UZJ100 vs. Tacoma Doublecab

[mountainpete]

Hi guys... I'm getting the itch again so please help me through this... :coffeedrink:

For some reason, I just can't seem to stay satisfied with my Tacoma. It does everything great, it runs great, it's just great. I've done a bunch of work to it and I have always been satisified with how it performs. It has simply never let me down. It's also still a baby - it still has less than 60k km (not miles) on it!

But I can't keep my eyes off of something different. Last year it was a Defender 90. I came within inches of changing, but the rear seating arrangement and kids in the future halted that (drawer system basically kills the seating area back there - so consider it a two person).

This year it's a UZJ100. They are not easy to come by in Canada - all are US imports. Sometimes you can grab a deal though. Drop $10k with Slee and it's pretty much done. We all know how capable they are. But to get in the same value catagory as my Tacoma the UZJ100 will be older and have more miles on it - but not necessarily by much.

So... Lets discuss the merits of a UZJ100 versus an 01 - 04 Tacoma doublecab.

All thoughts and opinions welcome. Bring it on! :shakin:

[calamaridog]

Pete,

I went from a Tacoma to the UZJ100 2 years ago. I will say it was definitely for passenger room.

The LC is wider and has a deeper floor. Seating is more upright and your legs hang down lower. Front seats are fully adjustable up/down/back. Middle row is roomy and wide enough for childseat and 2 adults. Doublecab Taco is not wide enough for that. Rear seating comes out and gets put back a few times per year if you need it.

Build quality is good and the LC is very solid. Suspension can only be upgraded with OME unless you go full custom. I'm disappointed with suspension choices to say the least.

Drivetrain is solid. 2000+ models have TRAC, etc. which is worth having. They also have 4 pinion front diff. Figure on a bunch of PM once every 100,000 miles.

Frankly, if I had to import one, I'd be looking for something else with more character.

[Brian894x4]

I think the question to ask is what don't you like about your Tacoma? And can that be addressed with the Land Cruiser?

I think a better comparision can be addressed once we know what you wish you could change about the Taco.

[tacollie]

6 months ago I almost bought a UZJ100. It was awesome. It had just about everything I wanted on it. I stuck with my Tacome for a few reasons. Better mpg. The lc got about 11 or 12 mpg. Parts are cheaper. Sure you rarely have to do anything to a LC, but when you do it hurts. I also had a hard time getting used to the weight off road and an automatic. That aside the LC was amazing. My brother ended up buying it and absolutly loves it. Everytime I see it I wonder if I made the right choice. I think you will be happy with one.

[Brian894x4]

Funny, while I'm typing this out, I'm staring at the website header, which just happens to have a UZJ100 next to a Taco! :D

I can only think of 4 reasons not to go with a UZJ100.

a) Cost. The Tacoma is probably cheaper to buy, to modify and to repair.

b) Fuel mileage. Even on the UZJ100, it's not so great.

c) Size and weight. They're a good bit wider than the Taco, but not longer, since you have the doublecab. They weigh a ton...3 to be exact. Almost 3 and a half once you load it down with mods.

d) Too expensive and pretty to get dirty, scratch up and wheel hard.

Reasons for the UZJ100.

a) A superior and more durable suspension, axles and steering out of the box. You can depend on it off road in stock form with few or no modications.

b) A superior and more durable chassis, that can hold more gear and people.

c) Japanese quality. No offense to the Taco, but while the Taco is a great high quality rig and there's something to be said for "made in America", I believe there's a quality advantage with Toyotas that were engineered and built in Japan. Of course, for $60K, it darn well better be well engineered!

d) More room and comfort inside, especially if you want to haul the family around and on long trips.

e) Possibly safer. Although I don't have any data to back that up, I'm just assuming the Land Cruiser would withstand an accident better than the Taco, due to size and better engineering. Also, the wider stance will make it safer off road in off camber situations. And you have all-wheel drive all the time, for that northern snowy weather. You don't have to think about putting it into 4WD or worry about going from snow to dry pavement.

They're both good rigs. I've driven both, but not owned either one, so I'm not an expert. You have a great rig and the Land Cruiser is very expensive in almost every way. So, that needs to be considered. I think they are the better rig of the two, as long as one can afford it. If this is going to daily driver, fuel economy needs to be considered. The Taco is a very cost effective and reliable vehicle over the long term. You could always wait too, because the prices of the UZJ100s are going to go in one direction...down.

[ChuckB]

I think that unless you really need a pick-up bed, its really hard to beat a cruiser for the above mentioned reasons. However, having said that, I've caught myself thinking about a Taco recently because my two fury friends like getting the back really muddy, sandy and wet. Of course, I would not sell the Cruiser to get the Taco though, having both would be nice...

[rusty_tlc]

You might do some research on front differential failures in the 100's before you commit.

We considered the Taco before we got our 100. We elected to go with an older 100. The Taco felt a little claustrophobic to us after our full size GMC 2500.

[calamaridog]

Pete,

Didn't they sell the Lexus LX470 in Canada?

[SLOwag]

I would bet money that this isn't what you want to hear but some people can't scratch that itch by choosing one over the other.....I have a wagon (FJ60) and a taco. I'm switching out the taco for an '07 any day now but I'm also holding out for a used 100 in a few years.

They're really two different rigs that serve different purposes, but if you're carrying more than two people and gear I would get the wagon......

[pskhaat]

I have a 1999 UZJ100. I like it more and more every day minus one thing which I'll post about in another thread. 98 & 99 did have the 2 pinion front diff but has a factory rear locker, 2000+ has 4 pinion with no rear locker but with traction control.

It's really a wagon vs. truck debate in my mind. Where I am right now in life, a wagon makes a lot of sense, family of 4 with carseats + a big dog that goes along. Wagon's IMO excel in colder weather where you might not want to get out of the full truck quite yet to grab the snowshoes or ski boots, but do take significantly more care in packing.

Taco's are pretty darn cool, and I plan on building a full-sized expedition truck one day, but until then I'm very happy with the 100 (and my 80 too). BTW, the fuel mileage is about 18-20 stock for me (better than all other LC models) but does of course drop with every mod.

[DaveInDenver]

After liberal snipping...


I can only think of 4 reasons not to go with a UZJ100.

a) Cost. b) Fuel mileage. c) Size and weight. d) Too expensive and pretty to get dirty, scratch up and wheel hard.

These are pretty much the exact reasons there even are 4Runners, RAV4s, Tacos and the like. I had a FJ40, which isn't the most complex or even expensive of Cruisers to own and everything costs more to repair on Cruisers. Obviously the FJ40 is different from the 100 in that you are paying more due to obsolescence as much as anything. But none-the-less, my experience with my Hilux(es) is that keeping them on the road is a lot cheaper. Parts are cheaper, mileage is better.

The size and weight are really only an issue for touring with respect to mileage. I think the bulk and dimensions are more of a setback in a rock crawling setting, otherwise it's mostly just the hit on mileage.


Reasons for the UZJ100.

a) A superior and more durable b) A superior and more durable chassis
c) Japanese quality. Toyotas that were engineered and built in Japan. d) More room and comfort inside e) Possibly safer.

I don't think a Taco is necessarily any less durable, all of the 'real' Toyota trucks are overbuilt for their size. Just because the Hilux has an 8" diff vs. the 9.25" Cruiser doesn't mean it's any less strong, since the Hilux gives up around the 1/2 of a ton love handles to its big brother. So the 3/4 ton Cruiser has 1 ton axles and the 1/2 ton Hilux has 3/4 axles, both are pretty dang strong. In stock trim, both are pretty unlikely to have major failures. I think that's the key, Toyota trucks in stock configuration are really durable trucks. But being a bigger, heavier duty truck the Cruiser will tolerate overloading better and I think that's the key to durability. But there are 20+ year old Hiluxes that have been bouncing around in 4WD their whole lives all over the world.

I do admit that the behind the wheels frame issue with the Taco bothers me, but that I think is because Toyota went too far to giving the truck better crash safety, which goes to your (e) point. Physics says that the bigger vehicle will win in a collision, but that does not always equal less passenger injury. A Cruiser will inflict more damage on most anything it hits short of a F350 or dump truck or semi. It's my guess that the Taco (and 4Runner I'd think) will blow apart more than the Cruiser. It's stuff like crumple zones, collapsible frame members and breaking parts (like an engine that drops out or driveshaft that bends) that keeps all that energy from making it to the passenger zone. The Cruiser, even the 100 series, is still built the old way more or less, which means that MY ASSUMPTION is that it's built without nearly the safety tweaking that more modern designs have. I also have absolutely no evidence, but my intuition tells me that a Double Cab Taco and a 100 are probably pretty much equal in overall safety, with each having certain types of crashes where each would accel or be deficient.

The Japanese thing. I understand your mind set there. My Hilux is a Japanese built one and all Cruisers (and 4Runners for that matter) are still Japanese built. But I don't think that's really an issue anymore. The US built Toyotas are fine. Besides, key parts are still made in Japan. Even on new Tacos the tranny and transfer are made in Japan. The engines are made here now and the rear axles have been made here for almost 15 years. I dunno, I still haven't reached a conclusion in my mind and so I'd stick with the Japanese assembled truck if there's a choice. But I'm also not sure that if I was looking for a Taco that being US assembled would keep me from buying it. The window stickers still say something like 50% foreign content on a Tacoma. Since we know they make the body panels, frames, engine and axles here, that leaves an awful lot of important parts still sourced I presume from the mother ship.


They're both good rigs. I've driven both, but not owned either one, so I'm not an expert.
I'm like you, Brian, just a Toyota guy. Well, except that I've never actually spent any significant time in a 100 series Cruiser.

I think that if everyone could afford them, most everyone (at least within our circles) would own a Cruiser. But between the cost to buy and the cost to upkeep, they are quite expensive. Then there's the wagon vs. pickup question. If you want a pickup (at least in North America), then the choice is really moot. The Double Cab is sort of in the gray area, so it's not quite as clear (IMO it's more of a wagon than pickup, but that is really personal interpretation). But I'm not sure I would ever consider a 100 series and a Taco as equals overall. My decision to stick with the Hilux is mostly (1) 'cause of the 'Nest and (b) money. If you eliminate the economics and base the decision solely on merit, then it's hard to argue that the 100 (or any Cruiser wagon) is top dog. But when you figure in the initial entry price, the ongoing maintenance cost and the 5 or more MPG hit, the Cruiser in my budget costs more to keep in the stable. Not having kids, the extra row or two of seats is not a benefit to me and a real pickup bed (even if it's only 6' long) is important. But it's all about configurations and what your requirements might be. My budget goes beyond the truck itself and includes significant investment in toys to put in or on top of the truck. If we didn't have a quiver of bikes, skis, boats and climbing junk, then we might consider a Cruiser as an option. But we spend plenty on that stuff, so if a trip costs us an additional $100 in gas, that can't be ignored.

[mountainpete]

Thanks guys :luxhello:

You have all given me a lot to think about. All of the points make sense. The question probably gets as simple as this for me: Am I better with a truck or an SUV?

In the end, I think I am better off with and SUV. I find that in the winter I rarely use the bed of the truck simply because it gets so cold back there. But then it's really convienient to have a bed for all that wet and stinky gear. I guess I need to give it more thought.... :REOutCampFire03:

Calamaridog: Yes, they do sell the LX470 in Canada, but it is seriously overpriced compared to the US UZJ100's that come by every once and a while. I mean really overpriced. To the point where I might as well buy two Tacomas and have some spare change.

[Scott Brady]

The Tacoma front suspension is superior to the UZJ (coil-over vs. torsion). I have driven them both and the UZJ front end is its weak link.

The UZJ has an awesome motor and much better interior and fitment quality.

The Tacoma still has more storage room.

The UZJ is a big truck on the trails

The Tacoma is much more of a sporty/high speed/trail solution. The UZJ is all about refinement, luxury, safety and build quality and a perfect RTW solution. The decision should be based on those criteria.

I would not give either an edge on reliability.

[pskhaat]

The Tacoma front suspension is superior to the UZJ (coil-over vs. torsion).
I agree, though torsion is said to have longer life? (honest question)

[DaveInDenver]

The Tacoma front suspension is superior to the UZJ (coil-over vs. torsion). I have driven them both and the UZJ front end is its weak link.
Is this because of the lower A-arm thing on the 100 or just a coil vs. torsion question? I'd assumed that Toyota used the Hi-Trac system on the 100 because it was reliable at the expense of maximum wheel travel. Torsion springs are supposed to last longer and the Toyota system with the springs tucked up above the frame at the upper arms is pretty bullet proof. But a cushy, articulation monster it most definitely is not.

[DaveInDenver]

I agree, though torsion is said to have longer life? (honest question)
Mine went 175K miles, with about 60K of that with lift cranked in. The ARB bumper was what did them in, just couldn't hold the lift anymore. I still have them, they hadn't broken yet. It was just that 15 year-old 22.5mm torsions no longer had the spring rate to hold the extra weight (they were definitely tired).

[Scott Brady]

Mainly it is room for the larger shock (I have never driven a UZJ100 that was not under dampened) and how a coil-over transfers load the the chassis. The UZJ screams for a coil-over, a really, really big one :elkgrin:

[Brian894x4]

Here’s something kind of interesting. As some of you may know, the Tacoma was used in Afghanistan by the U.S. military in the early part of the war by Special Forces. These were the U.S. specs Tacos sourced from a particular dealer somewhere near Fort Campbell and then outfitted with things like infrared lights. They had a cheap winch mount, winch, roll bar, and an M60 mount and has things like interior lights and door buzzers and radios disconnected, but were otherwise completely stock as far as I know.

As you can see from the pics, these rigs were probably severely overloaded, but served their purpose and worked pretty well. However…

From what I’ve been told, they’re all out of service now, because the front suspensions completely fell apart after only a few months. Exactly what happened is apparently classified. Someone emailed me some photos of damaged Tacomas, but I was later asked by the military guys to remove them from the website as apparently even the damage was classified information. And the few guys I’ve talked too, wouldn't divulge exactly which parts on the Tacoma front end failed, so I don’t have any details. Since I assume the military is no longer using Tacomas over there, maybe they are less sensative about the damage info and we can find out somehow.

When you consider that 20 year Hilux trucks, including some IFS models and Land Cruisers of all types, including IFS LC100s are still roaming the deserts in Afghanistan and Iraq, it appears to me that there's evidence that the torsion bar IFS mini-trucks and Land Cruiser 100s do have an advantage in terms of durability and longevity over the 1st gen Taco suspension.

However, most of us will likely never put a Tacoma through what they did in Afghanistan, so in terms of we use them for, the Tacoma is a great rig and I wouldn’t hesitate to own one. I’ve driven a 2001 model extensively and on a few long trips and they are great rigs, but if my life had to depend on of the two vehicles, I’d rather be in the LC100.

As far as which one to own, the Tacoma has a lot of advantages when it comes to over all cost buy and operate.

Here’s a U.S. spec Tacoma in Afghanistan. And an IFS LC100 somewhere in the middle east outfitted for combat.

[Bergger]

If our special forces had been given basically stock Hilux trucks I'm fairly confident that they would have been put out of commission as well. As a military member I know how hard we drive and treat our vehicles. Heck I've broken more than 1 Humvee in my time. I would not be surprised if they stopped using the Tacos due to a lack of spare parts and local mechanical knowledge. I think the reason you still see more old LCs and Hiluxs driving around out there is just because that is traditionally what has been exported, ie the parts and experience in fixing them is more prevalent. Also the forces still using them probably don't have the resources to replace them as easily as we do. Just my $.02.

If you every get those pics of the damage to the tacos and the reasons for removing them please let us know. I am curious as well.

[Brian894x4]

Very good point on the parts. I do seem to recall that parts was an issue, since literally nothing is interchangable between a Tacoma and Hilux. Once you blow a rack and pinion, you're pretty much done. Even a blown tie-rod end, which seems to be fairly common, even over here, will sideline any Taco over there.

Where the Tacos really shined over there was the 3.4 V-6 which was way more powerful and faster than any Hilux and much quieter than both the Humvees and Hiluxes. I think that was really the primary reason for getting the Tacos in the first place. When you're only a couple of guys and a couple of trucks out there in the Afghan mountains by yourself, speed and stealth were a matter of life and death.

I erased the pics per their request so I don't even have copies of them. There was no visible suspension damage that I could see. It was mostly pics of Tacos full of bullet and shrapnel holes and some were stripped.

[devinsixtyseven]

I can only guess at the reasons the combat versions were mothballed, but I think I have some pretty good guesses based on my knowledge of the Tundra and its similarity to the Tacoma.

The Tundra takes its entire drivetrain aft of the engine from the Tacoma and other small engine/drivetrain/payload Toyotas...yes, all of it including the transmission...with the exception of the inner CV joints, which are much larger on the Tundra. Factory unlocked rears are identical in the two trucks with the exception of wms dimension...the differentials are identical.

Packed & loaded Tundras weigh in about the same as a packed & loaded 100...three tons. In fact, the engine in the Tundra (2UZFE) is mirrored in several other Toyotas equipped with 1UZ and 3UZ engines, the Tundra takes its engine originally from the LC and similar engines were used in a couple sports cars in different configurations (four bolt mains, different shape to the rods, etc).

I suspect that a packed, loaded, armored, combat equipped Tacoma is NOT light, not at all. In normal use, a Tundra will dump the front differential when the wheels are spun overmuch, it will also dump both inner and outer cv joints and the front halfshafts. The Tacoma has an even smaller inner CV joint. The upper ball joints are very, very small at the neck, and the lower ball joints are sturdy but were swapped later in production for a larger joint and wider footprint. In addition, the spindles' weak spot is near the top where the upper ball joint mounts. While the lower ball joint takes the majority of the shock when the suspension cycles, the tire is outboard of both joints, putting a shear load across the neck of the upper ball joint and a bending load on the spindle when the weight of the truck is over the wheel--more so and much worst when the front end hits the bump stops. It's just the nature of the setup, that's how it works--when the upper joint goes, the wheel flops in to the wheel well, not out. In addition, while the tie rods, steering shaft, and rack/pinion are fairly sturdy, they will not handle constant abuse from things like in-place turns with the brakes locked, side shock loading and other things that are 4WD no-nos. In a combat situation, I can see the stock front end of a Tacoma quickly being overrun...probably a matter of months...not because the front suspension and steering were poorly designed, but because they were meant for highway travel, paved roads, and slow travel over rough terrain, not constant high speed service over rough terrain. They can be built for it, but that costs money.

Back to your original question, I looked at used LCs when I was looking at the Tundra. I found a built LC on 35s, with 4links front and rear, just crazy, with all the interior amenities and a sunroof, 125K miles, asking 35K$. Considering the (easily) 15$K of modifications, it was a pretty good deal. However, I passed because of the plush interior, pretty paint job, completely enclosed passenger and cargo compartment, and all the other amenities that make an LC an LC. It's the same reason I passed on the 330xi...I knew I was only going to get it dirty, scratch the paint, throw stuff on the roof, all things I've done with the Tundra that I don't regret one bit. Muddy boots? Bed. Muddy dog? Bed. Sharp skis and snowboards? Bed. Dirty camping gear? Well, you get the idea. The LC was built for overland luxury. The trucks are built to Git'R'Done. WRT the frame cracking issue, there's a fix, but the first thing is to pack properly--weight to the front, light to the rear. Hanging everything off the arse end of the truck is a sure way to cantilever weight from the front suspension and overload the frame to the point you need those frame reinforcements. If you need/want a swingout carrier, keep the frame and loading in mind. FWIW Brady's Taco has a near 50/50 distro and I suspect if not for the weight and higher CG it would handle similar to my roommate's S4.

Here is another consideration. Because of the payload constraints of an LC, you'll wind up hucking plenty of things on the roof, or off the back end. I've seen pictures here and other places of LCs with an obvious rear weight bias, cantilevered so bad that the front end was hardly flexing. I've also seen plenty of pictures of LCs with every liquid known to man strapped to the roof, along with the shovel, hilift, recovery ladders, spare tire, kitchen sink, and a few lead weights just to make sure the rig is properly top heavy. This doesn't matter if you're off to the dunes, beaches, backroads and flat dirt, but if you're planning on doing anything other than "light" offroad (ie flat, potholes, no steep climbs/descents, all climbs/descents are level, etc), it's something to consider. If you have someone tugging a tow strap to keep you from rolling because you have everything on the roof (or someone hanging from your bumper), you're on the wrong trail for your packing scheme. It doesn't mean you packed bad, or wrong, or anything, just that the trail you're driving isn't an appropriate place for the way you're packed...and vehicle choice will dictate how you pack. It's not specific to the 100, just an observation for any SUV...I've seen FJCs, 4Runners and Cherokees loaded the same way, with the same downfall.

With a bed, you can put all that stuff nice and low. There's a huge space you can lay out yourself to carry all your amenities and toys, like water at 8#/gal and fuel at 6#/gal...no need to drive down the trail in a skyscraper. It helps the mileage too...throwing it on the roof increases your wind resistance enough to knock the mileage back a few notches regardless the weight. Keeping it in the bed only helps the mileage. In addition, because you have payload space in front of and behind the wheels, you can pack heavy/front to light/rear and acquire a good 50/50 weight distribution and still keep everything in the bed.

Figure out what you want to do most, first, then break it down to SUV vs truck. It's why I wound up with a midsized truck with a generous back seat vs an SUV, and the same choices I made may push you more toward the 100. Of the LC, AC Tundra and DC Taco, the LC has the most comfortable back seat, and IMHO the two trucks had similar back seats...I'd hate to be stuck back there longer than a trip to the trailhead, or as a female friend of mine observed WRT the rear seat of an 00 model Tundra, "it's the most erect thing you'll sit on all night." Not comfortable for adults, but great as an additional storage space. Also FWIW if you look at the lines, a 100 is similar to a reg.cab short bed Taco, but everything is enclosed.

-Sean

[calamaridog]

Mainly it is room for the larger shock (I have never driven a UZJ100 that was not under dampened) and how a coil-over transfers load the the chassis. The UZJ screams for a coil-over, a really, really big one :elkgrin:

I can't agree more. If Toyota had designed this thing with a big coil over shock set-up I'd be in heaven. And the available shocks are totally inadequate. This truck is definitely under dampened.

The new Land Cruiser will join the modern area with a coil over shock set-up.

The solution appears to be custom shock mounts and work I can't afford right now.

Sometimes I do regret not getting a 4runner or Tundra instead, so I would have simple bolt-in suspension choices. Then again, there are things I love about the UZJ100 wagons.

[ShottsCruisers]

Apples to oranges comparo.

I had both...my 2001 UZJ and a Donohoe/Deaver 2004 Double Cab.

I hated to drive the Taco....anywhere. It's gone and an Rx8 replaced it. I was PERSONAL, not meant as a cut-down.

My impressions of the Taco off-road were good. It was a wheel-lifter though it did very well. To discredit a Taco on the trail is dumb. They are very capable no doubt.

For me...the UZJ simply is an extention of my body on the trail. Equipped like mine is, it flexes better, is far more comfortable, it rarely lifts a wheel, it simply feels far more planted on the trail, it almost responds to my thoughts about where to go.

So, it really comes down to your needs and wants. Just don't sell the 100 short on capability because it's 3 tons, a bit wider (though shorter), and so luxurious. They will leave folks mouths hangin' open. :arabia:

http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/photos/97623850-O.jpg
http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/photos/111433104-O.jpg
http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/photos/69919258-O.jpg

[ShottsCruisers]

I can't agree more. If Toyota had designed this thing with a big coil over shock set-up I'd be in heaven. And the available shocks are totally inadequate. This truck is definitely under dampened.


WOW....I POSTED AND DIDN'T NOTICE PAGES 2 AND 3? DUHHHH!

OK...I know this is going to sound like Shotts has a pro-100 answer to EVERYTHING, but here it goes........

I actually prefer the softer under-damped ride by 10-fold compared to the stiffer ride of my 80's. It's this sweet off-road ride that keeps us wanting to take the 100 out. Now YES....if a little stiffer FRONT shock came out tomorrow, I'd buy it ASAP. Meanwhile, the places the under-dampened suspension bothers us are few and far between.

OK :REOutArchery02: Shotts

[DaveInDenver]

it rarely lifts a wheel, it simply feels far more planted on the trail, it almost responds to my thoughts about where to go.
You know, this sounds pretty much like a Crusier vs. mini thing. My FJ40 was stock except for 2" springs and 31" ATs, but the weight distribution, gearing, engine power band let you just chug along. A lot less jarring and throttle jockeying. Most all mini trucks bounce more and need more momentum. Even with a Ultimate, they're just less smooth. For routine off highway driving (i.e. non-extreme crawling), I completely agree that the Cruiser is far more comfortable.

[devinsixtyseven]

You know, this sounds pretty much like a Crusier vs. mini thing. My FJ40 was stock except for 2" springs and 31" ATs, but the weight distribution, gearing, engine power band let you just chug along. A lot less jarring and throttle jockeying. Most all mini trucks bounce more and need more momentum. Even with a Ultimate, they're just less smooth. For routine off highway driving (i.e. non-extreme crawling), I completely agree that the Cruiser is far more comfortable.There are two things working against the trucks, leaf springs in the rear and a suspension intended to carry stuff vs provide a comfortable ride. It gets comfortable once it's loaded, but then you're still dealing with axle wrap from a factory spring-under. The part about carrying stuff is very important too...the trucks are heavily biased toward the front axle, until they're loaded. The SUVs have a better ratio out the door, but decline when they're loaded incorrectly (ie like a truck) which biases the weight heavily to the rear.

If the springs aren't carrying their intended load, it'll take momentum to clear any obstacle. My initial experience with unloaded stiff springs was pretty funny, I backed up on the flex ramp thinking I'd put on a good show, and I was glad nobody was watching because it flexed about as well as a buckboard--until it had 800 pounds in the bed. Then it rode like a caddy.

[Scott Brady]

We need to be careful comparing modifications instead of stock attributes. Stock to stock is a more meaning full comparison. With enough money, I can make a Honda Civic outperform the Taco and UZJ.

And luxury has nothing to do with performance. :wavey:

[ShottsCruisers]

We need to be careful comparing modifications instead of stock attributes. Stock to stock is a more meaning full comparison. With enough money, I can make a Honda Civic outperform the Taco and UZJ.

And luxury has nothing to do with performance. :wavey:

Stock? I'll take a 4WD TRD Taco over a 100 on the trail. That 100 front bumper is too big!

[kcowyo]

And luxury has nothing to do with performance. :wavey:

:bowdown:

This has been a great thread for comparisons. Thanks Scott for bringing it back to the original intent.

[Scott Brady]

John's UZJ100 is an awesome machine, and extremely comfortable to drive on the road and trail. It is dialed to his driving style and trail preferences too. I am just much of an 80 series / Tacoma kind of guy, mostly because of value and the cost of luxury equipment on payload.

A bare bones 105 with a diesel, now that! :jumping:

[mike h]

Nobody touched on the AWD aspects of the LC. I would think in Calgary, especially as a family truckster, that would be most appreciated. I used to think a 'real 4wd' was just as good, but all it took was a simple Subaru for my wife to change my mind. Living in northern Maine, we spend a lot of time on mixed surfaces. Not having to think about 2wd/4wd in a manual shift on-the-fly situation is really nice when you have a lot of ground to cover.

In cold weather climates I prefer the wagon style to a pick-up. If affording an LC isn't a major concern, they are hard to argue against.

That said, I haven't made the LC leap myself, although it's been a fairly constant obsession in recent years. It's been Schotts adventures that have me thinking a 100 may be a suitable successor to the venerable 80s.

[ShottsCruisers]

Nobody touched on the AWD aspects of the LC. I would think in Calgary, especially as a family truckster, that would be most appreciated. I used to think a 'real 4wd' was just as good, but all it took was a simple Subaru for my wife to change my mind. Living in northern Maine, we spend a lot of time on mixed surfaces. Not having to think about 2wd/4wd in a manual shift on-the-fly situation is really nice when you have a lot of ground to cover.

In cold weather climates I prefer the wagon style to a pick-up. If affording an LC isn't a major concern, they are hard to argue against.

That said, I haven't made the LC leap myself, although it's been a fairly constant obsession in recent years. It's been Schotts adventures that have me thinking a 100 may be a suitable successor to the venerable 80s.

Good point. It's EASY to swing that rear end right around in a Taco. On the other hand the 100 is plain boring. No donuts. :victory:

[Brian894x4]

:elkgrin:
John's UZJ100 is an awesome machine, and extremely comfortable to drive on the road and trail. It is dialed to his driving style and trail preferences too. I am just much of an 80 series / Tacoma kind of guy, mostly because of value and the cost of luxury equipment on payload.

A bare bones 105 with a diesel, now that! :jumping:


Hey now...there's an idea. What about an 80 or an LX450 instead of a 100?

It would be cheaper, more capable off road, easier to modify, lighter than 100, just as reliable, if not more than both the 100 and Taco and as long as you have you're own personal oil pipeline attached to it, it should be many years of happy wheeling and roading. Oh ya, and if you're lucky enough to find one with the lockers, we can stop debating which one is better off road in stock form.

I'm loving my 80 and I just can't wait to get started on the mods!

[Scott Brady]

It's EASY to swing that rear end right around in a Taco.

John, that is a good attribute :elkgrin:

[ShottsCruisers]

John, that is a good attribute :elkgrin:

Yes...when you're flying down Price Road at Bondurant speeds. :truck:

One dude gave me an idea on how to do that in the 100. Lock the CDL (VSC off) and lock the rear and hit it. ???

[devinsixtyseven]

Nobody touched on the AWD aspects of the LC. I would think in Calgary, especially as a family truckster, that would be most appreciated. I used to think a 'real 4wd' was just as good, but all it took was a simple Subaru for my wife to change my mind. Living in northern Maine, we spend a lot of time on mixed surfaces. Not having to think about 2wd/4wd in a manual shift on-the-fly situation is really nice when you have a lot of ground to cover.That's for sure! I've been very tempted to make the truck AWD (the tcase & center diff are somewhat interchangable, Tundra to Sequoia). It's probably something that would work on a Tacoma as well, the transmissions are similar.

[J-man]

That is the coolest land cruiser i have ever seen. Period!




Apples to oranges comparo.

I had both...my 2001 UZJ and a Donohoe/Deaver 2004 Double Cab.

I hated to drive the Taco....anywhere. It's gone and an Rx8 replaced it. I was PERSONAL, not meant as a cut-down.

My impressions of the Taco off-road were good. It was a wheel-lifter though it did very well. To discredit a Taco on the trail is dumb. They are very capable no doubt.

For me...the UZJ simply is an extention of my body on the trail. Equipped like mine is, it flexes better, is far more comfortable, it rarely lifts a wheel, it simply feels far more planted on the trail, it almost responds to my thoughts about where to go.

So, it really comes down to your needs and wants. Just don't sell the 100 short on capability because it's 3 tons, a bit wider (though shorter), and so luxurious. They will leave folks mouths hangin' open. :arabia:

http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/photos/97623850-O.jpg
http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/photos/111433104-O.jpg
http://shottscruisers.smugmug.com/photos/69919258-O.jpg

[Redline]

Enjoying the thread gentlemen...

I recently made a similar decision myself: New double-cab Tacoma vs. New 4Runner for a new 4x4/Expedition rig.

I have always been a pickup guy, open beds, no camper shells or tops for me. With the exception of a 1978 International Scout several years ago, the only other enclosed/wagon utility vehicle I have owned was my recent '05 Jeep Rubicon. In contrast I have owned seven 4x4 trucks, six of them were full-sized 3/4 - 1-ton models, with only one Ford Ranger V6 mini-truck in the mix two decades ago. Three of the trucks were diesels. The stiff unladen ride is something I have apparently just lived with, along with the low traction in the rear when the bed was empty. But the serious contact pressure from narrow tires (235 - 255mm) with a diesel and heavy bumper on the front end has always helped me with traction. This has usually been a positive but there have been times when the weight expedited wallowing swallowing in the soft.

When I started to shop for a Toyota in December, I was surprised when I drove an FJCrusier after a Tacoma DC and was impressed by its more compliant and supple coil sprung rear suspension. This lead me to try a V8 4Runner, which is ultimately what I purchased after finding the right one.

Having always used pickups, loading my gear in the beds but still having plenty of payload left, I began to experience with the realities of a heavily laden wagon with the Wrangler. Though I had stout springs on the rear to handle a big bumper, spare tire, and hi-lift, adding all my gear for a trip still made the Jeep sag in the rear. For extended trips I was still going to need to carry water and fuel, and I was not looking forward to adding this additional liquid weight to the rear of the LJ. This lead me to consider an Adventure Trailer. Though certainly there are trade offs to pulling a trailer instead of just loading our gear on/in our rigs, I purchased a Chaser largely to be able to comfortably & safely haul fuel, water, and gear with less impact on the tow vehicle (the exception of course being that I'm pulling a trailer). Initially I thought of the tent as a luxury bonus, now I'm really looking forward to using it, and my wife like the tent 'feature'.

Though I don't need the 4Runner to be a daily driver, with the amount of money one has to pay for a new/newer vehicle, I wanted it to be a dual-purpose car. How it works on-road & comfort is very important to me (why the LJ is gone). Like others have mentioned, I also used to have similar feelings about full-time 4WD or all-wheel-drive rigs. I thought they were for women and not real 'trucks', but I have quickly come to enjoy the sure-footed nature of on-highway 4WD and a day like today was a perfect example. With a little snow in the Sierras I drove on wet pavement, snow, slush, deeper snow, some ice, back to wet and then intermittent dry pavement. When there was enough slip on the ground I locked the center diff/T-case as this is the kind of 4x4 I'm used to driving, and I don't want the computer to cut the power if I need to power out of a little slip.

So my decision wasn't Tacoma vs. LC, but similar with the slightly smaller/lighter 4Runner trying to fill the shoes of the mighty Land Cruiser.

Regarding weight distribution... My hard-top LJ had an almost perfect 50/50 weight distribution stock: Steer Axle 1940, Drive Axle 2040, for a Gross Weight of 3980-lbs. It was still pretty well balanced with a bumper, tire, jack on the rear and a heavy bumper and Warn 8274 on the front: Steer 2240, Drive 2320, Gross 4560, but this is without any camping gear, fuel, water, etc. When that was added, almost completely on the rear axle, the weight distribution balance was lost.

The V8 '06 4Runner doesn't feel like it when traveling down the road, but it's biased toward the front in stock trim: Steer Axle 2480, Drive Axle 2040, Gross 4520. In the next few weeks I will be adding a bumper/winch to the front, slides to the sides, and OME suspension. Most of this weight will land on the front axle. But when I add gear to the rear for a heavy trip, either with tongue weight or just with gear in the back of the wagon, I think the weight distribution will be very good, and not too heavy in the rear. At least that's the goal. We shall see.


That's for sure! I've been very tempted to make the truck AWD (the tcase & center diff are somewhat interchangable, Tundra to Sequoia). It's probably something that would work on a Tacoma as well, the transmissions are similar.