Cost of ownership 200 vs 80 series? (1 Viewer)

[Lemonbishop]

I know it depends on which 200 and which 80, so for context:

If one were to compare cost of ownership of an 80 with 150K miles to a 200 with similar mileage, buying one or the other today? Not so much purchase price, but ongoing maintenance -- routine and other.

It seems like the 200 has so much more tech and creature comforts that might start to go wonky with age.

I am considering moving on to a 200, rather than continuing to find the right 80, and I am trying to make sure I know what I would getting into.

Thank you.

 

[ceb]

Depends. Are you going to the dealer, an indy, or do everything yourself?

 

[Lemonbishop]

Indy.

 

[indycole]

I'd also consider what you're going to do with the vehicle and how your build plan will align with your use. If you're only going to do light wheeling, then I'd expect the ownership costs to be pretty modest. I've spent a pretty penny on parts to fix stuff that broke along the trail... bumper covers and underlying framework, parking sensors, tail lights, headlight washers, towing bracket and socket, rear LCA. I doubt I'd have broken any of that stuff if steel bumpers went on the truck at the same my skids and sliders did.

 

[Lemonbishop]

I'd also consider what you're going to do with the vehicle and how your build plan will align with your use. If you're only going to do light wheeling, then I'd expect the ownership costs to be pretty modest. I've spent a pretty penny on parts to fix stuff that broke along the trail... bumper covers and underlying framework, parking sensors, tail lights, headlight washers, towing bracket and socket, rear LCA. I doubt I'd have broken any of that stuff if steel bumpers went on the truck at the same my skids and sliders did.

Yes, good point. Lots of daily driving, some [mild?] overland.

 

[Cruiserdrew]

To 175K and 20 years, my 80s cost of ownership has been pretty low. All the OEM stuff still works fine. But, the 80s OEM parts support is getting pretty thin. If you can afford it, I'd get a 200 unless you really want to go hard core. As low mileage as possible. Dollar for dollar an 80 is a better wheeler, but the 200 is a better truck, a better commuter, and a better trip vehicle. JMHO.

Any of these is going to get "wonky" with age. That's normal. The 200 is 10-20 years newer. But for the time being the 200 still has full service support, has great power and superior comfort. My only 200 experience is my brother's but it's a nice ride with endless power compared to an 80. And very comfortable to drive long distance.

But I still see 80s that are stupid cheap, and you should get a nice 200, and then buy a $3500 80 and take it to Rubithon. I would keep your 200 as close to stock as possible.

 

[Lemonbishop]

To 175K and 20 years, my 80s cost of ownership has been pretty low. All the OEM stuff still works fine. But, the 80s OEM parts support is getting pretty thin. If you can afford it, I'd get a 200 unless you really want to go hard core. As low mileage as possible. Dollar for dollar an 80 is a better wheeler, but the 200 is a better truck, a better commuter, and a better trip vehicle. JMHO.

Any of these is going to get "wonky" with age. That's normal. The 200 is 10-20 years newer. But for the time being the 200 still has full service support, has great power and superior comfort. My only 200 experience is my brother's but it's a nice ride with endless power compared to an 80. And very comfortable to drive long distance.

But I still see 80s that are stupid cheap, and you should get a nice 200, and then buy a $3500 80 and take it to Rubithon. I would keep your 200 as close to stock as possible.

Thank you. I did not mean 'wonky' as an insult. I had an 80, and it was easy living up to 325K. I was thinking of finding another, with lower miles, to keep going. I have not been able to find 'the' 80 that I have felt like I would like to suffer with [despite some effort]. I am being picky, though, for the reasons you point out; starting from here with an 80, I'm only willing to do with the right one. So, I am thinking now 200 is the way.

 

[ceb]

Indy.

Although the 200 has far more electrics to go wrong,, there are fewer things that can go wrong with age, so it is probably a wash.

As another poster said, parts will continue to get scarcer for the 80, while parts for the 200 are almost guaranteed for the next 15 years.

 

[TonyP]

I'd be willing to bet a 200 is fairly cheaper to maintain and run than an 80.
And, I don't care what the 80-series guys say, the 1FZ isn't great... at all. The 3UR is a masterpiece.

 

[Cruiserdrew]

I'd be willing to bet a 200 is fairly cheaper to maintain and run than an 80.
And, I don't care what the 80-series guys say, the 1FZ isn't great... at all. The 3UR is a masterpiece.

Well, if you've driven the lexicon, starting with the 2F, you'd realize that the 1FZ was the revolution. But, agreed, the 5.7 is a ball buster motor. It's great on the road. It's fast and could tow a boat or do what you want. The 1Fz is miles better than the 3FE, which is miles better than the 2F. But I've driven a 2F into Rubicon 20 times and a 1FZ into Hole in the Rock 5+ times, and Rubicon 3 times. Has your 3UR done that? Don't dis what you don't know, but realize I recommended the OP get a 200.

 

[Atwalz]

I'd be willing to bet a 200 is fairly cheaper to maintain and run than an 80.
And, I don't care what the 80-series guys say, the 1FZ isn't great... at all. The 3UR is a masterpiece.

Agree with @TonyP on maintenance wise 200 series will win. Power plant is huge difference for highway driving and less driver fatigue in 200. We bought ours 2013 new and have 96k now and intend to keep it as long as I can afford gas.

 

[TonyP]

Well, if you've driven the lexicon, starting with the 2F, you'd realize that the 1FZ was the revolution. But, agreed, the 5.7 is a ball buster motor. It's great on the road. It's fast and could tow a boat or do what you want. The 1Fz is miles better than the 3FE, which is miles better than the 2F. But I've driven a 2F into Rubicon 20 times and a 1FZ into Hole in the Rock 5+ times, and Rubicon 3 times. Has your 3UR done that? Don't dis what you don't know, but realize I recommended the OP get a 200.

Well McDonalds is better than Burger King but they both make s*** burgers.
I don't have a 3UR.
But when I did, I never even considered it having issues running all day and some of the night on Hell Night in Moab a couple years back or bombing though Baja.
My primary 1FZ experience it cleaning up it's P/S fluid after it crapped all over my driveway. Followed by cleaning it's coolant after it boiled over from a blown headgasket.

That said, the 1FZ isn't terrible, it just isn't great and is under powered, in my opinion. My 36 year old BMW with 1 less liter makes more hp with a block design from the 70s. Granted, less torque.

 

[619TOY]

Get both, have both, keep both, wheel both So far mine haven't cost me more than routine maintenance but the "elective" costs could almost force you to drink cheap beer...

Almost...

 

[Cruiserdrew]

I'll just say the 1FZ, while no powerhouse is good when you compare it to what came before. I've driven from California to Utah more times than I can count and it's "adequate". But you really need the historical comparison! A 2F is a slow beast. Fatiguing beyond 200 miles. The 1FZ is a rocketship in comparison. If you have a Land Cruiser, loaded for a 2 week trip, it's heavy, and the more power and torque the better. Hence my recommendation for the 200.

This Land Cruiser thing is an evolution. Just the way it is.

 

[grinchy]

The 200 will be much safer to be in when an accident happens. I think people underestimate how much survivability matters when they buy cars.

 

[afgman786]

I went from an 80 to a 200. As much as I wanted to buy another 80, the practically of the 200 just out-weighed my unethical passion to keep what was handed down to me/replace with another 80.

The power upgrade and comfort is so nice! A lot of the guys in my area have 80s and I still admire how it looks rugged from the factory. But I can happily say I'm amazed by the 200 everyday.

To avoid as much tech issues as possible I'd say go for an early 200, that was my thought process. Less technology to go wrong as that was a concern for me too

 

[speyrod]

I went from an 80 to a LX not buy choice but my 80 got totaled. I put almost 260k on the 80, most expensive item was fuel, next I replaced the HG and had the head surfaced and valves ground (138K), I rebuilt the starter, Alt, replace the rad, h20 pump, hoses etc twice ( second because I did the rad and was there also did idlers etc. Next was disks and pads and a couple of batteries. PHH and that little hose under the intake.

200/LX, too new for me to tell but I get the concern with the gizmos. I don't think I'll keep the 200 much beyond 200K. First I don't drive much more than 5-6K a year.

 

[Whiskerz]

I started out looking at 80's and bought a 200. The 200 is much more over everything except hardcore off road stuff.

 

[JZelnick]

 

[ceb]

Would I be too far out of line to compare an 80 to a modern 4Runner rather than a 200?