Toyota releases extra tough Land Cruiser GX for Australia

[Pskhaat]

I repeat the same questions a few times, let me bold the same:

Take a brand new 200 and a brand new 40 and I would bet the 200 would go further and faster on a washboard road without trouble.

Yep.

They can be capable, but they aren't the real deal for a variety of reasons.

In what environment/situation are the 200s inferior to previous STOCK incarnations of Cruisers?

According to them in stock form the 100 series is a "soft" roader, built for luxury, and looks like a minivan. Kinda sounds like what I said doesn't it.

With all due respect to the magazine, they're too just people with opinions and with rare exceptions we need to read articles as such. Just because it is published in a hobbyist periodical does not mean it is not just simply opinion.

Is it your position that making a vehicle heavier, larger, with less ground clearance and worse departure angles, giving it IFS and cancelling the option for lockers makes for a better vehicle?

Traction control takes up 60%+ of the lack of lockers and I agree lockers are superior BUT it is hella-better than an unlocked FJ60 which was not ever available in the US anyway. So (again) as far as the US market is concerned, how is the 200 inferior to its previous US market incarnations?

My biggest complaint about the US 80 series is that we never got the part time transfer case.

Toyota USA annoys me to no end with their target markets. I honestly get angry that Toyota never gave us a manual transmission. That's the one thing over diesel and part-time tcase and aux tanks that annoys me the most. Again though, you can't compare a US market 200 to an Oz market 70; that's not a contextual debate because until Toyota USA executives obtain and retain a bit of US market education vs. going of their bias and floating with past success with a diluted product set we can only compare STOCK-to-STOCK vehicles available in the US.

Now tell me which will be more reliable and more durable. A full time 4wd system or a part time one.

I'm a total Cruiser poser who has owned many. There is nothing else in my stable but LandCruisers. I know a good portion of the harder-core folks who travel with their Cruisers both in rocks and around the World on the worst roads. I've never once heard a problem or complaint on full-time case save the marginal mileage debate. Sure, I'd prefer the PT tcase and throw in a PTO box on the side, but honestly you've had problems with the full-time case vs. any of the earlier year ones?

Barn doors do look cool but I would not trade the tailgate/hatchback for it...The sub tank was a nice option/accessory necessary in other countries but not really needed for 99% of the US buyers. Again, do accessories define a real land cruiser?

Yep, I'm not sure of any benefit to barn doors on a touring Cruiser. Anyone want to chime in?

Hoser, remember we never had the option 0%, so we have no way of knowing if 99% of people would not have liked/bought it.

If you give me a factory spec'ed diesel 60 with factory lockers I'd be willing to bet that I'd have a much more capable rig. More importantly I'd definately have a more reliable rig and one that is far easier to work on if something does break.

But you NEVER had the option of a diesel 60 in the US, how can you compare that to a US 200? Let me ask again: if you had a US-spec LC60 and a US-spec LC200 both brand new sans modification, which would be more capable?

 

[TangoBlue]

I stand by my statements. There are plenty of 4x4s that are capable. Land rovers and patrols come to mind. They obviously aren't cruisers. The same applies to these new toyotas. They can be capable, but they aren't the real deal for a variety of reasons.

Then you stand alone having this conversation. The discussion has never been about other 4WD vehicles like Land Rovers or Patrols. It has been about Land Cruisers. Again, this is another tactic to distract readers and paint a thin veil of reason for your argument. After repeated requests from other respondents you still fail at elaborating on what the "real deal" is for Land Cruisers.

Edit: The particular quote I'm talking about is in the july 2010 issue. Havent found that one yet, but some of the others are Jan 2010 "as we take this luxury soft roader to a serious off roader" and May 2010... "The 100 series was the first cruiser to have the front bumper that attached to the body of the vehicle giving it a distinctly minivan look. The look was bulky with mediocre approach angles."

I'll save you the time searching through that stack of magazines in the dunny. Let's see here...

Vol 6 No 4, JUL/AUG 2010: There are reviews of a Power Tank and an Ironman winch both on a UZJ 100. Ironically, in that last article they mentioned the 100 extricating a broken Sequoia up a hill in Area BFE in Moab. No articles on a 100 series.

Vol 6 No 1, JAN/FEB 2010: "100-series Land Cruiser Lift," p.40. The introductory paragraph for the installation of Ironman 4x4's suspension lift is, "The newest project vehicle in our stable of 4WD Toyotas is a 2001 Land Cruiser UZJ100. The 100-series Cruiser is notable as the first North American-spec Land Cruiser with a V8 and first with IFS. Without getting into the debate on solid axle vs. IFS, follow us as we take this project vehicle from a luxury "soft-roader" to serious off-roader."

Vol 6 No 3, MAY/JUN 2010: "Slee 100-series Front Bumper," p. 30. In the introductory paragraph, "The 100 series was the first cruiser to have the front bumper that attached to the body of the vehicle giving it a distinctly minivan look. The look was bulky with mediocre approach angles. Slee's new front bumper provide's a sleek look, with much improved approach angles..."

So there you go. According to them in stock form the 100 series is a "soft" roader, built for luxury, and looks like a minivan. Kinda sounds like what I said doesn't it.

Darby Darrow wrote those articles for 4WD Toyota Owner Magazine and at no point was he reviewing the vehicles performance or off-road capability but detailing the installation of aftermarket accessories. You base your argument on a quote completely taken out of context; what you offer as analysis and fact is merely the introduction to a review of an aftermarket product.

Did you miss the list I gave you that demonstrates that these new cruisers are less capable? Is it your position that making a vehicle heavier, larger, with less ground clearance and worse departure angles, giving it IFS and cancelling the option for lockers makes for a better vehicle?

No, I didn't miss your list. But as someone with experience who owns and isn't afraid to show others his Toyota on-line (hint - post pictures of your HILUX and FJ-62), I don't base my decisions solely on lists of numbers but rather combine those figures with actual performance and the ability to enhance the vehicles function with modifications.

Toyota markets vehicles for millions of people in a global market. This forum exists because the majority of contributors aren't satisfied with out-of-the-box capability; most of us function comfortably outside of that box. Your myopia on vehicle performance has restricted your ability to comprehend the improvements and technology advances incorporated in newer model Land Cruisers.

Don't get your feelings hurt STAGE 2 but in my view your contributions to this thread remain opinion-based and unsubstantiated at best.

 

[STAGE 2]

In what environment/situation are the 200s inferior to previous STOCK incarnations of Cruisers?

I would say in any environment save the pavement.

With all due respect to the magazine, they're too just people with opinions and with rare exceptions we need to read articles as such. Just because it is published in a hobbyist periodical does not mean it is not just simply opinion.

Of course they are. However it illustrates the point that my opinion isn't coming out of left field if I can point to it in print.

Traction control takes up 60%+ of the lack of lockers and I agree lockers are superior BUT it is hella-better than an unlocked FJ60 which was not ever available in the US anyway. So (again) as far as the US market is concerned, how is the 200 inferior to its previous US market incarnations?

But the problem is that I never made being US made a criteria. On the contrary I specifically exempted it when I said that the non US 80 was the last of the real cruisers. So if we compare the best 200 toyota made with the best 80 or 60 that toyota made, the 200 is still inferior as an off road vehicle. It has poorer dimensions, no solid axle, loads of plastic parts, and loads of electronics. That doesn't mean it cant got off road, but it does mean that toyota made sacrifices with this model at the expense of off road capability.

because until Toyota USA executives obtain and retain a bit of US market education vs. going of their bias and floating with past success with a diluted product set we can only compare STOCK-to-STOCK vehicles available in the US.

Nonsense. I can compare any cruisers I wish. And that is especially silly since this thread is about a cruiser that isn't going to be offered in the US.

I'm a total Cruiser poser who has owned many. There is nothing else in my stable but LandCruisers. I know a good portion of the harder-core folks who travel with their Cruisers both in rocks and around the World on the worst roads. I've never once heard a problem or complaint on full-time case save the marginal mileage debate. Sure, I'd prefer the PT tcase and throw in a PTO box on the side, but honestly you've had problems with the full-time case vs. any of the earlier year ones?

So if full time cases are so great, why is there such a popular market for part time conversion kits? Sure there's better fuel economy, but there's other substantial benefits as well. From Marks 4wd..."There are several benefits to consider when converting your Land Cruiser 80 or 100 series to Part time 4WD. The steering no longer has a tendency to pull hard when powering out of a corner which adds to less wear & tear on the steering components such as tie rod ends & steering box. The steering is also more direct or positive. There is a marked improvement in fuel economy an average of 5%-10%. The acceleration is also improved due to the reduction in losses associated with driving the front differential, drive shaft & CV joints. With these components no longer being driven, a considerable increase in their service life can be expected." I dont consider better road manners, longer lasting parts, and better fuel economy all through one modification to be a trivial thing.

You see, the problem with full time 4wd isn't when you're on the rocks, or the worst roads, its when your on pavement or easy wheeling. Unless its a 100% trail rig, a cruiser is going to spend at least 80% of its life on pavement here in the US if not more. And that illustrates the irony of this system. The places in the world that dont have nearly as many paved roads or infrastructure (guatamalan jungle or the outback) were the ones who got part time, but we in the concrete jungle did.

Yep, I'm not sure of any benefit to barn doors on a touring Cruiser. Anyone want to chime in?

I never said it was better. I simply was demonstrating that he was incorrect that US 80 cruisers are identical body wise to aussie ones save badges and trim.

But you NEVER had the option of a diesel 60 in the US, how can you compare that to a US 200? Let me ask again: if you had a US-spec LC60 and a US-spec LC200 both brand new sans modification, which would be more capable?

Again, I'm not sure why you are hung up on this arbitrary limitation especially since my original point was talking about non-US land cruisers. It really doesn't make sense to me.

However to answer your question, in stock trim I would have to still put my money on the 60. Undoubtedly the 200 has more power and fuel economy, but a thousand horsepower isn't going to get you through a trail if you cant fit. So I'd put my money on the solid axle with better ground clearance.

 

[STAGE 2]

Then you stand alone having this conversation. The discussion has never been about other 4WD vehicles like Land Rovers or Patrols. It has been about Land Cruisers. Again, this is another tactic to distract readers and paint a thin veil of reason for your argument. After repeated requests from other respondents you still fail at elaborating on what the "real deal" is for Land Cruisers.

Because you have ignored the facts given doesn't mean that they dont exist. Case in point when the other poster stated, "I got to agree with pretty much everything Stage 2 says. However much of it is his opinion but he is also backing those opinions up with solid facts."

I'll save you the time searching through that stack of magazines in the dunny. Let's see here...

Vol 6 No 4, JUL/AUG 2010: There are reviews of a Power Tank and an Ironman winch both on a UZJ 100. Ironically, in that last article they mentioned the 100 extricating a broken Sequoia up a hill in Area BFE in Moab. No articles on a 100 series.

Yup. Thats the one I'm referring to. There's a statement in there about how the 100 series is over large for many trails but can be made capable with add ons, the inference being that in stock trim its not quite capable.

Darby Darrow wrote those articles for 4WD Toyota Owner Magazine and at no point was he reviewing the vehicles performance or off-road capability but detailing the installation of aftermarket accessories. You base your argument on a quote completely taken out of context; what you offer as analysis and fact is merely the introduction to a review of an aftermarket product.

How is it taken out of context? The article says it looks like a minvan. It does, hence my statement styling only a soccer mom could love. If you like the way it looks, thats fine. However there are many people (most I'd wager) that think the new cruisers look like suv's/minivans.

The same goes for the other quote. If you install a suspension lift on a rig and proclaim that you've taken it from being a luxury soft wheeler to an off roader, what does that say about the rig in stock trim?

I mean criminy, when even the official Land Cruiser history book says that the 80 series was the start of the mall cruisers and later models went much further in that direction what more do you want?

No, I didn't miss your list. But as someone with experience who owns and isn't afraid to show others his Toyota on-line (hint - post pictures of your HILUX and FJ-62), I don't base my decisions solely on lists of numbers but rather combine those figures with actual performance and the ability to enhance the vehicles function with modifications.

What does posting pictures have to do with the design and capability of a rig?

Toyota markets vehicles for millions of people in a global market. This forum exists because the majority of contributors aren't satisfied with out-of-the-box capability; most of us function comfortably outside of that box. Your myopia on vehicle performance has restricted your ability to comprehend the improvements and technology advances incorporated in newer model Land Cruisers.

Don't get your feelings hurt STAGE 2 but in my view your contributions to this thread remain opinion-based and unsubstantiated at best.

Again, you've missed the target by quite a large margin. I haven't said that the newer cruisers aren't more technologically advanced. They clearly are. They have more power, more electronics, better fuel economy and less emissions. The problem is that these technological advancements have come at the expense of tried and true off road necessities.

You're free to whatever opinion you like about these new trucks and undoubtedly its going to be different from mine. However I've offered you specific technical data to support my assertions as well as similar opinions from people in the industry. All you've done is dismiss and disagree. You did hit the nail on the head about myopia, just not in the way I think you intended.

 

[Pskhaat]

I would say in any environment save the pavement.

Please clarify. The only metric you've given on the 200 is the size. Which begs my next question: on what trail can the Unobtanium LC60 fit down that a US 200 can not?

why is there such a popular market for part time conversion kits?... less wear & tear on the steering components such as tie rod ends & steering box... these components no longer being driven, a considerable increase in their service life can be expected."

I don't know how many kits have been sold but I'd have to venture so few that I would not consider them "popular." I've driven a PT 80. In anecdote, I could not tell. These 80s (minus the HG) go 100s of thousands of miles on stock components. Maybe I'm ignoring it or not seeking it out, but I was completely unaware that the steering boxes and tie rod ends were prematurely wearing out. Does anyone have any metrics on what "considerable increase" means in service life. Did someone do a control test and drove 600k miles on the steering box vs. 750k on the steering box with the conversion done?

Again, I'm not sure why you are hung up on this arbitrary limitation especially since my original point was talking about non-US land cruisers. It really doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not sure then why we're having a theoretical discussion about something you need to pay 200% or more on market price from an RI. It's like saying that Bison meat will always less tasty than Emu. You're just not going to find fresh Emu here in the States without paying.

to answer your question, in stock trim I would have to still put my money on the 60.... the 200 ... isn't going to get you through a trail if you cant fit

My goodness, what trails ARE you driving?

 

[brussum]

Haha! You guys crack me up. You're getting your panties in a bunch over conflicting OPINIONS. That's like fighting over which is better: Pizza or lasagna? Vanilla or chocolate? Jack D or Jim B? (it's pizza, vanilla, and Jack, btw). They all accomplish a purpose in different ways.

Stage2: I got it, you don't like the 200 series. You know what? It's the vehicle Toyota is currently selling here in the US and abroad in its current form. My advice, don't buy one if you don't like it. Show 'em what you think with your consumer dollars. Go buy a Patrol, FJ60, Defender, or Uaz. Have fun...tear it up on the trails...you have my blessing.

As for me, I own a 200 series. I like it...in the same way I liked my FJ40 and 4Runner back in the day. It has some features that make me want to ***** slap it...it also have some amazing ingenuity and forethought in design. It's taken me places I wouldn't think to ask my very capable F350 to go. It does what I ask it to do without complaint and, when the going gets tough, it has the built-in capabilities to dig deep and keep going. I didn't buy it to crawl over a boulder in Moab, although I'm sure it could with mods comparable to the vehicles doing the same. I've driven US and Aussie gas 200s. I've driven Aussie diesel 200s. They all have their own set of pros and cons (just like Jeeps, 70s, Land Rovers, etc.). If I could have bought a 200 diesel with manual trans, then I would have...but I can't because I live in an overregulated nanny state. If soccer moms want to drive a 200 to get the groceries, then so be it. They also drive FJ60s, 80s, and 100s (and Range Rovers, Land Rovers, Yukons, Suburbans, etc.) and, if they're like my wife, they do so without knowing if it's got SAS, IFS, blah, blah, blah. I'm more inspired and reassured with how many 200s one sees in Australia, the Middle East, and Africa. You see far more 200s than late model Patrols in those areas. They're not the same 200 as the US spec vehicle but - as the saying goes - they're close enough for government work...even if the government is the UN or the Aussie Defense Forces.

Are 200s the perfect off-road vehicle? No. But then neither are most vehicles without some aftermarket enhancements.

Bottom line: To each his own.

 

[hoser]

I never said it was better. I simply was demonstrating that he was incorrect that US 80 cruisers are identical body wise to aussie ones save badges and trim.

This is what I said

Well... The US market 80 series is identical in terms of drivetrain, frame and body to the LC's you CAN find in outback, Middle East, Africa, etc. It does have a few "luxury" accessories and different trim. Does that make it NOT a Land Cruiser? Do accessories define Land Cruiser or is it a certain look?

As I said above, the drivetrain is quite different. Even ignoring the diesel option, aussie 80s were available with manual hubs, part time cases, and manual trannys. Hardly what I'd call identical. And then there's the body. You could get an aussie 80 with rear barn doors. Not so in the US. Each aussie 80 had an entirely different front clip a la the fj62. Only single headlamps for the US version. There was a optional factory swing out tire carrrier to carry a 2nd spare if desired. Not a US option. And perhaps most importantly you could get a factory subtank in the aussie 80 cruiser. Of course they didn't offer that in the US either.

But yeah, they are virtually identical

Re-Read what I actually said. You are talking options or variations. Here goes one of many LC80's you can find in Australia. Look at the Tailgate (non-barn door), body colored flares, alloy wheels, 4.5 Petrol engine, Automatic transmission (Yes, I know it is an A442). Yes, the headlamps are different but not the entire front clip. The hood, fenders and body are pretty much identical.

http://www.tradingpost.com.au/Automotive/Used-Cars/AdNumber=D2522301623513
http://www.tradingpost.com.au/Automotive/Used-Cars/AdNumber=TP004855633

Yes, don't talk about diesels because if that is a requirement for a REAL Land Cruiser, then you are saying the vast majority of LC's in certain parts of South America and the Middle East aren't real either.

 

[STAGE 2]

Re-Read what I actually said. You are talking options or variations.

I read what you said. You stated that the US 80 LC was identical in terms of body, drivetrain and frame as cruisers in the outback. Thats simply incorrect. The only part of your statement that was correct is the frame. The rest are not remotely identical. International cruisers had different hubs, different transmissions, different transfer cases and in some cases different axles. As you mentioned, the body is different as well. So I really dont know what you're trying to do here because factually you're just wrong.

Yes, don't talk about diesels because if that is a requirement for a REAL Land Cruiser, then you are saying the vast majority of LC's in certain parts of South America and the Middle East aren't real either.

Never said it was. Thats why I said "ignoring diesels".

 

[STAGE 2]

Please clarify. The only metric you've given on the 200 is the size. Which begs my next question: on what trail can the Unobtanium LC60 fit down that a US 200 can not?

On any trail that requires more than a 30 degree approach angle or 20 degree departure angle. Or one where IFS and low ground clearance will impede your progress.

I don't know how many kits have been sold but I'd have to venture so few that I would not consider them "popular." I've driven a PT 80. In anecdote, I could not tell. These 80s (minus the HG) go 100s of thousands of miles on stock components. Maybe I'm ignoring it or not seeking it out, but I was completely unaware that the steering boxes and tie rod ends were prematurely wearing out. Does anyone have any metrics on what "considerable increase" means in service life. Did someone do a control test and drove 600k miles on the steering box vs. 750k on the steering box with the conversion done?

I'm not aware of any test for longevity, however your first sentence kind of illustrates my point. If these components can last under load and stress for hundreds of thousands of miles, they should last markedly longer when only put to use when needed.

I'm not sure then why we're having a theoretical discussion about something you need to pay 200% or more on market price from an RI. It's like saying that Bison meat will always less tasty than Emu. You're just not going to find fresh Emu here in the States without paying.

Because it demonstrates the direction toyota is going with this particular model. If the best equipped version of the land cruiser keeps being 'less equipped' with each new model, then thats a good indication of what market the vehicles are being designed for.

My goodness, what trails ARE you driving?

Trails that would likely separate the 200 from its front bumper.

 

[TangoBlue]

Because you have ignored the facts given doesn't mean that they dont exist. Case in point when the other poster stated, "I got to agree with pretty much everything Stage 2 says. However much of it is his opinion but he is also backing those opinions up with solid facts."

I mean criminy, when even the official Land Cruiser history book says that the 80 series was the start of the mall cruisers and later models went much further in that direction what more do you want?

Wrong. You've given no facts but offered misinterpreted articles from an enthusiast magazine (not the "industry") on the installation of aftermarket products and quoted them completely out of context. You even have the cheek to ignore when I document your blunder and continue to substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version! You cite RMP&O's support for some of your opinions as if it were taken directly from the Toyota Factory Service Manual vice an obscure reference to a Land Cruiser history coffee table book that he has and you don't. One thing I enjoy about this forum is the factual information it provides and the open dialog it offers; this is a place for enrichment, not misinformation.

What more do I want? Nothing from you - you misquote or misrepresent information as fact; you're deceitful in your arguments.

What does posting pictures have to do with the design and capability of a rig?

I requested you post pictures of your 1985 HILUX and FJ62 because your assertions would lead us to believe you have a pair of very capable trucks. Perhaps you've performed some modifications to make them even more capable off-road. We all would like to see that - that's what this whole forum is about. What I'm beginning to suspect is you may not have them at all.

However I've offered you specific technical data to support my assertions as well as similar opinions from people in the industry. All you've done is dismiss and disagree. You did hit the nail on the head about myopia, just not in the way I think you intended.

We've seen through you misrepresentation of what your perceive as data and fact, so let's not beat that dead-horse anymore. Dismiss and disagree? Quite to the contrary. What I have done is challenge your arguments and presented the actual facts that you misrepresented. Again, and I type this slowly in the hope that you will comprehend it for the third time, you've offered incomplete or contextually inaccurate information to support your claims from any sources except the actual "industry." When presented with the actual facts from the articles that you claim detail the shortcomings of the vehicles, you dismiss them. Also, this "industry" you talk about... Toyota is more concerned about the consumer and their demand. If Toyota doesn't meet demand they don't make money. Money talks - not you, and not all the soccer moms that seem to be purchasing these vehicles by your account.

STAGE 2, has it completely escaped your notice that I'm not the only one taking issue with your diatribe against modern Land Cruisers? What you're doing is insulting readers of this forum, not impressing them with your perception of knowledge or expertise. Ironically, this thread exchange reminds me of a conversation I once had with a fence post. Eventually I realized I wasn't going to have any success with the fence post; neither am I with you. At least the fence post had the good sense to walk away.

You have a good holiday season.

 

[TangoBlue]

Land Cruiser dimensions by series

FJ60-62

Wheelbase 2,730 mm (107.5 in)
Length 4,675 mm (184.1 in)
Width 1,800 mm (70.9 in)
Height 1,750 mm (68.9 in)

FJ80/FZJ80

Wheelbase 2,850 mm (112.2 in)
Length 4,780 mm (188.2 in) (1990-94)
4,820 mm (189.8 in) (1995-97)
Width 1,830 mm (72.0 in) (1990-91)
1,930 mm (76.0 in) (1992-97)
Height 1,785 mm (70.3 in) (1990-91)
1,860 mm (73.2 in) (1992-94)
1,870 mm (73.6 in) (1995-97)
Curb weight 2,084 kg (4,594 lb) (1990-92)
2,159 kg (4,760 lb) (1993-97)

UZJ100

Wheelbase 2,850 mm (112 in)
Length 4,890 mm (193 in)
Width 1,941 mm (76.4 in)
Height 1,849 mm (72.8 in)
Curb weight 2,320 kg (5,100 lb)

URJ200

Wheelbase 2,850 mm (112.2 in)
Length 4,950 mm (194.9 in)
Width 1,970 mm (77.6 in)
Height 1,880 mm (74.0 in)

 

[HumphreyBear]

FJ60-62
Width 1,800 mm (70.9 in)
URJ200
Width 1,970 mm (77.6 in)

That extra 170mm/6.7" is important on Stage2's kinda tracks.
.
Two quotes spring to mind:

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Winston Churchill
.
You’ve got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run.
Kenny Rogers

The first one has been on my mind with this thread for a few days, the second one after reading TangoBlue's charming story about the fence post.
.
Stage2, I'm not a techncial or mechanical expert, and I've only been around this forum for six months, so I don't expect anyone to listen to me, but there are times when one has look in the mirror and wonder what it is that you did to so thoroughly antagonise some of the knowledgeable forum elders with their patience and wealth of experience which is laid out for all to see. Don't you? Surely. Hint: it has nothing to do with motor vehicles and lots to do with attitude.
.
I'm officially tuning out of this thread as any further comment/engagement is just feeding the troll. Of course if you do post your pics or a build thread, Stage2, then I will be interested to see them as I am in the market for good ideas for my next vehicle.

 

[hoser]

I read what you said. You stated that the US 80 LC was identical in terms of body, drivetrain and frame as cruisers in the outback. Thats simply incorrect. The only part of your statement that was correct is the frame. The rest are not remotely identical. International cruisers had different hubs, different transmissions, different transfer cases and in some cases different axles. As you mentioned, the body is different as well. So I really dont know what you're trying to do here because factually you're just wrong.

Let me rephrase it since it may not have been clear to you the first time.

They sold an LC80 in the US that is practically identical to a model they also sold in Australia. Same engine, body, frame, drivetrain, alloy wheels, etc. Btw, not all Australian LC's came with part-time 4WD. Just take a look at the two ads I posted. One, that clearly has a tailgate (no barn doors) says "FULL-TIME 4WD" on it. This is not selectable part-time. The other clearly shows the front hubs which are not unlock-able. Yes, I realize all Australian 80's came with the A442F transmission. But the US also received those prior to '95. Believe me, I've been to Australia several times already and have rented several LC's.... all of them real!

I understand the Australian market gets a lot more choice and options. My point in all this, Toyota sold a LandCruiser 80 in the US which was similarly equipped and near identical to a model they sold in Australia. My question... in your mind, what distinguishes the REAL ones from the UNREAL ones? Was it the options and accessories? Did the Toyota Dealers in Australia offer some 80's that were REAL and some that weren't?

I would also like to know more information about this "Official Land Cruiser History" book since you take it as bible. Who is the author?

 

[STAGE 2]

Wrong. You've given no facts

So then I was making up the specs from the toyota website about curb weight, or departure angles, or the types of transfer cases, or the type of front suspension?

but offered misinterpreted articles from an enthusiast magazine (not the "industry") on the installation of aftermarket products and quoted them completely out of context. You even have the cheek to ignore when I document your blunder and continue to substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version! You cite RMP&O's support for some of your opinions as if it were taken directly from the Toyota Factory Service Manual vice an obscure reference to a Land Cruiser history coffee table book that he has and you don't. One thing I enjoy about this forum is the factual information it provides and the open dialog it offers; this is a place for enrichment, not misinformation.

What more do I want? Nothing from you - you misquote or misrepresent information as fact; you're deceitful in your arguments.

Exactly what have I misrepresented? I think these new cruisers look like soccer mom suv's. Granted thats my opinion, but when the only toyota exclusive magazine in existence that I'm aware of as well as a book that chronicles the history of the vehicle state the same thing, I'm not exactly in the weeds.

And the same applies to the performance mods. Ive supported everything I've said here with facts. You can't say the same.

I requested you post pictures of your 1985 HILUX and FJ62 because your assertions would lead us to believe you have a pair of very capable trucks. Perhaps you've performed some modifications to make them even more capable off-road. We all would like to see that - that's what this whole forum is about. What I'm beginning to suspect is you may not have them at all.

What for. What I own has zero to do with this discussion.

What I have done is challenge your arguments and presented the actual facts that you misrepresented.

Again what facts have I misrepresented. Did I fudge the numbers? No. Did I misstate the various options for each truck? No. Has any of the technical ifo that I've given been incorrect? No. So you can sit there and make a conclusory statement about my "misrepresentations" but there really aren't any.

STAGE 2, has it completely escaped your notice that I'm not the only one taking issue with your diatribe against modern Land Cruisers? What you're doing is insulting readers of this forum, not impressing them with your perception of knowledge or expertise. Ironically, this thread exchange reminds me of a conversation I once had with a fence post. Eventually I realized I wasn't going to have any success with the fence post; neither am I with you. At least the fence post had the good sense to walk away.

Whats funny about all of this is that you keep insisting that I either have to impress you, account to you, or bow out for fear of earning some scarlet timing chain around my neck. The problem is that I didn't start this whole thing. This thread was about some "extra tough" new land cruiser being released. I gave a simple opinion about it because I think its ugly and frankly not all that tough comparatively. It wasn't to you or anyone else, just a general statement. At that point you and a couple others who decided that I impugned the honor of these lovely land barges decided to unleash the dogs. So it really rings hollow to start with the fence post diatribe since you're the one with the beef about what I said.

If the forum is a place to have open dialogue as you stated, you've got a real interesting way of going about it.

 

[STAGE 2]

Did the Toyota Dealers in Australia offer some 80's that were REAL and some that weren't?

Yes. I'm fully aware that you could get an identical cruiser (save RHD) in australia but these weren't the ones I was referring to. I was referring to the proper cruisers that were sold there. These cruisers were quite different mechanically (and visually) than what we got in the US.

I would also like to know more information about this "Official Land Cruiser History" book since you take it as bible. Who is the author?

I dont take it as anything. I'm not the one who originally brought it up. You'll have to ask the guy who did.

I just think its funny as all hell since I keep hearing about how I could have the audacity to call these rigs mall cruisers, when some guy who actually took the time to sit down and write a book about the the whole land cruiser line says the same thing.