found a nice 91 should i hold out for a later model (1 Viewer)

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

Joined
Jan 31, 2015
Threads
29
Messages
708
is the new 4.5 better than the 4.0. is the new trans A442F better than the old A440F? and no disc brakes in the rear and no abs. some opinions.



thanks
 
You will certainly get a lot of opinions on this one. I have a 1991 and like it because the engine is simple and reliable. I don't live near a city but have done city driving with it and noticed significant brake fade in heavy stop and go traffic. It is brutally slow but that doesn't really bother me. I suppose it comes down to what you plan to do with it.
Cheers,
Scot
 
:worms::popcorn:
 
A 1991 technically qualifies as a classic vehicle now...

Parts are harder to find...

Slow... Not like tree-growing-slow or paint-drying-slow, I mean BUTT FREAKING SLOW...

Brakes suck...

Gas mileage? Don't even try.

That said, I'll never willingly get rid of my '92. It's so simply built and that engine is bombproof. It's got more personality than almost anything else I've ever driven. It may take forever to get through hell and back, but it'll do it smiling.
 
Own two 92s and a 93. I wouldn't say any 80 series is lightning fast in stock form (i.e. Without a supercharger or LSx swap).

I like the simplicity of the 91-92 80s. Bombproof. Simple to work on, if needed. I've never had an issue with braking.

The 91-92 seems to be more torquey than the 93-97.

If it's clean buy it. Or hold out for a newer one. You can't go wrong either way.
 
My 1992 with 35" tires and stock 4.10 gears is fast enough for me. I'd like to see these autobahns where people are having trouble keeping up. To me, going quicker than 75 MPH in a 25 year old vehicle with no airbags is a little nutty.
 
Yes.

Per @LS1FJ40 : No.

Next guy:
Yes.

Guy after that:
No.
 
You need to drive both, figure out which one suits your needs, and be happy.

I sold my '91 LC years ago. I bought it from the OG owner. Even years after I sold it I would email the guy that bought it from me and ask how the truck was doing:confused:.

I wish I never sold it. It was clean and solid.
 
Your use defines if it fits you.

I don't think I'd want to try my luck on the freeway if towing anything appreciable behind a 3FE.

It's bad enough towing with a 1FZ, let alone being hobbled more.

Each guy has to figure out what 'enough' is for them. :meh:

Frankly I'm versed in the later 1FZ, so if it ain't late'95-'97 - it's not for me.
I know my market segment.
 
I owned a '96 LX450 and now have a '92. I say skip the 93-94, get either a 91-92 or a 95-97. Here's a brief summary:

95+ Pros:
-Air bags
-OBDII
-More power, but the incremental "usable" power over the 3FE is greatly exaggerated on Mud
-Available lockers. Not important for everyday use, but pretty awesome to have in the rare case that you need them!

95+ Cons:
-The constant fretting over the imminent head gasket failure :flipoff2:
-Leather interior that's cracked to hell 99% of the time
-A few more electronic do-dads (sensors, switches, controllers, etc.) that are potential failure points--not a big deal

91-92 Pros:
-3FE is dead simple and easy to work on, especially after a proper desmogging
-3FE is allegedly a bit more reliable, but admittedly this is probably exaggerated on Mud
-Cloth interior

91-92 Cons:
-Less power, but again, for average daily driving I don't notice much of a difference between the two. They're both slower than :poop:.
-Lower OEM part availability, but I haven't found that to be a problem yet.
-No air bags
-No OBDII
-Rear drum brakes. Front brakes and booster can rather simply be updated to 96+.
-No lockers available but there are aftermarket alternatives.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom