Simmer down all...group hug.
What's better offroad, 80 series, or 100 series? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter arbetrader
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
You guys should still consider 60's. . .
Dylan
Dylan
Or not posting during a full moon in complete sync with the wife's cycle
We did a difficult rock crawling trail (Old Chinaman Gulch) yesterday in the snow. If you don't have a front locker on a run like this, you'd better have a winch. Take the dry sand of a gulch trail and add powder snow and you get the consistency of soap. This is the kind of run that will get a long time all terrain (AT) believer to go MT and never go back. Hell, I'm seriously looking at winch for the first time in ten years.
Just a perfect day, and one I'd never run in a 100 because dents just aren't going to be pretty or cool - some of the lines were tight enough that if I had flares I'd have significant damage today. I wouldn't choose a 100 not because it wouldn't make it with the right setup, but because I would hate it, and this was the best run I've had in probably five years. How YOU feel as you wheel is as important as anything. If your setup puts some hair on your set, then it's the right rig for you. If it doesn't, your either going to make mistakes or go to great pains to avoid any chance of a mistake every time you wheel. That is not a 95% driver equation - a driver cannot overcome the essential limitations of a rig with anything but throttle and what will come to pass as stupidity on a vehicle you can't afford to roll.
It's not about the better wheeler, it's about how you set it up, and what risks you are willing to take. I took a few lines that only the 85 runner on 37's followed, and that was because I know this trail so well that I know that even in the snow the lean will stop 1" from the next tree or rock even under the momentum required in extremely slick conditions on a rock crawling trail. I have zero doubt that I would have paid dearly for some of that in a 100.
BTW, 5.29's on 35's absolutely rock on the trail. This setup is good in a way that makes the combination of highway performance in a 3 hour drive home in the snow just silly.
Last edited:
That's it! I'm selling my 80 and buying a Thoroughbred. :whoops: did I say that too loud?
On a side note, I saw a Thoroughbred climb up on loose rocks the other day for the first time. Man these animals can kick some serious ars. Sorry I am digressing, nevertheless, I think nothing with ATRAC + three lockers
confused and the lowest gears all around can beat a Thoroughbred on rock crawling, deep water crossing and mudding 
.
Now let's be happy
On a side note, I saw a Thoroughbred climb up on loose rocks the other day for the first time. Man these animals can kick some serious ars. Sorry I am digressing, nevertheless, I think nothing with ATRAC + three lockers
confused and the lowest gears all around can beat a Thoroughbred on rock crawling, deep water crossing and mudding .Now let's be happy
Ok, so I'm the new guy. My first cruiser is a hundy. I'm planning on building it (rather mildly) and learning the basics of wheeling. The quote above sums me up pretty good, and I'll assume the same for everyone else.
The first question I get from everyone is, "So where are you planning on taking that thing?" I want to go camping out in the woods and not have to carry **** on my back. Now, if the cruiser has to do some kind of wierd gymnastics to get there, I don't want to go. I'll buy an old beater one day (are you ready for it? With SFA) for that stuff. But, if I can take the Gallant/commuter car, well, I don't want to do that either. IFS will be fine for me. And, I agree with the article in the last issue of 4WD Toyota Owner--that dude is taking his tacoma all over the place.
Sorry for the ramble...I think I argued with myself...but after taking the time to read this entire thread I felt the need to type.
This is great...and I always thought these types of threads didn't exist on the 80 side of the planet .
.
That's it! I'm selling my 80 and buying a Thoroughbred. :whoops: did I say that too loud?
On a side note, I saw a Thoroughbred climb up on loose rocks the other day for the first time. Man these animals can kick some serious ars. Sorry I am digressing, nevertheless, I think nothing with ATRAC + three lockers
Now let's be happy
A Thoroughbred is a Range Rover......
Most of the important matters have been covered. With that as a given, I will put in my 2 cents worth.
I have driven a short-back Montero over some very scary ground at night. That little truck will climb nearly anything as long as the driver has the balls! It is a tough little truck by any measure. I drove mine thru hell and high water. But the IFS very nearly got me into serious trouble several times.
It has been mentioned on this site that a straight axle offers less body tilt. But have we stressed that less body tilt leads to less weight leaning on the side that helps the truck to roll over?
While driving a SWB truck with IFS, I had many situations that could easily have lead to a "corkscrew" roll that would never happen with a straight axle. I needed very fast reflexes to avoid the need to replace the body shell! In the Montero I had spare bodies. I could fix it! My 80 has already been rolled, and I lack a spare body. I prefer to not roll it over.
With IFS, on a downhill, the front of a truck will "dive" into a hole. I.E. The soft front suspension is in the same area where the most weight is. This works well on a washboard road at speed. But it works rather badly on a decent on a soft surface.
In the Monteros, I have found myself in rather mild downhill situations where I took a wrong line in the dark, and came very near to rolling over, simply due to the excessive flexibility of the front end. That kind of roll is called a corkscrew because of the way that the truck rolls. It not only rolls over, but it rolls to the front as well as to the side. It is highly destructive to the bodywork.
The problem is that the excessively freedom-loving front suspension will find a place for its wheel at the bottom of a hole. But the bottom of the hole is not the best place for the wheel to be at the time. It would be better if the wheel were hanging above the hole in thin air! The truck should balance and not tilt that much.The straight axle limits the tilt.
I have driven a short-back Montero over some very scary ground at night. That little truck will climb nearly anything as long as the driver has the balls! It is a tough little truck by any measure. I drove mine thru hell and high water. But the IFS very nearly got me into serious trouble several times.
It has been mentioned on this site that a straight axle offers less body tilt. But have we stressed that less body tilt leads to less weight leaning on the side that helps the truck to roll over?
While driving a SWB truck with IFS, I had many situations that could easily have lead to a "corkscrew" roll that would never happen with a straight axle. I needed very fast reflexes to avoid the need to replace the body shell! In the Montero I had spare bodies. I could fix it! My 80 has already been rolled, and I lack a spare body. I prefer to not roll it over.
With IFS, on a downhill, the front of a truck will "dive" into a hole. I.E. The soft front suspension is in the same area where the most weight is. This works well on a washboard road at speed. But it works rather badly on a decent on a soft surface.
In the Monteros, I have found myself in rather mild downhill situations where I took a wrong line in the dark, and came very near to rolling over, simply due to the excessive flexibility of the front end. That kind of roll is called a corkscrew because of the way that the truck rolls. It not only rolls over, but it rolls to the front as well as to the side. It is highly destructive to the bodywork.
The problem is that the excessively freedom-loving front suspension will find a place for its wheel at the bottom of a hole. But the bottom of the hole is not the best place for the wheel to be at the time. It would be better if the wheel were hanging above the hole in thin air! The truck should balance and not tilt that much.The straight axle limits the tilt.
Last edited:
Being that you mentioned the 80 and 100, I like the 80 better. two less joints in the drivetrain SAS, I-6 which means a timing chain and one head gasket, triple locked if you have/can get one as OEM. If you are talking about offroad flexing, FJ60 or 62...
Overall building one is the only way to have something the way it was meant to be. I have a Jeep truck that I want to roll on Ox-locked Dana60's, with a NP205/203 doubler, NV4500, and a 4BT.
A meaner outlook would be the 105 GX/GXL vs. the 80 series.
Overall building one is the only way to have something the way it was meant to be. I have a Jeep truck that I want to roll on Ox-locked Dana60's, with a NP205/203 doubler, NV4500, and a 4BT.
A meaner outlook would be the 105 GX/GXL vs. the 80 series.
A Thoroughbred is a Range Rover......
Wow, I wonder which one's vet bills would be worse?
But they are too high strung. You should look at a Walking Horse, Quarter Horse, or for the extreme trails you should really look at a Mule. They are the ultimate surefooted ridable animal.
Unfortunately, my wife's hobby is horses. And she thinks Cruisers are expensive
Mcguyver, IFS = limilted flex...
With IFS the wheels get airborne, and don't follow the terrain. When your traversing a trail, you lift a front tire, sometimes way up in the air like this;
Then the vehicle must dramatically tilt forward into the hole it was trying to avoid by having a tire hanging in the air like this;
Now the problem with this is on a hill descent, you have gravity, and the momentum of a sudden fall of the front airborne tire, into a rock, or hole. that could end you up on the roof. Not to mention all this leaning and tilting, makes it harder to see where your going... until it's too late.
A solid axle allows droop, by not only allowing for a longer travel suspension, but (most importantly) actually one side of the axle on an obstacle will push, or force the opposite tire into the terrain. This gives you traction. A locked axle with two tires on the ground has twice the traction of an axle with only one tire on the ground. NOW, if your unlocked, two tires on the ground = traction, one tire on the ground - NO traction. all the power goes to the wheel in the air, even with a limited slip installed in the axle.
Flex = Traction
IFS = Nice on the road ride because both wheels can follow the terrain independantly. That's bad off road b/c limited flex means wheels in the air, and you don't have the forced leverage of the other side of the axle pushing down, and you loose ground clearance on some obstacles as the IFS will allow both side of the vehicles tires to follow the terrain independantly, pushing the nose down in a front IFS vehicle.
With IFS the wheels get airborne, and don't follow the terrain. When your traversing a trail, you lift a front tire, sometimes way up in the air like this;
Then the vehicle must dramatically tilt forward into the hole it was trying to avoid by having a tire hanging in the air like this;
Now the problem with this is on a hill descent, you have gravity, and the momentum of a sudden fall of the front airborne tire, into a rock, or hole. that could end you up on the roof. Not to mention all this leaning and tilting, makes it harder to see where your going... until it's too late.
A solid axle allows droop, by not only allowing for a longer travel suspension, but (most importantly) actually one side of the axle on an obstacle will push, or force the opposite tire into the terrain. This gives you traction. A locked axle with two tires on the ground has twice the traction of an axle with only one tire on the ground. NOW, if your unlocked, two tires on the ground = traction, one tire on the ground - NO traction. all the power goes to the wheel in the air, even with a limited slip installed in the axle.
Flex = Traction
IFS = Nice on the road ride because both wheels can follow the terrain independantly. That's bad off road b/c limited flex means wheels in the air, and you don't have the forced leverage of the other side of the axle pushing down, and you loose ground clearance on some obstacles as the IFS will allow both side of the vehicles tires to follow the terrain independantly, pushing the nose down in a front IFS vehicle.
Only with at least 33"s on. If we're talking stock I think the 60 has a few issues that rank it behing an 80. Not much but a few. Once the 60 get's a lift and some tires it evens it out a bit more. Not a bash on the 60 just my exp both on the east and west coast trails.
My general opinion is that it's a system...driver, truck, type of wheeling. My choice of an 80 was base on initial cost, durabilty, comfort, size (big enough for the family, but not the size of a small country) off road abitlity for the type of driving I plan on doing. At the time of purchase I had a jeep and was more than pleased with it's abilty out of the box off road back east. It's size and weight were a great advantage in the GA mountains. However in 80,000 miles I went through a list of parts and when my son was born it was finally time for it to go.
After some thinking I narrowed my search down to an 92 80 (In hindsight I'd been better off with a 93 or 94) and a 92 Range Rover. I won't lie I do like RR's, however the
asked one question that sealed the deal, "which one will start in the morning?" At the time a 100 wasn't really an option because of cost, plus I couldn't imagine driving a $60,000 vehicle on a trail. As years have passed I couldn't be more happy with the 80 and think it's simply the best choice for what I need. I don't really plan on serious rock crawling, nor mud bogging. In theory I'd expect the 100 to do pretty much anything I'd need it to also. I guess I just suscribe to the theory of simple is better on the trail and all the electronics on the 100 kinda go against this....my dream would be a diesel 80 for this reason.
P.S. I still miss the open top feel I had in the jeep...this is why I'll be shopping for a 40 one day as a 3rd vehicle.
Dave (only first paragraph is directed at you),
The Taco is a completely different beast suspension wise versus a 100 series. Torsion Bars versus Coilovers. That makes a huge difference. I think it is also what makes a huge difference for the new 200 but I'll probably never know on that one, or at least not for a long long time. I'm thinking that a 4 door Taco may have been a better choice for me at this point, but that is irrelevant to this discussion right now.
I've tried to post objectively about the two vehicles. There are limitations to both vehicles. I've owned both, I've wheeled both, and I posted my somewhat objective opinions about them. The reason I posted as I did is not because I absolutely hate my new 100 but because I know there are other folks considering the same sort of switch from an 80 to a 100. And like me, many of them I have not had the opportunity to drive a 100 off road or even see one off road (with the exception of Shott's on Golden Spike). It is a completely different feeling off road. Just as it is a completely different feeling on road. I'm sorry if some folks think that this is slighting their vehicle choice in some way, unless you go back to my comments about the Hummer and I make no apologies for that.
One other thing I'm seeing over and over and over again in all of these threads whether it be about FJs, 100s, 80s, minis, 40s, etc... is that TERRAIN is not considered in many of the comments. Maybe ATRAC is the cat's meow in TX? Maybe ATRAC sucks on the Rubicon? Maybe in Tennessee the IFS trucks do fine in their mud, rock conglomeration? Maybe the only way to do a trail in the PNW is in a SWB rig? I see people posting their experiences and notice they are from all over the country. Really those experiences don't mean squat to someone who lives in a completely different terrain or climate for that matter.
I really hate all the comparisons to Moab. Moab is a mecca for 4 wheelers because of the insane traction. Moab can make any vehicle look good. This is how I explain me taking a 35" tired 80 on all but the most extreme trails (BFE, etc...). As it had no problem on Rusty Nail and Pritchett. And while I'm chatting about terrain, we may as well toss in wheelbase there too. Just as important as the terrain is in an equation for a successful run so is the wheelbase. Wheelbase can be a killer. Two years ago I walked up Rockchucker without a problem. No spotter was needed, I just rolled right up it. The next rig to try it was a 4Runner and he just couldn't get it. And after that a guy in buggy tried it. He didn't make it either. It was a wheelbase thing. It had nothing to do with the monkey behind the wheel. And I've seen this happen on Double Whammy over and over. SWBs get hammered and a long rig that may not even be built walk right up it.
Vehicles need to be built for the type of wheeling you do the most often. If you are in the PNW your needs are different than someone in Idaho or Utah deserts that are much less dense when it comes to tree coverage on the trails. Building a rig to suit your local needs may be different than folks in other places. So the idea of the "BEST" set up is sort of subjective opinion based on your objective opinions formed from your experiences.
Really I thought this could be a good discussion, before it turned into thoughtless mudslinging. I thought for a moment I was watching a political debate where folks pull anything out of their asses and try to make it stick on someone else.
Dave is right on one account. We are all driving or wanting to be driving Toyota 4wds (if not, this is the wrong forum for you) which is what somehow binds us in some sort of family. Even if it is dysfunctional at times.
just 02............
I think this is a mute discussion.
Both have there advantages. The fact that woody drives for the FJ Trail team is enough for me to have serious respect for the vehicle as well as ATRAC. That being said I would never think it superior to a locked up 80. I for one have never thought anything could be superior to a locked 80. However lately I have read where Christo said he would never go back to wheeling the 1FZ-FE due to his experiences the 100 series rigs his shop has modded.
Opinion's vary I guess is my point, if it works for you then be happy.
I think this is a mute discussion.
Both have there advantages. The fact that woody drives for the FJ Trail team is enough for me to have serious respect for the vehicle as well as ATRAC. That being said I would never think it superior to a locked up 80. I for one have never thought anything could be superior to a locked 80. However lately I have read where Christo said he would never go back to wheeling the 1FZ-FE due to his experiences the 100 series rigs his shop has modded.
Opinion's vary I guess is my point, if it works for you then be happy.
This is Christos modded 100. One of the major mods was to remove the IFS and put in a solid front axle. This is Hells Revenge.
In other parts of the world they sell the 100 series witha Solid Front Axle.
..
Unfortunately, my wife's hobby is horses. And she thinks Cruisers are expensive
Well, she's probably right but around here any horse is more expensive than a cruiser
. You are right about the Mule too. Man they can go to places with pretty much any thing they can carry.
