That seems optimistic to me. Even those old diesel Hiluxes would barely manage 20 mpg.
Are these things really unreliable? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter MarkBC
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
marshcat
SILVER Star
12HT Fuel Mileage / Economy
Hey there, I've used the forum for quite some time, but am new to posting. Great site, has been a lot of help. I have an 88 FJ62 that I am looking at converting to diesel. I am looking for real world fuel economy for a 12HT engine. I am waffling between the 5-speed or the A440 auto trans. I...
forum.ih8mud.com
I can let you know when I finally have the rig. Will be making a build thread!
Haha, sadly can't confirm that. Numerous old Jeeps have leaked in my driveway, and while far from the pinnacle of reliability they were no s***tier than anything else of the 60's-70's vintage in my experience. With the exception of a high mileage XJ, they all always seemed to need something (but that's just old cars in general). That XJ was honestly a good little vehicle in stock form. Start throwing lifts and tires and such at it and it's not going to hold up near as well as a Cruiser (which I honestly think plays a big part in the perception of these trucks being more reliable historically than their contemporaries who weren't overbuilt for the intended use). But stock for stock, same condition and treatment I'd honestly expect the same reliability from either between a new 62 and XJ.Sounds like you've never owned a Jeep
I'm going to point out I am by no means a Jeep fan, probably more so the opposite. In my youth I was a bit of a Ford guy, but it's been a decade or more since I had any brand loyalties. While I think Toyota's are generally reliable (some models exceptionally so) I have no vested interest in brand's image of superior reliability.
Disagree on nobody doing that with old Jeeps, or other brands for that matter. I've done this sort of thing with numerous old and/or abandoned vehicles (including a CJ-5), which is why I was comfortable undertaking the trip in my particular Cruiser. I had confidence in my efforts to get it ready and if necessary to repair it well enough to get me home if it went udders up at any point. The majority of vehicles on a Lemons Rally (what the truck was used for) are older, of even sketchier provenance, with much less effort put into fixing them up than I go to, and yet most complete the same journey without issue.
As much as I love Top Gear and those series of episodes, a scripted television show that's primary goal is entertainment won't ever be my gauge for reliability. Keep in mind that's the same show that demonstrated an FJ40 was not as reliable as a Land Rover. Not something I (even though I do love old Rovers) or most folks here would agree with I would reckon.
Personally I think the biggest thing to put Toyota on the map for reliability was their cars. Through the 70's and early 80's they were much more reliable than anything Detroit produced. In the face of neglect few vehicles will prove longer lived than a 90's Corolla. I just see enough idiosyncrasies in my FJ62 and the later era Toyota 4x4's I've been around and worked on, that I can't claim they're faultless (not that I think anyone here is) or put them on a pedestal above their peers.
g-man
SILVER Star
You could go by the 86 maintenance manual and repair maintenance items based on mileage.
FSM - Toyota Land Cruiser Maintenance Procedures - 1986 Models - Publication Number MM001U (pdf)
Toyota Land Cruiser Maintenance Procedures - 1986 Models - 2F, 3B, 2H, 12H-T, FJ60, BJ60, HJ60
forum.ih8mud.com
Replace everything that's 40 years old
FirstFJ60
SGT. Lincoln Osiris
Fj60s are VERY realiable. Heck my heater blower motor just gave out and my rig is an 84. That motor fought to its death because it was rusty and just seized. That says something for it and other parts) lasting that long (39 years). Other countries with harsh conditions either have a Land cruiser (60 or 80s series) for their truck or a 80s Mercedes 300 turbo diesel...indestructible.
After driving any modern truck with all the screens, hidden driving features, distracting beeps, not to mention failing sensors and automatic hubs that fail to engage, and also rattly CV's....
It's so nice to drive a familiar vehicle that responds directly. I don't think I'll ever feel like I'm actually driving in an automatic vehicle. I trust my 60. That's what reliable means.
It's so nice to drive a familiar vehicle that responds directly. I don't think I'll ever feel like I'm actually driving in an automatic vehicle. I trust my 60. That's what reliable means.
diesellibrarian
SILVER Star
Of course 60 series Land Cruisers are reliable, which is why I never leave city limits without a bag of tools and a factory service manual (something I never even consider when we're in my wife's 2015 VW Golf).
In all seriousness, there are so many variables at play here that the question of reliability becomes an abstract thought experiment -- but don't get me wrong, I love abstract thought experiments!! In a sense, "reliability" exists at the nexus between owner and machine. It's the sum of the history of the vehicle, its treatment, maintenance, and usage over the years. It's also a function of the materials and engineering that went into the design and manufacture of the vehicle. All things being equal, a more robustly-engineered vehicle will last longer than one where cheaper and less durable materials are used (I'm mentally comparing my 62 with the '80 Suzuki Samurai I owned briefly). I think it's arguable that Land Cruisers are one of the most over-engineered passenger vehicles of the past 60 years, which is why people continue to drive and enjoy them while other vehicles have all but disappeared from the highways.
If "reliability" refers to the likelihood that a vehicle will get you where you want to go without breaking down, then a newer vehicle may have an edge. But if reliability means being able to get to where you want to go *despite* breaking down, then to my mind a vintage Land Cruiser has the edge, because it's likely that whatever has broken can be repaired fairly easily on the side of the road/trail without special tools. That's where the owner/machine symbiosis comes into play. Reliability is a two-part equation.
As an example of this: on the weekend, my engine shut off at highway speed, and would not restart. I was in the middle of nowhere on a mountain road, 200 miles from home. Pulled the error code, referred to my FSM, found the offending part (coil/igniter), identified a loose connector, and was back on the road in 15 minutes. It got me to my destination, hauled a bunch of building materials all weekend, and then another 250 miles home without a hitch. I'd drive it across Canada without hesitation - because I know that my truck and I make a very reliable team.
In all seriousness, there are so many variables at play here that the question of reliability becomes an abstract thought experiment -- but don't get me wrong, I love abstract thought experiments!! In a sense, "reliability" exists at the nexus between owner and machine. It's the sum of the history of the vehicle, its treatment, maintenance, and usage over the years. It's also a function of the materials and engineering that went into the design and manufacture of the vehicle. All things being equal, a more robustly-engineered vehicle will last longer than one where cheaper and less durable materials are used (I'm mentally comparing my 62 with the '80 Suzuki Samurai I owned briefly). I think it's arguable that Land Cruisers are one of the most over-engineered passenger vehicles of the past 60 years, which is why people continue to drive and enjoy them while other vehicles have all but disappeared from the highways.
If "reliability" refers to the likelihood that a vehicle will get you where you want to go without breaking down, then a newer vehicle may have an edge. But if reliability means being able to get to where you want to go *despite* breaking down, then to my mind a vintage Land Cruiser has the edge, because it's likely that whatever has broken can be repaired fairly easily on the side of the road/trail without special tools. That's where the owner/machine symbiosis comes into play. Reliability is a two-part equation.
As an example of this: on the weekend, my engine shut off at highway speed, and would not restart. I was in the middle of nowhere on a mountain road, 200 miles from home. Pulled the error code, referred to my FSM, found the offending part (coil/igniter), identified a loose connector, and was back on the road in 15 minutes. It got me to my destination, hauled a bunch of building materials all weekend, and then another 250 miles home without a hitch. I'd drive it across Canada without hesitation - because I know that my truck and I make a very reliable team.
This is profound stuff. Makes me want a full float rear axle for my truck though.
As part of my tool kit is a hidden stash of cash, a few hundred $$ in twenties, that's available for emergencies.
I REALLY want a FF.
Others have said similar things but…
generally, people don’t realize reliable does not mean no maintenance.
In the beginning it’s regular maintenance but people skip it because ‘it’s ReLiAbLE’… and then suddenly it isn’t because it’s been neglected. Even if regular maintenance is done as the vehicle gets older the more maintenance it needs. Maintenance becomes more than just consumables and fluids. Rubber disintegrates, the horn pin is literally ground down to nothing, etc.
The difference with these trucks is that they are maintainable—they remain serviceable and rebuildable. Part of that is parts availability but most of it is by design.
Other vehicles are seen as disposable even by their manufacturers. At some point, the lack of ability to service or replace something means it gets junked. Something that should be serviceable/replaceable is integrated or the design/materials are so flawed things will never reseal properly even after major engine work or the electronics go haywire.
This is the reason some vehicles consistently remain on the road in normal service and others don’t. (Toyotas, old Mercedes and Volvos, etc).
Parts availability isn’t perfect and it’s getting worse (hopefully that’ll change) but it’s vastly better than most vehicles this old.
generally, people don’t realize reliable does not mean no maintenance.
In the beginning it’s regular maintenance but people skip it because ‘it’s ReLiAbLE’… and then suddenly it isn’t because it’s been neglected. Even if regular maintenance is done as the vehicle gets older the more maintenance it needs. Maintenance becomes more than just consumables and fluids. Rubber disintegrates, the horn pin is literally ground down to nothing, etc.
The difference with these trucks is that they are maintainable—they remain serviceable and rebuildable. Part of that is parts availability but most of it is by design.
Other vehicles are seen as disposable even by their manufacturers. At some point, the lack of ability to service or replace something means it gets junked. Something that should be serviceable/replaceable is integrated or the design/materials are so flawed things will never reseal properly even after major engine work or the electronics go haywire.
This is the reason some vehicles consistently remain on the road in normal service and others don’t. (Toyotas, old Mercedes and Volvos, etc).
Parts availability isn’t perfect and it’s getting worse (hopefully that’ll change) but it’s vastly better than most vehicles this old.
Last edited:
marshcat
SILVER Star
Forgive my ignorance but what's a full floating axle? Any why is it so desirable?
diesellibrarian
SILVER Star
On a full-floating rear axle, there is a hub that connects the axle to the wheel assembly (kind of like on the front axles), whereas on the "semi-float" axles that are on most of our trucks, the outer side of the axle ends in a flange that the wheel bolts to directly. Full floats are easier to repair because you can swap out the axle without removing the wheel. They're also stronger.
In a full float axle the wheel and end of axle is carried by a hub and spindle. This means the axle only transmits the drive force and isn’t load baring. Benefit is it’s stronger and a broken shaft can be removed leaving the vehicle still drivable because the wheel is on the hub/spindle.
In a semi-float the end of the axle simple rides on a bearing at the end of the end of the axle and has the wheels attached to it. Axle partially carries the vehicle load and vehicle can’t be driven without it in place.
Many foreign market 60 series and most 80 series have full float rear axles. The fj80 in the US was semi-float and US fzj80s were full float.
FF axles are much much cooler too.
The only vehicle that come with FFs are heavy duty, passenger vehicles Don’t usually have them.
My dads ‘19 tundra doesn’t even have a FF.
The only vehicle that come with FFs are heavy duty, passenger vehicles Don’t usually have them.
My dads ‘19 tundra doesn’t even have a FF.
marshcat
SILVER Star
If my 60 has factory cable lockers then it also has the FF rear axle, right?
I believe so, yes. But man I want some cable lockers too. Impossible to find.
