Thai said:
Threxx,
The 3.4L V6 was based on the 4.7L V8 in terms of design and construction. Check the specs (it's a "mini-Me" of the 4.7L V8)! The head gasket was fixed early 1997. Since that time, the 3.4L V6 has been bulletproof. I have no idea where you came up with 150K mile limit. Proof??
I knew at some point that the head gasket problem was fixed. The 150k I gave was the max range that I usually hear about the head gasket failures taking place on those 3.4s. It is not a limit for any of the 3.4s after they were fixed.
Ok...the old Lexus engine is durable...are the new ones not??
I'm not sure where I said or even implied this. If I did, I was in a rush typing last time so sorry. The new 4.3L V8s are really no different than the 4.0 except for the extra .3 liters of displacement, a little better torque curve, and a 32-bit engine control management system instead of 16-bit.
Why does V8 cost ONLY $1200 more (don't forget about the 5-speed auto that comes with it)???? Is it because the V8 is cheap to make OR is it because the V6 is expensive to make.
I really don't know. But by the same logic you could look at the Chevy Silverado. It costs roughly the same to upgrade from the 4.3L V6 (extremely old\dated ableit tried and true, yet underpower designed) to the LSx-based V8s (4.8 or 5.3) which are much newer designs with more 'improvements' over the 4.3L than one could possibly count including aluminum heads and such. Yet the new age V8 is only $950 (sticker price) than the old 4.3L V6.
It will outlast the Lexus cars into which it was placed, and that's saying a lot since the cars are designed to last forever as well.
Where did you get this info??
I guess from owning one, having several friends who own them, and from being a very active member of clublexus.com and seeing that pretty much nobody there has ever had the 1UZ-FE or 3UZ-FE fail at any amount of milage unless it was because of something like overheating (radiator failure that went unchecked for a long time) or something crazy like the oil change place not putting the oil drain cap back on.
Testdriving a LX470 allows you to comment on the frame?? Wet-noodle feeling...hmmm, could that be the suspension?? Maybe it's because the LX470 suspension is more tune for a soft ride??
Do you own an LX470? If so then great, but if not then you really have no more validity in your opinion of the feel of the frame than I do. And no, it was not the suspension. I'm pretty familiar with the difference between suspension dynamics and frame dynamics - enough to be able to differentiate the two from any decent amount of seat time in a vehicle. Again, I'm by no means saying hte LX470's frame was piss-poor. Just that it was not as rigid feeling as the 4R/GXes I've been in.
Weight and frame strength??
What didn't you understand? Weight directly correlates with frame strength given the same vehicle and same frame. I did not however say that they use the same frame or anything close to it.
And what does number of crossmember have anything to do with rigidity...this is not always true.
Sigh. Do you just like to argue or something? OK let me lay this out for you. Hardly anything in the automotive kingdom is true 100% of the time. There are always "ifs" or "ands" or "buts". I simply added that fact as a comparison between the two frames. We're never going to get the Toyota engineers to disclose the actual resonant frequencies for each frame, so for now all we can do is compare and contrast what little information we do have. Watch for trends in that data, and then draw a conclusion of probability based on that. ie: "The 4Runner is a much newer design, has 1 additional cross member, weighs less, and most importantly has hydroformed frame rails all of which the LX does not, so we might surmise that by the surface specs, the 4Runner frame will achieve at least a little better rigidity given all other factors being equal"
For example, my G500 has ONLY 6 crossmembers and weighs as much as the LX470. So, does that make the G500's frame weak?? I don't think so. How about looking at the diameter of the frame or thickness of the frame?? Or how about whether the crossmembers are boxed and welded?? Or how about the type of steel used (high-tensile)?? There's a lot that goes into frame strength than just number of crossmembers. Last time i checked, the LX470 has 9 crossmembers (i will confirm it tonight).
I agree that there are other specs that matter as well, but unless you have specific specs for both the LX and the 4Runner with all of the other specs you mentioned, then what's the point of even arguing over them? While we're at it we might as well consider that that LX's frame is spread out over a much larger distance and supporting a much higher weight, so even if the rails were thicker or the steel was higher in tensile strength, it may end up being a moot point.
Unless I had a typo, I did say earlier that the LX has 9 cross members. And I did look that up, so I'm pretty sure it's correct.
And you are assuming that the LX and GX/4runner frame is the same (except for the number of crossmember). Really??
When did I say this? First and formost obvious is the hydroformed side rails, not to mention the drastic difference in dimensions, cross members, and so on.
The unfortunate thing is that most people do not see where the extra $$ went into the LX design. Again, read the link:
http://www.toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4676
I already read it, but there was nothing objective in there at all beside "this is better than that" "that is better than this". How is that any better than the statements I've been making in this thread? Sure for 1998 it was the strongest frame in the world for any body on frame vehicle in its class, but do you realize what incredible advances have been made with frame design since then?
I have no doubt that by some measures, the LX/LC is worth the extra money. I never said it wasn't. I just said in terms of frame strength it was not as impressive in my book and you took off with that fact and eventually started defending the LC's superiority as a whole. Well I sure hope it's better if it costs that much more.
My GS400's frame was great when it came out in 1998 - extremely solid compared to other models on the market. The same exact frame is still used even now for the 2004 models (and will be until the all new 2006 comes out). But the 2004 Acura TL most definitely is a more solid architecture now, and that's at a 30k dollar selling price while my car is selling for 50k+. Just because it's more expensive doesn't mean it's always better.
As for Ford's frame getting stronger...have you seen the crap that they made before?? Have you seen the crash test of the previous F150??!! Most of Ford's frame prior to the "hydroformed" era were not even boxed! Most were C-frame. The crossmembers are often not welded and were also not boxed. So, no, i am not impressed with Ford's new data. Toyota LC/LX470 frame is infinitely more advanced than any Ford's frame.
How do you keep going off on these defensive tangents where you take something I said and seem to take offense to it and then start defending something completely opposite of what we were even talking about before?
Ford had the greatest increase in overall rigidity (they were the 400%)... they were not boxed in before, now they are. The LC wasn't boxed in either until its latest redesigned. I fail to see the relevancy this has to anything.
As it stands I've presented you will several facts:
The 4Runner is a several year newer design
The 4Runner weighs less
The 4Runner has smaller dimensions
The 4Runner has one addiitonal cross member
The 4Runner has hydroformed frame rails
All of these are factors that seperate the 4R from the LC. Yet you keep telling me that there are other factors as well (which is true). But these factors could either help the LC's case, or end up hurting it further. And the fact remains you do not have any of this data in any objective format that can relate to real-world performance.
So until then I guess we'll just agree to disagree with you apparently making the assumption that since the LC's frame was declared the strongest in the undustry in the late 90s, and because it costs more, then it
must have significantly higher strength steel and higher quality welds in order to make up for the factual deficiancies I've already brought to the table.
And if that's the case then great, we agree to disagree. If you'd like to continue further, please bring some actual data on tensile strength and weld quality from one vehicle to the next rather than make assumptions.
Or better yet, if you could somehow dig up the bending and torsional rigidity or natural resonant frequency specs for each vehicle, that would be great too.
According to FourWheeler magazine, the LX470 suspension has the HIGHEST ramp travel index of ANY vehicle with an independent front suspension! In fact, it will outflex the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Jeep has solid axles front and rear. It will outflex my MB G500 (and i have both solid axles). The only SUV that it will lose to is the Land Rover Disco. Trust me, no GX will come close to the LX's suspension flex, including the new GX with KDSS. And i doubt that the GX's frame is as stout as the LX. 
