For Previous 80 owners (1 Viewer)

[smokethedog]

Hey Guys,
Bit of a fishing expedition here. I currently have a 1995 landcruiser, built decently (see sig), and am toying with upgrading to the 100 series. I dont do heavy wheeling or rock crawling, more expedition/hunting type stuff. My 95 is a beast, but on the road it just aint that comfortable, and it is getting some age on it.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of owning the 100 compared to the 80? Cost of ownership/capability/personal experience/etc.

thanks

 

[wngrog]

Hey Guys,
I dont do heavy wheeling or rock crawling

thanks

If you don't do either of these than a 100 will be an upgrade in every way.

 

[Mxndrnks]

In general everything on the 100 will cost more. If you are willing to turn a wrench yourself this wont be a huge factor. Driving the 100 is way more comfortable IMHO. As long as your expedition/hunting trips are not on trails that are tight for your 80 then you will not be disappointed with a 100.

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

if you don't do either of these than a 100 will be an upgrade in every way.

x2000000000000000000

 

[smokethedog]

If I do pursue this, are there any year models to stay away from? I was planning on looking for 2000-2001 year model.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Search, there's been a few threads from peeps in your same boat, me included. Also, the sticky thread at the top has all the buying info you'd ever want.

 

[spdwaver]

If you don't do either of these than a 100 will be an upgrade in every way.

x2000000000000000000

Good to know, this saves me from having to start a similar thread.

Now, I need to go for a test-drive.

 

[LCHardriver_02]

Having both, I would say that you will love the hundy. The ATRAC rocks in slippery conditions and the room is great! I just recently purchased my 80, with lockers and I love driving both, but the hundy is way more comfortable and will give you the capability to do exactly what you want.

 

[wngrog]

I personally don't like the 99 models. The motor is tuned to run on 93 octane and long term use without (which most soccer moms will do) can cause premature wear on the motor.

2000-2002s are essentially the same truck. 2000's you can find without Nav and some folks like that.

2003-2005 have more safety features, variable steering and 5 speed tranny.

 

[overhanger]

I personally don't like the 99 models. The motor is tuned to run on 93 octane and long term use without (which most soccer moms will do) can cause premature wear on the motor.

2000-2002s are essentially the same truck. 2000's you can find without Nav and some folks like that.

2003-2005 have more safety features, variable steering and 5 speed tranny.

...and five speed tranny. BIG advantage, imo. Having had a supercharged '97 80 I believe our new-to-us normally aspirated '03 is more tractable due, in large part, to the five speed. I'm loving the 100 and, on road anyway, the 100 is a step up in almost every way.

 

[Anthony.L]

As a 100 owner that came from a 80 I can say it's a HUGE upgrade in comfort, onroad driving, and non-hardcore offroad wheelin. The 100 IFS, while getting lots of negativity from the hardcore crowd, makes for a very well driven offroad vehicle. When going over the small stuff the IFS makes for a way more comfortable ride. I've done some pretty decent stuff in my 100 and the IFS has not limited me yet that I can tell. Not to say the limits are not there, it just all depends on your goals.

I would personally stay away from the 2000 year model. Way too many people will blown up trannys.

The 2003+ with 5-speed is really nice, however you drag through things like mandatory factory NAV which is a lot more electronics (i.e. money) to go wrong.

 

[Sandroad]

I had both a ’91 and a ’93 80 for several years. I sold the ’91 when a whole bunch of expensive things went bad in the space of about a month. I sold the ’93 when the head gasket blew at 140,000 miles and stranded me (I hate that). After I bought my 100 I never looked back. It is by far the best quality vehicle I’ve ever owned and I’ve had 4WD vehicles of many species continuously since 1969. I particularly like the 4.7L engine in the 100. I was just at the International Auto Show in Detroit and the 100, with its timeless great styling, would have been right at home there on the floor with all the 2011 vehicles. The 2011 L.C. there was $75,000. Gas and insurance are expensive for the 100, but I do all my own mechanical/electrical work and get discount Toyota parts off the Internet. So, cost of ownership is tolerable and on par with the 80.

 

[Yotato]

The 100 is very comfortable when compared to the 80. It felt like I had more headroom in the 80. Both have a solid feel in their build, steer, and power.

Cost of ownership is essentially the same between the two even though the 100 requires higher octane fuel. MPG is definitely better on the 100. You can equip the 100 similarly as the 80. Both models have been reliable for me. While the few owners of bad transmissions echo many forums for the 2000 model, don't let a perfectly maintained one slip past you. My 2000 with 180k has been reliable and tows various toys very well.

My kids claim the 80 was more comfortable on the 3rd row. The 80 is a lot easier to work on if you like to tinker with stuff, but as I said earlier, the 100 has been reliable.

I am pleasantly surprised at how well my 100 performs in a steep wet and slippery trails in the Sierra's. The Atrac is awesome!

Have fun searching for the right truck!!!!

 

[r2m]

What are the advantages/disadvantages of owning the 100 compared to the 80? Cost of ownership/capability/personal experience/etc.

Two words....
Heated Seats
and
Climite Control

(ok 5 words)

 

[Brock]

I went from FJ60 to 100...skipped the 80 entirely and it is like night and day. More comfort, more power, and maybe while not as rugged surely as capable. The solid front axle and simplistic designs that work so well in the 6x series are great....but the reliability and overall performance of the 100 is fathoms above my 60 series that was bought new and in family for 26 years.

I dont aspire to huge rock crawling events...but so far my 100 has done everything I could do in my FULLY BUILT FJC and also my mildly built FJ60 with locker.

Great vehicle...and I also did not find a big problem with its size on trail...while larger..it has great visibility all around so I have more body awareness on our tight wooded trails in east.

my apologies for hijacking thread since not a previous 80 owner...I dont think I would have any reservations about a nicely apportioned 80 either as long as I was not using it for long drives on regular basis.

 

[spressomon]

I personally don't like the 99 models. The motor is tuned to run on 93 octane and long term use without (which most soccer moms will do) can cause premature wear on the motor.

2000-2002s are essentially the same truck. 2000's you can find without Nav and some folks like that.

2003-2005 have more safety features, variable steering and 5 speed tranny.

I'd have to disagree based upon my experience with my '99 over the past 6-years and the 110k hard miles I've put on mine (180k total miles now) with 95% of those miles with 87 octane. At our 5,000' and above it actually runs better with 87. Zero oil burn at 10k mile oil change interval right now BTW. And it also runs incredibly strong at sea level; again with 87 octane.

As others have stated the '03+ would be better because of the A750F 5sp tranny. But for what I do and want the Nav is a deal breaker; but for others the Nav is apparently OK with them. Ditto for AHC.

But at the end of the day if you are going to keep the GVW reasonable you'll be astounded how much more oomph you get out of even the non-VVT and A343F 4spd compared to your '95.

 

[r2m]

I personally don't like the 99 models. The motor is tuned to run on 93 octane and long term use without (which most soccer moms will do) can cause premature wear on the motor.

2000-2002s are essentially the same truck. 2000's you can find without Nav and some folks like that.

2003-2005 have more safety features, variable steering and 5 speed tranny.

We (my wife and I) both have '98 LC's. We have had my wife's since 2002 and have always run 87 octane except when we to into the mountains, then we'll fill with 91 (best we can get out here) octane. On her truck, she has over 237,000 miles! And never had any issues what so ever, but... We are like clockwork on maintance. My '98 hundy I just bought last month, I'll do the same. It has 157,000 on it. Take care of it and it will take care of you.
The newer ones, if you want to lift it, you'll have to deal with the AHC. I don't know how much of a hassle that is.

 

[OregonLC]

I personally don't like the 99 models. The motor is tuned to run on 93 octane and long term use without (which most soccer moms will do) can cause premature wear on the motor.

This is the first I've heard of the 99's motor being any different than the 00-02. My understanding was that the first change was in 03 with a slight power bump.

 

[hoser]

The wording in the owners' manual regarding fuel might be different but IMO all years of 100's can run on 87 w/o problems. Performance difference, well that is questionable. I'd like to see a dyno run on 87 and 91-92 under the same conditions.

 

[samsher213]

get into a 100, you will not regret it.