So, what started as a question about choosing a taco, an 80, or a 100 has drifted into a semantic argument about trail difficulty and driver experience... reliability discussions between sub-makes of Toyotas? Waste of energy - it's all good.
As a recent purchaser of a 1996 80 I can simply add that this is the most substantial vehicle I've ever enjoyed driving. Build quality is unreal. Doesn't even begin to look or feel like an 11 year old rig. Other than learning to pilot the sheer bulk thru trails, or parking lots, this truck simply puts a smile on my face every time I drive.
I'm sure it's replacement will be a 100 series in the next 5-10 years... or, hopefully, the 100 will be an addition, not a replacement.
Gas mileage complaints... I don't get it. Look at the sticker on a new Tundra (both the price an mpg). You have to view these as RVs of sorts, pay to play, whatever... the 80 gets a few mpg less than my previous trucks, but the overall advantages are huge in every other category.
Wanna be green? Make your driveway a true Toyota YinYang - buy a Prius to compliment your LC. Or take the $22k you dropped on a Prius and put that in a 'fuel acct' and you'll be hard pressed to spend it all (assuming you have to go to work for some parts of the month).
Just pick a price... if you want to spend over 25k, go 100. If you want to spend under 15k, go with an 80. The taco sits in the middle somewhere, but a taco isn't a cruiser.
80 vs 100... too bad the rest of the world can't enjoy such daily dilemmas!
m.