Why buy a land cruiser?

T-Willy

Well-known member
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.
Wow. Then that's very, very, (and a third) very slow--so slow that, for me, it's almost attractive just for sake of novelty and contrarianism! And yeah, the 4.0 is a great little motor.
 

ChasingOurTrunks

Well-known member
I’d expand my “if only they offered a midsized truck with a high payload option” to a couple of other fantasies based on @nickw and @T-Willy’s posts:

The high payload is still required, as T-Willy said the current offerings come up short. But what if GM didn’t mess up the new blazer and instead offered us a wagon format on the Colorado/Canyon platform? I went from a Jeep to a Canyon specifically for the payload bump, but my returns were relatively marginal by the time I finished sealing in the the tub. I’m probably not getting a functional payload much higher than a 4-runner or JL sport at this point (though I have a lot more cargo volume). And further, the 4-runner is a fantastic rig — I don’t know if I’d go so far to say it’s every bit as good as a land cruiser but imagine an “TRD-HD” package for a 4-runner - twin locked, high payload, with Toyota reliability — that would check all my boxes.

A 4-Runner will do 90% of what an older land cruiser will do but with the modernization I am referring to earlier, and I’ve said elsewhere that if I had to choose between $100k on a land cruiser or $60k on a 4-Runner, I’d be hard pressed to find justification for an entire Jeep’s MSRP in price difference that would push me to the LC. A TRD-HD package would be an incredible option.
 

nickw

Adventurer
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.
So the dealer will do 'anything' on your 60, including procure parts that are NLA (which is A LOT of them) or install re-man stuff? What did you have them do to the vehicle? You may get lucky if some cruiser head ows the shop, it's not common and there is a very slim chance than any dealer is going to touch a vehicle they can't look up in their database, buy parts for and have the proper manuals to do said work....I realize the modern 70's probably do use some parts that cross over with other domestic Toyotas, but I don't think dealers would go through the trouble.

I understand all the technical differences but, Jeep has larger front axle (D44 vs 8" HP) They make very easy D60 drop in rear axles too....regardless, yes, I love FF axles, just like my 3/4t Dodge has. I had a FJ40, I know exactly how much bigger it's axles were than a Jeep, but it also had the 9.5" front axles like the 60's had.
 

T-Willy

Well-known member
I’d expand my “if only they offered a midsized truck with a high payload option” to a couple of other fantasies based on @nickw and @T-Willy’s posts:

The high payload is still required, as T-Willy said the current offerings come up short. But what if GM didn’t mess up the new blazer and instead offered us a wagon format on the Colorado/Canyon platform? I went from a Jeep to a Canyon specifically for the payload bump, but my returns were relatively marginal by the time I finished sealing in the the tub. I’m probably not getting a functional payload much higher than a 4-runner or JL sport at this point (though I have a lot more cargo volume). And further, the 4-runner is a fantastic rig — I don’t know if I’d go so far to say it’s every bit as good as a land cruiser but imagine an “TRD-HD” package for a 4-runner - twin locked, high payload, with Toyota reliability — that would check all my boxes.

A 4-Runner will do 90% of what an older land cruiser will do but with the modernization I am referring to earlier, and I’ve said elsewhere that if I had to choose between $100k on a land cruiser or $60k on a 4-Runner, I’d be hard pressed to find justification for an entire Jeep’s MSRP in price difference that would push me to the LC. A TRD-HD package would be an incredible option.
Yep. Or even just SR5, if available with stand-alone options for HD and mechanical locking differentials (I don't need any other mechanical complexity in the 4WD system) would be great. Adding just 300-400 lbs of payload (SR5 is around 1600 as is) would make a world of difference.
 

85_Ranger4x4

Well-known member
I like the looks of the 70 series truck.

I like its construction. Solid floating axles, shallow useable bed, nice looking, basic etc.

I wish it had a fullsized bed and I wish the rear axle wasn't at the back of the cab though.

I flip flop on what I want that is offered in the US, there isn't much I really like. My old '150 has done admirably but a new F-150 is about the same size as a 3/4 ton which basically has the same footprint and cost.

Back up three times and punt.

Getting to wish the OBS Fords were not all 300k and beat to heck.
 

Paddler Ed

Adventurer
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.
Nissan don't any longer; they watered down the Pathfinder into a bloated soft roader after the R51.

Ford do the Everest in Australia, and the Bronco in the US. In base spec, with the 3.2 TD the Everest has a 751kg payload, but when you add bells and whistles it quickly drops to 683kg:
Base model:
Bells and whistles:

GM did offer the Colorado7/Trailblazer or whatever they called it that week before they discontinued it, leaving Isuzu to continue with the MU-X (with a better engine)
Base:
Bells and whistles:
(But no payloads listed)

Isuzu:
Base (665kg)
B&W (645kg):

In contrast, the offerings from Toyota in the same class could be described as either the Fortuner or the Prado.
Fortuner Base: (685kg)
Prado Base (810kg)
Fortuner B&W (670kg)
Prado B&W (535kg)

In contrast the VDJ76 is 865kg on both (not 100% that's right...)
Workmate (aka base)
GXL
 

TavisB

New member
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.


Mid size Ranger wagon.
Payload probably still an issue like you said :).




Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
 

nickw

Adventurer


Mid size Ranger wagon.
Payload probably still an issue like you said :).




Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
The cool thing about that Bronco is they have OEM axle upgrades, from the 7.5" front diff to a D44 @ 8.5" and on the rear from a D44/M220 8.7" to a D60 with a 9.75" R&P.....super burly stuff. For comparison the LC80 has a 8" front diff and a 9.5" rear diff, the LC100 has a 8" front diff and a 9.5" rear and the LC200 I believe has a 8.75" front and a 9.5" rear. So that little Bronco has a stout axle upgrade that puts in up right up there, if not stronger, at much less weight. Not FF rear axle like the 80 had, but the 60's and prior and 100 and newer cruiser's don't have that either.

The frame and the rest of the drivetrain is not designed to handle the weight, but drivetrain durability is certainly on par especially when considering you can get it with a 2.7L & the 10spd trans out of the F150 which has a sim GVWR than that of the 200 series.

Payload will always be an issue with the Bronco, but if traveling light(ish), it's a very stout platform.

I'd get that Ranger Wagon :) in 2 door with the 2.3 EB, 7 speed manual, 33's and upgrade F&R axles to the HD stuff, there is your 2-door LC70.....
 

shahmeer

New member
What a video. I drove this car for 2 and a half years and it's still on the top of my list. I just love everything about it.
 

T-Willy

Well-known member
I'd get that Ranger Wagon :) in 2 door with the 2.3 EB, 7 speed manual, 33's and upgrade F&R axles to the HD stuff, there is your 2-door LC70.....
It's a shame that Bronco wasn't built above the axles to accommodate more payload. After release of the Ranger, I had hopes.
 

nickw

Adventurer
It's a shame that Bronco wasn't built above the axles to accommodate more payload. After release of the Ranger, I had hopes.
Yeah - same here, with the axle upgrades and the fact we know it's a stout platform I'd be comfortable overlanding closer to GVWR relative to some other platforms, but wish it had a higher payload. They've obviously built the thing with big tires and fairly extreme 4x4 in mind so have no doubts the drivetrain is built to withstand abuse.
 

XJLI

Adventurer
It's a shame that Bronco wasn't built above the axles to accommodate more payload. After release of the Ranger, I had hopes.
It’s because it would ride like a dump truck, and have almost no axle articulation (like a LC70). Then they’d lose two big things they’re fighting the wrangler on.. ride quality and off road capability. It doesn’t need payload, it needs to wheel.
 

Arktikos

Explorer
Because they are extremely durable, the mechanicals are built to last a long time, and also built to be serviced when necessary without the need for a great deal of skill or special tools. At least, that has been the case with older models. Many people enjoy buying something different every few years, lusting after the latest and greatest. Not me, I want a vehicle that will last my lifetime. Unfortunately my previous LCs eventually became too rusty for me to maintain interest in keeping them. Now with a rust free 80 series and in my 7th decade, perhaps I've found "the one".
 
Top