LS400 vs LS430
03-21-08, 07:19 PM
#1
Driver
Thread Starter
LS400 vs LS430
Hi guys,
I have been thinking about getting a 98-2000 LS400 for quit some time now, but lately started to wonder if I should pay about 8K more for a 2001 LS430 instead, can you experts please give me some suggestion ?
In my mind the LS400 are bullet proof, and there is always that classic look that I love, its the last year model so I am sure all the bugs are fixed, compare to a first year new model for the 2001LS430, but then again I beleive the engine are the same, but we are talking about a whole new look.
Any suggestion or comments are much appreciated !
Thank you,
Jerry
I have been thinking about getting a 98-2000 LS400 for quit some time now, but lately started to wonder if I should pay about 8K more for a 2001 LS430 instead, can you experts please give me some suggestion ?
In my mind the LS400 are bullet proof, and there is always that classic look that I love, its the last year model so I am sure all the bugs are fixed, compare to a first year new model for the 2001LS430, but then again I beleive the engine are the same, but we are talking about a whole new look.
Any suggestion or comments are much appreciated !
Thank you,
Jerry
03-21-08, 08:05 PM
#2
If you like the looks of the 400 over the 430, definitely save your 8 grand and get the 2000 LS400.
All the bugs are not worked out,.. but it is a 2000, so it won't have many bugs being so 'relatively' new. Especially if you get it with undre say, 60k.
The LS 400's are bullet proof, the engines and tranny's are.
If I had to pick, I'd go yr. 2000, LS 4000, over 2001 LS 430. That is more a style preference than anything.
The 430's are good cars too,.. but I don't know the history on them because they don't have the 14-18yr old versions 'yet' .
The 2000 is simply built off the 90 Gen I , but vastly improved of course,.. more Horsepower, and so forth. So your getting the best of the Gen I/II bodystyles, latest year possible, and hopefuly good mileage.
If you get it at 60-70k miles, your looking at a car that will run an easy 300k, and well kept 400+ isn't that hard to do. (A car that will go far longer than you care to keep it,.. or you will buy another car and keep that one as a second car.. )
Others might disagree,.. But as for reliability I don't think you can beat the UCF10, UCF20,..
Anyhow, good cars, no doubt.
For 8 grand you could (if your into this stuff) VIP it out, wheels, and so forth. Or keep it back for a rainy day, etc.
You drive any Lexus's atm or ever had one? You'll absolutely love the LS,.. and wonder how you got around without the ride before =)
All the bugs are not worked out,.. but it is a 2000, so it won't have many bugs being so 'relatively' new. Especially if you get it with undre say, 60k.
The LS 400's are bullet proof, the engines and tranny's are.
If I had to pick, I'd go yr. 2000, LS 4000, over 2001 LS 430. That is more a style preference than anything.
The 430's are good cars too,.. but I don't know the history on them because they don't have the 14-18yr old versions 'yet' .
The 2000 is simply built off the 90 Gen I , but vastly improved of course,.. more Horsepower, and so forth. So your getting the best of the Gen I/II bodystyles, latest year possible, and hopefuly good mileage.
If you get it at 60-70k miles, your looking at a car that will run an easy 300k, and well kept 400+ isn't that hard to do. (A car that will go far longer than you care to keep it,.. or you will buy another car and keep that one as a second car.. )
Others might disagree,.. But as for reliability I don't think you can beat the UCF10, UCF20,..
Anyhow, good cars, no doubt.
For 8 grand you could (if your into this stuff) VIP it out, wheels, and so forth. Or keep it back for a rainy day, etc.
You drive any Lexus's atm or ever had one? You'll absolutely love the LS,.. and wonder how you got around without the ride before =)
Last edited by Neofate; 03-21-08 at 10:50 PM. Reason: Clarification
03-21-08, 09:21 PM
#3
Lexus Test Driver
If you like the looks of the 400 over the 430, definitely save your 8 grand and get the 2000 LS400.
All the bugs are not worked out,.. but it is a 2000, so it won't have many bugs being so 'relatively' new. Especially if you get it with undre say, 60k.
The LS 400's are bullet proof, the engines and tranny's are.
If I had to pick, I'd go yr. 2000, LS 4000, over 2001 LS 430. That is more a style preference than anything.
The 430's are good cars too,.. but I don't know the history on them because they don't have the 14-18yr old versions 'yet' .
The 2000 is simply built off the 90 Gen I , but vastly improved of course,.. more Horsepower, and so forth. So your getting the best of the Gen I/II bodystyles, latest year possible, and hopefuly good mileage.
If you get it at 60-70k miles, your looking at a car that will run an easy 300k, and well kept 400+ isn't that hard to do. (A car that will go far longer than you care to keep it,.. or you will buy another car and keep that one as a second car.. )
Others might disagree,.. But as for reliability I don't think you can beat the UCF10, UCF20,.. and I believe the 98-2000 is UCF30? Is that right?
Anyhow, good cars, no doubt.
For 8 grand you could (if your into this stuff) VIP it out, wheels, and so forth. Or keep it back for a rainy day, etc.
You drive any Lexus's atm or ever had one? You'll absolutely love the LS,.. and wonder how you got around without the ride before =)
All the bugs are not worked out,.. but it is a 2000, so it won't have many bugs being so 'relatively' new. Especially if you get it with undre say, 60k.
The LS 400's are bullet proof, the engines and tranny's are.
If I had to pick, I'd go yr. 2000, LS 4000, over 2001 LS 430. That is more a style preference than anything.
The 430's are good cars too,.. but I don't know the history on them because they don't have the 14-18yr old versions 'yet' .
The 2000 is simply built off the 90 Gen I , but vastly improved of course,.. more Horsepower, and so forth. So your getting the best of the Gen I/II bodystyles, latest year possible, and hopefuly good mileage.
If you get it at 60-70k miles, your looking at a car that will run an easy 300k, and well kept 400+ isn't that hard to do. (A car that will go far longer than you care to keep it,.. or you will buy another car and keep that one as a second car.. )
Others might disagree,.. But as for reliability I don't think you can beat the UCF10, UCF20,.. and I believe the 98-2000 is UCF30? Is that right?
Anyhow, good cars, no doubt.
For 8 grand you could (if your into this stuff) VIP it out, wheels, and so forth. Or keep it back for a rainy day, etc.
You drive any Lexus's atm or ever had one? You'll absolutely love the LS,.. and wonder how you got around without the ride before =)
1995-2000 is UCF20.
2001-2006 is UCF30.
2007- is UCF40.
The engine in the LS430 is merely the 4.3L derivative of the 4.0L found in the 1998-2000 LS400. There were no major changes other than the displacement. As such, reliability is stellar. The transmission is identical on the 1998-2000 LS400 and the 2001-2003 LS430. Again, excellent reliability from the 5-speed A650E. The LS430 is much more refined, and overall a much nicer car. However, the styling is nicer on the late LS400 in my opinion. There were some changes made in the LS430 that help to alleviate some of the common issues with the older LS400's, such as a change in the design of the carrier bushings. However, more important than that, is the age of the rubber components on the car. A 1998 LS400 with 60k miles on it will have more deterioration in the suspension than a 2001 LS430 with 60k miles on it, if all other factors are equal, ignoring the superior craftsmanship in the LS430 to begin with. Personally, $8k is a lot of money, and I would go for a 2000 LS400. Any suspension failures would easily be covered under an $8k blanket. I'll be happy to answer any more questions you may have.
03-21-08, 10:05 PM
#4
The 2000 is simply built off the 90 Gen I , but vastly improved of course,.. more Horsepower, and so forth. So your getting the best of the Gen I/II bodystyles, latest year possible, and hopefuly good mileage.
Others might disagree,.. But as for reliability I don't think you can beat the UCF10, UCF20,.. and I believe the 98-2000 is UCF30? Is that right?
Others might disagree,.. But as for reliability I don't think you can beat the UCF10, UCF20,.. and I believe the 98-2000 is UCF30? Is that right?
and sonyman's generations are right, the 98-00 are built on the same basic underpinnings as the 95-97 (which is why the suspension is interchangeable). also why the 95-97 is called the UCF20 I (or pre-MC) and the 98-00 is called the UCF20 II (or Post-MC)
03-21-08, 10:49 PM
#5
The engine in the LS430 is merely the 4.3L derivative of the 4.0L found in the 1998-2000 LS400. There were no major changes other than the displacement.
As such, reliability is stellar.
The transmission is identical on the 1998-2000 LS400 and the 2001-2003 LS430. Again, excellent reliability from the 5-speed A650E. The LS430 is much more refined, and overall a much nicer car.
Alot of people like the 430's styling, of course.
Yes, the tranny is bullet proof.. no doubt.
However, the styling is nicer on the late LS400 in my opinion.
But it is ultimately up to which styling the individual likes most.. there is certainly no reason 'not' to buy the 2000, imo.
There were some changes made in the LS430 that help to alleviate some of the common issues with the older LS400's, such as a change in the design of the carrier bushings. However, more important than that, is the age of the rubber components on the car. A 1998 LS400 with 60k miles on it will have more deterioration in the suspension than a 2001 LS430 with 60k miles on it, if all other factors are equal, ignoring the superior craftsmanship in the LS430 to begin with. Personally, $8k is a lot of money, and I would go for a 2000 LS400. Any suspension failures would easily be covered under an $8k blanket. I'll be happy to answer any more questions you may have.
I think the OP likes the '00 as well, and will ultimately lean that direction.. but how much so?
Also, I will answer anything you have to ask as well -- In fact, wikipedia will have just about any differential among the year models you have questions about.
Combine Lexus.com/Wikipedia/ and this forum with LexLS -- You have 99% of the info to make your choice. But no doubt about it.. from 90 to present they are all great choices,.. A low mileage 2000+ year is just excellent. I see these cars with under 100k as very, very new. Just a perspective of one with a 'new to me' 229k , 1994, that gets (man that looks new) and rides great, etc comments often.
Personally I actually prefer the Gen I body style over Gen II -- I can't put my finger on just why.. but there is something about it. That said, I would trade up to a Gen II very easily -- (IE: The subtle nuance that I prefer isn't nearly enough to trade the improvements and newness for)
Just how much was the 2001 improved upon from the 2000? Is the 4.3L exactly the same reliability that will go 3-4+ hundred thousand miles without any issue on the engine/drivetrain? I don't know,.. I'm sure some people have hit that mark but it isn't common yet.
03-22-08, 03:28 AM
#6
I'll be selling my 98 to get a 2002--2004 LS430.
I thinnk 98 looks a little dated. Not bad, just dated. it a great car, but I want something newer and more luxurious.
LS430 comes with Navigation, Mark LEvinson sound, its bigger in and out and supposed to be quieter, which is what I am looking for.
I am sure that they are just as reliable as LS 400s, and if you doubt it, just go over to the LS430 forum and read the posts.
I thinnk 98 looks a little dated. Not bad, just dated. it a great car, but I want something newer and more luxurious.
LS430 comes with Navigation, Mark LEvinson sound, its bigger in and out and supposed to be quieter, which is what I am looking for.
I am sure that they are just as reliable as LS 400s, and if you doubt it, just go over to the LS430 forum and read the posts.
03-22-08, 04:18 AM
#7
Just not proven is all tbilisi -- but I have no reason to doubt it.. It is just there aren't many cars (only a handful) on the road today that last like the UCF10/20 LS 400's. But, even if cars last 75% as long they are EXCELLENT vehicles. 350k without major repairs is great. The 400-500+ is just outrageously phenomenal. Lexus got lucky. yes, they put more engineers on the LS400 than a boeing 747, but still some luck was involved.
And yup, every forum section thinks their car is the best Lexus made. We are all proud of our cars, and are going to stand behind them regardless of the facts. IE: The lower end Lexus lines -- no names/models named -- Are obviously less luxurious and have certain problems -- and overall aren't as reliable as the LS line. (They are still VERY reliable cars, Toyota doesn't make a non-reliable car) -- But you get my point.
If I had a 430, I'd be on the 430 bandwagon too. If I had an ES, I'd be there.. and IS -- Same deal.
I actually really like the IS models, but the price tag has always confused me. I don't get the price for the car. Sure its nice, but it seems like they could have priced it a bit lower for what it is.. a Luxury sports coupe, BUT not in the same category as the SC line of yore. It is a more youthful Sportscoupe. (I love them.. ) -- but they don't carry a youthful pricetag hehe.
Moot point though.
Yes, Navigation is great, Sound is good -- Though factory Naka isn't bad, and aftermarket can blow factory out of the water.
Your Navigation built into the factory Doubledin can be done now, they have it. (better than factory as a matter of fact) and the sound, better than Mark Levison.
However, the styling can only be done with 'VIP'ing it..
So, if your thinking the LS400's have a dated look, I agree, switch over.
I can see it, but I stick with them because the look is 'timeless' imo.
A few timeless cars:
1965 Mustang
(forget year) -- Shelby Cobra
Older Vettes (Stingray is one of them, not quite as popular though)
Getting out of American:
Jaguar (certain models from 80's, early 90's)
Lots of older Mercedes, BMW's.. ie: the Mercedes 560sl and those like it with different engine displacements.
The Nissan 300ZX year 1990 and forward, until the 350Z replaced it. The 350Z will never be a timeless look. (imo).
The LS 400, 90-2000, timeless. (Give it credit for not being a sportcar)
Acura NSX, Early 90's.
Some NON timeless vehicles:
Back to simliar listings:
Mustang: 1979-1985 (ugly)
Mustang 1986-1988 (Much more power, but still ugly)
Mustang 1989-1993 (Fox body's elite,.. best they got, but just not a classic.. great , fun cars for drag though) A million parts.. had the biggest aftermarket following of any car, ever.
Even the Mustang 1994-1995 SN95's.. Nope.
All mustangs till present (nope) -- The Mach variations come close,.. which ties into the Mach 1 (The old one, timeless style)
Corvettes, from late 80's to date -- They will be forgotten.. although they are getting better, imo.
LS from 2000 to current, still up for debate in my head
The RX SUV series will not be a timeless design.. although it looks great now.
ES, I don't see it.
Thats enough,.. fun little game thinking of those cars.
tbilisi79: Re-reading your post almost seems like your defending the 430 -- No one is doubting it being a superb vehicle. It is merely a choice, and people have their opinions.
With the fact that I prefer the 2000 bodystyle of the 2001 (Thats just me) -- And I prefer saving 8,000 for an identical mileage (potentially) -- That is just where I would go. Many would justify another 8 grand for the next series, of course. Most want the latest and greatest, or at least the latest and greatest they can afford.
And yup, every forum section thinks their car is the best Lexus made. We are all proud of our cars, and are going to stand behind them regardless of the facts. IE: The lower end Lexus lines -- no names/models named -- Are obviously less luxurious and have certain problems -- and overall aren't as reliable as the LS line. (They are still VERY reliable cars, Toyota doesn't make a non-reliable car) -- But you get my point.
If I had a 430, I'd be on the 430 bandwagon too. If I had an ES, I'd be there.. and IS -- Same deal.
I actually really like the IS models, but the price tag has always confused me. I don't get the price for the car. Sure its nice, but it seems like they could have priced it a bit lower for what it is.. a Luxury sports coupe, BUT not in the same category as the SC line of yore. It is a more youthful Sportscoupe. (I love them.. ) -- but they don't carry a youthful pricetag hehe.
Moot point though.
Yes, Navigation is great, Sound is good -- Though factory Naka isn't bad, and aftermarket can blow factory out of the water.
Your Navigation built into the factory Doubledin can be done now, they have it. (better than factory as a matter of fact) and the sound, better than Mark Levison.
However, the styling can only be done with 'VIP'ing it..
So, if your thinking the LS400's have a dated look, I agree, switch over.
I can see it, but I stick with them because the look is 'timeless' imo.
A few timeless cars:
1965 Mustang
(forget year) -- Shelby Cobra
Older Vettes (Stingray is one of them, not quite as popular though)
Getting out of American:
Jaguar (certain models from 80's, early 90's)
Lots of older Mercedes, BMW's.. ie: the Mercedes 560sl and those like it with different engine displacements.
The Nissan 300ZX year 1990 and forward, until the 350Z replaced it. The 350Z will never be a timeless look. (imo).
The LS 400, 90-2000, timeless. (Give it credit for not being a sportcar)
Acura NSX, Early 90's.
Some NON timeless vehicles:
Back to simliar listings:
Mustang: 1979-1985 (ugly)
Mustang 1986-1988 (Much more power, but still ugly)
Mustang 1989-1993 (Fox body's elite,.. best they got, but just not a classic.. great , fun cars for drag though) A million parts.. had the biggest aftermarket following of any car, ever.
Even the Mustang 1994-1995 SN95's.. Nope.
All mustangs till present (nope) -- The Mach variations come close,.. which ties into the Mach 1 (The old one, timeless style)
Corvettes, from late 80's to date -- They will be forgotten.. although they are getting better, imo.
LS from 2000 to current, still up for debate in my head
The RX SUV series will not be a timeless design.. although it looks great now.
ES, I don't see it.
Thats enough,.. fun little game thinking of those cars.
tbilisi79: Re-reading your post almost seems like your defending the 430 -- No one is doubting it being a superb vehicle. It is merely a choice, and people have their opinions.
With the fact that I prefer the 2000 bodystyle of the 2001 (Thats just me) -- And I prefer saving 8,000 for an identical mileage (potentially) -- That is just where I would go. Many would justify another 8 grand for the next series, of course. Most want the latest and greatest, or at least the latest and greatest they can afford.
Trending Topics
03-22-08, 08:53 AM
#8
Lead Lap
A $10,000+ price difference between the 2000 LS400 and 2001 LS430 was certainly a factor when I bought a used 2000 LS400 in 2003. I drove a 2000 LS400 and an LS430 back to back and I could not tell much difference. The 2000 LS400 probably felt more comfortable to me since it seemed more like the 90 LS I had been driving for 13 years.
I'm not sure if I would have made the same choice today knowing what I know now. The extra rear leg room of the LS430 would be nice - I have quite a time shoehorning some of my elderly relatives in the back set of the 00 LS400 even though it has far more rear leg room than my 90 LS did. The LS430 has substantially more headroom too.
One nice feature of the LS430 is that it is fairly easy to add an iPod, sat radio, etc. whether the car has nav or not - several plug and play adapters are available. And if you want an OEM nav, the 01 LS430 nav is far superiior and more widely available than the nav in the 98-00 LS400. Also, the trunk in the non-Ultra LS430 is huge comparied to the 98-00 LS400 - something you notice if you have to carry a wheel chair that fits like a glove in the trunk of an 00 LS400.
Don't get me wrong. I still really like my 2000 LS400 and plan to drive it for many more years.
I'm not sure if I would have made the same choice today knowing what I know now. The extra rear leg room of the LS430 would be nice - I have quite a time shoehorning some of my elderly relatives in the back set of the 00 LS400 even though it has far more rear leg room than my 90 LS did. The LS430 has substantially more headroom too.
One nice feature of the LS430 is that it is fairly easy to add an iPod, sat radio, etc. whether the car has nav or not - several plug and play adapters are available. And if you want an OEM nav, the 01 LS430 nav is far superiior and more widely available than the nav in the 98-00 LS400. Also, the trunk in the non-Ultra LS430 is huge comparied to the 98-00 LS400 - something you notice if you have to carry a wheel chair that fits like a glove in the trunk of an 00 LS400.
Don't get me wrong. I still really like my 2000 LS400 and plan to drive it for many more years.
03-22-08, 09:19 AM
#9
Pole Position
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I chose a 99-00 LS because I didn't like the bug eyed look of the LS430 01-03 and couldn't afford a 04+ LS.
I would buy a 01-03 if I could find one with the UL package at a decent price but oh well I have to finish paying this 99 off.
According to Edmunds the rear seat legroom for the 01 is .8 inches more than the 98-00 so that really wouldn't sway me. Now the trunk at about 20 cu ft compared to 14 barely for the 98-00 would be awesome damn the gas tank in the 98-00 LS!!!
I would buy a 01-03 if I could find one with the UL package at a decent price but oh well I have to finish paying this 99 off.
According to Edmunds the rear seat legroom for the 01 is .8 inches more than the 98-00 so that really wouldn't sway me. Now the trunk at about 20 cu ft compared to 14 barely for the 98-00 would be awesome damn the gas tank in the 98-00 LS!!!
03-22-08, 01:31 PM
#10
Driver
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: GA
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since my 99 LS has been to the dealer more than a few times in the last six months, and I get to pick loaner cars, I thought I'd chime in. I love the way the new LS looks, but can't help noticing the cost cutting inside the cabin. Everything seems lighter, thinner, or less substantial. Except the engine, and the radio, both are the best ever. The IS, very nice to look at, love the wheels, and the LED lighting inside, but the paddle shifters are crap, and seem like a novelty. This is not a Ferrari, I don't see the point. You can't see out the rear window, and the ride is harsh, and no, I am not a softy, I have an M3, the IS's damping is way too harsh. The engine is not that smooth, but have not met a V-6 I like in any car, all 6's should be inline. All "V" engines should be 8 or more. It does have some power though, and will scoot!
ES, least favorite Lexus, feels cheap inside, and noisy. The engine, like the IS is rough at idle, but it is attractive on the outside.
RX is nice, and the LX is a Hummer with a Lexus badge, it's HUGE!!!
Cheers
ES, least favorite Lexus, feels cheap inside, and noisy. The engine, like the IS is rough at idle, but it is attractive on the outside.
RX is nice, and the LX is a Hummer with a Lexus badge, it's HUGE!!!
Cheers
03-22-08, 03:07 PM
#12
Lexus Test Driver
The 1998-2000 LS400 has both a drive-by-wire throttle and VSC.
...
03-22-08, 09:43 PM
#14
Lexus Test Driver
