The 100 Series is "The Land Cruiser to Buy" (1 Viewer)

[Kabanstva]

Interesting little segment I watched yesterday on Doug Demuro's channel. Starts at the 30 minute mark.

Was surprised he said the 98-99 were favorable years. Definitely doesn't seem to be the opinion of this forum as most people say to get the 03+.

 

[take123]

98-99 had option for rear locker diff.

It is rare. New models dont have it.

Imo I would get the newer ones, first few models of a new release always have some reliability issues.

I got the newest one, 2006, for the added horsepower. But it has the VVTI which adds some complexity and it has that ridiculous SAIS feature under the intake manifold, which I don't like as it can introduce issues to the cats.

 

[Brandon Ryder]

Honestly ATRAC works so well, I don't need a rear locker. But when I was building mine, I almost bought a rear axle with the locker installed from a 99 from a junkyard.
I think my winch has served me better than the locker would have. I've only got stuck in deep snow and the locker would not have saved me in those instances. But it's not like I couldn't have both.

I think any 100 series is a fine choice. Unless you need to tow more than 6500lbs

 

[BullElk]

I’ve had a rear locker hundy and I’ve had a triple locked 80 series. I would rather have ATRAC than either of those.

 

[suprarx7nut]

I had a 99 with rear locker. I'd much rather have the 06 LX I have now (confirmation bias or experienced opinion?).

5 speed, ATRAC, VVTI, AHC and those sexy LED tails that people struggle to believe were OEM in '06.

 

[Eyedaho]

I like my '99 LC, and I appreciate the simplicity. That said, the 5 speed transmission and extra horsepower with VVTI has definitely crept into my mind on multiple occasions while pulling a raft trailer through the mountains, and through the SW with high winds. It's not that hard to add a locker if you want. I love my rig though and have no plans to sell it.

 

[jLB]

Was surprised he said the 98-99 were favorable years. Definitely doesn't seem to be the opinion of this forum as most people say to get the 03+.

I could argue for or against any model year of the 100 series (LC vs LX too).

 

[MongooseGA]

I could argue for or against any model year of the 100 series (LC vs LX too).

I don't see any argument for a 98/99 over a 2000+, or an argument for a 2000-2002 over a 2003+

Just my personal opinion, the ATRAC in 2000+ is worth buying over a 2- pinion front diff 98/99 even with a rear locker, and then an 03+ with the 5 speed is always better than anything before it. Having owned both, to me, the 5 speed makes the truck feel so much more modern driving and smoother than the 4 speeds.

The 06/07, again just my opinion, isn't worth the premium over an 03-05.

 

[jLB]

Well, 98 to ~01 US market vehicles are a whole lot easier to add an aftermarket double din stereo. A OE/Harrop/Eaton locker or two, and I really don’t miss ATRAC. I don’t remember my lockers ever overheating, but ATRAC has. To me, my 99 LX feels simple, and closer to my old 94 80 series, than my son’s 00 LC, or my 06 LX. There also seems to be a “tossibility” quality, that is somehow missing on the later 00+ models, with the electronic nannies, without fear of alarms, and random brake applications. I might be reluctant to put a spouse or child in a 98/99, as a DD, for lack of VSC.

I do like the 03+ 5spd, not so much a fan of the ~20 year old entertainment system. The 06+ VVTI is nice, but again it adds even more complexity.

 

[What is asphalt]

Hmm weird. Would say the 06 and 07 vvti are favourable. Oem rear lockers is meh.

 

[77pantera]

03+ were the only ones on my radar. I'd like to drive an 06/07 some day, I feel an extra 40hp would be nice. Certainly lacking in the power department compared to my apples to apples comparison LR3.

The 20 year old entertainment system doesn't bother me at all, it's almost a novelty.

 

[jLB]

I feel an extra 40hp would be nice.

And while I enjoy the VVTI, its “extra 40hp”, I believe is an overstatement of “it breathes a little better at higher RPM”. Is that really all that important in a ~5500lb SUV?

 

[kevgentile]

And while I enjoy the VVTI, its “extra 40hp”, I believe is an overstatement of “it breathes a little better at higher RPM”. Is that really all that important in a ~5500lb SUV?

Couldn't agree more. If I was at all concerned about the HP ratings I would be looking for something else to drive. The torque this little 4.7 makes gets me going just fine.

If budget isn't a concern the always go with the newest one can afford. But for the $4k I paid for a rust free mechanically sound '99, I'm more than happy to live without the later "sparkles".

 

[newbielx470]

Doug bought a 200 series LC a few years ago but ended up with tens of thousands of dollars in repair bills during his short ownership
I'm glad he now has learned that the Hundy is the ultimate reliable machine

 

[97 AZ LC]

I feel an extra 40hp would be nice.

There was no extra 40hp, it was a gain of 30 over 2003-2005 and 35 over 1998-2002. Toyota got caught in the horsepower overstatement scandal of 2006. The original stated numbers for 2006 were 275 hp and 332 ft lbs. but they were wrong and had to be corrected in 2007 - to 265 hp and 310 ft lbs. And the max HP number came at 600 higher RPMs. VVT torque was actually down by 10 ft lbs (320 to 310) in a vehicle that was 200 to 300 pounds heavier than the early 100 series. So torque per pound of vehicle, what you actually feel in most driving conditions, was actually 7 to 8 percent higher in the early years than it was in 2006/2007. The VVT power gain is limited to certain driving conditions and is to some extent an illusion. Valves clashing with pistons in a timing belt motor is not an illusion - it's very real and will probably result in the engine's demise.

 

[Kabanstva]

There was no extra 40hp, it was a gain of 30 over 2003-2005 and 35 over 1998-2002. Toyota got caught in the horsepower overstatement scandal of 2006. The original stated numbers for 2006 were 275 hp and 332 ft lbs. but they were wrong and had to be corrected in 2007 - to 265 hp and 310 ft lbs. And the max HP number came at 600 higher RPMs. VVT torque was actually down by 10 ft lbs (320 to 310) in a vehicle that was 200 to 300 pounds heavier than the early 100 series. So torque per pound of vehicle, what you actually feel in most driving conditions, was actually 7 to 8 percent higher in the early years than it was in 2006/2007. The VVT power gain is limited to certain driving conditions and is to some extent an illusion. Valves clashing with pistons in a timing belt motor is not an illusion - it's very real and will probably result in the engine's demise.

My boss had a 2003 LC and my 07 is noticeably faster. Very noticeable. Idk if the fact that his car had 300k and mine has 100k miles had anything to do with it but the difference was there.

 

[rexington14]

Doug bought a 200 series LC a few years ago but ended up with tens of thousands of dollars in repair bills during his short ownership
I'm glad he now has learned that the Hundy is the ultimate reliable machine

Yep, the best part is when he says the 4.7 is better than the 5.7

 

[Kabanstva]

I’m curious what problems he had with his 200. Those things are super solid. AHC can have issues especially in a rusty environment but that goes for the 100 series as well.

 

[77pantera]

And while I enjoy the VVTI, its “extra 40hp”, I believe is an overstatement of “it breathes a little better at higher RPM”. Is that really all that important in a ~5500lb SUV?

Couldn't agree more. If I was at all concerned about the HP ratings I would be looking for something else to drive. The torque this little 4.7 makes gets me going just fine.

If budget isn't a concern the always go with the newest one can afford. But for the $4k I paid for a rust free mechanically sound '99, I'm more than happy to live without the later "sparkles".

There was no extra 40hp, it was a gain of 30 over 2003-2005 and 35 over 1998-2002. Toyota got caught in the horsepower overstatement scandal of 2006. The original stated numbers for 2006 were 275 hp and 332 ft lbs. but they were wrong and had to be corrected in 2007 - to 265 hp and 310 ft lbs. And the max HP number came at 600 higher RPMs. VVT torque was actually down by 10 ft lbs (320 to 310) in a vehicle that was 200 to 300 pounds heavier than the early 100 series. So torque per pound of vehicle, what you actually feel in most driving conditions, was actually 7 to 8 percent higher in the early years than it was in 2006/2007. The VVT power gain is limited to certain driving conditions and is to some extent an illusion. Valves clashing with pistons in a timing belt motor is not an illusion - it's very real and will probably result in the engine's demise.

All good points. And yes, I'm aware of the actual interference issues of the VVT 2UZ's.

I've never driven a 06/07, but I'd be curious for pure comparison sakes. Or a pre 03 for that matter.

In simply comparing my 05 to my 06 LR3, it's simply lacking a lot in the power department. For you guys who have added a 1000#'s of armor/"overlanding" gear and on 33+ without regearing, I have to imagine they are right lane specials. Again, trying to keep this a fair apples to apples comparison.
I love this hundy but it's not setting any records.

Also, take anything Doug says with a grain of salt. Good or bad.

 

[Kabanstva]

All good points. And yes, I'm aware of the actual interference issues of the VVT 2UZ's.

I've never driven a 06/07, but I'd be curious for pure comparison sakes. Or a pre 03 for that matter.

In simply comparing my 05 to my 06 LR3, it's simply lacking a lot in the power department. For you guys who have added a 1000#'s of armor/"overlanding" gear and on 33+ without regearing, I have to imagine they are right lane specials. Again, trying to keep this a fair apples to apples comparison.
I love this hundy but it's not setting any records.

Also, take anything Doug says with a grain of salt. Good or bad.

I’ll cruise at 80-90mph all day. 07 33s full armor etc. not sure what you’re talking about lol.