Anyone who upgraded from an 80 have regrets?

[Greg B]

Landcruiser purists don't like the 100 for a lot of reasons not relating to the whole $$$ truck -> wheeler transition every rig goes through as it ages:

Who made you the voice of the Land Cruiser purists? That’s a little egotistical on your part isn’t it?

1. It's less reliable than the 80 (HG vs. front end, TPS, torsion bars, exhaust manifolds, AHC, etc. etc.)

Let’s talk reliability. What does front end mean? I assume you are talking about the front diff on 98-99’s. This is common knowledge and can be remedied easily with an ARB. The combination of the factory rear locker and an ARB up front is quite capable and cheaper than adding both lockers like your unlocked 80 would require.

TPS, yes this has been a problem for some. If you’re that worried about it, buy a spare and keep it in the vehicle.

Torsion bars don’t break. This is where you show your ignorance. In OZ, there are 100’s suffering from a-arm mounts that are cracking when the suspension bottoms out. This is occurring on the diesel models and can be fixed beforehand if you like. There haven’t been any instances of this in the US. So, moot point.

Exhaust manifolds are an issue and I won’t argue on this one. However, the DIY’ers can pull these and have them welded for not a lot of money.

AHC is actually very capable and has been very reliable thus far. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. It doesn’t come on a LC until 06 so no worries there. And again you’re showing your ignorance on the feature.

The etc. etc. is you over-compensating to add more substance to your post.

2. It has a weaker front end (whether it is cracked torsion bars, CV Joints, or front diffs, it's weaker period)

Again, t-bars don’t crack. The CV joints on the 100 are actually very beefy and have had very few failures. This is an example of Toyota really building the LC to higher standards. I’ve already covered the front diff.

I’m not going to sit here and claim that the IFS on a 100 is as strong as a solid axle on an 80. We all know its not. However, it’s not as weak as you would make it out to be and it has held up for a lot of moderate wheeling around this country. Which is what most people do in an 80 or a 100.

3. It has a weaker rear end (SF vs. FF)

Really, are you an engineer? The SF may be harder to work on or replace in the field, but the thicker SF shafts may make up for the FF’s lighter load. How many rear axles you heard of that broke on a 100?

4. It has no lockers (latest models) or rear only

So what, neither do 92% of the 80’s out there, including yours LOL! ARB makes front and rear lockers for the 80 and 100. Move on.

5. It has bland styling compared to all previous Landcruisers, which actually had some character

This is nothing more than your opinion. I think the 100 is the best looking LC ever built and it is what converted me from Land Rovers. This is you shooting off at the mouth over something that is completely subjective.

6. It has much less than half the lifetime on water pumps and timing belts (timing chains + 80s water pumps routinely go to 250-300k+, BTW)

So what, it’s preventative maintenance. You act like you have to do this every oil change or something. It’s every 90 THOUSAND MILES. I’ll gladly pay $600 every six years to drive this V8, which has more power, more torque, better gas mileage, oh yeah and its smoother and quieter than an 80.

7. Limited front wheel travel (IFS)

Hasn’t this horse been beat enough yet?:shotts:

8. A much larger percentage of 100s are driven by status-conscious soccer moms/dads who were just "too good" for a minivan, which would have been the safer / more practical choice for "wheeling" their kids to the Starbucks and soccer games.

So what, that’s exactly the same thing that happened when the 80 came out. Hell, 90% of the 80’s out there are still driven by soccer mom’s. I think that's pretty testimony of the 80, people own them for a long time whether they wheel them or not. They are great SUV's and no one here is saying that they're not.

In the words of the head of a *very* well-known LC shop here in SoCal: "what are my thoughts on the 100? It's a great station wagon!" He also said he thought they were less reliable than 80s considering what he'd seen in his shop- he sees mostly wheeled rigs, and said the 100 just can't stand up to the abuse like an 80 can.

Wow, that's some really good facts you're throwing out. Now who's being "indirect"?

Bottom line is, you've given very few reasons the 80 is "better" at anything except the hardest of trails in the country which a very few percentage of owners actually run. For the rest of us, what is so great about the 80 over the 100 that isn't completely subjective?

 

[Greg B]

tab- You seem to want to make this about "my truck" (unlocked) vs. "your truck". A little childish, but OK you asked for it: funny you choose to talk so much about the benefits of ATRAC and my lack of lockers on stock trucks when:

1. your truck isn't even equipped with ATRAC

Mine is. How's your unlocked axles gonna do against my TRAC?

2. your model year (and the one before it) were only available with a rear locker (no front). It was available as an OPTION only, just like the 80s. Most 98-99 100s are unlocked.

Actually, more of the 98-99's had the rear locker than the 80's that had both lockers. And as we all know, a rear locker is going to be much better than NO locker.

3. your truck has a very weak 2 pinion front diff (see the "front diff explosion / ford aerostar" thread for more). To be honest, in the mud example you presented, I'd be tiptoeing out there with a 2-pinion'd 100- with all that wheel-spin, come down wrong and that front diff is a disaster waiting to happen.

How about mine then? I've got TRAC and a 4 pinion diff. The TRAC limits the wheel spin and I have a stronger diff.

4. your truck has no viscous coupler in the center diff, so I'm afraid you'd be stuck with 1 wheel drive in high range while a non-locked "standard" 80 would have 2.

All 100's have center diff lock that can be modified to work in High range too. Try again.

Wow, so far in this "stock" comparo, your unlocked, un-ATRAC'd, 2-pinion-front-diff'd, un-VC-TC'd 100 just isn't looking all that hot.


You're not looking so good now with an 01 are you?

To quote your own line: "In conclusion, I still want a fully locked 80 (and I can and will do an OEM F/R locker retrofit- can you? Oh...sorry. But I'm not gonna take a bunch of crap from someone with an un-ATRAC'd, 2-pinion-diff'd 100 either critiquing a 80 for being close to a minivan when in fact their vehicle is much closer."

How about some crap from me then? How about you put a basic OME lift and 33's on your 80? That way we'll be even. Then you show me how much farther you can go in your almighty 80 than I can in my 100.

BTW- the percentage of locked 80s out there is thought to be 8%.

So what 6% or 8%, does this really matter? How many 2000+ 100's don't have TRAC?

Moreover, you never really addressed any of the other points I made in the "Landcruiser purists" post- the minivan comparo just struck a nerve, I guess. Sorry about that- believe it or not, this is all in good fun. It's the norm for previous-series LC owners to rag on newer LC-owners since most of the newer owners are still in the latte stage (present company excluded), while a larger percentage of previous-series owners are more into the wheeling.

For someone that says that it's all in good fun, you sure don't react like it when someone questions you. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. back at you.

 

[tabraha]

Sorry about that- believe it or not, this is all in good fun. It's the norm for previous-series LC owners to rag on newer LC-owners since most of the newer owners are still in the latte stage (present company excluded), while a larger percentage of previous-series owners are more into the wheeling.

If it's all in good fun then that's fine. Me and a good amount of others seem to have misinterpreted you. I usually pick up on the web prodding but I missed your sarcasm.

As far as the statement about my truck not even having ATRAC, you forgot the fact that 100% of LX's were equipped with a LSD as standard equipment for the first 2 years, slightly above the 94% of 80's with absolutely nothing. Once ATRAC was introduced the LSD was obsoleted and from that point on 100% of 100's had at least ATRAC standard equipped. That's why I stand by the fact that a standard 100 has more traction than a standard 80. That's basically all I was trying to get across, didn't mean for it to come through as a personal thing either. I'm a little bleary eyed right now, closing on a new house this week and have been tying up loose ends. (edit: attempting to tie up loose ends) We don't have a smiley for sleepy.

 

[kahuna]

A review that came out when the 100 was new in 1998:

"Which brings us to today.

Even as the Toyota Tundra, the first big-truck (read V8) Japanese product to challenge US manufacturers, was still a gleam in some designer's eye, Toyota dropped a version of the Lexus V8 into the Land Cruiser.

In 1998, it added a stiffer, nine-crossmember frame. Torsional rigidity went up, and, with the addition of front suspension that added double wishbones, trailer arms and a stabilizer bar, and a 4-link rear setup that includes coil springs and a stabilizer bar, handling went from mystifying to quietly subtle.

Outside, it still looks like a stiff box - albeit with rounded corners. Its flared fenders give it a muscular crouch that befits what it will really do. Integrated fog lights and color-coordinated front and rear bumpers and side moldings are in keeping with what is essentially an understated look.

Inside, the jammed interior seating is long gone. Up front, firm leather buckets support you thigh, side, and back. The middle seats, which split 60/40, are also firm and leather and hold three adults with plenty of support and room. In the rear cargo area, a three-person - as in children - bench seat unfolds in halves from opposing walls. This means you can carry eight people, but with those rear seats in use, there is no room for gear. In the front rows, room is more than ample and headroom abounds.

Throughout the cabin, there are myriad storage bins and slots and pockets. Every seat has a cupholder, which will please aficionados of the where-do-I-put-my-bottle-of-water school.

Controls are large and accessible, and I was impressed with the size of even the secondary buttons for the audio system.

So you ride in comfort and convenience, but you also ride in safety. This is, after all its permutations, a very safe rig. Dual air bags up front, side-impact door beams. Four-wheel, antilock disc brakes bring its two-tons-plus to quick, straight stops. ABS and antiskid aid this, of course.

On the highway - previously the Land Cruiser's terrain of inconvenience - it was smooth, supple, and surprisingly quiet. That's because the straining 6 is gone and the Lexus-based V8 has replaced it.

In its earlier incarnation, it was the Lexus 4.0. Here, it's the 4.7-liter, 32-valve version - delivering just over 15 miles per gallon, much of that travel spent fully loaded with people and ski gear. Coupled with a 4-speed electronically controlled transmission, it is sedan quiet and smooth on the highway (and so like the Tundra pickup truck) that a blindfolded rider would be hardpressed to say in what type of vehicle they were riding.

I remember my first Land Cruiser (and wish I had it back); remember a New Year's Eve when we took it up a rough road to a tower atop a New Hampshire mountain and then down no defined road and, miraculously at the time, safely home. I suspect, swathed in leather and luxury, I could do the same with this year's model, and that says something for both tradition and evolution.

Nice touches

- The air system that runs through the ceiling. Great use of normally unused space.

- The easy-to-grab triangular grips that help you hoist yourself out of the rear seats.

Annoyances

- The lack of space in the console bin between the front seats. I'm not sure why this varies so much from manufacturer to manufacturer."

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

A review that came out when the 100 was new in 1998:

"Which brings us to today.

Even as the Toyota Tundra, the first big-truck (read V8) Japanese product to challenge US manufacturers, was still a gleam in some designer's eye, Toyota dropped a version of the Lexus V8 into the Land Cruiser.

In 1998, it added a stiffer, nine-crossmember frame. Torsional rigidity went up, and, with the addition of front suspension that added double wishbones, trailer arms and a stabilizer bar, and a 4-link rear setup that includes coil springs and a stabilizer bar, handling went from mystifying to quietly subtle.

Outside, it still looks like a stiff box - albeit with rounded corners. Its flared fenders give it a muscular crouch that befits what it will really do. Integrated fog lights and color-coordinated front and rear bumpers and side moldings are in keeping with what is essentially an understated look.

Inside, the jammed interior seating is long gone. Up front, firm leather buckets support you thigh, side, and back. The middle seats, which split 60/40, are also firm and leather and hold three adults with plenty of support and room. In the rear cargo area, a three-person - as in children - bench seat unfolds in halves from opposing walls. This means you can carry eight people, but with those rear seats in use, there is no room for gear. In the front rows, room is more than ample and headroom abounds.

Throughout the cabin, there are myriad storage bins and slots and pockets. Every seat has a cupholder, which will please aficionados of the where-do-I-put-my-bottle-of-water school.

Controls are large and accessible, and I was impressed with the size of even the secondary buttons for the audio system.

So you ride in comfort and convenience, but you also ride in safety. This is, after all its permutations, a very safe rig. Dual air bags up front, side-impact door beams. Four-wheel, antilock disc brakes bring its two-tons-plus to quick, straight stops. ABS and antiskid aid this, of course.

On the highway - previously the Land Cruiser's terrain of inconvenience - it was smooth, supple, and surprisingly quiet. That's because the straining 6 is gone and the Lexus-based V8 has replaced it.

In its earlier incarnation, it was the Lexus 4.0. Here, it's the 4.7-liter, 32-valve version - delivering just over 15 miles per gallon, much of that travel spent fully loaded with people and ski gear. Coupled with a 4-speed electronically controlled transmission, it is sedan quiet and smooth on the highway (and so like the Tundra pickup truck) that a blindfolded rider would be hardpressed to say in what type of vehicle they were riding.

I remember my first Land Cruiser (and wish I had it back); remember a New Year's Eve when we took it up a rough road to a tower atop a New Hampshire mountain and then down no defined road and, miraculously at the time, safely home. I suspect, swathed in leather and luxury, I could do the same with this year's model, and that says something for both tradition and evolution.

Nice touches

- The air system that runs through the ceiling. Great use of normally unused space.

- The easy-to-grab triangular grips that help you hoist yourself out of the rear seats.

Annoyances

- The lack of space in the console bin between the front seats. I'm not sure why this varies so much from manufacturer to manufacturer."

SLAM!

 

[subspd]

If you are REALLY want to wheel 90% of the time get a 4runner/fj/taco, on the trails size matters and that means SMALLER is better. (on the trail...) But if you want a do everything well, including haul a trailer and people, then look no further than a 100 I loved the fj80's they were the best Toyota offered in the 90's but now there is no doubt that the best all around 4wd belongs to the 100's I have made runs all through central and south america in my 100 and I would never think of wishing I had my 80 while on those trips and if you have ever visited a 3rd world country you know how bad the roads and trails can get.

My point is this that all of this flamming is really worthless becuase neither the 80 or the 100 is built to be a true dedicated trail rig, they both have 7 SEATS! that should say something. But the 100 is just a more up to date hauler than the 80 and the 4runner's and tacos will always be the better trail rigs because of there smaller size. I say enjoy what you got and run what you got we all have different circumstances so we all have different rides, but at least we all have great trucks!!!
Long live the LANDCRUISER!!!!!!!!!!! Oh I guess the new fj as well.

Oh and as for the 3rd world usage of the 100, you must not have visited any... they are treated like Gods of the road, most just can't afford even a stripped one.

 

[alaskacruiser]

Who made you the voice of the Land Cruiser purists? That’s a little egotistical on your part isn’t it?

Nobody and nope. I am merely restating various complaints I've heard about the 100 series from self-described LC-purists over the years on various forums. My, my...a little touchy, aren't we?


1. It's less reliable than the 80 (HG vs. front end, TPS, torsion bars, exhaust manifolds, AHC, etc. etc.)

Let’s talk reliability. What does front end mean? I assume you are talking about the front diff on 98-99’s. This is common knowledge and can be remedied easily with an ARB.

So YES, the front end is weaker than that of an 80.

TPS, yes this has been a problem for some. If you’re that worried about it, buy a spare and keep it in the vehicle.

So YES, the TPS is a reliability problem not present in the 80.

Torsion bars don’t break. This is where you show your ignorance. In OZ, there are 100’s suffering from a-arm mounts that are cracking when the suspension bottoms out. This is occurring on the diesel models and can be fixed beforehand if you like. There haven’t been any instances of this in the US. So, moot point.

OK A-arm mounts, not torsion bars. Been a while since I read the thread. Point is: how many front suspension problems did you hear with diesel 80 series? None. Why? Because they could handle the extra weight load of the diesel engine in addition to an ARB, winch, etc. without any problems. The very fact that the A-arm mounts are cracking on the HDJ100s indicates the front suspension is weaker than that of an 80 series.

So YES, the front suspension is weaker than that of an 80.

Exhaust manifolds are an issue and I won’t argue on this one. However, the DIY’ers can pull these and have them welded for not a lot of money.

So YES, the exhaust manifold is a reliability problem not present in the 80.

AHC is actually very capable and has been very reliable thus far. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. It doesn’t come on a LC until 06 so no worries there. And again you’re showing your ignorance on the feature.

People with Lexus LX470s don't have much of a choice, now, do they? Do a search on AHC in the 100 forums, and you'll find a fair share of complaints regarding AHC problems.

So YES, the AHC is a reliability problem not present in the 80.

The etc. etc. is you over-compensating to add more substance to your post.

GregB- You seem to like the words "overcompensating", "ignorance", and "shooting off". This is you trying to make the discussion personal instead of discussing the facts and issues at hand. This is also you resorting to name-calling seemingly because you cannot make your point using just the facts and issues at hand.

The CV joints on the 100 are actually very beefy and have had very few failures. This is an example of Toyota really building the LC to higher standards. I’ve already covered the front diff.

See this thread:
https://forum.ih8mud.com/showpost.php?p=517441&postcount=64


3. It has a weaker rear end (SF vs. FF)

Really, are you an engineer? The SF may be harder to work on or replace in the field, but the thicker SF shafts may make up for the FF’s lighter load. How many rear axles you heard of that broke on a 100?

Actually yes, I am an engineer, and I ask questions when design changes are made. Ask yourself this question: why do you think Toyota switched from a FF to a SF from the 80 to the 100? To make it stronger? To make it easier to service on the trail? Or to save themselves some money?


5. It has bland styling compared to all previous Landcruisers, which actually had some character

This is nothing more than your opinion. I think the 100 is the best looking LC ever built and it is what converted me from Land Rovers. This is you shooting off at the mouth over something that is completely subjective.

I'd love to do a poll on this one. Most 100 series owners I know admit to preferring the styling of an 80 even if they prefer the 100 overall.


6. It has much less than half the lifetime on water pumps and timing belts (timing chains + 80s water pumps routinely go to 250-300k+, BTW)

So what, it’s preventative maintenance. You act like you have to do this every oil change or something. It’s every 90 THOUSAND MILES. I’ll gladly pay $600 every six years to drive this V8, which has more power, more torque, better gas mileage, oh yeah and its smoother and quieter than an 80.

So YES, the lifetime of the water pump and timing belt are less than 1/3 that of the 80.


7. Limited front wheel travel (IFS)

Hasn’t this horse been beat enough yet?

So YES, the front wheel travel is limited compared to that of an 80.


In the words of the head of a *very* well-known LC shop here in SoCal: "what are my thoughts on the 100? It's a great station wagon!" He also said he thought they were less reliable than 80s considering what he'd seen in his shop- he sees mostly wheeled rigs, and said the 100 just can't stand up to the abuse like an 80 can.

Wow, that's some really good facts you're throwing out. Now who's being "indirect"?

Ever think maybe I don't want to reveal who said this because I haven't gotten his permission, and he works on quite a few 100s andf I don't want to affect his business? I'm being indirect with a purpose. You were just being indirect. You seem to ignore the content of the quote, though, (I wonder why?) which comes from a man with a lot of experience working on 80s and 100s.

Bottom line is, you've given very few reasons the 80 is "better" at anything except the hardest of trails in the country which a very few percentage of owners actually run. For the rest of us, what is so great about the 80 over the 100 that isn't completely subjective?

Bottom line is- I've pointed out several weak points of the 100 relative to the 80 and you've admitted to most of them. This discussion is even easier than those I've had with Shotts- but very similar, in fact. Whenever I point out a weakness he says "so what?? all you have to do is...blah blah blah" and so do you. What he doesn't see is that he's admitting these weaknesses exist in the first place relative to the 80, and so are you.

My work here is done. Thanks for an entertaining discussion. Not quite up to par with Shotts, but still pretty good!

 

[Imola Red]

<deleted by mod>

 

[e9999]

well, evidently, this thread has run its course....

Over and Out!