Decisions, decisions...

[rstl99]

Hi all,
Looking for your thoughts on a couple of vehicle choices I'm pondering. (will cross-post the the Land-Rover section)

Envisioned usage: secondary car to drive around town, no commuting, some gentle off-road outings in general vicinity; lengthy road trips in 3-4 years, to Canada's North, as well as South-West US (I live in Northeast).

1. Early 80's Toyota BJ60. Some rust, nothing terminal. Reasonable mileage (120,000 miles). Around $5K.

2. Mid-80's Land-Rover 110, 2.5 diesel engine, 5 speed, already partly expedition equipped (Brownchurch roofrack, bullbar, winch, swingaway tire carrier, etc.). Less than 60,000 miles. A bit HP challenged for local use, climbing steep hills, etc. Around $15K.

I used to own vehicle 2., sold it to a guy 3 years ago (needed to help pay off the mortgage) and it's presently for sale at the other end of the country. He'd sell it back to me for roughly the same price. I have some emotional attachment to it, and still have $2,000 worth of spare parts I had bought for it. It's a solid truck, rust-free, some body dents, excellent mechanical condition. Fairly basic interior. Some emotional attachment, to the vehicle and to the marque. Some experience and familiarity gained in doing repairs on it.

I previously used to own a BJ60, so well know their capabilities, ruggedness and reliability. It would make a fine truck to venture out on extended road trips, and may be a bit more comfortable than the LR for long distances. Would take more work/money to setup for expedition usage. But a lot cheaper to acquire, service/parts more readily available locally.

With the money saved in going with 1., I could afford a nice commuting and general all-around car, which I will be needing after next winter probably (current beater is ailing). So option 1. is more "sensible" but option 2. sounds very appealing too, for reasons not necessarily "sensible".

Thoughts, ideas??? <thanks>

 

[Scott Brady]

Both vehicles will be excellent. The TLC will favor better reliability and durability while the 110 will have a much better ride and perform better on the trail (stock to stock) because of the coil suspension.

Both will be slow on the road given the motor size, the BJ being more so.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

If he's talking about a 2.5 naturally aspirated engine, it would be hard to pick which would be slower. Under 100 horsepower for each.

Given a 120,000-mile Land Cruiser and a 60,000-mile 110, honestly I'd call it even on which will experience major mechanical issues first. Day-to-day reliability will favor the Toyota.

But heck, going on trips should be inspiring, and nothing is more inspiring than a Land Rover.

 

[rusty_tlc]

I think you could get into an 80 TLC series and equip it fairly well for $15K. Way more comfortable than 1 or 2. It might be a horse race in the power department between the three. But most likely the 80 would have a huge advantage in reliability over 1&2.
If you can find a diesel 60 series can you find a diesel 80?

 

[rstl99]

Hi all, thanks for the thoughts.

Indeed, BJ will be rougher ride (leaf springs) than 110 (coils), though the BJ interior/seats will be more human-friendly than the 110 (I always found the 110 cramped, ie. sitting with one's left arm right up against the left door, little in the way of legroom).

Would be an interesting drag race between the two, for sure!! I happen to also drive a MB 240D sedan, so am used to slowwwww. Plus, on trips like what I envision, with plenty of time to spare, who's in a hurry anyway??

No 80 series diesel LC's in Canada, unless you include the RHD specimens being brought over from Japan in considerable numbers. I'm not interested in RHD, so am looking at domestic market trucks. Problem is: Canadian specimens from mid-80's can get quite rusty if not well looked after.

With the price of fuel, I am not looking at anything but diesel (I also like the simple maintainability of diesel, and other advantages). So gas-engined 80 series are definitely out.

Basing myself on Scott's selection criteria below, I would comparatively rate the 2 trucks as such:

CAPACITY:
The ability to carry weight in the vehicle. This is measured by payload statistics.
>110 gets the nod here I'm pretty sure.

DURABILITY:
The ability of the vehicle to travel rugged terrain, fully loaded without chassis or drivetrain failure after years of continual use.
>Toss-up here. Though the rust-prone BJ gives me some concerns.

RELIABILITY:
The ability of a vehicle to perform over long distances and after years of service in rugged terrain without engine, electrical and support system failure due to component malfunction.
>Land-Cruiser has a leg up here, more durable engine/transmission, no Lucas Prince of Darkness issues.

CAPABILITY:
The ability of the vehicle to traverse rocky, muddy, crossed axle terrain including deep water crossings, severe side slopes, hill climbs and descents.
>110 bit of an edge here.

My needs (Scott's) for a vehicle may be very different from yours, as I value these categories in the following order:
Reliability, Capability, Durability, Capacity

I also rate Reliability first.
Durability second (since I'm looking at older vehicles).
Capacity third (roominess for carrying stuff for long trips, etc.)
Capability last (I don't foresee hardcore off-roading on my trips)
Finally, being 50+, I find Human Comfort important, for long road trips, and give a bit of a nod to Land Cruiser here.

Add it all up, and especially given the price difference for these two trucks, BJ _should_ get the nod from me. But there is that hard-to-define inspiration factor associated with the 110... Plus the fact that I know that 110 specimen (devil you know is better than the devil you don't)...

If money and logistics were absolutely no object, I'd likely buy back my 110. My frugal nature makes me consider alternatives. I really liked this thread, about building the $15,000 expedition vehicle, which I find inspirational:

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2200