Anyone who upgraded from an 80 have regrets?

[hoser]

hoser- almost forgot the rear seat DVD entertainment system for the kiddies in the back seat, which I hear is also a very popular option on minivans.

Haha, yeah, I don't have kids yet but as soon as I do, you'll see that Rear DVD mod in my signature line.

 

[e9999]

If a CDL does nothing for you off road vs. an open center diff, then you don't go off road.

you think 80s don't have a CDL, maybe?

 

[Jim_Chow]

I believe there's an overseas rear air kit for the 80. Also, for a 100-series SAS, I know it's been done w/ a LC 78 axle housing using front coils. The LC80 axle housing may be too narrow. You might also need custom oil pan unless you lift a lot or have a TD. I posted pics of two SAS'ed 100's in Japan a while back. It doesn't look as cheap/easy like a SAS on a mini, but I'm sure one could have it done given enough $$$$.

 

[ryanjl]

you think 80s don't have a CDL, maybe?

Sure they do. But only in low-range when in stock form, unless you are wheeling in a 91 or 92.

Having a stock lift on the LX470 helps quite a bit too, as does a little v8 power.

 

[hoser]

I believe there's an overseas rear air kit for the 80. Also, for a 100-series SAS, I know it's been done w/ a LC 78 axle housing using front coils. The LC80 axle housing may be too narrow. You might also need custom oil pan unless you lift a lot or have a TD. I posted pics of two SAS'ed 100's in Japan a while back. It doesn't look as cheap/easy like a SAS on a mini, but I'm sure one could have it done given enough $$$$.

I've seen that rear AC mod for the 80 and it is $$$. As for front axle width... the stock 80 series front track is 62.80" and the LC100 is 63.80" wide. The wheel offsets are also 0mm (80) and 60mm (100). So basically, there is a 1/2" difference in width per side plus the 60mm (~2.36") for a total of 2.86" per side. Is my math logical?

Perhaps using 3" wheel adapters that go from the 80 series 6 bolt pattern to the wider 100 series 5 bolt pattern would be cost effective. That way, you could use the stock 100 series wheels all the way around. 3" wheel adapters "sound" bad but really 2.36" of it just brings the wheel offset back to stock (for an 80 series).

I suspect within 2 years, there will be quite a few SAS 100's running around here.

Edit: Well, I guess you COULD just run the 80 series front wheels with the 80 series axle... and the track width would be within 1" of the stock 100 series track width. Would look strange, eh.

 

[dclee]

More powerful engine with slightly better fuel economy - But uses a belt, not a chain...
Better brakes - for a heavier truck...
Rear A/C - This is nice, no argument...
More Rigid frame - Yeah, again, heavier truck - on the UNIMOG, which is more capable than either of these trucks, the two frame rails are actually designed to flex independantly of each other to increases axle articulation, so what does that say...
Better Sound System and possible NAV/DVD - Yup...
Better headlights (Halogen projectors if you get the LX) - Yup...
CDL switch included - But no FF/RR Diff Lock switch, even as an option...
Better sound insulation - Yup...
Actual Cupholders (9 vs. 2?) - Yup...
Usable Armrests - Yup...
More 12V outlets (4 vs. 1) - Yup...
Heated seats - Yup...
Power 3rd row windows - I prefer the sliders, I can actually open them a usable amount...
A roof rack that can be removed without exposing serious rust possibly requiring bodywork or Line-X'ing - But no rain gutters...
Possible Traction Control and Vehicle Skid Control (could not add for any reasonable amount of $$$), - Yup, this is a definate plus...
5-speed tranny, - Yup, but not the SUPER BUS TRANNY (at least on the older 80s)...
Side Air Curtain bags - Yup, nice...

Modify both trucks as said above and in the end, the 100 is going to be nicer. The big downside, as mentioned is the lack of aftermarket parts but that has been changing so much in the last year.

See my responses in red above. I still feel the 100 will never wheel as nice as an 80, until someone figures out the SAS, which cannot be done without a big lift as the oil sump on the engine sits too low. But a lifted SAS 100 with TRAC and three lockers would be a serious machine...

But I agree, having had two 80s, one of them a Collectors Edition, the 100 is definately nicer, drives almost like a nice luxury car. But it lacks the character and uniqueness of the 80, as well as the off-road capability and fix-it-in-the-bush drivetrain design. I see all kinds of similar styling cues in other Toyota SUVs, like the Sequoia, Highlander, and RAV4. When the 80 was new, and even today, there was and is nothing else like it.

I like both, but if there was a breakdown of society tomorrow, the 80 is the one I'd take to run away to the mountains...

 

[hoser]

I see all kinds of similar styling cues in other Toyota SUVs, like the Sequoia, Highlander, and RAV4. When the 80 was new, and even today, there was and is nothing else like it.

Ah, heck, you got me there. The 80 series IS a better looking suv. The exterior/styling has aged well over the last 15 years. I would have liked to have kept both the 80 and the 100. But since I can only have one, it'll be a 100.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

But a lifted SAS 100 with TRAC and three lockers would be a serious machine...

Not unless you shorten the body. The main disadvantage is size, not IFS. The smaller 80 will always have the advantage.

I must call you on a few rediculous arguments you made on the "comments":


More powerful engine with slightly better fuel economy - But uses a belt, not a chain...

***So what?

Better brakes - for a heavier truck...

***Oh my lord! Only 300 pounds heavier though with a zillion times the stopping power...even with a killed engine. You've got to be kidding! The 80's have horrific and dangerous braking systems. We all know that and live with it.

More Rigid frame - Yeah, again, heavier truck - on the UNIMOG, which is more capable than either of these trucks, the two frame rails are actually designed to flex independantly of each other to increases axle articulation, so what does that say...

***Can you say...exaggerate? 300 pounds heavier (6%) though with a 50% stiffer frame. That stronger frame has a lot to do with quietness, added durability, and ride quality. 300 pounds on a 5200 pound rig is like adding ONE PASSENGER.

Come on Derek. Wheel that '04 of your so you can see the light!

 

[e9999]

snip

I like both, but if there was a breakdown of society tomorrow, the 80 is the one I'd take to run away to the mountains...

if there were a breakdown of society tomorrow, the 40 and 60 owners will come and get *your* 80 to run to the mountains, unless your arsenal is up to par. Of course, the 100 owners will try to drive to the mall for a Latte instead...

 

[hoser]

Why drive to the mall? Next mod up... armrest coffee machine

http://www.gizmag.co.uk/go/5493/

 

[MH_Stevens]

Thanks guys - Seems like keeping the 80 and getting the wife a 100 might be a good idea.

Now I need get back to the 80's forum before anybody finds out I'm over here.

 

[spressomon]

Thanks guys - Seems like keeping the 80 and getting the wife a 100 might be a good idea.

Now I need get back to the 80's forum before anybody finds out I'm over here.

Get back...get back...better get back to where you belong jojo.


And ya better get back before you get too much of a good thing...

 

[dclee]

Not unless you shorten the body. The main disadvantage is size, not IFS. The smaller 80 will always have the advantage.

- Disagree, but that's for another thread. Sure the size is bad, but to use your logic about weight (below), hey, it's only a couple of inches! IFS is by far the limiting factor.

I must call you on a few rediculous arguments you made on the "comments":

Who are you calling black, Mr. Pot? (Or is that just what you've been smoking?)

More powerful engine with slightly better fuel economy - But uses a belt, not a chain...

***So what?

- Oh man, if I gotta explain this... John, do you understand that a belt is made of rubber? Do you know what happens when one snaps and all those pistons and valves suddenly are let loose? Do you wonder why all the elite automobile manufacturers only use chains? (Porsche, Mercedes, etc. - well, Mercedes used to only use chains back when they were a true engineering company and not a marketing company like they are now). The rubber belt makes for a smoother running engine, which is fine in a luxury automobile (remember, the 4.7's origin is in the old Lexus LS400 sedan). Unfortunately, Toyota is also putting belts in their diesels...

Better brakes - for a heavier truck...

***Oh my lord! Only 300 pounds heavier though with a zillion times the stopping power...even with a killed engine. You've got to be kidding! The 80's have horrific and dangerous braking systems. We all know that and live with it.

Talk to Doug Miller about the 80's braking system, he'll give you more technical know-how and real-life testing than you've got in your pinky finger. Bottom line, its performance is nowhere close to "dangerous." Apparently you know it and live with it, but then we all know you live in your own little world anyway! My point was that the braking needed to be more robust to handle the extra weight. 300 pounds is not trivial. Have you ever taken college-level physics? And more importantly, that 300 pounds worth three tenths in the quarter mile!

More Rigid frame - Yeah, again, heavier truck - on the UNIMOG, which is more capable than either of these trucks, the two frame rails are actually designed to flex independantly of each other to increases axle articulation, so what does that say...

***Can you say...exaggerate? 300 pounds heavier (6%) though with a 50% stiffer frame. That stronger frame has a lot to do with quietness, added durability, and ride quality. 300 pounds on a 5200 pound rig is like adding ONE PASSENGER.

Huh? Who do you hang out with? I think you all have a health problem that needs addressing.

Come on Derek. Wheel that '04 of your so you can see the light!

Why, when I can wheel the infinitely superior (off the tarmac) 80 Series?

...

 

[dclee]

if there were a breakdown of society tomorrow, the 40 and 60 owners will come and get *your* 80 to run to the mountains, unless your arsenal is up to par. Of course, the 100 owners will try to drive to the mall for a Latte instead...

Well now, that would be an interesting thread. "Social" firearms and how to employ them, hehe...

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

...

You are hilarious! You're caught up on weight. 300 measly pounds!

Compare my down-sized 80 and LX to a loaded ARB, Slee, roof rack 80. Now that's a valid weight comparison. 5000 vs 6000 pounds. That makes a difference and people can tell that on the trail.

An 80 with an ARB bumper and winch weighs what a 100 does stock. The difference is negligible. Wake up!

Defending the 80's braking system is

 

[SWUtah]

"More powerful engine with slightly better fuel economy - But uses a belt, not a chain...

***So what?

- Oh man, if I gotta explain this... John, do you understand that a belt is made of rubber? Do you know what happens when one snaps and all those pistons and valves suddenly are let loose? Do you wonder why all the elite automobile manufacturers only use chains? (Porsche, Mercedes, etc. - well, Mercedes used to only use chains back when they were a true engineering company and not a marketing company like they are now). The rubber belt makes for a smoother running engine, which is fine in a luxury automobile (remember, the 4.7's origin is in the old Lexus LS400 sedan). Unfortunately, Toyota is also putting belts in their diesels..."

Someone help educate me on this subject?? I thought that most cars/trucks use timing belts because the belt technology has evolved over the years to the point that they are a better alternative then timing chains. Example the 100's call for timing belt changes at 90K miles but seem to have a safety range of double that number. Matter of fact I've never heard of anyone having a broken timing belt on a 100 series. Seems like this isn't an issue with new vehicles?

 

[SWUtah]

"Talk to Doug Miller about the 80's braking system, he'll give you more technical know-how and real-life testing than you've got in your pinky finger."

????

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

"More powerful engine with slightly better fuel economy - But uses a belt, not a chain...

***So what?

- Oh man, if I gotta explain this... John, do you understand that a belt is made of rubber? Do you know what happens when one snaps and all those pistons and valves suddenly are let loose? Do you wonder why all the elite automobile manufacturers only use chains? (Porsche, Mercedes, etc. - well, Mercedes used to only use chains back when they were a true engineering company and not a marketing company like they are now). The rubber belt makes for a smoother running engine, which is fine in a luxury automobile (remember, the 4.7's origin is in the old Lexus LS400 sedan). Unfortunately, Toyota is also putting belts in their diesels..."

Someone help educate me on this subject?? I thought that most cars/trucks use timing belts because the belt technology has evolved over the years to the point that they are a better alternative then timing chains. Example the 100's call for timing belt changes at 90K miles but seem to have a safety range of double that number. Matter of fact I've never heard of anyone having a broken timing belt on a 100 series. Seems like this isn't an issue with new vehicles?

From what I understand, there are many advantages of a replaceable belt vs a timing chain but only one advantage of a chain over a belt. I didn't want to debate him on every point. Becomes to much of a mess.

The luv for the 80-series from many members is noted. I own 2 for god sakes. But Toyota has gained sales and marketshare because they UPGRADE and IMPROVE their models consistently. While purists may be disappointed, the facts show Toyota's decisions pay off for them and their customers.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

"Talk to Doug Miller about the 80's braking system, he'll give you more technical know-how and real-life testing than you've got in your pinky finger."

????

I think his comment here was even more rediculous:

"My point was that the braking needed to be more robust to handle the extra weight."

His sentance should apply to the 80-series, not the 100. He should of written:

"The 80's braking system needed to be more robust to handle the extra weight of the 80."

Toyota got it RIGHT with the 100's brakes. They got it DEAD WRONG with the 80's brakes. The difference between the two could save your life in the same situation.

 

[ryanjl]

Going back to the original question for a second:

I notice that for similar mileage the 97 80's and the 98 100's are real comparable in price now and it is time for me to think ahead to the fall and to be replacing my '97 80 with a 100. Has anyone made this step up and regretted it?

mike

If your driveway pours directly out onto a trail, or if you spend at least 40% of your seat time on the trail, an 80 is definitely superior.

But if your Cruiser is a DD, or if you're like me and have to drive 8 or 9 hours to get to the trail, there's not really any question which vehicle is better.

The 100 will 'do' off-road. Sure, it wont do EVERYTHING with the same effort as an 80. But it will do most of what most people will want to do. And sure, it requires at least $4K in modifications or so to tackle any serious trails (bumpers, sliders, winch, tires, lift..... which is free on an LX470), but not many stock 80's would tackle those trails without those mods either.

If we were talking about 30 year old trail trucks, the 80 is superior. But since we're talking about fairly new daily drivers, especially with the 100 being newer to brand-new, I think the 100 wins.