Roverrad95

My family used to own a 2001 Lexus LX 470 and a 2001 Land Cruiser. Yes, we had 2. My mother traded her Land Cruiser in early (in 2004) for a Range Rover, which has been fine (we like Land Rovers, always had one in the family, let's not go there). My dad had a Lexus LX470 with 160k and traded it in for a BMW.

I drive a 2000 Range Rover, and love it to death, however I am getting really sick of putting the mileage on the thing (25k a year). I decided I want to get a nice Land Cruiser/LX 470, not spend a fortune, but leaves me in the 230hp, 4 speed transmission range. I guess what I am asking is what are the better years to buy... I know the Nakamichi CD player is sometimes an issue, (my aunt has a 1999...) but what should I be looking for, and how much would be a nice, dependable truck go for? Warranty is nice, but not needed.

I know a fair amount with them, little uneasy about the paint issues (1999 had clearcoat issues, our 2001 Land Cruiser had to be repainted because it peeled away after a year of sunny Los Angeles weather....)

tigmd99

Maybe you need to get something that is better on gas because the prices are getting pretty high....

davidsong

err.... my 2000 never had paint issues (knock on wood) and I just moved from LA to Seattle and the paint is still good. But the Nakamichi CD player wasnt that great as it ate my CD's couple years ago so i changed out the head unit. other than the CD player issue and the tendency for my sub to blow, I believe LX470 is built like a tank. its still going strong with little problem and I still drive it everyday like I stole it

if money is not a concern for you, get a newer year model like 06/07. its got all the bugs and shiznit fixed. and its also got backup cam + nav unit. pretty much all you need is in the newer 470.

but you may also need to consider about the gas prices lately, and what tigmd99 had said about getting better car with good mpg.

tigmd99

But, if you don't drive much, then this is the PERFECT time to get a SUV...the prices are rock bottom!!

Roverrad95

Of course gas is an issue, and it is going up... however I am not going to be looking at something more fuel efficient, as nothing really suits my needs that I want.

I can pretty much rattle off any info on the trucks without an issue, but I am asking you guys because I moved over to Land Rover, lost touch with Toyota products.

I looked at 2 today, a 2003 LC with 32k ($26k) Not in great shape cosmetically... It was also a smokers car. A 2004 LX with 57k, ($27k) much better vehicle, but I liked the mileage on the other one. I know there is some differences, aside from the luxury items, there is an oil change interval change (right???) Which is better in terms of reliability/cheaper repair (sick of these $5k bills for the Rover).

Roverrad95

And yes Thai, you win. The Rovers are... well... not playing nice.

V8_Fan

'03 or '04 is fine. '04 introduced the gen-4 nav w/ rear backup camera. A number of the cameras and some nav's had failed. Avoid '00 and maybe '01...a number of '00's and a few '01's (LC & LX) have had tranny failures from a defective shim. If you're going to get the 4spd, get a '99. Otherwise, get a '03-04 and maybe '05 5spd. Around '04-05, Araco, the original maker of the landcruiser since post WWII, stopped making the LX/LC and toyota autobody took over. There is believed to be a slip in quality that affects the later '05-07. The way to tell if Araco made it is there's a Araco sticker under the hood in the rear corner (I think it's on the passenger's side on mine). Also about this time, the quality of the AHC sensors worsened (denso originally made them). The new ones in the '05-07 go bad fast while old ones in the '99's are still working. This is only a factor if you live where it rains a lot and/or where the roads are salted.

RXGS

iTrader: (2)

if you can't afford 03+ i think an 02 would be agood bet, although we have have an 01, and while we did have our issues, mainly due to the first owner, it has been rock solid

V8_Fan

'04 would have slightly lower 30/60K service bills since toyota switched to the super long life coolant (100K mi) and "WS" type transmission fluid (also good for 100K they claim, if you don't tow). Other than that, the other maintenance should be the same.

Avoid 2000 since a number of their trannies have failed, and almost all with less than 100K mi. This is due to some defective part found in 2000 Landcruisers and LX's (search ih8mud.com and you'll see two in the last couple of weeks; IIRC, one '01 had it's tranny fail, many '00's and none for '98-99 or '02-07). OTOH, a few '04 nav units and/or rear cameras have failed due to '04 being the first year for the gen-4 nav and rear backup camera.

Don't worry about the mileage on the car. Actually, a newer vehicle with lots of miles is better since (1) lots of miles usually means those miles are highway miles, easy on the engine/drivetrain (stop & go is what wears the drivetrain); (2) low miles either mean the car was seldom driven (usually not the case unless you know the previous owner) or driven on lots of short trips (bad on any car). Most engine/transmission wear is when you start up the car and when you accelerate from a dead stop, like in city driving; (3) it's age & exposure to the elements, not miles, that takes its toll on most cars. Rubber gaskets/seals degrade w/ age, etc. I would consider 15-20K/mi per year as higher mileage.

Roverrad95

I picked up a 1999 Lexus LX 470. It is Smoky Brown Topaz, with Nakamichi sound (I know, the sound system), under $10k. It isn't excellent, it has a few nicks and scrapes, nothing terrible though. It is a California car, so it is rust free, taken care of (I know the owners). Under 115k miles.