Land Cruiser 4x4 system better than the rest?

[Junk]

Rich, you can't even start to compare a boobiecon to an 80. Those heeps spend so much time fixing their broken crap that there is no comparison.

A G-wag is the next in line to the 80.

 

[Rich]

Junk, the way I look at it, one could argue the reliability of a Rubicon vs a cruiser, but not you

The way I look at it Jeep has designed the Rubicon for real off road use. I'm not seeing any evidence of Toyota doing that any more for the Land Cruisers that are sold in the US. It's a shame.

 

[clownmidget]

I'd say a 100 series is next in line to an 80, then a G-wagen.

 

[clownmidget]

The way I look at it Jeep has designed the Rubicon for real off road use. I'm not seeing any evidence of Toyota doing that any more for the Land Cruisers that are sold in the US. It's a shame.

Rich, by "real off road use" you must mean that you can actually drive it 80 mph to the trail, wheel it and actually make it off the trail, drive home and then commute to work the next day, right I think that's what Junk means. It IS important to consider reliability. That's one reason Toyota doesn't have to keep re-inventing crap, it lasts a hell of a lot longer. Most 80s have more than 100K miles, a lot with >150K, and their still wheeled like hell and then take the kids to school on Monday. I just don't see Heeps doing that. If someone is wheeling a stock Rubicant like those guys that did Miller in their stock trucks it would still be at a dealership getting repaired. Sticking lockers on them doesn't fix a crap tranny, crap engine, crap electricals, questionable diffs and what I'd consider underbuilt axles. If size is a factor, I'd still bet a std cab Tacoma TRD w/ just a rr locker would outperform the Heep. But there's still nothing out there that'll truly hang with an 80 overall. Period.

 

[clownmidget]

The way I look at it Jeep has designed the Rubicon for real off road use. I'm not seeing any evidence of Toyota doing that any more for the Land Cruisers that are sold in the US. It's a shame.

Oh, and Christo might beg to differ...

 

[Rich]

Let's be reasonable. The Miller trail would be no challenge whatsoever for a stock Rubicon. People drive them to the trail, drive them home, and drive them to work all of the time. Are they as reliable as a Toyota, probably not. No surprise there. However, I've never bought into the mindset of "my brand is great, and all other brands are trash". I see this attitude in almost all of the various vehicle forums and it has always struck me as being a bit odd. I enjoy driving offroad and if Toyotas didn't exist I would still be enjoying driving offroad in another brand.

 

[Junk]

anyone else think this crap belongs in chat?

 

[Lars]

anyone else think this crap belongs in chat?

Good god yes!

 

[CruisinGA]

Jeep Rubicon comes stock with lockers. It will go most places an 80 will go and many places an 80 is too large to fit. Obviously dosen't have the interior room of a cruiser.

It has lockers. It is smaller. Still a lightweight, poorly built piece. It is definatly a contender, as far as pure, off the shelf offroadability. However, people make a big deal about it being the "first model in US to have lockers standard." It is nothing more than a wranger with a lower range, little bigger axles and lockers. If Toyota made the cruiser with lockers the "Land Cruiser (insert famous trail here)" it would be no different. Other than the fact that stock cruiser axles are strong enough to handle lockers.

Coming soon is a Dodge Powerwagon with factory lockers and winch. I expect an 80 would fit in some places that a Powerwagon would not. I expect that Power wagon will work very well of road where it fits.

We were talking about suv's without lockers. Yes it will do ok. It is still a dodge. Be suprised if the truck has oil pressure and the rear end still works after 50k. It also will not have the suspension flex nor the torque band of the 80.

Of course, neither of these vehicles are directly comparable, as one is much smaller, and the other is a pickup truck, but each probably represents the best that the US has to offer in real off road vehicles.

It's pretty pathetic, isn't it?

 

[blupaddler]

But dude! What about my totally huge Hummer! Bro, common those things go all over the place!

He, he, he, he...

I recently met a guy who has one and has NEVER taken it off road.

Oh, yeah, and some truck magazine just voted the new Landrover 3 or LR3, or whatever that thing is called...SUV of the year!!!

We might as well start buying up all the 80's you can now. That is before everyone realizes how great they really are.

 

[Rich]

...
[regarding dodge powerwagon] It also will not have the suspension flex nor the torque band of the 80....
QUOTE]

The power wagon hemi V8 is speced at 345-horsepower & 375 lb-ft torque. It will be equiped with 4.56 gears. It is going to have way more power and torque than an 80 cruiser. In terms of flex, it will have electrically disconnectable sway bars. Comes stock with 33 inch tires Goodrich AT tires and forged aluminum wheels. Dodge is looking at what serious offroad drivers want for equipement. Hopefully they will sell a boat load of them and other manufactures will feel that a serious offroad market exists in the USA.

 

[LX_TREME]

The only SUV that would be hard to compete against LC80 AWD system is RangeRover.I mean own both vehicle and rangerover got same everything as LC80 -AWD hi & Lo.In Australia and some other countries RangeRover been tested in serious real off-road situation.

 

[calamaridog]

I'm curious to know if you think the Land Cruiser (80 series) is more capable off-road than other SUVs? I understand the benefits of having lockers, but let's assume that an 80 series doesn't have them. Is the 4 wheel drive system in the Cruiser any better than a typical SUV with 4-lo?

Which SUVs could hang with the Cruiser? Which SUVs would leave the Cruiser behind? Let's keep the comparison to production SUVs available in North America from 1990 - present.

Fire away...

The FJ80 is a great all around package, capable stock, and lending itself to moderate modifications. So yes, it is a good vehicle, as good as any.

(I think all 4x4's without at least a rear locker suck... If you are serious about offroading you should at least have a rear locker. You can do so muck more.)

The Land Rover, Discovery, and Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee's are solid axle so they have better articulation than IFS style rigs. Drove a rental Disco off road before and had a little fun, but nothing too crazy

With that being said, the 4runners, Xtera's, and even Blazer ZR2's aren't bad at all. Not bad, but not great.

Personally, I've walked up some obsticles in my Tacoma with a rear locker and 31 AT's that stopped some stupid jeepers on 35's. Equipment is great, but you've got to know how to use it.

Oh yea, the Jeep cj and wrangler is not an SUV and doesn't fit in the same category as the FJ80. Kinda like comparing kumquats and grapefruit.

 

[Gumby]

I see where you are going with this, Rich. i am also upset that Toyota does not market the truck to the off-road market. if you step back and look under the skin, the trucks are BUILT for the off-road market, but not for those of us that play there. They are built for those folks who LIVE there, every day. Tacos and Cruisers are for people who have to go off road to get anywhere every day, bacause the roads, what are there, are not what we would call a well maintained trail.

Tell me what third world country uses Jeeps and Dodges? Mexico, maybe, since they get dumped there. Actually, Dodge builds a lot of stuff there. Anybody else? Aside from left over flatties in SE Asia.

My Dad does a lot of third world travelling. He is always talking to the locals about Cruisers. Those who don't own them wish they did, for the most part.

I have zero respect for the Rubicon trail. I would love to wheel there, but the name means nothing anymore. The Liberty is trail tested? The Grand Cherokee? Must be about as challenging as the curb at Starbucks.

 

[Gold Finger]

Straight out of the box and no modifications the Mercedes G Wagon is a superb off road vehicle, it has very good articulation, and diff locks front and rear and full time 4x4 in post 1994 models. An advantage the G wagon has over the 80 is the small amount of rear overhang even in the long wheel base which is 112 inches so it so less likely to get its tail caught up on rocks. Even without engaging diff locks it is very capable.

Landover 110 has permanent 4x4; fantastic articulation out of the box is less likely than any long wheel base currently available to get its belly caught up on rocks as it stands very high without aftermarket springs. It has an excellent approach angle but in the long wheel base version has a lot of rear overhang about the same as an 80 but this is quite high of the ground. Although not equipped with locking axles it manages to go a long way and is very hard to beet if comparing against vehicles also without locked axles. The latest vehicles are equipped with electronically ABS activated brakes that will prevent wheel spin making this an incredible off road machine. The Landover is designed from the outset to accommodate off road use with out compromise and is a very rugged machine capable of a lot of abuse. The short wheel base 90 is even better off road but I am trying to compare vehicles of a similar wheel base. They are very easily modified. Reliability is not there strongest point especially the gear box but I had no problems with mine.

Rangrover very similar chassis to the Land Rover but has smaller wheels excellent articulation will also go most places, does not have locked axles but later vehicles also have the option of anti spin wheels. Post 1990s I think, have adjustable air bag suspension. I reluctantly drove a 4.6 vogue se and was gob smacked, the air bags have made this vehicle a wonderful drive. I have not driven it off tarmac but I bet it would be pretty good. The Mark III I have only seen but reports are surprisingly good. But I can not say my self as I have no experience.

Any of these vehicles would give an 80 a run for there money off road, I have owned Landover 110, Mercedes and G Wagon 2.8 Auto and have driven all of the above both on and off road. The 80 is a wonderful package and encompasses many virtues to make for me the best overall package for my particular needs and is equal to or better in some cases than the above. I have done a lot of recreational driving and still enjoy it but I have a daily need for the sort of vehicles listed above just to get in and out of my property with any certainty. There are of course other vehicles as well as the much more specialised, Pinzegauer, Unimog I have had one of these a 406 crew cab used daily on and off the road great fun.

 

[Critter]

Someone told me a while ago that the LandRover has a better stock suspension than the 80 series. You just need to remember to always bring the mechanic along. Not to mention spares for everything.

The one time I went to Tellico we were playing on the RTI ramp at crawfords. I was impressed when a Discovery went up it, his front tire that wasn't on the ramp started lifting and he got it a solid 1.5ft or better off the ground. The truck was completely stable, it was very well balanced from what I could tell. However the Brits still suck at building cars and I wouldn't have one... plus I think they're owned by Ford now and the only Ford I want has "Powerstroke" written on the door.

 

[CruisinGA]

...
[regarding dodge powerwagon] It also will not have the suspension flex nor the torque band of the 80....
QUOTE]

The power wagon hemi V8 is speced at 345-horsepower & 375 lb-ft torque. It will be equiped with 4.56 gears. It is going to have way more power and torque than an 80 cruiser. In terms of flex, it will have electrically disconnectable sway bars. Comes stock with 33 inch tires Goodrich AT tires and forged aluminum wheels. Dodge is looking at what serious offroad drivers want for equipement. Hopefully they will sell a boat load of them and other manufactures will feel that a serious offroad market exists in the USA.

So when does it develop said torque? I doubt as early as the LC 6's.

4:56 gears just compensate for the 33's. Dodge is not about to sacrifice highway driveability.

Electric disconnecting swaybars. Because its too hard to grab a wrench, and, ooh look that ground is dirrrrty.

I can't wait until I see a bunch of Dodge Pussywagons out on the trail. I better go ahead and buy a backup motor for my winch, its gonna get used a lot.

 

[sandcruiser]

Sure the 80 is great. No doubt. The LR3 performs well offroad (a friend has one, he drives hard, it is fine). Range Rovers are pretty tough in stock configuration. Much better with tires (just like the 80).

Other than that, there isn't much.

 

[Romer]

ummmmm, I would take my FJ40 over the heep, Landrover, G wagon, etc.... Of course I did add a rear locker.

 

[Rich]

Baily, so you are dismissing from the factory big torque, big horsepower, stock 33 inch tires, 4.56 gears, stock factory winch, stock front & rear lockers, and choice of manual or automatic transmission, even though all of those are EXACTLY the kinds of mods that a LOT of folks in this forum pursue?

I understand you quite well, if its not Toyota, you don't want it. Fine.

The fact of the matter what Dodge is putting on the powerwagon is all the right kind of stuff to make an excellent off road truck. To argue otherwise is a bit absurd.