Can't go wrong with any of them. Get older and cheaper and you can mod the heck out of it. Max out the budget and find a newer low mileage queen...then mod the heck out of it. Jokes aside, sentence one reigns true.
what is the best year of lc100 or lx470 to get? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter khm3rgtr
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Um so this one is not THAT far from me (600miles). 2006, thundercloud, no nav, no AHC, 163k
2006 Toyota Land Cruiser , $20,850 - Cars.com
Should I jump on this one?
Well, it's a southern vehicle (NC) so that's good. However, it appears the timing belt/water pump/etc. hasn't been done, so add $1000 to that price immediately. $21k seems a little steep to me since it's got 163k miles on it with a limited service history. I recently found my '05 LX with only 99k miles, one owner, for $17,700. Granted, it has Navi which I know you don't want, but that should actually help you by making the price cheaper. It's your call, but I have found that with patience, the right rig will stare you in the face. However, ultimately it's your $ and only you can decide. Good luck.
I logged the VIN into Toyota Care, looks like the dealer had some trans work done just last week. The WP+TB was done at 122k. I think I could get them down into the 17-18 range easily.
2005 LC is the best year.
Because of the 5 speed tranny and how it drives compared to the 98-02, I automatically go to 03+, but for the sake of discussion.....
98-99, some had rear lockers, but they also had weak front diffs so thats a wash.
2000-2002s are kind of the dogs of the bunch.
03+ has the 5 speed tranny.
04+ got the rear view cam and went away from that factory gold tint and went to a normal gray tint which looks better and is easy to match.
2005 got the factory Bluetooth for phone, which works fine.
2006-07, most of which have the AHC, (which is why I rule out all the LX470s, because they all had it); they also went to VVT, which boosts horsepower, but decreases reliability because if a timing belt breaks, your engine is toast. (There have been reports of TB failures on 05 and earlier vehicles that resulted in no engine damage, not so on 06+ 100s. Im not 100% sure about this, but this is what I've gathered, and the addition of the VVT certainly doesn't make the engine more reliable, and that is my main concern, and why I choose Land Cruiser.)
Very little difference between 03-05 except what I mentioned, so any of those are good, which is why I deem the 05 LC to be the best 100, with 04 next, then 03....
In my opinion, all the LXs are ugly and they have that weak AHC crap that I just won't have.
Just some facts mixed with a little bit of opinion!
Because of the 5 speed tranny and how it drives compared to the 98-02, I automatically go to 03+, but for the sake of discussion.....
98-99, some had rear lockers, but they also had weak front diffs so thats a wash.
2000-2002s are kind of the dogs of the bunch.
03+ has the 5 speed tranny.
04+ got the rear view cam and went away from that factory gold tint and went to a normal gray tint which looks better and is easy to match.
2005 got the factory Bluetooth for phone, which works fine.
2006-07, most of which have the AHC, (which is why I rule out all the LX470s, because they all had it); they also went to VVT, which boosts horsepower, but decreases reliability because if a timing belt breaks, your engine is toast. (There have been reports of TB failures on 05 and earlier vehicles that resulted in no engine damage, not so on 06+ 100s. Im not 100% sure about this, but this is what I've gathered, and the addition of the VVT certainly doesn't make the engine more reliable, and that is my main concern, and why I choose Land Cruiser.)
Very little difference between 03-05 except what I mentioned, so any of those are good, which is why I deem the 05 LC to be the best 100, with 04 next, then 03....
In my opinion, all the LXs are ugly and they have that weak AHC crap that I just won't have.
Just some facts mixed with a little bit of opinion!
Pricing is fairly decent considering the year, but I might have issues spending that much considering the mileage. Especially considering the alternatives.
As for AHC, as I have constantly mused around here, hard not to wonder what the perception might be had it been offered on 1998-2005 LC's Stateside as it was ROW. Since moving full time to East Tennessee, I have had a decent number of opportunities to go off tarmac and find AHC to be quite good.
Needless to say, opinions differ on this subject.
Too bad you weren't shopping in June I sold a 2006 non-Navi/AHC with 90K to a mudder.
The 06 I have left has 80K+ non navi/AHC
So in regards to the engine. Is the 03-05 motors on the lx the same as the land cruisers. I personally have been navigating towards the lx mostly due to the AHC. I want it. I want to tinker with it and I figure if I don't like it I can always scrap the whole thing for a traditional spring setup. However I need the rest of the vehicle to be pretty reliable. I have already been searching for an 03-05 lx though. Just wanted to make sure there are no issues. I will go with a land cruiser if the engine is more reliable though.
The thing is, there are no alternatives.
There is like 1 TLC 2003-2007 for sale in Florida. There is zero inventory around me.
Like someone else alluded to, we are kinda splitting hairs here. I actually think the 100 Series Land Cruiser/LX470 is one of the best all around motor vehicles ever produced. As far as reliability, there is some data to back that up. In a stock LC/LX, you could take 4+ people, drive 1000 miles at 100 MPH in 100 degree weather on the interstate or you could tackle some of the roughest terrain at 2 mph in 4 Low. And anything in between.
As far as the AHC, Im sure its good, when it works. I just don't like to have extra features on a vehicle that are liable to break, that would then render the vehicle unfit to drive, if they aren't absolutely necessary. Peace of mind kinda thing. And when I say LXs are ugly, I meant compared to the LC, personally I just think the LC looks a lot better.
As far as I know, there were no differences between the engines in the LC vs the LX.
Thanks that's good info to know.
I purposely seeked out an '03-'05 due to the 5 speed tranny and updated interior. However, I did consider a 2002 LX at one time, but hesitated because I knew deep down that I wouldn't be satisfied unless I found what I truly wanted. I love my AHC btw, and can't imagine life without it. Ultimately, they are all tanks and bulletproof. Good luck!
Unless your 2005 LX470 has the OME 2" lift added and the AHC removed. Then you have the best looking, most dependable, with the best interior. just saying
That's where I'm at right now. I've seen a couple lx470s and LCs but none that I really like and have serious considered them but I know if I'm patient I will find what I'm looking for and be truly happy for a very long time with it.
The only point I cared about is AHC reliability and considering the myriad LX's on here still using it, I think some just think it to be a "Lexus" option when it was always offered on 100 Series LC's in many markets ROW.
As for the aesthetics, truly falls under a whatever floats your boat won't sink mine. Also, what we call the LX470 was known as the Toyota Land Cruiser Cygnus in Japan.
Well put, and IMHO the LX looks better and am happy I purchased one. However, if I would have found a cherry LC, I would have not passed on it. Admittedly, I love my AHC and at 10 years old and getting ready to turn 100k miles, it works flawlessly.
weakspleen
Nachos rule!!
I've seen thread posts on QC issues with post '04 LCs when there was a change in location of manufacturing. Seems as though the sweet spot would be the 2004 made at the ? plant, plus the '04 FSM is readily available.
Are you talking about the "Araco" plant that became the "Toyota Auto Body" plant? It's that same plant.
weakspleen
Nachos rule!!
Unsure of plant name/location, only recall reading posts about QC issues with '05 and above models after some sort of change in plant/personnel/manufacturing process.
