Vehicle Guidance

CYK

Adventurer
$4292, 15K miles, 13mpg on my lifted LC with 33s, regular unleaded per factory, $3.72 here in Seattle.

Comparatively, for a rig that's around 18-19mpg or ~30% more efficient than the LC, you'll save about $1000, if that, a year. That's around $80 a month.

I don't know of any body-on-frame overland worthy truck that does better than 20+mpg to even begin to make a dent in the fuel bill.

If you're going this route, it is pay to play just like many fun things in life. Else, wait until we get a diesel or even longer for the all electric Land Cruiser with extra battery pack carriers.
 

p nut

butter
I'm getting around 15MPG (highway) with 33's in my 100. Same set up with a 4Runner would be down in 17MPG, I believe, so not that much difference.

My LC is also not a daily driver, otherwise, I would not be driving it (cost and air pollution). I've got a sedan getting 30+MPG and the LC is strictly a family outing vehicle. Having a dedicated daily driver makes more sense to me.
 

ditchdoctor

New member
The LC would not be a daily driver so I'm not as concerned about MPG's. As stated I'm willing to pay to play. Addressing the Tacoma and Tundra suggestions; while I do admire both rigs, they are easily as expensive if not more so here in the PNW. Our "Toyota Tax" is insane. The LC's also just do something for me that other overland choices don't; it's tough to explain, but they speak to me.
 

fireball

Explorer
I'll vote for the 100 series as well given your stated needs and budget. We have a 99 4R that we were using but outgrew it. 2 kids, a dog, a habit of being pretty heavy packers for our family outings,etc. Super happy with the 100. You can get a pretty nice early year 100-series in the 10k range, which still leaves a good bit of money for maintenance and mods.
 

nasko

Adventurer
I am sorry, I thought you said you were open to other suggestions. Good luck with your search in finding a nice LC.
 
The LC would not be a daily driver so I'm not as concerned about MPG's. As stated I'm willing to pay to play. Addressing the Tacoma and Tundra suggestions; while I do admire both rigs, they are easily as expensive if not more so here in the PNW. Our "Toyota Tax" is insane. The LC's also just do something for me that other overland choices don't; it's tough to explain, but they speak to me.

Can't go wrong with an 80 or 100 Series, depending on your wants/needs. I love my 80 and can't imagine ever selling it. I am sure you will feel the same way once you make your purchase. :smiley_drive:
 

ditchdoctor

New member
I am sorry, I thought you said you were open to other suggestions. Good luck with your search in finding a nice LC.

I am open to suggestions, I just favor the 80 and 100 series and the moment. I appreciate all the advice and input I can get.
 

ditchdoctor

New member
What do you guys think about the white 1996 in Hesperia CA $8500 listed in the classifieds? Looks like it is a good start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

kletzenklueffer

Adventurer
I'm a bit of a purist I guess, but a TLC is supposed to have a solid front axle. It isn't supposed to be a luxury vehicle. It's supposed to be a go everywhere vehicle. In my opinion, the 100 series is a compromise.

A phrase came to my mind yesterday- "Jeep, riding on a reputation." The 80 series is the last for the US to NOT ride on a reputation. I can imagine that a 100 can be set up to go 95% of the places a comparable 80 would go. It's that last 5% that makes the difference.

I've rebuilt the front end on my 80 from hub to hub. similarly, I'm rebuilding part of the front of my 97 4Runner. Seeing the assemblies, the 4Runner IFS makes me question it's durability, and the 80 confirms my trust in it's durability.
 

p nut

butter
I'm a bit of a purist I guess, but a TLC is supposed to have a solid front axle. It isn't supposed to be a luxury vehicle. It's supposed to be a go everywhere vehicle. In my opinion, the 100 series is a compromise.

A phrase came to my mind yesterday- "Jeep, riding on a reputation." The 80 series is the last for the US to NOT ride on a reputation. I can imagine that a 100 can be set up to go 95% of the places a comparable 80 would go. It's that last 5% that makes the difference.

I've rebuilt the front end on my 80 from hub to hub. similarly, I'm rebuilding part of the front of my 97 4Runner. Seeing the assemblies, the 4Runner IFS makes me question it's durability, and the 80 confirms my trust in it's durability.

I guess if you're doing down that path, a REAL land cruiser is supposed to have a removable top, diesel engine, and three pedals.
 

CYK

Adventurer
I'm a bit of a purist I guess, but a TLC is supposed to have a solid front axle. It isn't supposed to be a luxury vehicle. It's supposed to be a go everywhere vehicle. In my opinion, the 100 series is a compromise.

A phrase came to my mind yesterday- "Jeep, riding on a reputation." The 80 series is the last for the US to NOT ride on a reputation. I can imagine that a 100 can be set up to go 95% of the places a comparable 80 would go. It's that last 5% that makes the difference.

I've rebuilt the front end on my 80 from hub to hub. similarly, I'm rebuilding part of the front of my 97 4Runner. Seeing the assemblies, the 4Runner IFS makes me question it's durability, and the 80 confirms my trust in it's durability.

A motor vehicle in and of itself is a compromise
 

Arktikos

Explorer
Like others have said you can hardly go wrong with the Toyota flagship Cruiser. Cummins diesel cruiser would be a noisy stinker. Doubt your wife would dig that.
The white one looks OK although buying a lifted truck when you don't really need the extra height is just asking for problems, along with guaranteed worse MPG. Price seems a bit high for a 180K truck, but maybe that's what you have to pay for an 80-not sure. I'd get a pickup, 4runner or the 100 series, with money going towards restoring or maintaining excellent stock condition instead of modifying.
 

Torquey

Adventurer
I have both. The ride quality and perceptible power between the 100 and the 80 is huge. If you can afford a 100, get it, if a 200 is affordable then get that, because it IS that much better.
If you are going to be doing really serious rock crawling, the 80 is better only because of the solid front axle that may keep both front tires in contact with the ground (depending on the situation). Also, you will be able to build a really nice 80 for what you would pay to enter the 100 (but it will never ride as well nor have the amenities of the 100).

:coffee:It's predictable that you will always have the guys who say their vehicle was that last model of the "real" (insert manufacturer name here). I've heard 60 guys will say that the 80 isn't a "real" cruiser, what a bunch of crap, even more, the 40 guys will say the 60 isn't a real LC. Don't pay attention to it, stay focused on what you are looking for in the vehicle.

The 100 is noticeably larger inside and has side airbags, so if you were planning on a family and having the rig for some time, the 100 may make better sense. My passengers prefer the 100 hands down - its more comfortable with the rear air-conditioning, the heated seats, better ride, lower noise level, more room, more comfortable seats and heated seats and all without the hot passenger side floor boards of the 80. As a driver, I prefer the 100 because of the better steering, handling, braking , cooling (engine and cabin), transmission and power. It's wider than the 80 if you were to remove the fender flares on the 80. I really love both my Cruisers but if I could only keep one, the 100 works best overall for my needs and wants.

[The fact is the Land Cruiser is a purpose built, well engineered vehicle, period. Overall, the 80 is better than the 60, the 100 is better than the 80 and 200 is even better than the 100, like it or not. Now, with all that said, I want a 40 next because they're damn cool.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
186,089
Messages
2,881,820
Members
225,874
Latest member
Mitch Bears
Top