Why buy a land cruiser?

[NoDak]

I think the 70 series would be popular among two groups, the enthusiasts and the fleet/construction crowd.

Nah. There is a third group. Us folks that live in middle America fly over states. My F150 does everything from shuttling wife to work and kids around town, driving to the Costco in the big city to load up the box with groceries and supplies every other month or the building supply store to get materials for projects around the homestead or helping out neighbors. Hunting and fishing or a load of firewood to bring home. Enough to need a pickup with a decent payload higher than a Ranger but not enough for a 3/4 or 1 ton.
I think a 79 would be perfect for a lot of what I do.

 

[nickw]

Going based on what I read, the fact that one CAN get a high payload (regardless of how common) is what I’m mostly referring to. As NickW said this seems to be a specific package. I also recognize they aren’t that much smaller than an F-150 - my Canyon isn’t that much smaller than my now-sold Full Size Chevy, either. But it was enough to make the difference, sometimes a big one, especially in terms of driveability off road. If GM/Ford/Jeep offered a high payload option in the midsized segment it would check all my boxes. That’s the magic cocktail we are missing out on.



I don’t disagree but to borrow a funny phrase from my dad, if the Queen had testicles, she’d be King. Yes if you remove the mid-size requirement, there are a lot of good options. But, the size is a dealbreaker. I’ve had both the mid size and full size and used them simultaneously— the full size just isn’t as good off road and on trails. I can have a perfect full size rig in every way, but if it’s too big to take it to the places I to go, it’s not useful for my use case.



Totally agree about the disparity between ratings in Australia and the USA are different — the payload limitations in North America seem to be driven more by regulation than engineering, that’s a good point to bear in mind.

But to your other point, for me (and for a lot of Overland travellers, which is the use case I described with my mid size, high payload, safe, and reliable list) a full size is not an apples to apples comparison to a land cruiser. The failings of the land cruiser represent a totally different compromise than a full size. I don’t mind if off road performance is only “moderate” - getting stuck is part of life and getting unstuck is part of the fun and I’m not a rock crawler so I don’t need 44” tires with articulation that allows me to drive up the CN tower. I don’t worry about parts; FedEx can get me what I need anywhere in the world and with an LC, I can be fairly confident of what I’ll need barring a highly unlikely event (I.e. the whole engine blows up). I’m not worried about comfort or highway performance, some of which can be addressed easily in the aftermarket, but most of which I can live with. These are all compromises I can make.

But I can’t make an f-150 smaller.

And there are no cars that match the use case I described for sale in North America. As I said above if the mid sized trucks came with a high payload package -- even an extra 500 lbs would do me — they’d be perfect. But they don’t, and as you’ve said, the market with my use case is fairly small so it’s not a gap the big automakers seem eager to fill.

But they could, as Ineos is trying to prove - and they used to. Besides the land cruiser, I think someone made a post somewhere on these boards about a first gen 4-runner (or something like that) which had shocking payload numbers and checked all my other boxes except safety. And the safety thing isn’t to say they are unsafe, it’s just an acknowledgment that vehicle tech/design has come a long way.

I’m not saying the 70 series is the perfect choice - I’m saying it has a combination of features that fills a niche in the market that is not fully met by full size domestics (or any other car on dealer lots today).

Totally get it and you are very clear in your defined use (Midsize), but for many folks the automatic response they yell is LC70....even though they don't need a compact package, once the compact package is given up, many domestic doors open that are as good if not better solutions, technically....not emotionally.

But in saying that, if you rank wants vs needs, vehicle size for most is qualitative. Are you actually going someplace where you absolutely NEED a smaller rig dimensionally? Maybe there is a way around said obstacle....or over if you have a Ram Prospector with 37's. An excellent use case for a 70 is if you live in an dense urban environment or were traveling in dense urban environments. In saying that, people go all over the place with Unimogs and the Turtle Expedition folks use full size Fords all over the globe.

I'd challenge the "size" aspect for expedition use for NA, hardcore unloaded offroad it 100% matters, but if you buy a LC70 for hard offroad use....probably better served with a Jeep or Bronco.

And yeah, I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here (a bit).....if I could go out and buy a std. cab 76 pickup for $40k you damn well better know I'd have one for kicking around locally, running errands, hunting/backwoods exploring....but when I drive to Idaho or Montana or Eastern Oregon to go exploring, I'd take the full size....

 

[jmodz]

Good points....I like the idea of a stripped down LC300, but honestly if you are ok with the form factor of a pickup, why not just get a Tundra? Same drivetrain, axles and diffs as far as I know, I actually think the bigger engined Tundras had a bigger rear axle than any LC did.

I think the main difference is size. The tundra is 38” longer than the 300 series. To me that is quite significant. I’d like it to be narrower as well but then we are just talking about a 4Runner and I’d rather have the Land Cruiser. I’m waiting for the next gen 4Runner and Tacoma before I make any decision, as I’m in no rush. And maybe by then they’ll have the LC back in the US market.
I also like what @ChasingOurTrunks is saying about a midsized truck with a heavy duty payload package. I think most overlanders treat their Tacomas like they have 500lbs more payload than they do.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Totally get it and you are very clear in your defined use (Midsize), but for many folks the automatic response they yell is LC70....even though they don't need a compact package, once the compact package is given up, many domestic doors open that are as good if not better solutions, technically....not emotionally.

But in saying that, if you rank wants vs needs, vehicle size for most is qualitative. Are you actually going someplace where you absolutely NEED a smaller rig dimensionally? Maybe there is a way around said obstacle....or over if you have a Ram Prospector with 37's. An excellent use case for a 70 is if you live in an dense urban environment or were traveling in dense urban environments. In saying that, people go all over the place with Unimogs and the Turtle Expedition folks use full size Fords all over the globe.

I'd challenge the "size" aspect for expedition use for NA, hardcore unloaded offroad it 100% matters, but if you buy a LC70 for hard offroad use....probably better served with a Jeep or Bronco.

And yeah, I'm being a bit of a devils advocate here (a bit).....if I could go out and buy a std. cab 76 pickup for $40k you damn well better know I'd have one for kicking around locally, running errands, hunting/backwoods exploring....but when I drive to Idaho or Montana or Eastern Oregon to go exploring, I'd take the full size....

Agreed, Nick. There is a “Church of Land Cruiser” that doesn’t take kindly to heretics and also doesn’t put a lot of critical thought into the faith, and it does seem to be stronger with LCs than other marques (though every brand has their fanatics). But, beyond the faithful, there are a lot of people in the Overlanding world in North America who would make really good use out of a truck like a 70 series.

I also agree that "for most", vehicle size is qualitative, and a "want" instead of a "need". It doesn't take long to get further down the “want” vs “need” list and realize that "most" people don't even need a 4x4 -- after all, you can see the “best” bits of North America in an air conditioned tour bus with a trained guide, and as far as numbers go, that's what most people do. The vast majority of vehicles never leave pavement. Fewer still that do ever go for more than a weekend trek down a dirt road to a state campground (and to be clear, there's nothing wrong with any of this, and I'm not judging this practice at all as folks should do the kind of travelling that they like to do). The market of people who "need" a midsize high payload 4x4 is very small. But virtually all of them are remote off-grid touring types like me, and "I like to tour remotely off grid" is the use case for a lot of Overlanders.

I find the smaller rig just gives me more options, but I wouldn't restrict it to just dense urban environments. In the city, my mid-size truck is a lot easier to live with than my full size ever was; I was just at an appointment where I had to wait for a Ram 3500 driver (a rig that didn't look too big to be honest) have to take a 6 point turn just to make a 90 degree corner in a carpark. Meanwhile, my midsize can zip around and is incredibly easy to put into parking spots. Those same benefits apply off road, too. For me, and the kind of trips I like to do, even my mid sized rigs have all been proudly adorned with “Rocky Mountain pin striping” as I’ll often explore tracks and trails (or even things that look like they MIGHT be a track or trail!) for the fun of it to see where they go. These aren't so much obstacles to go around as they are one-way tracks going off into the bush. 99% of the time the answer to "where does this go?" is “no where”, and I have to turn around and come back, but there's fun in the discovery.

That happened to us this summer in northern Saskatchewan. We started on a track that looked like it was for 4x4s; it slimmed up pretty quick but was going in the direction of a lake so we carefully picked our way to see if there was a decent site to spend the night at the other end. Definitely had to be careful to avoid panel damage (and we did bend up a running board - I intend to replace those with sliders eventually so no big deal). Anyway we got to the end, much to the surprise of the 4 people on quads already camped there who certainly didn’t expect to see us! As it turns out, they had parked down the road a piece in their HD trucks with trailers, unloaded the quads, and ripped down the highway (illegally but this is in the middle of nowhere so NBD) in order to get to that campsite. For them, just that track was the entire plan including needing trailers, quads, trucks to tow, etc. -- for us, it was nice to see what was available down that track as part of a larger 12,000-ish km road trip, and to be able to do it all in one vehicle. Anyway, after a brief exchange and a few odd looks (“how the hell did you get a truck down here”), we were able to carefully turn around in and make our way back out. And honestly on that trip we went from Alberta to Toronto and back, and that little cut of not more than 15 km was one of the fondest memories we have. A full size would not have fit at all - there were parts of the trail with less than an inch to spare on either side of my rig, with mirrors folded -- and if we were in one, it would have ruled out that part of the adventure for us. Did we need that part of the trip? Nah. We didn't "need" the trip at all, really. But we wanted to, and we had the right tool for the job (the job being thousands of highway KMs and the ability to get off the path virtually whenever we want all in the same rig)

Now if you’ll excuse me I gotta go sacrifice a few goats in front of the photo of a LC Troopy while singing incantations in a foreign language

 

[nickw]

I think the main difference is size. The tundra is 38” longer than the 300 series. To me that is quite significant. I’d like it to be narrower as well but then we are just talking about a 4Runner and I’d rather have the Land Cruiser. I’m waiting for the next gen 4Runner and Tacoma before I make any decision, as I’m in no rush. And maybe by then they’ll have the LC back in the US market.
I also like what @ChasingOurTrunks is saying about a midsized truck with a heavy duty payload package. I think most overlanders treat their Tacomas like they have 500lbs more payload than they do.

100% true, you see it all the time.

 

[nickw]

Agreed, Nick. There is a “Church of Land Cruiser” that doesn’t take kindly to heretics and also doesn’t put a lot of critical thought into the faith, and it does seem to be stronger with LCs than other marques (though every brand has their fanatics). But, beyond the faithful, there are a lot of people in the Overlanding world in North America who would make really good use out of a truck like a 70 series.

I also agree that "for most", vehicle size is qualitative, and a "want" instead of a "need". It doesn't take long to get further down the “want” vs “need” list and realize that "most" people don't even need a 4x4 -- after all, you can see the “best” bits of North America in an air conditioned tour bus with a trained guide, and as far as numbers go, that's what most people do. The vast majority of vehicles never leave pavement. Fewer still that do ever go for more than a weekend trek down a dirt road to a state campground (and to be clear, there's nothing wrong with any of this, and I'm not judging this practice at all as folks should do the kind of travelling that they like to do). The market of people who "need" a midsize high payload 4x4 is very small. But virtually all of them are remote off-grid touring types like me, and "I like to tour remotely off grid" is the use case for a lot of Overlanders.

I find the smaller rig just gives me more options, but I wouldn't restrict it to just dense urban environments. In the city, my mid-size truck is a lot easier to live with than my full size ever was; I was just at an appointment where I had to wait for a Ram 3500 driver (a rig that didn't look too big to be honest) have to take a 6 point turn just to make a 90 degree corner in a carpark. Meanwhile, my midsize can zip around and is incredibly easy to put into parking spots. Those same benefits apply off road, too. For me, and the kind of trips I like to do, even my mid sized rigs have all been proudly adorned with “Rocky Mountain pin striping” as I’ll often explore tracks and trails (or even things that look like they MIGHT be a track or trail!) for the fun of it to see where they go. These aren't so much obstacles to go around as they are one-way tracks going off into the bush. 99% of the time the answer to "where does this go?" is “no where”, and I have to turn around and come back, but there's fun in the discovery.

That happened to us this summer in northern Saskatchewan. We started on a track that looked like it was for 4x4s; it slimmed up pretty quick but was going in the direction of a lake so we carefully picked our way to see if there was a decent site to spend the night at the other end. Definitely had to be careful to avoid panel damage (and we did bend up a running board - I intend to replace those with sliders eventually so no big deal). Anyway we got to the end, much to the surprise of the 4 people on quads already camped there who certainly didn’t expect to see us! As it turns out, they had parked down the road a piece in their HD trucks with trailers, unloaded the quads, and ripped down the highway (illegally but this is in the middle of nowhere so NBD) in order to get to that campsite. For them, just that track was the entire plan including needing trailers, quads, trucks to tow, etc. -- for us, it was nice to see what was available down that track as part of a larger 12,000-ish km road trip, and to be able to do it all in one vehicle. Anyway, after a brief exchange and a few odd looks (“how the hell did you get a truck down here”), we were able to carefully turn around in and make our way back out. And honestly on that trip we went from Alberta to Toronto and back, and that little cut of not more than 15 km was one of the fondest memories we have. A full size would not have fit at all - there were parts of the trail with less than an inch to spare on either side of my rig, with mirrors folded -- and if we were in one, it would have ruled out that part of the adventure for us. Did we need that part of the trip? Nah. We didn't "need" the trip at all, really. But we wanted to, and we had the right tool for the job (the job being thousands of highway KMs and the ability to get off the path virtually whenever we want all in the same rig)

Now if you’ll excuse me I gotta go sacrifice a few goats in front of the photo of a LC Troopy while singing incantations in a foreign language

Fair points across the board!

Do you think you'd be happy with the performance of a 1HZ powered 70? I've driven a Tacoma loaded down and it was such a dog I can't imagine what a 1HZ powered cruiser would feel like loaded down! Around town, in the desert, on backroads it would be ok, getting on the HWY or up a hwy grade...whoa nelly, we are talking probably dropping down to 20-30 mph for hills. They were never originally designed for high speed USA hwy use....:

Tacoma; GVWR of 5,600 lbs with 280 hp
LC 76 w/1HZ; GVWR of ~7,200 lbs with 130 hp

Could option for the 1VD or 1GR which would help, still somewhat underpowered, but IMO loses a bit of it's charm....

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Great question @nickw - I think "happy" is a strong word. I'd "tolerate" it in exchange for other aspects of the vehicle, but I'd have to say I would likely want to learn about options to get a bit more jam out of the 1HZ (I understand it's quite tuneable to get a bit more out of it without compromising reliability, according to the Australians).

We are used to rather poor highway performance from our old jeep JK, which was always WAY too heavy, and it was a rubicon so not exactly really well geared for highway driving. On a lot of our trips, I used to be on my motorbike while my wife drove the jeep, and in any kind of highway traffic I would regularly walk away from her whenever I'd pass someone because she didn't have the power to pass anything, and we'd meet up at the next gas station or point of interest. Since replacing it with our truck, we've been spoiled - I jokingly refer to it as a "sports truck" - on our last trip, I was shocked that when I pinned it on the bike to get around people, my wife could keep up without a second thought. The thing is VERY peppy, and it's nice. So going back to a bit of a dog would be difficult for sure.

Those power numbers you posted are definitely not promising. I've found that the gearing makes a big difference too -- the 3.6 in my Jeep put out 305 HP and 270 torques; my Truck does roughly the same (308hp/275 torques) -- but the 8 speed auto is magic compared to the 6 speed manual in terms of highway performance.

 

[toylandcruiser]

When did you take your FJ in? Many dealers can't do anything beyond basic maintenance on even 80's these days since many major parts are NLA.

Look at what I said, I picked my words carefully:

"if the US government *allowed* us to import a brand new 76"

I didn't say if Toyota sold them here. If Toyota sold them here of course they'd have to support (I think legally for 10 years?), it's likely one of the reasons Toyota won't sell them, the logistics and supply chain to get all dealers spun up to support a niche low volume rig is big $$. The only viable way this would happen, I thought, would be for gov regulation amendments to allow import......

Toyotas world wide supply chain is second to none. They support the LFA and that’s a low niche vehicle.

I bet they would sell more than you think they would. Why does jeep sell so many wranglers? I bet people would choose a 79 series over a wrangler. In fact I’ve seen posts on mud stating it.
The last time I brought my 60 to a dealer was last year.

 

[nickw]

Toyotas world wide supply chain is second to none. They support the LFA and that’s a low niche vehicle.

I bet they would sell more than you think they would. Why does jeep sell so many wranglers? I bet people would choose a 79 series over a wrangler. In fact I’ve seen posts on mud stating it.
The last time I brought my 60 to a dealer was last year.

Well we know well that 90% of parts for 60's and a good portion of parts for the 80's are no longer available from Toyota, they don't have the special tools for them or the acumen to rebuild birfs, tcases, trans etc.....so any work that has been done must have been very basic.

Wranglers are excellent offroad, much much cheaper than LC's and have a host of aftermarket parts available. The handful of guys on Mud who would actually follow through with buying one is minimal, none of them are importing 25 year old ones which are readily available...

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Looking at the Toyota website, I can get cutting edge features on a brand new 70 series like a plastic bonnet protector and a grill that says Toyota on it. If I want to really splurge and spoil myself, I can get roof bars and plastic over the windows to keep the rain out when they are slightly open.

There's literally nothing I can add to or change in the interior, and let's face it -- 70 series don't come with things like CarPlay, heated seats, etc. which are features most people want these days. I get that's not what 70-series buyers in Australia want, but if the 70 were to be truly competitive with something like the Wrangler, they'd need to develop it the way Jeep has with the JL -- sticking to its roots (ladder frame, removable roof, incredible 4x4 capability), but still modernized in key areas that people like and want.

Which is why I'll cheekily mention the Grenadier again, as I genuinely think it takes the spirit of the older Land Cruisers and puts a modern spin on it...




(I know it's not proven, and thus cannot really be compared to a Land Cruiser, but the more of you guys I convince to reserve one the more likely they are to succeed and thus I'll have a better shot of actually getting one in my driveway! Let me know if my master plan is working!)

 

[toylandcruiser]

Well we know well that 90% of parts for 60's and a good portion of parts for the 80's are no longer available from Toyota, they don't have the special tools for them or the acumen to rebuild birfs, tcases, trans etc.....so any work that has been done must have been very basic.

Wranglers are excellent offroad, much much cheaper than LC's and have a host of aftermarket parts available. The handful of guys on Mud who would actually follow through with buying one is minimal, none of them are importing 25 year old ones which are readily available...

But you get what you pay for. If you park them side by side you will see how much stronger the cruiser is. The 70 has full float axles.

They have zero issues with working on anything with my 60.

 

[toylandcruiser]

Looking at the Toyota website, I can get cutting edge features on a brand new 70 series like a plastic bonnet protector and a grill that says Toyota on it. If I want to really splurge and spoil myself, I can get roof bars and plastic over the windows to keep the rain out when they are slightly open.

There's literally nothing I can add to or change in the interior, and let's face it -- 70 series don't come with things like CarPlay, heated seats, etc. which are features most people want these days. I get that's not what 70-series buyers in Australia want, but if the 70 were to be truly competitive with something like the Wrangler, they'd need to develop it the way Jeep has with the JL -- sticking to its roots (ladder frame, removable roof, incredible 4x4 capability), but still modernized in key areas that people like and want.

Which is why I'll cheekily mention the Grenadier again, as I genuinely think it takes the spirit of the older Land Cruisers and puts a modern spin on it...


View attachment 700610

(I know it's not proven, and thus cannot really be compared to a Land Cruiser, but the more of you guys I convince to reserve one the more likely they are to succeed and thus I'll have a better shot of actually getting one in my driveway! Let me know if my master plan is working!)

Yea but they come with front and rear lockers and rear full float. Hell of a lot stronger frame t case etc.

 

[T-Willy]

So beautiful!! I think the caveat here domestically though is if the US government *allowed* us to import a brand new 76 like you have there....Toyota dealerships wouldn't be able to work on them so you'd a) be n your own or b) you'd have to use a specialty cruiser shop if you had any issues.

Would you get the 1HZ?

After three decades of driving a 3FE I have no qualms with under-powered, reliable motors. I'm perfectly content at 65 mph on the interstate. But for my use, diesel isn't desirable because Pemex stations don't reliably sell it. Mexican fisherman often buy up what supply is available, causing days-long waits for travelers in need. So, I'd opt for a gas motor.

 

[T-Willy]

I don't think your overall point is wrong about it being a small market, but I think especially in this community, that market is important. The use case described here is the vast majority of Overland travellers, and they aren't super well served by what is available in North America. Candidly, I don't think they are served by the Land Cruiser either, neither the 300 series nor the now-gone 200 series as both have similar "luxury bloat" problems.

All of our current offerings here represent some kind of significant and limiting compromise for the use case you described. If you want decent payload (i.e. 1 ton), it comes with a big footprint of a full size or larger truck (and most full sized trucks are not that great in payload, either, until you go to the HD series, which just makes the footprint problem worse). If you want something nimble and great off road and more "mid-sized", it comes with low payload (~1300-1500 lbs max). That doesn't go far if you've got camping gear, supplies, armour to protect the vehicle, and more than one passenger.

When I think of a touring rig, I want high payload, mid-sized, safe, and reliable.

Payload: I want to be able to bring extra fuel and water so I can explore with my family at my leisure far away from populated places. I want the payload to bring along some "Creature comforts" so that after 30 days on the road I'm not fed up of feeling roots in my back at night and smelling like a Sasquatch all day. And of course, I want to travel with my dogs, wife, and kid (who I also don't want smelling like Sasquatches). This really stretches the limits of 1500 lbs payload that I can get in most vehicles that match one of my other wants, which is...

Mid Sized: I want to be able to see little tracks off the side of the road and not be limited to saying "I wonder what's down there?" because my truck won't fit -- I want to just turn the wheel and check it out. We do this all the time on trips and have had a blast taking our Canyon down trails usually tackled by ATVs and Side-by-Sides. But given most of my travel will be highways between these little tracks, I also want...

Safe: There's no question that modern vehicles are safer than older ones. Airbags, crumple zones, etc. are all part of this equation. Modernity comes with other "nice to haves" -- heated seats and CarPlay make the driving experience much better, but "modern" usually gets a bit carried away and that brings me to...

Reliability: The only vehicle that, right now available at dealerships, that checks all my boxes is the Defender. I think the Defender is actually a great rig and it's on my list to consider, but I think it's too complicated and too "modern", which isn't a deal breaker but it's another compromise akin to "too big" or "not enough payload". It is not the kind of vehicle you can reasonably fix trailside. It's not even the kind of vehicle you can reasonably fix at a Land Rover dealership in some cases based on the TFL experience

That's why I'm sticking with a mid-sized truck right now -- it's the smallest amount of compromise in a rig that checks my boxes. Of course, all vehicles are a compromise, but none of the North American ones so far really offer me the compromise I'm wanting to make -- I am happy to compromise on power and comfort. I can see the world on a KLR650. I don't need to see it quickly or comfortably, and on a KLR I know I won't be either of those things. But the KLR doesn't come with Car Seat anchors, and when I discuss fabricating some with my wife she thinks it might be perceived by the local police as "irresponsible parenting" and she's probably right about that. Plus the two German Shepherds aren't trained to hang on nor do they like wearing the helmets, and the whole thing just would be a bit cramped with all of us in the saddle.

So what 4x4 can I buy in North America that does all of the above? If I had to choose between a 70-series and a domestic full size at a dealership, I wouldn't even test drive the full size. But even then, the Toyota would be a compromise on safety given the age of the design, even if it would check all of my other boxes. Still, that might be a better compromise for me than compromising on my other criteria.

But it didn't and doesn't need to be this way - Toyota took the LC in the direction of "Luxury" in the last 40 years, probably because of the market that NickW is talking about; the market is not big enough to sell a ton of Utilitarian LCs. But I want a car that checks all my boxes, and I'm sad about "what could have been" with the Land Cruiser. This is why I'm keen on the Grenadier -- I think that if instead of going Luxury Bloat, the Land Cruisers stayed 70-series utilitarian for the last 40 years but updated and modernized it, I imagine it would land somewhere in the neighborhood of what the Grenadier is trying to be.

I'm hopeful it pans out. Time will tell.

This is exactly my analysis too, point by point. I would add that, over time, alongside and perhaps as a result of luxury bloating, payload capacity of North American Land Cruiser offerings (100s, 200s) has diminished quite a bit, whereas the 70s have remained around the one-ton mark.

It's too bad that Nissan (Frontier), Ford (Ranger), and GM (Canyon/Colorado) don't offer their mid-sized trucks as wagons. Though, for my use, they'd still come up a bit short on payload, like 4Runner.

 

[nickw]

After three decades of driving a 3FE I have no qualms with under-powered, reliable motors. I'm perfectly content at 65 mph on the interstate. But for my use, diesel isn't desirable because Pemex stations don't reliably sell it. Mexican fisherman often buy up what supply is available, causing days-long waits for travelers in need. So, I'd opt for a gas motor.

As a data point, the 3FE is 20% more powerful than a 1HZ (150 hp vs 130 hp) at sea level, I think 65 is optimistic when fully loaded down in 'expo' trim. Wouldn't stop me from buying one to screw around in though.

I'd opt for gas too but beyond payload, it eliminates a portion of the advantage a LC has over the domestic Toyotas like the 4runner, namely reliability, repairability, durability, etc. With that said though, I think people forget that the last generation Tacoma and current 4runner share the same flippin' LC engines in them....the 4.0 for what it is is awesome.