Thinking of switching over to a 91-94 Land Cruiser from a 00' Tundra... advice?

[Tennesseestorm]

Well, I had the "Tundra" fever last year.... just had to have one. I ended up buying a 2000 Tundra SR5 4WD V8 AC (as seen in my avatar). Now, love this truck, do not get me wrong, but its really not practical for me at this time. I never haul, never tow, and we do not get much snow here, but I like having a large 4WD if I need it. I financed $11K for this truck... it had about 99K miles when I bought it. It now only has 106K - I have owned it nearly for a year. I have only drive it on my days off (two days a week) and out of town a couple of times. My mother wanted the truck (take over payment), but they have re-acquired some rental property that will not "pay off" until next March and I really do not want to keep this truck that long. Reason why is that I have recently acquired my "dream classic car", that I had been trying to buy from a old woman for many years. Last month, she finally calls me up and says she will sell it. Needless to say, it totally wiped out my savings account and now with my other bills, this truck payment is really getting to me. I was also getting ready to potentially go back to school for my met. degree. Now I am finding that I do not have much money to work on my "classic". Its a nice old car, but it has been in a garage for years and needs maintenance work.

I was thinking of simply selling the Tundra, paying it off and buying something like a $4K-6K Land Cruiser (91-9?) and lowering my payments and hopefully having a vehicle requiring less maintainence than a Tundra. I am sure that the LC probably gets worse mileage than a V8 Tundra? I get about 15-16 MPG in town with my Tundra on average. I once read that the 91-93 LC got about 11 MPG?

I have even been thinking if I do not get a Land Cruiser, that I may downsize to a 96-98 Toyota T100 or 96-97 4-Runner, or maybe some sort Toyota car... like Camry or Celica and have even thought about a 96-98 Acura RL or Lexus LS400 (1995-96). I had a 90' LS400 and loved it.

I would like to just trade my Tundra for a Land Cruiser and have someone pay the difference to my credit union where I only have about $5000. financed. Or simply have someone pay me for the Tundra what I need for it, I pay it off, then "re-finance" a loan to get what I need for a $4K-6K Land Cruiser, 4-Runner, T-100, etc.

I am sure its mentioned here many times, but are the 91-97 Land Cruisers have "non-interference" engines? Meaning if the timing belt/chain (whatever they have), will it not damage the engine?

Thanks for any advice!

[Tennesseestorm]

No one knows?

Originally Posted by Tennesseestorm

I am sure its mentioned here many times, but are the 91-97 Land Cruisers have "non-interference" engines? Meaning if the timing belt/chain (whatever they have), will it not damage the engine?

Thanks for any advice!

[firetruck41]

The 91-92 engines use gears for timing, no belt or chain, the 93+ use a chain, service it when you rebuild the engine at 300k+ miles. A 80 series LC will definitely need more maintenance than your '00 Tundra as they are anywhere from 4-9 years older than the Tundra, most likely just a baselining (fluids/filters) and maybe a front axle seal job (~$1000 at a dealer, or $2-300 DIY), HG can fail on the 93+, the only big $$ worry IMHO. The 91-92 are very slow and underpowered IMHO, I would not settle for older than 93, plus you will get 4 wheel disc, ABS, fr/rr optional lockers, etc. with the 93+. Go to IH8MUD.com - "The Truth is in the Rocks" 80 series forum, or sleeoffroad.com tech section for a newbie guide for 80 series.

[Tennesseestorm]

Thanks. The 93+ sounds better for sure, but the head gasket issue you mention on the 93+ highly concerns me. I have owned cars in the past that have had "known" HG issues on that model, but luckily, never had the issue, but it sure did not build confidence in me on the car.

I honestly think I would rather have the "low power" that you mention that the 91-92 have, than to worry about a higher potential HG issue on the 93+. Also, I like the fact that the 91-92 does not have a chain/belt issue. My 00' Tundra has an interference engine and no matter how new the belt, having an "interference" engine concerns me. I have heard of new belts breaking and destroying the engine on interference engines.

I have heard that the 2000-02 Tundras have common transmission woes... so far on my truck- no issues @ 106K. I have heard if they are OK this long, then they are typically good for the long haul.

With all of that said, I may just try to find a 91-92 model, @ a good price....

Thanks for that link! I will check it out in detail.... looks like alot of good info there!

Thanks again for the info!

[firetruck41]

Originally Posted by Tennesseestorm

Thanks. The 93+ sounds better for sure, but the head gasket issue you mention on the 93+ highly concerns me. I have owned cars in the past that have had "known" HG issues on that model, but luckily, never had the issue, but it sure did not build confidence in me on the car.

I honestly think I would rather have the "low power" that you mention that the 91-92 have, than to worry about a higher potential HG issue on the 93+. Also, I like the fact that the 91-92 does not have a chain/belt issue. My 00' Tundra has an interference engine and no matter how new the belt, having an "interference" engine concerns me. I have heard of new belts breaking and destroying the engine on interference engines.

I have heard that the 2000-02 Tundras have common transmission woes... so far on my truck- no issues @ 106K. I have heard if they are OK this long, then they are typically good for the long haul.

With all of that said, I may just try to find a 91-92 model, @ a good price....

Thanks for that link! I will check it out in detail.... looks like alot of good info there!

Thanks again for the info!

HG on the 93 is not that common IMHO, though it is an issue to be aware of. I encourage you to test drive both a FJ80 (91-92) and an FZJ80 (93-97), 155hp vs 212hp is a pretty big difference, not to mention smoother shifting, no driveline clunk, disc instead of drum rear brakes, ABS, 16" wheels, better interior materials, etc.

In 4-5 years on the highest traffic 80 series board (ih8mud), i have never heard of a timing chain failure, timing chains are not an issue, they are NOT a timing belt.

91-92 should be pretty cheap though.

[Tennesseestorm]

Thanks.... I am wondering about this small thing... do the 91-94 Land Cruisers have factory outside temperature display? I am thinking no.

[firetruck41]

Originally Posted by Tennesseestorm

Thanks.... I am wondering about this small thing... do the 91-94 Land Cruisers have factory outside temperature display? I am thinking no.

No, they do not. Not until the 100 series (98+).

[Tennesseestorm]

Thanks. I was thinking it was probably later on.... I know that Lexus added this feature on the LS400s in 1993.... hoping that Land Cruiser was around that time as well... probably cost as much.

You can get aftermarkets now, but not sure how accurate they are.

[Tennesseestorm]

I have found a red 1992 Land Cruiser that I am considering... it has 185K and supposed to be in EC. Asking $5000. I may can get it cheaper.