horse power

I know that off road improvments and such are the primary goal of most people who buy Landcruisers, myself included, right now I own a 1994 LC, and it's good offroad, but when it comes to speed and comfort, well it's not bad, but I was thinking of possibly upgrading to a 100 series and try to build a vehicle that has the best of all worlds, so here is my question, what can one realisticaly expect from a 100 series after super charging etc, I know the stock 0-60 times are in the mid 9 seconds, what does the s.c. do for this, and how much h.p. do you get, any other engine or performance mods that anyone is doing, if so what can you expect from them, thanks for any info

I really don't think that there's that much top end HP difference from a 1994 80 vs. a 1998 100.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it's about 10 HP? 218 vs. 228?

And isn't the 100 heavier?

This is just a base line statement to understand where we are starting. BTW I assume that you want to SC a 100, correct?

Dan under the 80 forum section has made remarks to me that his 80 makes somewhere in the 300hp flat range.

I talked to Slee about installing a SC on my 93 and the impression I was left with, was a blown engine after 15 miles because of the high milage on my particular rig.

Another direction I'm looking at is a company call crower cams (40 hp regrind cam, connecting rod, pistons, ect..) they are big company that you can contact.

And another place to get some 4.7 V8 ideas from is www.lextreme.com

the actual difference from the 80 to the 100 in h.p. in fzj 80 212, uzj 100 230 for the earlier years, then it gained 5 h.p. to 235, so I would be looking at an earlier year, so it would have 230, which is only an 18 h.p. difference, but then I believe it also has an additional 38 lb ft. of torque. So although these may not seem like huge difference these added to the fact that I heard the same thing about s.c. rigs with high milage, and the fact that the 100 seems alot smoother under acceleration, led me to believe it may be better for my overal goals, by the way I checked out that site real quick, looks like it is going to have a lot of answers, thanks for the help, anymore info would be appreciated.

fzj said:

the actual difference from the 80 to the 100 in h.p. in fzj 80 212, uzj 100 230 for the earlier years, then it gained 5 h.p. to 235, so I would be looking at an earlier year, so it would have 230, which is only an 18 h.p. difference, but then I believe it also has an additional 38 lb ft. of torque. So although these may not seem like huge difference these added to the fact that I heard the same thing about s.c. rigs with high milage, and the fact that the 100 seems alot smoother under acceleration, led me to believe it may be better for my overal goals, by the way I checked out that site real quick, looks like it is going to have a lot of answers, thanks for the help, anymore info would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to mislead you in the HP range, it's just the numbers are so pathetic that I refuse to memorize them.

I'm not telling you this info to brag, it's just useful info.

I have a PU truck that weights about the same as a LC 4800 lbs. It made 570 RWHP (not to be confused with crank HP) back in 2003. 40 RWHP is a drop in the bucket and can barely be felt, as in e.g. from 400 to 440 RWHP. In LC language this would be like going from 230 to 280 (50 crank) or about the same as bolting on a SC in a well used LC. I'm not saying 40 - 60 more HP isn't appreaciated, just at what cost?

I know that your not interest in making 570 RWHP, but bare with me here. I suspect you might think the same as me. I'm also looking into a 98-99 LC for the exact same reasons, more pow-wa!

I didn't pay attention to your year model so I'll just use mine as an example.

I have a 93 that I paid $6000 for, added OME, rebuilt birfields,and could be reasonable sold in TX for ~ $8000. I have found plenty of nice 98-99 for around $16,000 minus the $8000 for mine, leaves me just $8000 in the hole. Now if I stick with the 93 I'll have to do an engine rebuild ? $3500 ? from man-a-fre, probably a tranmission rebuild ? $2500 ?, and god knows what in the diff department. = $6000 + $8000 = $14,000 plus the cost of a SC ? $3500 ? = $17,500 and I didn't include any installation.

I think buying a 100 makes a lot of smarts, especially if you're going to trade something other than your 80 to trade up.

I haven't driven a 100 LC but I was way impressed with the engine in a 04 Sequoia, and a used 93 w/250,000 miles can't hold a candle to it. With the low end and manageability of the V8 engine alone, I envisioned a LC 100 living beyond me.

Only a V8 (4.7 or 5.5) in an 80 would be better, don't correct me I'm currently day dreaming.

</rambling>

my thoughts on the money spent to bring my 80 up to speed are very similar to yours, by the time I do the s.c. rebuild and misc. stuff, I would be half way to a 100 series cruiser!

Guys. if you like you can search other posts. Here's the bottom line:

A STOCK 100 DEVOURS....YES DEVOURS an 80....even if it's super or turbo charged. Forget the numbers/specs....HP and Torque.

My 100, detuned by 35-inch tires and stock gearing (a 12% loss) DEVOURS (like Todd has said) an 80 with a S/C AND 4.88 corrective gears. DEVOURS.

Don't get caught in the HEAVIER, ONLY A LITTLE HP GAIN. ETC......it ROCKS and with 100-times the smoothness. While the 80 is revved, it vibrates, and it roars while the 100 is quiet, smoooooth, and pulls away handily. Oh, I wish I had 4.88's for my 100 but they're not ready yet (or a 4Runner's weight ).

I have heard this many times before and simpily put, the 100 is smoother, but it should be, its a V8. My 97 with a S/C dosen't roar or vibrate with 100k on it, and runs a tick slower than my buddies 2003 Cruiser. So what? While I agree that the 100 engine is a fantastic engine, an 80 with a supercharger is very adequate to drive. I haven't had a chance to drag race a 100 yet, and don't intend to, but for daily driving a supercharged 80 is very cool. The 80-100 comfort/performance/off road ability arguement is dead, they are both cool Cruisers and both have their finer points.
Gary

My Gawd John, I keep finding you saying some really crazy sheet on this 100 board about 80s. I know you have one but you ain't got it s/c nor turbo'd so simmer down. And on the off chance one of yer buds has the blower, well, it probably ain't set up right! My trip to the Old Pueblo keeps jumping up my list just for the sheer s***s-n-giggles of delivering a good old rednecked can o' whup-a$$. I have run my 97 80 stock, with a s/c and now have the safari turbo. Only in stock trim did the 100 have the edge. I can guarentee that at whatever street variable you choose, 1/4-mile, 60-80 mph passing, top end, I will see you in the rearview. This is not to brag but to pull you back from the precipitous edge of insanity you dance along. Most folks that have driven both s/c 80s and 100s are pretty sure they both have about the same street performance in terms of acceleration, etc. And I've been told that Robbie's 4.7 liter (and a few other mods) 80 does this without the s/c. And all of the folks at Christo's shop have driven stock, s/c and turbo'd 80s as well as 100s. Bottom line is that a properly tuned turbo'd 80 (running the VERY low boost ~7-9) is developing ~100 hp more than the 4.7 L V8 with similar torque specs - all from ~1000 rpms up.

Again, though the bottom line is they ARE both great vehicles and I think the V8 and the 100 are awesome but it ain't the only dog on the porch and you got to show your props when someone's got their junk running in ways that are different from yours - not better or worse, just different. These head to head comparisons are always fawked. Just look at all the folks with the V8s in their 40s, 55s, 60/62s, even 80s.

But hey, I'm still game for coming over and seeing if my truck is really faster/quicker than your 100.

Mike R.

Waggoner5 said:

I have heard this many times before and simpily put, the 100 is smoother, but it should be, its a V8.
Gary

Click to expand...

Another reason is the timing belt, as opposed to a real chain like the 1FZ-FE. Make sure you change it as recommended and keep up the maintenance on it, `cause God help you if that belt ever snaps...

While everyone has their opinions, some have missed the point somewhat.

For us older land cruiser owners, <96 (wo/OBDII) it takes too much $$$ to even slap a SC on a high milage 80 LC. Heck even Slee said for me not to even consider it unless I have OBDII.

By the time we can build our HM 80's engine, transmission, and the added cost of a SC, we can simple move onto a 100 for approx. the same price.

Not everyone wants or can wade throught the fortitude of an massive rebuild and or installation.

So this post never started out as an 80 vs. 100, it's a post about weither to upgrade an 80 vs. a stock 100 for the performance. But of course all opinions are appreaciated.

Heck I love my 80 for what it does off road, and I might be the only one that is considering an 100 for a more roadly(sp) supplement.

5 years from now some might even be happier when they SC their 100?

<\stupidity>

I like my wifes supercharged 100 alot, never drove one without so I have no idea how it performed stock..

Rob