- Joined
- Dec 8, 2007
- Threads
- 21
- Messages
- 522
This has to be the worst most rediculous review I have ever read.
2008 Toyota Land Cruiser Expert Reviews
Enjoy!
2008 Toyota Land Cruiser Expert Reviews
Enjoy!
The nastiest Land Cruiser review ever
- Thread starter pagemaster
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Wow that review was all over.....glad I don't agree with alot of it. It was obvious, to me, that the reviewer was tainted by the price.
To each their own.
To each their own.
Must have had her's repoed.
I agree with some of the points the author makes. Others, not so much. I also found it somewhat refreshing to read an objective article written by someone obviously not under the "spell" of the LC aura. These things are not as perfect or infalible as some on these forums would like everyone to believe. I know why I choose to drive one and I like to think my decision was based on pertinant facts, not intangible "hype". Everyone has their reasons, so be it. I like to keep an open mind in my decision making process. If there are other options to consider, I will take them into account. As for others on this forum, well, that's something I have absolutely no control over. In the end it is , as always, to each his own !! 
This is a pro Land Cruiser forum for Pete's sake ! I expect the author to be blasted for not being overly gushing with praise for the 200. Personally, I too am not blown away by the thing. It's far from perfect and there are some things about it I still scratch my head about, but there is no perfect car. I am sure I will catch plenty of grief for what I wrote above. Some people, no matter what you say, based on any number of facts, just will not accept ANY negative comments about LC's. To those people, I say ......;p
We are talking about cars, anyway..It is really not that important in the grand scheme of things !!
This is a pro Land Cruiser forum for Pete's sake ! I expect the author to be blasted for not being overly gushing with praise for the 200. Personally, I too am not blown away by the thing. It's far from perfect and there are some things about it I still scratch my head about, but there is no perfect car. I am sure I will catch plenty of grief for what I wrote above. Some people, no matter what you say, based on any number of facts, just will not accept ANY negative comments about LC's. To those people, I say ......;p
We are talking about cars, anyway..It is really not that important in the grand scheme of things !!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2007
- Threads
- 21
- Messages
- 522
- Thread starter
- #8
Surley test drive of any SUV (4WD) would have a offroad section included if its to be taken seriously.
Very good point.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Threads
- 6
- Messages
- 101
There are 7 other reviews and most are generally favorable. The LC didn't excite the other lady reviewer that much, though.
not to say "i told you so" but many of us on this forum said the same things the lady states with regards to the interior with the price of this truck you expect much better quality materials.
It is all a matter of opinion...once again once of those never ending discussions.
It really is unreal that they would include that fake wood garbage in a 72K vehicle - the 100's interior trim is more impressive in some respects. Also make the 3rd row seats removable and trim down the rear pillar. Otherwise, it is a fairly acceptable next generation LC.
In the desert here where I live....the Sand gets into everything....real wood, fake wood...doesn't matter, sand makes it all look bad!
I am just wondering why the Land Cruiser would be compared in the same class as the Navigator and such...she admits she knows the 'Cruiser crowd. The cruiser is in a class of it's own. If she wants that legroom and grocery capacity, she could just use the Sequoia with the same Toyota quality...and probably save a few bucks at the same time, while saving the cruisers for those who appreciate them
He make a very valid point about the "fake" wood on the LC.
Now, before I say anything else I want it to be abundantly clear...This has nothing to do with the reliability issue. I don't want to hear that garbage. It is irrelevant to this issue !! If you compare a base Range Rover to a LC, the interior quality/ materials used, is so much better in the RR. The prices are very close but the LC's interior is nowhere near as luxurious as the RR's. You can tell in numerous places where the Toyota bean counters got their way. The RR's leather grade is much better and their use of "real" wood is of tremendous quality. I just think that when you stert getting into this price range for a vehicle you should expect certain luxury appointments. Low grade leather and "fake" wood in a $70,000+ vehicle is downright inexcusable IMO !!
Hell, I think an Avalon uses "real" wood trim, doesn't it ??
Be that as it may, I'm still most likely going to get a new LC..Despite the fake wood !!
He make a very valid point about the "fake" wood on the LC.
Now, before I say anything else I want it to be abundantly clear...This has nothing to do with the reliability issue. I don't want to hear that garbage. It is irrelevant to this issue !! If you compare a base Range Rover to a LC, the interior quality/ materials used, is so much better in the RR. The prices are very close but the LC's interior is nowhere near as luxurious as the RR's. You can tell in numerous places where the Toyota bean counters got their way. The RR's leather grade is much better and their use of "real" wood is of tremendous quality. I just think that when you stert getting into this price range for a vehicle you should expect certain luxury appointments. Low grade leather and "fake" wood in a $70,000+ vehicle is downright inexcusable IMO !!
Hell, I think an Avalon uses "real" wood trim, doesn't it ??
Be that as it may, I'm still most likely going to get a new LC..Despite the fake wood !!
Personally I rather pay $70K for a reliable vehicle, then $70K for an unreliable vehicle with real wood, and softer leather.
What were they smoking? A Land Cruiser is a "crossover SUV"? What a nut!
"The drivetrain makes for a towing capacity of 8,500 pounds and gas mileage of 13/18 mpg city/highway. Both figures are respectable — especially considering Toyota recommends regular fuel — but if you're shopping for fuel efficiency, there are better options among crossover SUVs."
"The drivetrain makes for a towing capacity of 8,500 pounds and gas mileage of 13/18 mpg city/highway. Both figures are respectable — especially considering Toyota recommends regular fuel — but if you're shopping for fuel efficiency, there are better options among crossover SUVs."
He make a very valid point about the "fake" wood on the LC.
Now, before I say anything else I want it to be abundantly clear...This has nothing to do with the reliability issue. I don't want to hear that garbage. It is irrelevant to this issue !!
Unfreaking believable !! Are you kidding me ?? Pull your head out of the clouds for 5 minutes, please !!
Geez !! Ok, I will admit whole heartedly that Rovers are not the best built, reliable trucks out there..But, for once, could one of you please just admit that maybe, just maybe the damn LC is not the vehicle to end all vehicles. That while it is an excellent vehicle, there are some areas (the 200 included) that could be done better !!! Hell, I have owned 6 of the things, I like them tremendously, but I also will admit that they do stand room for improvement in some areas.
We were talking about equipment, materials, etc. For a vehicle priced as high as it is, some of the materials just are not befitting a $70,000+ vehicle. Reliability has nothing to do with that issue. Oh, I could see one of you people paying $80,000 for a 4 cylinder Camry with cloth seats and manual windows and saying ...Yeah, maybe it doesn't have a V-12 or real fine interior fittings. But by golly, it's reliable !! That is arrogance and ignorance !! God, what are some of you smoking ????