I went from a 99 LX470 (with AHC) to a 2003 LC (without AHC). I prefer no AHC, wish I didn't have Nav, but the 5speed tranny is worth it surprisingly. Hunts for gears a lot more, but nothing major. Plus, the safety features (side air bags, curtain air bags) was worth it to me. And while I miss my 93 80, I much more prefer the 100, with the amount of fwy driving I do. Gas mileage still sucks though.
OP: you might also want to ask that question in the 80 forum, to be fair. Well, assuming you can find many guys who went from the 100 back to the 80 ...
(Btw, I don't recall there being serious systematic issues with the 100 transmissions. The reference above to 2000 trans problems was perhaps meant to refer to diff issues, not trans?)
oh, and yes, except for uses like hardcore wheeling or expeds through developing countries, the 100 is probably a better vehicle overall.
(Btw, I don't recall there being serious systematic issues with the 100 transmissions. The reference above to 2000 trans problems was perhaps meant to refer to diff issues, not trans?)
There have been several posters on this site who have posted that the 2000 model has a transmission failure problem. I don't know if it is enough to say that is a problem with the 2000 LC/LX.
100% positive the 99's are the only ones that required 93 octane. That said, I have never had one but when I almost purchased one, Christo told me to stay away. That was 5 years ago but when Christo tells me something I put it in the bank.
91 octane recommended for 98-01. There's plenty of people that have run lower octanes for a long time with no adverse effects, it's small enough that the ECU can compensate.
Even my 2000 says "premium fuel only" on the door, so it's not just a 98-99 thing. The motor isn't necessarily "tuned" for it, it's just optomized for it. Running a lower octane will not hurt anything, which has been proven by lots of people, since the ECU self-adjusts for the lower octane. Personally I run 91 as recommended, but I'm sure it'd be fine with 87. I won't run the mountain-grade 85 octane though, 87 is as low as I'd feel comfortable running. Just a personal thing.
As for the 2000's having an inherent transmission problem, there was a small run of bad parts that were installed in the 2000 model year hundys, which can fail and cause trans problems. It was not a widespread issue, and I don't think every trans with one of these odd-lot parts is doomed to blow up. I think that we can count on one hand the number of hundy owners who have had transmission problems specifically related to this issue. My '00 has 136K and nary an issue so far (knocking on wood).
The most recent failure posted (Cypher's rig) was caused by obvious neglect by the previous owner. Burnt, destroyed planetary gears in his case - the P/O burned up the trans then swapped out the fluid before the rig was sold to him so he had no idea what he was getting. Upon inspection, the gears were purple and blue from heat damage - literally roasted. Just crappy luck on his end.
I wouldn't shy away from a clean, well maintained 2000 model year rig just because of this trans gremlin that everyone talks about - it's largely blown out of proportion IMO.
91 octane recommended for 98-01. There's plenty of people that have run lower octanes for a long time with no adverse effects, it's small enough that the ECU can compensate.
Well, the V8 4.7L compared to the 80 series V6 is quite an upgrade. I think you should test drive the hundy to compare for yourself. I have the 99 LC, which is a recent purchase for me, and it's a total upgrade for cabin space, motor power, rear A/C, better quality leather, better exterior paint. The tranny on the 80 is robust, but my hundy has an upgraded A343F. From what my cruiser mechanic states, it's the same tranny from the 80 series 95 and beyond but has some enhanced characteristics rolled into the hundys. The details I could find out and report. Bottom line... test drive one out and see for yourself.
The wording in the owners' manual regarding fuel might be different but IMO all years of 100's can run on 87 w/o problems. Performance difference, well that is questionable. I'd like to see a dyno run on 87 and 91-92 under the same conditions.
Ya, but dyno runs are at WOT and how often do we actually hit WOT in real life? From a practical standpoint, 87 is fine. I think there are certain situations where 92 would be advisable (frequent towing uphill for example).
There have been posts debating the true savings of 87 with the argument being that 92 returns better mileage completely offsetting the cost but I have yet to see that in my personal driving.
In my case, my beloved 80s just got too old to justify keeping, things were starting to wear out. The 100 is a small step up in luxury and a step down in simplicity. It is better engineered, and I'm finding it easier to work on for that reason, but I know the rear wheel bearings are near impossible to service. It is safer and slightly more comfortable for my family, cheaper to operate with nothing breaking, but was a chunk of $ to buy. For my personal vehicle I'd choose a low-mileage 80 over a 100 to save $. I couldn't find one and went with a 4Runner.
I've owned two 80s and now the 100. The 100 is definitely a more civilized machine, better commuter, safer, better overall vehicle to live with on a day-to-day basis. It also makes a great platform for an expeditionary vehicle, with some drawbacks. However, if I was going to take a trip around the world, between the two trucks I would take an 80, hands down. Probably a `94 with the bus tranny, three-core brass radiator, full floaters front and rear, locked front and rear diffs, etc. Much better parts and service availability in remote parts of the world. And it wouldn't need too many mods, either, they're pretty good right out of the box.
Ya, but dyno runs are at WOT and how often do we actually hit WOT in real life? From a practical standpoint, 87 is fine. I think there are certain situations where 92 would be advisable (frequent towing uphill for example).
There have been posts debating the true savings of 87 with the argument being that 92 returns better mileage completely offsetting the cost but I have yet to see that in my personal driving.
My basic understanding is most engines have a knock sensor and when it senses pre-ignition, the computer will retard the timing. From the engine's I've tinkered with, full advanced timing comes on way before WOT so I'm guessing at even half throttle, there should be a difference.
But I agree, my butt dyno is having a hard time telling if there is a difference between regular and premium unleaded, power wise. There's just too much weight and slush in the system.
