For those who had a 4Runner now an 80??

[Skim]

So those of you who had a 4Runner SAS or IFS and now run an 80.....

1. Do you feel there is a big difference in stability on 35s between the two trucks?

2. Do you feel the added body width of an 80 is a problem / restrictive on trails?

3. Do you miss the lighter weight and smaller body?

If it was not your DD what would you build?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

It looks like your Runner is pretty well on it's way to being built. Why not use it as a rig for harder trails, build the 80 a little and use it for more mild wheeling?

Oh, and welcome noob

 

[bjowett]

My 86 w/ SAS from an FZJ80 was far more stable. The extra width has not been a much of a problem, the extra weight is very evident. The negatives and positives pretty much zero each other out, at least they do for me.... well except for the dang hard top - I hope to take care of that before the next summer season.

 

[clownmidget]

I had a 1985 and a 1990, ran both with 33s and 35s. The 35s were too much for the 1990 IFS. I think the 80 is not as stable as the 85 4Runner but more stable than the 1990 (IFS) in terms of off road but on road I think the 80 is much more stable, especially at speed. I don't think the width is much of an issue out west but I had both 4Runners when I lived in OH, PA & WVA. I'm sure it'd make a difference in the woods. Yes, I think the 80 is very heavy but hey, it's solid.

My DD is a Corolla. I'd build up a Sammy for complete gonzo trail crap. The 80 is more like an overlander/expedition family exploratorium thing for me.

Mike R.

 

[T Y L E R]

Had a '93 IFS , 4" suspension and 35's .

I get in the 4runner now and if feels like I'm climbing into a cave .. seats slumped low like a racecar .. dark as hell . Every detail the 80 has , is something I wished the runner had at the time .

Wider , heavier , more powerful , better rear hatch , no IFS , more stability with OME upgrade , computer can be recalibrated for gears/tires , wider flares-body protection ....

80 hands down , for this poser

TY

 

[Biff]

I still have my runner, but prefer my 80 for the trails.

 

[Skim]

You guys have some good points. Either the 93 80 or the 92 4Runner will be used out west in the California, Utah, Colorado areas and trails.

Either the 80 or Runner will be dedicated trail / camping right not a DD.

I am compaing them because I will not be keeping them both. Have to sell one.

If 92 Runner is kept it will be SAS'd and on 35s locked frt and rear 5.29s , I already have the Marlin SAS kit in the garage and an 85 axle to go.

The 80 will be J-spring lifted on 315s. ARBs FRT and RR with 4.88s

So the questions is what is a more stable rig? Seems like the opinion is divided.
What is a better play / camping toy?

Expense wise I think the 80 will only be a little more $$ to build.

But the Runner is narrower and can fit into tighter spaces.

I plan on doing Medium trails, not all out isane rock buggy stuff, but I do want to do some more challenging trails. Been to Moab, Paragon, Gorman, Spring Creek, Pismo, etc. So I want a very capable rig, just don't want something that I will not fully use.

I am wondering if the difference between the two is very small in rear world wheelin, actually being on the trail ?

 

[PHAEDRUS]

skim,
the one area where the 80 will kick the snot out of the runner is in cargo space. if you plan on using it as a drive to wheeling and camp for a few days and drive home the 80 is perfect. also having run with quite a few mini truck and runners the 80 extra width will really not be that big of a factor on most runs. where it matters is in the trees.
that being said I sold my 87 mini truck I bought to turn into a wheeler and decided to go full time with the 80.
Dave

 

[Beowulf]

IMHO, it is very difficult to improve on a built 80 when your usage is moderate to hard wheeling, camping, expeditions, and driving long distances to the trail. You'll enjoy the slightly bigger truck 99% of the time and the overall build quality and HD components are better than the 4Runner.

-B-

 

[Riley]

I second the comments on the room of the 80. I can't imagine trying to get all my gear into a 4 skinner.

If you pull the rear seats out in the 80 then you can sleep back there quite nicely. Not sure if that's possible in the 4 runner.

I find the 4 runner pretty small in the drivers zone as well.

 

[Chris_Geiger]

I've slept in both my 93 4Runner and my 1994 80. The 80 is the more roomy of the two! Both rigs I have to remove the rear seats to sleep. If sleeping in the rig is a requirement, the 80 is the choice. Doing ORC event coverage out of the back of my 80 works much better than the 4Runner. I think the 4Runner was a little more capable on hard trails as it was 1,000 lbs lighter.

 

[Jonathan_Ferguson]

Much better.
Click & Click

 

[cruiserdan]

It is night and day between the 80 and the 92 Runner.


The 80 is SOOOOOO much better that I have a very difficult time understanding why you even posed the question.



If I could keep only one, it would be the 80.




If I could keep both, I would broom the 4Runner and get a second 80.....

 

[clownmidget]

You know the whole 3.0 liter V6 headgasket would be a big issue for me in deciding between your two trucks even if you have had the warranty work. My 1990 had it go twice, second time requiring a complete short block which was not easy for Toyota to get apparently as I had a loaner for 5 weeks.

The other thing that came to mind as I mulled this over was how one's perspective changes subtly as you get older (& hopefully wiser). I just am a whole lot more comfortable in the 80 both on and off road. And I think that translates into the truck performing as it should.

Jim Brantley put it succintly by just listing what the 80 came with stock and what most folks dream of having on their "dream truck" (eg, coil spring suspension, full floater rear, live front axle, fully selectable locking center/fr/rr, etc).

Also, Chris you should have mentioned when you said you thought your 4runner was more capable just how built out that truck was - many, many, major mods.

I say keep the 80 and start looking for a good used 100 series!

Mike R.

 

[Skim]

Very valid points, funny you mention the age thing. I just had a birthday a couple weeks ago !! The 80 is starting to win in my mind, for some reason the size of it makes me concerned.
I have always looked at the 80 as the ultimate 4Runner. It has everything that Toyota left off the 4Runner.

 

[semlin]

i agree with Dan. This is a no brainer. A friend of mine just bought a 92 4runner and we parked it side by side with my 93 80 and compared it. 4runner is a nice enough truck and I would prefer it over many others but I can't think of a single reason I would prefer it to the 80. Reasons I would not prefer it include:

1. rust starting up every damn where. you just do not see this on 80's but common on 4runners
2. rear cargo area seems to be half the size
3. engine bay is half the size and cramped
4. rear seats look to be half the size.
5. no rear rear seats
6. just about every thing I can see underneath the truck is less beefy than the 80
7. head gasket anxiety goes up 200%
8. driver's seat not as comfortable
9. less stock clearance
10. not quicker and not much better in traffic despite the size. drives more luck a truck and not as smooth as the 80
11. mileage advantage is only about 4 mpg -- i'll take the size
12. IFS
13. fit and finish on the 80 is better
14. 80 is cheaper to lift

you will take a hit on the 4runner if you unload it but for the use you describe I think you should build up your 80. it is a perfect expedition camping rig so unless you like to rock crawl and break crap there is just no debate. If the rock crawling is what you want maybe the weight is a factor, but there are plenty here who seem to do fine in rocks wiht 80s.