LC200 vs. GX460?
- Thread starter Sixant789
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gx 460 land cruiser 200
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I went from a GX460 to a 200.
I really loved the GX (and I love the LC).
I will say that I enjoyed driving the GX around town a bit more than I do the LC.
The same with on some of the narrower off road trials.
While the size difference between the two isn’t that much, it’s noticeable (to me).
So maybe you, OP, should factor in your needs. I needed the extra interior space and love LC for this, but is that space important to you?
Also, the range on the GX was nicer than the LC. When I first got the LC, I felt like I was stopping way too frequently to fill up, when on road trips.
Of course… the 24 gallon LRA auxiliary gas tank solved this problem for me.
I really loved the GX (and I love the LC).
I will say that I enjoyed driving the GX around town a bit more than I do the LC.
The same with on some of the narrower off road trials.
While the size difference between the two isn’t that much, it’s noticeable (to me).
So maybe you, OP, should factor in your needs. I needed the extra interior space and love LC for this, but is that space important to you?
Also, the range on the GX was nicer than the LC. When I first got the LC, I felt like I was stopping way too frequently to fill up, when on road trips.
Of course… the 24 gallon LRA auxiliary gas tank solved this problem for me.
Supra,
Could you expand on this? In what ways?
(Not being argumentative, I don’t know enough about cars to argue things like this. Just trying to learn.)
Funny thing is, when I went from a Lexus (GX) to a Toyota (LC), people at my work would come up to me asking what happened. Like did I get a demotion or something.
“Stealth wealth” indeed.
Of course, I love the low key-ness of the Toyota when in some of the sketchier back-woods locales.
The actual Landcruiser is engineered to a different standard than the Prado within Toyota’s hierarchy. Which isn’t to say the Prado sucks, just that as good as they are, Toyota went to a significant amount of effort to crown the Landcruiser platform as the toughest/most reliable/most capable.
This comes through when you spend some time with each.
I say this a lot but my 205k mile 2013 Landcruiser doesn’t even have any interior rattles. It’s just.. different.
This comes through when you spend some time with each.
I say this a lot but my 205k mile 2013 Landcruiser doesn’t even have any interior rattles. It’s just.. different.
Yes delusional folks argue that. AHC is PIA to maintain. PIA to diagnose when things go wrong. Only benefit of AHC is towing……..and if you’re towing heavy stuff, then a truck is far better.Definitely true that "some would argue" AHC is more economical to maintain. I've seen it with my own eyes!
LC OEM shocks last forever…and cheap as heck to replace. LC springs are even longer lasting.
I love this thread!!!
Preach on brotha!!! Love your post
My 300K LC has 0 rattles as well.
Prado talk should be relegated to a different forum.
This is Big Boy Country.
But this is just restating that the LC is in a different class than the GX.
Being an LC fanboy, I certainly want to believe this to be the case, but is it measurable?
For instance, I have seen several times how the LC windshield is thicker than other vehicles’ glass, but I have been unable to find any verifiable proof to this.
IT’s not. My LC window cracked if a feather hit it! I had cracks spread like wildfire in California. $2k to replace. Best fake news…frame of LC is bigger than full ton truck….
All the evidence I need. LC200 on left, Tacoma/prado on right.
Well, the split gate helps too.
I think it’s fine to compare.. the GX is a great platform too, honestly.
I test drove the 2016 GX 460 three times before buying my 2013 LC. The barn door on the GX is a love or hate kind of thing. I hate it. While I like the split tailgate on the 200, I'm not in the "best thing since sliced bread" camp when it comes to the split tailgate. I'm fine with a regular overhead tailgate like on a 4Runner. I like having a tailgate that lifts up so that it gives some shelter in the rain.
I found the visibility in the GX 460 to be poor. The rear window on the tailgate is small. The thick D-pillars hampered the rear 3/4s view (but if you get one with blind spot monitoring, that may be less of an issue). The GX has a relatively high beltline, making the interior seem more claustrophobic.
I found the 4.6 V8 to be smooth but not have a lot of torque off the line. The 5.7 in the 200 has significantly more power, particularly off the line.
I found the front seat bottom cushion uncomfortable. It felt like there was a stiff ridge around the outside edge that dug into the bottom of my thighs.
Perhaps the biggest drawback for me was that the built-in third row in the GX 460 took up so much interior cargo space. Using the figures that Toyota had previously published on their web site, the 200 LC has 80 cu ft with the 2nd and 3rd rows folded. The GX 460 only has 60 cu ft with 2nd and 3rd row folded. The 5th Gen 4Runner (two row) with the 2nd row folded has 80 cu ft. For me, 80 cu ft is enough room for me on our annual vacations; 60 cu ft simply isn't enough room. I've used a rooftop cargo box in the past on my 4th Gen 4Runner and they are a pain in the backside. There are now platforms that you can install if you remove the GX 3rd row. That would help, but I worry that pulling the third row would result in more interior road noise.
I do like that the GX is narrower on the outside than the 200. I live in the Boston area and quite often parking spaces here are relatively narrow. It can be a pain to get into and out of the 200 when parked alongside another car in a narrow space (I weigh about 170, so it's not like I'm huge). It was a lot easier in my old 4th gen 4Runner.
I found the visibility in the GX 460 to be poor. The rear window on the tailgate is small. The thick D-pillars hampered the rear 3/4s view (but if you get one with blind spot monitoring, that may be less of an issue). The GX has a relatively high beltline, making the interior seem more claustrophobic.
I found the 4.6 V8 to be smooth but not have a lot of torque off the line. The 5.7 in the 200 has significantly more power, particularly off the line.
I found the front seat bottom cushion uncomfortable. It felt like there was a stiff ridge around the outside edge that dug into the bottom of my thighs.
Perhaps the biggest drawback for me was that the built-in third row in the GX 460 took up so much interior cargo space. Using the figures that Toyota had previously published on their web site, the 200 LC has 80 cu ft with the 2nd and 3rd rows folded. The GX 460 only has 60 cu ft with 2nd and 3rd row folded. The 5th Gen 4Runner (two row) with the 2nd row folded has 80 cu ft. For me, 80 cu ft is enough room for me on our annual vacations; 60 cu ft simply isn't enough room. I've used a rooftop cargo box in the past on my 4th Gen 4Runner and they are a pain in the backside. There are now platforms that you can install if you remove the GX 3rd row. That would help, but I worry that pulling the third row would result in more interior road noise.
I do like that the GX is narrower on the outside than the 200. I live in the Boston area and quite often parking spaces here are relatively narrow. It can be a pain to get into and out of the 200 when parked alongside another car in a narrow space (I weigh about 170, so it's not like I'm huge). It was a lot easier in my old 4th gen 4Runner.
This gets perpetuated all the time on this forum and I have never see any evidence to support it, and even if it were true I doubt toyota would admit it. What do we hear on here: “electronics built to aerospace standards”, “built to 500k miles all off road”, …
Seriously you think Toyota makes their other models “less reliable”?
Camry, rav4, Highlander, tundra,… GX, LX, LC,…. Are all built to the same reliability standards. There are “million mile” examples of all of them out there. If anything top tier models from all brands are less reliable due to being more complex. Computer Head units, complex cruise control, power everything, parking sensors, rain sensors, …. Are more complex and less reliable the. Not having those things.
People (self) justify more expensive (luxury) purchases all the time based on many biases that are not based in evidence.
That tie rod isn’t evidence? There is a more significant increase in mass there than would be justified by a proportional increase in GVWR.
Or the dramatic difference between our front struts and those of a similar year Tundra.
Or how much better packaged the KDSS systems are on each.
I never said anything about aerospace harnesses. Or that they build any vehicles to be unreliable. For their use the Corolla is arguably more durable. I said compared to a GX the cruiser is designed to a different standard. This is supported by the above picture, any time spent under both examples, even the articulation numbers for respective year ranges or how flat the belly is.
Toyota is never gonna call the Prado an inferior product, and as I stated it’s a great product. But everywhere in the world both are offered it is considered the baby Landcruiser, and that reputation doesn’t come out of thin air.
Last edited:
I don’t need a 200 that bad to get one with 200k miles, I’d get a GX and enjoy it till I could afford the 200. I get in some brand new (previous gen) GX Ubers and they’re just a great place to be. Friend has a GX loves it, didn’t feel the need to spend the extra for the 200. He’s wrong lol but the GX is no penalty box.
They’re all built to a great standard the 200 is just built to a higher standard.
And there is an X factor that is real in the flagship product everybody is stoked to be engineering and bulding a full size Landcruiser, the same way most Porsche engineers would like to work on a 911 more than a Cayman. And it translates into the product.
They’re all built to a great standard the 200 is just built to a higher standard.
And there is an X factor that is real in the flagship product everybody is stoked to be engineering and bulding a full size Landcruiser, the same way most Porsche engineers would like to work on a 911 more than a Cayman. And it translates into the product.
All Toyotas are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I have a lot of respect for the GX, LC, and LX.
In terms of durability and long lasting quality, I strongly believe the GX can hold its own. As with all Toyota products. If used for its intended purpose.
The 200-series obviously has larger capacities and is more HD. If a GX is laden near its max and used at a high duty cycle or hard use, a 200-series will definitely outlast it.
If a vehicle is not used to its potential and just generally commuting or light offroad/overlanding, a GX could easily last as long and do it for far cheaper. So could a Corolla. The GX shares many parts with volume products like the 4Runner, and is more efficient to operate. Mods in the aftermarket are cheaper. It doesn't need as large of tires to handle technical obstacles the larger 200-series would need on account of size.
In some ways, if not using the capacity or capability of the 200-series, then it's just excess. Not as efficient. Or agile. Like using a BFH for a small job. The right size hammer could do the job faster and possibly better.
Higher standard - there's different dimensions to this. If we're talking specifically about Initial Quality, Quality Control, Quality thresholds etc., the Lexus brethren may have the edge. Lexus has higher QC requirements and Defect Per Unit thresholds as a brand. Sure, the LC may have high standards too and we don't know if Toyota internally holds that single model to higher requirements, but Lexus as a brand across its lineup, surely does have higher QC thresholds and process standards than Toyota.
For the OPs budget, $25k on an LC200 with ~200k may not be the best investment as there is more risk with higher mileage examples. There's going to be more repair and baselining costs than a younger GX example that has the benefit of cheaper parts. Then again, get what makes sense for you and makes you happy.
In terms of durability and long lasting quality, I strongly believe the GX can hold its own. As with all Toyota products. If used for its intended purpose.
The 200-series obviously has larger capacities and is more HD. If a GX is laden near its max and used at a high duty cycle or hard use, a 200-series will definitely outlast it.
If a vehicle is not used to its potential and just generally commuting or light offroad/overlanding, a GX could easily last as long and do it for far cheaper. So could a Corolla. The GX shares many parts with volume products like the 4Runner, and is more efficient to operate. Mods in the aftermarket are cheaper. It doesn't need as large of tires to handle technical obstacles the larger 200-series would need on account of size.
In some ways, if not using the capacity or capability of the 200-series, then it's just excess. Not as efficient. Or agile. Like using a BFH for a small job. The right size hammer could do the job faster and possibly better.
Higher standard - there's different dimensions to this. If we're talking specifically about Initial Quality, Quality Control, Quality thresholds etc., the Lexus brethren may have the edge. Lexus has higher QC requirements and Defect Per Unit thresholds as a brand. Sure, the LC may have high standards too and we don't know if Toyota internally holds that single model to higher requirements, but Lexus as a brand across its lineup, surely does have higher QC thresholds and process standards than Toyota.
For the OPs budget, $25k on an LC200 with ~200k may not be the best investment as there is more risk with higher mileage examples. There's going to be more repair and baselining costs than a younger GX example that has the benefit of cheaper parts. Then again, get what makes sense for you and makes you happy.
Bloc,
I was thinking about this….
All you need is one part where the LC part is beefier than the GX? Seems like more data points would be helpful.
I have seen pictures of the LC UCA compared to the Tundra UCA and I get UCA envy.
But I don’t believe the Tundra is “built to higher standards” like keeps being repeated here about the LC.
Surely there are more data points that we can use?
And before I get blasted for continuing with this debate, I would like to again make it clear that I’m an LC fanboy. I very much want my LC to be overbuilt. I just want to be sure that this is the case.
One thing that occurs to me is price. Surely there is a reason the LC costs 45% more than a GX. Hopefully it’s more than just the brand name. But where does this higher price manifest itself on our vehicles?
(And don’t say size because the Sequoia is larger and cheaper than both)
- Thread starter
- #38
I mean I can feel that price increase when driving the vehicles side by side. The LC just feels nicer and the 5.7 is definitely huge. Just unsure if that price hike is because of higher quality and overbuiltness or just the name really.
A Tundra is built to compete in the 1/2 ton and to some degree 3/4 ton truck market. The 4Runner/Prado/Tacoma is built to compete in the lighter truck domain. The fact that an LC/LX is built to Tundra standards (as far as heavy duty use is concerned) shows how tough they are. There's no doubt that you are paying for some luxury with the LC/LX in the USDM, but you are also getting the ruggedness of an HD truck under the skin.
I feel like you answered your own question here...
- Thread starter
- #40
Yup just concerned about the mileage of the LCs in my price range mostly