[jhanley]

I know there's a lot of variables. Let's take 2 trucks with identical miles and good PO history. A gen 3 4runner and a 93-97 80. Both trucks have 180k miles. Which truck would be better suited to daily driving, mild wheeling and DIY maintenance. Let's also assume the 80 has never had a front axle service or HG ( Im assuming 90% of 80's on the road have never had them done). After baselining both rigs equally, who stands the test of time? Any personal experience from mudders?

[firetruck41]

I would have to think the 80 series, it is just flat out a heavier duty vehicle. Not that a 4r won't stand the test of time either.

[CruiserStuff]

I had a '92 FJ80 and now have a '99 4Runner. I know the 93-97 Cruisers have a larger engine (which was my chief complaint with the 3FE in the '92). I know the 95-97 Cruisers have ABS and air bags, which are nice to have. Personally, I'd stay in that date range with the Cruisers. The '99 4Runner is nice, better MPG and very reliable/dependable/safe. Seems like they'll both hold their values, too. Tough call......both are good rigs for what you want to do with them. What year is the 4Runner you're looking at?

[95ToyCruiser]

Hands down the Cruiser!! Depending on the motor and tranny in the 4Runner it maybe a bit closer.
I have a 1996 Taco and a 1995 TLC.

The Taco has 202,000 on it and the PO took exelent care of it, but I have has some problems with it, the steering rack went in it, wheel bearings are sealed-press in units, they have IFS, aren't built as well and have inherent rust issues.

The Cruiser has 204,000 on it, has the same, but heavy duty tranny as the 4Runner (if post 93), extreamly overbuilt motor (has oil squirters for every pistion, crank weights a hefty 81.5lbs, has 7 main bearings, 2 belts to run the alternator, gear driven power steering pump, etc.) The axles are also fairly overbuilt, full floating rear, disk breaks, lockers all the way around(post 93), SOLID FRONT AXLE, ABS shuts off when in low range.

It is also more comfortable, seats more ppl and holds more stuff. They are also super cheap and easy to lift and they can fit 33's from the factory.

This was Mr. T's flagship (and still is) they cost around $50K in the 90's so you can bet that they were built to last.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the reliability and ride of my Taco (which is essentially a 4Runner with a bed and leafs in the rear). That is untill I bout the Land Cruiser, now I would never go back.

I used to tow my truck with the cruiser out to the trails for the weekend and after driving the truck for the weekend the Cruiser just feels so much better built, stronger, not to mention a hell of a lot more comfortable. It also went would go just about every where my truck(with a 3" OME lift, TRD locker, and 33's) went when it was 100% stock (even stock/street rubber).

So I wish you the best of luck, but if you decide to get the 4Runner don't ever drive/ride in a Cruiser, cause after that you won't wanna get back in your ride

I see it with all my friends who have Toyota Trucks, or Sammy's, or Jeeps. They all look at me in envey when I bring 2 or 3 girls in the woods in complete comfort, and make it everywhere they do and more. Plus I have a full size air mattress in the rear. (try that with your 4Runner.)

Just my 2 cents

Shane

[blunt]

I have had a '98 4runner and a '94 FZJ 80 with 180K miles on them. I would have to say that the 4runner would be a MUCH cheaper vehicle to own at that mileage. The only things that would have problems on the 4runner at that mileage would be the steering rack (assuming the engine/tranny/transfer are good on both vehicles) and possibly the cv shafts.

The LC on the other hand, would probably need front end work (bearings, spindles, birfs, etc). Costs of operation (MPG), maintenance, and anything else for that matter is going to cost you much more than the 4runner.

I love having an 80 series, but the cost associated with a vehicle of this age and design are very high. Just my .02.

[UltraFJ]

I kid of agree with Blunt. The Runner would be just as durable in that situation. If however you were going to be wheeling the piss out of it, I'd go with a Cruiser. As was said before, they're just built heavier.

FWIW, my neighbor has a late 80's Camry wagon that has been his grocery getter and all around driver. It now has over 300k on the clock and still gets along just fine.

[LittleRock80]

If your focus truly is on RELIABILITY, I'd say go with the 3rd Gen Runner simply for the fact that the 3.4V6 (you would get the 6cyl--right?) will mostly likely have less miles on it--depending on the year of course. The inline-6 in the 80 is very bullet-proof, but of the two, I have heard of far less issues with the 3.4. Our '99 Polo Green 'Sport' (read fake hood scoop and smaller flairs then the limited) 4WD 4Runner was simply a sweet LITTLE Toyota SUV and quite the trail goat with just the A/T tires being the only mod. Find one with the factory e-locker and you'll have an awesome machine.

Now if your talking pure TRAILABILITY between the two--80 ALL-THE-WAY! The attributes of the 80, even stock form, are all over this forum, so I won't list them here, but bottom line--It's a Land Cruiser--enough said!

Hope this gave you some food for thought. Your results (and opinions) may vary. However, I've owned both vehicles, and this is what I'm sticking with.

Jwp

[TEPUI]

I've read (here on mud) that the welding quality and some material specs at the Araco plant (where 80s are assembled) are superior to those of the Tahara plant (where 3rd gen 4runners are assembled)

Leaving out that the 80 is a heavy duty beast, there's no question that the 4runner's front end, IFS, steering rack, etc is weaker, but in general I'd say that reliability of both vehicles is very similar when under equal maintenance conditions.

[jhanley]

I already have an 80, just posing the question cause my wife likes to drive the smaller truck. I like the look of both trucks, love the rear window on the 4runner and would be happy with either. My 80 needs a front axle service and possible a HG (dropping it off at IPOR Monday). I believe the only disadvantage of the 4runner is heritage. It's just not a LANDCRUISER. sounds like if emotion wasn't an issue the 4runner wins out. guess that's why i bought an 80....

[CruiserStuff]

Just got the 4Runner for my wife and she loves it. She liked the 80 we had, too, but felt it was just a little large for her to be entirely comfortable maneuvering in parking lots, etc. The size of the 4Runner is perfect for her. The '99 we picked up has the rear e-locker and was well-maintained by the PO. I just put a full tank through it and got 20 miles to the gallon....not bad....no way my 80 would've posted that mileage.

I agree, though, with the above....if you do heavy wheeling, go the Cruiser route. But for light duty four-wheeling and daily driving, I give the nod to the 4Runner......

[woodsman 44]

Sold my 4runner...didnt like it....IFS front was week....didnt feel solid like my 80.

Landcruiser is the flagship of the toyota line...why buy less?

Landcruiser gets my vote!

[blunt]

Originally Posted by woodsman 44

Sold my 4runner...didnt like it....IFS front was week....didnt feel solid like my 80.

Landcruiser is the flagship of the toyota line...why buy less?


Landcruiser gets my vote!

I sold my 4runner with 185K miles and it had all factory front end parts except for replacing the cv shafts at 175K. The rest was still within tolerances...It was wheeled hard and had oversized tires most of its life.

Toyota IFS is tough. The LC is built stronger, just plan on dumping your wallet and weekends into your front end all the time.

[jhanley]

dumping your wallet into the front end? I heard a good rebuild last 100k miles?

[firetruck41]

Originally Posted by jhanley

I already have an 80, just posing the question cause my wife likes to drive the smaller truck. I like the look of both trucks, love the rear window on the 4runner and would be happy with either. My 80 needs a front axle service and possible a HG (dropping it off at IPOR Monday). I believe the only disadvantage of the 4runner is heritage. It's just not a LANDCRUISER. sounds like if emotion wasn't an issue the 4runner wins out. guess that's why i bought an 80....

I had a 2d gen 4r, the rear window was a pain in the a$$, you had to roll it down just to open the tailgate, that really sucked in the rain. The 3rd gen had a hatch (I think), so that shouldn't be a problem, but I didn't like to drive with the window down as I got exhaust in the cabin. I prefer the sliding rear side windows of the LC, as well as the tailgate/hatch clamshell design for better practical function. Also the seating in the 4r is a little more car like, more of a lounge chair position than the upright seating in the LC, which I prefer. The 2nd gen 4r interior/seating felt tiny and claustrophobic, compared to the 80 series. I haven't had many required repairs with my LX, though I have put plenty of discretionary money into it. It is a DD with occasional forest service road trips, so not off road much at all.

[FJ809496TLC]

Go with the 4Runner. They are both reliable. But if you want more capability in offroading, longevity, more comfort, safety and the best Toyota 4X4 ever built, then I would recommend the Land Cruiser.

[95ToyCruiser]

Originally Posted by woodsman 44

Sold my 4runner...didnt like it....IFS front was week....didnt feel solid like my 80.

Landcruiser is the flagship of the toyota line...why buy less?

Landcruiser gets my vote!

Exactly.

The 4Runner would most deffinatly be my second choice if in the market for an SUV of any kind for just about any purpose. I guess it does depend on what you use it for. It's true that the IFS is tough, I haven't really BROKEN anything in the front of mine, but for the past 15,000 miles I could barely drive it on the highway because the steering rack (and everything else in the front end) was shot.

The 4Runner is a great vehicle, but like said before, my vote goes for the TLC.

Plus when your friends get stuck, you can tell everyone you pulled them out in a station wagon

[nello]

I bought my land cruiser for every reason listed above, but most of all price. Seemed a decent well taken care of 4runner, sorry don't what gen you mean, assume you're speaking of 2001 back, which cost more than a top of the line LCs in my area. I got my 96 LC for near half what a 99-01 4runner cost (Oct 2009). All had pretty much the same amount of miles, condition, but aFter I drove the LC it was a no brainer. 4runner seemed way to small for me and my family circus. 2 big dogs, 1kid, wife and myself all CRUZ in style and comfort and I know I can haul them all anywhere.

172k and I still trip how good it looks, smooth and quiet the ride is. Im getting an average 17.5mpg, mostly fwy, so 2.5mpg difference doesn't mean much to me since the 80 isn't a DD....for temporary use only.

Another small reason I opted for the 80 is that it's a nice platform for a V8 swap (not sure witch yet, definitlely would be a chevy engine) w/ 4l80e tranny. I imagine an 80 with a v8 setup would be an absolute monstor whether it be towing or on the trails.

Lastly, the 80 IMO is only going to get more popular with age. The more people that witness what these rigs are all about the more people want them. So in 5years I fully expect to be able to get what I paid for the LC and not loose a penny, so long as I take care of it...I doubt I'd ever sell it though. I have yet to come across something I view as more capable for my needs at a really low price.

I feel very lucky to have stumbled upon these trucks. To answer your question about reliability, since their both Toyotas I'd assume the more reliable rig depends on the PO and how well they took care of them.

[KliersLC]

Originally Posted by blunt

I sold my 4runner with 185K miles and it had all factory front end parts except for replacing the cv shafts at 175K. The rest was still within tolerances...It was wheeled hard and had oversized tires most of its life.

Toyota IFS is tough. The LC is built stronger, just plan on dumping your wallet and weekends into your front end all the time.

If you do the maintenance right, the parts in the front end of an 80 will outlast those on a 4runner. The front end is a little more maintenance intensive, but when all you have to buy is grease and seals every 60-80k, it isn't too bad. The 3.4 also requires a timing belt every 90k. Once the HG is done on the LC, you don't have to worry about it.

I detect from your posts that you have had some recent front end issues---probably due to deferred maintenance by the PO--BTDT.

For the OP, drive both and keep the one you like the best, all of the other things mentioned result in a tie.

[d0ubledown]

for DD & mild wheeling, the runner has less maintenance and running costs. on road reliability is about the same. but with the 4runner, theres no HG or PHH looming over your head. theres also no P0401, clicking birfs, or spongy brake feel. those are more quirks, than actual mechanical problems. however, runners do tend to warp rotors, and umm..thats about it. do a tundra brake upgrade, and done. you get better gas mileage with a runner. runners are smaller, and not as HD. runners also have a timing belt that needs servicing, but if it snaps, the 5VZ is a non interference engine, so you wont snap valves.

now the cruiser is a completely different beast. assuming one youve got isnt a money pit, it will service you in the same way, just doing it with more brawn. off road, solid axles are beefier, and oem front lockers are a nice option. but if you're just dirt roading it..then its overkill. cruisers have more of a status symbol attached to them, which with its quirks, usually ends up with higher costs.

i had both. equally built...but just different beasts. main reason why i upped to the 80. was the added room for our 3 kids. theyve performed equally off road, with both ends being locked, but i do have more confidence in the strength and performance of the locked 8" SA, as oposed to the arb'd 7.5" IFS. that said, ive never snapped a CV, or a birf.

better mileage, and less front end servicing and less 'quirks' have the nods for the 4runner. brawn, status symbol, and heavier duty axles (needed for a heavier duty AWD vehicle) gets the nods for the cruiser.

cant go wrong with either one...

[Marc311]

Given the same number of miles . . . I would take the LandCruiser.

Reliability is pretty much a toss up. But DURABILITY clearly favors the LandCruiser.

I would think a 4Runner at 200K is generally used up, whereas a LC at 200K still has a lot of life left. The decision for me would be tougher if each vehicle had 100K. But I don't think I would feel comfortable on a cross country trip with a 4runner with 200K+. Never owned one, but certainly have considered them.

[cruiserdan]

IFS sucks.

[hawaiicruz]

Originally Posted by cruiserdan

IFS sucks.

short and to the point

[kpudden]

I own both, the answer to your question is no doubt the 4 runner. Head gasket and birfs on 80 are the main differences...even still, i wouldn't trade my 80 for anything else.

Originally Posted by jhanley

I know there's a lot of variables. Let's take 2 trucks with identical miles and good PO history. A gen 3 4runner and a 93-97 80. Both trucks have 180k miles. Which truck would be better suited to daily driving, mild wheeling and DIY maintenance. Let's also assume the 80 has never had a front axle service or HG ( Im assuming 90% of 80's on the road have never had them done). After baselining both rigs equally, who stands the test of time? Any personal experience from mudders?

[Garth]

I own a '97 80 Series and a 98 SR5 4Runner. I bought each with 50K miles and now the Cruiser has 208K and the Runner has 222K.

Remember that the '97 is just the best version of 1993 technology.

The '98 is improved on Toyota innovations introduced in 1996.

I've had more "little" problems with the Land Cruiser than the 4Runner. Door locks failing to work, hood and tailgate struts failing, antennas breaking etc.

No major problems with either. No HG issues etc.

The Cruiser has needed more sets of rotors and brake pads, and gets 12 mpg to the Runner's 19.

I love the Cruiser and like the Runner. Having a beautiful wife and 3 little kiddos in a tank with full-time 4WD makes me feel really good.

Answering the question you asked, I'd say the 4Runner "wins"...but if I had to get rid of one of mine, the 4Runner would be gone.

[blunt]

Originally Posted by KliersLC

If you do the maintenance right, the parts in the front end of an 80 will outlast those on a 4runner. The front end is a little more maintenance intensive, but when all you have to buy is grease and seals every 60-80k, it isn't too bad. The 3.4 also requires a timing belt every 90k. Once the HG is done on the LC, you don't have to worry about it.

I detect from your posts that you have had some recent front end issues---probably due to deferred maintenance by the PO--BTDT.

For the OP, drive both and keep the one you like the best, all of the other things mentioned result in a tie.

Yes, I have found the lack of PO maintenance to be the source of my front end problems, VC problems, drive shaft problems, etc. I would probably be a lot happier if I had found a better maintained rig, but I still think the LC will cost you more regardless. At the moment, it is parked and worthless to me.

I never had to think twice when saying how reliable my 4runner was. I am a loyal Toyota owner, but my 80 has had almost as many problems as the Dodge pickup I owned...

[Lka1988]

My buddy loves his 3rd gen 4Runner. He's lifted it a bit with the stock IFS, and now it's eating CV boots. Still loves it though, especially with the rear locker.

[tromz]

hey i had the same dilema went with the 80 for resale purposes and durability if and when. Also the body panels on the 4r are somewhat less durable and rust quicker. yep the 80 costs a bit more but its more bad ass and will get you there and back. Oh apparently alot safer for the kids too

[Railroader]

I'm a longtime Toyota fan, and with the purchase of my LC, I've now owned them all...

A '97 Taco 2.7 is my daily driver, and I got rid of a '94 4Runner, for the '94 LC. This is my "fishing bus".

There is NO comparison between the 4R and the LC...The LC is just, well, an LC..

ANY truck can have HG issues, break parts, and wear out. Taking good care of one offsets this by a factor of 10. I'd much rather buy a clean truck with 100k, and good maintenance, than one with 10k, and 3 inches of goo caked underneath, and a tree dent in the tailgate...

In my mind, this is a GREAT time to buy an 80 Series LC, because there are so many out there that high-falootin' soccer moms are tired of. Just find a good one, with 100k highway and mall crawlin' miles, and buy it for 6k-7k.

Not often you can get a "high dollar" truck, for such a good price....A helluva deal, in my not-so-humble opinion.

[89s rule]

Originally Posted by jhanley

Which truck would be better suited to daily driving, mild wheeling and DIY maintenance.

This line makes the biggest difference in the world. If you DD and do some mild wheeling you dont need a SOLID AXLE period. SA is way over rated in a daily driven application, dont fall into the trap of having to have a better mod than someone else on the web.

I own both trucks (see sig) bought the 4runner with 60K miles now 180K and the 80 with 30K now 46K. The 4runner is more comfortable to drive, less truck like, but will still handle mild wheeling with the best of them.

Maint on the 80 will cost you more $ and time. Only thing the 4runner has needed in 120K miles is the Timing Belt, 1 set of front brake pads and a turning the rotors, and a few other little items. With the 80 the only thing that drives me nuts is the slow windows. I just havent owned it long enough (1.5 yrs) to have many other issues.

As others have said if 1 had to go it would be the 4runner. (Which will prob happen soon.)

[ralphy1997]

I see it with all my friends who have Toyota Trucks, or Sammy's, or Jeeps. They all look at me in envey when I bring 2 or 3 girls in the woods in complete comfort, and make it everywhere they do and more. Plus I have a full size air mattress in the rear. (try that with your 4Runner.)

Just my 2 cents

Shane[/QUOTE]

2 or 3 girls and a full sized air mattress?