Official ONSC member buying/selling thread (9 Viewers)

[NCFJ]

I'd say hours upon hours of painstaking work. At least they could have the top and doors off while fitting the dash, huge plus. I think it is pretty cool. Only glaring thing to me is the front axle looks to sit a bit far back.

 

[onemanarmy]

IFS.

Lame.

Alot of work for sure. Wonder who commissioned it?

 

[NCFJ]

I don't see the IFS as an issue really. This is basically a 40 body on an FJC roller. I doubt this rig will see much more than moderate trails. Even if it does the FJC chassis is very capable. On the other hand the coil springs all around and IFS up front probably actually make for a 40 you would not mind driving for 8 hours straight.

 

[RedHeadedStepChild]

IFS.

Lame.

Alot of work for sure. Wonder who commissioned it?

That was my first thought as well, but I've been thinking about it this morning and I've reconsidered. Mr. T. put IFS of the FJC because he determined that MOST people (not hardcore Luddites such as ourselves) prefer the ride and handling associated with it. MOST people only drive on the street where there is really no comparison; IFS is the hands-down winner. It seems that the vehicles fetching large sums are NOT factory correct restorations, but instead resto-mods that offer the aesthetic of the originals with none of the hassles and headaches. This is clearly a vehicle built along those lines - a modern vehicle that only LOOKS old.
I would bet that whoever spend $100+K on this thing will likely NOT be trying to conquer anything even remotely close to Daniel - maybe a dirt road leading to a wine cave in Napa. That being the case, I think IFS was a very good choice on the part of the builder. Not what I would want in this vehicle, but even if I had it, I wouldn't be dropping that kind of coin on it so my wishes, hopes, dreams, and desires are completely irrelevant.
All that said, I have a 3rd gen 4Runner (very close cousin of the FJC) and a 44. The Runner is IFS, the 44 is not. That Runner will EASILY out wheel the 44 in any conditions.

 

[BMThiker]

I saw this a little while ago and posted it here: One day...

 

[BMThiker]

And here's the full build thread on the original site: FJ-40 Cruiser
Lots of detailed pics.

 

[onemanarmy]

That was my first thought as well, but I've been thinking about it this morning and I've reconsidered. Mr. T. put IFS of the FJC because he determined that MOST people (not hardcore Luddites such as ourselves) prefer the ride and handling associated with it. MOST people only drive on the street where there is really no comparison; IFS is the hands-down winner. It seems that the vehicles fetching large sums are NOT factory correct restorations, but instead resto-mods that offer the aesthetic of the originals with none of the hassles and headaches. This is clearly a vehicle built along those lines - a modern vehicle that only LOOKS old.
I would bet that whoever spend $100+K on this thing will likely NOT be trying to conquer anything even remotely close to Daniel - maybe a dirt road leading to a wine cave in Napa. That being the case, I think IFS was a very good choice on the part of the builder. Not what I would want in this vehicle, but even if I had it, I wouldn't be dropping that kind of coin on it so my wishes, hopes, dreams, and desires are completely irrelevant.
All that said, I have a 3rd gen 4Runner (very close cousin of the FJC) and a 44. The Runner is IFS, the 44 is not. That Runner will EASILY out wheel the 44 in any conditions.

the FJ40 (and all the original land Cruisers) weren't built to 'wheel'

They were built to work and work some more and be dependable. To compete with the Jeep CJ and the Land Rover Series. They hit a home run.

The FJC was built on the 4runner platform to make it cheap as possible to build. It was a failure from any rational car buyer point of view. Sure, it sold, hell the Pontiac Aztec sold. That isn't a good measure of vehicular success.

Sure IFS rides and drives better, but that isn't the entire reason people buy cars.

The Jeep wrangler sells in the millions.
Jonathan Ward can't produce ICONS and FJ40 restos quick enough.
All Toyota has to do, is make a removable door, removable top, solid axle, true dependable 4wd and they will have a winner on their hands.

 

[RedHeadedStepChild]

the FJ40 (and all the original land Cruisers) weren't built to 'wheel'

They were built to work and work some more and be dependable. To compete with the Jeep CJ and the Land Rover Series. They hit a home run.

The FJC was built on the 4runner platform to make it cheap as possible to build. It was a failure from any rational car buyer point of view. Sure, it sold, hell the Pontiac Aztec sold. That isn't a good measure of vehicular success.

Sure IFS rides and drives better, but that isn't the entire reason people buy cars.

The Jeep wrangler sells in the millions.
Jonathan Ward can't produce ICONS and FJ40 restos quick enough.
All Toyota has to do, is make a removable door, removable top, solid axle, true dependable 4wd and they will have a winner on their hands.

I don't disagree with any of that. I wish they would too.
My point was that THIS vehicle is no longer a work/utility vehicle. It is a toy or piece of jewelry for someone with money to burn. In that case, I think the comfy ride wins.
BUT if it's my money, I'm with you.

 

[Rice]

the FJ40 (and all the original land Cruisers) weren't built to 'wheel'

They were built to work and work some more and be dependable. To compete with the Jeep CJ and the Land Rover Series. They hit a home run.

The FJC was built on the 4runner platform to make it cheap as possible to build. It was a failure from any rational car buyer point of view. Sure, it sold, hell the Pontiac Aztec sold. That isn't a good measure of vehicular success.

Sure IFS rides and drives better, but that isn't the entire reason people buy cars.

The Jeep wrangler sells in the millions.
Jonathan Ward can't produce ICONS and FJ40 restos quick enough.
All Toyota has to do, is make a removable door, removable top, solid axle, true dependable 4wd and they will have a winner on their hands.

I'm confused. Are you trying to say IFS is the reason the FJC failed? If so I would propose there were several reasons for the FJC failure but that IFS was pretty far down the list. It was introduced at the poorest possible time with regard to an economic downturn and a rapid increase in gas prices and at about the same time Jeep was introducing a 4-door Wrangler. Add to that the large complaint that the FJC had a blind spot for days and its fate was set.

I would venture to say the continued success of the Wrangler has very little to do with it being a solid axle vehicle and that most of the sales are buoyed by the "I refuse to drive a minivan" crowd who feel driving a jeep somehow unshackles them from hum-drum vehicles even if the road manners aren't as nice.

 

[uzj100]

It is hard to believe no one is taking on the Jeep Wrangler. Toyota could easily do this if not for IMAGE alone. Add in the Jeep Wrangler pickup and a diesel option and the sales will increase by 30 to 40 % again.

The whole jeep thing is just another arrow in the quiver for the poser world we live in today. ;<)

 

[onemanarmy]

No, the IFS is not why the FJC failed. It was the total failure of the total design. All they had to do was take on the Wrangler. And would have wiped the floor with with Jeep.

The fuel prices had little to nothing to to do with it. Jeep kept selling the Ghey K.

The people that don't want to drive a minivan buy the crossovers and Tahoes and the like.

Jeep sells the JK due to the easy mods, the tough styling and image, and there is really nothing else like it mass produced.

I understand that Toyota wants to make as many bland and uninspired cars as possible to keep selling millions of Camrys and Corollas. Decent biz model. They make tons of money.

But back to the FJC, if they were going to make the effort and spend the hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a new car to market, with a direct competitor that was easy to design against (the wrangler) and decades of history and proven design success in house (the original Cruisers), how could it all go so wrong? You're telling me not ONE person in command of that company couldn't see that the FJC was a terrible idea? Jonathan Ward did work for Toyota to come up with a 'modern' FJ40, and he is baffled too (said in youtube vids) as to why it was taken in a different direction.

But I digress, and this is the wrong thread....

 

[Mtbcoach]

the FJ40 (and all the original land Cruisers) weren't built to 'wheel'

They were built to work and work some more and be dependable. To compete with the Jeep CJ and the Land Rover Series. They hit a home run.

The FJC was built on the 4runner platform to make it cheap as possible to build. It was a failure from any rational car buyer point of view. Sure, it sold, hell the Pontiac Aztec sold. That isn't a good measure of vehicular success.

Sure IFS rides and drives better, but that isn't the entire reason people buy cars.

The Jeep wrangler sells in the millions.
Jonathan Ward can't produce ICONS and FJ40 restos quick enough.
All Toyota has to do, is make a removable door, removable top, solid axle, true dependable 4wd and they will have a winner on their hands.

While I might agree with the majority of this post and find responding to such in the for sale thread stupid on my part (sorry for doing so) yet... calling the FJC "a failure from any rational car buyer point of view" while comparing it to the Aztec is something I can't ignore. I'm clearly an irrational car buyer for doing so. As a 60 yr old man, I've purchased many vehicles in my life, consider myself fairly rational (some may offer different opinions) and would offer my point of view.

For clarity, the FJC is built off the 120 platform, one Toyota has generated several successful models from, most prominent is the Prado worldwide and does include the 4Rnr, very successful model in the US. Based on the worldwide success of the 120 platform models, stating that it was a failure, it can't be the platform from which this statement is made.

In fact, the GX470 (another 120 platform model) is generating great interest in being "built to wheel" where the components to do so come from those fabricators/manufacturers that took the initiative and invested substantial resources to provide quality components for FJC market. Ask those who are building their GX470's for ExPed rigs if they don't appreciate how well those FJC components work on their rigs. Those that I know are grateful for the "off-the-shelf" builds that bolt right up. From a technical standpoint, without the FJC, few would imagine fabricators generating components for the GX470 as those who did for the FJC. People are building IFS rigs for KOH, claiming the 120 platform a failure from a rational car buyer standpoint can't be accurate due to the worldwide success.

In '08, I stuffed my 2 kids and a 7 month old pup into mine, drive to CA, participated in Rubithon in the first official FJC group (where we had to agree to yield to all other groups on the trail in order to not hold anybody up, everyone presumed we would fail), drove it on 255/85/16's (minimum 33" required tire by Rubithon organizers) without any damage nor being winched (2 rigs were damaged cosmetically) our run was well documented by the marketing team who ran the Toyota Trail Team, the benevolent leader of IH8MUD being one of those members will validate that we weren't "short roped" through with any more rock-stacking to get through than "wagon run" or any others.

After completing Rubithon, I travelled to visit family in the SF Bay Area and Santa Cruz, traveling to AZ for more family visiting after spending time in Yosemite and Big Bear. We picked my wife up in AZ where we drove to Moab for a "pre-FJCSummit" event where I drove the Moab Trifecta including Hell's Revenge including Hell's Gate. We then traveled to the FJCSummit where we did Black Bear Pass and the relatively easy trails but did do Poughkeepsie Gulch before it was an "official" trail. Dropped the wife and kids off at DEN, finished the trip with the pup, zero issues but gas and oil. Complete and total failure by Toyota.

From a functional standpoint, we found no issues with the clamshell doors, in fact, I like it since I wheeled a lot with my dog and it made it super easy to let her out at every stop. Kids didn't mind the rear seats and small windows when young, I never had a problem with blind spots because my dad taught me how to drive with my mirrors. But, those are "opinion" issues, not something that would qualify it as a failure from "most" rational car buyers.

So, this must come down to one's opinion that because they don't like the way it looks and it is a total failure from a rational car buyer. I get ugly, I love ugly, why I share my love for FJ55's, who many ague is the MOST ugly of the Land Cruiser's produced. I enjoyed the berating I received of how ugly and stupid it looked, hardly reason to call me an irrational car buyer though.

Lastly, buying the FJC brought me to meet many great friends and this club. I have fond memories of Eric and Stacy at the North meets South '06 event at URE where their welcoming of the "non-Land Cruiser" into the group for my first official beating of mine. The FJC took my family out to meet more people as we participated in events from coast-to-coast, many whom I now consider deep friends. I still find it amazing how deep a bond one creates as we wander through beautiful trails, making sure everyone gets A-B, never leaving anyone stranded on the trail, regardless of the conditions. Those bonds run deep, created by my irrational purchase of the FJC.

Guilty...

 

[BMThiker]

Nicely put Jerry!

 

[NCFJ]

having spent some time mutually beating our FJCs, I have to agree with Jerry. It had it's draw backs for sure but I never backed off anything because I did not have a solid front axle.

 

[roadstr6]

Until Toyota builds something that goes topless with SFA and lockers I guess I'll just keep "posing" in my "ghey k". I have to admit it sure is nice dropping the top and cruising around with the AC pumping and knowing that I can outwheel anything made by Toyota North America in the last 20 years. Flame on boys! Flame on!

 

[sleepycruiser]

Personally, I like Jeeps. I have owned 4 Wranglers. The first vehicle that I bought with my money was a 1994 Sahara....that was in 2000 I think. They aren't too practical if you use it as a DD and need room, but as a fun vehicle I like them. Nothing like riding around with the top off. And chicks in their early 20s dig Wranglers.

The first 4 door Wrangler I saw was in 1999....Jeep didn't offer it then, but I was in school and someone had it parked outside...at that time I think having the rear 2 doors was a $15,000-20,000 aftermarket option.

I would still like to get a 4 door eventually but after having Wranglers and now the LC I will say I like the LC MUCH more from a convenience standpoint. My wife likes it more as well....but who cares what she thinks....this is MY stuff.

 

[jamesurq]

 

[izzyandsue]

Until Toyota builds something that goes topless with SFA and lockers I guess I'll just keep "posing" in my "ghey k". I have to admit it sure is nice dropping the top and cruising around with the AC pumping and knowing that I can outwheel anything made by Toyota North America in the last 20 years. Flame on boys! Flame on!

View attachment 1388955

Is that steam coming from the engine bay? Looks like overheating maybe?

 

[uzj100]

Nice Jeep. Posing are the Rubicons (and all other Wranglers) that are midnight black underneath and have never been off tarmac or dirty.

 

[NCFJ]

Let them be posers, they're paying their own bills

I like the Jeep Dave. The 78 CJ7 I had while in the Keys was a perfect vehicle, no top or doors, just a bikini. I loved that Jeep and once I had it base lined it was reliable.