So what would have you done differently with regarding to modifying your LC?
Thinking of selling my 200... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter chimyz
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
So what would have you done differently with regarding to modifying your LC?
4R TG and 200 are about the same in slalom and pull around .73g and rated good handling for offroad suv's w/ tall tires.
The 200 has the better ride and stability b/c of the longer wheelbase. But the 4Runner is lighter and nimble- meeting their design requirements.
Both are rated highly in crash tests. Different class vehicles but you will also find injury scores show occupants are safe in both.
The 200 is a full 2 sec faster 0-60 and about 1 sec faster in the 1/4 mile @ 94mph - a full 8mph faster than the TG 4R.
This is where it's clearly not even close. The 200 blows away the 4R in any powerplant measurement.
(The only place the 4R beats it is city mpg's.) If you mod, expect this gap to widen considerably.
I consider awd to be a safety feature and see that as a big plus to suv's. I won't get one without it. On pavement, it WILL be safer than the 4R that cannot use awd on pavement. I consider this a big mistake to only offer awd on the Limited 4R. (lack of awd, V8 are economic and mpg rating decisions by Toyota, imo)
It's silly. Look at your wife's Audi- Quattro awd is a STREET feature for better handling and safety ON road.
If, as you say, you rarely go offroad- you should have AWD as one of your requirements!
Let's look underneath and ask a few questions:
What size are the diffs in either? What size are all the chassis components? Look at the frames of both.
What is the design criteria of both? Because they are built for different capabilities and markets.
5.7L V8 w/ the beefiest drivetrain and frame of any Toyota product in existence.
_____________________________________
Clearly the 200 is the better suv in just about every measurable way. As it should be, per the design criteria and price.
Where the 4Runner beats it is in smaller size, nimble & more sporty value oriented pkg. Guess what? That's it's criteria.
Sounds like you want to change chimyz. The 4R TG is a great suv, it's got a lot going for it and would be fun to build up. It's got a more sporty feel.
It's kinda stupid, considering what you own, but go ahead
The 200 has the better ride and stability b/c of the longer wheelbase. But the 4Runner is lighter and nimble- meeting their design requirements.
Both are rated highly in crash tests. Different class vehicles but you will also find injury scores show occupants are safe in both.
The 200 is a full 2 sec faster 0-60 and about 1 sec faster in the 1/4 mile @ 94mph - a full 8mph faster than the TG 4R.
This is where it's clearly not even close. The 200 blows away the 4R in any powerplant measurement.
(The only place the 4R beats it is city mpg's.) If you mod, expect this gap to widen considerably.
I consider awd to be a safety feature and see that as a big plus to suv's. I won't get one without it. On pavement, it WILL be safer than the 4R that cannot use awd on pavement. I consider this a big mistake to only offer awd on the Limited 4R. (lack of awd, V8 are economic and mpg rating decisions by Toyota, imo)
It's silly. Look at your wife's Audi- Quattro awd is a STREET feature for better handling and safety ON road.
If, as you say, you rarely go offroad- you should have AWD as one of your requirements!
Let's look underneath and ask a few questions:
What size are the diffs in either? What size are all the chassis components? Look at the frames of both.
What is the design criteria of both? Because they are built for different capabilities and markets.
5.7L V8 w/ the beefiest drivetrain and frame of any Toyota product in existence.
_____________________________________
Clearly the 200 is the better suv in just about every measurable way. As it should be, per the design criteria and price.
Where the 4Runner beats it is in smaller size, nimble & more sporty value oriented pkg. Guess what? That's it's criteria.
Sounds like you want to change chimyz. The 4R TG is a great suv, it's got a lot going for it and would be fun to build up. It's got a more sporty feel.
It's kinda stupid, considering what you own, but go ahead
- Thread starter
- #23
I don't think it's what, it may be how....
I would have waited for more suspension options. Those getting into modding today have way more options than I did almost 2 years ago.
The Icons would have gone on first (instead of OMEs) and I would still have them on. I would have waited on the ARB and winch, and not got that right away. I probably should have ordered the North American Poverty pack instead of the premium upgrade. I ordered the full Kaymar rear bumper, and to be honest, I don't think I'll use the tire mount and jerry can carriers.
Nothing major really, just how quickly I've done things. I would do it a lot slower next time...nobody's bad but mine.
Oh, please. The 4Runner weights about 4700 lbs. The LandCruiser weights 5700 lbs. That weight difference will not make a significant difference in survivability. Wear your seatbelts and properly adjust any adjustable headrest -- that will have a far greater impact on crash survivability than a modest difference in weight.
The 4Runner has a 63" track width and is 71.5" high (74 for the TE).
The LandCruiser has a 64.6" track width and is 74" high.
In other words, the width to height ratio of the two trucks is just about identical. Neither is more tipsy than the other.
A fact which has NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY, which is the issue in question.
No, actually. Ratings are done by type, one type being SUVs. Both the 4Runner and LandCruiser are SUVs, and are thus of the same type. Frontal crash tests are done by running the vehicle into a solid concrete wall. Side crash tests are run by crashing a sled ino the side of the vehicle.
The 2010 4Runner has been rated 5 stars in frontal and side collisions. It gets a 3 star roll over rating. The Land Cruiser has not been crash tested, but it is very likely it would get exactly the same ratings.
Sure you can.
Baloney.
There are plenty of reasons to choose a LandCruiser over a 4Runner. I'd sell my 4Runner and buy an LC if I could afford it. The LC is bigger and far more luxurious. But safer? Um, no, not in any significant way. You can use that "safer" argument as a justification to your wife (or yourself), but it won't fly here because it is wrong.
A study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety finds that larger, heavier vehicles are inherently safer than smaller, lighter vehicles. And it's all due to the laws of physics.
When a large, massive object collides with a smaller object, the larger object, by virtue of its greater mass, inflicts more impact. "The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in thelighter vehicle," the report states. "Greater force means greater risk, so the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle are more likely to be injured."
the 4runner is a 1000lbs lighter, do the math. The is a huge difference when an accident occurs. I don't have to convince my wife. She minored in physicis and is a physician that has seen first hand what happens when there's a head on or a side impact. The heavier vehicle generally wins everytime. Check out websites that show head on collisions of smaller vs bigger cars.
When a large, massive object collides with a smaller object, the larger object, by virtue of its greater mass, inflicts more impact. "The bigger, heavier vehicle will push the smaller, lighter one backward during the impact. This means less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in thelighter vehicle," the report states. "Greater force means greater risk, so the people in the smaller, lighter vehicle are more likely to be injured."
the 4runner is a 1000lbs lighter, do the math. The is a huge difference when an accident occurs. I don't have to convince my wife. She minored in physicis and is a physician that has seen first hand what happens when there's a head on or a side impact. The heavier vehicle generally wins everytime. Check out websites that show head on collisions of smaller vs bigger cars.
I'm an engineer. I've done two years of physics. If you think a 1000 lb difference between a 4Runner and Land Cruiser would make a significant difference in safety, then you are misguided. It won't.
They are both large, heavy, tall, body-on-frame vehicles, with very similar dimensions. They are both well designed with the same safety features.
And if size is all important, then you should be driving a Sequoia or Suburban, because everyone knows they are safer! Right? They're bigger and heavier, after all.
Heck, even those aren't safe enough! Go buy a used Excursion!
They are both large, heavy, tall, body-on-frame vehicles, with very similar dimensions. They are both well designed with the same safety features.
And if size is all important, then you should be driving a Sequoia or Suburban, because everyone knows they are safer! Right? They're bigger and heavier, after all.
Heck, even those aren't safe enough! Go buy a used Excursion!I think the size issue was really put on the table when SMART decided to promote how safe their tiny cars were, showing good crash test scores.
As we know now, it was a white lie because the safety was relative to size. There is a large discrepancy between a low slung 1500lb car and a 6000lb suv with nearly a foot of ground clearance.
It also came out the SMART car has the same rollover rating as a Ford Explorer suv and poor crosswind performance. The Smart also tested twice because the door opened during the crash test- instead of failing it, they retested- which I disagree with.
The discussion of relatively similar vehicles is not as large a factor. It is interesting as 1000lbs is a lot of weight but the fact remains the 4Runner rated at the top of the premium mid-size suv's in safety.
In the case of a 200 and 4Runner, I don't think saftey is a debatable topic. Both are safe. Neither has safety issues.
As we know now, it was a white lie because the safety was relative to size. There is a large discrepancy between a low slung 1500lb car and a 6000lb suv with nearly a foot of ground clearance.
It also came out the SMART car has the same rollover rating as a Ford Explorer suv and poor crosswind performance. The Smart also tested twice because the door opened during the crash test- instead of failing it, they retested- which I disagree with.
The discussion of relatively similar vehicles is not as large a factor. It is interesting as 1000lbs is a lot of weight but the fact remains the 4Runner rated at the top of the premium mid-size suv's in safety.
In the case of a 200 and 4Runner, I don't think saftey is a debatable topic. Both are safe. Neither has safety issues.
I said safety was one of the determining factors and the vehicles you mentioned are crap. I would have bought the hummer if I knew it was a better built vehicle and reliable. By the way, saying your engineer is very vague. It's like me saying I am in sales so I know more about everything being sold. Conversation over. Besides, this forum is for cruisers.
Cheers mate
Cheers mate
I know this is the newer gen stuff were talking about. Given the technology in the 100 and 05 4rnr it's got to be similar to the new 4rnr and the 200. I own a 100 Series (obviously) and we also have a 05 4RNR. I've driven both for a while.
I'll be honest, I really like the 4rnr, I really really do. Especially on the highway. The V6 is great. That thing WILL ABSOLUTELY HAUL ASS through corners (considering its an SUV). The 100 will tip and lean and every thing you have inside will fly to one side...the 4rnr may not have the v8 but it will certainly get going damn quick (again, for an SUV). My LC is fast but since its 4wd it gets bogged down untill about 2600RPM then it comes alive and gets going.
On safety features and evasive maneuvering , I can only comment on how I feel and what I can observe while I've been behind the wheel. I have had to do many evasive maneuvers in my 100 series. Some at high speeds and some going through parking lots. I have only "practiced" a few evasive maneuvers in the 4rnr. The smaller and light engine along with being light does help, whether it's 1000lbs or 5000lbs (A lamborghini gallardo supperleggera weighs 200 lbs less than the standard Gallardo, yet it is noticeability faster). So yes, any weighed lost or gained will effect the performance, who cares what vehicle it pertains to.
So with that very choppy paragraph above that probably makes no sense. I'll try to put it simple.
Comfort - LC
Performance
Handling - 4Runner
Power/TQ's-Landcruiser
Offroad- Landcruiser
Safety - Not really fair since I haven't been able to get a good feel on how the 4runner would handle
Evasive- 4Runner in a parking lot @ 45-55 feels a little more nimble and able to dodge a obstacle with less given distance
Stopping- No clue. Equal probably, or close to it.
Handling overall- I can haul ass in the 4Runner through corners much faster. (then again mine is lifted 2" with 34" tires and an ARB)
I'll be honest, I really like the 4rnr, I really really do. Especially on the highway. The V6 is great. That thing WILL ABSOLUTELY HAUL ASS through corners (considering its an SUV). The 100 will tip and lean and every thing you have inside will fly to one side...the 4rnr may not have the v8 but it will certainly get going damn quick (again, for an SUV). My LC is fast but since its 4wd it gets bogged down untill about 2600RPM then it comes alive and gets going.
On safety features and evasive maneuvering , I can only comment on how I feel and what I can observe while I've been behind the wheel. I have had to do many evasive maneuvers in my 100 series. Some at high speeds and some going through parking lots. I have only "practiced" a few evasive maneuvers in the 4rnr. The smaller and light engine along with being light does help, whether it's 1000lbs or 5000lbs (A lamborghini gallardo supperleggera weighs 200 lbs less than the standard Gallardo, yet it is noticeability faster). So yes, any weighed lost or gained will effect the performance, who cares what vehicle it pertains to.
So with that very choppy paragraph above that probably makes no sense. I'll try to put it simple.
Comfort - LC
Performance
Handling - 4Runner
Power/TQ's-Landcruiser
Offroad- Landcruiser
Safety - Not really fair since I haven't been able to get a good feel on how the 4runner would handle
Evasive- 4Runner in a parking lot @ 45-55 feels a little more nimble and able to dodge a obstacle with less given distance
Stopping- No clue. Equal probably, or close to it.
Handling overall- I can haul ass in the 4Runner through corners much faster. (then again mine is lifted 2" with 34" tires and an ARB)
I had a 4th gen 4R too. It's a wonderful suv.
Despite being choppy and making no sense
I totally agree with youThe weight difference between the LC and 4runner would be approximately equivalent to the weight difference between a Nissan GTR and the 4runner unless google is failing me.
Then again you are the engineer that speaks in absolutes...
I guess I'm on the "misguided" side
Then again you are the engineer that speaks in absolutes...
I guess I'm on the "misguided" side
I'm an engineer. I've done two years of physics. If you think a 1000 lb difference between a 4Runner and Land Cruiser would make a significant difference in safety, then you are misguided. It won't.
They are both large, heavy, tall, body-on-frame vehicles, with very similar dimensions. They are both well designed with the same safety features.
And if size is all important, then you should be driving a Sequoia or Suburban, because everyone knows they are safer! Right? They're bigger and heavier, after all.
The big reason a lamborghini gallardo is considerably faster than a normal is because 200 lb is close to 10% of its weight. You have to consider that in order to make that same difference to a 100, you'd have to shave off almost 700 pounds. Plus the fact that they tinkered with the suspension and drivetrain. That said, the thousand pounds? between the land cruiser and 4runner makes a world of difference. The land cruiser is more luxo-fied than the 4runner, meaning it's designed to be softer and roll more in the corners. The 4runner is aimed at a different audience, especially the trail edition, so the suspension will be considerably stiffer, contributing to better handling. Plus, 2000uzj, you're still running on stock torsion bars, which, combined with your ARB, rear springs, and lack of rear bumper, causes weird handling characteristics and will cause it to feel like it's leaning a big deal more than it actually is.
The LC is better built than the 4Runner, have you seen testing phase for the 200? 5 years, 1500 engineers, and like a million miles in Australia, the U.S. SW and somewhere else that I cant remember right now. Theres a video of this on youtube. Just crawl underneath each and look at everything for a while......there is a noticeable difference between the two. There is alot that goes into making a "LandCruiser"........Toyota puts alot more effort into making sure the LC is the most capable and reliable 4X4 on the planet.
Also, for safety......fulltime 4WD and being heavier=safer......can't argue with physics
Also, here's a mod for the 200......ARB AirLocker for the rear (you could do the front too if ARB has released it)
Well the 4Runner has AWD, just in Limited version now.
ARB's are avail for fr/rr of the 4R. and I think the TG comes w/ electric rr locker stock.
But the 200's got substantially larger and heavier duty.. everything.
Also agree that the development of the Land Cruiser is second to none in Toyota's lineup. It is their flagship and they take that seriously.
The TG 4R is cool though. The two things I don't like are part-time 4wd and no V8 (arguably, these are personal preference issues). Otherwise, it's the best 4R ever made.
ARB's are avail for fr/rr of the 4R. and I think the TG comes w/ electric rr locker stock.
But the 200's got substantially larger and heavier duty.. everything.
Also agree that the development of the Land Cruiser is second to none in Toyota's lineup. It is their flagship and they take that seriously.
The TG 4R is cool though. The two things I don't like are part-time 4wd and no V8 (arguably, these are personal preference issues). Otherwise, it's the best 4R ever made.
Cruiserdrew
On the way there
I sort of agree here. I was underwhelmed by the 100 series front end and the pencil thin links for the steering.
That was totally addressed on the 200 and things look beefy and nice.
A 200 is a truck for the ages, and a 4Runner, while excellent, isn't.
The trade makes no sense on any level.
That was totally addressed on the 200 and things look beefy and nice.
A 200 is a truck for the ages, and a 4Runner, while excellent, isn't.
The trade makes no sense on any level.
Not sure anyone in Canada will know the true value of the LC (for the trade)
Sold my 4runner this weekend picked up an 08 LC
Traded in my 05 4R with v8 and got a silver 08 LC with 36k miles (for $44.5)
. I was also considering a 2010 4R which I thought was cooler looking as well but the lack of a v8 rulled it out because I tow a trailer regularly--no comparison in power to my 05 4R with v8 and the 2010 just felt underpowered to me.
My initial impressions on the 4R vs. LC:
Really 2 very different vehicles even with the V8 in the 4R. LC feels much larger, heavier, and more luxurious. Much quieter cabin, smoother ride and just higher quality materials all around. Nav/audio is a big step up.
Loved my 4R and it is a very capable vehicle--had it modded with OME suspension and a few other goodies. My main reason for selling it was lack of headroom and the front seats were not comfortable on long trips. Ok well the real reason is that I had an 99 LC that I sold for the 4R and really always wanted to get back to an LC. I've been looking for a long time and finally found one at the right price.
I agree with several of the posts on this site. They are really two different vehicles and both are very capable, just comes down to preference.
Traded in my 05 4R with v8 and got a silver 08 LC with 36k miles (for $44.5)
. I was also considering a 2010 4R which I thought was cooler looking as well but the lack of a v8 rulled it out because I tow a trailer regularly--no comparison in power to my 05 4R with v8 and the 2010 just felt underpowered to me. My initial impressions on the 4R vs. LC:
Really 2 very different vehicles even with the V8 in the 4R. LC feels much larger, heavier, and more luxurious. Much quieter cabin, smoother ride and just higher quality materials all around. Nav/audio is a big step up.
Loved my 4R and it is a very capable vehicle--had it modded with OME suspension and a few other goodies. My main reason for selling it was lack of headroom and the front seats were not comfortable on long trips. Ok well the real reason is that I had an 99 LC that I sold for the 4R and really always wanted to get back to an LC. I've been looking for a long time and finally found one at the right price.
I agree with several of the posts on this site. They are really two different vehicles and both are very capable, just comes down to preference.
