semlin
curmudgeon
Short answer is, to be honest, I like the 80 better as a daily driver in traffic in town 
but it's close and I am used to the 80 
long answer, here are road test drive impressions in a base canadian manual tranny today. Wife and I both drove. Purpose of drive was to assess as DD for my wife (our yellow model is a month away). We live in a city and have 2 kids so her demands will likely not be yours so consider what follows in that context.
My impression is this compares very well to a full sized truck/suv as a DD but not well to a car or mid sized unibody suv as a daily driver in traffic. The #1 problem is visibility, but also it is still a truck even if it is a very refined smaller truck. For that reason it suited me fine as being easier to drive than my 80 except for visibility but bugged my wife a lot as being too much like the 80 plus she could not see. She is really wavering on whether to buy it right now
.
-the overall size is really cool. Cargo area is good, rear seats big, yet the whole thing is shorter than a RAV4 (we parked'em side by side). Something is weird with Toyota cargo measurements too as the FJ with rear seats upright clearly has virtually the same cargo space as a Rav4 (we measured and looked side by side and the FJ is maybe 2 inches shallower but higher) yet is rated 30% lower on the website data charts. The FJC did have the rake of the rear seats intruding inward more into the cargo area but overall you can get a lot in there. My only complaint on size is that it is unnecessarily wide. the door panels must be 4 inches thick of wasted space.
-along with the small good oil filter it also shares cold start high RPM with the 80 !!! 1200 rpm cold. luckily it is a whole lot quieter than an 80 at those revs. Also looks like it has the same fan clutch as an 80.
-the 3 wipers are awesome. the yellow/white and black/white paint jobs are both very nice.
-the roof rack uses huge tubes that are a tad showy. I'd like to see it with 3/4 sized tubes but it looks pretty useful to me as is.
-my wife is 5'3" and she needs a step to get into this thing comfortably. Hopefully rockrails will work or we would have to get steps. Unfortunately there are no rockrails for the rear hatch access which also challenged her. there are also no handrails for kids to grab to get into the back seats.
-it handles steady and smooth as silk on regular roads. steering is good. road height good. engine noise minimal. suspension not overly soft. However even front visibility is not what i'd hoped for and noticably worse than the 80. Best way to describe is it is like sitting in a chopped and chanelled 49 mercury. You are missing the top 25% of your windshield and windows. Maybe this extra glass is really useless for driving and only of psychological benefit but I sure noticed it. maybe a sunroof would help.
-side and rear visibility is almost foolishly limited. not a vehicle for sight seeing. Function has been sacrificed for unnecessary form. Fron side windows are quite small and dominated by the buig mirrors to the point the mirrors creat a blind spot for traffic approaching perpendicular to you. Ideally, the glass should go all the way back on the sides and the roof should be higher to allow more glass. the way it is now, kids in the back seat are very limited in what they can see, and between that and the rear wheel the blind spot potential is crazy. Plus it is actually dark in the backseat and I wonder if my kids could read back there on a cloudy winter day!!
-the 6 speed manual is pretty good but noticably a truck shifter. The long clutch throw will also take getting used to. It is very nice and maybe it would get better with practice, but the wife was hoping for something smoother.
-power is very good but not exceptional in normal around town driving. again, maybe it would become more usable with practice. did not get out to the highway where i expect it will do very well.
-Truck was in 4 lo when i started the test drive. the salesguy who drove it round the lot for us had not even noticed. that would not happen in an 80!! 4 lo in first feels a lot higher geared than 4 lo in my 80. Definitely not as much crawl potential.
-Engine is a lot quieter than the 80. It pulls effortlessly but it felt like it had significantly less torque at all times during normal town driving. It does rev freely and a couple of times I was over 3,000 rpm without realizing it which could never happen in an 80. My suspicion is that the torque is further up the rev counter which is not particularly useful offroad, but potentially great on the highway and especially on hill climbs.
-VSC is switched off when in 4 lo. Not sure why. Also can't find a button to turn off trac but no "trac off" light came on when in 4 lo. Is it permanently engaged?
-like other new cars it suffers from "thick wall" syndrome with what appears to be crazy amount of space wasted in the doors and rear kick panels. Feels way chunkier than it needs to be.
-front seats should flip forward to allow easier rear entry.
-the awkward side view mirrors, protruding tail lights and fixed antenna are not BC trail friendly. although you can turn the side mirrors inward they can still catch on stuff and they look fragile and expensive. Someone will make some money if they can come up with a plug and play sensible alternative.
-overall it is a nice design and really really sharp looking from the front, but a lot of potential function has been sacrificed for form. I would love to see the direction Toyota had been heading with this vehicle before the H2 hit the market. I will gladly settle for what it is and praise its strengths, but, unlike the 80, I can see in it some design decisions made by Toyota that remind me of the unnecessary crap that detroit puts on their vehicles to make them look "cool" to the same people who like the body cladding on a pontiac grand prix. I really don't understand or agree with those decisions and I think Toyota should have given its japanese designers more influence.
but it's close and I am used to the 80 long answer, here are road test drive impressions in a base canadian manual tranny today. Wife and I both drove. Purpose of drive was to assess as DD for my wife (our yellow model is a month away). We live in a city and have 2 kids so her demands will likely not be yours so consider what follows in that context.
My impression is this compares very well to a full sized truck/suv as a DD but not well to a car or mid sized unibody suv as a daily driver in traffic. The #1 problem is visibility, but also it is still a truck even if it is a very refined smaller truck. For that reason it suited me fine as being easier to drive than my 80 except for visibility but bugged my wife a lot as being too much like the 80 plus she could not see. She is really wavering on whether to buy it right now
.-the overall size is really cool. Cargo area is good, rear seats big, yet the whole thing is shorter than a RAV4 (we parked'em side by side). Something is weird with Toyota cargo measurements too as the FJ with rear seats upright clearly has virtually the same cargo space as a Rav4 (we measured and looked side by side and the FJ is maybe 2 inches shallower but higher) yet is rated 30% lower on the website data charts. The FJC did have the rake of the rear seats intruding inward more into the cargo area but overall you can get a lot in there. My only complaint on size is that it is unnecessarily wide. the door panels must be 4 inches thick of wasted space.
-along with the small good oil filter it also shares cold start high RPM with the 80 !!! 1200 rpm cold. luckily it is a whole lot quieter than an 80 at those revs. Also looks like it has the same fan clutch as an 80.
-the 3 wipers are awesome. the yellow/white and black/white paint jobs are both very nice.
-the roof rack uses huge tubes that are a tad showy. I'd like to see it with 3/4 sized tubes but it looks pretty useful to me as is.
-my wife is 5'3" and she needs a step to get into this thing comfortably. Hopefully rockrails will work or we would have to get steps. Unfortunately there are no rockrails for the rear hatch access which also challenged her. there are also no handrails for kids to grab to get into the back seats.
-it handles steady and smooth as silk on regular roads. steering is good. road height good. engine noise minimal. suspension not overly soft. However even front visibility is not what i'd hoped for and noticably worse than the 80. Best way to describe is it is like sitting in a chopped and chanelled 49 mercury. You are missing the top 25% of your windshield and windows. Maybe this extra glass is really useless for driving and only of psychological benefit but I sure noticed it. maybe a sunroof would help.
-side and rear visibility is almost foolishly limited. not a vehicle for sight seeing. Function has been sacrificed for unnecessary form. Fron side windows are quite small and dominated by the buig mirrors to the point the mirrors creat a blind spot for traffic approaching perpendicular to you. Ideally, the glass should go all the way back on the sides and the roof should be higher to allow more glass. the way it is now, kids in the back seat are very limited in what they can see, and between that and the rear wheel the blind spot potential is crazy. Plus it is actually dark in the backseat and I wonder if my kids could read back there on a cloudy winter day!!
-the 6 speed manual is pretty good but noticably a truck shifter. The long clutch throw will also take getting used to. It is very nice and maybe it would get better with practice, but the wife was hoping for something smoother.
-power is very good but not exceptional in normal around town driving. again, maybe it would become more usable with practice. did not get out to the highway where i expect it will do very well.
-Truck was in 4 lo when i started the test drive. the salesguy who drove it round the lot for us had not even noticed. that would not happen in an 80!! 4 lo in first feels a lot higher geared than 4 lo in my 80. Definitely not as much crawl potential.
-Engine is a lot quieter than the 80. It pulls effortlessly but it felt like it had significantly less torque at all times during normal town driving. It does rev freely and a couple of times I was over 3,000 rpm without realizing it which could never happen in an 80. My suspicion is that the torque is further up the rev counter which is not particularly useful offroad, but potentially great on the highway and especially on hill climbs.
-VSC is switched off when in 4 lo. Not sure why. Also can't find a button to turn off trac but no "trac off" light came on when in 4 lo. Is it permanently engaged?
-like other new cars it suffers from "thick wall" syndrome with what appears to be crazy amount of space wasted in the doors and rear kick panels. Feels way chunkier than it needs to be.
-front seats should flip forward to allow easier rear entry.
-the awkward side view mirrors, protruding tail lights and fixed antenna are not BC trail friendly. although you can turn the side mirrors inward they can still catch on stuff and they look fragile and expensive. Someone will make some money if they can come up with a plug and play sensible alternative.
-overall it is a nice design and really really sharp looking from the front, but a lot of potential function has been sacrificed for form. I would love to see the direction Toyota had been heading with this vehicle before the H2 hit the market. I will gladly settle for what it is and praise its strengths, but, unlike the 80, I can see in it some design decisions made by Toyota that remind me of the unnecessary crap that detroit puts on their vehicles to make them look "cool" to the same people who like the body cladding on a pontiac grand prix. I really don't understand or agree with those decisions and I think Toyota should have given its japanese designers more influence.
