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]

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. 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]

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 :p 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 :D

[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.

[Scott Brady]

Alvin,

Your 80 is awesome! Clean and simple.

Have you seen the DVD yet? You have major coverage... I was actually surprised Issac didnt show the rocker panel kiss.

[MaddBaggins]

I've watched the DVD about 5 times now! There are quite a few clips throughout of me :Wow1: And one quick quote at the end. The opening sequence shows how I kissed the rocker but it flashes pretty quick. I put the DVD on my computer and stepped it real slow and I could see the damage being done. Awesome video, Thanks to Isaac!
And thanks Scott, I'm glad you like my LC. I'm trying to make it my own, not the typical ARB, Slee, Hanna. Absolutley nothing against any of the aforementioned, they all make AWESOME product. I just wanna do stuff myself and have my 80 look different than all the others.(and save $$)

[dmc]

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).


I will admit that my packing skill leave a lot to be desired. :( But I would contend that 4 months and 2 weeks are not too different in regards to what I would keep in the cab. Cameras, laptop, clothes, sleeping bag. The things I wanted protected from the elements. Of course my sub, cd changer and 500 cds took up considerable space as well. I have that part licked with the set up in the 80. Access to the ext cab was the biggest hinderance. I could get everything I needed packed in there and organized. It was just a pain to get to when neccessary.
dmc

[Scott Brady]

When I think about it, my decision to purchase the Tacoma came down to two factors at the end of the day:

1. Packing and fitment options: With the long truck, I had so many packing and configuration options. I am so thankful of how everything turned out. I have a fridge and costly/climate controlled items in the cab area and the tent and sealed storage in the bed. AND nothing over the roof line. I can still drift her around the corners without fear... :smilies27

2. Looks/attachment: Now I am not saying an 80 isn't a thing of beauty, so hear me out... I lived in Italy for six months, and worked with the UN servicing the Adriatic Theater. The vehicle that I drove nearly EVERY day was a naturally aspirated diesel Hi-Lux, 4-door, short bed. They were white, and solid axle, and the things of expedition dreams. I wanted one of those trucks for over 10 years, and then I could buy one (sort of like it), so I did.

That's my story... :ylsmoke:

[kevin]

I think that the thing I like the most about the 80's is the complete lack of modification necessary to make a great expedition vehicle. Great wheel base, coil sprung straight axles, factory lockers, boxed frame, four wheel disc brakes. I would feel confident to literaly drive from the show room floor to anywhere in the world. Some people say that they cost to much. Although expensive they retain very high resale values. Also as anyone who has built a off road vehicle knows, a cheaper initial investment plus modification can easily exceed the cost of an 80.

[BajaTaco]

Also as anyone who has built a off road vehicle knows, a cheaper initial investment plus modification can easily exceed the cost of an 80.

What did they go for in '97?

[dmc]

I can still drift her around the corners without fear... :smilies27


You need to do my ABS mod. I tapped into the e-locker ECU to add a switch that would manually disable the ABS. I'm sure any Toyota driver knows about the hypersensitive ABS system they like to employ. The CDL on the 80 will disable it and on my Taco it might be the best mod I did. Made drifting and cornering much more enjoyable and controlled.
dmc

[Life_in_4Lo]

The 100 is a good choice for expedition type wheeling (otherwise known as... camping :shakin: )

It is supremely comfy, lots of room, mods readily available.
The attraction of the 80, for me, is the SFA and nice aftermarket support.
The ironclad durability is also a huge factor.

I've always liked the 80 when I was a kid. When I saw the redesign (uzj100) I didn't like it. I didn't even realize it was bigger at first, just that it looked less appealing.
Now, I like both alot. The 100 is so nice, more comfy for the US travels.

The Taco is probably the best IFS wheeling rig around right now. Nice size, plenty of aftermarket, bulletproof & practical. Short on legroom and luxury (both maybe non-issues for most). A pickup bed- you can't beat the flexibility and practicality.

For camping in the USA tho, I'll take the FZJ80! SFA, rugged and it's totally vintage. It's old school cool w/ modern looks. You can build it up to a seriously fierce wheeling rig all the while in leather lined comfort. It's a good midsize suv. Not bad.

In 1996, the 80's went for around $50,000

[Scott Brady]

You need to do my ABS mod. I tapped into the e-locker ECU to add a switch that would manually disable the ABS. I'm sure any Toyota driver knows about the hypersensitive ABS system they like to employ. The CDL on the 80 will disable it and on my Taco it might be the best mod I did. Made drifting and cornering much more enjoyable and controlled.
dmc

I have considered doing that. The ABS on the Tacoma's is deadly at high speeds on dirt IMO. I ran the whole NVTR with the rear locked to dissable it. Of course, having the rear locked also makes oversteer more progressive (i.e. easier) too...

[Desertdude]

Great thread! Many great points posted all ready - just wanted to chime in

The 04 Tacoma is the second one I bought new ( had an 00 before) and the first modified - I have enjoyed all it has to offer. I'll keep it for the next few years before I let it go. I like it's sporty " Pony - I am gone" look. The truck is like a goat just point it and go - Low CG has helped in many places - and you can fly down the road at 100 if you like ( and I do):Wow1:

I just got my hands on an 80 and have only driven it a few times - as far as it feeling bigger in the drivers seat - I dunno I am a big dude and I still feel a little short on leg room. It does feel more ergonomic, like a glove fit - The Tacoma seat slides back a tad more ( I think) The 80 seats are yes much more comfy. Once I get an upgraded suspension installed I will be able to comment more - I have wheeled along side 80's and we all seem to get to the same place in the end - I am guessing more comfortable in an 80 - :)

The sticker price on this one 1997 was 52,000.00 My 04 Tacoma 27,000.00 out the door + add 10-15K for mods - When it is all said and done I will have 50K in the 04 Tacoma - The 80 estimated total 32K+ finished - I have about 32K in my FJ40 and it is not finished yet :D

Looks scary when you write it all out :Wow1:

[dmc]

The sticker price on this one 1997 was 52,000.00 My 04 Tacoma 27,000.00 out the door + add 10-15K for mods - When it is all said and done I will have 50K in the 04 Tacoma - The 80 estimated total 32K+ finished - I have about 32K in my FJ40 and it is not finished yet :D

Looks scary when you write it all out :Wow1:


That is why I avoid keeping receipts and totals at all costs. If I knew how much I've spent on my FJ40 and now my 80 (not including gas) it would make me sick and I'd be less willing to keep doing it. I made the mistake of adding up money spent on golf a few summers ago (over $3k) and decided I'll never price my hobbies ever again. :luxhello: Much more enjoyable to not know.
dmc

[BajaTaco]

Also as anyone who has built a off road vehicle knows, a cheaper initial investment plus modification can easily exceed the cost of an 80.


What did they go for in '97?


In 1996, the 80's went for around $50,000


The sticker price on this one 1997 was 52,000.00

I bought my '98 Xcab TRD Taco for 23,700 OTD in the fall of 1997. Although I definitely agree with Kevin in the first part of his post, about taking the stock 80 anywhere in the world, I would have to disagree a bit on the cost comparo. Even if one was to add 20K in mods to the Tacoma, it would still be less than the stock 80 (and drivetrain aside, better equipped).

I am not disputing the value of either vehicle standing alone in stock form. As a new OEM stock vehicle yes, the 80 would be more costly to produce, and therefore have a higher worth (size, cost of materials, and performance). But as a customized vehicle, no. It's just that I don't think (back when they were new) that you can really justify the additional cost of the 80 over the Tacoma where the end result of a custom outfitted vehicle is concerned. By spending far less than the cost of a stock 80, you would end up with a Tacoma that would be highly customized and could evenly match (if not exceed) the stock 80 in capability. Would you agree?

[Desertdude]

I am on the road with the 80 right now coming down from Yosemite and Tioga pass - the one thing I do notice about the 80 is the truning radius - it is much tighter than the Tacoma's long wheel base radius - that is a big plus... Gas so far seems to be about the same

[BajaTaco]

I am on the road with the 80 right now coming down from Yosemite and Tioga pass...

Don't you find it hard to type?



...the one thing I do notice about the 80 is the truning radius - it is much tighter than the Tacoma's long wheel base radius - that is a big plus... Gas so far seems to be about the same

The same? Wow, I don't know if that is good or bad. I got the worse mileage I have ever had when I went up to that area on the way to the Nevada Trophy. It was terrible.

[Desertdude]

Don't you find it hard to type? :hehe:

[Desertdude]

The same? Wow, I don't know if that is good or bad

average so far is about 14 MPG -

[dmc]

average so far is about 14 MPG -


Goes back to my post earlier. I get 14 empty and 14 fully loaded in the 80. I am very suprised your Taco got that bad however.
dmc

[Jonathan Hanson]

The sailboat designer Uffa Fox once said, "Weight, as such, is useful only to designers of steamrollers."

The Land Cruiser certainly still reigns in the area of ultimate strength and durability. For areas of the world where the vehicle is used more off-pavement than on, nothing can substitute for axle shafts over an inch in diameter, sheet metal measured in millimeters rather than gauge, and massive box-section frame rails.

But I have no hesitation subjecting our Tacoma to heavy duty, intermittent off road use. The comments about price versus equipment are well-said. For the same cost, I'd rather have a Tacoma with a Four-Wheel Popup camper and proper suspension than an 80-series Land Cruiser and a standard tent, at least for North American travels.

Also, technology has enabled significant increases in chassis strength with the same or reduced weight. A new Tacoma probably has a stiffer frame than my FJ40, despite the increased length.

[freightdog]

Hmmm,

Have had both - still have a Cruiser -

I live on the Navajo Rez - everyday I am "offroad" - in 4wheel - subjecting my two Land Cruiser's to **** you all do once a month.

I had a 2002 Taco TRD - nice ride - $25,000 - all the bells and whistles - I do not like all the electronics because I am not smart enough to fix is all. It came apart the second year we had it - 53,000 miles and oh did it take a beating - 27 miles of offroad to get to pavement to go to town! Great truck but way small for my likes -

The Cruiser I own gets almost the same mpg - 15 vs 19mpg. Chevy 350 in both - the 60 has a NV4500 - great tranny - it is locked ARB front and rear - it is heavy - knock on wood I have been able to repair the minor difficulties - slave cylinder/brakes/clutch/broke shock mounts...and build on where the PO left off...Leather Camry electric seats...400watt stereo...Boston Acoustics...MP3...Bearcat scanner...Galaxy cb/ssb...ARB fridge...with room to spare for tools and GPS and computer and still tow the Aliner in comfort.

The Taco died under the strain of the trailer - was small - was cool as hell - but I am big and long distance travel = my 60 / toy on switchbacks = my 40

I remember someplace Scott was evaluating the 60 and he said it was an expensive build - yep at $44,000 for the 60 and $8,400 for the 40 + $11,800 for the camper - yep! For what I do and where I live the Land Cruiser is all I would own...if I spent time in town or on the road - I would own a Taco in a heartbeat...or a Ford 350 with a diesel... :bowdown:

[ShottsCruisers]

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.

Lord! Somebody spelled my name right! :luxhello:
THANKS Alvin.

While we're on this topic, please look for a new thread I'm starting. I need sopme advice from you guys who knowme a bit better.

[GeoRoss]

The sailboat designer Uffa Fox once said, "Weight, as such, is useful only to designers of steamrollers."


If the 80 does have a draw back it is its weight. I don't know what the GVW of a Taco extcab/double is, but the 80 is ~6000 IIRC. This summer I was in a FJ60 that got stuck in a mud pit, partly due to its weight. One of my coworkers didn't want to go with LC's because of this, until he had one of the Chinese Jeeps blow a motor, then getting unstuck didn't seem so bad.

Ross

[MaddBaggins]

Hi Ross! You made it over! :wavey:

[GeoRoss]

I made it Alvin, cool site. I'm thinking that all the different platforms represented on this site will help lead to more 'out-of-the-box' thinking. Less lemming behavior.

Ross

[Scott Brady]

...more 'out-of-the-box' thinking. Less lemming behavior.


:arabia: You just made my day...

[MaddBaggins]

I made it Alvin, cool site. I'm thinking that all the different platforms represented on this site will help lead to more 'out-of-the-box' thinking. Less lemming behavior.

Ross

Yeah, you know my problem with the 80's section on mud is Lemmings. Anything new or different is taboo.

[Desertdude]

Another note about the 80 I have observed is the nice tight turning radius over the longer wheel based Tacoma - a great benefit on and off-highway

[Life_in_4Lo]

Yeah, you know my problem with the 80's section on mud is Lemmings. Anything new or different is taboo.
Aw, c'mon. It's not that bad is it?
I think there are alot of opinions on there. Some intersting, some not. But there are alot of people on that board so there will be group-think going on.

I don't know if the vast lurker majority agrees with the vocal few or not so... don't be too hard on them.

[Desertdude]

Before buying the 80 I searched and read, and re-read thousands of posts to get up to speed on the wonders of this vehicle - without the 80's tech on mud I would be lost in space. :bowdown:

[riverguide]

this is by far some of the best info i've read ever. Not that it pertains to me, but its still sweet to see ppl comparing issues and not argueing, all while giving valid points of each vehicle. I love dis place.

[njtacoma]

I'm new but have been lurking for awhile. Thought I would chime in on this thread. I had an 85 FJ 60 (I know not an 80, but I think the concept is similar). I replaced it with the Tacoma, because among other things I like the additional seperation between gear and my family. I liked knowing if something came loose in the cargo area it wasn't going get into the passenger area.

[asteffes]

Ok, am I the only '05+ owner on here? Granted, I just bought my new Taco three weeks ago and haven't done any real "expedition mods" to it yet (besides the shovel and axe :elkgrin: ) , but it'll get there eventually. :coffee:

[pskhaat]

I'm coming into this about a month too late, but:



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


I would have to argue that the FJ80 (not FZJ80) is the greatest platform. # of reasons:

+ 3F-E over 1FZ-FE (lots of bullet points here). 1FZ-FE is prone to head gasket failure, overheating, as well as particular heater hose failures without warning. 3F-E has one oil plug to fill and it's bulletproof. 3F-E is easier to work on, has serious back-compatibilities with the prevalent 2F for accessories and gaskets where the 2F can be found worldwide. 3F can be carb'd in worst case scenarios (OK the 1FZ maybe too, but it's a rarity). 3F-E doesn't have timing chain.

+ 3F-E can be mated to a manual tranny very easily with readily available international and US parts.

+ 15" wheels. 'nough said about tire and wheel choices in other countries. With that come vented front backing plates for potentially cooler front braking.

+ FJ80 better deal $ wise.

+ All lift/suspension/body parts are shared with FZJ80.

+ Factory engine=off cooling fan.

+ Automatic tranny A44? considered to be superior to the latter model FZJ80 A343s

Some minuses/cons:

- Semi-floating rear end with drums; vs. full-floater/disc FZJ80 rear.

- Less hooves in the hood.

- No factory lockers (but can easily be added obviously). VERY easy and simple to add rear locker.

[pskhaat]

Tacoma Xtra Cab or Double Cab:
1. Lighter and faster


Depends on your terrain. FZJ80s got some SERIOUS get-em'-up when you know how to play the torque/HP curves, arguably better than any V-configured engine when off the pavement.

Can't argue with the `lighter' comment.

[GeoRoss]

Depends on your terrain. FZJ80s got some SERIOUS get-em'-up when you know how to play the torque/HP curves, arguably better than any V-configured engine when off the pavement.

Can't argue with the `lighter' comment.

After hearing about your run on the sand course, you know how to "get-em'-up" in and FZJ80. You know your vehicle Scott and run it well. It was good to meet you this weekend, I wish you could have stayed O/N.
:hehe:

Ross

[pskhaat]

I started this thread to discuss the merits of the Tacoma and FZJ80 as expedition options.

Scott, curious why you exlude a 100 series? I know they're behemoth and very $, but have all the right qualities without the higher-mileage 80 series.

[Scott Brady]

Scott, curious why you exlude a 100 series? I know they're behemoth and very $, but have all the right qualities without the higher-mileage 80 series.

The 100 series is also a great platform, and the prices have begun to slump in recent months. The main reason for excluding it was for price.

I have driven thousands of miles in Mexico and the Southwest with Doron in his UZJ100. The truck never ceases to perform, though it does struggle some in mud and sand due to the weight. It wants to dig to China...

The size of the truck is actually an advantage for expedition work. All of the "roads" in Mexico are driven by full-size trucks, so the 100 is perfect.

I even might purchase one when the Trooper finally dies.

[blupaddler]

I have driven a Tacoma only a couple of times. Scott's, before the new super suspension. My dad's Taco, prerunner. I really like the peppy-ness(?) of the 3.4. I have primarily been a truck driver before my 80. I was actually considering a Taco, 80, and Tundra before I decided on my 80.

I picked the 80 because I couldn't afford a Tundra, and the Taco's were a little too small. The D Cab is is great, but you couldn't sleep in the bed. Scott has the tent though which is very nice. I did want the second window/door feature for the dog. So that eventually ruled out the Tundra. And, in all actuality, the Tundra was out of my price range.

This past weekend, I noticed Speedy-Scott, Pasquale, and Chris. They were flying across the fire roads. I was trying to keep up. It was fun, but, obvious that the Taco's were much better suited that I. I also got some "souvenirs" from AZ b/c of my added width.

The truck is nice because you don't have everything right behind you. There is no risk of everything coming flying at you. The is something nice about locking up the shell.

Regarding seating...the Tacoma has much to be desired. However, the 80's don't go back far enough. The leather cracks, and I personally get tired of sitting in my seats for long periods of time. The most comfortable seats in my opinion are the bucket seats from a T100.


My opinion...I don't know. I miss my T100 from days gone by. That was almost perfect. Great size...Not to big, not too small. Great ride and handling. Drawback, engine size (not big enough?-solved with s/c), size...

I picked out my 80 b/c I wanted to sleep in the back, have a second set of windows (that rolled down), and be able to follow that desire of going where I wanted to and not worrying. My 80 might seem like a lemming, but the ARB, Slee, Kaymar is a proven system so far. My "other" systems will hopefully be different.

[Desertdude]

Note:
Landtank on the mud board - has seat brackets along with a fine install pdf - to move the drivers seat back approx. 2" I bought a pair and look forward to the installhttp://www.paulenglish.com/ivr/ ;)

[Boston Mangler]

Well, i have owned the following Toyota vehicles:

99 Tacoma
93 FZJ80 Landcruiser

I do really like both of them but choose the Landcruiser for a few different reasons. Mainly a size thing and i felt the cruiser was much more roomy for my big frame! :D

Both are awesome vehicles in stock form and even better when modified!

I wouldnt hesitate to take either one on a long range expedition trip!

My .02 On The Landcruiser "vs" Tacoma

Landcruiser Pros:
-Super Durable and Reliable
-Much Roomier Inside (can easily fit me and 5 friends to go snowboarding)
-Built like a tank, very reliable
-Easy to work on
-Great aftermarket support
-Rides amazing well with the 2.5 OME kit
-VERY comfortable seats (leather) with power lumbar support, helps out tremdously on long trips
-Surprisinly Much Tighter Turning Radius Then The Taco
-Low mileage FZJ80 is much less intial $ then a low mileage tacoma.
-Factory Front and Rear Locker Option
-Very Trail Capable in Stock Form
-Extensive "Expedition" aftermarket parts available for the FZJ80 (long range fuel tanks, water tanks, dual batteries, storage drawers, etc.....)

Landcruiser Cons:
-Horrendous gas mileage
-Headgasket Issues
-PHH Issues
-Limited lift options due to unique caster adjustment options
-Not at all as common @ the Tacoma. If you do happen to break down in the middle of nowhere, spare parts are not that easy to find and most dont interchange with other models
-Easy To Break Into (rear slider window). Mine has been broken into twice
-Replacement parts can get very expensive!
-Poor quality leather in pre 95 models usually very badly cracked

Tacoma Pros:
-Peppy motor, fun to drive
-Very Common, replacement parts easy to find
-Very Capable in stock form!
-Aftermarket support is increasing quickly
-Very Durable and Reliable
-Nice size bed for a smaller truck
-Impressive Ground Clearance
-Factory Rear Locker Option

Tacoma Cons:
-Interior very cramped for large people (i am 6'3" 265lbs and didnt fit in it too good)
-Seats. Not very comfortable for extended periods of time!
-Large Turning Radius!

This is of course, just my .02

[Scott Brady]

Great comparison Kevin :beer:

The seats of my Tacoma are the one remaining problem area. I hope to have that resolved before the Baja trip.

[Boston Mangler]

Great comparison Kevin :beer:

The seats of my Tacoma are the one remaining problem area. I hope to have that resolved before the Baja trip.

On another note, the chase truck we were driving for the recent 1000 was a loaded Chevy 2500hd pickup. The seats were amazing comfortable (possibly some of the nicest i have sat in) and looked to have identical controls and mounting as my FZJ. I am going to look into this further and possibly upgrade!

We were in this truck for about 12 hours driving all over the rugged terrain of baja and not once got uncomfortable! (and i have a senstive back)

I am afraid though, if i put Chevy parts in my rig, it might start breaking down! :D j/k

[kcowyo]

The most comfortable seats in my opinion are the bucket seats from a T100.
Word. :cool:

I prefer the utility of a truck over an SUV for my own personal vehicle. We have a '99 4Runner, that my wife drives and loves, and it's great for short family trips plus we can keep the dog in the back. Like the Tacomas, I feel a little cramped in the drivers seat of our 4Runner.

I chose a T100, over a Tacoma, for the additional interior room in the cab, larger bed and payload and to build something different. With less than 58K T100's sold in the US, I can have Toyota reliablity in a unique package. Plus I'm a little bit of a neat freak, but if I have to throw a muddy blown tire, shovels, hi lift or tow strap in the back of a truck I don't care. It would irk me to no end to have to move all my sleeping stuff in an SUV to make room for a flat mud covered tire, firewood, etc.

With all that in mind, I would love to swap the wife out of the 4Runner for an 80 or 100 series 'Cruiser. Seeing Robb, Ross and Scott's Cruisers at the ExPo Rally really confirmed that.

[blupaddler]

KC has made a REALLY good point.

EX. On the Picacho Del Diablo trip in Baja it started snowing. Yes, snowing, we were at 8000'. Anyway, we all decided to pack up and leave. Well, our sleeping area is the back of the 80. And we had to put all that wet stuff back into the 80. We ended up staying in a hotel that night. But, imagine the hassles of taking all that wet stuff out and attempting to sleep on/in that area.

[blupaddler]

ACTUALLY, the point here might be to find some sort of "detached" sleeping system. Because those of us that sleep in the back of our 80 or back of the truck, this is a situation to consider.

So...Chalk one up for the roof tent! I just need to figure out how to get the dog up there.

:D

[BajaTaco]

ACTUALLY, the point here might be to find some sort of "detached" sleeping system. Because those of us that sleep in the back of our 80 or back of the truck, this is a situation to consider.

So...Chalk one up for the roof tent! I just need to figure out how to get the dog up there.

:D

I have encountered the same scenario, and it's not too bad if you have a roof rack that you can pack the wet/muddy stuff on until you have time to clean it and dry it out. I also carry some plastic tarps for when I need to put something dirty/messy in the back on top of the cargo deck. I think an issue with the roof tent in the same scenario is that you would have to close up the tent inside the case while it was still all wet - which could present some problems as well. I haven't used one though, so maybe those who have used a roof tent and had to put it away wet could comment.

[Boston Mangler]

Yeah, you know my problem with the 80's section on mud is Lemmings. Anything new or different is taboo.
You hit the nail right on the head with that one!

I am very glad to have found this board and something dedicated to what i want to use my rig for!

[Desertdude]

maybe those who have used a roof tent and had to put it away wet could comment.

We just camped in the Santa Cruz Mountain Redwoods last night it rained all night long - woke up and closed the lid on theMaggiolina (http://www.autohomeus.com/products/maggiolina.php) The tent material really shed water ( did not absorb water)

I will let you know how it turns out :box:

[clarkrw3]

However, the 80's don't go back far enough.
I second that about Lanktank's brackets....they totally transform the 80. They are a little bit of a pain to install but are well worth the effort and price!!! They were one of the first mods I did and would be again if I did it over.

Now a Taco with a SAS would tempt me more but still very different vehicals and I would choose the 80 again, although wouldn't mind having both. I think for long trips I would still choose the 80.

[Boston Mangler]

I second that about Lanktank's brackets....they totally transform the 80. They are a little bit of a pain to install but are well worth the effort and price!!! They were one of the first mods I did and would be again if I did it over.

Now a Taco with a SAS would tempt me more but still very different vehicals and I would choose the 80 again, although wouldn't mind having both. I think for long trips I would still choose the 80.

How big are you guys? I am 6'3" 265lbs and fit fine in my 93 80.

Could possibly use another inch of backward movement but i am in no way cramped!

my .02

[Desertdude]

I am about 2" shorter than you - and I feel like I am eating the steering wheel - I have more leg room in the Tacoma than the 97 LC - I have the landtank seat brakets and when I get back to AZ that is the second thing I will do. After the gold removal - All ready did the cup mod :coffee:

[Boston Mangler]

I am about 2" shorter than you - and I feel like I am eating the steering wheel - I have more leg room in the Tacoma than the 97 LC - I have the landtank seat brakets and when I get back to AZ that is the second thing I will do. After the gold removal - All ready did the cup mod :coffee:

Hmmm, maybe the 93 and 97 have different seat setups?

[clarkrw3]

I am 6'4" and I love the extra room of the landtank brackets make a world of difference. I too felt very cramped in the drivers seat before the brackets. Let me know if you have any questions Desertdude...it isn't the easest install but not a big deal. :beer:

[Desertdude]

Let me know if you have any questions Desertdude...it isn't the easest install but not a big deal.

Thanks - the PDF instructions look pretty well written - I will let you know how it goes

[Boston Mangler]

I am 6'4" and I love the extra room of the landtank brackets make a world of difference. I too felt very cramped in the drivers seat before the brackets. Let me know if you have any questions Desertdude...it isn't the easest install but not a big deal. :beer:

Hmmm, i am going to look into a set these then, my knees usually do hurt a little after long drives, thats probably why! :D

I have already had a few passegners sitting behind me whine about lack of room, this should really tick em off! :D

[Desertdude]

Seat bracket thread (http://forum.ih8mud.com/showthread.php?t=46591)

if the driver is not happy - then no one is happy :victory:

[Boston Mangler]

I just got back from a job out of town.

I took the company 2005 Tacoma with me and noticed another flaw with the Taco where the FZJ80 shines! THE HEADRESTS!!!!

When i am driving long distances, i like to rest my head on the headrests sometimes. The headrest on the taco wouldnt even support the weight of my head resting on it, never mind in an impact. Can you say whiplash?

Anyway, another observation, the FZJ80 headrests rock!

[Scott Brady]

Yes, Tacoma seats suck... big time.

The seats and interior trim is where you can really see the MSRP difference between the vehicles.