80 vs 4runner - which is better? (1 Viewer)

[Naphtali]

I recognize that LC owners do not consider this to be significant,

B U T . . .

annual cost of ownership -- how much more will a 1997 LC/LX450 cost than a 1999-2000 4Runner w/5-speed manual? Not just fuel, but insurance, routine dealer maintenance, repair parts, etc. I've got a feeling that difference will be substantial.

I'm moving to Montana in about ten days. I've got appointments to see an LX450 and a 2000 4Runner 5-speed. Asking prices are essentially the same. Miles on odometers are essentially the same -- less than 75K. But I'm concerned about availability of service and cost of service for LX450.

I'm also concerned about reliability and longevity of so many "power" accessories on both trucks.

 

[firetruck41]

Just sold by 93 4runner, and bought a 96 LX450, insurance goes up about $15 a month, with my 8k miles I drive a year, the 2-3mpg difference is negligible (relatively speaking, for me). Most hard parts are interchangeable with the LC and these are not particularly difficult to work on, if your doing dealer (over)recommended maintenance, at a dealer and paying retail prices for parts, it will probably be a substantial difference, but if you go it on your own I think it will be negligible.

 

[smokethedog]

Got both, my wife's 99 4runner, my 95 LC. The 4runner is an excellent SUV. The LC is a tank, I would not label it as an SUV, it is SO much more...

Mileage? the 4runner gets 19-22 mpg, the LC gets 13-15 mpg (with TRD SC).

Reliability? nothing but general maintenance on both. LC has 130K, 4runner has 140k. Toyota runs circles around any other manufacturer on this.

Comfort? How big'a boy are ya? I'm 6' and much more comfortable in my LC. The 4runner is tight for me, seat all the way back makes the steering wheel to far away. Also, my legs get cramps sitting in the 4runner for over an hour or so, dont have that issue in the LC. I guess the 4runner drives a bit "sportier", but who gives a crap about that in a 4x4.

hth

 

[kemasa]

One thing to consider is if the air cond. is the R12, it changed in 1993 (mine has R134a). The 93 LC will not have air bags and so you will not get a slight discount on insurance.

Personally I think the LC is a much more solid vehicle and I think it will last longer than the 4Runner. One thing that I found when looking was that the 4Runners were sold much faster and also seemed more expensive than a LC.

I am not sure of how the 97 4Runner is, but the LC is very quiet on the highway and very good off road, but you will need to do a spring lift since it sits too low in stock form, but with the OME springs it rides much better.

Given the choice of the two, since the mileage is the same, I would go with the LC.

 

[Naphtali]

smokethedog:

I'm 5 feet 9 inches and 140 pounds. I've futzed around in FJ80, FZJ80, and 3d generation 4Runner. I can get comfortable in any.

Something I omitted from my reply-query here because I didn't realize the thread would move in this direction. The 2000 4Runner is a V-6 5-speed manual transmission w/ac.

I don't know how high you are in Utah. I'll be at about 4700 feet. Normally aspirated gasoline engines lose efficiency at altitude. I expect fuel efficiency to be (4R) 15–18, and (LX) 12–13. I do not know which will be easier to drive -- that is, with less power available at altitude will either cruise over the mountains to Helena from Missoula? I ask because I took a fully loaded Bronco II over Tehachapi pass at Arizona-California border. I began at 75 mph and cruised up the hill at 35–40 in 3d gear and 5000 rpms, emergency blinkers on the whole way. Except for being gutless at altitude, it was a nice truck.

 

[smokethedog]

I live at 5600', with a 7500' mountain pass to cross to get just about anywhere. Both of our Toyota's do well going across the mtn passes around here. Neither are rockets, but they hold their own. The 4rnr is an auto.

It's not unusual for us to wake a foot of snow or more on the roads around here in the winter. Normally, we both can get to where we need to go. On one occasion, Christmas day a couple of years ago, we were returning from the airport with a load of family. Snow was dumping like mad. There was a 4' snow drift at the end of the driveway, I would have never gotten through there if we were in the 4rnr. I locked the diff's and plowed through it.

The 4rnr will do you well, the LC will save your butt when things get xtreme.

Oh, one more thing. Either way you go, if you are planning on a lot of snow driving like I have here in UT, I would recommend not getting a mud tire. Others may disagree with me, but just voicing my experience. I had GY MT-R's on my LC when I bought it. I slid like crazy all over the place. It was so bad I replaced them before they were worn out (not to mention they road like crap on the road). Went with Nitto Terra Grapplers. They do great in the snow. Getting ready to put a set on my wifes 4rnr.

l8r

 

[Naphtali]

smokethedog:

Going over the passes in western Washington, I've come to rely on chains. Stevens Pass requires chains in specific circumstances.

I agree that narrow tires are better in snow than mudders.

I'm relieved to read that you're higher than Missoula. Your mpg and performance comments will hold for my new place.

 

[smokethedog]

Oh yeah, just so you know, the 4rnr is still stock, except for tires (265/75R16's) and rancho shocks. The LC has the junk listed in my signature.

 

[JimmyK]

I have owned a 95' 4Runner (V6 3.0L, old underpowerd engine) since almost new and now a 96' 80 and they are both awesome vehicles. The 4Runner was great on tight trails, but trying to get 3 adults in the back seat comfortably is near impossible. The 80 is much wider and 3 adults can sit comfortably in the back and also you have the 3rd row if equipped.

If you are going to do serious off-roading the sold front axle on the 80 will give you more flex and out perform the 4Runners IFS.

My 4Runner was exceptionally reliable for the 160k I owned it and I am figuring the LC will be the same (just purchased 12/04).

You need to ask yourself what will you be using the vehicle for. The 4Runner will give you slightly better gas mileage, but the 80 will give you more room for hauling people and cargo, plus exceptional off-road ability. My 80 feels like I am driving a Sherman tank and I know it has been designed to be used worldwide under extreme conditions.

Best of luck,

Russell

Got both 99 4Runner Rear Diff Lock
96 LX450 RR and FR lock

$runner is much easier to wheel on tighter trails the cruiser can be very bus like on the smaller trails especially with twists and turns.

 

[BOUNDER]

I posted this in the truck forum, but I wanted to repost in the "80 forum" to get the opinions of 80 owners...sorry if there is overlap...

After a lot of scouring internet pages and newspaper pages (and getting advice on boards like this! ) I'm getting close to getting a truck...BUT I still need help deciding. So...let me know your opinions:

candidate #1) 97 4runner 160k miles, rear locker, timing belt replaced, leather, overall great condition - asking $8000 but seems willing to negotiate as he wants to sell it soon!

candidate #2) 93 Land Cruiser - also 160k miles, factory lockers front and rear, also great condition, leather, etc. - $7000

The Cruiser is slightly further away from me (read airplane expense) so I figure they come out about the same.

Opinions on which would be a better buy? I know, it's probably up to me..but are there opinions on which is better offroad, longer lasting, better for gas (HA!)...you get the idea...all opinions valued!!!

TIA
Kevin

With all due respect, it doesn't make sense to ask this question. A Land Cruiser is not a 4Runner - not even close. The LC, by far, is the superior vehicle - comparable to a tank. The 4Runner is a great truck - I drove one for years - but it's not like the LC I drive now - also for years. Buy the LC and know why you're buying it - start with the frame and go from there. LC all the way.

 

[smokethedog]

With all due respect, it doesn't make sense to ask this question. A Land Cruiser is not a 4Runner - not even close. The LC, by far, is the superior vehicle - comparable to a tank. The 4Runner is a great truck - I drove one for years - but it's not like the LC I drive now - also for years. Buy the LC and know why you're buying it - start with the frame and go from there. LC all the way.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

 

[fj803fe]

I recognize that LC owners do not consider this to be significant,

B U T . . .

annual cost of ownership -- how much more will a 1997 LC/LX450 cost than a 1999-2000 4Runner w/5-speed manual? Not just fuel, but insurance, routine dealer maintenance, repair parts, etc. I've got a feeling that difference will be substantial.

--If your smart you'll pay less. Buy from private seller, rig cost $2000, Lifesaver --stuck to the front mat...$6K.

I'm moving to Montana in about ten days. I've got appointments to see an LX450 and a 2000 4Runner 5-speed. Asking prices are essentially the same. Miles on odometers are essentially the same -- less than 75K. But I'm concerned about availability of service and cost of service for LX450.

--Service yourself

I'm also concerned about reliability and longevity of so many "power" accessories on both trucks.

--I have 3 cruisers and a fourth on the way 71, 84, 92, 00. 84 has --375K-everything works, 92-180K-everything works, 00-everything works, 71' --55 about under ownership-250K everything works.

--"4Bummer" you are quaranteed a few grand out of pocket at 150K. --LOOOOOVE timing 'chains'

BTW-about the R12 coolant-it cools better, but the AC on the 91-92 are under recall to convert. Not sure about the 1FZs.

-Pierto
-

 

[baxter650]

When we were looking for a new truck we to were looking at 4 runners.Came across the Cruiser at a dealership. One look underneath (no IFS) & a test drive later no contest. Very happy with our Cruiser.