Test Drive comparison (1 Viewer)

[twstrchasr]

This pretty much hits the mark where I am right now. I want to replace my 99 LX with a new one, but for what will surely be a nearly $80K LX replacement, it "just doesn't do it for me." In my opinion, the exterior of the LC looks much better than the LX photos I've seen; however, I really like the LX's interior better. Unfortunately, neither of them look the part of a 65K-75K vehicle like the Range Rover, and I gotta tell ya, if I'm going to plunk down that kind of cash, I don't want anyone to be confused about what I'm driving. Like someone implied before, I can buy a much cheaper vehicle that's just as capable / reliable as a LC/LX if I don't care what it looks like. Also, in my business, it's somewhat important to look prosperous, and the RR has a lot larger share of that credential (I wish it weren't the case, but that's just a fact)......All that being said, I'm still ULTRA concerned about the RR's reliability. If I thought it would be even 80% as reliable as my 9-model-year-old LX, I'd buy one tomorrow (but it may be a used one, just in case) My LX has been an absolutely AWESOME vehicle. I bought it about 3 years ago, and I have liked it MUCH more than I thought I would. Unfortunately, the new 200 just didn't get the styling it deserved. The Japanese are so adept at "copying" designs, all they had to do was to look at the RR.

The dilemma continues.........................

I'm with you all the way about the "looks" issue with the new LC/LX. It's not that I want to flaunt whatever it is that I have, there just needs to be some model identity, I guess you would call it. I have seen the new LC and yes, it does look like a highlander, The LC looks like a highlander since the Highlander came out first ! It always used to bother me when my parents would have a big motor s-classe Mercedes and a dinky 6 cylinder one would look just like it !! Maybe I am a snob !! Anyway, the new LC looks OK, and maybe it will look better as time goes by. A new body style usually takes some time to get used to. Here is my beef, and it applies to just about every SUV these days. They are getting too damned refined, looks wise. I started driving in a 1978 Scout II ( that thing was a tank!!) and have had just about every suv that you could buy in the USA. Big Bronco's, Scout's, FJ60/62's, they were "trucky". That is what I liked about them. Now days, SUV's are really nothing more than tall luxury all wheel drive station wagons. The closest thing I can really get that would be close to those old school 4x4's would be something like a 4 door F-350. And I haven't rulled one of those out, yet !!

 

[mobi-arc]

No mystery why they don't have a space program. It's amazing...got to love governments that can't get out of there own way.

Everything is subject to 100% tariffs. Most corrupt govts in 2nd and 3rd world countries wants a cut out of everything. A Ford escape goes for $35K.

And believe it or not, everyone pays in cash up front.
I read somewhere a guy paid $721K for an Aston martin.
Here: http://english.vietnamnet.vn/biz/2006/12/641290/

A quote:

In early August, when popular people were busy arguing about the taxes imposed on imported used cars, the playboys heard about the appearance of an Aston Martin Vanquish in Hanoi.

The model is not priced less than $230,000 in foreign countries, so it must cost around $721,000 after tax in Vietnam, after the car owner has to pay the 90% import tax (on imported brand new cars), 50% luxury tax and 10% VAT.

 

[dtt255]

I dunno, when the looks of the LC gets diluted into utter blandness and you can't tell it from a Highlander or whatever, it will dimish the exclusivity of a Land Cruiser. It doesn't matter if the thing is built like a Sherman tank or not. The LC has a great reputation world wide and part of that mistique is its performance as well as a distinctive look. You might be one person who is not swayed by the looks of a vehicle but there are many, many more who ARE interested in how the vehicle looks as well as how it performs. And quite frankly if I plop $70,000 for a LC and it is barely indistinquishable from a $35,000 Highlander, why bother with the LC? Toyota builds the best vehicles on earth (says you) so how much better can a LC be than a Highlander? If it's a Toyota it is faultless, right? Great is great, huh ??? Maybe I will get a Highlander, take all of it badges off and replace them with Land Cruiser ones! I wonder, would anyone even notice?? Hmmm, maybe I'm on to something here. Buy a Highlander, save $40K , invest the rest !!!

Ok I am getting very confused with this 200 Series Land Cruiser section.
I understand that looks mean something. Some don't care, Some care WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much (IMHO)

I understand that everyone is different, but I will interject with my opinion here (because I know everyone asked)

Looks mean something to me, because to be honest, I would not touch the Aztec if someone paid me to drive it! but they are secondary to the mechanics of the vehicle.

I don't understand why it SEEMS that everyone is judging this vehicle by it's looks alone.

Now remember that I am a newbie, so maybe I am over looking things that others would care way more about, but my decision to purchase a LC had to do with what the vehicle could off the road then what it looks like sitting in a parking lot.

I saw my LC parked nose to nose with a Brand new highlander the other day, and maybe I am biased, but it didn't look much like it. It was obviously much bigger all the way around. Sat higher, different back end, wider etc.

Were there similarities, yes alot. But the X5 looks alot like the 7 series I wanted to get...why because they are both BMW's!

I drove my LC yesterday for about 45 miles off road yesterday on sand trails, over miles of loose rock, bump after bump...and the thought of what the body shape looked like didn't even enter my mind..except for how much dirt was on it

It climbed every hill I wanted, over every sand dune (I learned the value of momentum quickly) went over any desert brush, over some pretty large boulders WITHOUT any issues.

In the end, that is all that matters to me.

Does the new kia look good? HELL YA! but then again I could argue that it looks like those small Chrysler suvs (which is does from the front)

So if we are wanting to get unique looking vechiles...go to europe where they have those little 2 seaters that can fold up into a briefcase.

The other thing is that I purchased a Toyota because I KNOW that it is meant to go off road, and they have proven they can do it right! but I am smart enough to realize that they are not the only ones....just the ones doing it the longest

I actually like the look inside of the MDX more then the LC.....BUT when I went to the service dept of the Acura dealership and asked them about going off road...the snickered and said...."have fun, call us when you get stuck. Go buy a Toyota...you will be happier."

I think that sums it all up.

Plus the idea of driving a vehicle that only about 5k other people in the US are going to drive, has some appeal for me!

 

[twstrchasr]

Ok I am getting very confused with this 200 Series Land Cruiser section.
I understand that looks mean something. Some don't care, Some care WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much (IMHO)

I understand that everyone is different, but I will interject with my opinion here (because I know everyone asked)

Looks mean something to me, because to be honest, I would not touch the Aztec if someone paid me to drive it! but they are secondary to the mechanics of the vehicle.

I don't understand why it SEEMS that everyone is judging this vehicle by it's looks alone.

Now remember that I am a newbie, so maybe I am over looking things that others would care way more about, but my decision to purchase a LC had to do with what the vehicle could off the road then what it looks like sitting in a parking lot.

I saw my LC parked nose to nose with a Brand new highlander the other day, and maybe I am biased, but it didn't look much like it. It was obviously much bigger all the way around. Sat higher, different back end, wider etc.

Were there similarities, yes alot. But the X5 looks alot like the 7 series I wanted to get...why because they are both BMW's!

I drove my LC yesterday for about 45 miles off road yesterday on sand trails, over miles of loose rock, bump after bump...and the thought of what the body shape looked like didn't even enter my mind..except for how much dirt was on it

It climbed every hill I wanted, over every sand dune (I learned the value of momentum quickly) went over any desert brush, over some pretty large boulders WITHOUT any issues.

In the end, that is all that matters to me.

Does the new kia look good? HELL YA! but then again I could argue that it looks like those small Chrysler suvs (which is does from the front)

So if we are wanting to get unique looking vechiles...go to europe where they have those little 2 seaters that can fold up into a briefcase.

The other thing is that I purchased a Toyota because I KNOW that it is meant to go off road, and they have proven they can do it right! but I am smart enough to realize that they are not the only ones....just the ones doing it the longest

I actually like the look inside of the MDX more then the LC.....BUT when I went to the service dept of the Acura dealership and asked them about going off road...the snickered and said...."have fun, call us when you get stuck. Go buy a Toyota...you will be happier."

I think that sums it all up.

Plus the idea of driving a vehicle that only about 5k other people in the US are going to drive, has some appeal for me!

I think all this discussion about the looks of the 200 is an example of over analizing something. I'm guilty as much as anybody. I think some of us are somewhat let down by the ultra conservitive styling but no one doubts the guts of the rig. Maybe this happens everytime a new model come out.

 

[dtt255]

I think all this discussion about the looks of the 200 is an example of over analizing something. I'm guilty as much as anybody. I think some of us are somewhat let down by the ultra conservitive styling but no one doubts the guts of the rig. Maybe this happens everytime a new model come out.

Hey but did I make some good valid points??? I need vaildation!!!

 

[firetruck41]

I think all this discussion about the looks of the 200 is an example of over analizing something.

Very punny!

Hey but did I make some good valid points??? I need vaildation!!!

You made good points, but you need to purchase $15 worth of goods in order to qualify for the free validation...

 

[dtt255]

Very punny!


You made good points, but you need to purchase $15 worth of goods in order to qualify for the free validation...

DANG! ...

I was just looking at the Slee website and I was thinking about something.

Once ARB or another comes out with a rear bumper replacement, I am going to move the spare tire from underneath to the rear, and then get someone to fabricate a second gas tank for where the spare used to be

I love this stuff now!

 

[FirstToy]

you made good points for sure. I think being the sole owner on this site gives you some cred to post whatever you want on the subject!

the fact of the matter is, with vehicles, looks matter quite a bit. Especially in the strata of $70K, I think everything matters. More importantly, it's Toyota's flagship SUV w/ a heritage to live up to. It has to hit on all counts.

Analyzing every aspect (including styling) is good. It leads to improvements and also understanding the product. The 80 series, for example, has been analyzed to death (and still being so) and it only benefits the owners w/ knowledge and more choices.

I agree w/ you that there is alot of chitchat but that's just like w/ the FJC. It will filter out as more owners chime in w/ real world feedback

 

[dtt255]

you made good points for sure. I think being the sole owner on this site gives you some cred to post whatever you want on the subject!

the fact of the matter is, with vehicles, looks matter quite a bit. Especially in the strata of $70K, I think everything matters. More importantly, it's Toyota's flagship SUV w/ a heritage to live up to. It has to hit on all counts.

Analyzing every aspect (including styling) is good. It leads to improvements and also understanding the product. The 80 series, for example, has been analyzed to death (and still being so) and it only benefits the owners w/ knowledge and more choices.

I agree w/ you that there is alot of chitchat but that's just like w/ the FJC. It will filter out as more owners chime in w/ real world feedback

True.....I guess coming into the LC scene late, I am not biased by previous models. Good or bad....doesn't matter, just the facts.

 

[firetruck41]

DANG! ...

I was just looking at the Slee website and I was thinking about something.

Once ARB or another comes out with a rear bumper replacement, I am going to move the spare tire from underneath to the rear, and then get someone to fabricate a second gas tank for where the spare used to be

I love this stuff now!

Or you could do like some 80 and 100 series guys, and get OEM Toyota subtank/filler neck/gauges/etc, from Australia.

 

[dtt255]

Or you could do like some 80 and 100 series guys, and get OEM Toyota subtank/filler neck/gauges/etc, from Australia.

Tell me more more more....where do I find out about this.

I am wondering if the frame style changed alot from the 100 series, so therefore I am wondering if the spare tire area changed much. Maybe a tank that is already made for an older style will work

 

[firetruck41]

Tell me more more more....where do I find out about this.

I am wondering if the frame style changed alot from the 100 series, so therefore I am wondering if the spare tire area changed much. Maybe a tank that is already made for an older style will work

I'll post in the other thread.

 

[dnp]

Ok I am getting very confused with this 200 Series Land Cruiser section.
I understand that looks mean something. Some don't care, Some care WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much (IMHO)

I understand that everyone is different, but I will interject with my opinion here (because I know everyone asked)

Looks mean something to me, because to be honest, I would not touch the Aztec if someone paid me to drive it! but they are secondary to the mechanics of the vehicle.

I don't understand why it SEEMS that everyone is judging this vehicle by it's looks alone.

Now remember that I am a newbie, so maybe I am over looking things that others would care way more about, but my decision to purchase a LC had to do with what the vehicle could off the road then what it looks like sitting in a parking lot.

I saw my LC parked nose to nose with a Brand new highlander the other day, and maybe I am biased, but it didn't look much like it. It was obviously much bigger all the way around. Sat higher, different back end, wider etc.

Were there similarities, yes alot. But the X5 looks alot like the 7 series I wanted to get...why because they are both BMW's!

I drove my LC yesterday for about 45 miles off road yesterday on sand trails, over miles of loose rock, bump after bump...and the thought of what the body shape looked like didn't even enter my mind..except for how much dirt was on it

It climbed every hill I wanted, over every sand dune (I learned the value of momentum quickly) went over any desert brush, over some pretty large boulders WITHOUT any issues.

In the end, that is all that matters to me.

Does the new kia look good? HELL YA! but then again I could argue that it looks like those small Chrysler suvs (which is does from the front)

So if we are wanting to get unique looking vechiles...go to europe where they have those little 2 seaters that can fold up into a briefcase.

The other thing is that I purchased a Toyota because I KNOW that it is meant to go off road, and they have proven they can do it right! but I am smart enough to realize that they are not the only ones....just the ones doing it the longest

I actually like the look inside of the MDX more then the LC.....BUT when I went to the service dept of the Acura dealership and asked them about going off road...the snickered and said...."have fun, call us when you get stuck. Go buy a Toyota...you will be happier."

I think that sums it all up.

Plus the idea of driving a vehicle that only about 5k other people in the US are going to drive, has some appeal for me!

You made some valid points, so the validation you wanted is granted. However, I believe you started at one point then came 180 degrees, in that your last sentence sums up what I largely meant in my first post: You said "Plus the idea of driving a vehicle that only about 5k other people in the US are going to drive, has some appeal for me." That indicates that whatever you see as setting this vehicle apart from others is, in fact, important to you. From your perspective, it appears it's the mechanical capability and heritage of the line that's important to you. You like it's off-road capabilities, and knowing you've got what is probably the most reliable vehicle to take you off-road is important (oh, and also exclusivity attributed largely to price) From my perspective, I need something that can take me on job sites as well as to rural land for inspection. While the off-road capability is required of a vehicle, the comfort and "recognition," if you will, is also very important to me from a business promotion perspective. While I believe most people will know the new 200 isn't a Highlander, I'm concerned they just won't know WHAT it is (though I realize that will change, somewhat, over time). I know it sounds like I'm being a snob here, but that's not it at all. In certain forms of business, people like doing business with people they believe "have it going on." My form of real estate development is, to a large degree, one of those.

All that being said, I must say that, if I felt the Range Rover wouldn't give me constant problems, there would be no decision to be made (this, coming from someone who has been COMPLETELY pleased with the 99 LX I currently have, as well as the other 4 Land Cruisers I've previously owned - not to mention the GX I still own) Toyota makes the best cars in the world. PERIOD. I'll argue with anyone about that point. However, I just think they missed the styling mark on these new vehicles, and at better that $65K for either one of them, I'm just not sure yet if I'm willing to remain that loyal to Toyota...........Again, they had the benchmark of exclusivity to copy. They should have done a better job of it

 

[twstrchasr]

Here I go again !! I just finished watching the Motorweek show on the Land Cruiser and something just dawned on me.. I think I have been trying to convey this but I haven't been able to correctly, until now...Range Rovers are a much more "stylish" vehicle where the LC is more utilitarian !! Everytime I see the new LC I kinda like it more and more...Wow, I'm wishy washy about this !!

 

[speedmaster]

Here I go again !! I just finished watching the Motorweek show on the Land Cruiser and something just dawned on me.. I think I have been trying to convey this but I haven't been able to correctly, until now...Range Rovers are a much more "stylish" vehicle where the LC is more utilitarian !! Everytime I see the new LC I kinda like it more and more...Wow, I'm wishy washy about this !!

I think the 91-1997 LCs were utilitarian. The old classic RRs are very utilitarian as well.

Besides reliability, the RR has the LC beat in every off-road specs: approach, breakover,departure, wading, ground clearance. The RR can be had with both center and rear locking differentials where the LC is only fitted with the center diff. Hence, I would argue that the Rovers were more functional (aka Utiliarian/tool vehicles).

However, I do have to admit that 5.7 Tundra engine is impressive on paper.

Now, both are competing for the same market of the high end SUV. The reason the RR is considered more high end is because it doesn't come in a plain-jane configuration. Everything is pretty much standard - xeon, navigation, parking sonar,and even the fridge cooler. The options are limited - air con seats, rear lockers, upgraded leather trim.

You can go to Belize and buy a LC fitted with cloth seats and a manual tranny. This is what hurts the LCs. The fact that Toyota over-emphasize the LX over the LC is a bad move on their part. To me, the LC moniker has more provenance than any Lexus rebadge.

If they stuck with the 4.7 engine and sold it at the same price as the current models, I dont think most people would complain.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

I think the 91-1997 LCs were utilitarian. The old classic RRs are very utilitarian as well.

Besides reliability, the RR has the LC beat in every off-road specs: approach, breakover,departure, wading, ground clearance. The RR can be had with both center and rear locking differentials where the LC is only fitted with the center diff. Hence, I would argue that the Rovers were more functional (aka Utiliarian/tool vehicles).

However, I do have to admit that 5.7 Tundra engine is impressive on paper.

Now, both are competing for the same market of the high end SUV. The reason the RR is considered more high end is because it doesn't come in a plain-jane configuration. Everything is pretty much standard - xeon, navigation, parking sonar,and even the fridge cooler. The options are limited - air con seats, rear lockers, upgraded leather trim.

You can go to Belize and buy a LC fitted with cloth seats and a manual tranny. This is what hurts the LCs. The fact that Toyota over-emphasize the LX over the LC is a bad move on their part. To me, the LC moniker has more provenance than any Lexus rebadge.

If they stuck with the 4.7 engine and sold it at the same price as the current models, I dont think most people would complain.

And the RR and RRS and LR3 are all IFS/IRS. In a wheeling forum like Mud the Rover's will not get much respect. They are made for lighter-duty work and almost impossible to modify for true trail work.

To discuss them as a DD in a general vehicle forum, the RR is worthy of some praise.

 

[dtt255]

I think the 91-1997 LCs were utilitarian. The old classic RRs are very utilitarian as well.

Besides reliability, the RR has the LC beat in every off-road specs: approach, breakover,departure, wading, ground clearance. The RR can be had with both center and rear locking differentials where the LC is only fitted with the center diff. Hence, I would argue that the Rovers were more functional (aka Utiliarian/tool vehicles).

However, I do have to admit that 5.7 Tundra engine is impressive on paper.

Now, both are competing for the same market of the high end SUV. The reason the RR is considered more high end is because it doesn't come in a plain-jane configuration. Everything is pretty much standard - xeon, navigation, parking sonar,and even the fridge cooler. The options are limited - air con seats, rear lockers, upgraded leather trim.

You can go to Belize and buy a LC fitted with cloth seats and a manual tranny. This is what hurts the LCs. The fact that Toyota over-emphasize the LX over the LC is a bad move on their part. To me, the LC moniker has more provenance than any Lexus rebadge.

If they stuck with the 4.7 engine and sold it at the same price as the current models, I don't think most people would complain.

I don't know anything about RR except that they didn't meet my needs of a double stroller in the back behind the 3rd row seats

So that killed it for me.

Where I live, southern Cali, RR are mainly driven by men who want to think they are driving a truck and are ABOVE the American cars normally driven.

That is it.....I have never seen one with a speck of dust on them

So to be honest I never looked at a RR as a real contender for an off road vehicle, until I looked at their website and saw the videos, also when I started researching.

 

[dtt255]

You made some valid points, so the validation you wanted is granted. However, I believe you started at one point then came 180 degrees, in that your last sentence sums up what I largely meant in my first post: You said "Plus the idea of driving a vehicle that only about 5k other people in the US are going to drive, has some appeal for me." That indicates that whatever you see as setting this vehicle apart from others is, in fact, important to you. From your perspective, it appears it's the mechanical capability and heritage of the line that's important to you. You like it's off-road capabilities, and knowing you've got what is probably the most reliable vehicle to take you off-road is important (oh, and also exclusivity attributed largely to price) From my perspective, I need something that can take me on job sites as well as to rural land for inspection. While the off-road capability is required of a vehicle, the comfort and "recognition," if you will, is also very important to me from a business promotion perspective. While I believe most people will know the new 200 isn't a Highlander, I'm concerned they just won't know WHAT it is (though I realize that will change, somewhat, over time). I know it sounds like I'm being a snob here, but that's not it at all. In certain forms of business, people like doing business with people they believe "have it going on." My form of real estate development is, to a large degree, one of those.

All that being said, I must say that, if I felt the Range Rover wouldn't give me constant problems, there would be no decision to be made (this, coming from someone who has been COMPLETELY pleased with the 99 LX I currently have, as well as the other 4 Land Cruisers I've previously owned - not to mention the GX I still own) Toyota makes the best cars in the world. PERIOD. I'll argue with anyone about that point. However, I just think they missed the styling mark on these new vehicles, and at better that $65K for either one of them, I'm just not sure yet if I'm willing to remain that loyal to Toyota...........Again, they had the benchmark of exclusivity to copy. They should have done a better job of it

You are right that it is all a perspective thing. To comment on impressing others, I own my corporation and take clients out for lunches etc...they all love the LC. So, for me, it works just great in that capacity.

About the price...it did make me think twice...till I priced out the RR, X5 etc........

I think the price issues come into play when competing with the older model pricing. And I agree that the lexus factor mixes things up alot more.

From what I am reading around, people seem to purchase a LC because they want a LC. They know what they want, and have no problem spending the money or seeing the value in it. With only the expectation of selling 5k in the upcoming year, I don't think they are worried about the masses in the US.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

So to be honest I never looked at a RR as a real contender for an off road vehicle, until I looked at their website and saw the videos, also when I started researching.

They are not meant to be a "real contender" unless your focus is on the mild side. No lifts really, no big tires, no way to really build it for trail duty. Out of the box though, for what they are made, they do well.

 

[speedmaster]

From what I am reading around, people seem to purchase a LC because they want a LC. They know what they want, and have no problem spending the money or seeing the value in it. With only the expectation of selling 5k in the upcoming year, I don't think they are worried about the masses in the US.

I would have to agree there. I respect those who buy LCs over the LX counterparts. The name, Landcruiser (not Land Cruiser) has great brand equity. The name is legendary.