What have you done to your 200 Series this week? (63 Viewers)

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

Honestly, it looks much better on the roof rack. The hi-jack clutters the front bumper and looks a little odd. You only need to carry It when heading to the trail otherwise it’s just unnecessary added weight. Kind of like someone who wears hiking boots and carries bear spray to the mall.😜
 
I used to carry a Hi-Lift. Now that I've used it a few times, I hope I never have to use one again. Stupid dangerous.
 
tincan45 said:
Nice. How hard was it to remove the hydraulic line?
Click to expand...

Hydraulic line fitting is cake to remove. It's just slide on with a retaining bracket and 2x 10mm screws.

PITA is it seems even after relieving pressure from the accumulator per the factory service manual, there's still significant fluid that will come out removing the fitting. Make sure to deflect spray with a towel, AND MUST WEAR EYE PROTECTION. All in all, it's not much different than the install on the LC and dealing with KDSS.
 
LBridges said:
I wasn't trying to imply the insurance company wouldn't cover. What one would have to be insured for is negligence due to the modified vehicle. Possibly through an umbrella type policy. Taking the concept to an extreme, would you agree that just setting the jack on the hood was negligent when it became a projectile in an accident? I feel pretty sure after being on all sides in accident cases (including as a jury foreman) that a lawyer would argue for a large settlement arguing that an insecurely and/or improperly mounted object was negligent and increased the damage, caused death, etc. A jury could easily set an award that exceeded the limits of many policies. Example: Just today a local lawyer had a TV ad on in which he got $5,000,000 for a guy injured in an accident. What happened I haven't a clue, but I know $5mil is over my liability limits - would they come for my house, my 401K, etc.?
Click to expand...

Negligence is what insurance is for. We're negligent when we speed, negligent when we don't look before changing lanes, negligent when we don't load our trailer properly... all those things are covered by our insurance policy. The insurance company gives us a contract that indemnifies us for our negligence, as long as it is reasonable negligence (what a reasonable person would do). The umbrella policy only covers liability that exceeds the policy limits (auto pays first and then umbrella covers over the auto limits). But I don't believe it expands coverage scope beyond what the base policy does. For example, my home liability excludes firearms liability for intentional acts outside the home. My umbrella won't cover that if my home excludes it.

In your case of setting a jack on a hood and driving off that would be negligence but it also would be a covered at-fault claim should it cause damage. I would be money that leaving things on top of vehicles is something that reasonable people do and would be covered.. Only if it could be proven that you left it on your hood with the intent of causing damage would you be at risk of having the claim denied. Real world case: we had an unsecured load get blown off the top of a lift gate truck last month. Our driver was negligent in not securing his load. But it was a covered loss to the car behind him which took the box head on.

That you're at fault and that the coverage is voided are two different things. My big gripe is that it's not completely transparent to the consumer as to what conditions will void their coverage. Progressive, as an example, won't cover lifts over a certain height (at least that was the case when I had them several years back in Oregon, hence my switch to SF). This isn't stated anywhere when you sign up. It's only when you start asking questions do they tell you this. And the sales guy on the phone won't know either. You have to ask for an underwriter to make a judgement.

As far a the claim size, $5M is extraordinary. There was probably a story behind it. I keep $2M on top of a $500k CSL policy and sleep well with that.

At the end of the day, though, it's also about doing the right thing and being smart. I think all of us would rather avoid a big claim then be insured against one. Is putting a highlift on the front bumper the right thing? I'm not convinced it either is or isn't. Hence, the original question as to whether a properly mounted highlift jack ever become a 'missile' and caused injury or damage in an accident? If it has then it's probably not the right thing even if it may be a covered claim. I suppose an additional precaution would be to use a cable to lock the jack to the bumper. That would both act as a supplemental restraint as well as security. A lot of people mount a lot of different things to vehicles so that alone doesn't seem negligent. At least no more so than mounting 35" tires and a plate steel bumper with protruding recovery points.
 
Last edited:
Angelo1 said:
Sorry to be that “guy” but that’s the worst place to put a hi-lift for a few safety reasons. In the event of a frontal impact, that hi-lift could easily end up going through your windscreen.
Click to expand...

That would be quite the impact with a lot more than the high lift jack to worry about at that point. It is the only place to put it.
 
Angelo1 said:
Honestly, it looks much better on the roof rack. The hi-jack clutters the front bumper and looks a little odd. You only need to carry It when heading to the trail otherwise it’s just unnecessary added weight. Kind of like someone who wears hiking boots and carries bear spray to the mall.😜
Click to expand...


I don't care about looks just being practical. The truck only gets driven on trips. I have a Porsche as a daily driver.
 
had the LRA 24 gallon fuel cell installed.
1579034799167.png
 
More super boring stuff: 1 TPMS sensor change - dead battery in OEM - at almost year 12 and 165k miles :). Will do all OEM with expected new tires and wheels later this year.

Husky floor mats - I know some feel they're better than Weathertech, and personally I agree, initially at least, my first set of Huskys. Have had several WTs in other cars. Like others, mine curled.
 
Sprung for this little upgrade
42C9E5EE-2561-4DC6-921E-014F8CC18042.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't have the part number but I ordered on eBay, genuine Toyota parts for an fj40. I had to use a hacksaw to remove the studs and then use 3M automotive tape to secure.
 
Just bought land cruiser logo which comes on some earlier non-US LCs on their push bars/bullbars. Letters are raised and seem high quality. Here it is an online picture. I have the Aussie push which I had on my 16LC and still need to install on my 20LC. Maybe it will make on it.
BTW the Toyota part number is 52439-60010
Non_USA_Land_Cruiser_Bumper_Emblem__52439-60010__-__14_99___CruiserParts_net__Toyota_Landcruis...jpg
 
phatairman said:
The vertical supports seem pretty thin to me. Maybe it's just an illusion? Hoping so.

Do love the rest of the bumper.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. But l like how it meets up to the lights similar to the Rhino bumper. Less plastic, the better. The other concern would be if it effects airbag deployment. With arb you know that it complies
 
Angelo1 said:
I was thinking the same thing. But l like how it meets up to the lights similar to the Rhino bumper. Less plastic, the better. The other concern would be if it effects airbag deployment. With arb you know that it complies
Click to expand...

Updated pics show more support. Which looks great.

Last concern would be the wings. They look like they don't line up with the fender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WaterfowlZone
200 Series - Awesome 50th Birthday Surprise
Replies
11
Views
2K
WaterfowlZone
WaterfowlZone
O
200 Series Workshop Manuals - VDJ200
Replies
3
Views
454
Workhorse
Workhorse
Heritage 2020
Article: Why the 200 Series?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Sandroad
Sandroad
H
200 series 3urfe vs Tundra
Replies
9
Views
1K
Yossarian
Yossarian

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 3 more.
    • Total: 64 (members: 17, guests: 47)

    Share this page

    Back
    Top Bottom