LC250 to FJ60 comparison (1 Viewer)

[Fort9378]

At le

I don't want to be that guy, but why didn't you read my response?
I explicitly stated stronger A and B pillars.
I explicitly stated make it wider for side protection (and use fj80 axles to make up the difference)
Crumple zones don't need overstyled expensive sheet metal and plastic or screens or $1000 headlights.
Having a tailgate has nothing to do safety, NVH or MPGs
MPGs aren't affected by a simple 'on-off' dial for AC.
You don't get more MPGs with 14 screens
$500 taillights don't affect NVH
The underlying structure can change with modern times, but why all the other excess?

At least one screen is required for backup camera by law.

The other reason is stripped out vehicles like that just don't sell anymore. There's no financial incentive to Toyota to sell them. Just like you don't see many plain stripped out work trucks driving around anymore, even though those are still sold.

 

[M1911]

I explicitly stated stronger A and B pillars.
I explicitly stated make it wider for side protection (and use fj80 axles to make up the difference)

Actually, you wrote nothing about stronger pillars. But what you are describing is a completely new design.

This is what you wrote:

take a fj60 body, add bracing and crumple zones for safety regs, and reuse all the FJ60 parts as possible. FJ80 axles for the additional width due to structural upgrades.

You simply can't effectively do that. You can't patch on more strength and safety. It requires a complete, clean-sheet new design. In addition, the FJ60 is horrendous from an aerodynamic standpoint -- that results in lots of interior wind noise and bad fuel efficiency. And, again, you can't patch on better aerodynamics to an existing body design.

I share your appreciation for the design of the FJ60, as I think it is a lovely SUV. But that was designed and engineered in the late 1970s. That's more than 40 years ago. You can't update that design to make it meet today's standards. The only way to meet today's standards of safety, fuel efficiency, noise, vibration, and harshness is a clean-sheet design.

If I had a spare $250,000, I'd call up TLC 4x4 in LA and have them build me a 142 (a 60/62 body on an 80 frame). But I accept that even with all that work and all that much money, that wouldn't nearly as safe a vehicle as a new LC 250.

Crumple zones don't need overstyled expensive sheet metal and plastic or screens or $1000 headlights.
Having a tailgate has nothing to do safety, NVH or MPGs
MPGs aren't affected by a simple 'on-off' dial for AC.
You don't get more MPGs with 14 screens
$500 taillights don't affect NVH
The underlying structure can change with modern times, but why all the other excess?

 

[onemanarmy]

At le

At least one screen is required for backup camera by law.

The other reason is stripped out vehicles like that just don't sell anymore. There's no financial incentive to Toyota to sell them. Just like you don't see many plain stripped out work trucks driving around anymore, even though those are still sold.

well then slap an easily removable screen on the dash. So I can take it out day 1. This entire backup cam thing grinds my gears. Same with TPMS. All knee jerk reactions by idiot beuracrats.
PLEASE GOV'T MAN SAVE US!!!!!

not once did i say 'stripped down'. I jus don't understand why people don't read for comprehension.

don't design the entire dash and stacks and consoles around a 14" screen.
-A double din radio with 6 speakers (cheap, easily replaceable, change it to whatever you want once its yours....even add a screen!)
-HVAC with turn dials
-power windows and locks
-rear split gate
-FJ80 axles
-modern crash structure
-fold down flat rear seat
-Limited slip
-lever actuated Tcase (super rugged and bro!)
-$60 Toyota headlights ( i have them on my FJ55....and they are great)
-NA 6 cylinder and 8 speed auto as an option (all other auto makers seem to make this work)

This is not 'stripped down'

 

[onemanarmy]

Actually, you wrote nothing about stronger pillars. But what you are describing is a completely new design.

This is what you wrote:

You simply can't effectively do that. You can't patch on more strength and safety. It requires a complete, clean-sheet new design. In addition, the FJ60 is horrendous from an aerodynamic standpoint -- that results in lots of interior wind noise and bad fuel efficiency. And, again, you can't patch on better aerodynamics to an existing body design.

I share your appreciation for the design of the FJ60, as I think it is a lovely SUV. But that was designed and engineered in the late 1970s. That's more than 40 years ago. You can't update that design to make it meet today's standards. The only way to meet today's standards of safety, fuel efficiency, noise, vibration, and harshness is a clean-sheet design.


View attachment 3627035

yea I did...if you read a bit later on:

"We want modern crash safety A and B pillars."

which should go without saying when mentioning 'modern crash structure'

 

[M1911]

well then slap an easily removable screen on the dash. So I can take it out day 1. This entire backup cam thing grinds my gears. Same with TPMS. All knee jerk reactions by idiot beuracrats.

I really disagree. I owned an '03 4Runner without a screen or backup camera. When backing into a parking space, the front of a car behind you disappears below the line of the rear window, making it hard to judge how much room you have. No, I never hit anything because I parked with care, but it is simply a lot easier and less stressful to back up my 200 Series with a backup camera.

In addition, there have been more than few tragedies when parents haven't seen a child behind their vehicle and have backed up over them -- something that can be prevented with a rearview camera.

Screens are here to stay. I do greatly prefer having things like HVAC controlled by knobs and levers, rather than buried in the screen. Hopefully this trend of putting everything in the screen will start to reverse, but time will tell. The LC 250, 4th Gen Taco, and 6th Gen 4Runner seem to keep most of these things on buttons and levers, rather than on the screen.

 

[M1911]

yea I did...if you read a bit later on:

"We want modern crash safety A and B pillars."

which should go without saying when mentioning 'modern crash structure'

That was in a different post.

But, once again, you can't patch a modern crash structure onto a 40-year-old design. The only way to get a modern crash structure is to do a clean-sheet design.

 

[Fort9378]

This is not 'stripped down'

In modern cars, it is.

 

[onemanarmy]

I really disagree. I owned an '03 4Runner without a screen or backup camera. When backing into a parking space, the front of a car behind you disappears below the line of the rear window, making it hard to judge how much room you have. No, I never hit anything because I parked with care, but it is simply a lot easier and less stressful to back up my 200 Series with a backup camera.

In addition, there have been more than few tragedies when parents haven't seen a child behind their vehicle and have backed up over them -- something that can be prevented with a rearview camera.

Screens are here to stay. I do greatly prefer having things like HVAC controlled by knobs and levers, rather than buried in the screen.

I don't get it. the amount of info that flys over so many people's heads. I didn't say not offer a screen. make it a standalone thing....so i can take it out or upgrade or whatever. don't design the entire interior of the car (especially a rugged offroader) around it.

I 'understand' why they are mandated now, cause the man needs to look needed. Same with TPMS. They make you buy it but then thats it. No one is checking to see if its actually functioning. So why? (that was rhetorical) No one is stopping you from adding a backup cam to your 2003 car. You do you.

Inattentive poeple do all sorts of stupid stuff every day....we want a gov't mandate everytime someone does something dumb?

You asking for gov't control over your cell phone cause so many text and drive (and kill far more than reverse collisions)

 

[onemanarmy]

That was in a different post.

But, once again, you can't patch a modern crash structure onto a 40-year-old design. The only way to get a modern crash structure is to do a clean-sheet design.

yes?
I agree.
upgrade the design.
egregious use of plastic and expensive overstyled lights and interiors has nothing to do with crash structure

 

[M1911]

yes?
I agree.
upgrade the design.

You can't "upgrade" a 40-year-old vehicle to meet modern standards, it would have to be a clean-sheet design.

 

[Phillyd2]

Nothing wrong with screens as long as everything still works if it dies. Same with other convenience technology. Nice to have to make life easier but it shouldn't be integrated into critical systems.

But it's not gonna happen and we're all walking after a EMT.

 

[joseywales]

You can't "upgrade" a 40-year-old vehicle to meet modern standards, it would have to be a clean-sheet design.

Sure you can. I never said it would meet today’s requirements for sale as new. I said “you can get a lot of modern for the $70k you would spend on a new one”. For me, that would look like suspension, brakes, engine/trans, sound deadening, seats and maybe a double din stereo with CarPlay. I give zero s***s about nav, Bluetooth everything, “infotainment” (I almost threw up typing that idiotic word) and most other new model crap. Shoot, I think I also described this:

 

[M1911]

Sure you can. I never said it would meet today’s requirements for sale as new.

My response was to onansrmy, he was suggesting that Toyota modify the FJ60 design to meet current safety standards and start selling it new again. My response to his suggestion was to say that upgrading the FJ60 design to meet modern safety standards is not feasible — it would require a complete redesign from scratch. I stand by my statement; the FJ60 design can not effectively be modified to meet today’s crash safety standards.

 

[TWILLY]

I don't get it. the amount of info that flys over so many people's heads. I didn't say not offer a screen. make it a standalone thing....so i can take it out or upgrade or whatever. don't design the entire interior of the car (especially a rugged offroader) around it.

I 'understand' why they are mandated now, cause the man needs to look needed. Same with TPMS. They make you buy it but then thats it. No one is checking to see if its actually functioning. So why? (that was rhetorical) No one is stopping you from adding a backup cam to your 2003 car. You do you.

Inattentive poeple do all sorts of stupid stuff every day....we want a gov't mandate everytime someone does something dumb?

You asking for gov't control over your cell phone cause so many text and drive (and kill far more than reverse collisions)

A modular screen, such as a tablet mount, in place of a fixed screen, would make a lot of sense.

It would allow owners to swap out tablets as technology evolves, whereas fixed screens become weird and dated.

 

[onemanarmy]

My response was to onansrmy, he was suggesting that Toyota modify the FJ60 design to meet current safety standards and start selling it new again. My response to his suggestion was to say that upgrading the FJ60 design to meet modern safety standards is not feasible — it would require a complete redesign from scratch. I stand by my statement; the FJ60 design can not effectively be modified to meet today’s crash safety standards.

man.

didn't think i'd have to dumb it down so much.

of course you can't take a 1983 FJ60 and weld in some A pillar supports and call it good.

Yes, there is some blank slate, brand new 2023 FEA work that needs to be done to design crumple zones. Duh.

So yea, you design a new underlying frame. But with FJ80 solid axle attachment points with hub disconects for that MPGs. (parts bin) A space for an easily replaceable Double DIN radio. 3 knobs for HVAC. FJ60 headlights and taillights (Cheap, screams nostalgia, and keeps parts around for us with the old ones), 300 series 3rd brake light (you know, parts bin stufff keeps cost down!) NA V6 and 8 speed auto as an option. Manual shift T case (parts bin). 200 series split gate (parts bin). No need for 18 ECU controlled terrain modes that 99.9% will never use. Rear limited slip, maybe with a locker option. (parts bin). FJ80 Slider cargo windows (parts bin)

you get it. I hope.

Think of the marketing/advertising angles!

 

[joseywales]

My response was to onansrmy, he was suggesting that Toyota modify the FJ60 design to meet current safety standards and start selling it new again. My response to his suggestion was to say that upgrading the FJ60 design to meet modern safety standards is not feasible — it would require a complete redesign from scratch. I stand by my statement; the FJ60 design can not effectively be modified to meet today’s crash safety standards.

And I agree with you. I’m still allowed to reply though. Unless you are my new wife?

 

[MongooseGA]

man.

didn't think i'd have to dumb it down so much.

of course you can't take a 1983 FJ60 and weld in some A pillar supports and call it good.

Yes, there is some blank slate, brand new 2023 FEA work that needs to be done to design crumple zones. Duh.

So yea, you design a new underlying frame. But with FJ80 solid axle attachment points with hub disconects for that MPGs. (parts bin) A space for an easily replaceable Double DIN radio. 3 knobs for HVAC. FJ60 headlights and taillights (Cheap, screams nostalgia, and keeps parts around for us with the old ones), 300 series 3rd brake light (you know, parts bin stufff keeps cost down!) NA V6 and 8 speed auto as an option. Manual shift T case (parts bin). 200 series split gate (parts bin). No need for 18 ECU controlled terrain modes that 99.9% will never use. Rear limited slip, maybe with a locker option. (parts bin). FJ80 Slider cargo windows (parts bin)

you get it. I hope.

Think of the marketing/advertising angles!

Here's the difficult to swallow nuts and bolts of it:

Guys like you (and myself 100%) are market dinosaurs. Manufacturers are no longer making vehicles for you or I, that's just what it is. Blame overreaching gov't regs or the market at large, or just the ideocrazation of people in general. As much as I hate to acknowledge it, all of the things in new cars that you (and I) hate, are here to stay. Imagine the blowback when manufacturers start REMOVING safety tech to satisfy grumpy enthusiasts like us, who aren't going to buy the car until it's 10 years old anyway. Cars today are made for the lowest common denominator of people. Meaning, the back up cams, nanny aids, safety requirements, etc; they all exist to account for people who just can't drive and/or want to have an abundance of safety. The latter is fine, although I personally can't own a vehicle with the ability to prevent me from changing lanes without a signal, or to stop my constant speed when it thinks I'm too close to a car in front of me. Can't. ****ing. Do. It. And I can't wrap my head around folks who are OK with and actually want this tech. Just be an active driver, why give your safety to the judgement of your ****ing car??

New cars are made for babies to ride in. The cool Marlboro Man image we have of rugged 60s and 80s, that's gone. What's left of it is marketing and appealing to buyers' emotions. These are people haulers first, do cool s*** second. Dealerships are appliance warehouses. The 250 will probably sell very well, not because it's actually built to a special standard reserved for all Cruisers in the past(it's not), which is why the LC line has always been highly regarded, but because it has car-seat anchors in the back seat and someone can drive it without knowing how to use their mirrors to see behind them (which, IMO, we are only encouraging with the backup camera requirements). The 250 will trade on brand value instead of actual build specialty, because the buyers of it don't care about build specialty. It has smart cruise.

Unfortunately, for the vehicle you want, you're going to have to build it. Nothing with a window sticker will ever again make you want to spend your money to take it home with you. And if you did, you'd hate it by the time you arrived in your driveway for all the reasons you've already mentioned.

Now, get off my lawn.

 

[mkennedy009]

I blame it on capitalism, before the Fall of the Wall, the USSR had great motorcycles, cars and trucks with 1950s technology being produced new in the 80s. I long for a motorcycle with a simple vacuum carburetor that get 65mpg and can run on dirty fuel. All kidding aside, Fuel Injection is the only way to go if you cannot ride 11 months a year like those Californians.

 

[M1911]

Cars today are made for the lowest common denominator of people. Meaning, the back up cams, nanny aids, safety requirements, etc; they all exist to account for people who just can't drive and/or want to have an abundance of safety. The latter is fine, although I personally can't own a vehicle with the ability to prevent me from changing lanes without a signal, or to stop my constant speed when it thinks I'm too close to a car in front of me. Can't. ****ing. Do. It. And I can't wrap my head around folks who are OK with and actually want this tech. Just be an active driver, why give your safety to the judgement of your ****ing car??

I'm not young. I learned to drive in 1975 in a 1969 Ford Falcon with an underpowered straight-six engine, a three-speed automatic transmission, unassisted 4-wheel drum brakes, and manual steering. My dad would have preferred a three-on-the-tree manual transmission, but he got a good deal on this used Falcon. The next car I drove was a 1970 full size Ford station wagon. That had an underpowered V8, a three-speed automatic transmission, and the "luxury" of power steering and power brakes. For the next 25 years, I only drove cars with manual transmissions.

So I know all about simple cars. And you know what? I don't care to drive a car like that. I live in New England and I like heated seats and a heated steering wheel. I use the radar cruise control every time I drive the car as it allows me to set my maximum speed and then focus on driving the car rather than constantly checking my speed.

I disagree with your descriptions of lane assist and radar cruise control. First, lane assist doesn't stop you from changing lanes. Second, you can turn off lane assist. Third, radar cruise control allows you to adjust your follow distance. Fourth, you can override distance on radar cruise simply by pressing on the accelerator. Fifth, you can simply turn off the radar and change it to behave like normal cruise control if you want. So I don't understand your objections. I understand some folks don't use those things. My wife has never used cruise control, even though her last 3 cars have it -- I don't get it, but whatever.

I've taken my 200 on two major road trips. The first was Boston to Yellowstone to Breckenridge and back to Boston (6,000 total miles). The second was Boston to Telluride and back to Boston (5,000 total miles). So each time included 4 days straight on the interstate going and returning. I greatly appreciated radar cruise on these trips and would have preferred to have some lane assist as well. The 200 is a great vehicle, but it does wander a bit and requires frequent minor corrections -- it would be less tiring to drive if it tracked the lane a bit better. And, like I said, you can always simply turn that stuff off if you don't want it. Long days on the interstate are tiring. I appreciate anything that can make it less tiring for me.

and someone can drive it without knowing how to use their mirrors to see behind them (which, IMO, we are only encouraging with the backup camera requirements).

I appreciate the good mirrors on the 200, I know how to use them and I do use them daily. But the mirrors don't allow you to see directly behind the vehicle. When you are backing up, the hood of the car behind you disappears below the line of the rear window. With a backup camera, you can see exactly how much room you've got behind you and you can make sure you aren't going to run over anyone or anything.

 

[MongooseGA]

I'm not young. I learned to drive in 1975 in a 1969 Ford Falcon with an underpowered straight-six engine, a three-speed automatic transmission, unassisted 4-wheel drum brakes, and manual steering. My dad would have preferred a three-on-the-tree manual transmission, but he got a good deal on this used Falcon. The next car I drove was a 1970 full size Ford station wagon. That had an underpowered V8, a three-speed automatic transmission, and the "luxury" of power steering and power brakes. For the next 25 years, I only drove cars with manual transmissions.

So I know all about simple cars. And you know what? I don't car to drive a car like that. I live in New England and I like heated seats and a heated steering wheel. I use the radar cruise control every time I drive the car as it allows me to set my maximum speed and then focus on driving the car rather than constantly checking my speed.

I disagree with your descriptions of lane assist and radar cruise control. First, lane assist doesn't stop you from changing lanes. Second, you can turn off lane assist. Third, radar cruise control allows you to adjust your follow distance. Fourth, you can override distance on radar cruise simply by pressing on the accelerator. Fifth, you can simply turn off the radar and change it to behave like normal cruise control if you want. So I don't understand your objections. I understand some folks don't use those things. My wife has never used cruise control, even though her last 3 cars have it -- I don't get it, but whatever.

I've taken my 200 on two major road trips. The first was Boston to Yellowstone to Breckenridge and back to Boston (6,000 total miles). The second was Boston to Telluride and back to Boston (5,000 total miles). So each time included 4 days straight on the interstate going and returning. I greatly appreciated radar cruise on these trips and would have preferred to have some lane assist as well. The 200 is a great vehicle, but it does wander a bit and requires frequent minor corrections -- it would be less tiring to drive if it tracked the lane a bit better. And, like I said, you can always simply turn that stuff off if you don't want it. Long days on the interstate are tiring. I appreciate anything that can make it less tiring for me.

I appreciate the good mirrors on the 200, I know how to use them and I do use them daily. But the mirrors don't allow you to see directly behind the vehicle. When you are backing up, the hood of the car behind you disappears below the line of the rear window. With a backup camera, you can see exactly how much room you've got behind you and you can make sure you aren't going to run over anyone or anything.

Fair points. Like you I also appreciate some luxuries in my newer cars that my older cars do not. However, those luxuries I appreciate have zero to do with what the car *thinks* I should be doing in regards to driving. Heated seats have existed for over 30 years, that's not the kind of "modern tech" I'm referencing.

Worth noting, you can possibly turn those systems off in a Toyota, but I had a recent 2024 Hyundai rental and the smart cruise could not be. I googled, called the dealer, called friends who had Hyundais, nothing. When I say "prevents me from turning the wheel", I'm referring to the palpable resistance in the steering wheel from the lane departure system. I first experienced this in a rental 2019(ish) Camry. Absolutely not cool. Without having felt it before, my initial thought was "it feels like the wheel is binding, it feels like I need to really yank this this to make my maneuver". Which, is a good way to activate a stability program as well while you're careening across lanes.

I have all kinds of problems with radar cruise control. I can write a wall of text about it. If anyone actually cares, maybe I will. But since you mentioned the one point, I'll address it. "Let's me not have to worry about the driving on a long trip". And that's the problem, IMO. It discourages active driving. While you're allowing your car to make these decisions for you, your attention to your surroundings is diminished. This is not an arguable thing, it occurs. I think that's bad.

Backup cameras are a convenience and thus, have no impact in how a car thinks i should drive. I don't really have a problem with them. But, not being able to see the hood of the car behind you is easily solved without a backup camera. You just become familiar with your vehicle. Somehow, people managed for 100 years doing this. I can understand there are circumstances where it could be helpful, but I've yet to back in to anything in any of my vehicles ever, including my lifted 100 with bumper mounted spare. I couldn't make myself justify a feature required for the sake of a bad driver's insurance company just because I've been unwilling to familiarize myself with my vehicle. Using similar logic, people should all have curb feelers on their cars, so they don't have to learn where their tires are relative to a curb.