FJ80 compared to cherokee?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

The LC is so much more capable than the XJ. With the factory lockers it is a true rock crawling rig. It's weight is a bonus in most traction situations but not all. You can run larger tires without worrying about snapping axles or regearing. It is far more comfortable. It will out perform the xj in almost all areas except acceleration and turning radius.

Here's an interesting comparison in what it means to have a stiff front suspension with flexy rear (80) vs. a somewhat stiff rear leaf suspension with an extremely flexy y-link radius arm front (XJ). My 80 on 37's, XJ on 35's.

Notice the difference in lean (I have quite a bit more), but also notice that my front is not in a hole and has easily climbed through. You want all that front flex, you have to lock it, otherwise the tire in the hole will push down instead of climbing. With front also locked the XJ (this one is rear locked only) can take a higher line that I would feel comfortable with due to the lean, and you can see the suspension balance with that front way up.

OCG053109Squeeze.jpg


OCG053109JoshFlex.jpg


I love wheeling with different rigs to see what they can do. One difference is very simple no matter what rig you drive: dual locked simply changes the game.
 
I'd like an XJ, just to build as a beater rig. Gotta be RHD, too. :hillbilly:

They are not fast, either. Yeah, it'll do 0-60 relatively quickly, but the key word here is relatively.

The axles are seriously weak. Teeny Dana 30 and 35/Chrysler 8.25. Also feels like a tin can. I would never own one to drive around town.

The V6 was also a GM product. It's the same 2.8L used in the old S-series trucks.
 
I had a 94 Cherokee and count it as one of my worst purchases ever; well it was 'okay' until it started self destructing at 60k... and I was just this side of soccer-mom to it. No wheeling, and maybe too babied. So I'd stay away from '94s at least...

I ***cing love my LCs. I've had a '60 and two 80s. They've all been stock. And while admitedly I dont wheel like the hardcores on this forum, I take em on adventures and count on them to get me out-- a feeling that's hard to put a price on. I think as a stocker, or close to stock, there is no comparison with a Cherokee (solid axles, 4 wheels, 4 doors, and the other similarities.)

You could probably build a Cherokee--even a 94--and GREEN no less--or ANY rig--into a monster that'll do anything, maybe even crush an 80. But by then do you really have a Cherokee? Or a Cherokee body on top of some incredible gear and creative fabrication? Just sayin.
 
The V6 was also a GM product. It's the same 2.8L used in the old S-series trucks.

True - but you'd have a hard time finding one. Almost all have the 4.0L Chrysler inline six. Completely different drivetrain.
 
You could probably build a Cherokee--even a 94--and GREEN no less--or ANY rig--into a monster that'll do anything, maybe even crush an 80. But by then do you really have a Cherokee? Or a Cherokee body on top of some incredible gear and creative fabrication? Just sayin.

The 97+ Cherokee is a completely different vehicle. It had modern electrical wiring, and what you might consider "modern" production. Was something like 40% stiffer in unibody construction than the previous models. IMO, if you really want one, you would be insane to buy anything pre '97.

Everything up to 1996 was designed starting in the late '70's. Seriously long production run.

Swapping axles does not swap the vehicle. If I put a set of Prorock 60's under my 80, would it still be an 80? Of course. Swapping axles is far less than say taking an FJ80 and swapping the engine, which is something poor underpowered Toyota loyalists have been doing for years.

This XJ has the stock rear leaf spring suspension plus traction bar (anti-spring wrap) with a simple conversion of a 4 link front to a mid-length arm 3 link with lower arms mounted on the plane of the axle tube to keep angles good on a 6" lift. It is on 37's, D44 front/D60 rear. We have 80's here that have gone to portals or other upgraded axles in order to hit harder trails, what is the difference? We also have chop topped 80's here.

You can see the huge difference in underbody clearance between an XJ and an 80 - 6" of lift on one of these is simple to do, because of the stability of the rear leaf suspension. No engineering required. I know this rig runs the Hammers and other BOTW (Best of the West) trails and has been doing it for years, fully utilizing 12" of shock travel on all four corners without having compromised suspension geometry and balance.

Toyota owners tend to be so biased to Toyota components that they spend a ton of money keeping Toyota running gear under their rigs, doing things like turning 80 series rear axles into front axles running on the weak side of the ring gear. And then of course blowing them up.

Which is why I have spent more time with busted Toyotas on the trail in four years than I did in 8 years running mostly with Jeeps, on the same trails, and these are the big things like busted t-cases and blown R&P's. Sometimes it is better to know your weaknesses and fix them instead of believing you don't have any.
Mid arm side.webp
3 link flex.webp
 
If the OP is concerned about weight, mileage, etc, and wants the truck for running around town, he probably is not concerned about swaping axles, t-cases, etc. I can't, however, figure out why he is concerned with F & R solid axles for an in town runabout vehicle...

My wife had a 2002. It was a go cart. Not totally in a bad way. It was reasonably quick, quick cornering, easy to park (The 80 is harder to park than my Tahoe), did not have any real issues when we sold it at 110K.

We were just sick of it. Neither of us wanted to drive it anymore, more for personal preference than any technical problems. It felt little, cramped, was pretty bare bones (we had the "Sport" trim level). It was not an unattractive vehicle, it just bored us. So, we sold it, My wife got my Tahoe Z71 and I got my 80. :clap:

Now everybody is happy!!!:grinpimp:
 
Around town, nice ride, what about a 4runner?
 
Around town, nice ride, what about a 4runner?

Yeah, those get great gas milage too ! :rolleyes:

Might as well just have an FZJ. Gas milage isn't a compelling difference.

I would say we need to clearly define the "mission" of the vehicle. For example: Is this to be an around town grocery getter, that can carry some people and stuff and that needs to get good gas milage, or is this another SUV (I know, I hate that term), that is for around town and really good fuel milage isn't a driving factor? Does it have to be a truck, or can it be a sporty sedan or wagon?

Once that is defined, you can really nail down solutions. Otherwise, just buy whatever makes you feel good.

Me personally, I don't like Jeep products at all. Yes the motor might be OK, but the rest of the vehicle seems to fall apart around the drivetrain. I don't have any patience for that.
 
Last edited:
GT500916,

You asked this in the wrong forum. Clearly everyone here knows an 80 is far superior to an XJ. Not so in the 100 series forum. I think we would all agree the XJ is vastly superior to a 100/LX470. I think that is the reason Shotts bought an 80; to replace his weaker 100. -I guess he couldn't find an XJ:meh:
 
Don't do it! There is a healthy aftermarket for XJ's, but you will be breaking stuff fast. The MPG difference is negligible, they are fugly, and will self-desctruct at some point. I've owned three. The 4.0 is a strong motor, but the rest of the truck will fall apart around it.

TK
 
With Cherokees it is best to get a red one. Red jeeps are the best ever. The only thing better is a white Land Cruiser. The other colors of Land Cruisers are just ok, but everyone agrees the white Cruisers outperform all others, even the 40th anniversary with its two-tone leather seats. I have a green Land Cruiser, and it can never keep up with a white one, but usually it can keep up with a Jeep, so long as isn't a red one. Once I was leading a Jeep up a hill climb, but I couldn't make it, and the Jeep could, because it had heated seats. And it was red.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Sorry, I just can't take anymore 'what rig is better' questions....

:bounce2::bounce2::bounce2:
DSC00008.webp
 
If you are looking for saving money, I'll sell you my Honda Fit:lol::lol::lol::lol:, great for city driving; terrible for off road. Now compare a Jeep to a Cruiser.... sorry no comparison. The Cruiser wins hands down!!!!;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom