Thinking about swapping my Raptor for an LC200

[TeCKis300]

Back to topic Raptor vs 200-series. Comments from a real life racer that has campaigned the 200-series against a Raptor in the Baja. Yes this is an LX, but it's the progeny to the gender reassignment to what is now better known as Land Cruiser Monica. Stock full class, which is stock for stock with the exception of shock, tires, and misc safety/race specific accessories. As I said earlier, the 200-series can hold its own in the fast stuff and potentially has some key traction advantages. Sure it's not tuned from the factory to exude excitement like the Raptor is, but the 200-series goodness is in its core competency and capability. Quiet old man strength. Winning repeatedly in the stock full class, 8

This interview is eye opening.
@6:14 comments on Ford Raptor
@21:30 for comments on what 200-series they were racing
@5:15 some fun commentary on "best tires"




Joe Bacal has commented several times in his ability chase down some seriously modified purpose built vehicles, and also production vehicles. Including the Ford Raptor. There was a better segment about it somewhere that I can't find right now, but this is the best I can find at the moment.

 

[bigslacker]

Fun interview! Couple points about what he said and some googling. I know it was stock class but he was running 3.5" shocks front and 4.5" rear, 15" of travel. 2.5" body lift, 37's and a rear locker. That is so far from a stock truck, haha! The suspension is WAY more important than 100+ more HP in tht type of racing. I've learned in the last year for high speed stuff on the dirt it's really about managing the truck through the terrain so you can maintain your speed rather than how fast you can do 0-60. 380 HP is plenty, he showed that with his results.

I think a modded 200 or LX would defintely hang in the dirt even with the much improved 2nd gen.

 

[ChaoticSquare]

Fun interview! Couple points about what he said and some googling. I know it was stock class but he was running 3.5" shocks front and 4.5" rear, 15" of travel. 2.5" body lift, 37's and a rear locker. That is so far from a stock truck, haha! The suspension is WAY more important than 100+ more HP in tht type of racing. I've learned in the last year for high speed stuff on the dirt it's really about managing the truck through the terrain so you can maintain your speed rather than how fast you can do 0-60. 380 HP is plenty, he showed that with his results.

I think a modded 200 or LX would defintely hang in the dirt even with the much improved 2nd gen.

It's very much about suspension travel. It's funny as that was the raptors downfall, and I never understood people who added power to the truck but not travel. I can't tell you how many times I bottomed out the raptor and even my race car... Not a fun feeling, and adding power to either one of those is "eh". Of course they would be faster, but in the long haul taking the right lines and having the suspension to take them at speed is what matters. Except in that baja silt, in that case power is an equalizer and can make up for poor driving.

 

[Angelo1]

Sorry, for me, the Ford F-150 Hybrid takes the cake. On-board generator is THE killer feature. That alone destroys any 4x4 tech and crazy-a$$ engine available on other trucks. Think about it…your truck can power the whole damn house for days during a natural disaster! Forget about the usefulness during camping or cross-country travel. If i ever get rid of my LC (never!), F150 hybrid will be it.

And IF i only need true off-road toy (and no desire to go aftermarket), then i would get Rubicon 392 that would literally destroy both of those trucks over pretty much any terrain (except highway/on-road). Full set of lockers. RTI that is at least 100 better than above. FULL-time 4wd. Small size. Great clearances that makes the above trucks look like ice cream trucks.

The Ford lighting looks real promising. It could use a bit better range but for most users, 300mi. is pretty decent.

 

[Madtiger]

The Ford lighting looks real promising. It could use a bit better range but for most users, 300mi. is pretty decent.

For me, i prefer not to have “range anxiety”. I see that in my brother’s Tesla Y. He has to plan carefully on long trips outside the city to make sure that he maps out location of chargers AND the delay associated with charging. I prefer not to do that. I prefer the freedom of decent/good mileage (for a truck) AND the ability to fill up anywhere, even out in the middle of nowhere…like Big Bend National Park. For me, until they revolutionalized battery technology AND charging posts everywhere, hybrid is the best for a family hauler. For work car or city driving, that is a different matter…and pure electric vehicles are perfect.

And for me, the capability of Raptor/TRX/392 is lost on me since i drive like a grandma off-road…….but the ability of having a personal home generator on wheels is just mind blowing and so useful! That easily trumps anything that those vehicles offer. (In my younger years, those vehicles would make me wet my panties…but with family, the F150 hybrid just takes the cake.)

 

[Rawrear]

Thanks for the read. Thinking of trading 2017 raptor for a 200 series. Seems like 200 does a lot better then raptor. Also appears the 200 series lack of Apple car play appears to factor into this decision

 

[Markuson]

For me, i prefer not to have “range anxiety”. I see that in my brother’s Tesla Y. He has to plan carefully on long trips outside the city to make sure that he maps out location of chargers AND the delay associated with charging.

Last Summer I drove through Las Vegas. It was a hot day, of course, with traffic. And sure enough…there sat a Tesla…who missed making it to Vegas by about 20 miles. In years past with jerry cans, I might have stopped to help get them to the next gas station…but with an electric? Nope. You’re hosed.

Its the UNexpected delays, detours, or trail curiosity where range saves the day. Meanwhile, extra range makes everyday driving less stressful too.

 

[Madtiger]

Last Summer I drove through Las Vegas. It was a hot day, of course, with traffic. And sure enough…there sat a Tesla…who missed making it to Vegas by about 20 miles. In years past with jerry cans, I might have stopped to help get them to the next gas station…but with an electric? Nope. You’re hosed.

Its the UNexpected delays, detours, or trail curiosity where range saves the day. Meanwhile, extra range makes everyday driving less stressful too.

And don’t forget, for Tesla to charge a good amount, the wait (if no one else in line) is around 35-45 min. So, EVERYONE in the group has to wait for the Tesla to charge. And if there is a lot of people using the chargers, the charging speed slows down to a crawl! So, it may take over an hour just to “gas up”!

 

[1world1love]

This is an interesting thread with a lot of good perspectives. For my part, I have always liked the looks of the Raptor, but I have a friend who has a 2020 and he says it seems like the automotive version of a disposable lighter. It does the job but you know it is made of cheap materials, won't last long, and one out of a pack of 6 won't work at all. He bought it new and after 20k miles, he is nervous about taking it too remote. The infotainment tech though....

It would be great to have a reliable, hybrid, off-road capable vehicle though. Although full electric would be great and I feel like we are getting there, I agree with the above posts that range is an issue and without the ability to carry a jerry can as a backup to get you even 40 miles closer to safety...

But, the promise of electric (and hybrid) which I hope is realized in my lifetime, is that battery and solar tech advance to the point that you could potentially have unlimited range in the right climate. Imagine heading out and being able to stay out indefinitely with solar arrays embedded in the roof and hood, and accessory panels that you could deploy as needed at camp.

 

[bloc]

This is an interesting thread with a lot of good perspectives. For my part, I have always liked the looks of the Raptor, but I have a friend who has a 2020 and he says it seems like the automotive version of a disposable lighter. It does the job but you know it is made of cheap materials, won't last long, and one out of a pack of 6 won't work at all. He bought it new and after 20k miles, he is nervous about taking it too remote. The infotainment tech though....

It would be great to have a reliable, hybrid, off-road capable vehicle though. Although full electric would be great and I feel like we are getting there, I agree with the above posts that range is an issue and without the ability to carry a jerry can as a backup to get you even 40 miles closer to safety...

But, the promise of electric (and hybrid) which I hope is realized in my lifetime, is that battery and solar tech advance to the point that you could potentially have unlimited range in the right climate. Imagine heading out and being able to stay out indefinitely with solar arrays embedded in the roof and hood, and accessory panels that you could deploy as needed at camp.

What is the theoretical max amount of electrical energy that can be generated by solar on earth assuming 100% efficiency? Will that even move a vehicle?

 

[m4hk33]

This is an info gathering post. Nothing wrong with the Raptor but I'm really driving it because I was not satisfied with the power or towing ability of my 4runner here at 6500 feet and up. A buddy happened to want to sell his quick and I got a smokin deal, $55k for an '18 with 22k miles. Now a year later one dealer has offered me $60k cash for it, they have no LC200. Another dealer has a '16 with 39k miles listed at $66k. They haven't offered on the Raptor yet but I expect above $60k. So it might be a cheap swap and I have always wanted a Land Cruiser.

Here is where I start waffling though. The Raptor even without mods is extremely capable offroad and I wheel weekly. I'm imagining having to dump a bunch of $$ into the LC to get it close suspension wise, I'm guessing $7k-$8k for king 2.5's F/R, UCAs and wheels/tires. I do enjoy going 40-60 on dirt but I don't have to. Most of my trips are some high speed to start and then I get into the tighter trails to get to remote camp spots. I really just need traction for loose and sometimes steep plus decent angles to avoid body damage.

So is my thinking wrong here? Would the right deal be to wait for something a little cheaper/high miles? Or do you figure I could be fine with the '16 stock + KO2s for a year or so and worry about suspension come bonus time at the end of the year?

Also worth noting there is a private party '08 with 75k miles for $39k in the area as well, already has reasonable tires on it. But that won't have the 8 speed, HIDS, probably not bluetooth I'm guess?

First off, Congrats on the good deal, its sounds like a raptor may be better suited for your criteria but I would pose a couple questions. While you go off roading weekly, are you interested in the vehicle more to drive everyday or go off road?

Also, While there is nothing wrong with wheeling in a 60k vehicle, have you have considered something like a rzr, in many respects they actually are a better option for off roading, crushing a quarter panel on a daily drive can suck.

I think raptors are really cool, and are set up almost perfectly, but I really don't trust Ford Engines, its not exactly their strong point over the past 3 decades or so.

 

[1world1love]

What is the theoretical max amount of electrical energy that can be generated by solar on earth assuming 100% efficiency? Will that even move a vehicle?

That is a great question and I am wholly unqualified to answer it. With current tech, I think it is pretty limited. This car has embedded solar and it appears to provide an average of 60 miles of range a week and potentially double that in the right circumstances (albeit in the UK)

Solar on Every Vehicle | Sono Motors

Sono Motors will integrate its solar technology exclusively into third-party vehicles. However, the Sion program will be terminated.

sonomotors.com

Not so great, but there is a lot of development going on and one can hope. I think that the renewed focus on space travel will really drive innovation in both solar and battery tech. Consider that when the Prius hit the market, nobody could have imagined that there would soon be a mainstream, fully electric, sports sedan capable of going 0-60 in 3 seconds and with 300 miles of range.

 

[coleAK]

What is the theoretical max amount of electrical energy that can be generated by solar on earth assuming 100% efficiency? Will that even move a vehicle?

Currently the best solar panels are ~15% efficient. Don’t know we will see anything close to 100% any time soon. But 30-50% would be a game changer Nice thing about solar is they output in DC so in theory you can get very fast charging speeds. I can charge our model 3 in one day 0-100% entirely off our home solar. We have a 450 ft^2 array.

now currently with a 150 ft^2 array you could get ~25-35 miles of range per hour on a model 3. Thinking about the Rivian that just got EPA rated to ~400 Wh/mi. You could get ~50 miles of range a day off that same 150 ft^2 solar array.

Going back to 15%. If we could get to 45% efficient then could get that same ~50 miles a day off a 50 ft^2 array.

 

[PDoyle]

I was concerned about the once in a while power outages from bad weather in our area, and being able to juice up our Tesla Y if the outage lasts a couple of days.
The Tesla can be charged by a gas powered generator. But the gen needs to have a clean sign wave.
The least expensive one on the market ( currently sold out at Amazon ) is the Generac IQ2000
It will take three tanks of gas to charge the Tesla enough to get an 18-20 mile charge.

 

[bloc]

Excuse my ignorance on terminology, but I’m asking hypothetically if we could hit 100% efficiency, how much energy is available from a solar panel the size of a vehicle? Ultimately there is a limit on the number of photons available to do the work.

I get that people laughed at the Prius and now we have the Plaid.. but at the end of the day there is a law-of-physics limit on the work that can be done by solar. I’m just curious whether this limit will ever allow something approaching usefulness in the context of long-range overlanding.

I know this isn’t a simple answer. Things like ground speed and cloud cover can dramatically alter the efficiency of all of this.. but in a perfect world.. perfect solar, perfect batteries.. assuming low speeds to help the exercise... 200 miles a day? 600? Is it even worth thinking about or is the upper theoretical limit of solar worth thinking about?

 

[AnyMal]

Excuse my ignorance on terminology, but I’m asking hypothetically if we could hit 100% efficiency, how much energy is available from a solar panel the size of a vehicle? Ultimately there is a limit on the number of photons available to do the work.

I get that people laughed at the Prius and now we have the Plaid.. but at the end of the day there is a law-of-physics limit on the work that can be done by solar. I’m just curious whether this limit will ever allow something approaching usefulness in the context of long-range overlanding.

I know this isn’t a simple answer. Things like ground speed and cloud cover can dramatically alter the efficiency of all of this.. but in a perfect world.. perfect solar, perfect batteries.. assuming low speeds to help the exercise... 200 miles a day? 600? Is it even worth thinking about or is the upper theoretical limit of solar worth thinking about?

Problem with solar panels isn't really efficiency at the moment. We've got 50% and up to at different levels of research.
Theres a lot of that development in the news every once in a while with new efficiency breakthroughs and its creeping up.

The problem with solar is the energy density just like you said. The surface area required to match a tank of gas in immediate energy density would probably be multiple football fields worth. Im not gonna do the math but at the size of a typical car roof it doesn't even come close.

Then of course we talk have to talk about storage and batteries, which decrease your total efficiency conversion with each pound of weight they add.

I dont think its even worth thinking about.

 

[coleAK]

Excuse my ignorance on terminology, but I’m asking hypothetically if we could hit 100% efficiency, how much energy is available from a solar panel the size of a vehicle? Ultimately there is a limit on the number of photons available to do the work.

I get that people laughed at the Prius and now we have the Plaid.. but at the end of the day there is a law-of-physics limit on the work that can be done by solar. I’m just curious whether this limit will ever allow something approaching usefulness in the context of long-range overlanding.

I know this isn’t a simple answer. Things like ground speed and cloud cover can dramatically alter the efficiency of all of this.. but in a perfect world.. perfect solar, perfect batteries.. assuming low speeds to help the exercise... 200 miles a day? 600? Is it even worth thinking about or is the upper theoretical limit of solar worth thinking about?

See my post above. At 50% efficient panels that cover the hood+roof become realistic to adding meaningful range like up to 50 miles a day. At 100% you get to the point of 70-100 miles a day. With any type of fold out array say triple the size of a truck bed you could get to approaching a full charge per day.

 

[bloc]

I dont think its even worth thinking about.

That was kind of my point. I’ve heard many people even more ignorant than I about the physics ask “why don’t we have cars with solar panels that charge themselves while driving” and my thought was always “there just isn’t that much energy in a square foot of sunlight”..

 

[coleAK]

Problem with solar panels isn't really efficiency at the moment. We've got 50% and up to at different levels of research.
Theres a lot of that development in the news every once in a while with new efficiency breakthroughs and its creeping up.

The problem with solar is the energy density just like you said. The surface area required to match a tank of gas in immediate energy density would probably be multiple football fields worth. Im not gonna do the math but at the size of a typical car roof it doesn't even come close.

Then of course we talk have to talk about storage and batteries, which decrease your total efficiency conversion with each pound of weight they add.

I dont think its even worth thinking about.

I can charge my model 3 empty to full in 10 hours off my ~450 ft^2 home solar. A football field is 48,000 ft^2 so you could charge ~100 model 3’s a day off a solar array that large

That was kind of my point. I’ve heard many people even more ignorant than I about the physics ask “why don’t we have cars with solar panels that charge themselves while driving” and my thought was always “there just isn’t that much energy in a square foot of sunlight”..

but yes it will be a long time (if we ever) get to close to 100% effective. As of now any type of solar panels on a truck would do little to nothing.

 

[1world1love]

There are definitely challenges, but there are also a lot of ways to approach these problems. The primary focus these days is on battery weight and capacity because this is actually more critical than being able to generate power. If you can't store and use what you generate efficiently, then it doesn't matter how much you can generate.

But, for generation, there are interesting technologies being developed. While most current tech is built on silicon, there is another material called perovskite which can actually be applied to surfaces like a paint. Additionally there are people that are working on nano tech where there would be tiny particles that would track the sun and concentrate the energy to increase the amount of power that could be generated.

Also, none of this is happening in a vacuum. You wouldn't just be depending on a few panels covering your vehicle, but rather a huge connected grid where you car could be charged by energy transferred from the road surface either directly, or something similar to the way wireless charging happens now with phones.

And I suspect that hybrids are really the future, where you may have a number of energy producing sources in your vehicle (ie solar and hydrogen with a gas generator for backup).