Cargo space hallucinations

[devo]

Okay 80 lovers I’m trying to get this through my head and maybe you have some answer for me.

I’m on my second 80 series, a 1997 and have been driving it since 2010. I drive LandCruisers because of their enormous cargo space. ( that’s only one reason I drive a LandCruiser)
The book says 90.9 cubic inches. And I use it all.

Here is my hallucination and it’s simple:

I travel with a guy who has newer 4R. Stated cargo space 89.7 cubic inches. And I say no way it’s that big?
No way I can get all of my junk into a 4R that I carry in my 80.

Any of y’all have this experience? Are 4R’s really as spacious as an 80?



Thanks,




devo

 

[Heckraiser]

My stepdad has a 2010 4runner and he loads it up with large artwork for his business. He can fit some pretty huge prints in there. I'd say the carco space is a little longer and narrower than an 80 (no numbers to back this). It also has squarish wheel arches which might take up a little bit of the total cubes, but make tetris a little easier. But yeah, they are both in the same ballpark. 5th gen 4runner is a large vehicle.

 

[IanB]

The cargo area behind the 2nd row seats in my 80 series is much bigger than our 5th gen w/ 3rd row seats, it's not even close. Even without the lost floor height of the 3rd row in the 4Runner the 80 series seems much wider back there.

 

[leonard_nemoy]

I bet the specs you are reading include all the seats installed. Most of us with 80's remove the third row and get extra room. Maybe...... Just a thought

 

[devo]

The specs are from Mr Toyota and his brochures

 

[dallen341]

90.9 cubic inches??? Feet maybe?

 

[Spdstr280Z]

My 93 80 and and my wife's 13 4Runner share the driveway. They are nearly the same size vehicle. An 80 is mid size by today's standards. Pretty sure the 4Runner is actually wider, as part of the width on the 80 is the flares.

Jason

 

[Bludozer]

The numbers are right, they are almost identical in size now-adays. All cars have grown including the 4Runner. 80 is still larger but only by a slight amount.

 

[BigAxeJack]

I agree with the above post regarding the 3rd row seats. I think that's why the 80 seems bigger.

I had a hitchhiker comment on the interior space once. I had all but the front seats out and he said it was bigger than a studio apartment.

 

[Rifleman]

90.9 cubic inches??? Feet maybe?

I see your not the only one who caught that mistake.

 

[jaymar]

Yeah pull second and third rows and call it a day.

 

[devo]

I’m not looking for more room. Be it feet or inches. I had all my seats sans the driver and passenger pulled for years. I can load the crap out of that 80 for weeks of back country travel.
I’ve been driving LandCruiser wagons since 1984 because of all of everything I can pack into it.
So my hallucination is that a 4Skinner is really that voluminous and I’ll just have to accept it!

Thanks for your contributions to my hallucination!






devo

 

[IanB]

I happen to have an 80 series and a 5th gen in my garage, so here you go:

80 Series: 58" wide at widest part, 43"wide at narrowest point, 43.5" deep at floor height to metal sill trim, 42" tall from roof to floor.

5th gen 4R: 57.5" wide at widest part, 43.5" wide at narrowest point, 37" deep at floor height to plastic sill trim, 33" tall from roof to top of 3rd row seats (I'm sure the3rd row seats rob about 6" of height, but lots of 5th gens have those trays that eat up height as well).

I'm honestly surprised the width was as close as it was, but it's really only close on paper as the wheel wells are far smaller in the 80 series than in the 5th gen, leaving a lot more useable space stuff can be crammed into along the sides of the Land Cruiser. You can almost treat the 5th gen width as the narrow figure, as there's very little real estate that can take advantage of the widest section right near the rear.

The pics tell the story better than the tape measure.

 

[devo]

IanB that’s my hallucination!
The numbers say one thing but looking into the back of both must be an optical illusion because the LandCruiser looks so much bigger in volume?
So you think you could cram more stuff into which vehicle?


Thanks for that hands on tech support.



devo

 

[IanB]

IanB that’s my hallucination!
The numbers say one thing but looking into the back of both must be an optical illusion because the LandCruiser looks so much bigger in volume?
So you think you could cram more stuff into which vehicle?


Thanks for that hands on tech support.



devo

I've packed both, and the Land Cruiser is FAR easier to pack for a trip. By the time you get 2 large suitcases into the 4Runner you're already looking for nooks and gaps to stuff things, the Land Cruiser would take a 3rd suitcase and has much more room along the sides above the wheel wells.