You guys are not going to believe this. Blew another head gasket today!

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

MH_Stevens said:
The statistical analysis took into account variables like usage, and 100K on a Land Cruiser where the engine is due for a rebuild at 300,000 miles is nothing - it has just been broken in. Sure there is a gasket design fault (for which any honorable car maker would have done a recall) but don't let these horror stories let you forget what a solid build the LC is. That 100K LC would be a lot more reliable than a 30K Suburban (unless your name is Doug).
Click to expand...


As far as the suburban rip goes there are probably 20 times as many suburbans on the road as there are Cruisers and I'd be willing to be the head gasket percentage is much smaller on the burbans. Not to mention they can tow more, carry more people, are much larger and still get better milage. I drive a cruiser because I prefer the off road characteristics and overall build quality but as far as the powerplant, thats another story. It has been a pretty common experience among my conversations with several mechanics (toyota dealer included) and reasearch that the toyota V6 OHC is really the biggest mistake toyota made. Maybye one of the few they made but none the less....... Granted the US market is different as we want to tow our trailers at 70MPH and still get 17MPG. I think toyota jumped on the High end SUV market without a motor for that application in the stable. Please educate me on this but did they just use what they had until they finally got a petrol V8 built and designed. I'll say it again "I LOVE MY CRUISER" but my experience with several other makes and models makes the powerplant issue in this application a glaring mistake.
 
DJForrestA said:
Please educate me on this but did they just use what they had until they finally got a petrol V8 built and designed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've already got your mind made up so why would anyone waste their time trying to educate you? If you care to understand the excellent design of the 1FZ-FE then look at the engine section of the '96 LX 450 New Car Features manual. The 1FZ-FE engine is a superior design and is still being produced for the 105 series along with the 80 series sold in Venezula (and maybe other markets.)

I won't disagree that there are HG issues that are frustrating for many of us. We also know that somewhere post '97, Toyota improved the design (we assume) and superceded the part with a newer version. However, the HG isn't a fatal flaw; it's just an inconvience and if you do as Rick did and replace it as PM around 150-200k miles then you'll be ahead of the game. One major repair in 300k miles isn't bad at all.

As for the Suburbans.... I only know a few people that have them. One guy (our SM) just spent over $5,000 for a rebuilt transmission and a slew of other problems as long as your arm. He bought it used and I've ridden in it a few times. It is a POS but I don't claim to be an expert on Suburbans and that's a sample size of 1.

-B-
 
"power plant issue"? it is a head gasket issue. the 1FZ is a great motor. just change the head gasket. convert an 80 to part time like a suburban and 17 is quite doable,

A SBC is only a partial upgrade. I am not so sure you will get any better gas milage turning the FZJ drive train with a 305/350. probably worse you will get a some more power but to get a lot more you again loose milage.

if you are talking about a recent chevy V8 yes better milage, but at the cost of reliablity. have you owned one lately? I have it was a POS
 
I put 300k on a 91 suburban. I guess I bought it at 175k and sold it at 300k. Every vehicle has its flaw. To say that everything is perfect on these LC is just not factual. I'd say a job that costs 2k to have done is a pretty fatal flaw. You can but a crate 350 direct from GM for 1800 bucks. Granted then you have to put it in but a FI 350 bolted to a LC drivetrain should produce 15 to 17 mpg and show a sizeable increase in torque and HP. Some have suggested a turbo charged 1fz will compete but last time I checked they were 5 to 6k. THere is your swap right there. If you want to fix the gasket do just that. I'm just trying to justify in my mind what would be the best use of the money. These LC's are very high end and generally get much better care than your standard suburban. Like I said the number of suburbans on the road here in the US from 93 to 97 is probably 20x that of cruisers and the landcruisers here have seen much better care that 90% of the suburbans. Hell most burbans are lucky to get an oil change every 6k. If the SBC is sooooo bad why is it the #1 swap in all applications. Parts availabilty, reliability and ease of maintenance. Thats my point. It is a great engine surrounded by crappy externals(fuel pumps, electrical, trannys, you name it) but the engine itself is sound and proven. I'm not trying to compare a suburban to a LC as that would be silly. I'm trying to compare solely the powerplants inside them. A vortec 350 would be the optimum engine for these vehicles. Hell its got more torque and HP and should be about 150 pounds lighter and again will get better fuel economy. Again I know someone who has done these swaps and the entire swap done by them is an all inclusive 5500 bucks. If you can weld and turn a wrench you could do it with a brand new crate engine for about 2500.
 
Last edited:
DJForrestA- The Toyota "V6" may have been a mistake, however, and fortunately, there has never been a V6 in a Cruiser so I don't know the point your making? If you think the inline 6 in the cruiser has been Toyota's downfall, then they have been falling down with the Land Cruiser for only about 50+ years and, are still the stick by which utility rigs are measured worlwide. Toyota did not fall on their face with the 1FZ-FE powerplant, either. They used a badly designed/made gasket. My 93 (FZJ80) w/200k ran like a champ with nothing ever done to the engine that I am aware of.
 
I'm not a toyota basher and yes my error on the V6 issue and not making it clear that my is that toyota is not foulable. The inline six was great for years and years and years I know but why try to make it work in this application. I don't see alot of posts about thrown rods and such with this engine and the basic design has been around for a long, long time. Isn't it a copy of a chevy design? I heard it was a ripoff of the old Iron Duke. But does anyone really think this was the best engine for a 6000 lb application. The headgasket issue isn't a deal breaker if you can fix it yourself but the power is the issue. Definate improvement over my 3fe in power but still for the fuel economy it should be more powerful. Thats my question and why I wondered why toyota came up with this solution. It was only in these trucks for how many years? I guess I am playing devils advocate a bit but I'm trying to see toyotas logic in this engine for this truck. I know they weren't going to start buying SBC's to swap in but why and how did they settle on this? I piss purists off on alot of issues from AR 15s, to DJ gear, to IH scouts because while I love 95% of what they have done the 5% that was obvious and could have been done better drives me crazy.
 
Last edited:
Whew. Just got the engine's bad cylinder fogged w/ oil so it will not rust while I'm gone. I was reading the thread over and one comment I'll make besides agreeing the 1FZ is a fine engine with a bad gasket is to say they're surprisingly easy to work on. With few exceptions, there is room to swing a wrench everywhere and things are designed to come apart for service. I think history will look back on this vehicle as one of the last ones you could take into the bush knowing you can repair most anything with a modest toolkit.

Yes, the gasket is a bummer and I have just proven that flawless maintenance will not ensure it won't fail despite my previous views (nodding in Rick's direction).

However, one thing I'd like to do is put together a simple audible alarm system for low water so we can continue to abuse and drive these things. One has been built and I'll try to set up a kit arrangement. I honestly don't want to see another of these grand old dames destroy an engine over a simple gasket and I'm you you guys don't either. Based on what I see in the sparkplug hole, I literally was driving it when it let go with absolutely no warning. If it were one of our wives, this might have been a catastrophic engine failure, rather than $175 and a couple days of my time.

So, I'll see what I can come up with. Maybe I can set it up with a user selectable choice of two modes. One mode lights a light and sounds an alarm on the dash. The "spousal unit alarm mode" would also add cutting out 3 cylinders and automatically dialing our cellphone.

DougM
 
The problem is not the gasket - don't place too much hope in that redesign as it's likely only a panacea and an inexpensive response to a grievous problem.

The problem is using an aluminum head on an iron block. Such applications have never been truly sucessful and the problems entailed in them are more severe the longer the joint between the dissimilar metals - a six has a bigger chance of leakage than a four.

The Toyota inline six that has built the reputation for long term reliability is not the engine in the 80. It is an engine with cast iron head and block.

Have I read that a cast iron head is used in IFZ installations into trucks sold in other countries or to military entities? Too bad they couldn't find a way to meet our emmision standards using that head.
 
Sorry to hear this doug, I read this before it got to this point a couple days ago. But the thread has some how changed directions.

Hear it is 2005, these trucks (80 series) were design for the period when we still had 55mph as the national speed limit. As much as some people want them to be different, they are not. Toyota tried to come up with a V-8 and a rig that would keep up with the increasing national speed limit thus the 100 series. As for rigs to tow with, the tundra yes was first introduced with the 3.4 V-6 which st a great power plant(the 3.0 was not). then moved it on to a V-8 for towing. Not many people will tow with a true luxo rig, but some do. Even some 100 series tow with them. But they can not compete with the diesels yet.
As for fuel mileage, try driving the 80 at the old national speed limits and see what fuel milage you get. It will suprize you some.
I have not seen one conversion here in colorado that nets you the milage you talk about. All that I have seen have neted 13-14 mpg or less. Yes perforamce has come up, but they usually have some issues on the trail. ( I have seen this alot at cruse moab, repowers that have issues during the week. Far more than any stock power plant during this week. And usless is the owner that has not done his own work, he looks to others to help him out, Bummer for all).
The orginal f engine is a copy off chevy, toyota bought the rights to use the design, so no rip off here.

Again doug, If it had to happen, now is a good time as it will go faster this time, and with less doubt as to what needs to happen. Enjoy the flordia weather and have a happy holiday. later robbie
 
Doug,
I feel for you as I just had to have an old volvo rebuilt.
The inline 6 being a long block is pron to these as we all know.
You have the added piece of mind knowing a good head shop now and will soon have this behind you.
bill
 
Doug,
Meant to add a suggestion.
I think there should be a sensor for excessive radiatior pressure. When ours went the engine never overheated, sounds like your did not either. I am convinced that the only way to catch it is the pressure build up in the radiator.
 
Sorry too hear that ... I have done a HG my 97 I hope my 93 isn't listening....
 
I dont think that woudl work the cap regulates pressure in the rad by venting the excess fluid/gasses to the overflow.
 
powderpig said:
Hear it is 2005, these trucks (80 series) were design for the period when we still had 55mph as the national speed limit. As much as some people want them to be different, they are not.


As for fuel mileage, try driving the 80 at the old national speed limits and see what fuel milage you get. It will suprize you some.
Click to expand...


A very profound observation and I did not want it to get lost in Robbie's response.

I can attest to the fact that an 80, even one with oversize tires and a blower, cat get better than 18 MPG at 55mph. I've done it and have the records to back it up.
 
but you get there and back faster Riley! you probably saved 10 hours of driving for the extra $100 in fuel you spent. Worth it to me.

Doug, reading over this thread I am trying to look for an upside. I guess I can be thankful my 93 is 5,000 miles behind yours? Otherwise, sorry for your loss.

One possibility I would like to propose just to make sure it is explored is that the timing on losing both of yours is not a coincidence. Could there be a recent common denominator in terms of fuel, coolant, lubricant or mods and parts? I'm thinking especially something that might heat up the combustion chambers. Did both 80s have oil, filter, plugs, coolant and fuel from the same source? Any recent tweaking of both trucks the same way (timing?) or use of additives?
 
You are trying to "pin" it on me, aren't you.....;)
 
Two very good points made by PowderPig. I drove my 80 from San Francisco to LA when I first got it, and being unsure of its handling characteristics I came down I5 at 60-65 mph and got 17.8 mpg. Secondly, the 80 is a high power low speed/low gear type of machine like my Jeep CJ5. It likes to work under load in slow difficult terrain and it is not designed to tow. One thing I know Doug does a lot is to tow heavy boats up steep hills and I'm wondering if this has had an bearing on his HG issues.

Mike
 
Did you just compare an 80 to a Jeep?.....:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom