Buying an 80

First, let me apologize if this is in the wrong section, couldn't really tell where it would be appropriate to post.

I've been wanting to buy an fj60 or 80 for a while now and recently decided I wanted to have a light duty off-road vehicle that would also double as my daily driver, so I settled on the 80 thinking it would be newer and easier to put more miles on. No long commute, just 4 miles per day and weekend warrior recreation trips out of town to the mountains, desert, etc...

I'm going to look at two trucks this weekend. A 1996 with 107,000 miles and lockers, and a 1994 with 93,000 miles and lockers. Both are completely stock and look to be cosmetically in good shape from photos. I plan on probably doing an OME 2" lift and putting some larger tires on and adding a bumper, but that will probably be the extent of my retrofit.

My question is what red flags do I need to look for while I'm checking out these cars? If the car passes my initial inspection(with the help of you guys) I'd like to take it to TLC in Van Nuys for a thorough inspection just to make sure everything is mechanically and electrically sound.

I can buy either car for what I feel is a good price at below $10,000, but I'd feel a lot better making this decision with some feedback from cruiser heads like yourselves.

Thanks for all the help!
Brad

The very first thread in this section is titled:
"Thinking of Buying an 80? - Follow this link to helpful advice"

Read it. Much useful advice:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/announcement.php?f=9&a=15

Also:
http://www.sleeoffroad.com/newbie/newbie100.htm

Before you spend a pretty penny at TLC I would jump into the SoCal 80's section and you can probably get someone local to go with you to look at them for the price of a . Click the link in my sig to meet some local owners. I am down in S.D. otherwise I would meet up with you.
Personally I think the 94 is the best year; larger engine and the old school "TOYOTA" grill. But 96' is a close second.
Get a CarFax and if both are Cali trucks originally they should both be fine for the most part. Try to find out if the Head Gasket has been replaced and take a look at the front birffs (Where the wheels meet the axle).

Thanks guys.

Bluetribal- I'm all over that. Thanks, I'll try to find someone to go with. If you know anyone interested I'm checking one at 9am Saturday and another at 11am...

Wildhare- Read the Newb stuff and got a good sense for whats going on. This post pretty much sums up my situation... ditching an '04 Jeep Grand Cherokee cause I'm up on the 45,000 mile marker of death for Jeeps and can see a LOT of expense and headache over the next few years

Lugboot said:

This is a great thread and THANK YOU for putting it up! Perhaps one of the threads referenced by CDan was mine asking for general PM costs--dunno--but the original post here by CDan is a very good point. No one should live in a fantasy world when it comes to owning any high-mileage vehicle, Cruiser or otherwise. But whereas other domestic high-mileage trucks get iffy all over the place, it seems the Cruiser is simply built for more longevity and that's what I want (along with the diffs and other yummy bits).

I'd much rather pay for maintenance on a Cruiser and own it three to four times as long than drop coin every 5 years on some domestic pail that gets beat to pieces. In the long term, investing in the maintenance of one high-quality vehicle typically is cheaper than constant turn-over. I'm done with putting up with short-term, low build quality domestic trucks--as is evidenced by the fact I'm ditching a newer one with half the miles for an 80!

Good stuff costs money. Cheap stuff costs more money, IMHO.

Click to expand...

bpenn1980 said:

I'm going to look at two trucks this weekend. A 1996 with 107,000 miles and lockers, and a 1994 with 93,000 miles and lockers.

I can buy either car for what I feel is a good price at below $10,000, but I'd feel a lot better making this decision with some feedback from cruiser heads like yourselves.

Click to expand...

First off, congrats on having the option to get either below 10K in california. That's a great price.

A 94 and 96 are quite different in some regards. 1) 96 has dual airbags standard. 2) 96 will be OBDII compliant if you want to install toys like a scangauge (which requires OBDII). 3) 96 has the A343F transmission. If you want the bus tranny, go for the 94. 4) Interior dash layout will also be different.

All things being the same between the two, I'd go for the 96. But I'm biased.

Isn't the late 94's OBDII compliant??

Bluetribal said:

Isn't the late 94's OBDII compliant??

Click to expand...

No. It has been reported that some late 95's are partially OBD-II compliant. The fully compliant 80s are 1996 and 1997; LC and LX.
-B-

elysium said:

A 94 and 96 are quite different in some regards.

Click to expand...

All of the differences are documented in the FAQ. The buyer is the only one that can determine what is significant and what isn't. For example, the fuel metering is better on the 95, and was improved again in 97. This may not sound like a big deal until you start considering forced induction. Check out Landtank's MAF mod for more in-depth information.

-B-

Will the ODB-II compliance make it easier to maintain the vehicle or cheaper to make repairs by pinpointing the problem? Read some about it, but want to get your input.

Fyi, my initial inclination is toward the '94 because its white(which i like), has only 93,000 miles and was owned by a stay at home mom since 11,000 miles so I doubt it was abused.

bpenn1980 said:

... so I doubt it was abused.

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "abused." If she didn't change the diff fluid for the past 80k then that is abuse.

OBD-II gives a lot more vehicle information than pre-OBD-II. Whether or not that makes is cheaper or easier to fix a vehicle is subjective. Using a paper-clip instead of an OBD-II scanner is obviously easier and cheaper.

-B-