Shopping for a 100 series

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

And anyone with an '02 or earlier should trade up for an '03+ since they have the optional side airbags. Side airbags have proven to save lives. Really! I read it in Consumer Reports. :p
 
And anyone with an '02 or earlier should trade up for an '03+ since they have the optional side airbags. Side airbags have proven to save lives. Really! I read it in Consumer Reports. :p

Driving to the dealership right now!!! :idea:
 
I traded my 99 for an 00 because of VSC. I drive rather quickly. I am not trading for side air bags thou.

It is proven in single car acccidents that VSC saves people and vehicles.

We are mostly good to great drivers however things happen that are out of our control and I like a little computer watching over me on this one.
 
Thanks for all the good info everyone, interesting. I think I am going to hold off on these two, they were not really close to home, and with what was said about price maybe not the best deal. I think I'll keep looking for something around town and hopefully come across a sweet deal on a 2000+.
 
There is a CDL lock indicator switch on the transfer case that tells the ECU the CDL is locked. Jumping those two wires with a dash mounted switch should defeat VSC without having the CDL actually engaged. However, I believe the ABS system switches to a different ABS program (but still active) than normal when CDL is engaged.
 
That would be cool, VSC off and CDL not locked! Would be great for rally style driving in the snow!
 
By thw way...it's VSC that's the safety enhancer. (Not TRAC)

And it's BS that vehicles equipped with it are not safer than ones without it. It's a proven fact that VSC saves lives no matter the driver's skill. CRAP happens, ready or not...and VSC can save your ass especially on a top-heavy SUV.

And my god.....more vehicles don't have it so that means it's not a worth wild enhancement. It's newer tech....duhhhh....it costs money.....duh....BUT...it's being added to almost ALL new models and for a reason. It's being demanded by buyers and it saves lives.

Let's end the denial? You want your stock 98-99 on two wheels while swerving (like the testing)? Or, do you want all four wheels on the ground like in the 2000's testing? Now imagine a lift and bigger tires. Good Lord!


In my response I was commenting on the ATRAC comment above (he said ATRAC not VSC), I won't argue that the VSC is not a valuable safety feature. But at the same time I don't think that vehicles are un-safe without it. Not having VSC does not kill people, it is their driving and inability to control the vehicle to avoid an accident that kills them. Obviously VSC is supposed to help people better control the vehicle. Slowing down and not forcing a vehicle to a point where it needs VSC for the driver to maintain control would be a safer practice than driving in a manner where it is needed and at that point really the purpose of it becomes useless. Of course, this would be a perfect world which the world is not.

I think your argument about something being newer technology and costs money and being demanded by buyers is not really a good argument for VSC. Not all new technology is better, not everything that costs more is better, and not everything that consumers demand is better either. I could provide oodles of examples of products where your arguments used for justification would show that these statements were not valid. I think the function of VSC would be a good enough argument for it without trying to justify it as better because it is newer, costs more, and their is a consumer need.

If you are going to use those things for your argument you better sell that crappy old 100 series and upgrade to the 200 as it has newer technology, costs more money, and consumers have demanded changes to the Land Cruiser line. By using your argument it must be a lot better in the safety department and you should spend your nights being fearful of the proposition of having to drive that archaic 100 you have with the over sized tires. I'm definitely not going to use your argument to defend that the 200 is quite possibly much safer than any 100, but I do believe it. Not only has the safety technology been upgraded, but so have the actual mechanical features of the 200.

I'd choose a stock 98/99 over a modified rig with VSC if safety was my only concern because there are other compromises with a modified rig other than stability that would be more of a daily safety hazard.

I don't have to imagine a lifted 99, I drive it every day, and it has those monstrous 315s too! Yep, that sucker is a death trap that is why I have a hard time sleeping every night because I let my wife and kids ride in it daily.:flipoff2:
 
That would be cool, VSC off and CDL not locked! Would be great for rally style driving in the snow!


e...x...a...c...t...l...y! I think the FJC guys are doing it, may have to get my hands on a wiring diagram for the system ;)
 
In my response I was commenting on the ATRAC comment above (he said ATRAC not VSC), I won't argue that the VSC is not a valuable safety feature. But at the same time I don't think that vehicles are un-safe without it. Not having VSC does not kill people, it is their driving and inability to control the vehicle to avoid an accident that kills them. Obviously VSC is supposed to help people better control the vehicle. Slowing down and not forcing a vehicle to a point where it needs VSC for the driver to maintain control would be a safer practice than driving in a manner where it is needed and at that point really the purpose of it becomes useless. Of course, this would be a perfect world which the world is not.

I think your argument about something being newer technology and costs money and being demanded by buyers is not really a good argument for VSC. Not all new technology is better, not everything that costs more is better, and not everything that consumers demand is better either. I could provide oodles of examples of products where your arguments used for justification would show that these statements were not valid. I think the function of VSC would be a good enough argument for it without trying to justify it as better because it is newer, costs more, and their is a consumer need.

If you are going to use those things for your argument you better sell that crappy old 100 series and upgrade to the 200 as it has newer technology, costs more money, and consumers have demanded changes to the Land Cruiser line. By using your argument it must be a lot better in the safety department and you should spend your nights being fearful of the proposition of having to drive that archaic 100 you have with the over sized tires. I'm definitely not going to use your argument to defend that the 200 is quite possibly much safer than any 100, but I do believe it. Not only has the safety technology been upgraded, but so have the actual mechanical features of the 200.

I'd choose a stock 98/99 over a modified rig with VSC if safety was my only concern because there are other compromises with a modified rig other than stability that would be more of a daily safety hazard.

I don't have to imagine a lifted 99, I drive it every day, and it has those monstrous 315s too! Yep, that sucker is a death trap that is why I have a hard time sleeping every night because I let my wife and kids ride in it daily.:flipoff2:

Folks shouldn't argue with the massive amount of data out there about VSC. It's not always about speed, lesser speed, driver skill......a lot of the time it's becuase "s*** happens" and the person cannot react to all needed inputs like the computers can. It's proven and that's why we see it all over.

That's also why we see in the current Consumer Reports Mag that under #3 (SAFETY) for "what to look for in a used car" it says first and foremost to look for a vehicle with skid control (then air bags, etc).

We're not talking about 100 vs 200 in this thread. We're talking about 100's with or without VSC. And I sure hope the 200 is a safer rig than the 100. It's newer, it's lower, it more expensive...it better be structurally safer.
 
I don't have to imagine a lifted 99, I drive it every day, and it has those monstrous 315s too! Yep, that sucker is a death trap that is why I have a hard time sleeping every night because I let my wife and kids ride in it daily.:flipoff2:

I consider my 100 to be somewhat "dangerous" as well in it's current state compared to the stock and tested vehicles out there. I do not drive with a "false sense of hope". I have grave respect for it's top heaviness and stock-track width. My wife drives the 100 maybe 100 miles per year. The Rx8 is her DD.
 
e...x...a...c...t...l...y! I think the FJC guys are doing it, may have to get my hands on a wiring diagram for the system

Plus then we can get another button on the dash. Make it red for "Danger - VSC Off and Rally driving on"
 
"**** happens"


Exactly... you simply cannot control changing road conditions or what the assclown in the lane next to you is going to do. All the ABS / VSC / ATRAC gadgetry on the 100 gives me quite a bit more piece of mind in transitional conditions than I had in my 62. The 62 was a tank with the hubs locked in and the 4WD engaged, but you didn't want to drive it like that unless you actually needed it, especially on dry pavement.
 
If buying today, I'd also buy one equipped with VSC/ATRAC as the prices are not much more. At the time I bought my 100, it was $25k vs $20k. I thought the $5k premium was a bit much for a vehicle I was only driving 5-6k miles per year.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom