Dilemma deciding what to get

LemonLite

New member
I know this is the Yota LC section, and I've always been a Yota fan boy. I'm making a return to the 4x4 community after taking a 2 year hiatus. I recently moved to Fort Sill, OK and took the scenic route through Moab and on to the Grand Canyon. During that time I asked myself why the hell have I gotten so far away from what I enjoy. Anyways, I'm interested in these two vehicles. The first one is a 1991 LC, 220K miles on the vic, and 80K on the engine. The second one is a 2004 Land Rover G4 with 86K miles. I've yet to see either in person, but thought I'd ask for some opinions. Both are ready to get hit the trails right now. I'm also aware of the usual hate that the Land Rovers catch for their unpredictability. Just looking for a little help.



 

jhawk

Adventurer
My brother in law had both, and wheeled both pretty hard. He sold the D2, and now runs a 100 series LC.

I've also owned two D1's, an RRC and an LR3 which I just sold to purchase a 2004 LC.

I would choose a well maintained Toyota with 200,000 over an equally maintained Land Rover with half that. Land Rovers get the reputation of being unreliable because they are, even the newer ones. I've owned a number of Land Rovers over 10 plus years. I loved them all, but could not trust one.

I would buy the newest well maintained Land Cruiser you can afford mods or not. Also, nice LC's go quick so if you see something you might like jump on it.


Jim
 

RMP&O

Expedition Leader
At first glance I thought the 91 LC pictured was a 100, must be the paint scheme on it.

The 91 Cruiser will have the 3FE, a heavy lack luster engine with not much horse power. It is reliable but doesn't get very good mpg and like I say is slow. Not to mention Toyota has been discontinuing lot's of parts for it in the last few years.

So my opinion is, be ready for the slow lane in a 3FE Cruiser. Or get a 93-97, won't be a lot better but will be noticeably better power wise. That or just toss a v8 in the thing and smile every time you drive it. I am putting everything together right now for a v8 swap into a 97 LX. Found a 6L with 4L80e trans that has zero miles for $3k. The whole $25k to do a motor swap is a myth, that or you take it to a shop like TLC or Slee and it really does cost you $25k!!

I wouldn't touch the Rover with a 20ft pole.

Cheers
 

LemonLite

New member
At first glance I thought the 91 LC pictured was a 100, must be the paint scheme on it.

The 91 Cruiser will have the 3FE, a heavy lack luster engine with not much horse power. It is reliable but doesn't get very good mpg and like I say is slow. Not to mention Toyota has been discontinuing lot's of parts for it in the last few years.

So my opinion is, be ready for the slow lane in a 3FE Cruiser. Or get a 93-97, won't be a lot better but will be noticeably better power wise. That or just toss a v8 in the thing and smile every time you drive it. I am putting everything together right now for a v8 swap into a 97 LX. Found a 6L with 4L80e trans that has zero miles for $3k. The whole $25k to do a motor swap is a myth, that or you take it to a shop like TLC or Slee and it really does cost you $25k!!

I wouldn't touch the Rover with a 20ft pole.

Cheers

The posting on craigslist for the LC says he's got 80K on the engine. Not sure if he did a complete swap or what. Still waiting for a reply. I have found a decent number of 96-97 LX450's in the Dallas area. These 100 series are turning into unicorns. Thanks for the info. Definitely going to take it all into consideration.
 

LemonLite

New member
My brother in law had both, and wheeled both pretty hard. He sold the D2, and now runs a 100 series LC.

I've also owned two D1's, an RRC and an LR3 which I just sold to purchase a 2004 LC.

I would choose a well maintained Toyota with 200,000 over an equally maintained Land Rover with half that. Land Rovers get the reputation of being unreliable because they are, even the newer ones. I've owned a number of Land Rovers over 10 plus years. I loved them all, but could not trust one.

I would buy the newest well maintained Land Cruiser you can afford mods or not. Also, nice LC's go quick so if you see something you might like jump on it.


Jim


I'm with you on this, Jim. I've never been into Land Rover's but that G4 looks beautiful. As someone else previously mentioned that 91 LC lacks the desired HP. Still going to search for a 100 series, but am also going to look into some LX450's.
 

LemonLite

New member
So here's the third one I'm trying to get some info on. 97 LX450, 205K on the odometer and 2" OME (medium springs). Closest thing I can get to a 100 series, though they're basically one in the same.

 

redthies

Renaissance Redneck
So here's the third one I'm trying to get some info on. 97 LX450, 205K on the odometer and 2" OME (medium springs). Closest thing I can get to a 100 series, though they're basically one in the same.


This is the best of the three you've posted, but not even close to being "basically one and the same" as a 100 series. That LX450 has a straight 6 engine with solid front axle. The 100 has a V8 and IFS. They don't really have very many common parts other than maybe rear axle, and possibly trans or T-case used in the early 100s, and I'm not too sure if any of those are common either.

I love the '04 Discos, but to put it in perspective, my bro-in-law bought a '03 D2 in around '07. He paid $16,000 CAD for it. New, it was worth +/- $60,000 CAD. That's a 75% depreciation over 4 years. It is now worth $2,000. If he could sell it. (It is still mint, and he has put $6-8,000 into it in repairs). My 1999 Toyota Land Cruiser cost me $13,000 one year ago. So far, it has cost me $200 in maintenance. I know where my money would be going!
 

zimm

Expedition Leader
dont kid yourself, and old LC isnt a maintenance free proposition either.

id get the best truck you can afford regardless of brand, that having been said, you like these two.

the disco out of the box will walk all over that 80 out of the box. highway, and offroad.

there are tons of goodies for both.

theres some weird electrical **** that goes on with discos. your trouble lights may be on at some point and if thats an inspection issue, you may not want to deal with it. the engines may have slipped a sleeve, or run the risk of it, if they have been overheated.

at this level, the key isnt which one, but a good pre purchase inspection of what youre buying. i wouldnt feel any more of less confident with either one at their ages.
 

99Discovery

Adventurer
Stumbled on this thread because I still stalk the other brands. As my name implies, a few years ago, I went with a '99 Disco 2 with 90k miles on it for $5k with full records. It wasn't my first choice, I was looking at Land Cruisers just like you.

LC's are awesome and hold their value. That's good for resale, but stinks for initial investment. Especially when around my locale, solid axled cruisers are going for $8-10k with 200k on the clock and torn seats. If you want to roll the dice, one can pick up a D2 for $2k-4k and drop $8-6k in it to maintain/fix any troubled spots and used the rest left over for mods. Mine was more expensive because of the records, but I recently put on the Tactical Rover front bumper and added a synthetic winch....and I've STILL not spent more money than it would have cost to get a 200k miled LC. And that includes my insurance and gas for the past two years. As cool as Yota's and Land Cruisers are, there is a lot to be said about the cost. It's one of the reasons a G-Wagon is a pipe-dream for me...even a used one. :(

The D2 does have numerous problems and niggles. If you are a DIYer, they are pretty cheap to keep up on and they are easy rigs to work on. If you aren't a DIYer, stay AWAY. The shop will 2-bit yourself to date. If you are serious about the LR route, go ahead and post in that forum, as most issues are well documented, I just don't want to hijack this thread.

I just want to say that I agree with the poster above: There is no shame in having your favorite brand/ride, but get the best rig in the best shape you can afford, regardless of brand. Then go explore!
 

99Discovery

Adventurer

I'm not sure how the Disco would best a FJZ80 on the highway....the D2 is pretty gutless.

As far as off-road is concerned, the stock traction control is the same unit in the H1 Hummer. Despite being pretty basic, it's actually quite good and can get you off of off-camber situations quite well. If your D2 comes with the centering-lock diff (stock on the '04, 99 and 2000 have it in the T-case but needs to be hooked up, and '01-03 needs a new T-case), it only helps.

The transfer case is the best part of the Disco. It's a 3.2:1 reduction and it is helical geared. It's solid. The axles are marginal, but the traction control usual protects them quite well........so do the diff spider gears, they explode before the axles go. (I've never had it happen, and I wheel in Moab). It's usually an issue with extreme tire sizes. Generally speaking, putting a locker in will fix the spider gear issue (at the expense of shafts, but HD shafts are available $$), or most folk go with the Detroit True Trac. Coupled with the traction control it is reported to give near-locker performance but with enough slip that HD axle shafts aren't a necessity and the spider gears aren't and issue anymore. This is the route I will eventually go.

The 4.0L V8 (I haven't drive the 4.6, same block, just more displacement) is Jekyl and Hyde. It's performance reminds me of the Jeep 4.0L I6, which isn't a bad thing. Maybe even a bit better. It has excellent torque control with the throttle and a very nice off-road friendly torque curve. It's aluminum, so you have the weight savings too. I haven't driven the Land Cruiser to compare, but my guess is they are probably similar. You don't have to worry about a timing belt, but you will have to keep up with the cooling system as head-gaskets and slipped liners are the death knell to the D2's power-plant. It's old school technology, it's essentially an old Buick block that LR has put Bosch fuel injection on. Parts are easy and you can mod it how you want. Just keep up with the maintenance.

Departure Angle is an issue, but that's a price you pay for the awesome cargo space. The design of the towing hitch and rear frame generally protect the rear body from any ledge damage though. You just hit the hitch a lot when descending. The approach angle is moderate....a new bumper will be required for any serious rock crawling work (which means a rear bumper will shortly follow...)

What I LOVE about the D2 is that you have all the luxury and comfort of my old Jeep Grand Cherokee, but the 100" wheelbase makes the D2 perform on the trail more like a TJ Wrangler and less like a bigger Ute like the Grand Cherokee. It is seriously fun to drive, and fairly responsive.

The popular build is a mild 2" OME lift (the springs come with load choices....soft and flexy or overland-friendly high-capacity springs) and 32" tires. Not serious by any stretch, but with new bumpers and the 100" wheelbase, the D2 really does not need much more than that....unless you are going serious Rock Crawler build. The LC should be able to fit 33"s stock, right?

I would imagine a Land Cruiser with factory lockers will out perform a stock D2. A LC without lockers, the edge should go to the D2 with traction control. My thoughts.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,833
Messages
2,878,697
Members
225,393
Latest member
jgrillz94
Top