What year is the best year for a 100? (8 Viewers)

[jLB]

Suffice to say they were very late in complying, and had to be reminded to comply. The SAE standard (SAE j1349) came out in 2004. Honda had to restate some cars as well but Toyota was the worst offender. Everyone else was in compliance in that timeframe - Toyota, Honda Dial Back Horsepower Claims

According to this little blurb:

About - Certified Power (SAE J1349 and J1995) - SAE International

The 2006 Corvette Z06 was the 1st car tested under the new standard, and the standard is/was voluntary.

Maybe the Japanese horses were a little weaker/smaller than their American or European counterparts (prior to 2007) , but I don't remember horsepower being a major factor in any of my LC/LX purchases.

I'm not sure where you come up with "reminded to comply" or "offender" to a voluntary standard. If the Corvette Z06, a car that is sold on its perceived horsepower/performance, was on the "bleeding edge" being tested with this new standard in 2006 (model year), it doesn't seem too far fetched to me, that Toyota might take another model year to comply to the voluntary standard.

 

[DuckLN]

2000 with no rust and factory slicks and newly painted trim moldings!!

 

[97 AZ LC]

I'm not sure where you come up with "reminded to comply" or "offender" to a voluntary standard. If the Corvette Z06, a car that is sold on its perceived horsepower/performance, was on the "bleeding edge" being tested with this new standard in 2006 (model year), it doesn't seem too far fetched to me, that Toyota might take another model year to comply to the voluntary standard.

The SAE standard was issued in 2004 to take effect on January 1, 2005, meaning for all 2006 model year testing. It was totally mandatory if you wanted to say your horsepower ratings were SAE certified. Everybody else complied for 2006. Toyota and Honda overstated their 2006 horsepower numbers in non-compliance with "industry standards", and consequently they both had to restate them during the model year. I'm comfortable with "they got caught". Toyota also got caught overstating SUV interior volume numbers in that timeframe. If you ever saw a sales training brochure in those days there was a lot of BS and inaccurate information. That's who they were then. I think they're better now.

 

[faccintosgundogs]

Buy the newest model year you can afford.

Newer models are not always better choices. Low miles 100% all day. I view a purchase as your paying for low mileage. My best advice.

 

[GTV]

2003

 

[Exiled]

Subjective answer for a subjective question. I prefer earlier 100s. I like the factory locker, the lack of obsolete factory navigation, and the more "truck like" feel of the drivetrain. I also like the earlier steering wheel without controls, and the earlier dash. I don't dispute the improvements made on the series over the years, it's just a personal preference. But if I'm answering this question objectively, I'd recommend someone buy the newer 100s with the least possible miles and the best track record of maintenance and care. Oh, and NO rust. There are enough 100s in the United States that if you're patient, you can find the ones with no rust.

 

[cwmoser]

I only have experience with the 2002 LX and the 2004 LC.
The 5-speed transmission is a plus, but also is one that is well maintained, and then low mileage.
I purchased my 2002 LX because it had low mileage and had a great service history.
Its kinda hard finding one that is low mileage as these are getting 20+ years old, but its easier to find one with great service history.
Pluses for the 1998 - 2003 are that they come with a Transmission Dipstick.
I do agree rust free, great condition, great service history trumps about everything else.
Really any of the 1998-2007 100's are great vehicles.

 

[rexington14]

The 5 speed transmission, and side curtain airbags (especially in a tall SUV more prone to rollovers) were basically must haves for me back when I was looking. I believe its 2003+ for both.

 

[Devils Paw 80]

A newbie randomly chose to revive this thread after 9 years of hibernation? I guess it could be of interest to compare answers then and now.

I would be biased towards those with the least amount of tech, in other words the earlier ones. There are also excellent arguments for newer years.

 

[GTV]

A newbie randomly chose to revive this thread after 9 years of hibernation? I guess it could be of interest to compare answers then and now.

I would be biased towards those with the least amount of tech, in other words the earlier ones. There are also excellent arguments for newer years.

The more modern tech and interior of the 03+ is really nice for a daily. If it’s just an occasional use adventure vehicle then I could see how the more basic 98-02 is plenty good enough.

 

[OEMGUY0720]

Is modern (later model) better?
But how about working on a specific budget?
Isn’t the later models / iterations supposed to be an improvement from the previous ones?
These are the questions I normally get when a client or even a uncle/cousin/buddy is now ready for their first new Land Cruiser, and my answer hasn’t changed: get the latest/newest model your budget can afford, and slowly build from there and knowing that I have influenced them, set aside or plan for additional costs for maintenance and modifications down the road. At the end of the day its their hard-earned money, its understanding the cost of ownership post-sale that is the most important aspect of Land Cruiser lifestyle.

 

[DuckLN]

2000 with no rust and factory slicks and newly painted trim moldings!!

I still prefer my 2000 to my 2006. Both are cream puffs but that 2000 for some reason feels tougher.

 

[excessive]

98-02 are the best IMO

 

[bcarbs]

Have only owned an ‘05 and an ‘06 so I guess I prefer the late model years personally. Can’t say enough times how important it is to find one without rust. When I was last looking I decided I wanted ‘06-‘07 but almost blew up my plan and snagged an ‘01 b/c of the insane service history and upgrades.

Be patient, look at some rigs. Test drive some if you can. You can always add lockers or swap out the nav but you don’t want to be dealing with crumbling bumpers and meineke Frankensteined exhausts.

 

[Couvi]

All great but the 2004 is a sure bet for me.

 

[shane431]

I own a 99 and love it but if I was forced to pick a year I think it would be a 2001 or 2004/2005. 2001 because I can still change the stereo easy plus you get Atrac or 2004/2005 because then you get 5 speed plus bluetooth.

 

[Live to Ski]

I own a 99 and love it but if I was forced to pick a year I think it would be a 2001 or 2004/2005. 2001 because I can still change the stereo easy plus you get Atrac or 2004/2005 because then you get 5 speed plus bluetooth.

I have a '04. my pathetic reseach showed the bluetooth it uses is obsolete. Pls educate me....

 

[bcarbs]

I have a '04. my pathetic reseach showed the bluetooth it uses is obsolete. Pls educate me....

If it's anything like what was in my '05 it ain't worth guiding your 100 series search on this feature. Paired w/ my iPhone native bluetooth sounded terrible "on the other end" and for some reason calls would initiate or pick up just fine but the audio/mic lags behind by like 30 seconds before you can start to talk. Makes outbound calls pretty awkward. It also only works for calling - no music streaming capabilities.

Aftermarket like BT45-TOY, grom vline, or after market head units are the way to go.

 

[shane431]

I have a '04. my pathetic reseach showed the bluetooth it uses is obsolete. Pls educate me....

Perhaps I’m mistaken! Then 2001 is my choice! But I appreciate your sarcasm.

 

[Live to Ski]

Perhaps I’m mistaken! Then 2001 is my choice! But I appreciate your sarcasm.

not sarcastic as meant to show I'm not the end-all on this frustrating subject....beat my self up looking to see if it could work. now I know for sure it's a no-go.

all is good.