I agree, I had a 2nd gen 4r, and it felt positively claustrophobic compared to my 93 and 96 80 series. I am not a big guy, but definitely felt a difference between the 4r and 80.KliersLC said:
Viable Alternatives to FJ-80
- Thread starter WildHare
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I did the whole spreadsheet thing, essentially total cost of ownership. Out of the ten cars I was looking at the three that made the most sense were the:
1997 Toyota FZJ80
2001 Acura TL
2006 Toyota Prius
My spreadsheet was based on a 4 year ownership. Commuting 12k miles per year, and a gas price of $5.00 per gallon (i.e. average price of gas over the 4 year ownership period)
I ended up getting the FZJ80
1997 Toyota FZJ80
2001 Acura TL
2006 Toyota Prius
My spreadsheet was based on a 4 year ownership. Commuting 12k miles per year, and a gas price of $5.00 per gallon (i.e. average price of gas over the 4 year ownership period)
I ended up getting the FZJ80
WildHare said:
Ok, let's start here. A Jeep Cherokee (XJ) is not coil sprung. It has a front coil/rear leaf suspension. This is an outstanding combo for dual purpose use becaues you get the stability of rear leafs while retaining good flex and the performance and road comfort of a front coil suspension. If "dual purpose" for you has a major bias to rock crawling, the XJ should be squarely on your list.
The Jeep unibody line has an integrated subframe with beefed up mount points. You gain major clearance with this design because you don't have a low hanging frame extending out front and rear of the vehicle. These rigs have a developed aftermarket and have proven their capability offroad to an extent that the 80 series is not yet near. You shouldn't put heavy addons on any rig if you can avoid them. Why is that desirable? But you can put an ARB front bumper on an XJ just as easily and effectively as an 80.
What is your concern about reliability? The XJ uses a 4.0 inline six with the durability reputation of the 80's 4.5L. The auto tranny is a Toyota and has a similar reputation of 200K+ miles even under heavy modified use. I had a 1997 XJ that I sold at 105K miles, 80K of which were heavily modified, and it started and ran like new and the interior was in perfect shape without a single rattle. In contrast, the 1995 FZJ80 with 105K miles I bought has a much more worn interior, suspect power windows and seats, a complete POS stereo, and the paint is rusting.
Having said this, Jeeps are not built for 35" tires, plain and simple, and 80's are, and that is the major value of an 80. You will replace both axles on an XJ, and probably the transfer case. You more or less want to redesign much of the entire system behind the transmission, and you need to add bracing in areas that come stock on an 80 (like the panhard bracket in the front). The good thing is the aftermarket is available to support this easily. An XJ will "fit" you about the exact same as an 80 (both will be cramped). Way less rear seat room, and way less cargo. Not a good rig for four adults, but fine for two adults and kids.
Here is the bottom line: The 80 probably has more "out of the box" than any other 4x4 ever made. You have the right driveline in terms of performance and durabilty, you have a good suspension (the front has little more flex than IFS, though), and you have the underlying design premise and wheel wells to run 35's with no additional mods. What you don't have is an easy base to get "out of the box".
Jeeps are simply far easier in this regard, so when you say "tricked out" is when you should look elsewhere, because an 80 that is getting out of the box will ultimately require much of the same mods as any other rig, and your value proposition just went way, way down due to an 80's size constraints.
But you don't sound like you need to get out of the box. So an 80 is perfect. There is no better dual purpose rig, and believe me, I've tried. It's just that "tricked out for offroad" statement that concerned me. Doesn't sound like that is what you need at all. You just need a locked 80, 3" suspension (look into F.O.R. or Slee 4" depending on your needs) and maybe some sliders/bumpers/roof rack.
Nay
Here are some pics of both:
Last edited:
Lucy said:
There is no alternative for a family of six factoring in everything. That is exactly why I drive one. Honestly, I'd probably choose an 80 even for a family of four, but I am also not trying to "trick it out" for offroad use. I am trying to maximize what it does well, and that fits the limits of technical offroading I do (Moab 4+ / Colorado 8/9). The 80 is so simple that it offsets a lot of the size limitations.
I can go technical point by technical point why the 80 is not the best base for a "tricked out" rig if you really want me to. The 80 makes perfect sense when you stay "in the box" and maximize what an 80 does well, and it makes absolutely no sense once you get out of the box and have to start doing axle upgrades and suspension redesigns and all the other stuff you have to do on other rigs to trick them out for hardcore wheeling. The 80 is your perfect 95% rig - leave the other 5% to other rigs that are a better base.
Nay
Here are some pics of the axles and suspension of my old XJ. The first shows a high pinion Ford Dana 44 front housing with alloy axles and Warn premium hubs on a radius arm suspension with a 3/4 ton high clearance crossover steering. The second shows a custom Currie 9" high pinion rear with custom 3rd member and alloy axles - notice the driveshaft clearance and raised shock mounts. Notice lack of frame extending beyond body and robbing clearance anywhere. I built this suspension to run 10" travel shocks just like the 80 runs, despite the major difference in lift (7" vs. 3.5"). This is maybe the best illustration as to why the 80 is so much "easier" than other rigs, but it is actually easier to take other rigs farther than an 80. The XJ is also AWD.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #28
Nay said:
Oops, I was partially wrong.
Nay said:
"integrated subframe" is just another way of saying unibody.
Regardless of how many people like this setup, I've seen too many tweaked and ruined unibody vehicles to ever trust that it's a good long term solution for offroad use. I have replaced bodies from rolled body-on-frame 4x4's, and the fame/body mounts line up perfectly: frame unbent. I have friends who have had their frames straightened, and things lined up well. I have faith in good, strong frames, and body-on-frame manufacturing for offroad use.
In any case, I've never been interested in building up a Jeep, which is why I'm not too familiar with them.
-Dan
WildHare said:
Front seats all the way forward, second row folded flat, tailgate up. Platform is 36" wide, and 78" long, 12" above the floor. Nice because you can close it up if it rains. Hinged in 3 setcions, 28" each. and pretty comfy too, with the 2 1/2" HD foam pad...
WildHare said:
Actually, it's not. By creating frame rail structure within the unibody you have the same mount points as an actual frame and can add a lot of cross frame structural rigidity with bumpers, heavier duty crossmember, and even a good gas tank skid. And you can sleeve the frame rails themselves. This is not the same thing as say a minivan unibody and these rigs are running trails like the Hammers weekend in and weekend out without unibody tweaking. You simply can't say the same thing about 80's because of their size. I'd be a lot more worried about damage from taking an full size body on frame 80 on an extreme trail than a unibody XJ.
I'm not saying one is better than the other. Body on frames simply also have their disadvantages, and on the 80 the frame compromises clearance substantially, especially the rear overhang (and the rear crossmember is the bumper - what do you think happens to the frame if you take an angled hit on that "bumper"?). The unibody Jeeps have their issues as you point out, but they are well proven.
Probably the biggest disadvantage to a unibody is NVH. I have 35's MT's on my 80 and it's nice and quiet. Unibody rigs just cannot compete.
But you had the Jeeps on your list and they are absolutely viable alternatives for a four door dual purpose rig.
Biggest issue probably is XJ's and ZJ's are in the price range for teenagers (they are not $10K or anywhere close unless you go as late model as possible and very low miles) and they are just getting beat for the most part. There is nothing cool about that and I wouldn't build one either. At some point you have to grow up
.Nay
WildHare said:
Yes, the FZJ80. Everything else sucks.
-B-
Are you happy with your 4Runner? Why not keep it for off-road ventures and get something for commute driving? Maybe a used Audi S4? You'll get to exercise your skinny-pedal fever, and still have the ability of off-road.
I was looking for along time for a FJ60, but decided on a 3rd gen 4Runner, as I needed something a bit newer for kid-haulin (read compatible with car seats, newer, blah, blah). It is lifted and locked, and a 5spd. So, I satisified one side of my needs (4wd, off-road capable). I don't hard-core wheel the thing, mainly logging roads, some mud, dunes, etc.
I love the truck. However, I still miss having the ability to drive a fast car. I sold my E30 M3 which was my DD.
The lesson, you'll never find the ideal transportation, unless you're monolithic in your needs. If you don't have the need for quickness and handling, an FJ80 or 4Runner would be fantastic.
However, if you need both sides of the equation, consider two vehicles.
uberhahn
I was looking for along time for a FJ60, but decided on a 3rd gen 4Runner, as I needed something a bit newer for kid-haulin (read compatible with car seats, newer, blah, blah). It is lifted and locked, and a 5spd. So, I satisified one side of my needs (4wd, off-road capable). I don't hard-core wheel the thing, mainly logging roads, some mud, dunes, etc.
I love the truck. However, I still miss having the ability to drive a fast car. I sold my E30 M3 which was my DD.
The lesson, you'll never find the ideal transportation, unless you're monolithic in your needs. If you don't have the need for quickness and handling, an FJ80 or 4Runner would be fantastic.
However, if you need both sides of the equation, consider two vehicles.
uberhahn
It sure isn't like that here in B.C., Canada, with insurance. I wish it was, as it would change things for me considerably. I would go back to 2 vehicles almost for sure. But as it is, insurance is quite expensive, even if you've driven claim free for a very long time.
if you are worried about the gas cost,, buy one with a blown up motor cheep and take it to profits for a 4bt cummins swap....25+mpg and it fits what you want to do......just a thought....
WildHare said:
I have a 85 efi mini xcab, a 95 corolla wagon and the lx450.
The corolla is perfect and boring for work commuting. I will fit my mtn. bike or road bike without taking the wheels off (ideal). Forget the sedans get a wagon, much more practical around town hauling. I will buy another one.
I have the mini for shear offroad abuse and trail pinstripping and trash duty. "Did I hit the boulder? Cool!"
The 80 is the family car and does mild offroading. The 80 for my family's wheeling is like using a slegdehammer to drive in a tack. Overkill is good when the kids are with you. Ant the ride is light years beyond the mini's!!!!
It would be hard for me to abuse the 80 as much as the mini. I am sure the 80 could take more abuse, but it would drive me nuts to look at the crappy paint/dents on the $8000 to 12000 truck.
- Thread starter
- #38
Martin White said:
Well, I have had 2 cars on my insurance for a few years now: the car and the 4Runner. Generally, the car is considered the "reliable" vehicle, leaving the 4Runner for modding downtime and offroad play.
As my cars are 15+ years old, the cost differential for carrying full coverage vs. liability is not that much, with my insurer.
The only good substitute for an 80 is............ another 80, or a LX 450. If you figure what it would cost you to compete against an 80 you are going to pay so much more that it wouldn't be worth the small gas mileage difference.
