Questions about 200, Sequoia, LX570. (1 Viewer)

[355spider]

First off i'd like to introduce myself to the forum. I've been here a few times and just haven't registered. I did see you guys presence at the FJCruiser ralley in Ouray a few weeks ago. Great event. I'm a long time LC fan having owned an FJ80. My first decent car when I got out of College. Loved it alot. I have an FJ Cruiser TRD now. Long time member of fjcruiserforums. My FJ is pretty well rigged out for expeditions(3in lift, 305-16, skids, sliders, scuba mod, on board air w/tank and impact tools, tool box built in, 2 batteries, 3K watt inverter, roof basket w/8 lights, Ex One front bumper with 9K warn, ARB fridge, jump seat in back for kids, amp, sub, back up camera, NAV).

It's been great to me but were going to have a 4th child so it's getting a bit crowded on long trips. It's also a bit underpowered when loaded up with gear and kids. It constantly donwshifts when cruising at 70+. This is very annoying when traveling all the way to Colorado and back to Texas. Plus it gets terrible gas mileage doing this. My FJ80 did this as well. Similar weight and power so I am not surprised. Love the offraod capabilites of both of these rigs though. They would both go nearly anywhere I asked.

We were thinking Sequoia but I can't lift it high enough due to the IRS and it would be tough hustling that beast through Imogene Pass. My buddy does it in his Tundra but I i'm not feeling it. So it looks like LC or LX570. I assume they can both do 3 in lift and 33s? With their power they can probably cruise easily at 80+? My 80 wandered all over the road at 65+ due to the mushy suspension. Can the LC be driven easily with one hand on the road? Any other considerations. Great forum guys.

FJ Porn

read the sign if you can. Classic.

 

[Carl L]

Welcome to the forum. First a word of warning, ignore any and all posts from member "Pagemaster." Every other member will confirm he is nothing more than an infantile troll whose sole purpose is to try and wind up LC owners. He has no practical experience, real world knowledge or 4-wheeled vehicle of his own.

With that out the way, great pictures of your FJ. Looks like fun. Did you get out of the mud without help?

Yes a 2" or 3" lift will clear 33s and a few members (JB Horne among others, I believe) are running exactly that. The stock tires are suited only to dry off road conditions. I've wheeled mine bone stock on trails likeRowher and it's done fine, but it would be a different story in mud without MTs as I'm sure you know. 17" TRD wheels obviously bolt on and will just clear the brakes if you want even more sidewall.

LX has the height adjustable suspension and is excellent off road so long as the stock 20s are replaced with 17s or 18s. Others can chime in more on that, stereo is better too.

Plenty of power and runs true on the freeway at 80-90. Handling is improved but still far from class leading. Top speed is apparently 130, but I have no intention of traveling that in a traditional 4x4 like this. Steering is overly light but since you have a Toyota you'll be used to it, while the braking is acceptable rather than impressive but I have quite high standards in this regard.

Mileage is terrible with the 5.7, but it's a proven and basic unit while the vehicle is designed to be treated hard day in day out without complaint and feels like it. Should be perfect for you and your growing family as it's spacious inside but still relatively compact with a 112" wheelbase.

 

[355spider]

Welcome to the forum. First a word of warning, ignore any and all posts from member "Pagemaster." Every other member will confirm he is nothing more than an infantile troll whose sole purpose is to try and wind up LC owners. He has no practical experience, real world knowledge or 4-wheeled vehicle of his own.

With that out the way, great pictures of your FJ. Looks like fun. Did you get out of the mud without help?

Yes a 2" or 3" lift will clear 33s and a few members (JB Horne among others, I believe) are running exactly that. The stock tires are suited only to dry off road conditions. I've wheeled mine bone stock on trails likeRowher and it's done fine, but it would be a different story in mud without MTs as I'm sure you know. 17" TRD wheels obviously bolt on and will just clear the brakes if you want even more sidewall.

LX has the height adjustable suspension and is excellent off road so long as the stock 20s are replaced with 17s or 18s. Others can chime in more on that, stereo is better too.

Plenty of power and runs true on the freeway at 80-90. Handling is improved but still far from class leading. Top speed is apparently 130, but I have no intention of traveling that in a traditional 4x4 like this. Steering is overly light but since you have a Toyota you'll be used to it, while the braking is acceptable rather than impressive but I have quite high standards in this regard.

Mileage is terrible with the 5.7, but it's a proven and basic unit while the vehicle is designed to be treated hard day in day out without complaint and feels like it. Should be perfect for you and your growing family as it's spacious inside but still relatively compact with a 112" wheelbase.

LOL I will head the warning. No I didn't get out of that mud without an extraction strap and a hard pull from another FJ. It was really sticky. My winch couldn't even budge me. Excellent review. Thanks alot.

 

[patrickfinley]

With a family of 6 even the LC gets a little tight with lots of gear. However it's a big size step up in room from your FJ. The Seqouia is going to be much more spacious, but I doubt it would suit your needs on the trail.

If you keep the toddler seat to the left and put the infant seat in the middle of the 2nd row you'll have the right side which can still fold down so you have access to the 3rd row easily. What's also nice is the 200LC has 3rd row rollover bags which is great when you've got you're children back there. The rear hatch is also a good way for kids to get to the 3rd row. (not quite tech, but in the 200 forum anything goes)

If I'm not mistaken you should be able to fit 33's without a lift, but I'm not sure of the 305 width.

I like you're jump seat in the FJ.

 

[mark71]

33s fit without lift.

 

[pagemaster]

We were thinking Sequoia but I can't lift it high enough due to the IRS and it would be tough hustling that beast through Imogene Pass. My buddy does it in his Tundra but I i'm not feeling it. So it looks like LC or LX570. I assume they can both do 3 in lift and 33s? With their power they can probably cruise easily at 80+? My 80 wandered all over the road at 65+ due to the mushy suspension. Can the LC be driven easily with one hand on the road? Any other considerations. Great forum guys

You can heed the warning that others have mentioned about me, but I will tell you straight up how it is. I can see through the pretenious crap.

The Land Cruiser is a fine, fine SUV for what it is. There is no question about it.

What you will need to keep in mind as you compare it to your FJ or 80 series Toyota is that the newer 200 series Land Cruiser/LX570 and even the Toyota Sequoia are very heavy in complicated electronic equipment.

Less so in the Tundra and FJ. So, with that in mind, items like VGRS, HVAC systems that are all digital and electronic, power electric steering columns and 4LO which is electronic based. If something breaks out in the middle of nowhere, good luck. The FJ Cruiser is more basic with rotary dial for HVAC, a real shifter for 4wd. A basic suspension.

LX570 has even more electronic crap and the Platinum Sequoia is up there too with all the electric stuff.

The Land Cruiser 5.7 will perform fine loaded, unloaded etc, the 5.7 is an outstanding engine. Keep in mind, a top line Land Cruiser has a payload of around 1200-1300 lbs, a base USA model with no nav is closer to 1500lbs. An LX570 is around 1200lbs for payload. An FJ Cruiser is about 1250lbs of payload. So if you are loading these vehicles up with a lot of gear and add-ons, you might want to keep all this in mind.


The 4runner has the best turning radius, followed by Land Cruiser.

Have you considered a new Toyota 4runner? The new Toyota 4runner has more interior cargo volume behind the front seats and second row than a Land Cruiser, has 1550 lbs for payload in the trail edition form, and is a good off-road vehicle with an optional locking diff like your FJ and the KDSS from the Land Cruiser. I think you can get a 4runner with manual 4wd shifter.

Choose what you like, I am not bashing the Land Cruiser or any other Toyota. The Tundra/Land Cruiser/Sequoia/LX were all designed to meet a 7200/7275/7300 GVWR spec which was at one point the highest out all non 2500 SUV's in North America. The new 4runner is right in there between the 1st gen Tundra/Sequoia. You can load these up good.

 

[patrickfinley]

Have you considered a new Toyota 4runner? The new Toyota 4runner has more interior cargo volume behind the front seats and second row than a Land Cruiser,

Pagemaster when your only knowledge on vehicles are what you can dig up on Wiki or Toyota.com your information will fall short. Owning the vehicles or even seeing them has it's advantages.

There is no year model 4runner that can fit 2 child carseats on the left side while still being able to drop the right seat down to access the 3rd row. I tested this with Britax, but this is true for the vast majority of child car seats on the market.

Also, have you seen how tiny the 3rd row is in the 4runner? The LC may not be spacious, but it beats the 3rd row in the Runner by a longshot. Have you seen how tiny the cargo space is behind the 4Runner when the 3rd row is being used? There's enough room for a loaf of bread and that's about it. Where does he put all of his families luggage when the 3rd row is being used?

Also, the trail version does not have a 3rd row, so that wouldn't work either.

He needs a vehicle that is ideal for a family of 6 and offroad use. Sometimes its good to read the posters questions before spouting out facts that aren't relevant to his question. Sorry 355Spider you've stumbled into one heck of a forum.

 

[pagemaster]

He needs a vehicle that is ideal for a family of 6 and offroad use. .

Good point about the 6 seats. The 4runner SR5 comes with a 1795 lb payload capacity and three rows of seats. More interior room than a Land Crusier, more ground clearance, better angles, a basic suspension with nothing to break.

Also, have you seen how tiny the 3rd row is in the 4runner?

Are you and idiot?

The Land Cruiser is listed at 28.3 inches of legroom in the third row, the 4runner on the other hand is listed at 29.3 inches for the 3rd row. His kids are likely small, they will do fine back there. The 4runner is the winner.

Owning the vehicles or even seeing them has it's advantages.

I have more experience with all Toyota suvs/trucks than almost all of you on this forum. You don't need to know what I own, but let me make it clear, the 4wd vehicle that I own sure has more than 8.9 inches of ground clearance. I own more than just a motorcycle

 

[patrickfinley]

If you had picked Sequoia in this battle you would have had a construtive argument. Not so with your pick on the 4Runner for a family of 6.

Have you been in the 3rd row of either of these vehicles? Yes, the LC is 1 inch shorter in leg room. However, the 3rd row is almost 13 1/2 inches narrower at the seat in the 4Runner. Go check the Toyota page and you'll see, you seem to ignore all sorts of facts. There is a vast difference in the 3rd rows of the 2 vehicles.

Plus you fail to mention where he will put his luggage? Payload is very important, but if there's no space to put anything you're out of luck. Is he supposed to strap things to his roof every time he gets in the car with the kids? The Land Cruiser with 1 rear seat removed will have a lot more space in the cargo area than the 4Runner.

I've been in both of the vehicles with 2 car seats, double stroller, cribs and luggage. There is much more room in the 200 LC. I know this topic very well, I sold my 4Runner and bought a Land Cruiser because my family was growing and the 4Runner wasn't big enough for extended travel.

 

[pagemaster]

If you had picked Sequoia in this battle you would have had a construtive argument. Not so with your pick on the 4Runner for a family of 6.

Have you been in the 3rd row of either of these vehicles? Yes, the LC is 1 inch shorter in leg room. However, the 3rd row is almost 13 1/2 inches narrower at the seat in the 4Runner. Go check the Toyota page and you'll see, you seem to ignore all sorts of facts. There is a vast difference in the 3rd rows of the 2 vehicles.

Plus you fail to mention where he will put his luggage? Payload is very important, but if there's no space to put anything you're out of luck. Is he supposed to strap things to his roof every time he gets in the car with the kids? The Land Cruiser with 1 rear seat removed will have a lot more space in the cargo area than the 4Runner.

I've been in both of the vehicles with 2 car seats, double stroller, cribs and luggage. There is much more room in the 200 LC.

FACTS are FACTS.

Compared to the 4Runner, the Land Cruiser had less cargo capacity behind the front and second row, less cargo capacity, less approach angles, less departure angles, less third row leg room, less payload, and less GROUND CLEARANCE.

FACTS are FACTS.

There is much more room in the 200 LC.

You must be carrying feathers you FAIRY. The Land Cruiser has less payload than a 4Runner.

 

[patrickfinley]

You must be carrying feathers you FAIRY. The Land Cruiser has less payload than a 4Runner.

Let's look at this.

225 lbs driver
175 lbs passenger
100 lbs child x 4 = 400lbs (We know it's less because 2 will be in carseats, 1 will be an infant)

That's 800 lbs of people. That leaves 700 lbs for gear and luggage. If you can't bring what you need to bring in way less than 700 lbs than you aren't packing right.

When you take your family of 6 on adventures in your awesome unnamed 4wd vehicle, how much does all your gear weigh?

 

[patrickfinley]

Ok Pagemaster, since you seem to understand internet searches, lets try this, these numbers are taken from Toyota.com. The first set are the interior seating dimensions, first, second and third rows. Of the 9 sets of figures below for each vehicle, only 1 dimension is bigger on the 4Runner by one inch. All of the other 8 dimensions are and much more than an inch to over a foot bigger on the Land Cruiser.

2011 4Runner
Shoulder room.....57.8/57.8/57.7
Hip room................56.5/55.7/43.3
Leg room...............41.7/32.9/29.3
Seating capacity 5/7

2011 Land Cruiser
Shoulder room.....61.0/61.1/62.3
Hip room................59.4/58.6/56.6
Leg room...............42.9/34.4/28.3
Seating capacity 8

Now, the 2nd set of numbers. At First glance the Land Cruiser looses for cargo volume behind the 1st row and 2nd row.

2011 4Runner
Cargo Volume 88.8/46.3/9.0

2011 Land Cruiser
Cargo Volume 81.7/43.0/16.1

The 2011 4Runner has flat fold seats that fall into the floor out of view. The LC has the drop down seats. These seats take up cargo space. Many LC owners remove 1 or both of these seats. This would add an much more cargo volume to the Land Cruiser. Each seat is roughly 5-7 cu ft. Lets take the small number 5 and see what our volume looks like without the 2 seats.

Land Cruiser without seats
Cargo Volume 91.7/53/16.1

So, looking at just these size and volume facts and nothing else. For this moment lets forget about ground clearance, approach angles, KDSS, Taylor Swift, 8.9" heels, etc. Could you conceed that the Land Cruiser is bigger overall on the inside than the 4Runner and might be better suited for a family of 6 based on size and cargo volume?

355Spider sorry for sidetracking your post. Pagemaster, please reply.

 

[355spider]

All right screw this, lets just get it over with. Lets just whip them out and measure.

 

[patrickfinley]

All right screw this, lets just get it over with. Lets just whip them out and measure.

Not possible, Pagemaster does the Buffalo Bill pen*s tuck from Silence of the Lambs. "Preecccious"

On a more serious side 355Spider is the 4Runner on your list of potentials?

 

[pagemaster]

Ok Pagemaster, since you seem to understand internet searches, lets try this, these numbers are taken from Toyota.com. The first set are the interior seating dimensions, first, second and third rows. Of the 9 sets of figures below for each vehicle, only 1 dimension is bigger on the 4Runner by one inch. All of the other 8 dimensions are and much more than an inch to over a foot bigger on the Land Cruiser.

2011 4Runner
Shoulder room.....57.8/57.8/57.7
Hip room................56.5/55.7/43.3
Leg room...............41.7/32.9/29.3
Seating capacity 5/7

2011 Land Cruiser
Shoulder room.....61.0/61.1/62.3
Hip room................59.4/58.6/56.6
Leg room...............42.9/34.4/28.3
Seating capacity 8

Now, the 2nd set of numbers. At First glance the Land Cruiser looses for cargo volume behind the 1st row and 2nd row.

2011 4Runner
Cargo Volume 88.8/46.3/9.0

2011 Land Cruiser
Cargo Volume 81.7/43.0/16.1

The 2011 4Runner has flat fold seats that fall into the floor out of view. The LC has the drop down seats. These seats take up cargo space. Many LC owners remove 1 or both of these seats. This would add an much more cargo volume to the Land Cruiser. Each seat is roughly 5-7 cu ft. Lets take the small number 5 and see what our volume looks like without the 2 seats.

Land Cruiser without seats
Cargo Volume 91.7/53/16.1


So, looking at just these size and volume facts and nothing else. For this moment lets forget about ground clearance, approach angles, KDSS, Taylor Swift, 8.9" heels, etc. Could you conceed that the Land Cruiser is bigger overall on the inside than the 4Runner and might be better suited for a family of 6 based on size and cargo volume?

.

Looks like the Land Cruiser is a mid-size SUV. Cargo for the Explorer is 80.7/43.8/21 behind each row respectively

 

[pagemaster]

All right screw this, lets just get it over with. Lets just whip them out and measure.

Have you considered a 4Runner? The 4runner GVWR is right in there about 200 lbs under your old 80 series. Can handle four small kids, has a rear lockers, and up to 1795 lbs of capacity which goes a long way if you are doing extensive modifications.

 

[IslandTimes]

Alright pagemaster. Just went and climbed in the back of our '11 4runner and '09 200. I don't care what the numbers you're arguing show, but the 200 feels much more spacious in the 3rd row and behind the 3rd row for cargo capacity. Neither is overly ideal, but the headroom on the 4runner is lower for the 3rd row, and it is much narrower than the 200.

And 355spider, the 4runner and 200 are both great SUVs. But as far as handling on the 200 goes, with stock suspension I've loaded my car up with 7 adult passengers and light gear for a day trip and it still handled well on the highway going 75 - 85 mph.

 

[355spider]

Not possible, Pagemaster does the Buffalo Bill pen*s tuck from Silence of the Lambs. "Preecccious"

On a more serious side 355Spider is the 4Runner on your list of potentials?

Alright pagemaster. Just went and climbed in the back of our '11 4runner and '09 200. I don't care what the numbers you're arguing show, but the 200 feels much more spacious in the 3rd row and behind the 3rd row for cargo capacity. Neither is overly ideal, but the headroom on the 4runner is lower for the 3rd row, and it is much narrower than the 200.

And 355spider, the 4runner and 200 are both great SUVs. But as far as handling on the 200 goes, with stock suspension I've loaded my car up with 7 adult passengers and light gear for a day trip and it still handled well on the highway going 75 - 85 mph.

The 4 runners third row is for midgets with no legs. In not even considering it. The Lc is tight but its a decent compromise. Thanks for all the help guys. Kinda makes me curious as to why the Lc has no locker.

 

[bjowett]

I can't imagine things being very fun in a 200 series while carrying 4 kids plus gear. It could be made to work, though.

What about the Tundra do you not feel? I ask because int/ext design are basically the same between it and the Sequoia. The Sequoia has a 122" wheel base that is almost 2 feet shorter than the Tundra. Needless to say, it maneuvers far better than the 145.7" Tundra. The ride quality of the boxed frame and IRS is awesome. Plus, I just developed a shock that will allow about 2.5" of rear lift w/o the shock being close to the topped out zone... we're bringing the rear wheel travel to about 11", which is a perfect match for the front.

I'll say it again, all three (200/Tundra/Sequoia) are great 200 Series Land Cruiser Chassis variants.

 

[patrickfinley]

Looks like the Land Cruiser is a mid-size SUV. Cargo for the Explorer is 80.7/43.8/21 behind each row respectively

You couldn't do it could you. You couldn't say "you know what you are right and I made a mistake". I thought perhaps if presented with the facts you would admit that you had made a mistake. Instead you go off about Ford Explorers.

You can't admit that you're wrong can you.

BTW, does someone know the actual cargo volume with the seats removed? Or does someone know the dimenesions of the 3rd row seats, I can run the calculation. I figure it's somewhere around 28x28x12?