 200-series or even 300-series Land Cruiser.
  • 200-series Land Cruisers are not aspirational. They are the top of the lineup.

I'm not sure that's exactly what I asked, but I'm not surprised you've jumped to establishing the 200 series as the baseline for what makes a Land Cruiser a real Land Cruiser. Maybe a real Land Cruiser is whichever Land Cruiser one owns?

The OPs point and first hand experience of both vehicles is that the "Land Cruiser" doesn't measure up to the Land Cruiser 200-series. They are completely different models made for different price points and hence to different standards.

Besides the very first bullet point (which is luxury / comfort), I sincerely doubt the other differences would have even been detectable by the OP during a simple 5 day test drive on a ski trip.
 
If the question is did the 250 owners buy the wrong truck or is the 250 a bad truck, I’ll tell you no. It’s a great truck. It looks great, and it is more capable than almost any new vehicle out there. It will bring its owner and his family joy, connection to nature, adventure, pride of ownership, and for the most part, safety and security.

Her
 
I'm seeing the new GX everywhere. I serviced my LX the other day there were 4 of them in the new car delivery bays. The GX is very compelling. And for not much savings you can have a Landcruiser 250 which feels like it's $30,000 cheaper. At least the 200s the Toyota didn't feel like a massive downgrade compared to the Lexus sibling.

People want nice things for their money.
 
I'm seeing the new GX everywhere. I serviced my LX the other day there were 4 of them in the new car delivery bays. The GX is very compelling. And for not much savings you can have a Landcruiser 250 which feels like it's $30,000 cheaper. At least the 200s the Toyota didn't feel like a massive downgrade compared to the Lexus sibling.

People want nice things for their money.
Wild, if I traded my 250 for a 200, it would feel like a downgrade. (Not saying it is a downgrade for everyone it's mostly the outdated 2008 design, not the Station Wagon series itself, which is equal.) Nah, the LC250 doesn’t feel like a downgrade compared to the GX to me. The GX just doesn’t do it for me its interior layout and exterior both lack the charm of the 250’s. Honestly, I’m a fan of the 4banger and hybrid combo. The fact that the inverter can power cooktops, recharge battery banks, and act like a generator wherever I am is useful going camping and during a power outage. Sick setup, IMO.

If this 250 fails and something horrible goes wrong, my fallback vehicle would be the 200 it’s the only other vehicle I’d turn to. But honestly? I doubt anything will fail.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom