Dealer 1990 Toyota Land Cruiser Troopy - LHD - 2F Gasoline (1 Viewer)

Location

United States

Dealer states the engine is a 2F, wasn't the last production year 1988? Was the 2F produced for South\Central America longer?

Explore Reliable and Luxury Cars: New and Used Options with In-House Financing at Franklin Motor Company, Nashville, TN

Discover your ideal ride at Franklin Motor Company, Nashville, TN. Explore reliable and luxury cars with in-house financing. Your trusted source for seamless buy here pay here options

www.franklinmotorstn.com

KMs \ Miles: 274656 \ 170663

VIN: 11111111FJ9005599 <--- Hmmmmm ?

Not a lot of details and no undercarriage pics.

I'm not affiliated, just dreaming of one day owning a Troopy to put a pop top on.

 

[maddslacker]

VIN: 11111111FJ9005599 <--- Hmmmmm ?

That model doesn't have a standardized VIN so they padded the serial number, which is "FJ9005599 "

 

[TonyP]

Pricey for an underpowered-motored Troopy.

 

[desmocruiser]

Very cool in concept and cosmetic presentation, unfortunately not a lot of history and appears to have no heat.

The 2F is adequate in my 60 and 40, what makes it any different in power other than the few additional lbs or should we say kgs since this thing originated in metric country?

 

[TheDeliverator]

I figure the note indicating the engine is a 2F is most likely a mistake or indicative of an engine swap. But if swapping, why not swap to one of the many OEM Diesel options produced for the 70 series. 3F to a 2F seems weird.

I guess if I cared enough, I'd call the dealer... I'd also need someone with more experience than I have to convince me a gas powered Troopy would be preferable to a diesel.

 

[edmond4822]

I'd also need someone with more experience than I have to convince me a gas powered Troopy would be preferable to a diesel.

The only negative part of Diesel is its maintenance repair costs when it comes to fixing serious problems, it will cost more to fix then a petrol gas engine and a few minor things like engines pre 2010s are noisy and it is abot 10% to 15% more expensive then the petrol gas per gallon. Going up a freeway or a hill at faster speeds could be little challenging. But its advantage is the lower speed torque and it uses less fuel.

Here living in California, The average petrol price per gallon is $3.30 or more depending on your location and the Diesels prices are average of $3.70 or more. So you spending an extra 40 or 50 cents per gallon on Diesel. so lets pretend that we fill up the tank with 20 gallons. Petrol will cost $66 and the Diesel will be $74 . So there is an extra $8 spent on gas. Over 10% the cost of petrol.

If the Diesel has about 15% cheaper running cost then Petrol then at the end of the day it comes out that Diesel is just not very far ahead of petrol in efficiency. So driving with the full tank of petrol plus the extra $8 will take you near to where the full tank of Diesel would have taken you. I hope i make sense.

This is my opinion and I could be wrong and my calculations all ****ed up.. But i have to admit, Diesel prices in California are super high. Disgusting.

At the end, it all depends what you want to use it for. For short local driving I prefer Petrol but for traveling across States or countries with heavy loads then the Diesel is more preferred. I have Troopys with 3F and FZ petrol engines and i cant be more happier with them. Super strong and quiet engines. Went in deep Baja Mexico Twice with the 3F and gas milage was fantastic, about 17Ms per gallon. No roof rack and not fully loaded..

Not trying to convince you but from where i live and for what i love to do with the troopy, i am happy with the petrol Engines.

 

[TheDeliverator]

The only negative part of Diesel is its maintenance repair costs when it comes to fixing serious problems, it will cost more to fix then a petrol gas engine and a few minor things like engines pre 2010s are noisy and it is abot 10% to 15% more expensive then the petrol gas per gallon. Going up a freeway or a hill at faster speeds could be little challenging. But its advantage is the lower speed torque and it uses less fuel.

Here living in California, The average petrol price per gallon is $3.30 or more depending on your location and the Diesels prices are average of $3.70 or more. So you spending an extra 40 or 50 cents per gallon on Diesel. so lets pretend that we fill up the tank with 20 gallons. Petrol will cost $66 and the Diesel will be $74 . So there is an extra $8 spent on gas. Over 10% the cost of petrol.

If the Diesel has about 15% cheaper running cost then Petrol then at the end of the day it comes out that Diesel is just not very far ahead of petrol in efficiency. So driving with the full tank of petrol plus the extra $8 will take you near to where the full tank of Diesel would have taken you. I hope i make sense.

This is my opinion and I could be wrong and my calculations all f***ed up.. But i have to admit, Diesel prices in California are super high. Disgusting.

At the end, it all depends what you want to use it for. For short local driving I prefer Petrol but for traveling across States or countries with heavy loads then the Diesel is more preferred. I have Troopys with 3F and FZ petrol engines and i cant be more happier with them. Super strong and quiet engines. Went in deep Baja Mexico Twice with the 3F and gas milage was fantastic, about 17Ms per gallon. No roof rack and not fully loaded..

Not trying to convince you but from where i live and for what i love to do with the troopy, i am happy with the petrol Engines.

Food for thought. I appreciate your post. Thank you.

 

[DesertRatliff]

I like the math and the rationale, but is anyone buying a $30k+, 25+ year old 4x4 for practical purposes? For that matter, does anyone buy a Landcruiser for its good fuel economy?

 

[TheDeliverator]

I like the math and the rationale, but is anyone buying a $30k+, 25+ year old 4x4 for practical purposes? For that matter, does anyone buy a Landcruiser for its good fuel economy?

No matter how poor the economy of the available options... When choosing between a 25+ year old 4x4 that has multiple engine configurations, some more efficient or powerful or better for certain modes of travel, why wouldn't the rationale come into play? Seems ridiculous not to consider the ramification of petrol vs diesel, power and range and use case.

For example: I unfortunately no longer live on the West Coast and now live over 2,000 miles from some of the places I wish to explore for weeks at a time. Moab is over 2,000 miles from my driveway, Big Sur is 2,900. If I lived in Colorado or Arizona, perhaps it wouldn't matter as much.

Long range fuel tanks are also on my list of considerations, even though the US is not Australia and distances between fuel availability isn't much of an issue.

 

[DesertRatliff]

Part of the allure of a 70's series for me is the 1HZ and the respectable fuel economy it offers while traveling. I get it.

Trying to justify a 2F with some napkin math tickled my funny bone.

 

[TheDeliverator]

Part of the allure of a 70's series for me is the 1HZ and the respectable fuel economy it offers while traveling. I get it.

Trying to justify a 2F with some napkin math tickled my funny bone.

Well any info is good for discussion and I asked for info because maybe someone here knows something I didn’t.

The 2F makes no sense from the dealer or the buyers perspective. Part of the reason I posted the link is because as far as I know, a 1990 75 wasn’t produced with a 2F so something is off here. As I said if I was interested in the vehicle I’d have called the dealer for clarification.

I guess I could have posted it in tech but I didn’t want to get ripped for posting a for sale link in tech.

 

[TheDeliverator]

Oh and I agree with your assessment that part of 75 is the appeal is the 1HZ