Robbie mentioned the only thing better on a 94, the grill. Other than that, they are hopelessly inferior to the 95. 
Which 80 is best?
- Thread starter Doc
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
>> B, you still got that cricket bat? <<
Why yes, I do. But I'm thinkin' it's time NorCalDug gets edumacated on the purpose of the GDB. I suppose a swat with the cricket bat should be first though....
-B-
Why yes, I do. But I'm thinkin' it's time NorCalDug gets edumacated on the purpose of the GDB. I suppose a swat with the cricket bat should be first though....
-B-
[quote author=Beowulf link=board=2;threadid=16348;start=msg157249#msg157249 date=1084566505]
I suppose a swat with the cricket bat should be first though....
-B-
[/quote]
If for nothing else, just to get his attention.
I suppose a swat with the cricket bat should be first though....
-B-
[/quote]
If for nothing else, just to get his attention.
hoser
SILVER Star
My preference for the 93-94 body is because I like the old "T O Y O T A" grill. The head lights are different and I believe the bumpers are different (they don't hang down as low).
Can somebody confirm that? I'm going out of town. Chat with ya'll when I get back.
Can somebody confirm that? I'm going out of town. Chat with ya'll when I get back.
>> If for nothing else, just to get his attention. <<
It worked on Mikey and they're sounding a lot alike.
Everyone 'cept NorCalDug be sure to drop to the floor when I yell "Duck!"
-B-
It worked on Mikey and they're sounding a lot alike.
Everyone 'cept NorCalDug be sure to drop to the floor when I yell "Duck!"
-B-
NorCalDoug
problems solved daily...
Brutal! Now I'm being compared with Mikey? 
Come on now, do I look like a
?? 
Come on now, do I look like a
?? 
Another vote for the 97 with lockers.........like mine
It seems that for a pure trail rig 93-94 may have some advantages and a cool grill, and for a daily driver, the airbags, reinforced door panels (according to KBB and Edmunds), PWR button, and better engine management system on the 95-97 gives it the nod. However, clearly the question is not which year is best but which color (in my best rain man voice). . . Black . . . definitely black . . .
semlin
curmudgeon
amazing how much discussion this topic generates everytime is gets posted.
This one is not too bad, if you can handle the pajero contamination:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?src=suggestions&A=0950
This one is not too bad, if you can handle the pajero contamination:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?src=suggestions&A=0950
FJ809496TLC
80 series addict
For more serious offroading, I would say 94 ! For DD and occasional offroading, I would say 95 or later.
A turbo stinkie would be nice.
91-92 would be cool, cause they are what? Like worth about $123 on a good day?
Actually, I agree with Gumby {shudder} anything but mine.
91-92 would be cool, cause they are what? Like worth about $123 on a good day?
Actually, I agree with Gumby {shudder} anything but mine.
FJ809496TLC- No doubt the 95-97 are better for DD safety-wise (side-impact door beams + airbags) but why do you think the 93-94 are better for more serious offroading? Because of their lack of airbags? I think it has been discussed and nobody knows of a false trigger on the trail. As for the tranny difference, as far as I know, nobody on this board (except Junk) has broken either tranny so I don't see that as a major difference. The most miles I've seen on an 80 (over 300k) was on a '96 with the A343F tranny (there was a link to this cruiser on the forums- it was on ebay motors).
>> For more serious offroading, I would say 94 ! <<
>> For DD and occasional offroading, I would say 95 or later. <<
Hogwash!
-B-
>> For DD and occasional offroading, I would say 95 or later. <<
Hogwash!
-B-
What's hogwash B?
ah, yeah, I'll agree with that. Then again B, you need to consider the source of that statement.
There are both 93 and 94 models in the US with rear drum brakes I have seen a few of them over the years. All of the ones I have seen have been green or white.
I have personally put my hands on a 97 with factory cloth interior. The seller claimed that he ordered it that way. It also had factory lockers. It was black and it had grey cloth. This was a Scum Valley, Idaho rig purchased out of Kalifornia new.
Both of the dealers where I lived when 80s were sold new told me that they could not order Land Cruisers from Toyota. They merely got what ever showed up on the truck. Not sure if this was true everywhere. But I've been told that they don't get any choices on 100s now too. I think they are just happy to get LCs. Small dealers in rural areas.
Boise, Idaho has some really really weird 80 series. There are a lot of Tropical spec 80s in Boise. The local dealer, dealer swapped 80s for Celica convertibles with a dealer in Hawaii. The transaction even shows up on Car Fax. A lot of these rigs have no rear heat, no sunroof, no rear sliders, no roofrack, no hitches, no running boards, and no CD player. Some did have leather but most have been cloth seats. Most have been 93 and 94 vintage.
I've seen a lot of 91s with no sunroof, rear sliding windows, and factory CD. I have never seen a 91 with the steel wheels in person but I've seen them on the net.
I do like LXs leather better than the standard 80. The seats are much better shaped than earlier 80s. The sound proofing is definitely better. I drove a 97 LX 600 miles one way and a 96 Cruiser with similar mileage 600 miles home on the same road and the sound was definitely different.
I prefer the stock ride of a Cruiser over the stock ride of an LX. But who stays stock?
After driving my 94 and then driving my dad's 97 LX, I think the 343 tranny shifts faster than the 442. Since I don't see people blowing up trannies daily the BIG BUS tranny should probably be on the show Mythbusters.
No science in this but it appears that the 93 and 94s have better head gaskets than the later models. One thing I have wondered if it might relate to the change in the air injection system? I don't know enough about the changes to form a scientific opinion but I am curious.
94 on AC is cheaper to recharge than earlier AC, but my 91 still blows really cold and that system has never been touched in 200k and almost 14 years.
Personally, I think the Idea that the 80 you drive is best is a good mentality. Until you go someplace like Cruise Moab and are surrounded by cool 80s. Then a little jealousy can set in. Robbie's rear drawers were really really cool. Jarod Borg's rear tube bumper was also really cool. To see 5" and 6" lifts in person was definitely cool. Seeing 37s on an 80 also gets my heart pumping just a bit. Christo's Short Bus is really neat. And that lifted 100 series pickup ws pretty cool too. Right now my 80 is on jackstands and I'm pretty unhappy with it. Maybe my disgust is more at myself than it? How could I let it break down? I try to do maintainence instead of break repair.
Darn, I'm long winded!
I have personally put my hands on a 97 with factory cloth interior. The seller claimed that he ordered it that way. It also had factory lockers. It was black and it had grey cloth. This was a Scum Valley, Idaho rig purchased out of Kalifornia new.
Both of the dealers where I lived when 80s were sold new told me that they could not order Land Cruisers from Toyota. They merely got what ever showed up on the truck. Not sure if this was true everywhere. But I've been told that they don't get any choices on 100s now too. I think they are just happy to get LCs. Small dealers in rural areas.
Boise, Idaho has some really really weird 80 series. There are a lot of Tropical spec 80s in Boise. The local dealer, dealer swapped 80s for Celica convertibles with a dealer in Hawaii. The transaction even shows up on Car Fax. A lot of these rigs have no rear heat, no sunroof, no rear sliders, no roofrack, no hitches, no running boards, and no CD player. Some did have leather but most have been cloth seats. Most have been 93 and 94 vintage.
I've seen a lot of 91s with no sunroof, rear sliding windows, and factory CD. I have never seen a 91 with the steel wheels in person but I've seen them on the net.
I do like LXs leather better than the standard 80. The seats are much better shaped than earlier 80s. The sound proofing is definitely better. I drove a 97 LX 600 miles one way and a 96 Cruiser with similar mileage 600 miles home on the same road and the sound was definitely different.
I prefer the stock ride of a Cruiser over the stock ride of an LX. But who stays stock?
After driving my 94 and then driving my dad's 97 LX, I think the 343 tranny shifts faster than the 442. Since I don't see people blowing up trannies daily the BIG BUS tranny should probably be on the show Mythbusters.
No science in this but it appears that the 93 and 94s have better head gaskets than the later models. One thing I have wondered if it might relate to the change in the air injection system? I don't know enough about the changes to form a scientific opinion but I am curious.
94 on AC is cheaper to recharge than earlier AC, but my 91 still blows really cold and that system has never been touched in 200k and almost 14 years.
Personally, I think the Idea that the 80 you drive is best is a good mentality. Until you go someplace like Cruise Moab and are surrounded by cool 80s. Then a little jealousy can set in. Robbie's rear drawers were really really cool. Jarod Borg's rear tube bumper was also really cool. To see 5" and 6" lifts in person was definitely cool. Seeing 37s on an 80 also gets my heart pumping just a bit. Christo's Short Bus is really neat. And that lifted 100 series pickup ws pretty cool too. Right now my 80 is on jackstands and I'm pretty unhappy with it. Maybe my disgust is more at myself than it? How could I let it break down? I try to do maintainence instead of break repair.
Darn, I'm long winded!
ginericfj80- interesting observations. About the head gaskets being better on the earlier models, I think it was Robbie who theorized that the large # of head gasket failures on 96-97 vehicles is because they are OBD-II compliant and run hotter because of this.
As for the tranny difference, do you mean you noticed the A343F shifting action is faster or that it shifts at lower RPMs? I've owned a '93 LC and now a '97 LX and I definitely notice better sound insulation. I've tried my best to notice differences in the tranny, but I only notice a slight difference in that the new tranny seems to shift more smoothly. My old A442F needed a rebuild after I ignorantly had it flushed at around 80k. Surprisingly, I didn't realize this was the cause and I had my A343F flushed at 50k but I've had no problems (knock on wood). I'm hoping I make it to 300k like the '96 ebay LC we saw. I'm not worried about the tranny, but something is telling me my lack of hwy driving is asking for HG failure at low miles.
As for the tranny difference, do you mean you noticed the A343F shifting action is faster or that it shifts at lower RPMs? I've owned a '93 LC and now a '97 LX and I definitely notice better sound insulation. I've tried my best to notice differences in the tranny, but I only notice a slight difference in that the new tranny seems to shift more smoothly. My old A442F needed a rebuild after I ignorantly had it flushed at around 80k. Surprisingly, I didn't realize this was the cause and I had my A343F flushed at 50k but I've had no problems (knock on wood). I'm hoping I make it to 300k like the '96 ebay LC we saw. I'm not worried about the tranny, but something is telling me my lack of hwy driving is asking for HG failure at low miles.
FJ809496TLC
80 series addict
alaskacruiser, I own both 94 and a 96. IMHO, they are all "BEST" 
[quote author=alaskacruiser link=board=2;threadid=16348;start=msg157538#msg157538 date=1084595807]
ginericfj80- interesting observations. About the head gaskets being better on the earlier models, I think it was Robbie who theorized that the large # of head gasket failures on 96-97 vehicles is because they are OBD-II compliant and run hotter because of this.
As for the tranny difference, do you mean you noticed the A343F shifting action is faster or that it shifts at lower RPMs? I've owned a '93 LC and now a '97 LX and I definitely notice better sound insulation. I've tried my best to notice differences in the tranny, but I only notice a slight difference in that the new tranny seems to shift more smoothly. My old A442F needed a rebuild after I ignorantly had it flushed at around 80k. Surprisingly, I didn't realize this was the cause and I had my A343F flushed at 50k but I've had no problems (knock on wood). I'm hoping I make it to 300k like the '96 ebay LC we saw. I'm not worried about the tranny, but something is telling me my lack of hwy driving is asking for HG failure at low miles.
[/quote]
Yes I think it was Robbie who observed the Head Gasket early vs. late. I've never seen one with a bad headgasket in person or even met somebody who had one. That tells you how few 80 owners I come in contact with.
If you stop at a stop light and accelerate as hard as you can the A343 seems to shift faster each time it shifts than the A442. It also seemed to let the engine hold the rpms up higher. Maybe this is really not an affect of the Tranny but more of one of the ECU? I did this a couple of days on my way to the babysitters. I was late and I had to cross a 4 lane road that is impossible to get across in the morning. My A440 in my 91 shifts pretty firm and it takes for ever to shift compared to even a A442. But the word speed and and 91 Cruiser don't belong in the same sentence unless there is a not somewhere in the sentence
ginericfj80- interesting observations. About the head gaskets being better on the earlier models, I think it was Robbie who theorized that the large # of head gasket failures on 96-97 vehicles is because they are OBD-II compliant and run hotter because of this.
As for the tranny difference, do you mean you noticed the A343F shifting action is faster or that it shifts at lower RPMs? I've owned a '93 LC and now a '97 LX and I definitely notice better sound insulation. I've tried my best to notice differences in the tranny, but I only notice a slight difference in that the new tranny seems to shift more smoothly. My old A442F needed a rebuild after I ignorantly had it flushed at around 80k. Surprisingly, I didn't realize this was the cause and I had my A343F flushed at 50k but I've had no problems (knock on wood). I'm hoping I make it to 300k like the '96 ebay LC we saw. I'm not worried about the tranny, but something is telling me my lack of hwy driving is asking for HG failure at low miles.
[/quote]
Yes I think it was Robbie who observed the Head Gasket early vs. late. I've never seen one with a bad headgasket in person or even met somebody who had one. That tells you how few 80 owners I come in contact with.
If you stop at a stop light and accelerate as hard as you can the A343 seems to shift faster each time it shifts than the A442. It also seemed to let the engine hold the rpms up higher. Maybe this is really not an affect of the Tranny but more of one of the ECU? I did this a couple of days on my way to the babysitters. I was late and I had to cross a 4 lane road that is impossible to get across in the morning. My A440 in my 91 shifts pretty firm and it takes for ever to shift compared to even a A442. But the word speed and and 91 Cruiser don't belong in the same sentence unless there is a not somewhere in the sentence
