Trying to understand off road capability 200 vs. Tundra

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

ewillis

ewillis

10 Year
Joined
Oct 11, 2013
Threads
164
Messages
2,775
Location
Dante's Inferno, CA
Sorry guys...another comparo. I have an 80 that's locked and armored, etc. The truck is a BEAST off road! I'm looking to possibly move into either a Tundra or a 200. I owned an 07 5.7 Tundra and loved the truck but sold it due to a looong commute at the time and it wasn't 4X4 :doh:. I Moved into a commuter car and the 80. I really miss that 5.7 and want to get into another one, but not sure on variety.

I want a really capable off road machine. It doesn't have to be at the level of the 80 because I'm not taking a 200 or Tundra to Rubicon, but I also don't want the illusion of capability. I know the 200 is built for rugged off road, but what specifically makes it better than a Tundra aside from dimensions/configuration and full time 4x4?

Are the driveshafts beefier? Steering components stronger? Lower range gearing? diffs larger? TREs stouter? More downtravel/uptravel? Flex? The A-TRAC/CRAWL are kind of unimportant to me because I will add Harrop lockers to either of them immediately after purchase.

I know in 1994, if you climbed under a Toyota pickup and took a quick look then climbed under an 80, there is a VAST difference. Is it the same with Tundra vs 200?
 
ewillis said:
Sorry guys...another comparo. I have an 80 that's locked and armored, etc. The truck is a BEAST off road! I'm looking to possibly move into either a Tundra or a 200. I owned an 07 5.7 Tundra and loved the truck but sold it due to a looong commute at the time and it wasn't 4X4 :doh:. I Moved into a commuter car and the 80. I really miss that 5.7 and want to get into another one, but not sure on variety.

I want a really capable off road machine. It doesn't have to be at the level of the 80 because I'm not taking a 200 or Tundra to Rubicon, but I also don't want the illusion of capability. I know the 200 is built for rugged off road, but what specifically makes it better than a Tundra aside from dimensions/configuration and full time 4x4?

Are the driveshafts beefier? Steering components stronger? Lower range gearing? diffs larger? TREs stouter? More downtravel/uptravel? Flex? The A-TRAC/CRAWL are kind of unimportant to me because I will add Harrop lockers to either of them immediately after purchase.

I know in 1994, if you climbed under a Toyota pickup and took a quick look then climbed under an 80, there is a VAST difference. Is it the same with Tundra vs 200?
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure why your thinking of getting a 5.7 Toyota. Sounds like u just want a 4x4 that's fast and can do light offroad. If u have a commuter car, and a 80, I would just turbo the crap out of the fz in the 80 rather than get a whole other vehicle. But to your question anyway, front suspension is almost the same. Rear on a tundra is leafs instead of coils on the 200. Tundra probably has more rear overhang. Track width is wider on the tundra. 200 has more traction control aides.
 
That 5.7 is special. I have a Tundra (wife's) that I was intoxicated with by the power over my 5th gen 4runner. I gave the idea of picking up a second Tundra in 4x4 and commencing the build from there. However, if you look at approach and especially departure angles, the Tundra is at a huge disadvantage over a 200. Overall length is 239" for Tundra and 197" for the 200.

Overall, I found a certified 200 that was worth the jump from the 4runner. You can't go wrong with the 200. Plus, there's a lot more refinement in the interior vs the Tundra.
 
The 5.7 is awesome! I understand one is a truck and one is a SUV. The 200 is a luxury vehicle while the Tundra is...well...a truck. There was a time that the LC was purpose built and utilized proprietary components, engines, T-cases, axles, etc. It seems the use of said proprietary components appeared to die off with the 80 series. From my limited understanding, the 100/200 appear to use fairly the same setups (axles/engines/front sus) between the Tundras and LCs. Just trying to determine if this is just my perception or fact.
 
Do you plan on keeping the 80 or plan on building another rig out of the new purchase?

And it's purely my perception, but having spent time under the 5th gen 4runner, Tundra and LC200 is that the 200 and Tundra do have a "level of beefed upness" over the 4runner. So maybe the Tundra and 200 are equally as strong? I dunno. Very subjective.
 
AFdude said:
Do you plan on keeping the 80 or plan on building another rig out of the new purchase?

And it's purely my perception, but having spent time under the 5th gen 4runner, Tundra and LC200 is that the 200 and Tundra do have a "level of beefed upness" over the 4runner. So maybe the Tundra and 200 are equally as strong? I dunno. Very subjective.
Click to expand...

Hard to say. My 80 is one of the cleanest/low mileage I've seen and I would like to keep it. On the other hand, I could sell it for top dollar to fund either a Tundra or 200. I have 3 vehicles and don't need a 4th. I would agree that the Tundra/200 are much beefier than the 4Runner underneath.
 
based on the statements you made in your original post, either one will meet your offroad needs... you said you won't be wheeling it like it's an 80. they are both pretty beefy vehicles. i've never owned a tundra, but a good friend of mine has had two over the last 12 years. based on my experience with my own 200 and limited exposure to his tundras, the 200 is more refined - the interior is quieter; it's more comfortable on long trips; it hauls people better; it has a better factory sound system; it has a built-in refrigerator... :)

maybe you should ask yourself what you'll be doing with the vehicle when you're *not* doing light wheeling/offroading. if hauling plywood or sheetrock is in your future, i'd go with a truck... but you're posting your question to the 200-series forum, so i suspect you're leaning towards the cruiser.

**EDIT** as for the undercarriage components, i've heard of a few differences between the two (frame itself comes to mind?), but i'm not qualified to weigh in. @bjowett and many others here have world's more experience in that arena.
 
Last edited:
ikeb said:
based on the statements you made in your original post, either one will meet your offroad needs... you said you won't be wheeling it like it's an 80. they are both pretty beefy vehicles. i've never owned a tundra, but a good friend of mine has had two over the last 12 years. based on my experience with my own 200 and limited exposure to his tundras, the 200 is more refined - the interior is quieter; it's more comfortable on long trips; it hauls people better; it has a better factory sound system; it has a built-in refrigerator... :)

maybe you should ask yourself what you'll be doing with the vehicle when you're *not* doing light wheeling/offroading. if hauling plywood or sheetrock is in your future, i'd go with a truck... but you're posting your question to the 200-series forum, so i suspect you're leaning towards the cruiser.
Click to expand...

All things being equal...I'd take the LC over a Tundra in a heartbeat! However, a used 4x4 Tundra with about 60K miles will run around 30K. A used 200 with around 60K miles will run around 50K. Am I paying an extra 20K for interior refinements/prestige or am I getting a serious upgrade in off-road ability? Unfortunately, I think the only limiting factor to the Tundra is the truck configuration itself and with regard to the 200...it's configuration appears to be what contributes to its off-road prowess. Too bad the freakin 79 series isn't available to us...that's the PERFECT machine! Decisions decisions
 
yeah, i get it. all things aren't equal and the LC is quite a bit pricier. on the other hand, if you plan to keep it for a good while, then go with your heart(beat)... the difference in price becomes less meaningful over several years - and you will have chosen the one you really want. if you feel that way about the LC vs the tundra today, you'll likely feel that way tomorrow too. at least that's my $.02.
 
Most things you list are the same size between the two vehicles. The Tundra has slightly larger front brakes, and the rear axle has a massive 10.5" ring gear with large 1.457" 36 spline shafts. The steering rack gear in the Land Cruiser is a larger diameter, I don't consider the Tundra unit weak, but some do pop the seals.
 
Fit and finish on the LC is far superior, its definitely something you can feel. 5.7 in LC is made/assembled in Japan vs. US (prob just assembly) on Tundra as well.
 
ewillis said:
All things being equal...I'd take the LC over a Tundra in a heartbeat! However, a used 4x4 Tundra with about 60K miles will run around 30K. A used 200 with around 60K miles will run around 50K. Am I paying an extra 20K for interior refinements/prestige or am I getting a serious upgrade in off-road ability? Unfortunately, I think the only limiting factor to the Tundra is the truck configuration itself and with regard to the 200...it's configuration appears to be what contributes to its off-road prowess. Too bad the freakin 79 series isn't available to us...that's the PERFECT machine! Decisions decisions
Click to expand...

I was just thinking through the same decision and went with the 200. But from my perspective, comparing mileage on a 200 with mileage on a Tundra is not apples to apples. One might reasonably argue that 200 series with over 100k on the clock is as "new" as a Tundra with 60k. At least that's what I'm telling myself!
 
Not sure what you mean by "off road". I don't do "Jeep crazy" offloading nor do I have a winch or a lift. But I have found time and again out on forest service roads and even "easy" trails that approach, departure, break over angles along with turn radius and a shorter body are extremely helpful. Unless the "off roads" you drive are mostly straight and mostly flat I would go with the 200 - if that off roading is important. If you are used to an 80, I suspect the longer wheel base and flatter angles will frustrate you.
 
I wheel the 80...no doubt. I do think the angles of a truck body might be cumbersome. However, with a 200/Tundra I would be content with tame logging roads and such. I'm more of a "drive to the cool fishing spot" somewhere off the beaten path type of adventurist vs. a rock crawler.
DSC_3435_zpsf1657ec9.jpg
 
Last edited:
;-) I'm more of a "drive to a cool photography spot" somewhere off the beaten path. So I know what you mean. Where I've been in Colorado and Utah there are certainly rock crawling trails that people do. I've done a couple. But for me its not about finding the narlyest line. I'll leave that to the Jeeps. But there are plenty of tight corners, switchbacks, trees, and dips or bank or moguls on the dirt roads - sometimes for water run off. Not that a truck wouldn't work. It might just take more work.

We looked at trucks when we decided to replace our LR4 with a stronger tow vehicle for our trailer. We looked hard at how we would use the "back half" of each vehicle type. Truck beds can be very useful. Sometimes. And there are some decent truck bed tents. But it would have taken up a lot more space in the garage and 99% of the time we would have no use for the bed. Most of the time the gear I'm carrying needs to be inside the cabin. So the LC made more sense given how we use it and what we carry - especially when going off road.

And then there is the need for extra seats for the grandkids - I expect that this is not yet an issue for you!
 
This year, I have owned a brand new 4x4 2016 4-door Tundra Limited and then got a 2013 LC 200 w/44k miles. I started looking for an LC, got impatient and got the Tundra, traded it in out of fear (oil industry worker) to get an Accord, then finally found the LC I wanted (job was safe). Fit and finish on the LC and quietness of the cabin were the biggest things I noticed. The Tundra is way better in many respects compared to American trucks, so this is not a diss to the Tundra. I get about 2-2.5 mpg more @ equivalent speeds in the LC. I can attest to what someone said earlier....I actually only need the bed maybe 5% max a year, maybe. I do also find that most of my cargo needs to be stored inside. I did like the cavernous-like backseat of the Tundra--I mean, you can fit three 6'5"+ guys in the back no problem. I think one thing I appreciate the most about the LC (that I don't see many people mention) after having a 4th & 5th gen 4Runner and the Tundra is that the LC is "right-sized" for me.....not too cavernous and not as cramped as the 4Runner. For reference, I am 6'0" and 215lbs. I also like the split opening rear. I find that this creates a "tailgate" to sit on a drink a beer w/a canopy on top (the window). Win-win!
 
I had a 2011 Tundra and I now have a 2013 200 series. The biggest difference off-road is going to be the wheel travel. 200 has coils all the way around and KDSS, win win!
 
Buy one of each. Then spend lots of $$$ customizing them to your liking. They both have specific applications that make them uniquely suited to compliment each other.
IMG_0169_zps9y9gxeib.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom