Simpleman74
New member
sorta partial to this bodystyle
Talk me out of a Land Cruiser
- Thread starter stiles_s
- Start date
bimrunner
New member
Ha! Yeah, I agree that 72 inches for the width seems narrow but a few sites seem to list that at the width...I have no idea for sure)
TOYOTA Land Cruiser FJ80 (1989 - 1997)
Toyota Land Cruiser - Toyota Wiki
The 80 is at least a couple inches narrower than the 4Runner especially with the fender flairs removed (which mine are). Still, nearly the same size vehicle. The 80 does feel smaller though to drive because visibility is a lot better than the 4runner. Tough to beat the combo of features and ruggedness of the 80. The 4Runner is far nicer to drive daily though.
Knight-Errant
New member
Very true, the LC80 pillars are far more narrow than the 4runner pillars. The difference is striking when you examine one in person.
NauticalWheeler
New member
I am a new member, but no stranger to either the 4runner or LC.
Came close to buying a 2 yr old 2013 LC w/ 28K miles last year, but just couldn't pull the trigger. I could afford it, but a couple of things prevented me from the purchase:
1.) The cost--the extra appx $20K (used prices) could turn into $30K with good investments in 4-5 years. I figured that was close to enough money to live on for 8-9 months when I retire in 7-8 years. The frugal me said too much $$.
2.) Just didn't need the extra capabilities. Sure, I WANTED it, but didn't NEED it. I camp in rural places, tow a boat and live in the north/snowbelt so it would be ideal, but could get by with less.
3.) It felt a little too big on the test drive when I was maneuvering around city traffic. Surely I get used to it quickly, though.
4.) Slight aversion to used cars unless I know the firm history of it, and the stealer lied about several things about it that I discovered. For example he said: "It was only serviced here at our dealer", but the oil change sticker was a mom and pop car repair shop, and he could not produce the records. Said it was never used for towing, but obvious wear marks on the interior of the receiver showed otherwise. Said tires where rotated every 7K miles, but the fronts were rounded and the rears were not. Air filter was filthy too. Sorry stealer..I'm on to you!
They are really nice vehicles, and I may still buy one someday. I can see if you had the cash, wanted better towing capacity, more room, more luxury and the best reliability available, an LC would be top of mind.
Came close to buying a 2 yr old 2013 LC w/ 28K miles last year, but just couldn't pull the trigger. I could afford it, but a couple of things prevented me from the purchase:
1.) The cost--the extra appx $20K (used prices) could turn into $30K with good investments in 4-5 years. I figured that was close to enough money to live on for 8-9 months when I retire in 7-8 years. The frugal me said too much $$.
2.) Just didn't need the extra capabilities. Sure, I WANTED it, but didn't NEED it. I camp in rural places, tow a boat and live in the north/snowbelt so it would be ideal, but could get by with less.
3.) It felt a little too big on the test drive when I was maneuvering around city traffic. Surely I get used to it quickly, though.
4.) Slight aversion to used cars unless I know the firm history of it, and the stealer lied about several things about it that I discovered. For example he said: "It was only serviced here at our dealer", but the oil change sticker was a mom and pop car repair shop, and he could not produce the records. Said it was never used for towing, but obvious wear marks on the interior of the receiver showed otherwise. Said tires where rotated every 7K miles, but the fronts were rounded and the rears were not. Air filter was filthy too. Sorry stealer..I'm on to you!
They are really nice vehicles, and I may still buy one someday. I can see if you had the cash, wanted better towing capacity, more room, more luxury and the best reliability available, an LC would be top of mind.
Salvo
New member
In terms of longevity, off-road capability, and reliability, the QX80 is a genital wart compared to the LC. Just sayin.
JSparky
New member
I'll third that, visibility out of the 80 is second to none.. It's like driving a crows nest.
JSparky
New member
Since we got on the topic of 80's, here's a comparo shot. Cruiser is up on 4" springs but has factory tires, 4runner is stock.
Getting back to the original post, I seriously considered getting a 200-series instead of going back to a 5th gen 4Runner. Obviously price played into it, although I was looking at pre-owned to try and mitigate that difference some.. either way it's still significant.
I love how overbuilt cruisers are and don't mind the excess weight at all. I found visibility out of the 200's to be better than the 4Runners but not by much. The 4Runner also has better angles and more aftermarket support in the states for the modifications I'm looking at doing.
Lastly, the biggest thing for me ended up being the tailgate. For those that don't know, cruisers have always come with a fold-down pickup style tail gate. 4Runners have always come with a one-peice lifting tailgate with roll-down glass. I absolutely love the utility of the land cruiser tailgate when operating offroad, makes a prefect work bench, food prep area, etc. That said, I knew two things going into my purchase; my new vehicle would see a lot of daily miles, and that I'll be putting a rear bumper/carrier on for fuel storage. For these reasons I actually favor the 4Runner's design better because it allows access to the rear without having to unlatch a spare tire swingarm. Call me lazy but I've had enough experience daily driving vehicles with rear bumper carriers to know that it becomes a pain in the butt fast.. being able to throw a bag of groceries or a gear pack in the back via rolling the rear window down with the push of a button on the tailgate made a lot of sense for me. Basically, I love both designs of tailgates, but for daily driving with a rear carrier, the 4Runner design makes more sense for access reasons. If I wasn't going with a rear carrier I'd preference the cruiser design cause it helps prevent shifting/loose cargo from falling out after driving.
My recommendation would be to spend a lot of time back and forth between the two, acknowledging how the little differences may help/hurt your intended usage.
Getting back to the original post, I seriously considered getting a 200-series instead of going back to a 5th gen 4Runner. Obviously price played into it, although I was looking at pre-owned to try and mitigate that difference some.. either way it's still significant.
I love how overbuilt cruisers are and don't mind the excess weight at all. I found visibility out of the 200's to be better than the 4Runners but not by much. The 4Runner also has better angles and more aftermarket support in the states for the modifications I'm looking at doing.
Lastly, the biggest thing for me ended up being the tailgate. For those that don't know, cruisers have always come with a fold-down pickup style tail gate. 4Runners have always come with a one-peice lifting tailgate with roll-down glass. I absolutely love the utility of the land cruiser tailgate when operating offroad, makes a prefect work bench, food prep area, etc. That said, I knew two things going into my purchase; my new vehicle would see a lot of daily miles, and that I'll be putting a rear bumper/carrier on for fuel storage. For these reasons I actually favor the 4Runner's design better because it allows access to the rear without having to unlatch a spare tire swingarm. Call me lazy but I've had enough experience daily driving vehicles with rear bumper carriers to know that it becomes a pain in the butt fast.. being able to throw a bag of groceries or a gear pack in the back via rolling the rear window down with the push of a button on the tailgate made a lot of sense for me. Basically, I love both designs of tailgates, but for daily driving with a rear carrier, the 4Runner design makes more sense for access reasons. If I wasn't going with a rear carrier I'd preference the cruiser design cause it helps prevent shifting/loose cargo from falling out after driving.
My recommendation would be to spend a lot of time back and forth between the two, acknowledging how the little differences may help/hurt your intended usage.
Attachments
Danimal
New member
I do love the clamshell tailgate on the Cruiser. The 4Runner actually did have a clamshell for the first and 2nd gen - and with the roll down rear window! But when the 3rd gen came around in the mid 90s, the clamshell went away. I'll take a roll down rear window over a clamshell about 99% of the time for cruising with as many windows open as possible. I've found that gear is no more accessible with the 4Runner rear window as with the flip up clamshell top half in my 80 series.
Dan
Last edited:
JSparky
New member
Oooh nice, I did not know that thanks for catching my error. I knew the glass went down on the 2nd gens but didn't know it also folded.. that would be the best of both worlds!
ECUDrummer
New member
I'm just now jumping in (not reading the other pages), but why on gods green earth would I talk you out of something badass like the LC?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
add me to the thread!
Been so happy with my '15 TEP, but the inner LC voice has been getting louder and louder.
So...dumb idea...I went and test drove a '16 LC200. V8 and 8spd transmission, amazing combo!
I will do my best to keep rereading this thread to avoid the $$$, but I feel I may already be a lost cause.
Any extra idea to keep me in my 4R is greatly appreciated ;-)
Been so happy with my '15 TEP, but the inner LC voice has been getting louder and louder.
So...dumb idea...I went and test drove a '16 LC200. V8 and 8spd transmission, amazing combo!
I will do my best to keep rereading this thread to avoid the $$$, but I feel I may already be a lost cause.
Any extra idea to keep me in my 4R is greatly appreciated ;-)
