Modding a Wrangler to Match Land Cruiser Reliability?

[Dan Grec]

Dan,

Unfiltered response is two fold

1. With a JK, it is critical to pack light. Sticking to GVWR will ensure the best chance for surviving you lap around Africa
2. I have found the JK to be very reliable and durable, our trips including all the way to Panama and 12 runs across the Rubicon trail

I would not hesitate to drive a lightly loaded JK around the world, it is just important to note that a JK has less than 40% of the payload capacity of a 70 series TLC.

Land Cruisers are engineered to last 500,000 miles, fully loaded in the developing world. They are small commercial trucks.

Thanks for the reply Scott,

Sorry if my question sounded like I want to continue the flame war, I was asking honestly.

I agree 100% that weight is the most important factor.
My little TJ didn't have a single mechanical issue in 40k miles from Alaska to Argentina, and I honestly believe it's because I had almost nothing inside, and it was hardly working day in and day out.

I'm trying extremely hard to keep my Africa Jeep light, we'll see how I make out

-Dan

 

[Scott Brady]

That isn't the typical LC found at Toyota lots in the US. This is:

I would suggest you research the 200 series Land Cruiser. I have been to the factory in Japan and the 200 is the most durable, strongest Land Cruiser ever produced. It is essentially a 2-ton truck underneath. The 200 is far from a toy.

I drove one across Australia and it never broke a sweat. . .

Have you driven a 200?

 

[zigsrig]

I love my jeep.. It is perfect (to me) for what I need it for. I can think of nothing better for the job.

That cruiser is SWEET! I bet that trip across Australia in it was amazing!

Kind of Apple to Oranges though.

I think in reality, each has their strong suits.

 

[Scott Brady]

Poor choice. You might not have had to buy them but this: Troop Carrier Workmate 4.5-litre turbodiesel five-door wagon: $65,790 AUD (manual) is the cost. Converted, that stripped out wagon is about $46,000. No accessories. No options. That lands it firmly in the play thing category.

Your argument is incomplete.

A Wrangler Rubicon in Australia costs: $54,000 AUD
A Land Cruiser 76 in Australia costs: $57,990 AUD

A Land Cruiser 76 in Nicaragua costs: $44,000 USD

A Land Cruiser and a JK Unlimited Rubicon cost approximately the same in every market on the planet. . . Land Cruisers are far from playthings - they are real tools for real work.

 

[Scott Brady]

Kind of Apple to Oranges though.

I agree. It is typical for people to want to compare the Land Cruiser 70 Series and the JK Rubicon, but they are built for entirely different purposes. Certainly, some JK owners use their Rubicons like Land Cruiser and some Land Cruiser owners try to make their 70 series perform on the trail like a Wrangler.

The important thing is to remove the (overt) brand bias from any meaningful discussion. Both vehicles are fantastic and I would enjoy driving either one - anywhere on the planet.

 

[Scott Brady]

Sorry if my question sounded like I want to continue the flame war, I was asking honestly.

I agree 100% that weight is the most important factor.
My little TJ didn't have a single mechanical issue in 40k miles from Alaska to Argentina, and I honestly believe it's because I had almost nothing inside, and it was hardly working day in and day out.

Dan, I knew your question was well-intended.

I love the fact that you are using a JK for Africa- can't wait to watch the adventure unfold.

 

[jeep-N-montero]

Apples to oranges....

 

[EugeneTheTJ]

I would suggest you research the 200 series Land Cruiser. I have been to the factory in Japan and the 200 is the most durable, strongest Land Cruiser ever produced. It is essentially a 2-ton truck underneath. The 200 is far from a toy.

I drove one across Australia and it never broke a sweat. . .

Have you driven a 200?

No, I haven't. Nor is that relevant. Your counter-argument isn't within context. I didn't say it isn't a solid rig. I simply pointed out that you tried to dismiss the "upper-class" branding by posting a picture of a utilitarian 70 outfitted for trans-continental overland travel. My post simply was of a 200 which is clearly marketed as a luxurious status symbol and is the common LC found in the US today. The number of 200 owners who use them to their full capabilities is few and far between. Nonetheless, I know they're good trucks. I wasn't arguing that they weren't.

 

[twiisted71]

FYI. There are computers in cars and trucks from the 70s on.

Correct however the amount of "work" they began to be responsible for in US vehicles in the mid 80s jumped significantly. For a grocery getter/town commuter it is fine. I come from a different background and my idea of reliability also weighs heavily on being able to get something going again if it has a hiccup vs becoming stranded in a life threatening situation. I can fiddle with a carb an clear out a plugged jet etc or clean some points etc. If my computer shorts out and I'm in the middle of nowhere I have NO recourse other than to hopefully be able to ride things out until someone can get to me. Hence why I like all mech diesels they don't even have a carb or electrical ignition system to go wrong. I've never been left (Knock on wood) by one. And when htey start to have an issue it is usually gradual and can still get you home before completely laying down.
My comment about the LC being a Sequoia option pkg is just to show that to the uninitiated Toyota didn't bother to make them different enough to claim them as separate lines. Kinda like an F250 Super Duty vs an F450. To each their own I'm just tired of all the suppository looking vehicles on the road today. Take the emblems off 90% of the SUVs on the road today and unless you actually owned one the average person would probably have a hard time telling one brand from another from 50 ft. It is like they have all been squeezed from the same cheeze whiz can and shaped in to the same amorphous blob. I'd like to see automakers step back from the Cal tech design boards and start making their vehicles with a bit of mold breaking styling again. I'm not asking for fins and wings but the flipped bathtub shape has been done to death. Remember how you felt the first time you saw a '94 Dodge Ram (esp a 3/4 ton 4wd)? I know its a risk for them to stay from the herd but hey the 4 dr JK seems to not have been a total flop!

 

[toylandcruiser]

Correct however the amount of "work" they began to be responsible for in US vehicles in the mid 80s jumped significantly. For a grocery getter/town commuter it is fine. I come from a different background and my idea of reliability also weighs heavily on being able to get something going again if it has a hiccup vs becoming stranded in a life threatening situation. I can fiddle with a carb an clear out a plugged jet etc or clean some points etc. If my computer shorts out and I'm in the middle of nowhere I have NO recourse other than to hopefully be able to ride things out until someone can get to me. Hence why I like all mech diesels they don't even have a carb or electrical ignition system to go wrong. I've never been left (Knock on wood) by one. And when htey start to have an issue it is usually gradual and can still get you home before completely laying down.
My comment about the LC being a Sequoia option pkg is just to show that to the uninitiated Toyota didn't bother to make them different enough to claim them as separate lines. Kinda like an F250 Super Duty vs an F450. To each their own I'm just tired of all the suppository looking vehicles on the road today. Take the emblems off 90% of the SUVs on the road today and unless you actually owned one the average person would probably have a hard time telling one brand from another from 50 ft. It is like they have all been squeezed from the same cheeze whiz can and shaped in to the same amorphous blob. I'd like to see automakers step back from the Cal tech design boards and start making their vehicles with a bit of mold breaking styling again. I'm not asking for fins and wings but the flipped bathtub shape has been done to death. Remember how you felt the first time you saw a '94 Dodge Ram (esp a 3/4 ton 4wd)? I know its a risk for them to stay from the herd but hey the 4 dr JK seems to not have been a total flop!

To each his own. I prefer the reliability of modern vehicles. Being left stuck in the wilds is very few and far between. Toyota does claim they are from different lines. It's the uneducated like you that assume they are. If the computer on my father I laws 83 gmc fails. The truck won't start. Sooooo kinda counters your argument.

 

[Scott Brady]

No, I haven't. Nor is that relevant. Your counter-argument isn't within context. I didn't say it isn't a solid rig. I simply pointed out that you tried to dismiss the "upper-class" branding by posting a picture of a utilitarian 70 outfitted for trans-continental overland travel. My post simply was of a 200 which is clearly marketed as a luxurious status symbol and is the common LC found in the US today. The number of 200 owners who use them to their full capabilities is few and far between. Nonetheless, I know they're good trucks. I wasn't arguing that they weren't.

I was dismissing your assumption that the 200 is only a luxury vehicle (the argument reinforced by your belief that the 200 is an "optioned up Sequoia".

How is that any different from a G-Wagen then? Most SUVs in North America are marketed as luxury vehicles, however I can assure you that both the NAS 200 and G-Wagen are just as appropriate for long-distance expedition travel as the JK.

I would submit that my argument was precisely within context. Leather and bluetooth do not lessen the effectiveness of the 200 for extreme duty applications. . .

 

[EugeneTheTJ]

I was dismissing your assumption that the 200 is only a luxury vehicle (the argument reinforced by your belief that the 200 is an "optioned up Sequoia".

How is that any different from a G-Wagen then? Most SUVs in North America are marketed as luxury vehicles, however I can assure you that both the NAS 200 and G-Wagen are just as appropriate for long-distance expedition travel as the JK.

I would submit that my argument was precisely within context. Leather and bluetooth do not lessen the effectiveness of the 200 for extreme duty applications. . .
View attachment 320155

I rank the 200 right along with the G-Wagen. Both capable? Yes. Both obnoxiously expensive and unattainable by most? Yes. Therefore, upper class toy. Also please don't think I use the word "toy" as indicating it's not capable or not built well. My TJ is a brick you-know-what-house underneath and I will wholeheartedly call that vehicle my toy because that is how I use it.

As for your sentence re: luxury SUVs in the US, I agree that most are marketed as such (luxury vehicles) however I would argue few are truly SUVs. More like tall wagons with no offroad capability. Think Kia, Hyundai, Ford, Chevy, Honda, etc.

You are mixing posters just FYI. I didn't say the LC was an up-optioned Sequoia.

 

[Scott Brady]

I rank the 200 right along with the G-Wagen. Both capable? Yes. Both obnoxiously expensive and unattainable by most? Yes. Therefore, upper class toy.

How is the class envy relevant to the debate?

The 'upper class toy' comment is an attempt to be dismissive of the relevance of the platform. Quality is rarely cheap and quality is not a reflection of class, but simply of cost.

 

[EugeneTheTJ]

How is the class envy relevant to the debate?

The 'upper class toy' comment is an attempt to be dismissive of the relevance of the platform. Quality is rarely cheap and quality is not a reflection of class, but simply of cost.

I wish you would've posted that about 6 pages ago when it was first brought up rather than posting the pic of the 70 :ylsmoke:

Not envy though. I can assure you of that.

Can someone post that snake picture again?

 

[Ryanmb21]

Everyone on this thread would likely drive a 200 series if they could afford it. I would.