FZJ80 and Tacoma. Evaluating the choice

[Scott Brady]

I started this thread to discuss the merits of the Tacoma and FZJ80 as expedition options. I researched the two platforms for several months before making my choice, and I settled on the Tacoma. Others have decided to the contrary, and this will be a great place to log comments to help others with the same choice.

Here are a few rules:

Keep the comments based on facts if possible, or direct comparisons if you have driven both.

Here are also a few basic facts about the vehicles, that none should dispute (in stock form).

Land Cruiser FZJ80:
1. Will be more comfortable, with a higher seating position and wider compartment.
2. Will have better quality materials in the cab. Seats, dash, plastic, etc.
3. Will be a more durable vehicle, with a longer service life. Durability is only related to the ability of the vehicles systems to operate is harsh environment, and at full payload for extended periods. It is not related to reliability, which I think both platforms are near equal (they are both Toyotas).

Tacoma Xtra Cab or Double Cab:
1. Lighter and faster
2. Better economy
3. Better handling (longer WB, more responsive front suspension and steering)
4. Narrower track has a slight advantage on tight trails
5. More storage options and storage space
6. You cannot fit 35" tires without major mods.

 

[Scott Brady]

Some primer thoughts from Scott...

When I first purchased my Tacoma, the choice was between an 80 and the Tacoma, and I came to the Tacoma as my choice.

The reasons for my choice were:
1. Better economy
2. Same payload, but more storage options in the Tacoma.
3. Newer, lower mileage solution (I bought my truck brand new)
4. Narrower track
5. The 80's are getting older, and are typically high mileage. My truck is over 8 years newer.
6. And I guess the number one reason is just the speed at which a Tacoma can move across the terrain. I am running the same suspension as the recent Baja 1000 winners, and the truck just floats, even at near triple digit speeds...

I did find that the 80 was a better choice in the following areas:
1. More durable (bigger axles, transmission, etc.) but the same reliability
2. Better passenger comfort, roominess, etc.
3. It is the classic expedition choice, and has a great following and aftermarket expedition support.

I will also say that I am a pretty aggressive driver, and want a vehicle that has near prerunner capabilities. The Tacoma has that, where the wheelbase, height and weight of the TLC does not lend itself to the same purpose.

 

[Scott Brady]

I will say this real quick though:

The FZJ80 is the greatest expedition travel platform ever imported to the US, period...

If I could have bought a new one in 2004, it would be sitting in my driveway

 

[dmc]

my experience

My experience. 110k miles on a 97ext cab Taco in 4 years. Estimate about 25k of those on dirt roads in the Southwest US and in Canada and AK. Many 3 day weekends and a few 10+ day trips.

I purchased a 97 FZJ80 on April 30th and have put over 15k miles on her already including 4 wheeing trips including the Utah Cruiser Expedition. I previously owned a 87FJ60 that I drove for almost 200k. Most of my wagon and LC biases derive from that truck.


OK I'll try to talk about the differences since both are pretty solid choices.

Land Cruiser = Japan
Tacoma = USA

I'm sure that will outrage some but having driven both (and made the transition recently) that makes a difference.

Land Cruisers are built for the rest of the world as a work vehicle. Tacomas are built for the US. Meaning lighter duty components and expectations. I was un-lucky enough to drive a 97 taco that came with the awful leaf springs. I broke 3 sets (sometimes junkyard bargins are just that) before i stepped up to the Old Man Emu rear leaves.

LC is much slower and inefficient. The 1FZ and full time 4wd are not meant to rally. I loved the Taco at high speed. That however was part of my motivation to change. More than once I found myself in the desert alone going way to fast down a road I didnt' know. A mistake at 90 is much harder to recover from than one at 50. The MPG is a factor when going long range. I found however that the 5VZ suffers considerably under load. MPG used to drop from 19 or 20 to 13 or 14 when I was fully loaded down. My 80 gets a consistent 14 loaded or not. For a daily driver the Taco obviously wins.

Solid Axle/IFS. Honestly a matter of choice. It depends on the terrain, the driver, and the agenda. I took my Taco from SLC to the Rubicon and back. Worked out great. However on the Con I struggled quite a bit more than the 80s. If you don't have ANY hard core sections on your trip, or the time to patiently traverse them than it doesn't matter. However having spent time in both I think the Solid Axle is the better choice. Stronger, easily locked, full float. A trashed CV on a Taco with ADD could get really ugly. Both have their downsides. Clicking birfs vs CV boots.

Lifting. The 80 is cheaper and easier to lift with many more options for spring rate etc.

Capacity and comfort. Too be honest I got sick of everything in the back of the Taco being covered with dirt and dust so I may not be subjective here. I prefer interior storage. I learned my wandering in an 87 FJ60 and a wagon just feels right. I prefer the security and cleaness of the 80. I also had swapped out the bench seat of my Taco for Saab buckets and a tuffy console. I do remember I HATED the cloth bucket in my Tacoma. Uncomfortable and hard to clean.

I will have to disagree with Scott. The narrow track width cannot compensate for the longer wheel base on tight trails. Above mentioned Rubicon, plus many other trails, convinced me the extra cab Taco was not meant for narrow, tree lined, trails. The width of the 80 may be a factor but the overhang and length of the Taco was a constant nusance.

Lastly and I'm sure this is not part of the conversation. A lot of us will come to the decision with a bias. Mine was and is toward Land Cruisers. I loved my Taco but it wasn't quite a Land Cruiser. It never felt as durable and reliable. Others will have truck bias and I can respect that. My own opinion is that the Taco is great but is not built for real world duty. The Land Cruiser frame, axles and drivetrain are built to handle constant load and work. The Tacoma is a sport truck. Now I realize that very few of us will ever push either of these trucks to their limit but I think Tacoma will max out sooner. Yet a Taco can be had new. A low mile 80 is harder to find.
dmc

 

[BajaTaco]

I have not owned an 80 series TLC, only a Tacoma.

I have driven my friend Jack's 80, and I LOVED it.

I definitely enjoyed reading the posts above! Very informative and thought provoking comparisons. :ylsmoke:

 

[Scott Brady]

LC is much slower and inefficient. The 1FZ and full time 4wd are not meant to rally. I loved the Taco at high speed. That however was part of my motivation to change. More than once I found myself in the desert alone going way to fast down a road I didnt' know. A mistake at 90 is much harder to recover from than one at 50.

Good point... I have tempted death too often. :Wow1:

Solid Axle/IFS. Lifting. The 80 is cheaper and easier to lift with many more options for spring rate etc.

Solid axle takes the cake for me. Unfortunately, Toyota doesnt sell them anymore. The 80 is an incredible trail vehicle with minimal mods. Out of the box, I would rate them pretty even. With $2000 in trail mods, the 80 would win (you can install a 3" lift and 35's on an 80 for less than $2000)

Capacity and comfort. Too be honest I got sick of everything in the back of the Taco being covered with dirt and dust so I may not be subjective here. I prefer interior storage. I learned my wandering in an 87 FJ60 and a wagon just feels right. I prefer the security and cleaness of the 80. I also had swapped out the bench seat of my Taco for Saab buckets and a tuffy console. I do remember I HATED the cloth bucket in my Tacoma. Uncomfortable and hard to clean.

You are absolutely correct. The seats in the Tacoma are very poor. The ride quality of my Tacoma at all speeds is better than a Land Cruiser from my "seat of the pants" evaluation.

For me, the ability to haul a bunch of equipment at speed was important. I can put all of the sensitive items in the cab (double cab), and everything else in the back, and below the roof line. I have a platform and storage in the back that keeps everything dry and clean, and the roof tent mounts low, keeping the CG down. My truck was considerably more storage and volume capacity options than an 80.

I will have to disagree with Scott. The narrow track width cannot compensate for the longer wheel base on tight trails. Above mentioned Rubicon, plus many other trails, convinced me the extra cab Taco was not meant for narrow, tree lined, trails. The width of the 80 may be a factor but the overhang and length of the Taco was a constant nusance.

Thanks for bringing that up. My comments were not directed to rough trails (Rubicon, etc.) where I think the 80 is a better choice. I was talking about tight shelf roads, trees, narrow streets, narrow roads, etc.

When I drove the Rubicon a few years ago, it was at the end of the Rubithon, and every 80 I saw on the trail had ripped a fender flare off. Some had torn off several.

My own opinion is that the Taco is great but is not built for real world duty. The Land Cruiser frame, axles and drivetrain are built to handle constant load and work. The Tacoma is a sport truck. Now I realize that very few of us will ever push either of these trucks to their limit but I think Tacoma will max out sooner.
dmc

The Tacoma will have a shorter service life, but I would certainly not consider it not "real world duty". My truck has 30,000 miles on it, and it is not a daily driver. I have raced it, jumped it, overloaded it, submerged it, and driven it to every major expedition location within a weeks drive of Arizona (over 50 trips in 1.5 years). And I am in good company too. BajaTaco (100,000+) miles, with literally months in Baja, fully loaded. AlWalter (150,000+) miles and over 100 days per year in the bush and many others.

I think it is important to remember that the Land Cruiser is the flagship SUV for Toyota, and it is built accordingly. However, the Tacoma is engineered by the same company, with similar ideals in mind.

 

[BajaTaco]

BajaTaco (100,000+) miles, with literally months in Baja, fully loaded.

124,000 currently, and in excellent condition. The tenacity and durability of this truck, after all of the trips (whoa - man, now that I think about it... it is a LOT of trips!!) I am amazed. Yea, I know it is a Toyota and all, but I am still AMAZED. :Wow1:

Great truck!

 

[dmc]

different animal

Double Cab vs Extra cab I think is a huge difference. I don't know personally so i'm just assuming. I think if my Taco had been a s/c double cab I'd still own it. That is how fine the line is for me. The extra cab just didn't have enough interior space for two people for 10 days. I think the double cab is the ideal compromise but in my extra cab experience I'd take the wagon over what I had.


Of course this brings me to a point in which they fall short to my preference. I hate automatics and the 80s and Double Cabs give you no options. Well cost effective options. I like the performance, drivability and simplicity of a non-computer regulated standard tranny. Again personal preference.

Scott,

I think it's funny and yet normal how we both bring our own experience to the issue of length vs. width. I guess I never consciously appreciated the track width but I constantly found myself fighting the length while 90 pt turning on a narrow trail. But you are right about ride quality. The lwb Taco and IFS is much easier on the body.

 

[BajaTaco]

Double Cab vs Extra cab I think is a huge difference. I don't know personally so i'm just assuming. I think if my Taco had been a s/c double cab I'd still own it. That is how fine the line is for me. The extra cab just didn't have enough interior space for two people for 10 days. I think the double cab is the ideal compromise but in my extra cab experience I'd take the wagon over what I had.

10 days? How about 4 months? It definitely boils down to personal preference. One advantage of the xcab vs. dcab is the weight difference. The additional cab space and associated sheetmetal, doors, glass, trimmings, etc. add almost 700 lbs. of weight that could otherwise be used for mods and payload. (this kind of comparison kind of applies to any kind of wagon/SUV bodied vehicle).

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

I can't address the 80-series specifically (although I've driven and been impressed by them), but I can certainly address Land Cruiser reliability and durability in general, having put 290,000 miles on one. I can also address durability and reliability in Toyota trucks, since we put 160,000 miles on a 1992 pickup, and are now at 139,000 miles on our 2000 Tacoma--about 50,000 of that carrying a Four-Wheel Popup camper.

Land Cruiser durability is beyond question. My original front end parts are all still in place, excepting wheel bearings which I replaced at the last birfield service. Reliability has been . . .perfect. Literally: The car has never once failed to start and get me where I needed to go, except when a battery died. I expect the same from the 80-series, with the caveat of much greater complexity and more failure-prone components such as window motors.

Is the Tacoma less durable? Well, perhaps. The independent front suspension has many more parts subject to wear. On the other hand, those parts can be renewed to return the suspension to near-new function. I'm preparing to do just that on ours--steering rack bushings, ball joints, CV boots, etc. Rebuilding the front suspension every 140,000 miles doesn't seem like such a chore.

The 3.4-liter V6 is impressively overbuilt. I've seen the bottom end of the block, which boasts massive big-end caps, like the high-performance Chevy small blocks of old. That's partly why you can bolt a supercharger on this engine with no issues. I wouldn't be surprised to see this engine go 300,000 miles before a rebuild is necessary. Ours uses only about a half-quart of oil between its 5,000-mile oil changes, even with 140,000 miles on it.

The rear end is also strong--although the TRD locking rear end actually has a slightly smaller ring gear than the non-locker (8 versus 8.5 inches, I think). It's still a four-pinion design, however, and plenty stout.

Certainly the payload of the Tacoma must be observed, at least more or less. We had no issues with the 750-pound camper (less gear); the only changes I made were stiffer shocks and air bags on the rear springs. That gave us a queen-size bed, stove, refrigerator, sink, etc.

I do think the farther away one moves from stock, the more problems are likely to crop up. Larger tires in particular put more strain on everything. Scott's 5.29 gears make me nervous--I don't like reducing pinion gear size while enlarging tire size. For expedition use I think the clearance afforded by the stock 10.50s are fine, and give better mileage as well. But Scott is prone to pushing the envelope, expecting his truck to race AND conquer 4-plus rated trails AND carry a tent and hot water. We're content with merely excellent offroad capability!

The bottom line is, I think the Tacoma is a superb choice for extended expedition use as long as its design and maintenance needs are kept in mind.

And the Land Cruiser . . .well, long live the king.

 

[Scott Brady]

Of course this brings me to a point in which they fall short to my preference. I hate automatics and the 80s and Double Cabs give you no options. Well cost effective options. I like the performance, drivability and simplicity of a non-computer regulated standard tranny. Again personal preference.

I completely agree. I was shocked when I found the Tacoma was not available with the manual (in double cab configuration).

I think it's funny and yet normal how we both bring our own experience to the issue of length vs. width. I guess I never consciously appreciated the track width but I constantly found myself fighting the length while 90 pt turning on a narrow trail. But you are right about ride quality. The lwb Taco and IFS is much easier on the body.

Oh yes, the length of the Tacoma is certainly an issue. It was a real "stretch" for me, having spend 15 years driving vehicles with a shorter wheelbase (93" mostly). The FJ40 and Wrangler being the most recent. Even my Discovery II was only 100".

Baja will remember me lamenting about the long wheelbase.

 

[BajaTaco]

Baja will remember me lamenting about the long wheelbase.

LOL! Yes, definitely. It was like watching someone get up and try to walk across the room with their shoelaces tied together well, okay... maybe not that bad.

 

[Scott Brady]

I do think the farther away one moves from stock, the more problems are likely to crop up. Larger tires in particular put more strain on everything. Scott's 5.29 gears make me nervous--I don't like reducing pinion gear size while enlarging tire size. For expedition use I think the clearance afforded by the stock 10.50s are fine, and give better mileage as well. But Scott is prone to pushing the envelope, expecting his truck to race AND conquer 4-plus rated trails AND carry a tent and hot water. We're content with merely excellent offroad capability!

Excellent point Jonathan. I will certainly endure more issues with my truck in the 90K miles I will own it, than if it were stock.

I have told many of you this in person, but 33" tires are completely unnessessary for a compact expedition vehicle. If I did not have the public presence (magazines, website, etc.) I would have installed 235/85 R16's with the same suspension, but at stock height. I would have also kept the 4.10's

I have never been on a road in Mexico, or on an expedition in the US where a stock Tacoma or FZJ80 could not travel...

But, many of the enhancements I did allows me to go a little further than stock, a little more remote...

It is at the fringes of any activity that you find the most adventure :archaeolo

 

[MaddBaggins]

I don't have any experience with the Taco, so I can't compare.
I've only done 2 "performance mods" to my 80, slightly larger tires and OME suspension.
With those mods and unlocked this truck is more than capable of going anywhere I have the stones to travel. I like having everything inside and have slowly begun to mod this vehicle for family "car camping" trips-short expeditions if you will. Yes it is slow, but I don't like to go fast. Scott, when we did that shoot for Legendary Land Cruisers, Shotts was doing 70mph down that dirt road. I was doing 40mph and that was all I wanted to do. So, slow is fine with me, I get the same mpg no matter how I'm loaded.
We used to have a 02 Frontier crew cab short bed with fiberglass shell. I do miss having the truck bed option but if I can only 1 I'll take the 80.
Now if BajaTaco wants to give me his truck, I will gladly accept

 

[shahram]

I've always been a rabid Toyota fan. I drove a Tacoma for eight years, and it was the single toughest piece of equipment I've ever owned. When it came time to buy a new truck, I had different needs. With a growing family (and shrinking budget), the Tacoma Double Cab 4WD was the perfect choice, but the price was prohibitive. I had around $20k to spend, and the Tacoma I wanted could not be had for less than $27k in 2003. Nissan was offering their Frontier Quad Cab, 4WD with long bed and no options for $19.4k.

So I started looking at Nissan, though I have always been a Toyota fanatic. I ended up buying an Xterra, because I found a deal that could not be passed up. I owned the Xterra for 18 months before having it bought back under the lemon law. I then bought my current vehicle, a '96 FZJ80 with factory lockers, for $10.5k. You cannot even get near a Toyota Double Cab, even used, for less than $21k.

So it really comes down to economy. A low mileage FZJ80 can be had for around half the cost of a used Tacoma Double Cab 4WD, and for many of us, that is the deciding factor. Not that I'm not happy with the FZJ80, it's been an absolute dream owning one. But I do miss having a pickup, and coming to this site lets me drool over Tacomas to my heart's content.