Anyone who upgraded from an 80 have regrets?

[firetruck41]

We have 2 LX's one is an 80, one is a 100. The wife drives the 100, I drive the 80. I'm happy with that, and would not switch if I could. I really only miss the heated seats, auto dimming mirror, and memory seats from the 100, I prefer the way the 80 drives/handles, and am otherwise happy with it's amenities. The 100 is on road 100%, while the 80 sees only about 1% offroad (will change that some day, I hope).

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Going back to the original question for a second:

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.

WOW...WELL SAID (if I might add that)!

And yes, in stock form, a TRAC controlled LX470 will easily surpass a stock and locked 80 on the trail. Good point!

 

[ryanjl]

And yes, in stock form, a TRAC controlled LX470 will easily surpass a stock and locked 80 on the trail. Good point!

Ehh.... I might not go that far. The size/overhang and IFS disadvantage of the LX470 would hinder it, but the 3" or so lift would help alot. You'd have to lose the low-rider running boards on the LX, or use an 80 with the running boards still on to make it even.

But it could be close.

 

[dclee]

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

Your level of ignorance, quite frankly, astounds me every time I read your drivel. I'm not the one who gets caught up in useless statistics I can't defend. That's your cup of tea. I was making a general point, you are the one who started attacking me with specifics about the weight issue.

For a stock weight 80 Series, its braking system is fine. Or are you talking about a 6000 pound armored up 80 with 35" tires? Of course, I would agree in that case the brakes may be perceived as inadequate, because you've now taken the truck outside of the specs for which the brakes were originally designed. Again, those old physics classes...

 

[dclee]

"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."

????

He's IdahoDoug on this forum, a former Toyota/Lexus employee.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Ehh.... I might not go that far. The size/overhang and IFS disadvantage of the LX470 would hinder it, but the 3" or so lift would help alot. You'd have to lose the low-rider running boards on the LX, or use an 80 with the running boards still on to make it even.

But it could be close.

I'm just going by what I seen on a trail run last year. The stock and locked 80 had destroyed running boards, both rear bumper corner pieces were mangled, and the front bumper was dented. The LX suffered with a few rear bumper cover scratches and one ding on a running board. That was it.

Different trails might produce different results. We felt bad for the 80 owner. It was his first time out, he mangled the thing, and we haven't seen him since.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Your level of ignorance, quite frankly, astounds me every time I read your drivel. I'm not the one who gets caught up in useless statistics I can't defend. That's your cup of tea. I was making a general point, you are the one who started attacking me with specifics about the weight issue.

For a stock weight 80 Series, its braking system is fine. Or are you talking about a 6000 pound armored up 80 with 35" tires? Of course, I would agree in that case the brakes may be perceived as inadequate, because you've now taken the truck outside of the specs for which the brakes were originally designed. Again, those old physics classes...

You know the answers dude! I'll answer though:

Stock 80 brakes: Poor stopping distances, worse when wet, and don't operate if the motor dies.

35" 80: Dangerous...period. Very long stopping distances. Downhills require HUGE pedal pressure.

Stock 100: Class-leading stopping distances. no change when wet, operates if the rig stalls.

35" 100: Can't really tell the difference because the change is so minimal. The braking system was definately overbuilt.

Even my 6000+ pound loaded 100 boat anchor will eat alive a stock 80 on or off pavement in braking distances and feel. Toyota really blundered the brake design in the 80. All my wheeling friends admit it. Why can't you?

 

[SWUtah]

. We felt bad for the 80 owner. It was his first time out, he mangled the thing, and we haven't seen him since.

His wife might of killed him

 

[UltraFJ40]

You should have set up a poll, we always seem to get side tracked about which is better.

I'm thinking as light to moderate offroad usage, most have no regrets. The hardcore wheelers (rockcrawlers) however wouldn't consider moving to the bigger IFS Cruiser.

My way of thinking is I'm more of an expedition kind of guy, so the 100 would suit me fine under normal circumstances as well as all around use and with no regrets. The 100 hasn't had any head gasket issues as of yet.

If you just want to crawl, get a 40 or a buggy! Anything less, a 100 would do just fine.

With fuel approaching $4-4.50 this summer, you'd really appreciate the extra mpg. You may even consider an FJC................... .

FWIW: thats my two lincolns.

 

[dclee]

how come no one is mentioning the N74L mod???

Toyota really blundered the brake design in the 80. All my wheeling friends admit it. Why can't you?

I am not proposing that 80 Series OE brakes are the equivalent of Brembos or ATEs or anything like that. But it would be foolish to say that they're dangerous. In my opinion, for the OE configuration of the truck right off the showroom floor, the 80s brakes are as competent or more so than any other full-size SUV of the same time period. As good in relative terms as the 100? Probably not. But certainly not "dangerous," nor do I think that Toyota's engineers screwed anything up.

John, if you're going to go on (as usual) making blanket statements and spouting technical facts as "truth" without anything to back them up besides the opinions of your wife and friends, then how about this compromise: show me your Mechanical or Materials Engineering degree from even a mid-tier school, and that you have the equivalent technical knowledge as a Toyota brake system engineer that would allow you to make such statements without me just laughing. Or at least an ASE mechanics certification. Then maybe I'll give you some credit.

But wait, don't bother replying, I'll do it for you:

"Haha Derek, you're funny! I'm not here to prove anything to you, you just don't understand me because I don't write well. I am merely trying to share my positive experiences with mods that I've done. Don't need any degree to prove that I know what I'm doing, and that the N74L mod works and that I'm the first in the U.S. to do it, which means it is my divine right to have magazine articles written about my Land Cruiser genius. Just look at the pictures, how can you dispute it?!"

(Yes, I know you'll find some way to work the N74L mod into the conversation...)




BTW, for the record, I resisted for a long time moving up to the 100. Had two 80s for a while. The `97 Collectors Edition was pretty much stock and my wife drove it. The main reason we got the 100 was the increased safety for our new baby daughter (stability control, eight airbags, LATCH anchors in the center rear seat, car seat tether anchors behind the rear seats, etc.), and we refused to get a minivan (which admittedly would have been the best choice). We most certainly did NOT buy it for its wheeling prowess (though it is certainly capable). The lone remaining 80 was built for that stuff. Eventually I may scale down to a 1st gen 4Runner or something similar, but for now I need the cargo room of the 80 with still some decent crawling capability.

For its intended purpose (family-mobile, basecamp, and light-duty wheeling), it is perfect. Would I take it to the same places as the 80? No way!

 

[dclee]

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?

Modern belts are fine, as long as you keep up with the maintenance. Most 100s out there do not have enough miles to have needed this yet, or they're right on the cusp. But my question is, why should I have to do this?

These are the main reasons I have heard for the switch to belts by many manufacturers:

1.) Cost of manufaturing the engine for a belt drive system is cheaper. So are the belts themselves.

2.) Much quieter and smoother than a chain, hence their use in many luxury automobiles (ala Lexus and the origins of the 2UZ-FE).

3.) Lots of revenue for the dealerships (belt change is an expensive job - many service managers use the "scare" tactic to get people to replace them before they're due = $$$ for the stealership and a bigger bonus for the SM - actually, I'm just guessing on the bonus part... ).

A properly engineered chain, on the other hand, should last the life of the engine. Mine is still going strong at 150K miles. Also, chains will stretch before they break, so you have some warning as it start clattering. Belts can and do just snap with no warning. If you have an interference valve motor (which, unfortunately, the 2UZ-FE is), then you will have VERY bad engine damage if your belt snaps. Basically, the valves will meet the pistons, things will crunch, bend, and break, and you will be in for at least a four-figure repair bill.

Like I said, companies like Porsche, who have some of the best automotive engineers in the world, do not use belts, because they don't feel that they have to compromise quality and durability for a little extra profit or a quieter ride.

 

[SWUtah]

Modern belts are fine, as long as you keep up with the maintenance. Most 100s out there do not have enough miles to have needed this yet, or they're right on the cusp. But my question is, why should I have to do this?

These are the main reasons I have heard for the switch to belts by many manufacturers:

1.) Cost of manufaturing the engine for a belt drive system is cheaper. So are the belts themselves.

2.) Much quieter and smoother than a chain, hence their use in many luxury automobiles (ala Lexus and the origins of the 2UZ-FE).

3.) Lots of revenue for the dealerships (belt change is an expensive job - many service managers use the "scare" tactic to get people to replace them before they're due = $$$ for the stealership and a bigger bonus for the SM - actually, I'm just guessing on the bonus part... ).

A properly engineered chain, on the other hand, should last the life of the engine. Mine is still going strong at 150K miles. Also, chains will stretch before they break, so you have some warning as it start clattering. Belts can and do just snap with no warning. If you have an interference valve motor (which, unfortunately, the 2UZ-FE is), then you will have VERY bad engine damage if your belt snaps. Basically, the valves will meet the pistons, things will crunch, bend, and break, and you will be in for at least a four-figure repair bill.

Like I said, companies like Porsche, who have some of the best automotive engineers in the world, do not use belts, because they don't feel that they have to compromise quality and durability for a little extra profit or a quieter ride.

Based on your reasoning won't gears be a better solution then a chain? Won't expand like a chain and never needs to be changed? I think your mistaken about not many belts being changed. A lot of threads on this subject with several members going as long as 180K+ miles without changing their timing belt (not smart) I have not read where any member had a broken belt. Yes it needs to be maintained but that just becomes part of the cost of ownership for a smooth quiet running engine. Plus even though you have a chain you also have a water pump and will have to change it at around 180K miles.

 

[spressomon]

A properly engineered chain, on the other hand, should last the life of the engine. Mine is still going strong at 150K miles. Also, chains will stretch before they break, so you have some warning as it start clattering.

As long as we are all trying to be technically correct here......chains don't actually "stretch"...they wear...along with the 'sprockets' that drive them.

Don't have any experience with the LC 80 or prior timing chains. However 25-years ago when I converted my FLH to a primary belt drive from a chain it was a true revelation. Quieter, smoother, lighterweight, no oil mess, extended maintenance intervals, etc...it actually felt like I was getting more HP at the wheel compared to the chain.

Rarely is an improvement of any kind 100% perfect...but rather a gradual improvement over time with various revisions/improvements such as the switch from metal timing chains to rubber reinforced belts.

 

[Imola Red]

I will never understand the "wah wah wah" that the 80 owners do all the time over in this forum.

Yeah I'm not going to buy a vehicle because it has a timing belt! Stupid. I'm going to buy a vehicle over another because it rides better, has more power, get's better fuel economy and is newer (warranty, reliability). Not because it can do a little bit better off road, if that was so I would buy a real off road only vehicle.

The 80 is a great vehicle that was upgraded to the 100 series. In every car forum you have the early guys complaining about how their "original version" was better. Blah blah blah.

"but it's a better off road vehicle!!!" give it a break. People who bought an 80 brand new bought it to drive either 100% on road or maybe out of the 200k miles they put on it they would drive off road what maybe 3k of those miles on the trails?

Same thing with the 100 series.

Now that the 80 series is older and people are buying them for more of an offroad/road car it's the "greatest off road vehicle" you would think from all the praise around here.

Sorry but it's not. It's a great hybrid of the two. JUST LIKE THE 100 SERIES.

"Oh but my solid axles get me places you can't go!!!" LIKE YOU REALLY DO IT THAT MUCH. Your 80 is a huge tank compared to the 40 series and heep's. Now there are "real" off road vehicles.

BUT quess what? They are a pain to drive on a daily basis. That's why people buy the 80 over a heep or a 40 series AND it's the reason why people now buy the 100 over the 80.

I don't understand the beating of the chests of a few of the 80 owners who come over here to say how their vehicle can handle the rubicon and 100's can't. Wow maybe a handful of 80 owners actually take their LC to the rubion. That should sway everybody into thinking it's better.

 

[spressomon]

I will never understand the "wah wah wah" that the 80 owners do all the time over in this forum.

Yeah I'm not going to buy a vehicle because it has a timing belt! Stupid. I'm going to buy a vehicle over another because it rides better, has more power, get's better fuel economy and is newer (warranty, reliability). Not because it can do a little bit better off road, if that was so I would buy a real off road only vehicle.

The 80 is a great vehicle that was upgraded to the 100 series. In every car forum you have the early guys complaining about how their "original version" was better. Blah blah blah.

"but it's a better off road vehicle!!!" give it a break. People who bought an 80 brand new bought it to drive either 100% on road or maybe out of the 200k miles they put on it they would drive off road what maybe 3k of those miles on the trails?

Same thing with the 100 series.

Now that the 80 series is older and people are buying them for more of an offroad/road car it's the "greatest off road vehicle" you would think from all the praise around here.

Sorry but it's not. It's a great hybrid of the two. JUST LIKE THE 100 SERIES.

"Oh but my solid axles get me places you can't go!!!" LIKE YOU REALLY DO IT THAT MUCH. Your 80 is a huge tank compared to the 40 series and heep's. Now there are "real" off road vehicles.

BUT quess what? They are a pain to drive on a daily basis. That's why people buy the 80 over a heep or a 40 series AND it's the reason why people now buy the 100 over the 80.

I don't understand the beating of the chests of a few of the 80 owners who come over here to say how their vehicle can handle the rubicon and 100's can't. Wow maybe a handful of 80 owners actually take their LC to the rubion. That should sway everybody into thinking it's better.

Jealousy = Insecurity = Chest beating

 

[dclee]

Jealousy = Insecurity = Chest beating

Why would I be jealous? (Hint: read my sig line.)

 

[mikeacs]

Every type vehicle is a compromise, in some area.

 

[dclee]

I will never understand the "wah wah wah" that the 80 owners do all the time over in this forum.

Yeah I'm not going to buy a vehicle because it has a timing belt! Stupid. I'm going to buy a vehicle over another because it rides better, has more power, get's better fuel economy and is newer (warranty, reliability). Not because it can do a little bit better off road, if that was so I would buy a real off road only vehicle.

The 80 is a great vehicle that was upgraded to the 100 series. In every car forum you have the early guys complaining about how their "original version" was better. Blah blah blah.

"but it's a better off road vehicle!!!" give it a break. People who bought an 80 brand new bought it to drive either 100% on road or maybe out of the 200k miles they put on it they would drive off road what maybe 3k of those miles on the trails?

Same thing with the 100 series.

Now that the 80 series is older and people are buying them for more of an offroad/road car it's the "greatest off road vehicle" you would think from all the praise around here.

Sorry but it's not. It's a great hybrid of the two. JUST LIKE THE 100 SERIES.

"Oh but my solid axles get me places you can't go!!!" LIKE YOU REALLY DO IT THAT MUCH. Your 80 is a huge tank compared to the 40 series and heep's. Now there are "real" off road vehicles.

BUT quess what? They are a pain to drive on a daily basis. That's why people buy the 80 over a heep or a 40 series AND it's the reason why people now buy the 100 over the 80.

I don't understand the beating of the chests of a few of the 80 owners who come over here to say how their vehicle can handle the rubicon and 100's can't. Wow maybe a handful of 80 owners actually take their LC to the rubion. That should sway everybody into thinking it's better.

Hey man, good for you! I also bought a 100. I was merely answering a question that another poster asked about chains versus belts.

 

[rockclmbr]

I know what the next mod will be:

"How to replace your RUBBER belt with a Bicycle CHAIN"

 

[alaskacruiser]

I will never understand the "wah wah wah" that the 80 owners do all the time over in this forum.

[Imola Red's wah wah wah cut...]

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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)

7. Limited front wheel travel (IFS)

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.

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.