Lack of a locking differential :( (1 Viewer)

[fvunen]

rhllc,
Toyota does have a specced down LC version available, including a diesel engine, steel rims, manual gear box, but without rear diff locker. Look at the spec diversity on this website for example. Getting anything other than these standard models is impossible, at least here. It would be nice if Toyota would offer the LC in a chinese menu style, pick whatever you want from our parts bin. They are having all the options, and the LC is probably expensive enough to sustain a little extra effort when putting together.

Toyota (Saudi Arabia) - Land Cruiser '11 - Specifications

 

[JBHorne]

Don't you think that Toyota released the FJ Cruiser in 2007 to "reintroduce" the FJ40? In reality, doesn't the FJ Cruiser more closely resemble the LandCruiser heritage than the more modern series'?

I believe that Toyota is trying to test the NA market. In reality, if one wants an offroad vehicle, they are more apt to look at short wheelbase vehicles such as Jeep and the FJ Cruiser than the LC. Cost is also a major factor. No one (but us) spends $70K+ on a vehicle and then bashes it offroad.

The problem Toyota faces ahead is consumer intelligence. As Pagemaster has so dearly expressed, the average layperson simply does not understand why IRS sucks offroad (nor do they care). If you read the consumer magazines, this is a con or fault with the LC, that it does not have IRS. Read Consumer Report's take on the 2010 4Runner. I own one, and bought it because of the SRA. All other competing vehicles have IRS. This was a major fault in the eyes of CR.

Also, consider how few true SUVs remain body-on-frame. Even GM considered this during the 2012 redesign of the Tahoe, a good sized SUV. The market simply isn't there anymore for these types of vehicles. Most people who really should be driving a minivan, but whom wouldn't be caught dead in one, simply buy a crossover "SUV".

Toyota really has an uphill battle to hold the LC's position. In reality, the LC has no competition. I hardly think the RangeRover, QX56, etc. compete, however the most in the market shopping for an LC look at these vehicles, not to mention the H2 (junk) and Escalade (bigger junk).

Moreover, people seem to care less about brand. My dad has a 2005 Cadillac SRX (crossover) with 10K miles on it (bought it new in '05). He never drives it and it sits in the garage. List of problems already? 1) Washer motor broken, 2) Washer bottle cracked, 3) Cracked interior light switch, 4) Cracked AC adjustment knob, 5) Side mirrors do not return to position after reverse, 6) Large sunroof failed, 7) Very loud wind noises at 80+ mph, 8) Rubber molding deteriorated around windows, 9) Headlights yellowed, 10) 3rd row seat motors failed.

I had a 2006 Ford Explorer that had to go into service every few months for major transmission failures (even after replacements). Finally, after 3 years, got Ford to buy-back the vehicle at full cost paid.

My mom on the other hand has a 2005 Lexus RX330. Not one warranty issue to date!

Personally? There is no other vehicle like a Toyota/Lexus. And if that's the case, there is no comparison for the LC. None.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

This is where it gets tricky for me. On the one hand I agree with you that new car buyers aren't looking for these features. But if it's true today, certainly it was true 15 years ago? Why did Toyota think factory front and rear locking diffs were needed in a $50000 luxury wagon? Why would a LC need a boxed frame and a solid rear axle when IFS and IRS can do just the same for a new car buyer.

So it stands to reason that Toyota has to consider that new car buyers make decisions ( among other reasons) based on how the truck will resell in the used crowd, and how reliability and performance will hold up over time. And we all know that locked trucks, whether they be 4Runners, Tacomas or Land Cruisers, sell better, cost more, and are in higher demand than their open axled counterparts. Would anyone pay $7500 for a 15 year old IFS/IRS truck with open differentials? Probably not - it's already in the crusher....

Toyota recently brought back the locking diff in the 4Runner after a nearly 10 year absence, so it's not completely clueless about what our segment wants. It's just that the NA Land Cruiser has grown up and out of it's playful roots, and the Tacoma and 4Runner have replaced it.

I think Toyota is at a bit of a crossroads with the Land Cruiser in North America. It is priced based on a legacy that it no longer represents, lacks competitive performance options that other full size SUV's offer (for the average American's needs), and to the average consumer the value over a Sequoia or Tahoe or Escalade isn't clear. I'm honestly not sure why someone "not in the know" would by a Land Cruiser in today's market.

Some folks do consider resale though your comments are biased based on your off-road desire.

The folks who buy NEW LC/LX that also consider resale will find out that resale is good. They don't care why or whether it's because it has a locking diff. Like I said...they don't even know about IFS, triple lockers, RTI...it's the good ole US! The ladies drive them empty and with a cell phone on their ear from the time they leave the driveway.

Buyers and the martketplace were different 15-years ago and the 80-series back then was outdated IN THE US as well. Other SUV's had V8's, dual air, and all other kinds of luxuries that showed up in the 100. One test drive showed how far behind the US pack the 80 was then.

In the LC/LC line I think Toyota has moved toward US made models with each series WHILE maintaining enough of their off-roading capability to make the series usefull accross the globe. WE here on MUD wish they were trending toward the past...for Toyota's sake they are not. They are moving toward what the buyers really want.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Oh, and trust me....there's a LOT more 4R owners who want a rear locker than there are LC/LX owners. Lower cost rigs have a higher chance of OR use.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Don't you think that Toyota released the FJ Cruiser in 2007 to "reintroduce" the FJ40? In reality, doesn't the FJ Cruiser more closely resemble the LandCruiser heritage than the more modern series'?

I believe that Toyota is trying to test the NA market. In reality, if one wants an offroad vehicle, they are more apt to look at short wheelbase vehicles such as Jeep and the FJ Cruiser than the LC. Cost is also a major factor. No one (but us) spends $70K+ on a vehicle and then bashes it offroad.

The problem Toyota faces ahead is consumer intelligence. As Pagemaster has so dearly expressed, the average layperson simply does not understand why IRS sucks offroad (nor do they care). If you read the consumer magazines, this is a con or fault with the LC, that it does not have IRS. Read Consumer Report's take on the 2010 4Runner. I own one, and bought it because of the SRA. All other competing vehicles have IRS. This was a major fault in the eyes of CR.

Also, consider how few true SUVs remain body-on-frame. Even GM considered this during the 2012 redesign of the Tahoe, a good sized SUV. The market simply isn't there anymore for these types of vehicles. Most people who really should be driving a minivan, but whom wouldn't be caught dead in one, simply buy a crossover "SUV".

Toyota really has an uphill battle to hold the LC's position. In reality, the LC has no competition. I hardly think the RangeRover, QX56, etc. compete, however the most in the market shopping for an LC look at these vehicles, not to mention the H2 (junk) and Escalade (bigger junk).

Moreover, people seem to care less about brand. My dad has a 2005 Cadillac SRX (crossover) with 10K miles on it (bought it new in '05). He never drives it and it sits in the garage. List of problems already? 1) Washer motor broken, 2) Washer bottle cracked, 3) Cracked interior light switch, 4) Cracked AC adjustment knob, 5) Side mirrors do not return to position after reverse, 6) Large sunroof failed, 7) Very loud wind noises at 80+ mph, 8) Rubber molding deteriorated around windows, 9) Headlights yellowed, 10) 3rd row seat motors failed.

I had a 2006 Ford Explorer that had to go into service every few months for major transmission failures (even after replacements). Finally, after 3 years, got Ford to buy-back the vehicle at full cost paid.

My mom on the other hand has a 2005 Lexus RX330. Not one warranty issue to date!

Personally? There is no other vehicle like a Toyota/Lexus. And if that's the case, there is no comparison for the LC. None.

RIGHT ON! From an owner of the finest LC Series ever made!

 

[rhllc]

rhllc,
Toyota does have a specced down LC version available,

Right! That is sort of what the tread is about. Why doesn't Toyota offer such vehicles in the NA market? My view is that for various reasons Toyota doesn't believe it would be profitable to sell such a vehicle here.

I think the reasons involve some sort of combination of issues mentioned earlier in the thread.

• Regulations (emissions, crash testing of different seating configurations, etc.)
• US market overhead requires high volume or high margin.
• US lawyers and stupid US drivers. Look how much trouble Toyota got into with the driver pedal missapplication issue and stability control issues. Hardcore features that compromise on-road handling in anyway are somewhat problematic.
• What US consumers want and are willing to pay for and how they shop. New car buyers tend not to order vehicles. They buy them off the lot. So dealers tend to only order vehicles with only the most popular option groups. The US market is highly competitive. An extra $500 will be noticed. At least when I bought my LX I was happy find one without the radar cruise control and rear seat video options added to the bottom line. I can see how the average US consumer would walk away from a vehicle optioned with something they would never use like lockers. The dealer one town over probably has one equipped how they want it.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Right! That is sort of what the tread is about. Why doesn't Toyota offer such vehicles in the NA market? My view is that for various reasons Toyota doesn't believe it would be profitable to sell such a vehicle here. [/LIST]

Why? Cause NOBODY in the US would want them. They'd sit on the lot. We new LC/LX buyers want our Starbucks, Bluetooth, V8 with 1000HP, silent ride and cushy interior. If a LC/LX was spartan like some makerts have the buyers would RUN out of the lot and heading to Ford, GM, RR, and everyone else.

Can you imagine the Truck Trend comparison between a new Navigator, Escalade, QX, Expdition, etc and a manual, cloth, diesel, spartan LC. HA! The Cruiser would place DEAD LAST!

 

[rhllc]

Why? Cause NOBODY in the US would want them.

Yup, my father bought the FJ80 I later owned for something like more than $10K below sticker (25%ish off in '94). It had cloth seats, no roof rack, a brown interior, and apparently was missing a couple other "important" options and had been on the dealers lot for months. Traded it in last year on a '10 LX.

 

[uzj100]

Shotts - I agree.

I just hate that the US market gets treated like this. I want to decide for myself. I do not want some clown in Toyota marketing attempting to decide what I should or should not be driving or options I should or should not select. Give me the entire global list of options and I will once again visit a Toyota dealership.

Here is the list

Turbo Diesel (I know however it is 2011 and to drive a vehicle that only gets 15 mpg's is crazy)
Dual air con
Dual fuel tanks
No nav
2nd row captain chairs (I made this one up and I want these on my 100)
3rd Row
Factory front and rear diff locks
Factory winch
Factory skid plates
Leatherette similiar to Benz
Tow package
A-Trac
Crawl Control
VSC

Done

 

[80BajaBound]

Shotts - I agree.

I just hate that the US market gets treated like this. I want to decide for myself. I do not want some clown in Toyota marketing attempting to decide what I should or should not be driving or options I should or should not select. Give me the entire global list of options and I will once again visit a Toyota dealership.

Here is the list

Turbo Diesel (I know however it is 2011 and to drive a vehicle that only gets 15 mpg's is crazy)
Dual air con
Dual fuel tanks
No nav
2nd row captain chairs (I made this one up and I want these on my 100)
3rd Row
Factory front and rear diff locks
Factory winch
Factory skid plates
Leatherette similiar to Benz
Tow package
A-Trac
Crawl Control
VSC

Done

I'd buy that truck tomorrow. Unfortunately, the LC is viewed as a top of the line Luxury SUV and that will never happen.
I'm with you guys - I'd like to pick and choose what I want and don't want on my new rig. We are Americans and we like options!

 

[yeti in ga]

I think a lot of folks get catch up on the lockers - no lockers, but if you have seen ATRAC work it will make you a believer , that for most practical off road in a large SUV it is very good. I would agree that there are very few folks in the NA market that need anything else other then ATRAC. It does seem that all the other gizmos are very expensive to trouble shoot and fix if they break, but have heard of very few ATRAC issues over time.

 

[pagemaster]

Don't you think that Toyota released the FJ Cruiser in 2007 to "reintroduce" the FJ40? In reality, doesn't the FJ Cruiser more closely resemble the LandCruiser heritage than the more modern series'?I believe that Toyota is trying to test the NA market.

Toyota is not testing the NA market. The FJ was a direct response to the overwhelming success of the FJ concept in late 2006, the FJ concept was the test. Also, its another way to use the LC Prado/4runner platform to build the FJ. The FJ is an expensive vehicle for the basic features you get.

The problem Toyota faces ahead is consumer intelligence. As Pagemaster has so dearly expressed, the average layperson simply does not understand why IRS sucks offroad (nor do they care). If you read the consumer magazines, this is a con or fault with the LC, that it does not have IRS.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the IRS is superior to a solid. But for the LX version, an IRS will be fine. I say keep the solid for the LC.

Toyota really has an uphill battle to hold the LC's position. In reality, the LC has no competition. I hardly think the RangeRover, QX56, etc. compete, however the most in the market shopping for an LC look at these vehicles, not to mention the H2 (junk) and Escalade (bigger junk).

I disagree. The Land Cruiser competes directly with the Range Rover/Nissan Patrol in worldwide markets. In NA, the LC slots between the Land Rover4 (Land Cruiser in betweeen) and the Range Rover (Lexus)

 

[pagemaster]

Can you imagine the Truck Trend comparison between a new Navigator, Escalade, QX, Expdition, etc and a manual, cloth, diesel, spartan LC. HA! The Cruiser would place DEAD LAST!

The Toyota 100 series LC did come last in Truck Trend test in 2005. The truck green if I remember and damaged its rear overhang.

 

[pagemaster]

Unfortunately, the LC is viewed as a top of the line Luxury SUV and that will never happen.

Never say never. If the Sequoia gets killed off (which I firmy believe it will), we will see a return of the lower lost Land Cruisers. Never with diesel but we will see them.

Late 90's and 00's there was a third row delete option, cloth seats, rear drum brakes (80 series) with disc upgrade.

 

[OGBeno]

Late 90's and 00's there was a third row delete option, cloth seats, rear drum brakes (80 series) with disc upgrade.

Negative. Incorrect information here.

The 1991-1992 80 series had no options for braking. It was drum brakes rear only with no ABS.

1993-1997 80 series had no options for braking. It was rear discs with ABS.

That said, there were some "odd ball" as we like to call them trucks that had drum rears, no ABS, and were a semi-floater. This was in the MY 1993/94/early95.

These were not options. They came in bare-bones to the Gulf Coast States Toyota distributorship and made there way to other parts of the country.

 

[pagemaster]

Negative. Incorrect information here.

The 1991-1992 80 series had no options for braking. It was drum brakes rear only with no ABS.

1993-1997 80 series had no options for braking. It was rear discs with ABS.

That said, there were some "odd ball" as we like to call them trucks that had drum rears, no ABS, and were a semi-floater. This was in the MY 1993/94/early95.

These were not options. They came in bare-bones to the Gulf Coast States Toyota distributorship and made there way to other parts of the country.

I don't remember the exact dates so maybe it was earlier

But, the 1993 model had fold up 3rd row as an option which also included sliding rear windows. It also offers an option 4 wheel abs with disc brake in the rear.

Viscous coupling diff in the middle was optional in many year.

Fold up 3rd row rear seats were option in 1993-1996

Fold up 3rd row seats were an option in 1998-2002

I am looking at my Toyota USA brochures from 1993-1997 same as my 1998-2002

 

[OGBeno]

I don't remember the exact dates so maybe it was earlier

But, the 1993 model had fold up 3rd row as an option which also included sliding rear windows. It also offers an option 4 wheel abs with disc brake in the rear.

I am looking at my 1993 Toyota USA brochure

That information is wrong.

Even though it says it was an "option," it never was.

Like I said, rear drum with non ABS and a semi-floater were odd balls brought in by Gulf States Toyota based out of Houston.

Trust me on this one.

 

[pagemaster]

That information is wrong.

Even though it says it was an "option," it never was.

Like I said, rear drum with non ABS and a semi-floater were odd balls brought in by Gulf States Toyota based out of Houston.

Trust me on this one.

Lol, in the brochures, it states "port installed option" or factory. It clearly states, Toyota Motor Sales USA.


I think a lot of people didn't know that there was a courtesy service at 1800km (in that range) for the 80 series which is not only offered by lexus.

 

[OGBeno]

Lol, in the brochures, it states "port installed option" or factory. It clearly states, Toyota Motor Sales USA.

I understand what the brochure states.

I've got my own copy as well. But the info. is wrong.

My boss is a 1993 original owner and it was never an option.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

The Toyota 100 series LC did come last in Truck Trend test in 2005. The truck green if I remember and damaged its rear overhang.

I remember something like that. The Navigator beat it.

It won in Four Wheeler of the Year...something the 80 ever did which is just dumb.

It was the top pick in testing Luxury SUV's in Cons Reports for years. #1 reliable every year.

Since, the 200 has fallen short in Cons Reports. They just like crossovers.