80 series tid-bits from Magazine Road Tests

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Threads
116
Messages
1,282
Location
Oregon
Website
www.brian894x4.com
I found this book the other day on Amazon and ordered a copy. It’s by Brookland Books out of the UK and is really nothing more than a collection of articles, tech data and road tests of the Land Cruiser during those years, including the 80 and the other Land Cruisers. Mostly just b/w copies of Mag articles from the UK and Australia and a couple from the U.S. about the Land Cruiser covering 1988-1997. But still pretty interesting. Especially the perspective that testers had on the new rig...and the very over inflated fuel economy numbers everyone was getting and the mass praise on the brake system, etc, etc.

Thumbing through it, I found a few interesting notes that might be of interest, but have since been lost to time….

From a test of a 1993 LC by Motor magazine….

“In an age of hydraulic followers, this may seem old fashioned, yet Toyota doesn’t expect adjustment for the first 100,000 Km.” (62,000 miles)

“The iron block has been designed to take two steps of overbore when the engine is being rebuilt. Toyota has said that this very new design of an engine has been designed to see 300,000km (186,000 miles) between rebores or the potential for about 900,000km (560,000 miles) of normal service.”

“…..the engine’s specification are impressive, but under stressed…..it is only developing 35kW/liter.”

“…..305Nm of torque is made at idle….”

“…intitial tests indicated that a mix of hard driving, climbing and highway cruising could return 13 liters/100km or better.”

“…..it is the first 4wd to use twin knock sensors in its ignition management computer to keep power up and potential engine damage down when using doubtful quality fuel. It also means that the 1FZ-FE can detect the difference between standard and premium unleaded, offering a slight increase in power on premium.”

“…..intake and exhaust valves are made of nimonic steel…”

“…..valve shims can be removed without removing the cam shafts….”

“…..the oil pump is capable of pumping 70 liters a minute at full revs….”

“…..ABS on the top models presents no serious problems even on unsealed roads. The reason is that the Land Cruisers system uses a form of G-meter to measure deceleration and adjust the brake on/off periods accordingly. It can, in effect, detect the type of road surface and change its operation to better suit it.”

”….the A442F’s torque converter is new to cope with the extra torque of the new engine and its stall ratio of 1.88 (up from 1.80) makes the new vehicle step away from traffic lights with greater enthusiasm.”

“….a new load sensing and proportioning system to the rear brakes improves braking…”

“….Four wheel anti-lock disc brakes give the Land Cruiser exceptional stopping power, illustrated by a remarkable 60-0 distance of only 128, the best we’ve recorded on any sport/utility.”

Test of a 1993 diesel LC80 by British 4x4 mag:

“…..manufacture claims a top speed of 102 mph….”

“…..the service brakes were excellently progressive and controllable…”

Comparo between 1993 LC80 and Nissan Patrol, from Aussie 4x4 magazine….

“…..Fuel economy for the distance averaged at for the patrol of 17.1 liters/100km while the Land Cruiser was 17.5 liters/100km. For our economy run, which is a return trip on flat freeway at 90-100 kph, the Patrol returned 13.3 liters/100km, while the Land Cruiser came in at 12.7 liters/100km.”

Sport Utilities Magazine, 1995 LC….

“…..for 1995 a 2nd gear start was added that reduces wheel spin on slippery surfaces….”

“…..new 1995 are standard duel airbags, height-adjustable front shoulder anchors. Also for 1995, the instrument panel as been redesigned and the front sheet metal restyled.”

“….if the sport utility boom were to end tomorrow, it’s a good bet Land Cruiser fans would keep on buying them….”

British magazine about 1994 Land Cruiser 80 diesel…

“…..The automatic gearbox appears to draw on its electronic controlled power option in low range. It will hold its chosen gear until peak power revs under a heavy right foot, no doubt to gain pace for those desert dune climbs, but ease off and it can be made to shift up until little more than idle is being used to haul it through deep mud. Even the most vehement opponent of autos off road would warm to this almost manual level of control.”

“…..Government fuel consumption ratings (diesel)(urban) 20.6 mpg, (56mph) 30.1 mpg (75 mpg) 19 mpg”

British Autocar Roadtest, 1993….

“….4.5 liter straight-six producing a useful 202 brake horse power….”

“….where the Land Cruiser managed just 14.9 mpg in our hands, this is a poor figure….”

“…..With a light throttle and taking advantage of overdrive gear, the Land Cruiser will deliver 20.6 mpg…”

“….Government fuel consumption ratings (petrol) (urban) 15.4 mpg, (56mph) 28.5 mpg (75 mph) 20.5 mpg….”

“…..gross weight is 3500kg (7700lbs)….”

“….Toyota claims 106 mph top speed and 0-60 mph in 12.4 seconds for the petrol VX….”

There’s a couple of funny “curious” statements…these from Four Wheeler about the 1993 LC

“…we’re getting between 14.5 and 17.5 mpg, depending on how much air condition we run and how horrendous the traffic is….”

“….with the 24 gallon gas tank, we find ourselves filling up every 3rd day, but that spare tire has to go somewhere, and since no one wants it in the rear cargo area, is has to go under the truck where a larger fuel tank would go.”

“……24 valve 4 liter straight six produces 212 horsepower….”

“…….we sent our test vehicle back to Toyota to investigate a strange noise we heard in the valve train. The strange noise turned out to be the sound of a 24-valve 4.0 liter Six working perfectly, which we admit is a noise hadn’t heard in any other truck.”
 
Last edited:
historical perspective has a way of making you go HMM?
 
I enjoyed reading those; thanks for posting them!
 
It was interesting to get the other perspectives.

Thanks
 
No problem.

A few things really stood out to me. First the idea that the 1FZ has an official service life of around 186K miles. I've never heard manufactures ever really list an expected service for an engine, except for maybe truck diesels.

Also, the idea that the engine is smart enough to make more power on premium fuel. Do you guys really think this is true? I've always heard that premium makes no difference unless an engine requires it, usually because it's high compression or turbo, which the 1FZ is definately not.

The overly optimstic fuel mileage ratings are quite interesting. I don't know of hardly anyone who's ever seen more than 15mpg, even on a stock rig. The government ratings showing in the low to high 20s must be a typo error.

The gross weight shown in one article is 3500Kg, which is 7700lbs. That's 1000lbs heavier than the the gross weight we're familiar with here. But the tow rating is also 3500kg, so I'm guessing that might be a typo error also.

I quoted exactly from the articles and you can see a number of mistakes were made by the testers.

I'll see if there's anything else worth posting. It's an interesting book to check out.
 
“The iron block has been designed to take two steps of overbore when the engine is being rebuilt. Toyota has said that this very new design of an engine has been designed to see 300,000km (186,000 miles) between rebores or the potential for about 900,000km (560,000 miles) of normal service.”


Thank you for taking the time to post this collection of info...a great read.


This one caught my attention. I've read several times on 'mud that the expected life cycle between rebuild was 300,000 MILES. I guess I never questioned where that info came from but if the above is true it looks like the origin of the myth lies in KILOMETERS....not miles.
 
one of my favorites

1a2.jpg


Safari Performance Products



Safari Performance Products

:beer:
 
I found it very entertaining.. Well at least the part talked about 20.something at 75 MPH. I think the wife would like mine more if it would even got close to that....:bang:
 
Thank you for taking the time to post this collection of info...a great read.


This one caught my attention. I've read several times on 'mud that the expected life cycle between rebuild was 300,000 MILES. I guess I never questioned where that info came from but if the above is true it looks like the origin of the myth lies in KILOMETERS....not miles.

Actually, the Land Cruisers in this country do typically go 300,000 miles or longer before needing major work. I haven't read that 300K Km statement anywhere else and it may be nothing more than the author talking to some Toyota engineer. Or it may be more common knowledge in overseas markets, where the Land Cruiser is used as a commerical vehicle rather than just private transportation.

Consider a couple of things. The article was mainly about Toyotas in overseas countries, 3rd world, etc and not about LC destined for the U.S. In the U.S. most vehicles, including Land Cruisers, spend a tremendous amount of time on open highways, where stress on the engine minimal, but miles rack up quickly. Overseas Land Cruisers spend a lot of time in very harsh conditions, slow driving and stop and go. Under those conditions, it might seem reasonable that an engine might need an overhaul at around 200,000 miles.

Also, I doubt they were talking a rebuild after catastrophic failure, like we ususally do here in the states. They appear to be talking more about 200K miles between basic overhauls just to refresh the engine. Not unlike what is done to aircraft engines all the time.

To me, the impressive thing is that Toyota basically declaring that the engine has a total service life of around 600,000 miles and was specficly designed to be rebuilt twice. That was interesting.
 
Last edited:
MPG figures in the UK are based on the IMPERIAL measuring system (160 oz gallon vs a 128 oz gallon), this alone would inflate the MPG numbers by 20%. That being said, probably the numbers are still optimistic. Good read though. Cheers, Tony
 
Question;
When the article talks about the 100 series in AUS, is it the 6-cyl straight axle 100 seen in pics from the Middle East, or the IFS V8 boat hauling, rugrat carrying mom wagon that we get here? They are different animals! Or are they?
My 80 has carried my kid since she was a rugrat herself, and she believes that her daddy can do anything with it. I can't see our US 100's doing some of the things that I have done. I can well imagine the 100's that I have seen in other countries doing it, but not the 100's that I see here. Ours are too soft.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom