Opinions on mid-90's Toyota Land Cruisers?

J

Jeff Olsen

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #1

I am considering one of these to use as a family "tank". We are an
adventurous family so the 4x4 aspect is important, as is the general
heavy-duty construction of the LC. I am limiting my search to '93-'97 since
I want the better engine and don't want IFS. It would see mostly on-road
use but will see a lot of ice and snow and potentially bad dirt roads. I
own a Jeep Wrangler, and I don't need this to do what that will do, but I do
appreciate that the LC is supposed to be a tough, reliable truck. Any
opinions one way or the other?

Thank you!

-jeff

 

E

Erik-Jan Geniets

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #2

Jeff Olsen wrote:
>
> I am considering one of these to use as a family "tank". We are an
> adventurous family so the 4x4 aspect is important, as is the general
> heavy-duty construction of the LC. I am limiting my search to '93-'97 since
> I want the better engine and don't want IFS. It would see mostly on-road
> use but will see a lot of ice and snow and potentially bad dirt roads. I
> own a Jeep Wrangler, and I don't need this to do what that will do, but I do
> appreciate that the LC is supposed to be a tough, reliable truck. Any
> opinions one way or the other?
>
> Thank you!
>
> -jeff

A great car. Maybe the best. The LWB version will give you a lot of room
too.
If diesels are available in your part of the world, go for one.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.

 

P

Peter D. Hipson

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #3

Don't all the 'after 1990 (or so)' have IFS? (I don't know, but that
feels more correct...)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:24:32 GMT, Jeff Olsen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I am considering one of these to use as a family "tank". We are an
>adventurous family so the 4x4 aspect is important, as is the general
>heavy-duty construction of the LC. I am limiting my search to '93-'97 since
>I want the better engine and don't want IFS. It would see mostly on-road
>use but will see a lot of ice and snow and potentially bad dirt roads. I
>own a Jeep Wrangler, and I don't need this to do what that will do, but I do
>appreciate that the LC is supposed to be a tough, reliable truck. Any
>opinions one way or the other?
>
>Thank you!
>
>-jeff

 

E

Erik-Jan Geniets

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #4

"Peter D. Hipson" wrote:
>
> Don't all the 'after 1990 (or so)' have IFS? (I don't know, but that
> feels more correct...)

Where does IFS stand for..?
Erik-Jan.

 

J

John Hinkley

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #5

Independent front suspension, or as some would say, inefficient fragile suspension.


"Erik-Jan Geniets" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
:
:
: "Peter D. Hipson" wrote:
: >
: > Don't all the 'after 1990 (or so)' have IFS? (I don't know, but that
: > feels more correct...)
:
: Where does IFS stand for..?
: Erik-Jan.

 

P

Peter D. Hipson

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #6

Independant Front Suspension (Rather than a solid axel as a Jeep
Wrangler has. Most SUVs have IFS because it gives better ride and
handling.

However, the Toyota Land Cruiser seems to be made in many variations.
Here in the US it is purely a 'socker mom' vehicle, I've never seen a
recent one off-roaded. They are intended to compete with the Land
Rover's Range Rover SUV which is a very high-end (until recently) SUV
for 'rich folks'. <g>

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:49:48 +0100, Erik-Jan Geniets
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"Peter D. Hipson" wrote:
>>
>> Don't all the 'after 1990 (or so)' have IFS? (I don't know, but that
>> feels more correct...)
>
>Where does IFS stand for..?
>Erik-Jan.

 

E

Erik-Jan Geniets

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #7

John Hinkley wrote:
>
> Independent front suspension, or as some would say, inefficient fragile suspension.

Ai, that would be a bad development. I can hardly imagine this. Hope it
depends on the model.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.

 

E

Erik-Jan Geniets

Guest

• Feb 12, 2005

• #8

"Peter D. Hipson" wrote:

> However, the Toyota Land Cruiser seems to be made in many variations.
> Here in the US it is purely a 'socker mom' vehicle, I've never seen a
> recent one off-roaded. They are intended to compete with the Land
> Rover's Range Rover SUV which is a very high-end (until recently) SUV
> for 'rich folks'. <g>

Know what you mean. I was talking about the 'classic' model.
Do not know how to differentiate. They are both labeled Landcruiser.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.

 

G

Generic

Guest

• Feb 13, 2005

• #9

"Peter D. Hipson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Independant Front Suspension (Rather than a solid axel as a Jeep
> Wrangler has. Most SUVs have IFS because it gives better ride and
> handling.
>
> However, the Toyota Land Cruiser seems to be made in many variations.
> Here in the US it is purely a 'socker mom' vehicle, I've never seen a
> recent one off-roaded. They are intended to compete with the Land
> Rover's Range Rover SUV which is a very high-end (until recently) SUV
> for 'rich folks'. <g>

Somewhat off topic, but have you seen this one:

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/fj_cruiser/index.html

http://tinyurl.com/5cs9n

http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000650030944/

It seems to compete with the Xterra and Liberty.

-John

 

J

Jeff Olsen

Guest

• Feb 15, 2005

• #10

in article [email protected], Erik-Jan Geniets at
[email protected] wrote on 2/12/05 10:49 AM:

>
>
> "Peter D. Hipson" wrote:
>>
>> Don't all the 'after 1990 (or so)' have IFS? (I don't know, but that
>> feels more correct...)
>
> Where does IFS stand for..?
> Erik-Jan.

Independant Front Suspension- up to '97 they had a solid front axle...

-jeff

 

E

Erik-Jan Geniets

Guest

• Feb 15, 2005

• #11

Jeff Olsen wrote:


>
> Independant Front Suspension- up to '97 they had a solid front axle...
>
So a pre 1997 one is the way to go then.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.

 

C

Corey Shuman

Guest

• Feb 16, 2005

• #12

Im curious as to why the Rangie is not a "high end" SUV anymore... the
ones out here in Utah are still selling for 75-90k new. Thats pretty
high end for me... sure, you get what you pay for and the independant
susp all around is not like the usual, it is computer monitored to
simulate a solid axle.. ie, one wheel goes up and the bags will inflate
to push the opposite wheel down. Its really sweet and works very well
from what Ive seen.

 

P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Guest

• Feb 17, 2005

• #13

Erik-Jan Geniets wrote:
>
> Jeff Olsen wrote:
>
> >
> > Independant Front Suspension- up to '97 they had a solid front axle...
> >
> So a pre 1997 one is the way to go then.
> Kind regards,
> Erik-Jan.

Through '97, they had solid axles. The model number is FJ80. The next
version (with the V8 and IFS) is an FJ100. This is all specific to the
USA. I believe that the FJ100 wouldn't sell in Australia with IFS, so
they are available with solid axles there.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto[email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a very firm grasp on reality. I can reach out and strangle it any
time!