G-Wagen vs. TLC 70/80

[G-force]

With the reputation, the LC have, regarding reliability, that would be a tricky question to answer. But i can tell you this, from my experience:

You can run a G-wagon long and hard, even after you hear and feel the need for replacement parts. The front axle has CV joints at the outer ends, and as they wear down, you hear, and feel the classic rattle as you turn hard. Even when it sounds like the CV`s are on the way out of the axle tube, you can still keep on driving. And i once had a engine out for replacement, due to the need of a turbo.Wanted to keep the manual 4 speed, because it felt and sounded to be in good shape. When i finally got the gearbox on the floor, and chekced it , i was amased. I could move the ingoing shaft about half an inch, up and down! And this gearbox felt and sounded to be in great shape!!

What i`m getting at, is that the G is very strong built. It can endure a LOT of abuse without showing signs of it.

OK, parts do brake down on a G as well, but it is usually bad maintanance, wich is the cause.

Trough my 4 different G`s, i have only replaced 1 major component, due to wear. And that was yesterdays 5 speed gearbox. The oil was black and thick, so that may be some of the reason for breakdown. Other than that, it is all different parts that should wear down as, brakes, rod ends and different bearings. Like any other vehicle.

Only my thoughts on the question.

 

[Gurkha]

I would agree on overengineering aspect of the G Wagen. Everything is a size two plus unlike in the TLC where its just perfect. TLCs tend to last and run without minor hitches but when they break, they need quite a few replacements. As G Force mentioned, you can run G in a very shabby condition and it will still take you everywhere with some rattles and creaks, TLC would stop dead although I have seen exceptional ones in Africa and South America and have heard TLC legend stories from Pakistan and Afghanistan. I would give you an example. On my G Wagen based Gurkha, the transfer case flange which is from old G461 series was inspected at 130,000 miles for wear, my Gurkha has seen some severe off road duty as well as regular highway drives in India which is actually worse than off road as you tend to hit bomb craters at high speed all of a sudden. I compared to my friend's TLC flange which had seen similar mileage but less off road, the surprising fact was that the Gurkha flange had far less wear and side by side comparison showed it to be beefier built than the one on the much higher powered TLC. Same goes for idler arm, even with huge tires, the greasable brass bushed idler outlasts TLC idlers even when faced with serious off road, all you need to do is grease them regularly and adjust for wear once in a while.

 

[snyder.hunter]

I would agree on overengineering aspect of the G Wagen. Everything is a size two plus unlike in the TLC where its just perfect. TLCs tend to last and run without minor hitches but when they break, they need quite a few replacements. As G Force mentioned, you can run G in a very shabby condition and it will still take you everywhere with some rattles and creaks, TLC would stop dead although I have seen exceptional ones in Africa and South America and have heard TLC legend stories from Pakistan and Afghanistan. I would give you an example. On my G Wagen based Gurkha, the transfer case flange which is from old G461 series was inspected at 130,000 miles for wear, my Gurkha has seen some severe off road duty as well as regular highway drives in India which is actually worse than off road as you tend to hit bomb craters at high speed all of a sudden. I compared to my friend's TLC flange which had seen similar mileage but less off road, the surprising fact was that the Gurkha flange had far less wear and side by side comparison showed it to be beefier built than the one on the much higher powered TLC. Same goes for idler arm, even with huge tires, the greasable brass bushed idler outlasts TLC idlers even when faced with serious off road, all you need to do is grease them regularly and adjust for wear once in a while.

Purpose built and high quality. Great videos - you have some balls to drive through mud like that! I would never do that, well mostly because I try to stay clear of mud, but very cool nonetheless!

 

[dclee]

I would agree on overengineering aspect of the G Wagen. Everything is a size two plus unlike in the TLC where its just perfect. TLCs tend to last and run without minor hitches but when they break, they need quite a few replacements. As G Force mentioned, you can run G in a very shabby condition and it will still take you everywhere with some rattles and creaks, TLC would stop dead although I have seen exceptional ones in Africa and South America and have heard TLC legend stories from Pakistan and Afghanistan. I would give you an example.

As an owner and wheeler of both (with multiple generations of Land Cruisers), and having taken my 80 Series Cruiser on trails like the Rubicon (where I will not take my G-Wagen), I think I can speak pretty objectively about both. I agree that the G is fantastically over-engineered. But I don't think the Land Cruiser is any less over-engineered. It is the vehicle of choice, now eclipsing Land Rover, for extreme duty in Australia, Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Example: The FZJ80 Land Cruiser uses a 1-ton rated full-floating rear axle as standard, while the G uses a semi-floater that I am pretty sure is rated at less than 1 ton. At 150K miles on my old 80, the front CVs started to click (mainly due to neglect from the previous owner - when I unbuttoned them the first time after taking ownership there was nothing but greasy water in the hubs). No functional issues, just annoying. Swapped Birfields from side to side, it was as if I had put two new CVs in there. IMHO, Land Cruisers are plenty over-engineered. Just like G's! :beer:

 

[michaelgroves]

What does over-engineered mean? Never really understood the term.

 

[Gurkha]

As an owner and wheeler of both (with multiple generations of Land Cruisers), and having taken my 80 Series Cruiser on trails like the Rubicon (where I will not take my G-Wagen), I think I can speak pretty objectively about both. I agree that the G is fantastically over-engineered. But I don't think the Land Cruiser is any less over-engineered. It is the vehicle of choice, now eclipsing Land Rover, for extreme duty in Australia, Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

Example: The FZJ80 Land Cruiser uses a 1-ton rated full-floating rear axle as standard, while the G uses a semi-floater that I am pretty sure is rated at less than 1 ton. At 150K miles on my old 80, the front CVs started to click (mainly due to neglect from the previous owner - when I unbuttoned them the first time after taking ownership there was nothing but greasy water in the hubs). No functional issues, just annoying. Swapped Birfields from side to side, it was as if I had put two new CVs in there. IMHO, Land Cruisers are plenty over-engineered. Just like G's! :beer:

Fully agreed with you but in terms of certain critical parts, chassis etc. G still holds the edge, have owned both (still own the G) and have had close look at many others for comparison. I would still rate older TLCs and FJ to be closer to G in terms of durability, new ones are sacrificing a lot for weight reduction etc and thats not a good precedence, have seen FJ with cracked chassis and TLC with worn out T case. Having said all that, G and TLC would remain my one and only choice for off road vehicles, maybe a older style Nissan Patrol as well.

Btw, the rear diff on my Gurkha is from MB 307D truck and is rated at 2.75t and front from Hanomag is rated at 1.8t

 

[dclee]

Fully agreed with you but in terms of certain critical parts, chassis etc. G still holds the edge, have owned both (still own the G) and have had close look at many others for comparison. I would still rate older TLCs and FJ to be closer to G in terms of durability, new ones are sacrificing a lot for weight reduction etc and thats not a good precedence, have seen FJ with cracked chassis and TLC with worn out T case. Having said all that, G and TLC would remain my one and only choice for off road vehicles, maybe a older style Nissan Patrol as well.

Btw, the rear diff on my Gurkha is from MB 307D truck and is rated at 2.75t and front from Hanomag is rated at 1.8t

If by "new ones" you mean the later 100 and 200 Series, I would agree with you. The marketing on these seems to have changed, specially since they also have the 70 Series to market to the real hard-core users.

BTW, I somehow doubt that your axles are factory standard. Maybe options at best.

 

[Gurkha]

If by "new ones" you mean the later 100 and 200 Series, I would agree with you. The marketing on these seems to have changed, specially since they also have the 70 Series to market to the real hard-core users.

BTW, I somehow doubt that your axles are factory standard. Maybe options at best.

The axles on G are standard, the Gurkha uses MB 307D axles in rear which are rated at 2.75t and Hanomag in front rated at 1.8t, it comes stock like that.

 

[dclee]

Sorry, I think this is a bit of misuse of rating conventions on my part. I am referring to the (somewhat archaic) way that we in the U.S. do truck payload ratings. A 1-ton truck (e.g. Ford F350) is huge, about the biggest and heaviest light duty truck you can get for payload. The "1-ton" rating refers to payload only, though, NOT actual axle weight rating.

When I say the 80 Series Land Cruiser full-floater is rated at 1-ton, I mean it is the equivalent of that on a 1-ton rated truck (using the U.S. terminology). But if you are looking at actual weight rating down each individual axle, it is considered the equivalent of a full-floating Dana 60, which has a weight rating of 6500 pounds on the axle itself, or 3.25 tons (U.S.).

 

[dclee]

What does over-engineered mean? Never really understood the term.

Engineering and design specs that go beyond minimal requirements for intended purpose. For example, do the control arms really need to be forged, instead of cast? Maybe DOM tubing would suffice, and lower weight at the same time?

Maybe "over-built" is a better term...

 

[Gurkha]

I will give 70s series TLC a bit of a leeway as they were built with a different phillosophy by Toyota, even then the G holds the edge and with current crop of FJ and TLC, G has full advantage over them. The OM616 and 617 used in early 460 and 461 G have no peer, show me one Toyota engine that can go the high miles these two engines do. Same goes for G's tranny and diff, far less wear comparatively even when used in severe conditions. I would agree the point on wheel travel but then the lockers up front and rear more than make up for that and said and done, even a stock G with ATS tires can do quite well against some seriously modded machines provided the driver knows how and when to use the lockers and G's stump pulling low ratio.

 

[Gurkha]

Sorry, I think this is a bit of misuse of rating conventions on my part. I am referring to the (somewhat archaic) way that we in the U.S. do truck payload ratings. A 1-ton truck (e.g. Ford F350) is huge, about the biggest and heaviest light duty truck you can get for payload. The "1-ton" rating refers to payload only, though, NOT actual axle weight rating.

When I say the 80 Series Land Cruiser full-floater is rated at 1-ton, I mean it is the equivalent of that on a 1-ton rated truck (using the U.S. terminology). But if you are looking at actual weight rating down each individual axle, it is considered the equivalent of a full-floating Dana 60, which has a weight rating of 6500 pounds on the axle itself, or 3.25 tons (U.S.).

My source is the German magazine offroad.de test where Gurkha pulled off 2.75t of payload.

 

[dclee]

I will give 70s series TLC a bit of a leeway as they were built with a different phillosophy by Toyota, even then the G holds the edge and with current crop of FJ and TLC, G has full advantage over them. The OM616 and 617 used in early 460 and 461 G have no peer, show me one Toyota engine that can go the high miles these two engines do. Same goes for G's tranny and diff, far less wear comparatively even when used in severe conditions. I would agree the point on wheel travel but then the lockers up front and rear more than make up for that and said and done, even a stock G with ATS tires can do quite well against some seriously modded machines provided the driver knows how and when to use the lockers and G's stump pulling low ratio.

My understanding is that the 1FZ-FE in the 70 and 80 Series trucks was designed for three rebuilds (a rebuild consisting of simply re-shimming the valves), with 300,000 km between rebuilds. That's 1.2 million kilometers as a the design spec (which of course is usually underestimated by the manufacturer). I have seen examples with 500,000+ miles (not kilometers), but beyond that, the trucks are simply not old enough to have been driven that far yet. The B and H series diesels are also no slouches.

As for the suspension, the G makes up for lack of articulation with lockers. So what about a fully locked 70 or 80? Eats the G alive on the trail. Been there, done that (at least for the 80, can't get the 70 in the U.S.). And low ratio sucks on the G. 2.14:1 is about the worst I've seen in an off-roader.

Sorry, not trying to be a troll here, just trying to correct some misconceptions.

 

[michaelgroves]

As for the suspension, the G makes up for lack of articulation with lockers. So what about a fully locked 70 or 80? Eats the G alive on the trail. Been there, done that (at least for the 80, can't get the 70 in the U.S.). And low ratio sucks on the G. 2.14:1 is about the worst I've seen in an off-roader.

Sorry, not trying to be a troll here, just trying to correct some misconceptions.

I'm with you on the point that diff locks only partially mitigate poor axle articulation (having lockers and good axle articulation is the ideal). And while in the 1970s and 80s, it was hard to find vehicles with lockers, nowadays that feature of the G-wagen is not nearly as special, as there are after-market lockers for just about any truck.

How good a vehicle is on a trail is mainly a function of just a few key features - tyres, ground clearance/angles, axle articulation, diff locks, torque at the wheels, and horsepower. But after those things are granted, there are another whole bunch of things (lots of them hard to quantify or even define) that make the difference between good and great. Visibility, for example. Ergonomics. Weight distribution and COG. Throttle response and movement. Turning circle. "Feel" and feedback.

There's no question the G scores very highly in a lot of these areas - it just feels good when you take it off-road. Like any debate between different trucks, you could argue endlessly about which is better. (I certainly wouldn't agree that a locked 70 or 80 would "eat the G alive", they both have strengths and weaknesses. For example, the axle articulation on the 70-series isn't all that special either!). You just pays your money and you takes your choice...

But since this is a G-wagon forum, you can expect there to be strong home-team support!

 

[dclee]

Good points Michael! If you notice my sig line, you'll see that I own a G (my second one), not a 70 or 80 Series (anymore), so I have no skin in this game. I'm just not into dogma and ideology where trucks are concerned, they all have their good and bad points, none is perfect (including the G), and I don't see the point in disparaging one over the other - except where Jeeps are concerned! ;-) All too often on these forums I see people puffing up their own truck and slamming others not based on facts, but what seems to me to be based on a need to justify their own choice.

Otherwise, great build thread, and great looking truck, let's see more!