Toyota Land Cruiser

hicaira

I agree. HP, especially in an off-roader - is way overrated. Give me torque and gearing any day. The probelm that z71 points out though is that for many buyers of expensive SUV's today, the badging, bling bling wheels, and perception of bigger & badder = better, is what drives sales. That is probably why I have yet to see a navigator or excapade off road. Just as well, I say.

LC's need not be sold in large numbers here, just sold. There will always be buyers - those who value and use the capabilities and reliability of a LC - and, as a flagship, I expect Toy to continue selling them here. Meanwhile, for those who need others to acknowledge the value of their purchase by citing the hp or sales figures, don't worry. GM and Ford will be happy to supply you.

HiC

steelcruiser

Bling, bling country?!?!?

And just what has happened to conumers here? They're buying the hype aren't they?

Why waste time arguing about the virtues of a LC anyway? If someone buys one to be cool that's their problem, not Toyota's.

z71bill

I feel that for the LC to survive in the USA it needs a more powerful engine. IMO - Toyota will either develop a 290-300 HP engine or drop the LC from the US market within the next 5 years?

Anyone disagree with this? Or do you all agree that I am correct on this point?

Why doesn't Toyota advertise the LC? Hard to tell for sure - but if you look at the cost of advertising - and divide that by 2,000 additional sales(a whopping 50% jump from the 4,000 they sell today)it would most likely add $5,000 to the MSRP. Hardly a good investment. Maybe the LC is like rutabagas - if you are one of the few people who like them - you know where to go to buy them, if not all the advertising in the world will not get you to try them. OR - maybe it is because Toyota is losing money on every USA LC they sell and additional advertising would be a double waste of money.

Not sure why a list of GM innovations should be posted on a LC board -or why GM and Ford reliability is an issue here so I will leave that for another day.

All the posts about bling bling seem strange - are some of you saying the LC is without bling bling? That is hard for me to agree with. But maybe Nav systems, rear view cameras and rear seat entertainment systems are necessities when off roading LOL. I do not, however, consider a powerful engine to be bling bling.

As far as torque is concerned. I always smile when someone posts that torque is more important than HP. "Give me more torque - I don't care about HP". Don't you know that every engine that produces more torque AT A GIVEN RPM will also produce more HP at the same RPM. If an engine produces more HP AT A GIVEN RPM it will also produce more torque at the same RPM. Do you think that torque is only produced at low RPMs and that HP is produced at high RPMs? But please - lets not turn this into a HP vs torque discussion.

fj100

I agree, Toyota is/will be developing a 300hp V8 and must to stay competitive. However if the LC is dropped, it will not be based on the engine, more likely the low sales volumes as you stated above. Maybe the LC does not have enough chrome. All the big, bad, american suvs have lots of chrome. Maybe people prefer visiting their dealerships every month or two for repairs. You can have a 330hp v8 in a Toyota today if that is what you want.

Now back to our program, the LC is not advertised, no idea why. I guess they are trying to sell on name only or they want potential buyers to step up to an LX470.

I prefer the way a turbo diesel builds power vs a gasoline engine. If the td has less hp and more torque that is ok with me. At the same time the td will be far more efficient than the gas engine. Horsepower vs torque is another discussion.

I guess I am just curious what is next for the LC, going the way of the mega, chromed out suv's without a low range transfer case or getting back to basics. I would prefer getting back to basics and the low range.

Any new insight?

mobiweld

My guess is either they don't have to, or they have in the past and the investment in advertising didn't effect sales. It is a relatively pricey truck in comparison to "comparable" offerings from the big 3.

ruking1

"I prefer the way a turbo diesel builds power vs a gasoline engine. If the td has less hp and more torque that is ok with me. At the same time the td will be far more efficient than the gas engine. Horsepower vs torque is another discussion."

I would also agree!

I would also like a Turbo Diesel TLC with a 5/6 speed manual!

Perhaps folks are just too used to the high hp, high torque gasser combination to be able to succesfully compare lower hp, high torque, higher fuel mileage diesel.

The V10 diesel 332 hp 550# ft of torque VW Toureg really stirs my imagination! It also is reputed to get mid to high 20's for fuel mileage!

The other thing about TLC is that the profit per vehicle is VERY VERY good. For example a good deal for a new TLC in australia is like 43k US dollars!

flyfish4life

They may not advertise the LC very often, but Toyota has no issue adding a fat $900 to the invoice for "Regional Advertising", at least in my particular region.

My fear for the next generation LC is exactly what FJ100 and Steelcruiser and others allude to – keeping up with bling, bling image. If so, Toyota will end up ruining the very nameplate they spent 50+ years developing. It would be a shame and call me a skeptic, but I could easily envision the next generation LC to be a puffy version of the new (and hideous) 4-runner with 300hp, chrome, and every other American car feature you can imagine. Maybe, when Terminator 4 comes out, Toyota will launch the new “T-4 Land Cruiser”, a la the T-3 Tundra. I am sure it would sell like hot cakes in the U.S., but it may require advertising. Toyota needs to step up and stick to its heritage of producing high-quality, reliable and respected vehicles. As with most American fads, hopefully the bling, bling immage will soon come to pass, but I'm not holding my breath.

hicaira

I would share the concerns of the next LC becoming a joke-mobile like, say, the caddy if, like the caddy (and other bling-carts) the buyers were almost all in the U.S. Fact is, (fortunately!) the US represents a minority of LC sales: most of the rest of the world needs (not wants, needs) the function, utility and reliability that they can count on with any LC. Also, MPG is far more important to these buyers than 0-60 times and as a result, Turbo Diesels and lower output gas engines are the norm. The current V8, with its lowly 235/320 is actually overkill for the practical minded buyer of most LC's. This doesn't mean a bigger V-8 won't make it to the LC, but I imagine it will only be in the US; land of cheap gas and SUV's that never leave the 'burbs. Toy will make that engine even without the LC though: They have to to stay competitive in the pick-up market.

Finally, I have no idea why z71 is making up data about Toy losing money on every LC sold. The dealer's may not be making a bundle, but, unlike Ford and GM, at least they are not sold in back of invoice within 6 months of new model introduction. Meanwhile, the manufacturers are making a healthy margin (and in Ford and GM's case - ALL their profits are from the truck divisions - they lose $$ on the cars).

Finally, why advertise a car that is in year 6 of a model designation? Only automakers with massive amounts of unsold inventory have to resort to that. If demand is eating up the supply, then advertising is a waste of $$.

In the end, the LC, unlike most SUV's, is not a trend, but a standard. Trends fade and ebb - standards persist - as the LC will. I suspect that to most potential US SUV buyers, the next LC will be too small, too underpowered and too expensive - and yet somehow, they will sell every one they make at a profit.

HiC

steelcruiser

Finally, someone that GETS it. They don't advertise them because they don't have to. They sell everyone of them. A standard trumps a trend everytime.

zinny2

What a nice car. Traded in our 2001 Sequioa for it and boy is she different. REALLY big difference in build quality AND ride.

z71bill

Seems like we are starting to go in circles - I am not making up facts about LC profitability. I stated - MAYBE - Toyota is losing money on the LC -After thinking about this a bit more - maybe they make more money on the Sequoia or 4-Runner - so they will be more profitable if they sell fewer LC's. All large companies manage their product mix - and focus marketing efforts on the areas that will drive sales and profits. But come on - "to most potential US SUV buyers, the next LC will be too small, too under powered and too expensive - and yet somehow, they will sell every one they make" seems kind of lame given the fact that they only sell 4,000 (in the USA) per year. In case you missed the point of the discussion - it was - will the LC continue to be sold in the USA given the small sales volume.

If I am paying $50-$60K for an SUV I expect it to have class leading power. But this in no way implies that I want to give up a high level of reliability. Why not demand both? What makes you think Toyota can't build a more powerful engine and still maintain reliability similar to the current engine? As far as adding a supercharger - that is one option, but what will that add - another $5K.

ruking1

"it was - will the LC continue to be sold in the USA given the small sales volume. "

Without a doubt, yes. The reasons are the same ones you are ignoring. I truly forget how many 1974 TLC's were imported in country. The 1987 TLC was rumored to be app 2,000. etc, etc.

Toyota, let alone Landcruiser, has NEVER been a class leader in power.

I do not have the WW yearly production figures of TLC's, but 2000-9000 yearly, destined for the USA market is a total no brainer.

flyfish4life

Thought I would share some official sales stats for everyone’s amusement. Per the attached Toyota press site, approximately 5,800 LCs have been sold year-to-date through November 2003, slightly down from year ago sales of 6,030. This puts annualized 2003 LC sales at ~ 6,500 units. Also interesting to note that approximately 8,000 LX 470s have been sold through November 2003 YTD -approximately 9,000 annualized. This is relatively flat with prior YTD LX 470 sales; however November 2003 LX sales are actually up 18% over November 2002. Go figure. If only they would break down profitability of each vehicle.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/photo_library/display_release.html?id- =20031202

ukroma

The Theft Alarm on my 98 LC just activated while the vehicle was parked in my garage, undisturbed and undriven for 48 hours. This has never happened before to this vehicle. Per the book, it can be triggered by a breakin attempt or an interrupt between the battery and the vehicle.

Anyway, it quietened down as soon as I pressed the "Unlock" button on the key remote and the vehicle is performing in its usual flawless fashion with no reoccurrence (so far).

Any ideas?

On an unrelated topic, so far as the HP debate goes, I was originally planning to add the supercharger's 100+ horses but after driving the LC for a few months I decided that it really wasn't necessary. The vehicle performs very well (on and off roads) as delivered.

joeeblow1

To pick a nit, the TLC was a class leader in power waaaay back when the jeep and scout were powered with 4 cylinder engines. It didn't take long for the F series to be out-powered (but not out-lugged).

Pumping up the horsepower in the TLC is a relatively recent phenomenon.

idahodoug

You guys make me laugh sometimes. The LandCruiser's sales figures represent a number of vehicles alloted for the US market. They are limited by production capacity, not by demand. And they consistently produce the largest gross profits for the dealers of any model. Toyota would love to have even more to sell.

More than any other reason, this is why you don't see the LC in ads - it doesn't need them to sell every single unit. Yes, you'll hear of people buying new ones at good rates, but remember that for each of these there are 10 people buying them near full sticker price without a thought.

What does the future hold for the LC? The dramatic shift in US buyer tastes for huge, powerful SUVs has been met within the Toyota line by improvements to existing models (V8 in the 4Runner) and adding new ones (V8 Sequioa). The LC is unlikely to be altered much in favor of these US tastes since the rest of the world buys more of them than we have available. Will it disappear here? Unlikely - it's not the ideal value package for the US buyer anymore, but continues to provide solid profits to dealers.

IdahoDoug

zinny2

We traded in our 2001 Sequoia and the difference in driving the two is NIGHT AND DAY. There is a certain "feel" that this car has and it is quite different than other SUV's I have driven.

I love the seats. They are quite comfortable. You do not feel like you are sitting very high as we felt in the Seq. Also, the backup camera is one of the best and easiest safety features I have seen.

As far as HP, we did not buy it to race. It has all we need and I would not want to lose any more MPG than are already lost.

Zinny
2004 Black Garnet Landcruiser

mobiweld

Battery in good condition?

hicaira

Mobi, beat me too it. The alarm activating itself in the garage proceeded the failure of the battery in my 98 by about two weeks. And yes, the little window on the battery was still blue. Worthless indicator.

The original battery is good for about 5 years of heavy use in the LC. Time to upgrade.

HiC

rleong

Same battery problems on my 2000 LC, too. I remember the alarm activiting before the battery went out.

Go check the battery and buy a good one.

saupe130

That little blue light in the battery tells you one thing...the condition of THAT PARTICULAR cell in your six cell battery. Charge the battery, then take it to a parts house that can check it for free. If one of the other five cells is toast, it'll show when the battery won't stand up to the amperage test. Those little lights can be deceiving.

fj100

The 100 series is lucky because the Odyssey Battery PJ1700MJT will fit in the stock location. It is about 200 bucks but well woth the upgrade.

fj100

grantchstr

Odyssey Battery PJ1700MJT - will it fit into the Fj80? I guess not from your "aren't we lucky" comment for the Fj100!

fj100

It will but requires modding the inside of the fender well. Never seen one in an 80.

fj100

ukroma

Many thanks to everyone who responded to my request for ideas about why the Theft Alarm on my 98 LC activated while the vehicle was parked in my garage, undisturbed and undriven for 48 hours.
 
Perhaps this early indication of impending battery failure should be noted in subsequent handbooks.

Yesterday I located the recommended Odyssey battery locally (in Santa Monica, CA) for around the $220 price mentioned. I then installed it using the "block of wood underneath" technique described.

Thanks again for all the help.

ccco1

I was thinking about replacing my battery soon and was wondering which battery is better and why?

The yellow top Optima or the Odyssey.

It's for a 2000 LC.

Thanks in advance...

rleong

Ebay has a 2002 and 2003 Toyota factory manuals and the starting bid is $49.99. I don't know if they are new. No one is bidding.

Type "toyota land cruiser repair".

steelcruiser

They look pretty clean based upon the pictures.

I think if you had to pay full price for both manuals thru a dealer, your wallet would be a couple of Franklins lighter

albiv

Shipping is $15.00. For a repair manual????

blockislandguy

OK, I read these posts and every one sings the praises of the LC. Since I'm not going to buy a new one I checked out the Edmunds TMV. Wow! It is going to cost me 30K to get into just a MY2000. Let me put this into some context: 30K for a MY2000 LC is about the price of a new 2004 Eddie Bauer (at invoice less the rebate), a used 2002 Navigator, a loaded used 2003 Tahoe LT, etc.

Now in each of the above cases, one could get off a quick retort: e.g, the Ford is junk, the Navigator is too gauche, the Chev has cold start knock problems, etc. But at least the vehicles would still be in some kind of factory warranty, they wouldn;t have had 4 years of salt over their rocker panels, and they would have fresh tires and electricals. OK, someone says but they are still just American made, tarted up soccer mom vans.

Soo, lets consider what else we could buy for the 30K that wouldn't be 4 years old yet would have something "legendary" about it. How about a 2001 X5 or even a 2001 Sequoia? Maybe you think Jags are due for a rebound and currently underpriced? If so a 2004 X Series with AWD might be just the thing. Or, what if I could find for you a fully boxed, ladder frame 4X4 with a proven V8, ZF tranny, etc. that as a 2003 could be had for the same price as a four year old LC? (Hint: its made in the UK).

I think perhaps that the price of a used LC is perhaps in part due to the "legend" aspect. Not just the quality. Unless you have to be at the Baghad International Airport for an early flight tommorow AM, aren't they horribly overpriced? Sure a 2003 Disco might be a headache some times but it does have its strengths and it is in warranty.

What am I missing?

steelcruiser

Not owning an LC, that's what. Seriously, most here on this forum are LC zealots. We love 'em warts and all.

 You've already got the answers in your post about why the LC would be a good choice.

Stand by, I think your inbox will fill up soon enough with lots of other comments to counter any non-LC comment you can come up with.

Good luck in your quest!

grantchstr

What you are missing is that those vehicles you mention - especially the UK variety - will cost you a ton in maintenance compared to the LC and are a real breakdown risk as well.

fj100

I will try to be as nice on this. The reason for the high resale value is the HIGH reliability. You wake up in the morning and the vehicle starts everytime. The same can not be said for the disco, even the 2004's are JUNK. That is why disco's depreciate so badly. Please take a used '98 to '03 LC over to your local LR dealer, park them side by side and compare. Then drive them back to back. If you like to visit the dealer for repairs, get the LR. The interior materials are sad, the fit and finish is sad, when you close the driver door your leg and elbow are crowded. I could go on and on. Even better compare a LC to a Sequioa, once again the LC materials are better, the drive is better. It has nothing to do with name on the vehicle, some people in the world know quality and some do not and some do not care. Average joe, who does not know quality or does not care will look at the cost of entry and say, man thats expensive however they do not look at the long term cost (because they are keeping the vehicle less than 3 years) and they do not care about their time. I prefer to spend my time on my agenda, not taking a vehicle in for repairs. The dealer does not care about your time!

Luckliy we live in a world of free speech and if you one want a vehcile with less quality, buy it and have fun, but everytime you go to the dealer for repairs, please remember this post.

ruking1

I sold a 1987 TLC with app 250k on the clock. The vehicle had a total of 2200 dollars in unscheduled repairs. Parts wise at retail 750 dollars; so 1450 was labor. Over the 14 years I owned it it lost a total of 44% or 3% per year depreciation. It was a daily driver and delivery vehicle. On the weekends it headed to the mountains in 4 seasons activities. I also did 15k oil and filter change intervals with Mobil One. It seemed like I was always buying tires for this, (50,000 miles per set) or 4 or 5 sets as I recall.

ironside7

I'm trying to decide between Michelin's Cross Terrain or LTX M/S tires. Prior posts on this board seemed to be leaning toward the Cross Terrains. I've been happy with the OEM LTX M/S tires. I would appreciate any feedback on either of these tires.

Thanks.

ruking1

I have had LTX's for more miles I can remember. I have gotten anywhere from 50,000-95,000 plus on them. If the UTQG rating is consistent; the Cross Terrain at 500 is better than the 400 for the LTX. Actually I am looking at the Cross Terrain and the Yokohama Geolanders as replacements. Geolanders seem to be 50 per tire cheaper than the Cross Terrains, and app 35 dollars cheaper than the LTX's.

ironside7

I'm trying to decide between Michelin's Cross Terrain or LTX M/S tires. Prior posts on this board seemed to be leaning toward the Cross Terrains. I've been happy with the OEM LTX M/S tires. I would appreciate any feedback on either of these tires.

Thanks.

akita2

FYI Just put on the Cross Terrains on my LC and I must say they are superb. Immediately noticed the difference in driving and handling. This is my 3rd LC. I recommend the Cross Terrain without any reservation.

blockislandguy

The board's comments motivated me tonight to test drive an 2003 leftover LC. I had never driven one before. Wow. Great seats, firm ride, felt like the vehicle was one big forging and nothing was going to fall off, etc. In no way was it comparable to the Detroit iron I've been looking at nor the Disco. Since I'm a buy'em and hold'em kind of guy (we've got a pristine l987 Jeep Grand Wagoneer among other oldies and goodies), a LC seems the way to go.

Several questions:

1) Reliability. I always wonder if some things last longer simply because people think they will and so they don't treat them as throw aways. Certainly, the Volvo 122 and 240 weren't engineering marvels (and were horrible in snow) yet everyone thinks they were great cars, especially for New England! As a result the average Volvo owner made it into a self fulfilling profacy by taking care of the car. People "know" that GM cars are crap and so don't even wash the salt off. Lo and behold, most of the General's three year old cars look like crap.

How does the LC get its reliability? IMHO the engine and the accessories must be just standard off the shelf stuff. Or does Toyota really tell the vendors to use the super duty alternator, the better master cylinder, heavy duty A/C evaporator etc. when buying for their LC production? Can anyone prove this with actual part numbers? Or is the current LC just a Sequoia powertrain on a ladder frame?

2) Options. Seems that current LCs have only two options: NAV (don't need/want it) and supplemental air bags (yes and yes). Is the option list the same back to 2000? Is it going to be hard to find a used one with the supplemental air bags?

3) Doing the deal. Let's assume that I want a 2000 or newer. Is there any year that is better than another? While the Lexus goes out the door for more money do I look for a fish who doesn't know what he has but wants out? (In that case I would immediately scrap the doctor's gold package and put on LC shocks.)Or, stick with the LC?

4) Aftermarket. Does anyone have a catalog of aftermarket brake pads, shocks,etc. etc. for the late model LC?

Thanks.

fj100

#1 - This is a good question. I have no hard facts that Toyota uses superior parts in the LC. I know the body is built by ARACO and the engine and tranny are built in Japan vs in the US.

#2 - The additional airbags were not an option until 03. The 99 model has rear diff lock, the 00 model has traction and stability control. Nav came on in 01.

#3 - The Lexus has many more options, better/nicer leather, REAL wood and a adjustable suspension. The Lexus is the better buy if you want the gadgets.

#4 - Aftermarket parts are available however you have to search the web, most aftermarket parts come in from Australia.

Happy Holidays,

fj100 (really uzj100)

grantchstr

My understanding from various readings I have done over the years is that the LC is overengineered and thus it is more reliable.
As an example the Lockheed Tristar was an overengineered aircraft and was far more reliable than its Macdac and Boeing competitors (which that made it more expensive so it didnt sell as well however).

rph74

I just bought the Toyota Electronic Service Manual for my 99 TLC and it is very cumbersome to use. Does anyone else have this, and if so any tips?

mkwame

The LC and the LX are built by a Toyota subsidiary called Araco http://www.araco.co.jp/english/e-index.html

steelcruiser

Do you mean y ou've got it in a CD format, or do you have the soft cover factory manual?

hank14

I, personally, haven't found the manuals that user friendly. I have used them, and they did help me navigate and perform routine maintenance, but it is very difficult locating parts using the index. For instance, I can not find a cross reference for the throttle position sensor, and when I had to dissasemble the power antenna, there was no diagram showing how it was wired (at least I haven't found it yet).
Having said that, I still would have bought them, because I enjoy doing my own maintenance.

rbr

We have a 2000 LC with about 52,000 miles. Only one non-scheduled service visit at about 42K miles -- for some fuel sensor device that was covered under out Toyota extended warranty. Also a new battery and normal maintenance items. That's it. Once a year we get it detailed, including the engine compartment, and it looks brand new. Original Micheling LTX/MS tires look like they're good for at least another 10K.

In short, by far the best, most solid, more versatile car we have ever had.

benzguy

My indy replaced the idler pulley, alternator (Bosch), and fan belts on my 97 LC. I noticed a whistling sound which varies in pitch based on the rpm of the engine. It's noticeable at all rpms but more so at 1500-2200 rpms. Using a stethoscope, the indy isolated the sound to the idler pulley and replaced it with another new one. The sound is still present . With the idler pulley completely off, the indy claims the whistle is gone. I suspect the problem is with the type of fan belt. He had put on some after market ones that have cross-ridges (there are 2 sizes of ridges). I don't remember if the oem belts had these cross-ridges. Does anyone know, and more importantly, could these belts be the cause of the sound? My theory is that the ridges are trapping air in the space between it and the idler pulley and the whistle is the air escaping from the space between the ridges and smooth surface of the idler pulley.

grantchstr

I had a new alternator put in @ around 105,000 and there is a whistle which my indy said is a belt.

watchdog3

I own 3 Landcruisers. 1985 wi/200K,1988 w/175K & 1991 w/157K. They are great and reliable. But let me tell you, I have no experience with 1998 and up. My collegue jsut bought one with 70K on it. He had to replace the starter........$1000. If any of my older ones had bill like that I would be upset. Could new ones be more costly to maintain?

I also am looking for an upgrade but for $30K you get 1999 or 2000's wiht 60-70Kmiles. Seems steep to me. You can get one year Tahoes for that

mobiweld

I have a '98 with 95,000 miles on it. Just had the timing belt replaced where they noticed the water pump was beginning to leak. Swapped that out too. It was like $650 for timing belt/water pump/oil change. Aside from that, the CV boot is starting to leak a little bit and I've done routing maintenance....that's it. It's been just as reliable as my '91 which I drove to 180,000 miles before caving for a v8. As starters and alternators have the highest failure rates, I'd simply chalk up a starter failure to bad luck, not an indication of an unreliable truck. Also, $1000 sounds like a dealer hose-job. Anyone know what the book-time is on a starter replacement?