Difference between a 94 and 95

[MDarius]

So, mechanicaly what's the difference between a '94 and '95 80? It looks like the 94 has the same 1fzfe engine, but in the pictures I'm seeing it has extra 'gizmos' on the intake and elsewhere. Is there a performance difference?

There is a red one in SLC with front and rear lockers that I'm considering. Nothing like having his and hers cruisers!

 

[Biff]

the 94 has a stronger tranny, the 95 has no MAF sensor making a supercharger install easier.

 

[gnx7]

I believe the '95-97 has slightly better brakes also.

 

[Beowulf]

Differences between 94 & 95:


95-97 have the vastly superior electronically controlled A343F tranny; same as used behind the V8 100-Series [ j/k... old joke here on 'Mud ]
Dash changed in 95
95 has partial OBD-II compliance (full in 96)
95 has air bags

Engines and power are essentially the same.
93-97 have the same braking systems on the ABS 4-wheel disc brake equipped vehicles.

-B-

 

[MDarius]

Thanks guys.

B, how superior is 'vastly' superior? Enough to wait for the right 95-97 to come along? What problems did the older tranny cause? Tranny overheating? Less power? Tranny failure? Didn't have a cool name like A343F?

 

[MDarius]

the 94 has a stronger tranny, the 95 has no MAF sensor making a supercharger install easier.

No MAF = No MAF failure = less $$$ for repairs, easier emissions to maintain. Yes?

 

[Biff]

No MAF = No MAF failure = less $$$ for repairs, easier emissions to maintain. Yes?

Yes, one less thing you have to think about.

 

[Beowulf]

B, how superior is 'vastly' superior?

This is an on-going good natured jousting among owners of the A442 and A343 trannies. The automatic transmissions in the 93-94 trucks is physically larger & heavier and have less electronics than the A343 transmissions fitted in 95-97 and carried foward in the 100-Series and the V8 4-Runner.

OZ versions of the 80-Series stayed with the A442 transmission through 97. The A442 was also used in some small busses in Japan; hence the "bus tranny" moniker.

There have been relatively few problems with either transmission. The earlier A442's have a few reports of failed solenoids. There have been several reports of the A343 making a loud grinding noise during quick transitions between forward and reverse. There is a TSB that gives the A343 "more balls." (another 'Mud joke.)

The bottom line is that both transmissions are excellent and both are designed to handle more HP and torque than stock and will easily handle the HP and torque of tubo and S/C engines. I believe kirk is using a stock tranny behind his LT-1 build which should be in the 350hp range.

In my opinion, you should not make a choice based on the transmission.

Good maintenance w/records vs ??
Locked vs Unlocked
Air bags vs no air bags
OBD-II vs pre-OBD-II
Any color other than green vs Puke green
..... and so on.... Those are the decision criteria.

-B-

 

[MDarius]

Biff, what have you thought of your 94? Have you ever wished for a newer one?

 

[MDarius]

In my opinion, you should not make a choice based on the transmission.

Good mainteance w/records vs ??
Locked vs Unlocked
Air bags vs no air bags
OBD-II vs pre-OBD-II
Any color other than green vs Puke green
..... and so on.... Those are the decision criteria.

-B-

Cool.
Good maintenance records: yes
Locked: Yes
OBD-II: Pre (i think)
Color: Red
Interior: Good
Grill: Toyota instead of Sombrero
California car, good tires, appears to ahve been babied.

 

[cruiserman]

IMO I would prefer a '94 over a '95, but I have no need for a supercharger or air bags. I also prefer the larger tranny and "traditional" grille. If you are thinking of going with a supercharger or you like air bags, get a '95.

edit: 93/94 has a more durable cooling system, too

 

[Biff]

Biff, what have you thought of your 94? Have you ever wished for a newer one?

If I could do it over again I would have gotten a 97. I've had no major problems with my rig because of its year, but would like a few of the extras that 95-97 have(ie like B, staid OBD II, no MAF, air bags, better dashboard, option for cup holder)

 

[MDarius]

I actually like the no airbags thing. This is what my oldest kids will learn to drive in. I like to teach them young on the dirt roads so that when they hit the pavement they are well trained. I am always worried they'll bump a rock or tree at 5 MPH (I'm in the passengers seat) and the airbags will go off.

OBDII is nice, but didn't the older ones have something for easily checking the CEL?

 

[bluto]

Did the 93-94 FzJ80 run into the mid 1995 production? Because just from experience at a local dealer I got 93-94 parts for my 95 FZJ80.

Ive also resorted to telling them I have a 96 model year to get it right. The only time I got the correct part was when I got the part# from prior post here (courtesy of CDan) and gave it to them.

Ive given them 3 chances and the next part Im going to order is from CDan.
Its like they dont have a clue about Land Cruisers (they dont seem to have a problem stocking FJC accessories though).

Sorry for the semi Jack/Rant.

 

[Beowulf]

I am always worried they'll bump a rock or tree at 5 MPH (I'm in the passengers seat) and the airbags will go off.

Worry about something else.

There has never (that I know of) been a report of 80-Series air bags deploying inappropriately. If *anyone* has documented evidence to the contrary then please post it up. I would also be interested in hearing of *any* vehicle where the airbags deployed while 4-wheeling.

There are well tested parameters that have to be met before the bags will deploy; among these are vehicle speed and deceleration rate. Your bags will NOT deploy by bumping a rock or a tree at 5MPH. Period. I will also contend that in the event the 80's bags *did* deploy when off-road, then you will be very glad they did because they will only deploy when needed (i.e. speed & deceleration.)

IMHO (look at the pics of ScottM's '97) the airbags may save your life and may save your passenger's life (wife or child) if they deploy. Hopefully, none of us will need to test this but as you will see with Scott's accident, it can and does happen and you will be very, very glad you have air bags if something bad does happen.

[/off soap box]

-B-

 

[MDarius]

I didn't find ScottM's pix, but I believe you. It's a good reminder.

 

[Beowulf]

I didn't find ScottM's pix, but I believe you. It's a good reminder.

Doug posted them during Scott's recovery. Use keyword=ARB and author=IdahoDoug.

Here ya go. https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=43775

-B-

 

[MDarius]

Yikes! I'm glad he survived that! I guess we are all lucky every day we make it home without incident, eh?

 

[Nay]

I actually like the no airbags thing. This is what my oldest kids will learn to drive in.

Don't like the older kids, eh? Seems a bit off to not buy airbags for your kids.

As B says, if those go off your insurance adjuster is coming to see you anyway, and they can fix the airbags while they are at it.

 

[MDarius]

Oh I like 'em, they're just short. Airbags+short people = decapitation or broken neck. If you're short and in a situation where the minimum requirements are met to deploy the airbags the damage (death) is much worse than without them. As with everything, there is a curve where the benefits are negated. I believe airbags are a good thing when the application is appropriate. When they are 15 and driving on public roads with a learners permit they will be in vehicles with airbags. And actually, now when they are younger and I am giving them experience off road, the vehicle has airbags because that's what I've got. I don't expect them to get over 25-30 MPH at this point. When we are back on the pavement, they sit in the back seats...seatbelted and with no airbags.

From the National safety council:
139 children were killed in [INVESTIGATED] crashes due to incidents related airbag deployment. Most of these were improperly restrained at the time.

From airbagonoff.com (a retailer of airbag switches and other solutions..they have a vested interest in scaring us)
'Airbag systems were developed for the 5 ft 8 inch 180 lb. male, and only tested to be sure they met their needs. Unfortunately, this did not help shorter people, who have to sit closer to the steering wheel than 10 or 12 inches. Nor did the requirements consider children, or those who have medical reasons why they are in danger from the force of an exploding airbag.'

From nay's sig line:
A system will always produce what it is designed to produce

So, taking all that in to consideration, my kids shouldn't be behind the wheel of an airbag equipped vehicle until they are at least 5 foot 8 inches tall, and everyone in the vehicle should always be properly restrained. So, if I want to give them experience before theyare 5 ft 8 in tall, I need a vehicle without airbags.

Now the question is whether or not they should be getting experience before that time. That's a matter of opinion, which everyone is entitled to a different one, and I won't fault you for yours, but I think that responsible experience = responsible behavior, safety, and preparation. A 10 year-old taught to drive on a relatively flat, graded, gravel/dirt road and given experience there, then graduating to more difficult terrain as experience and ability dictate will be more prepared for driving in town than a child whose first experience behind the wheel of a car is with the driver's training instructor at school.

It's exactly because I love them and am concerned for their safety that I made my previous comments.