plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
X2 and I thought the tacoma seating was identical to the 4runner. Thats why I chose an FJ.
Why Aren't 4Runners More Popular as Expo Rigs?
- Thread starter spectre6000
- Start date
p nut
butter
plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
Safe who knows. But I think it is legal according to one of his earlier posts.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
you can look in my build thread to see how I set up the bed seating. It's safe enough that I am letting my kids ride back there. Not something I take lightly. Also made sure it was legal.
Snarky
Hell Paso
I don't know about the 3rd gen 4runners, IIRC that 3.4L V6 is a dog. Might be reliable, but it's got less than 200 hp, which is kind of a bummer when hauling gear, towing, existing on a highway, or what have you.
If we're talking forth and fifth generation 4runners, you know stuff that was actually sold along side the FJ (rather than a half decade before!) The cheapest 4x4 FJ is usually about $10,000 cheaper than the cheapest 4x4 Runner (new). 10,000$ cheaper, for what is -let's be honest- almost the same vehicle. The same engine, the same chassis, the same running gear. The FJ gives you better approach and departure angles and an accessible spare, the 4runner gives you more interior space, and 4 actual doors.
The Tacoma is sold more than either of these vehicles, because:
Pickups are lighter and more fuel efficient. Plus you can get a V6 or an I4.
They are usually Cheaper.
You can get the same amount of usable seating (4+1 midget) of SUV PLUS get a pickup bed.
You can enclose the pickup bed as secure space, or not. You have the choice.
Higher or similar towing and payload capacities.
Land Cruisers? Not even in the same league as these vehicles. The old ones are big, reliable Inline-6 monsters. The new ones are fullsized, 5.7L V8 beasts, with heavy duty pickup truck running gear, for vehicles that wont see offroad till they are sold used later on.
You want to know why there are so many LCs? Because that's what most people aspire to buy. It's comfortable, reliable, powerful, and capable when stock. You can't afford to tear up that $70,000 LC new unless you're independently wealthy. But you can buy a late model used one for 20-30k$ or an early model from 1-15k$ Then you have a vehicle that was very capable when it was new, that you can now repair and modify, and can thrash to you heart's content.
If we're talking forth and fifth generation 4runners, you know stuff that was actually sold along side the FJ (rather than a half decade before!) The cheapest 4x4 FJ is usually about $10,000 cheaper than the cheapest 4x4 Runner (new). 10,000$ cheaper, for what is -let's be honest- almost the same vehicle. The same engine, the same chassis, the same running gear. The FJ gives you better approach and departure angles and an accessible spare, the 4runner gives you more interior space, and 4 actual doors.
The Tacoma is sold more than either of these vehicles, because:
Pickups are lighter and more fuel efficient. Plus you can get a V6 or an I4.
They are usually Cheaper.
You can get the same amount of usable seating (4+1 midget) of SUV PLUS get a pickup bed.
You can enclose the pickup bed as secure space, or not. You have the choice.
Higher or similar towing and payload capacities.
Land Cruisers? Not even in the same league as these vehicles. The old ones are big, reliable Inline-6 monsters. The new ones are fullsized, 5.7L V8 beasts, with heavy duty pickup truck running gear, for vehicles that wont see offroad till they are sold used later on.
You want to know why there are so many LCs? Because that's what most people aspire to buy. It's comfortable, reliable, powerful, and capable when stock. You can't afford to tear up that $70,000 LC new unless you're independently wealthy. But you can buy a late model used one for 20-30k$ or an early model from 1-15k$ Then you have a vehicle that was very capable when it was new, that you can now repair and modify, and can thrash to you heart's content.
Last edited:
p nut
butter
From their website, it looks to be about $5k difference?
For what it's worth, I got the same MPG in the 4Runner(s) and Tacoma(s). I agree with other points. I'll add one more: Tacoma's hold their value FAR better than 4Runners.
I have a 4 runner (99). Its is okay comfort wise (WAY better than my 87 4Runner). But, it doesn't compare to a newer Land Cruiser. Maybe the new 4runners are better, but I've never ridden in one.
For US overlanding, a 4runner, a tacoma, a jeep, its all about the same an of course, your preference. But for a multi-national expedition, I wouldn't be caught in anything but a land cruiser. Probably a 60 series, as it has very common guts to many other models (axles, brakes, hubs, etc...). Or something more common in other countries, like a 70 or similar.
I mostly disagree with what the OP said, especially on Mileage. I dunno what sort of mileage he gets, but my 99, when loaded down, and bone stock, got around 16 mpg hwy. In fact, out of the 3 3rd gen 4runners myself or family members have owned, that is a very typical MPG number. Most of the 80 series guys I know can get 14 on the hwy loaded down. (by loaded down, I mean stuffed full of camping gear, etc...). So worse mileage, yes, a little, but certainly not dismal.
For US overlanding, a 4runner, a tacoma, a jeep, its all about the same an of course, your preference. But for a multi-national expedition, I wouldn't be caught in anything but a land cruiser. Probably a 60 series, as it has very common guts to many other models (axles, brakes, hubs, etc...). Or something more common in other countries, like a 70 or similar.
I mostly disagree with what the OP said, especially on Mileage. I dunno what sort of mileage he gets, but my 99, when loaded down, and bone stock, got around 16 mpg hwy. In fact, out of the 3 3rd gen 4runners myself or family members have owned, that is a very typical MPG number. Most of the 80 series guys I know can get 14 on the hwy loaded down. (by loaded down, I mean stuffed full of camping gear, etc...). So worse mileage, yes, a little, but certainly not dismal.
Corey
OverCamping Specialist
Loaded with gear, roof top tent (on all the time) I consistently pull 17 MPG now every week with over sized mud tires for 50% city/freeway.
I use to get 14 to 15.
What changed?
With the price of gas falling I switched from regular back to super premium about four months back, and jumped up two MPG.
Less ethanol in super premium from what I heard.
Not bad for a square box on wheels.
I use to get 14 to 15.
What changed?
With the price of gas falling I switched from regular back to super premium about four months back, and jumped up two MPG.
Less ethanol in super premium from what I heard.
Not bad for a square box on wheels.
spectre6000
Observer
What I observed (and the reason for starting the thread) was 80-SERIES Land Cruisers (as explicitly stated in the original post) as the most popular rig. I'm starting to see more 100-series, but 80-series still take them by an order of magnitude. I'm not talking build threads or the off road forums either, I mean I'm getting built up to do some actual expedition travel and everything I'm finding has people in 80-series trucks. Second to that is Tacomas (1st and 2nd gen). 4Runners (I'm talking specifically the 3rd Gens of the sort that would have the appropriate equipment like lockers and such that someone would seek one out for expedition travel duties) don't ever show up. I might have seen one once, and only then as a reference to NGO vehicles. Also, I'm not talking about "what's your rig", I'm talking about actual expo rigs in documented expeditions. I recognize the utility of a truck as a daily driver, but that's completely missing the point. If it's hauling hay, it's not on an expedition.
From what I can see, the 3rd Gen 4Runner kitted out with the features you'd want them kitted out in (5-speed, factory lockers, etc.) are the best of both worlds between the Land Cruiser and the Tacoma with minimal sacrifices. The only major sacrifice it presents is the IFS (which can be built out of liability status and isn't much of one to begin with), and it's slightly smaller inside than a Land Cruiser (with the side-effect/benefit of being slightly smaller outside). Aside from that the name is maybe a bit of a downside, but if I was buying a name I'd have gone with a Porsche. This being the case, I hardly ever see any documented expeditions being undertaken in 4Runners. Hell, it seems there are more Deux Chevaux out there doing this stuff than 4Runners... Why such a notable absence for what is clearly an eminently capable and perfectly suited rig?
From what I can see, the 3rd Gen 4Runner kitted out with the features you'd want them kitted out in (5-speed, factory lockers, etc.) are the best of both worlds between the Land Cruiser and the Tacoma with minimal sacrifices. The only major sacrifice it presents is the IFS (which can be built out of liability status and isn't much of one to begin with), and it's slightly smaller inside than a Land Cruiser (with the side-effect/benefit of being slightly smaller outside). Aside from that the name is maybe a bit of a downside, but if I was buying a name I'd have gone with a Porsche. This being the case, I hardly ever see any documented expeditions being undertaken in 4Runners. Hell, it seems there are more Deux Chevaux out there doing this stuff than 4Runners... Why such a notable absence for what is clearly an eminently capable and perfectly suited rig?
Parts? Are 3.4L gasoline V-6's common around the world? I have no idea, but I always assumed the ability to run Diesel, and not very good diesel at that, was one of the things that is focused on for expo rigs. You can get an 80 series with a diesel.
I completely disagree that the 4runner is an "suited rig". The new ones maybe, but the 3rd gens are small inside. You can haul plenty of gear for a week out in the woods, but not a multi month expedition. It is a small interior.
IMO cargo space is at a premium for expo rigs, and the land cruiser is much larger in side than the 4 runner. (The amount of stuff that I struggle to smush in the back of my 4runner fits in an 80 with ease).
With the 80, you can also get factory lockers, whereas in the 4 runner, you can only get a factory locker. An ARB, or detroit is an easy fix, but it is one more thing you have to outfit the truck with.
Are you sure you've seen so many tons of Tacoma's on actual expeditions? Sure, I've seen a few, more than 4runners, but that is because of the above stated reasons. The Tacoma is simply a better platform than the 4runner, all things being equal. Its just easier to fit more gear in a larger vehicle. Mostly I see Tacoma's outfitted for overlanding, which you claim is not the purpose of your question.
But, and again, I don't know, I only have my own experience here, I've seen far more 70 series, 40 series, UVT's, Mercs, etc... on long, multi-national expos, than I've seen Tacoma's or 80s. Heck, tons of motor cycles too.
Clutch
<---Pass
It always cracks me up when people complain about lack of cargo space in a cage.
2 years and 90,000 km on a Gold Wing
LOL! That is very true.
spectre6000
Observer
Hilux Surfs (same vehicle, different name) are most commonly found with a diesel or the V6 (there are some slight differences in parts between markets for emissions and such, but that's the same with 80s).
Land Cruisers could be had triple locked, '99/'00 4Runners had available rear lockers and the transfer case is mechanically locked AND selectable. You're essentially only down one factory locker (which is easily rectified for what it's worth, though I don't know that I intend to do so for all the use it gets).
The LC head gasket issues, PHH, and knuckles are potential liabilities compared to the 4Runner's CV axles.
You may be right about overlanding versus expo with the Tacos. That would make far more sense. There are definitely more 70-series, Defenders, etc. out there than just 80 series, but I'm only really concerned with/considering what's available here (US) now.
Using MSN Autos as a reference, '00 4Runner Vs. '97 Land Cruiser (both the last vintages with the appropriate equipment available from the factory)
.................................4Runner.................Land Cruiser..............Delta.........Advantage
Seating.......................5 (+2 optional*)......5 (+2 optional)...........0.............Draw
Front Headroom...........39.3"......................40.3"........................1"............LC
Rear Headroom............38.7".....................39.7"........................1".............LC
Front Legroom.............42.6"......................42.2"........................0.4...........4R
Rear Legroom..............34.9".....................33.6"........................1.3"...........4R
Cargo Length...............45"†.......................46.7"........................1.7"..........LC
Width @ Wheelwell.......38.3".....................44.1".........................5.8"..........LC
Width @ Wall...............41.7".....................58.1".........................16.4"........LC
Depth.........................38.7".....................42.2".........................3.5"..........LC
Curb Weight (manual)...3440#....................4751#.......................1311#.......4R
Length........................183.3"...................189.8"........................6.5"..........4R
Width..........................66.5".....................76.0"........................9.5"..........4R
Ground Clearance.........9.8".......................10.8".........................1"............LC
HP.............................183hp.....................212hp.......................29hp.........LC
Towing Capacity...........5,000#...................5,000#......................0#...........Draw
Payload......................1365#....................1719#........................354#........LC
Fuel Capacity...............18.5 gal..................25.1 gal.....................6.6 gal......LC
Fuel Economy..............17/20.....................13/15.........................4/5..........4R
Projected Hwy Range•...370.0.....................376.5.........................6.5..........LC
*MSN Auto did not have data, filled in by author.
†Ditto, save it's hard to tell where they're measuring from; I went from base of upright back seat to edge of what would be considered interior trim.
•Not a provided stat, but important for our purposes
There may be other useful criteria, but those were the specs that looked most important to me. I'm not arguing that the 4Runner is somehow a better vehicle than the Land Cruiser, just that it's very close where it counts and different in other ways that may give it a slight advantage depending on one's priorities. The fact that it's so close combined with the lack of them out there is confusing to me. Hence the thread.
It has nothing to do with what I'm personally doing or not doing, I'm not meaning any of this as any sort of self-conscious defense of my choice of vehicle, it was just an observation made (a lack of 4Runners compared to 80-series) that didn't seem to line up with the specs of the vehicles. Depending on one's priorities, either could be the better choice. My personal priorities (manual transmission, fuel economy, reliability, etc.) put the 4Runner over the 80. It surprises me that it's not a more common choice.
Last edited: