80 vs. 100

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

This thread is awesome, i must agree. I love it. So i really am not to oppinionated about this subject, i think the 100's are awesome trucks but honestly would prefer an 80, i like how you can feel the weight of th vehicle and being a highschool student and with not nearly the amount of money as some of the people on here, There is one point im not sure has been brought up. PRICE. all i know is that you can find a fully loaded and locked 80 for as low as 6k now and that means something to me, the cheapest ive seen a 100 was 16k and that was totally stock with 120k miles......for 16k you can get a pretty capable 80. just a point that i wanted to make, also i'll be a little more impressed when i start seeing alot more 100's with the mileage that the 80's are getting....dont get me wrong though...i think the 100's are awesome and have alot of respect for them
 
A man is just plain lucky to own either one.
 
flintknapper said:
A man is just plain lucky to own either one.

Agreed!! ...and if its(100/LX) good enough for Christo, its definitely good enough for me :D
 
ShottsUZJ100 said:
What kind of an ass would take a $75,0000 investment onto a trail like that?

It's all relative. Someone else could very well say "What kind of an ass would drill a 3" hole in a perfectly good fender of a $75,000 investment for something that is of as questionable benefit as a snorkel?" Now, since we're talking about it, I do know of one gentleman who has taken his 100 on this trail (though not up on Volkswagon rock), but he talks much less out of said ass than some...

Size, despite what you say, is not the main downfall of the 100. If you're really so hung up on size, you should be driving a 40. The ease of being able to put a lift on a SFA, despite what you say, is not the main advantage of such a setup. In fact, for myself I would say that ease of lift-ability is the least of my concerns. But ARTICULATION and STRENGTH are more important, and the SFA design has that all over IFS, all things being equal. Look at all the A-arms cracking in Australia right now.

I have a 100. I love it. It is an extremely strong, durable, quiet, comfortable, capable wagon. But I am not ashamed to admit that the 100 is not quite as capable off-road as the 80, in almost all conditions. And I am also not ashamed to admit that the 80 is not quite up to the trail prowess of, say, a UNIMOG. Demagoguery and idol (100) worship is of little use, IMHO. It's like they taught us the first day of karate class way back in my hazy memory: "No matter how good you think you are, never pick a fight, `cause there's always someone out there who's better than you."
 
dclee said:
"No matter how good you think you are, never pick a fight, `cause there's always someone out there who's better than you."


That is indeed a gem of a statement and so, so true.


I think that must be why it seems to pay off to bring a gun to a knife fight.....:D
 
cruiserdan said:
I think that must be why it seems to pay off to bring a gun to a knife fight.....:D

Locked and loaded, right Dan? :D
(yes it will haunt you! bwahahaha)
cdanford.webp
 
cruiserdan said:
I guess we need to go to the track then.......:D


My 80 pulls harder than any 100 I have driven. Maybe mine is an exception or the 100's I have driven were not running as well as they should have. Or perhaps the blown 80's you are familiar with are not running as well as they could.


My 80, well, we already know... :D


I've had the happy pleasure of "wheeling" with my 80 as well as my father's totally stock 80 and totally stock 100. I prefer my 80 over all of them for on road and off road. I truly think that the OME suspension (2.5 MD) makes the vehicle much more responsive on road and also much more 'stable' off road than the stock 80. From my perspective I would much rather wheel an 80 even though the 100 can certainly do everything I can do off road; in other words i am not aggressive enough to need the 80!!! Still, its a strange mix of things - the size difference, the price difference, the automation of the 100 vs. the more 'manual' feeling of the 80, all those things (and probably the fact that i am comparing a stock 100 to a 'tuned' 80) makes my choice easy even though I'd be proud as possible to have a 100 also!!! Note that I wrote also, NOT instead of! 80's rule, period. :cheers:
 
AGAIN?




:flipoff2:




I hate Ferds, ya know?...............:rolleyes:
 
NOTE: I've referenced some of Aseif's posts from the "Convince a Rover Guy" thread in the 100-series section (which you can find here:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=30623&page=2&pp=30
because they are definitely relevant in this post):

1. Shotts- I've gotta agree with Aseif in that your posts lose all sense of objectivity when you answer questions like this:

"<<Why did they change from 6 lug to 5 lug? **Who cares?** >>"

Those types are answers are straight-out dodging the questions- you simply refuse to acknowlege or address certain design changes and aspects of the 100 that may indeed by weaker than the 80.


2. And then there's questions like the SF vs. FF axle, which you slyly avoid answering directly because it is, indeed, a weaker design on the 100 in terms of durability, load carrying, and suitability for offroad use:

In response to Aseif's question:
"Why did they change the rear to a semi floater?"

You say simply:
"**Pros and cons to both types.**"

as taken from http://www.off-roadweb.com/tech/0112or_axle/
"The axleshaft in a semi-floating assembly serves two purposes. First, it attaches to the wheel and is used to support the weight of the vehicle and its cargo. Second, the axleshaft must transmit the rotational torque from the differential out to the wheel.

For a full-floater system, the axleshaft only serves to transmit the rotational torque from the differential out to the wheel. It does not carry the weight of the vehicle like a semi-floater does. On a full floater, a spindle is attached to the outer end of the axlehousing. The hub's cap is attached to this spindle and rides on tapered roller bearings. It is this assembly that carries the vehicle weight. As such, a full-floating axle system is considerably stronger than an equivalently sized semi-floating system.

For those of you who carry heavy loads, this means your axle load capacity is greatly increased with a full-floater. Load ratings for similar vehicles with the two different axles are usually significantly different. If you do hard-core 'wheeling on big tires, a full-floater means that your axleshafts can also handle much more loading than a similar semi-floater could because it now must only handle torque loading.

Further advantages of a full-floater include being able to remove a broken axleshaft, yet still have the ability to keep a functional rolling tire on that corner of the vehicle. This can be done since the wheel actually bolts to the hub that rides on the spindle attached to the axlehousing. If the axle has manual locking hubs, it may be possible to unlock the rear hubs for towing a disabled vehicle on the trail or for flat towing over the road."

So what are some of the pros of the SF axle on the 100 that make it a superior vehicle offroad?


3. You also conveniently chose to ignore dclee's post, in which he said:
"Speaking of bullet-proof, have you been seeing all the posts over on 100sCool about T-bar mounts cracking down in Oz? And Toyota won't honor their warranty if the truck has modified suspension (i.e. your basic 2" OME lift). They've never had these types of problems on their 80s or Nissan Patrol GUs (also, coincidentally, a live front axle truck)."

Your response, please?


4. And, how about this one?
"What happened to the TRD S/C for that motor?"

You say:
"**Who knows and who cares? With my added weight, large tires, the thing still drives like a sports truck and climbs hills easier than other Cruisers WITH superchargers.**"

The Landcruiser's V8 engine could not reliably handle the S/C, that's why it was removed from the market, as evidenced by CDan's non-statement and 97FZJ's post. Why not address the weaknesses instead of very obviously skirting around them?


A tip- if you're really trying to objectively explain the advantages of the 100 over the 80, try responding to the tougher questions instead of either avoiding them completely or giving non-answers. Also, don't be so unwilling to admit the weaker points of the 100- it is a great rig, but I think it has more weak points than you are willing to admit. Just my .02! :)
 
Last edited:
some notes

13Jan2005 (UTC +8)

As an owner of both 80- and 100-series 'Cruisers, I'd like to offer a few more objective, but still just, opinions:

alaskacruiser said:
...
"<<Why did they change from 6 lug to 5 lug? **Who cares?** >>"

Those types are answers are straight-out dodging the questions- you simply refuse to acknowlege or address certain design changes and aspects of the 100 that may indeed by weaker than the 80.

Having 5 lugs on the 100-series does not automatically and invariably make it weaker. The lugs/studs on the 100- are bigger than on the 80-. A Master Tech in Toyota Fremont (and fellow UZJ-100 owner) told me that in their training class, Toyota said they designed this so that it has inherently less vibration on the wheels. I've also read somewhere (I can't remember where among the library I've managed to collect) that the change to 5 lugs was to prevent owners from interchanging the old wheels with the new, because the 100-series and 105-series as well as the newer 70-series pickup, has different backspacing specs. The 100-series of course has the IFS, while the 70-series changed from front leaf springs to coils, and the 105-series simply has 5 lugs as well because it simplifies the Toyota production line.

So unless you come up with undisputable calculations on the physics of 6-lug vs 5-lug design, will we then believe you that the 80-series 6-lug design is "inherently" stronger. Until then, I guess it's just some popular speculation. :) :) :)

2. And then there's questions like the SF vs. FF axle, which you slyly avoid answering directly because it is, indeed, a weaker design on the 100 in terms of durability, load carrying, and suitability for offroad use:

In response to Aseif's question:
"Why did they change the rear to a semi floater?"

You say simply:
"**Pros and cons to both types.**"

as taken from http://www.off-roadweb.com/tech/0112or_axle/
"The axleshaft in a semi-floating assembly serves two purposes. First, it attaches to the wheel and is used to support the weight of the vehicle and its cargo. Second, the axleshaft must transmit the rotational torque from the differential out to the wheel.

For a full-floater system, the axleshaft only serves to transmit the rotational torque from the differential out to the wheel. It does not carry the weight of the vehicle like a semi-floater does. On a full floater, a spindle is attached to the outer end of the axlehousing. The hub's cap is attached to this spindle and rides on tapered roller bearings. It is this assembly that carries the vehicle weight. As such, a full-floating axle system is considerably stronger than an equivalently sized semi-floating system.

For those of you who carry heavy loads, this means your axle load capacity is greatly increased with a full-floater. Load ratings for similar vehicles with the two different axles are usually significantly different. If you do hard-core 'wheeling on big tires, a full-floater means that your axleshafts can also handle much more loading than a similar semi-floater could because it now must only handle torque loading.

Further advantages of a full-floater include being able to remove a broken axleshaft, yet still have the ability to keep a functional rolling tire on that corner of the vehicle. This can be done since the wheel actually bolts to the hub that rides on the spindle attached to the axlehousing. If the axle has manual locking hubs, it may be possible to unlock the rear hubs for towing a disabled vehicle on the trail or for flat towing over the road."

So what are some of the pros of the SF axle on the 100 that make it a superior vehicle offroad?

The SF axle shafts on the 100-series are simply bigger that on the FF of the 80-series.

3. You also conveniently chose to ignore dclee's post, in which he said:
"Speaking of bullet-proof, have you been seeing all the posts over on 100sCool about T-bar mounts cracking down in Oz? And Toyota won't honor their warranty if the truck has modified suspension (i.e. your basic 2" OME lift). They've never had these types of problems on their 80s or Nissan Patrol GUs (also, coincidentally, a live front axle truck)."

Your response, please?

This, I believe, is a real issue... a chink in the armor of the 100-series defense. Here, when the IFS is constantly bottomed-out by the overweight 'Cruiser, the IFS gives out. However it is an extreme case. It's rare, but it's sad to know that it has happened and can definitely happen again.

Stepping back to see a big picture, this is the result of Toyota's desicion to differentiate the 100-series as more of a luxury off-road vehicle than, for example, the more spartan 70-series.

So, in relationship to the 80- vs 100-series friendly technical discussion, I'll concede that this is one advantage of the 80-series over the 100- when it comes to combining on-road luxury and off-road strength.

4. And, how about this one?
"What happened to the TRD S/C for that motor?"

You say:
"**Who knows and who cares? With my added weight, large tires, the thing still drives like a sports truck and climbs hills easier than other Cruisers WITH superchargers.**"

The Landcruiser's V8 engine could not reliably handle the S/C, that's why it was removed from the market, as evidenced by CDan's non-statement and 97FZJ's post. Why not address the weaknesses instead of very obviously skirting around them?

Reliability of the 2UZ-FE? How did you deduce that? I called up TRD USA myself, several times asking for the S/C for my UZJ-100, and what they keep telling me is that they have a problem with meeting emissions requirements only.

Did you know that the 2UZ-FE has a cast-iron lower block, while the 1FZ-FE is all aluminum? And since all hardcore diesel engines are made from cast-iron as well, what does that lead you to think?

And there is definitely in the archives of 80sCOOL mailing list in Yahoo! Groups that a 2UZ-FE engine has been tested by Dutch enthusiasts to have genererated as much as 1000hp before it exploded. I seem to remember that it was for a car meant for the Paris-Dakkar rally. Meanwhile, the fastest FZJ-80 I know has "only" less than 800hp --and it's owned by an Arab sheik who races in the desert.

A tip- if you're really trying to objectively explain the advantages of the 100 over the 80, try responding to the tougher questions instead of either avoiding them completely or giving non-answers. Also, don't be so unwilling to admit the weaker points of the 100- it is a great rig, but I think it has more weak points than you are willing to admit. Just my .02! :)

I hope my answers can live up to your expectations? :) :) :)
 
drexx said:
Reliability of the 2UZ-FE? How did you deduce that? I called up TRD USA myself, several times asking for the S/C for my UZJ-100, and what they keep telling me is that they have a problem with meeting emissions requirements only.

The 2UZ-FE were quietly pulled from the shelf by TRD due to the lower end not being able to handle the SC. It has NOTHING to do with emission but that is the story they are telling everyone.

Did you know that the 2UZ-FE has a cast-iron lower block, while the 1FZ-FE is all aluminum? And since all hardcore diesel engines are made from cast-iron as well, what does that lead you to think?

1FZ-FE has iron block and aluminum head. Toyota never made a productional aluminum block for the 1FZ-FE.

And there is definitely in the archives of 80sCOOL mailing list in Yahoo! Groups that a 2UZ-FE engine has been tested by Dutch enthusiasts to have genererated as much as 1000hp before it exploded. I seem to remember that it was for a car meant for the Paris-Dakkar rally. Meanwhile, the fastest FZJ-80 I know has "only" less than 800hp --and it's owned by an Arab sheik who races in the desert.
[/]

While there are a lot improvements in the 2UZ-FE over the 1FZ-FE, the 2UZ is still a baseline 1UZ-FE engine from the Lexus LS400, with an iron block and modified intake runners. The 4.7l is the limit of the engine design (over-bore/stroke) and it still retained the (IMO) vulnerable timing belt from the 1UZ. There has been a lot of talks on the design spec of the 1FZ-FE for 300km, never heard of anything similar for the 2UZ.



John
 
dclee said:
It's all relative. Someone else could very well say "What kind of an ass would drill a 3" hole in a perfectly good fender of a $75,000 investment for something that is of as questionable benefit as a snorkel?" Now, since we're talking about it, I do know of one gentleman who has taken his 100 on this trail (though not up on Volkswagon rock), but he talks much less out of said ass than some...

Size, despite what you say, is not the main downfall of the 100. If you're really so hung up on size, you should be driving a 40. The ease of being able to put a lift on a SFA, despite what you say, is not the main advantage of such a setup. In fact, for myself I would say that ease of lift-ability is the least of my concerns. But ARTICULATION and STRENGTH are more important, and the SFA design has that all over IFS, all things being equal. Look at all the A-arms cracking in Australia right now.

I have a 100. I love it. It is an extremely strong, durable, quiet, comfortable, capable wagon. But I am not ashamed to admit that the 100 is not quite as capable off-road as the 80, in almost all conditions. And I am also not ashamed to admit that the 80 is not quite up to the trail prowess of, say, a UNIMOG. Demagoguery and idol (100) worship is of little use, IMHO. It's like they taught us the first day of karate class way back in my hazy memory: "No matter how good you think you are, never pick a fight, `cause there's always someone out there who's better than you."

Yer funny! :D Hey.....do you have your 100 3-inch lifted, 35-inch tires, front and rear lockers? If not, you draw a subjective conclusion about off-road ability rather than an objective one. Bring on an 80 with the same mods and we'll see where he can go that my 100 can't. Been there, do that all the time here in AZ. :D
And no....no 40. If I desired a uncomfortable beast I'd get a Rubicon and add Dana 60 axles to it.
 
Oh, one last thing.......In AZ, Doron crossed the Bill Williams River in his 100. It was so deep when he got to the other side he checked his air box and it was full of water. The water was coming way over his hood. We decided then and there to snorkel our rigs. Since we travel in those areas it was a SMART decision for us, not one an "ass" would make. Can you imagine what a motor would cost?
 
dclee said:
It's all relative. Someone else could very well say "What kind of an ass would drill a 3" hole in a perfectly good fender of a $75,000 investment for something that is of as questionable benefit as a snorkel?" Now, since we're talking about it, I do know of one gentleman who has taken his 100 on this trail (though not up on Volkswagon rock), but he talks much less out of said ass than some...

Size, despite what you say, is not the main downfall of the 100. If you're really so hung up on size, you should be driving a 40. The ease of being able to put a lift on a SFA, despite what you say, is not the main advantage of such a setup. In fact, for myself I would say that ease of lift-ability is the least of my concerns. But ARTICULATION and STRENGTH are more important, and the SFA design has that all over IFS, all things being equal. Look at all the A-arms cracking in Australia right now.

I have a 100. I love it. It is an extremely strong, durable, quiet, comfortable, capable wagon. But I am not ashamed to admit that the 100 is not quite as capable off-road as the 80, in almost all conditions. And I am also not ashamed to admit that the 80 is not quite up to the trail prowess of, say, a UNIMOG. Demagoguery and idol (100) worship is of little use, IMHO. It's like they taught us the first day of karate class way back in my hazy memory: "No matter how good you think you are, never pick a fight, `cause there's always someone out there who's better than you."

I dont know if that makes sense to me. Whne i built my truck i didnt want to cut any holes in it or dill anything becasue i wanted to change it back to stock if i should sell it (god forbid) Drilling a hole in an easily replacable part doesnt (to me) make one an ass?
 
Cruiserhead05 said:
This thread is awesome, i must agree. I love it. So i really am not to oppinionated about this subject, i think the 100's are awesome trucks but honestly would prefer an 80, i like how you can feel the weight of th vehicle and being a highschool student and with not nearly the amount of money as some of the people on here, There is one point im not sure has been brought up. PRICE. all i know is that you can find a fully loaded and locked 80 for as low as 6k now and that means something to me, the cheapest ive seen a 100 was 16k and that was totally stock with 120k miles......for 16k you can get a pretty capable 80. just a point that i wanted to make, also i'll be a little more impressed when i start seeing alot more 100's with the mileage that the 80's are getting....dont get me wrong though...i think the 100's are awesome and have alot of respect for them

To compare 100s vs 80s price wise is pretty pointless
example when my lx450 came out new it was something like $53,000 9 years later im looking at say $9,000. its simply a matter of time. think of all the people out there that laughed at peoplee who took 80s wheeling. they all said ahh there just grocery getters there not like the 60s,55s,40s and now there are tons of them out there as trail rigs. give the 100 some time and soon they will be just a cheap as 80s are now. when cost goes down then the chance for exploration of the vehicals capabilities will go up.
 
ShottsUZJ100 said:
Oh, one last thing.......In AZ, Doron crossed the Bill Williams River in his 100. It was so deep when he got to the other side he checked his air box and it was full of water. The water was coming way over his hood. We decided then and there to snorkel our rigs. Since we travel in those areas it was a SMART decision for us, not one an "ass" would make. Can you imagine what a motor would cost?


So... You're willing to take your $75K investment into one type of environment that requires mods to prevent damage, but not another? (BIG BOULDERS). If not, then don't claim your truck is God's gift to four-wheeling. I know I don't claim my 80 is.

Look, I know you wheel that 100 hard, and I respect you for it, but sometimes you remind me of some evangelist on TV spouting the same thing over and over without the ability to step back and be objective. Usually I ignore it, but sometimes something gets said that just plain irks me!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
lx450landcruiser said:
I dont know if that makes sense to me. Whne i built my truck i didnt want to cut any holes in it or dill anything becasue i wanted to change it back to stock if i should sell it (god forbid) Drilling a hole in an easily replacable part doesnt (to me) make one an ass?

I never said it did. I was replying to HIS assertion that someone who would take their expensive Cruiser on a trail like the Rubicon is an ass. My point was, what he might deem as appropriate (cutting a hole for a snorkel) other people might not (do a search on this board for discussions on the pros and cons of snorkels). Similarly, what someone else might deem appropriate (taking their 100 on the Rubicon) apparently he thinks makes them an ass. It's all about levels and what you are comfortable with. But you shouldn't tout your truck as the end-all-be-all if it's really not, and NONE of our trucks are. They are always works in progress.

BTW, I do have a 3" hole in my 80's fender... :)
 
Last edited:
I suppose that makes for sense to me then what was said before, I guess it must have just been the way I perceived what u were saying. However I don’t think Shotts is saying his truck is the best almighty truck around, I think he’s rather saying he feels its a very capable rig to the point where it can be compared to an 80. Whether it can or not opinions seem to vary. I think we have all heard people contest to how badass their truck is. Go to any 4wheel drive site and look at what people say. In the end were all just being cruiser heads and vocally announcing our biased opinions of land cruisers and there superiority over any other vehicle. Its all in fun and games
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom