Question for those who own BOTH an 80 & 100 Series Cruiser... (1 Viewer)

Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
82
Location
Maryland
Question for those who own BOTH an 80 & 100 Series Cruiser...

Is there any significant difference in the amount of rear seat (2nd row, not third) space between the two, specifically in the distance from the backrest of the rear seat to the back of the front seats? I know that this distance depends upon the adjustment fo the front seat, but given a similar adjustment, does one have significantly more space than the other? We are looking for a Cruiser for the family, I prefer an 80, my wife a 100. I'd ultimately be happy either way I am sure, but I want to make sure there is sufficient space in the 80's back seat for the now very large child safety seats (rear facing) that are on the market. We have a family member with a '98 100, and know they will fit okay in that, so am I safe in assuming they will fit okay in the 80 as well?? Thanks in advance..
 

ace10

Another one bites the dust!
SILVER Star
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
1,347
Location
Rural NoVA
 
 
 
both have sufficient leg room, but i'd give the nod to the 100. it's a little wider too.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
259
 
 
 
With a rear-facing child seat on the DS in the 2nd row, we are limited in how far we can move the seat back and have to keep it more vertical than we'd like as well. There may be different designs out there that make more efficient use of space. Ours is some model by Cosco.

For forward-facing, we were able to pick up 1-2 inches of legroom (i.e. less kicking of the passenger seat) by getting the reclining hinges from Mot.
 

NorCalDoug

problems solved daily...
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
6,217
Location
uhhhh...duh...Northern CA
 
 
 
Since I don't have a 100...

I'll speak to how much room was available with rear-facing child seats in the 80. As you already alluded to...the seats are rather large these days. We have a britax roundabout and a century (I don't recall the model of the century).

I was able to get both seats in the rear facing position in both our 80s (the wife and I each have one I had the century in mine -- the britax was in hers). The fit of the britax was never a problem since it's a bit smaller in size as compared to the century. Both seats fit fine, but came very close to touching the back of the front seat.

In my 80, the seat was positioned behind my seat -- I'm on the larger side of 6'2", so my seat was back all the way and the seat back was tilted back a bit.

We bought these seats about 5 years ago, so the dimensions may have changed a bit since then. With our seats -- it's never been a problem.

I have been told that there's a bit more room in the 100 as compared to the 80 (2nd row seating-wise). Maybe the 100 would be better choice.

IMHO, the 100 wheels almost as good as the 80 on most trails any sane person would actually take a 100 on. It's newer and arguably, a bit safer (if you get a newer model with all the airbags -- side curtain, etc.)
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
343
I have a 1997 80, had a 2003 100. Anyway, the 100 has more room in it. It is wider, does have more 2nd row seat room than the 80. But the 100 still lacks the 2nd row room that something like a Suburban has, or even a Sienna.

At 6'3" my knees are pressed against the back of the front seats in both the 80 and 100.

With 1 child car seat in the middle of the 80 and 100, there really is not a lot of room for two adults in the 2nd row seats. With 1 child car seat placed behind either the drivers side or passenger side front seat, my daughters feet are right on the back of the seat in front. We had to get rid of the 100 when my daughter was 9 months old, with her seat turned backwards the top back of her seat was almost making contact with the seat in front of it if when I installed it directly behind one of the front seats.

I still consider LandCruisers midsized vehicles. It's obvious that Japanese designed them, not Germans.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
805
Location
Portsmouth NH
 
Great question, I just went through this. My 80 is a family hauler. I have an 80 (LX450) with leather seats. I have 3 kids in the age range of 5, 4 and 3 weeks. I use all the rows of the 80. I am 5' 11" and my wife is 5'3".

My 5 and 4 year olds both use Britax Husky seats in the third row. Geat seats but they are MASSIVE! Adjusting the tightness on the 5 point harness on the Husky that sits behind the 2nd row seat sucks.

Before buying our current infant seat, I tried at about 7 different infant seats, what a pain. Baby's are Us and some good local baby stores will allow you to try fitting the infant or car seat before purchase, just ask. The infant seat only worked for us behind the passanger front seat. All of the infant seats had the problem of hitting the passanger headrest and or seat top. I removed the seat behind the driver for ease of access to the third row. The only seat that fit well was the Graco Safe Enbrace behind the passange seat. Not the best seat around IMO, but it fit well. I wanted the Britax Companion but there just not enought room.

If I had a choice for a dedicated family hauler it would be the 100 for room only. The 100 is bigger and with more room behind the third row for baby crap. Are you really going to take an infant offroading where the 80 is needed because a 100 couldn't make it?

I may get a new Sienna for the wife and have the 80 as my DD.
 

Nay

Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
4,791
Location
Colorado
 
 
 
Get a minivan for the car seats and an 80 for wheeling. You can get both for the price of a new 100 series, and you will appreciate both the gas mileage, roominess and features of the minivan. I recommend the Nissan Quest over the Sienna.

3 row side airbags are standard, it got the best ratings in side impact protection, 5 star front ratings, and the well behind the 3rd row is wider than any others. Price for the mid level options is much better than the Sienna. Use the difference for a 100K warranty.

Nay
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
82
Location
Maryland
Thanks for the responses guys. I knew the 100 was significantly wider, but wasn’t sure how the backseat room played out fore and aft. I’m not even sure legroom is the right measurement I am looking for, more like the distance from the crack of the rear seat on a 45 degree angle to the back of the front seat. Just looking up interior dimensions doesn’t tell the story, cause honestly the dimensions look darn near identical viewed solely like this (from msn.autos.com)…


Interior Dimensions
1997 Land Cruiser 1998Land Cruiser
Standard Seating 5 5
Optional Seating 7 8
Front Headroom (in.) 40.30 40.60
Rear Headroom (in.) 39.70 39.80
Front Legroom (in.) 42.20 42.30
Rear Legroom (in.) 33.60 34.30
Front Shoulder (in.) 58.70 62.40
Rear Shoulder (in.) 58.70 61.20
Front Hip Room (in.) 59.50 58.60
Rear Hip Room (in.) 59.50 57.90


Cargo Area Dimensions
1997 Land Cruiser 1998Land Cruiser
Length (in.) 46.70 46.30
Width at Wheel(in.) 44.10 42.60
Width at Wall (in.) 58.10 58.10
Depth (in.) 42.20 42.70
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom