Educate me: 100 vs 200 series to replace my jeeps

[zimm]

I think most would agree that 35s on a 100 cost A LOT more than $800 on the low end. Definitely don't want to start a thread about it here since it's well documented, but it is not simple to slap 35s on a 100 and have it be functional without a significant amount of work and money. Otherwise I would have done it by now

reread.

i said for the suspension mods, because thats a variable. tires are a constant. youre spending 1000 for tires no matter what you decide to do.

 

[Omar Brannstrom]

Just for illustration

Your Jeep Wrangler unlimited

A Toyota Land Cruiser 200 - 2013

From http://www.off-road-drive.ru/ratings/110

 

[zimm]

No disrespect and I could be totally off base but you sound like someone who hasn't spent much time in a 200. You're more than welcome to check mine out if you're in SoCal. It's the furthest thing from portly and I just came from a 510hp Range Rover sport.

In fact, I prefer to refer to it as a feeling of solidity. It's tough to understand until you drive something else and then your mind is blown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gee, you think you could be?

no disrespect, but you sound like someone that just likes to show and brag about expensive stuff they own, without actually using the tools to their capability limits.

ive owned and wheeled all the cars i mentioned plus a 110nas, a gwagon, umpteen 40's, f-series fords.

i use my **** offroad, i dont take poser pics in parking garages, or bolt **** on for looks so i can tell people i paid for it and bolted it on.


if you actually go offroad, you will find the MASS of something will greatly affect how the earth under it reacts. you find that its not just the approach/departure angles that count, but how far sheet metal and plastic lights stick out when navigating tall vegetation (trees) or off camber soft canyon like ruts that lean you into the wall.


the will say, the 200 increases theses difficulties, without any increase in durability, or while more modern, luxury. to me, a user, an early 200 doesnt bring enough to the table over a later 100 to justify the cost. if i was looking to replace my 01, id get an 06. or go back to a G for the money an early 200 costs.

 

[zimm]

There's enough room to sleep if you have drawers or a sleeping platform to make the floor level. Like the 100 and 80, The second row doesn't fold flat.

The 200 is a tad bigger than the 100. But not enough to make much of a difference. If the trail is that tight, you'd be nervous in either.

The 200 does have some important improvements. Mainly the engine, transmission and front suspension. The 100's shortfall is the front end. It only has about 8" of travel. When you lift it, you end up with only 2.5" of down travel so you're lifting your front wheel all the time. This is especially bad because the the front diff is weak. 35s exacerbate these problems as well as wear down the steering rack. The 200's coil over system is an improvement. And since it shares parts with the Tundra, there were a lot more control arm kits for the 200 than 100. Running 35s on a 100 is expensive. You need wheel spacers ($100), a body lift ($200), a suspension lift ($800), a diff drop ($200), and really you need an ARB/TJM front diff ($1500) and regearing if it's a 98-02 ($1000), and probably a rear bumper to hold the 35" spare tire ($1500).

The 100 is slow. It's not the slowest land cruiser. But add 1000lbs of mods and 3-4" taller tires and you're struggling to get up mountains. The 4 speed transmission makes that even worse. The 200 makes over 100hp more and gets better mpg and can tow significantly more. The 100's 5000lb tow rating is not a lot for a vehicle of its size.

later models 100's have a 5 speed and more power. the problem with the 4 speed is the 2-3 gear jump, which sucks towing even with stock tires. you lose approx 10% of your rwhp using 35's on a 100.

with a mix of ironman springs, ome, and a Bio diff drop i was a hair over 900 WITH shipping. i do not have any spacers and only have the front turned up one inch, im fine. i attribute the cost of a rear bumper and tire carrier top the fact you want crash protection, and you want the tire out from under if you offroad even stock. getting at a tire mashed in the mud when you lose bead in the middle of a bog is just one more headache you want to avoid.

its an ifs, and while theres more travel in a 200, its still not long travel, and vs and 80 it doesnt do a comparatively better job at keeping 2 wheels planted than a 100. if youre concerned about travel you can get uca's that will get you the 2"s, but like i said, if travel is truly an issue where you go, a 200 wont solve the problem.

the advantage of coils is variable spring rates for road use, but ltst face it, if you didnt know the front of a 100 was tb while off road, would you be able to tell? would you think it was leafs?



the 200 weighs 700 more pounds, and HP isnt gonna make up for that on technical terrain. the LC got fatter, not better.

 

[zimm]

From http://www.off-road-drive.ru/ratings/110

awesomeness.

 

[MTSN]

reread.

i said for the suspension mods, because thats a variable. tires are a constant. youre spending 1000 for tires no matter what you decide to do.

I don't need to re-read what you said. You are saying putting 35s on a 100 can cost as little as $800 not counting rubber (I never said anything about rubber and it's obvious that would be an extra expense). I'm saying that you're neglecting a whole lot of other stuff that's required for it to work properly. I don't want to get too far off topic, but every expert I've spoken to and observed from have said that on top of suspension there is a need to regear, locker in the front to prevent breakage, body lift, pinch weld modification, new wheels or spacers, and likely address steering issues from the additional stress. At the low end of that spectrum to do 35s correctly, you're looking at well over $5k. If you don't actually wheel or use it hard and live at sea level, maybe you could get by without some stuff, but at 12,000+ feet under heavy use you can't skip those things and have it work out well.

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

I don't need to re-read what you said. You are saying putting 35s on a 100 can cost as little as $800 not counting rubber (I never said anything about rubber and it's obvious that would be an extra expense). I'm saying that you're neglecting a whole lot of other stuff that's required for it to work properly. I don't want to get too far off topic, but every expert I've spoken to and observed from have said that on top of suspension there is a need to regear, locker in the front to prevent breakage, body lift, pinch weld modification, new wheels or spacers, and likely address steering issues from the additional stress. At the low end of that spectrum to do 35s correctly, you're looking at well over $5k. If you don't actually wheel or use it hard and live at sea level, maybe you could get by without some stuff, but at 12,000+ feet under heavy use you can't skip those things and have it work out well.

That's all true. Going with skinny 34s solves a lot of those issues. 285/75/17s are a great compromise but then you have to pay to find 17s that fit the 100's odd bolt pattern.

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

job at keeping 2 wheels planted than a 100. if youre concerned about travel you can get uca's that will get you the 2"s, but like i said, if travel is truly an issue where you go, a 200 wont solve the problem.

the advantage of coils is variable spring rates for road use, but ltst face it, if you didnt know the front of a 100 was tb while off road, would you be able to tell? would you think it was leafs?


the 200 weighs 700 more pounds, and HP isnt gonna make up for that on technical terrain. the LC got fatter, not better.

There are other advantages to coil springs. For most 100-Series front suspension set ups, the shock is the droop limiter, not the UCA. You can get maybe another inch with longer shocks and UCAs, but then you run the risk of blowing your UCA ball joint and having to run a custom set up with limiting straps, etc. For most people the 200's front suspension is an improvement.

The differentials are also larger and stronger in the 200 series. The front diff in the 100 was too small from the factory. Add larger tires and a lot of weight and it's way too small, hence all the failures. The 200 also solved this problem.

If 700lbs was that big of an issue, we wouldn't all add 1000lbs of armor to them. Again, I doubt the 200's extra bulk will come into play in all but the most extreme scenarios. And if you're driving a 200 series, you're probably not getting into the most extreme scenarios. If the OP is into the kind of technical driving you're talking about, neither Land Cruiser wagon is the option.

My point is that the price difference between an 06-07 and an 08 200 is pretty small. There are a lot of improvements to the 200. The 06-07 100s weren't even the best 100s. They switched plants and the quality supposedly went down.

I'd also get a G500 over a 200-Series because of size, not weight.

 

[CYK]

gee, you think you could be?

no disrespect, but you sound like someone that just likes to show and brag about expensive stuff they own, without actually using the tools to their capability limits.

ive owned and wheeled all the cars i mentioned plus a 110nas, a gwagon, umpteen 40's, f-series fords.

i use my **** offroad, i dont take poser pics in parking garages, or bolt **** on for looks so i can tell people i paid for it and bolted it on.


if you actually go offroad, you will find the MASS of something will greatly affect how the earth under it reacts. you find that its not just the approach/departure angles that count, but how far sheet metal and plastic lights stick out when navigating tall vegetation (trees) or off camber soft canyon like ruts that lean you into the wall.


the will say, the 200 increases theses difficulties, without any increase in durability, or while more modern, luxury. to me, a user, an early 200 doesnt bring enough to the table over a later 100 to justify the cost. if i was looking to replace my 01, id get an 06. or go back to a G for the money an early 200 costs.

Lol smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NCFJ]

There's enough room to sleep if you have drawers or a sleeping platform to make the floor level. Like the 100 and 80, The second row doesn't fold flat.

The 200 is a tad bigger than the 100. But not enough to make much of a difference. If the trail is that tight, you'd be nervous in either.

The 200 does have some important improvements. Mainly the engine, transmission and front suspension. The 100's shortfall is the front end. It only has about 8" of travel. When you lift it, you end up with only 2.5" of down travel so you're lifting your front wheel all the time. This is especially bad because the the front diff is weak. 35s exacerbate these problems as well as wear down the steering rack. The 200's coil over system is an improvement. And since it shares parts with the Tundra, there were a lot more control arm kits for the 200 than 100. Running 35s on a 100 is expensive. You need wheel spacers ($100), a body lift ($200), a suspension lift ($800), a diff drop ($200), and really you need an ARB/TJM front diff ($1500) and regearing if it's a 98-02 ($1000), and probably a rear bumper to hold the 35" spare tire ($1500).

The 100 is slow. It's not the slowest land cruiser. But add 1000lbs of mods and 3-4" taller tires and you're struggling to get up mountains. The 4 speed transmission makes that even worse. The 200 makes over 100hp more and gets better mpg and can tow significantly more. The 100's 5000lb tow rating is not a lot for a vehicle of its size.

Half the price of a 200 series will get me a totally rebuilt/built 80 series with a GM Vortec power train and fund a chunk of my first big trip.

 

[REDrum]

if highway towing is frequent, the 100 really does need one of those hard to find superchargers.

You don't want to tow with a supercharger, although some do. Stock compression not right for it and you will ventilate your pistons. Speed yes, tow no!

Half the price of a 200 series will get me a totally rebuilt/built 80 series with a GM Vortec power train and fund a chunk of my first big trip.

Amen!

The UZJ200 is not an off road truck, and its very oddball to try and dress one up to look like one. UZJ200 is a soccer-mom luxury station wagon for occasional forays on to wet grass and sand. ROW Land Cruiser aficionados scoff at them and gravitate to the HZJ78. It is a very comfy ride though.

No idea how the notion about the UZJ100 being under powered surfaced here, the thing has tremendous power for both towing and off road. I run 34's and never felt it need rehearing or more power. Albeit not a big American diesel. If you want to experience a true under powered Land Cruiser jump in any FJ40 or Fj60 with the 2 or 2F.

 

[bjowett]

The UZJ200 is not an off road truck,

Please elaborate... :coffeedrink:

 

[REDrum]

Please elaborate... :coffeedrink:

I already did.

 

[Cabinetman]

I already did.

I think he is looking for more substance beyond referencing unspecified ROW aficionados and their preference for the HZJ78. I know i would be interested in knowing what criteria separate a soccer-mom station wagon from a real off-road truck.

As a new 200 owner I can certainly see some areas that could be a negative off-road like low ground clearance, sheer size, less than ideal approach and departure angles and the lack of factory lockers. However, these are the same negatives you will find in most unmodified full-size SUVs and trucks sold in the USA, and they can all be addressed on the 200 with aftermarket help.

I will be the first to admit that I bought the 200 primarily for its comfort and perceived reliability. My off-roading these days consists of ranch trails and the occasional grass parking lot at a little league ball field. I do hope to get the 200 set up for some more interesting excursions in a few years, but for now I'm happy with my mall cruiser as it is.

I have some off-road in my past with my old LJ Rubicon. I sure miss that ride.

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

Half the price of a 200 series will get me a totally rebuilt/built 80 series with a GM Vortec power train and fund a chunk of my first big trip.

Half the price of a new one. I looked into that before buying a Jeep. It'd cost about $30,000 to restore a clean 80, do an engine swap and outfit it for hard wheeling.

You don't want to tow with a supercharger, although some do. Stock compression not right for it and you will ventilate your pistons. Speed yes, tow no!



Amen!

The UZJ200 is not an off road truck, and its very oddball to try and dress one up to look like one. UZJ200 is a soccer-mom luxury station wagon for occasional forays on to wet grass and sand. ROW Land Cruiser aficionados scoff at them and gravitate to the HZJ78. It is a very comfy ride though.

No idea how the notion about the UZJ100 being under powered surfaced here, the thing has tremendous power for both towing and off road. I run 34's and never felt it need rehearing or more power. Albeit not a big American diesel. If you want to experience a true under powered Land Cruiser jump in any FJ40 or Fj60 with the 2 or 2F.

If the 200 is not an off road truck than neither is the 100-Series. IT's kind of silly. None of the current Land Cruisers are engineered for rock crawling. The 80,100 and 200 are designed for the UN to transport people semi comfortably over third world country roads over a 300,000 mile service life. The 70 series is meant to carry cargo across third world countries and serve as a military/commercial truck.

We hate on the 200 series because it's new and more modern. If we're looking at just the underpinnings, it's a better off road truck than the 100. But the body is not better. But by that measure, no newer generation Land Cruiser is better than the last.

A 5100 lb truck or 6000 lb modified truck with 220 hp is underpowered by today's standards. The newer Sequoia does 0-60 in 6 seconds. Obviously the 40, 60 and 62 were built in a different era where even the fastest cars weren't all that fast. The 100 was probably just as fast as it's competition at the time. But compared to newer offerings, it's slow. Running 34s in it without regearing is putting a lot of strain on the transmission and other parts if you have the 4-Speed. Regearing is a good idea. No one who does it regrets it. The only reason not to do it is to save money.